caldrail

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?

What you have to appreciate is the scale of eruption necessary to cause significant effects. Remember all those recent eruptions (they're quite common when you think about it)? I've even seen articles linking one eruption (I think it was alaskan) to 'the fall of the republic'. Never mind the Roman Republic never fell - it simply changed format and carried on with nominated leaders we call 'emperors' - but the eruption, however powerful, doesn't seem to have affected the Roman world to any great degree. The Romans of that time don't mention the sort of effects we see from 536. But volcanoes are dramatic and people love to pin the blame on them. That said, the 536 event does look likely. What a blast that must have been. PS - that 'Dark Age' thing? That's because of the lack of recorded history from that era, nothing external. It really only applies to Britain anyway and isn't entirely true, just that we don't have much surviving from that era.

Modern techniques have come a long way. People used to stumble across remains or search blindly based on local folklore and rumour. I suppose that still happens, such as building sites, including one in my home area where a new town expansion has uncovered Romano-British archaeology no-one knew about. But these days aerial or even orbital mapping has pin-pointed sites from the ancient world and not just Roman. I also note a fundamental parallel with today. My home town grew from a small hilltop village into the sprawling town it is today due to the influence of infrastructure; the arrival of canals and not long after, railways, eventually followed by road and motorway traffic. Similarly Roman settlements grew from opportunities in trade with the Roman garrisons, resources such as farmland or minerals, or even simply placing new importance on existing native settlements. Someone on television once stated that we're living in a golden age of archaeology. Perhaps, but it is hard to disagree, despite the intrusion of greed.and self interest you point at elsewhere.

Not as such. He fell foul of Caligula which nearly resulted in his mandatory suicide, but accusations of an affair caused Claudius to exile him. He returned to become tutor to Nero and together with Burrus, ensured the young Nero was, in the opinion of Trajan, responsible for the best five years government Rome ever had. After Burrus died Seneca lost support and tried to distance himself from Nero who wouldn't let him go, but after being implicated in the Piso Conspiracy, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

Not that suprising when you realise that the Roman Empire exported its culture via two methods - trade and sports. The latter was fundamental as the single most unifying aspect of Roman life everywhere. If you read internet posts and especially history written for younger people, there is an unfortunate tendency to illustrate the Roman world in terms of stereotypes - villas, togas, soldiers, statues, etc. This obscures the cosmopolitan feature of Rome. Despite their often gratuitous culturalism the Romans did not assimilate populations in the provinces. It was always the choice of subject peoples about how they lived, thus provinces were hybrid societies, not identikit Roman, with local rule overseen by Roman presence. Nonetheless the Romans are guilty of presenting their way of life as superior and rewardable. Thus the manifestation of the arena, the export of Roman martial values in entertainment.

People either don't know or find it hard to believe that North Africa was the most urbanised part of the Roman Empire. The climate wasn't quite as dry as today and it was well cultivated. The area was well developed before the Romans took over.

