caldrail

Music as background accompaniement does seem to be the general case. Evening dinners, even gladiator fights, are set to music to heighten the mood. I like the comparison with modern 'house'. However, surely there were musicians who were sufficiently talented? Nero after all went on stage competitively, singing alongside his lyre. Ok, so he was bound to win no matter how good or bad he was, but he apparently went to some effort to improve his ability. That indicates to me that musicianship was something that was taught and practiced, that one could achieve some recognition for in these arty competitions (not to mention awards). Is it such a big step to have troupes of musicians playing for hire? I would say not, but the romans, as you confirm, did not assign any real status to these people. Yes, they enjoyed it, they applaud, now what was it you where saying? For a culture that prided itself on the enjoyment of finer things it seems strange to me that musicians got such a raw deal. Thats why I think there's a possibility that musicians sometimes did better than we realise. I would love to find references on this subject.

During our UK meet in York I noticed the healthy state of local music, and wondered about how it might have been in roman times. Musicians and performers in roman culture aren't allowed much status, and they seem to lack the dynamic stardom attributed to successful sportsmen and fighters. In fact, many musicians would have been slaves, attached to their owners and used to entertain guests. Is it possible an enterprising man rented out his troupe for performances? I also wonder if reputable musicians toured the provinces in much the same way as today? I'd like to open this for discussion because roman music gets little attention.

Agreed, but then fossils of monkeys and apes have been found in France, Italy, greece, and Czechoslovakia. I do think there's a possibility of native populations that no longer survive, at least in southern europe.

Cavalry was at a premium in ancient times. Horses were expensive items and vulnerable in combat. During most of the period, we see cavalry used in supporting roles. Harrasement, scouting, and pursuing. Unlike the massed charges of more recent times the object of the harrasement was to occupy enemy units and perhaps cause them to break formation whilst the real threat marched up the hill. Scouting is obvious. Pursuance is a task that cavalry has always performed. When an enemy unit breaks the horsemen trot into the crowd of fleeing men and cut them down from behind, turning a retreat into a rout with heavy casualties, and ensuring that they're persuaded not to come back again! Later we see the persian influence with the introduction of cataphracts. Tactics begin to change and at last cavalry assumes a more aggressive role, charging the enemy. Not always a success tough. Its on record that such a unit was massacred when the crafty enemy infantry simply stepped aside and allowed them in before unhorsing them and... well it doesn't need much imagination. The tactical use of these units possibly improved over time but the lighter cavalry units retained their former roles, and indeed became more numerous as the importance of cavalry increased toward the end of the west.

No, you're wrong. Flesh does give way during this action. The wound isn't cone-shaped, its more or less the same shape as the intial penetration apart from stretch damage. What the twist movement will do, similar to modern bayonets, is to open the wound. It hurts, and is intended to put the target out of action even if he tolerates the intial penetration.

Apes were still present in one or two places but I don't have info on which ones or where. Gibraltar still has them doesn't it? The reason is because of the world hothouse during the Tertiary Period following the K/T event. Apes evolved rapidly and extended their range over mainland europe, retreating in the face of the colder climate in the Pleistocene. By roman times, outposts of apes were in short supply and I have no doubt whatsoever that they were also the reason why those outposts are not there today.

For the same reason people follow rebellious causes. They either believe they stand to gain from it or they really do believe in the cause. many of Spartacus's followers went on the campaign because Spartacus offered them the prospect of wealth as much as freedom from slavery or whatever. Then again, some people are very charismatic and others tend to follow them anyway. This is one of the characteristics of a great leader after all. Land, loot, rape, pillage, glory, travel, adventure, belief, necessity, opportunism.... All sorts of reasons, depending on the character of the individual soldier and his circumstances.

Well I guess this asks was the gladius designed or capable of puncturing/penetrating armour used by Romes enemies? Or was it used in mind to target unprotected parts of the body? Roman soldiers were trained to attack unprotected areas - the face, torso, thighs. Limbs as such weren't the target although I guess their enemies suffered wounds there. No, the gladius wasn't intended to penetrate armour. However, a solid thrust could easily go through chainmail. Thrust, twist, withdraw. The reason that troops were trained not to stab the upper chest if they could help it was because of the risk of the gladius sticking between the ribs and not coming out again. Thats not a fault of the gladius, all wide-bladed swords can do that.

