caldrail

Camelot has been given in a large number of alternative spellings, but the upshot is that learned opinion says Camelot appears in the 12th century, long before Thomas Mallory standardised the place. It's origins are actually a little vague, but gradually became more defined.

Mallory's book, Le Morte d'Arthur, is considered as something of a gold standard in Arthurian mythos and much of modern story telling is derived from it, though there has been some significant diversion in tv and film in recent decades. You might be interested in this Brutus of Troy - Wikipedia

They're correct. In strict terms, the period should be termed the 'Early Medieval Period' or if you want to, the 'Sub-Roman Period' to indicate the immediate post-Roman world in western Europe. However, the term 'Dark Age' does refer - correctly, in my view - the Early Medieval period in Britain for which literary sources are rare to say the least. The reality is that literature was being imported into Britain even in those turbulent tribal days, but so little survives that we can call it Dark.

Well, Caesar was a very contentious politician in his younger days, brushing aside convention and getting quite brash about his actions. For some, a hero he was not.

Criticism from who I wonder? If christians are responsible, then they need an education. Christianity has always reflected the society it thrived within. Bear in mind that around the end of the eleventh century Pope Urban II was building a pan-european religious empire and the hold over common people was frightening. Luckily the Crusades happened. For all the grief and bloodletting they caused, it certainly defused the Roman Catholic move toward continental domination and a good thing too (we might even of ended up with a medieval holocaust). But then worldly matters had been important for many Roman christians from the beginning. Not for nothing did the christians attempt to unite under the patronage of Constantine The Great (a warrior emperor if ever there was one and a life long pagan).

Rome never had a close relationship with China - they were too far apart. There is, as far as I know, only one recorded instance of a Roman embassy reaching the east. The Chinese were more adventurous and attempted contact with Rome more than once. Always the distance defeated the object of the exercise. Sure, they knew about each other, and as we see some coins got traded across, but never close.

Lancelot is a character invented in the late twelfth century by medieval romance author Chretien Des Troyes (along with Camelot before we get that far). Chretien also invented the Grail as a fictional prop during a scene when the hero, Percival, is at the court of the Fisher-King. He died before the story was finished thus we never find out what the Grail actually was. Later writers made their own versions of the story and connected it to christian mythos to please their audiences, thus the 'Holy Grail' appears, although no such object ever existed. The Church raised no objection, seeing a pagan object find a christian place. Geraint is a welsh word though by some to be a king of the Dumnonia who was in conflict with the Saxons of Wessex. However, it should be realised that it is also derived from a latin word meaning 'old man'. In any event, the existence of a welsh king called Geraint is not proven, and the connection with Arthur is only one of countless origin theories. As lovely as Arthurian myth might be to you, it is not historical and has no more reality than Robin Hood or the Kingdom of Prester John. This is why when you investigate Arthur he evaporates under scrutiny. Perhaps you haven't gotten that far, but trust me, there's nothing substantial.

Modern christian morality is soft. Ancient versions tended to be more austere. Also I note that early christian missionaries were as likely to wield a sword as holy texts.

No. The Romans used military force to subdue problematic tribes on their borders when they felt it was necessary but 'civilising' the neighbour was never on the agenda. They did offer Roman culture as a superior form of society but this was only going to work if the barbarian was receptive. In cases where the tribes were conquered the Romans had a policy of inclusion, and a wise one at that. It is true their leaders would be under pressure to adopt Roman ways, so the tribe could be easily plugged into the Roman system, but remember that free will and self determination were important themes to Romans. If a barbarian wanted to carry being a barbarian under Roman aegis, fine, that was their choice, just as long as they observed Roman allegiance and taxation. A Roman governor wasn't there to rule the province, he was there as Rome's representative and the last word in both Roman and native law. There were cases where it all went wrong. Quintus Publius Varus made the mistake of assuming that the Germanic tribes under Roman occupation were starting to see the benefits of Roman law - but it was merely the calm before the storm as Arminius plotted to rebel (with some justification) Or take the case of the Judaea, which was eventually dissolved as a result of their rebellious actions. Can't behave? Then you can't have your own province. Also one should bear in mind that the Romans were crafty. Their diplomacy was about division among their neighbours to prevent tribes combining forces though this was exactly what happened in the late imperial period, and if you read Tacitus, you will find a sneering approval of the technique of 'softening' a neighbour by the export of Roman luxuries.