Okay, I'm single, yes? So what? A great many older men are for one reason or another. I can already hear the population of Swindon England saying "Yes but....". Yes but nothing. It's circumstance, not a statement of sexuality, fashion, manhood, or any other concept these overgrown children struggle with. In particular the youngsters of my home town have been testing my patience with the most ignorant questions and attitudes imaginable. That's the reality of modern sub-culture, kids growing up divorced from adult perspective and trying to impose their petty little world upon the rest of us. Or me, which is worse. I recall a song by Charles Aznavour. Not my kind of music you understand, but with my parents, certain radio stations were inescapable. The song was 'She'. I still suffer the trauma of repeated exposure to it in my younger days. So can I relate my younger experiences with the cultural mores I have to contend with? Am I really better than them? She may be the face I can't forgetA trace of pleasure or regretMay be my treasure or the priceI have to pay One night not that long ago I had some guy outside my home trying to give me a lecture about life and love. Unbelievable. These people never talk to my face, just stand outside and entertain me with their peculiar visions of the world when really they ought to mind their own business. I wonder if the problem is that these people don't have a life to get on with so insist on trying to influence mine. Anyway, the winner of this verse was when that guy told me I should forget her and move on. Did he really think he was going to make things better for me? Turn me around? Oh good god. Actually I know exactly which lady he was referring to but the laughable thing is neither that lady or myself have any intention of resuming communication after we stopped talking to each other decades ago. I did bump into her recently, the first time in fifteen years, and we didn't even say hello. I am sorry things worked out the way they did - life is like that. She may be the song that summer singsMay be the chill that autumn bringsMay be a hundred different thingsWithin the measure of a day Ahh yes. Fear of the unknown. Am I man enough to approach, flirt, ask, or complete those adult motives? The absurd thing is how many people seem to think I suffer this problem, or that I'm a virgin because they haven't seen me dating. Of course being young I was more opportunistic and experimental. I'm not going to make assertions or admissions about this part of my private life (although for the sake of saying it, no you're wrong, I'm not gay nor have I ever indulged in any such behaviour). Perhaps my perspective was different from the beginning. My upbringing wasn't entirely conventional, my mother being a pious and misguided Christian, my father unable to be the role model; he demanded to be. Let's just say I have had my fair share of liaisons with ladies that I ought to have considered more carefully. Wisdom comes with age, more or less as vigour weakens. She may be the beauty or the beastMay be the famine or the feastMay turn each day into a heavenOr a hell There's a lady of my acquaintance. Never good friends you understand, nor did I really pay her much attention. I'm not blind to her charms, nor am I blind to the fact she knows she can charm the blokes. It's just that I always thought a relationship with her would be a problem, out of past experience if nothing else, plus I didn't feel the need to explore such possibilities. Then for some reason, just before the lockdown, her behaviour changed. She started making loud comments or suggestions to her friends, and it wasn't long before I realised she was referencing me. For some inexplicable reason she got it into her head that I fancied her. No, I didn't. She's too full of herself, too fixated on lifestyle, and smokes too much. Since the lockdown, she's actually gotten a tad abusive on the quiet. Uh huh... Didn't get the reaction you wanted? There's the truth of it. She's used to getting attention from blokes. A bit too used to it. I don't think she she has any idea how to cope with rejection at any mature level, and still insists on her concept of romance which to me appears to have been taught by the pages of teen magazines. So, if by some bizarre circumstance she's actually reading a blog on a history website, my message is this. I'm not interested. Get over it. She may be the mirror of my dreamsThe smile reflected in a streamShe may not be what she may seemInside her shell The lady of this verse to this day doesn't know I saw through her to a part of her inner self she wanted hidden. We take so much for granted when we involve ourselves with another person, and where the relationship is based on romance, the risks are so much worse. I have seen written works that say one should not be inhibited by speculations and instead enjoy the moment. In a perfect world perhaps. However the human psyche hides a potent dark side. We all have it, to a greater or lesser degree, just that most of us have psychological brakes that prevent the excesses that cause those tragedies of life and death. But that one night, alone with her, I knew what was on her mind, betrayed by expression and body language. That relationship was never the same. We parted as friends - not as lovers.She who always seems so happy in a crowdWhose eyes can be so private and so proudNo one's allowed to see them when they cryShe may be the love that cannot hope to lastMay come to me from shadows of the pastThat I'll remember 'til the day I die I smile as I remember that special relationship in my past. There's no doubt a good many of my critics will name some woman or other, but no, you're wrong. It was someone else. I know who she was, and she will know it's her I'm referring to. She wasn't the problem. My life was in a difficult place and at the time, I did not want to be an albatross around her neck. Do I regret the decision to let her go? Of course. I'm just as human as anyone else. But as much as I might think of what could have been, I also know it could have been so much worse. I hope she has a happy life. There you have it. A somewhat whimsical dip into my private life - the real one, not the fantasies bandied around by inhabitants of Swindon. You want proof? I don't answer to you. You want facts? You can't handle them. If you don't get what's written here, or feel a need to shout me down, don't waste your time. You can't change the past. Or me.