Well I suppose since the rest of the world has done it, so should I... Go on, giive it a go. My name is composed of.. AKLADMROLR I await with trepidation

If arthur was scottish, then he must have been a traitor too. A large percentage of his enemies were picts or irish scots. The scottish connection is nationalist wishful thinking in my view, although its likely that some of the battle sites were in scottish territory. The Battle of River Bassus is thought to be Cambuslang by some experts.

They'd be daft not to, or the weapon has limited utility. But the standard training of legionary swordplay featured thrusting. No, the epee doesn't have a sharp edge nor do some cleaver style swords have points. Nope. Try that in combat and you won't be holding the sword for long. The short length can be a disadvantage. It requires more guts and practice to get in close. Swords became shorter during the empire and the style more fancy and florid. From the 3rd century AD the gladius is dropped very quickly in favour of the longer spatha, which wasn't generally used to thrust and could be used by poorly trained troops. Long reach is useful if your opponent has shorter weaponry. The reason the romans used a short blade is a quickdraw principle based on the mass formation of a hevavy infantry unit. Yes, that wicked point was there for a purpose. Both Livy and Polybius discuss swordfighting and confirm the changes of style over time.

Both versions of the pilum are intended to do the same thing. Prevent an enemy return throw, penetrate the shield, injure the bearer, make the shield unwieldy, allow the shield to be dropped by stepping on the shaft.

Vercingetroix had to command a nation that wasn't united in the first place. He actually did brilliantly even with the result he got in my view. As for julius, failure meant an end to his ambitions and possibly his life.

It depends what you mean. For instance we read the tales of Robin Hood and enjoy films about him. The theme is pretty well known - dispossessed nobleman who very nobley fights back by becoming a bandit who steals from wealthy people and provides charity to the downtrodden poor of Nottingham Forest. But its balderdash. A victorian wet dream. Yes, there was a Robin Hood and a band of men, but they weren't so merry (unless they'd stolen enough to visit a tavern) and in all probability were a right bunch of cut-throats. Thats doesn't make for a very good story though does it? So lets make them noble of spirit and fighting oppression of the evil sheriff.... Arthur has been treated the same way. A real person existed back at the turn of the 6th century whose name refuses to be wiped away from history. Why? Because someone was remembering him. Passing on his story and eventually that story is embellished. By the ninth century his name was such that he was used as the hero of traditional celtic swords & sorcery adventures. The next century saw him popularly assigned as a former king of england and from there Geoffery established the myth. All myths grow from something. people don;t say these things for nothing. Like Nero, fiddling while Rome burned. No, he didn't. He did what he could to assist the relief efforts. Its possible that for a few moments he stood there on a high balcony staring helplessly at the conflagration and might even have been moved to singing at the sight of it, but he wasn't blind to the suffering of the populace. When he redesigned Rome, he required wide boulevards to stop fires like this and even introduced anti-fire building regulations. The truth has been forgotten. Perhaps important historical documents have been lost through accident or decay that would have told us so much. All we have are a few tantalising clues. The fact that these stories begin at the time Arthur is meant to live and that they evolve shows that he made an impression. A deep one. As anyone who researches this subject can tell you, the original sources are unreliable. Not untrue.

Its important to realise that modern eyesight is not so good in general. Nature works on the principle of survival of the fittest. Since we now extend the life of people with poor eyesight by artificial enhancement these characteristics are passed on to their descendants. Thats the trade-off in civilisation. Eyesight in times past was better than ours, although old age and disease might still take its toll. Back then of course it was a big deal because unless you were wealthy there was little to be done. Usually in older societies like Rome you see a certain amount of charity or social care on an informal or family basis. However, in many cases, you would indeed see blind men by the roadside begging for coins.

They may have done that sometimes, not always. Rivers were indeed popular for vikings and others, including the native anglo-saxons, making it easy for moving through countryside because the country was largely forested wilderness and difficult to pass through. Yes, many people were illiterate. Scholarly people were in demand for their services for that very reason. Ruralisation? No, that happened after AD410. People were already well established in rural life by the medieval period, which I must point out was a good time for farming due to the climatic changes. To underline what I said earlier, I notice from York Museum that travel was commonplace during this period. One monk made visits (Yes, plural) to Rome to bring back holy texts to Lindisfarne. Trade was still in place. It really was the chaotic government of the period that gives rise to the idea of a 'dark' age.