Gawain and the Green Knight was a 14th century poem, a story, it has no historical antecedent. It follows the normal conventions of medieval romances. I also note that the British Library tells us the poem was anonymous though it may well be he was from Cheshire.

Have you ever read it? If you get past the first chapter without falling about laughing please let me know and I'll send an ambulance. Forget Arthur. He's an amalgam of Iron Age myths, Roman celebrities, Dark Age heroes, and Medieval romances. Uther Pendragon probably isn't any more historical, rather than a literary means to an end (although I must point out that Arthur is typically added in the late 5th and early 6th century. The 7th century is better documented via the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle thus Arthur could not have been that late - don't confuse the Once and Future King with individuals named Arthur in later centuries - there's at least nine of them)

Roman ships used the trade winds to travel to India and back once a year. Lucrative business apparently with ports like Berenike on the Red Sea coast making a fortune in customs duties/taxation. That wasn't possible with America, prevailing winds tending to be north easterly. It's hard to imagine a Roman ship being prepared for a three thousand mile journey or more, but anecdotal evidence from China shows that Persian Gulf sailors knew how to circum-navigate Africa and how long it would take to reach Rome by sea. I won't accept the idea of Roman contact with America until something concrete emerges (pun intended) but I accept the possibility that some daring and resourceful Roman crew managed it, at least until the ocean conditions got the better of them, though it must be realised that without regular contact and the ruthlessly cutthroat mercantile competition, who would have known America was out there? It's a long way to go on a whim.

Armana. Try this... Thutmose (sculptor) - Wikipedia

The Romans did not exclude foreign religions (although christianity had a bad rep in its early existence). We see tribal beliefs and customs impinging on daily life in the imperial period - but then, Rome was not the massive exercise in assimilation most people perceive it as. 'Romanisation' is more of a modern concept than ancient. To be Roman meant loyalty, allegiance, and tax. It was not about stereotypes.

Roman soldiers were paid three times a year in a special ceremony that sometimes even interrupted campaigns (including Masada). They also held auctions of booty 'under the spear' after a victory. In fact, booty was a major source of income for the legions and a wise commander allowed his men to profit from their enemies. Soldiers denied booty quickly became rebellious, and looking at the sources, it's apparent they were often stubborn and uncooperative (Even Julius Caesar had to cut short his journey down the Nile with Cleopatra because his guards refused to travel further). Then of course the soldiers scammed and gambled, losing their ill gotten gains by one means or another, or spending what they had left on the usual wine, women, and so forth. Little wonder perhaps that when a legion was mobilised, it was commonplace to hold a requisition where troops went through the local population taking whatever they thought would be useful. One of the Roman satires mentions losing a donkey to legionaries and the consequences of complaining about it. Cicero commiserates with his friend for the loss of his animal. And let's not forget that bribery was endemic. In the early Principate the legions even posted official bribe rates to avoid unscrupulous centurions getting too rich.

Isn't this pushing the definition just a tad? Even academics in Geoffrey's time thought it was rubbish.

Rome accepts that Arminius has won a victory and promises to be nice. it's that "You fought well so we're letting you go with respect" thing. Not exactly historical but there you go.

The story goes like this... The famous Emperor Nero performed here, presenting the operas that he composed in the city, the only remaining piece of the language and culture of the Ancient Greeks. The ancient writers say that nothing could interrupt the great Nero’s song. Nero made his debut in Naples and while he sang the ground began to shake. Nero continued to sing during the earthquake and, at the end of the show, thanked both the audience and the Gods for their applause. He sang in Naples on various occasions and would rest in the Terme for days after the performances. Nero returned to Naples often saying that it was here that where he was baptised into the world of art. The entire population of the region of Naples, including all of the smaller cities and colonies, would come to see Nero perform in the city. It is said that they all followed Nero for his dignity as he led them into the grand Neapolitan Theatre. Nero never performed in Rome, saying that he preferred the almost Greek city of Naples. The greco-roman theatre - Napoli Sotterranea - Percorso Ufficiale e Autorizzato