Ghost - how you view culture & politics is one thing, that's something you're entitled to. But give up UNRV? Why? But this Brexit thing? Truth is the company I work for had already decided to close the UK operation. I know this because they shut down an assembly line early on and transferred production to foreign shores. Again, behind this decision was a strange decision that they wanted everyone in Europe (as well as the UK) to be paid in Euros besides the usual ups and downs of the global economy and all the other stuff the evening news bores us with. What rankles is that the company told us they were committed to maintaining the operation and valued the expertise our operation had to offer. Really? Personally I don't think they understand Europe the way the British do. To them, it's vast tracts of land with dotted lines all over it and lots of mentions in history books. But we live in the shadow of our past, with an identity forged by events. I don't understand why you want to be in Europe but hey, if you feel better about it, that's your choice. But recently I've brushed the cobwebs away from all those photographs I took on hikes. Most aren't that good or even interesting. But you know, some of them encapsulate that special something my homeland has to offer, something to teach us. Leaving Britain would be like turning my back on my ancestors even if my genetic origins are Viking, Norman, or whatever else. I hope you made the right choice.

Dressed as a slave? That's not entirely consistent with Roman culture. After all, at one point the Senate debated an idea to identify slaves by some means, clothing or symbol, I don't recall what the idea was. The move was vetoed on the grounds that if slaves were identifiable, they would realise how many of them there were.

Loud. Romans complain in their writings about it.

Arguably. However, Romulus Augustulus was not the power in Ravenna despite his position - that was why Odoacer ousted him and asked the Pope to become King. Roman power did not suddenly end in the west, it declined and was taken over and revived (to a degree) by the Gothic Kingdom. However, that did not make it an entirely new state. The inhabitants still considered themselves Romans, and true Romans at that, not like those Greek people in Constantinople. The Senate continued to meet for at least a century after Odoacer took charge. It was, if you like, only the replacement of Dominus by King, and that point tends to get forgotten. After all, calling it the 'Fall of Rome' is far more dramatic and interesting. As for Constantinople in 1453, it represents the end of contiguous Roman rule however Greek it may have been, with the Ottoman Turks installing a new regime. But even then, there were parts of the former empire that did not die off. I understand there's a small corner of modern Greece that is still legally answerable to the Roman Empire. And as for the Catholic Church, that has always represented Roman power right up to today.

The use of dolls seems quite natural to human beings. I'm not so sure that society teaches its youngsters via such media, at least not conciously, but children naturally learn by acting out adult roles to a degree. Watch any gregarious mammal species - the male young always play fight. I remember many years ago walking along an old railway embankment and spotting movement on the south side slope. It was a bunch of fox cubs, playing in the sun outside the set, probably their first adventures outside. They saw me and stopped, curious, not sure of what to do. Eventually instinct got the better of them and they went underground. The second time I saw them they scarpered immediately. The third time, and the last, was following mother on a hunting trip to the nearby farm.

China made a few instances of contact, but only on the eastern fringes. Rome is supposed to have made one diplomatic visit to China and a Roman ship is known to have reached their shores. One chinese gentleman was ordered to contact Rome and ask for military assistance against barbarian raiders. He reached the Persian Gulf and asked if he could reach Rome by sea. Yes, he was told, but you have to sail around Africa. The sailors gave him detailed advice on how to prepare for such a voyage. Makes you wonder how they knew.

You seem to think that racial diversity is a modern phenomenon? Britain has a very long history of immigration and inclusion that isn't well covered in histories. The Roman occupation was a period when such things were even more prevalent. Slavery no doubt had a large part to play in that, but so did opportunity or military service.