Disagree. Tolerance is exactly what Pliny is suggesting. But neither should that mean they get special treatment because would cause bad feeling amongst the pagan masses.

Geoffery made a lot of it up. The reality is hidden in the comments of people who wrote in the 6th century such as Gildas, Nennius, and Taliesin.

The blade is heavy despite the short length and well capable of delivering slashing attacks. Republican armies were taught to stab only, but the shortening sword lengths of the empire and the changes in style meant that slashing attacks were increasingly used. Eventually this led to the abandonment of the gladius because poorly trained troops preferred a longer weapon to keep the enemy at bay.

Well this is just my opinion, but the hinged shank design had one failing in that it wouldn't withstand sideways loads. So if the legionary accidentally knocked the point the pilum might turn useless very quickly. A bendy shank can be straightened very easily, even without the need of craftsmen probably, but still not easily enough to let the enemy do that on the battlefield when they're likely to be somewhat busy! A normal spear thrown against a shield can be thrown back. Soldiers are crafty beggars like that and the romans considered that it would be better if a thrown pilum was useless to the enemy. The ability to deshield your opponent is a by-product, not the original intent. Ok. You're facing a roman legion. Your commander realises the action is about to start and calls for you all to form a shield wall. Thats just commonsense - the romans have spears after all. Sure enough, as they close in, their tropops loose a volley of those plia of theirs. There's a crescendo of wooden thwocks and screams as some men are killed or injured by the metal points piercing their protection. Your own shield takes two pila in close succession. One simply penetrates the shield but glances off a leather strap having lost momentum. The second enters your left shoulder. First of all you are knocked back a step or two. The first pilum is now only supported by the shield and the shaft end falls to the ground. The bending may or may not be minimal perhaps but if you move the shield it might get worse because of the leverage. At any rate, the advancing romans might well employ this to their advantage when the melee starts. Whats of more concern to you is the second pilum which injured your shoulder. That isn't so easily removed and the weight of the shaft tends to pull you forward as you try to relieve the pain. If you do manage to remove it, and you will likely need to reach over the shield, there is a possibility that your arm movement will cause the shank to bend as it pulls the pilum clear. those pila that landed in the mud at your feet have stuck in the ground and bent immediately afterward because the shank cannot support the shafts weight. Those that hit the ground and slid along were bent on impact. Be ready because the romans have arrived. Your shield is damaged, so are you, the roman pila are no use to you, and your sword is somewhere on the floor as you try to remove the pila from your shield. Good luck

The aqueducts were falling into disrepair during the end of the empire anyway. The goths may not have had the ingenuity to repair them but neither did the romans by that time. All the skilled engineers were seeking better pay and that meant byzantium. There's more to it than that. The germanic tribes were under pressure. Their coastal habitats were being inundated by rises in sea level (the start of the Medieval Warm Period?) and in particular the saxons were forced to to become bandits and raiders. Britain suddenly became a valuable tract of arable land suitable for colonisation. Ok, its true that the roman military was a deterrent, but then again the roman military didn't just vanish. Many units were withdrawn before the collapse and romano-british culture was decaying. In AD408 the romans simply stopped paying soldiers based in britain. Trade did not cease during the dark age, nor was it any more difficult. A little more dangerous perhaps given the numbers of people willing to take something for nothing, but communities still needed to exchange goods and services and this continued unabated. Traders like desperate communities. It gives them an edge. We are talking about a time when christianity flourished in britain, whose monastic institutes were the bedrock of art and literature despite barbarian lootings. The roman defenses were struggling to fend off saxon intrusions, and the reason the vikings found it so easy (though they didn't always in actual fact) was because they were able to sail up estuaries and rivers and mount suprise attacks. There simply wasn't any way of guarding the seashore and waterways in the manner we expect of recent times. All the populace could do was raise hue and cry when the attack came and hope that resistance could be mounted quickly enough. Thats not easy. They didn't have telephones and reacted at the speed of a messengers travel. Remember that once the vikings were here on a long term basis they started losing battles. Suprise raids were something they excelled at, but not formal battles. Both Alfred the Great and his welsh counterpart (I do apologise but I've forgotten his name -Owain? Rhodri?) gave the vikings a bloody nose. The dark ages seem terrible because of all the violence. Agriculture was struggling in this period and I confess there was some rural hardship because of it. The truth is distorted because we read only of the violence and not the periods of peace between them. Also the battles would only occur in specific places, not a nationwide front like today. As I mentioned, art and literature were not suffering and indeed under the aegis of the christian church was actually doing well. Sure, the old roman infrastructure has collapsed. By AD450 the old taxation and governmental structure had gone. Once palatial villas were abandoned or used as farmyards. The dark ages were a time of poverty after all.