The Imperial Cult was built to exploit the huge persona Augustus was able to wield, and used with some success by one emperor or another, certainly not all of them. The Romans after all viewed various personal attributes as evidence of increased spiritual power leading toward divinity. I don't think the military enforced the cult as such, rather that it was an internal matter of belief and loyalty as part of the everyday regime, such that every unit had its own spirit symbolised by the military standards. but that in itself did not exclude other gods in pagan terms. On reflection, the move toward standardisation of this spiritualism begins with Marius, who removed the various animist symbols of legions in preference for eagles. The appeal of christianity had less to do with equality than the belief that worship would bring them back to life eventually, doing away with death altogether. This message is still included in Christian services today though rarely dwelt upon, but then life isn't quite as short as the Romans experienced.

Last night I sat back after a hectic session with music and decided to watch a Youtube video. I chose one that asked the question "Did The Roman Army Spread Christianity?". This was an annoying but well made journalistic investigation into the spread of Christianity during the Roman Imperial period. Annoying because both the journalist and the narrator kept saying "Is it possible that....?" For crying out loud, you tell me, you're making this video! I do hate that rhetorical question approach, it covers so much falsity. But instead of composing a long, dry, academic post (which I'm sure some would enjoy), here I'll answer the salient points as I see them. 1 - "The Roman Army...." Before we go any further, the idea that the Romans had one national army is actually incorrect. Each legion was a small independent army in it's own right, though obviously you could brigade them together. Legions were not regiments. 2 - "The Roman Army Crucified Jesus". Well... Yes and no. Legionaries did the crucifixion, but the order came from the governorship of Pontius Pilate after Jesus was put on trial and in some versions, chosen for a grisly fate by the public, not the military. 3 - "The Roman Army Persecuted Christians". Ermm.... No. It's that simple. Persecutions were not constant or particularly commonplace. It was never the legions that followed an anti-christian agenda, but the occaisional emperor who didn't like Christians. The soldiers were following orders I suppose, but I guess you've heard similar things before. 4 - "The Roman Army Spread Christianity" Again, no, not as an agenda or strategy, but obviously there must have been legionaries who were Christian and helped convert others where-ever they were stationed. We know Christians served in the legions, either by their own volition or enforced by threat of painful and legal redress. However it is just as likely that legionaries were converted in situ by worshippers in that area, either by travelling worshippers or even by worshippers acting as a sort of missionary. Conclusion - the concept is flawed but does contain an element of truth. Unless of course, you disagree....

Saw a documentary about Naples and Vesuvius once many years ago. Not entirely an optimistic program - here's why Vesuvius Could Destroy Naples, History Suggests | Live Science

Hmmm... Well, a walk down down Swindon's mercantile areas reveals an awful lot of closed premises, mostly because of Covid, but I have to be honest, I haven't it hard to find the things I want, nor have prices risen substantially.

The Limes are little known today, mostly because they were not as powerful or striking as the remains of Hadrian's Wall. Nonetheless they were not fortifications as such, just obstacles to passage, besides marking for outsiders exactly where Rome considered its empire's borders were. We see this in remains in North Africa, where mudbrick walls still exist but only close off certain valleys that would have been travel routes back in the day. Military failure? I would have said military decline - there were dramatic defeats but none of them decisive.

Kilns? There have been hundreds of the things reported in my area and to the south. The area around Cunetio (near modern day Marlborough) was a known pottery centre, and more were found during the westward development at Swindon many years ago. Apparently Swindon (or Durocornovium as it was back then) had its own pottery style. Not successful in the pottery market however.

Quite a find but these things turn up every so often. The Romans used statues as propaganda - Cicero mentions how the elite of Rome loved to see statues of themselves in military guise - and it was just as likely that a statue would have a head replaced to mark the accession of a new ruler. Makes you wonder if this head was discarded after his death?