Er, what "chroniclers of the time"? Is there a source older than Geoffrey? ETA: OK, just read your OP in that thread. I admit I'm in over my head, but in moving so "confidently" beyond Geoffrey, you seem to be making some rather shakey leaps of faith. Just my impression. I'm relying on expert analysis by people who know the subject far more than I. Regarding Arthurs character, and those comments are my own, I wouldn't say that was a leap of faith. The man was real - he existed - its more a matter of trying to figure out where the truth is. Those chroniclers were writing on the basis of poor information and for that reason there are too many inconsistencies for those sources to be judged reliable. Nonetheless, we have a man who leads an army to victory twelve times, whose legend survives to this day, but whose person and history is otherwise forgotten.

Its been suggested that other historical personalities are responsible for events and not Arthur. This is understandable because the guys legend was always rising to the best seller list. However, under close scrutiny there are gaps that Arthur fills very nicely. Ambrosius Aurelianus for instance is supposed to have formed a british confederation at the end of the 5th century to fight against the foreign incursions. That marks him as a capable diplomat, someone who is well versed in the etiquette and protocol of dark age britain given the arguementative state of the petty nations. Arthur doesn't seem to have this skill. He seems more like a man who is blunt, a loose cannon on deck. A useful man to have leading your armies but lets leave the deals to Ambrosius, yes? I think one of the reasons his historical reference is muted is because no-one wanted him as king. A guy like that? He'll be annexing our country next! Trouble is, Arthur was for many ordinary people the hero who came over the hill and send the bad guys packing. There was a risk that his popularity would make him king. So I really do wonder if the kings in the confederation (and ambrosius too?) never intended Arthur to get all the glory. In the end, Ambrosius seems a lacklustre character yet Arthur is impossible to put back in the box. As to whether the chroniclers were aiding this 'conspiracy' is unknown, but Gildas, ever the angry radical, foams at the mouth about tyrannical kings and lambasts his colleagues as toadies. Its isn't impossible that Arthurs part in history has been ignored.

Strictly speaking the possibility of upward and downward movement of areas of the earths crust can occur, though this is usually at the contact area of tectonic plates rather than places where they're coming apart. For instance, there are places along the mediterranean coast which have risen above and fallen below sea level as the coast buckles under pressure from the african plate. For any appreciable land mass to rise is something exceptional. Not completely impossible perhaps. The Deccan Hills in India are the result of a single volcanic lava flow occurring in the cretaceous period. However, to my mind something isn't right about this theory that a large land mass appeared then vanished. Its another case of seeing what you want to. I've just posted athread on this subject. No, Ambrosius and others got their own glory. Arthur wasn't regarded as a particularly worthy guy by the kings of his time, and I strongly suspect that they let him strut his stuff because it suited their purposes. In fact, the chroniclers of the time either ignore Arthur or condemn him, whereas his competitors simply don't have Arthurs presence in dark age britain. I agree. They have muddied the waters somewhat but also remember that if you want to rewrite history, even with the best intentions, you have to convince the establishment that everything they've studied and taught is... well.... wrong. Learned people do tend to get upest about that!

I find this a bit strange. The romans are describing relationships between barbarians that infer there is open homosexuality, and obviously doing so looking down their noses. Yet we know that the romans themselves were as tactile as modern italians and could be described in the exact same manner. There seems to be ambivalence here, because on the one hand its acceptable for a man to display his manhood and mastery by these acts and on the other be regarded as less than moral according to circumstance. It is noticeable that for a man to be the receiving partner is undesirable because he is acting as the female partner, and therefore laying aside his manhood. But emperors who committed these acts (one or two did so openly) do not suffer from these comments other than a general criticism of their moral behaviour.