caldrail

Trajan was an emperor who gave Rome another taste of glory. For that, and the games given to celebrate his successes, he is remembered as a great emperor. Trajan of course is someone who broke the mould somewhat. He was the first non-roman emperor, a spaniard. The story goes that on his first speech to the senate, his dago accent had the senators rolling in the aisles. Well, he had the last laugh didn't he? For all his good attributes we must remember that he was also a roman emperor, and a successful one. No-one does this without political savvy and strongwill. He is after all the emmperor who staged 120 days of games to celebrate his victory in Dacia. Thats a third of the year devoted to public entertainment. The thousands of gladiators, POW's, and animals slain during that period can't be ignored. So why do christians praise him? partly because he never persecuted them, but also because they shared the benefits of his reign. The christian church is after all descended from roman catholicism based in the late roman empire, which remembered him as one of romes finest emperors.

The legend of King Arthur is well known to us. The seductive image of a noble king ruling the land with his chivalrous knights righting wrongs and courting ladies of virtue are the source of countless books and films. These stories were romances, and the definitive version on which we base our modern tales was Morte D'Arthur (The Death of Arthur) written in 1480 by Thomas Mallory. The story was taken from a set of five volumes written during the 14th century. Attributed to Walter Map, a cistercian cleric, the Vulgate Cycle was probably the accumulated effort of his fellow monks. In the cycle were Estoire Del Saint Graal (History of the Grail), Estoire De Merlin (History of Merlin), Lancelot, Queste Del Saint Graal (Quest for the Holy Grail), Morte De La Roi Artu (Death of King Arthur) The Cycle was in turn a development of Chretien Des Troyes work, Perceval, written in 1185 but never completed. Chretien had written arthurian tales before and was an established author in this field. Perceval was rewritten with different endings by other authors of the period. In turn, these romances had been inspired by earlier poets and authors, and the trail goes back to a gentleman named Geoffery of Monmouth who lived between 1129 and 1151. This author established many of the themes we read of today and even included Arthur as a historical king in his latin work Historia Regum Brittanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) completed in 1136. Geoffery claimed historical references for his work but this has been disputed, and clearly depicts a medieval court with Arthur at its head. Before this, we have the tales of celtic tradition, in which Arthur is not the idealized chivalric king, but a brave hero struggling against monsters of the underworld and undergoing mystical quests. These tales emerge in the ninth century in a work named Preiddeu Annwn (Spoils of the World) and there seems to be a connection with celtic mythos of a much earlier period, in which Arthur is placed as the hero of tales existing from centuries before. There is an historical reference to Arthur contained in Vita Sanctae Gildas (Life of Gildas) which mentions the rebellious tyrant Arthur as besieging Glastonia to rescue his queen from the clutches of King Melwas. Perhaps the earliest historical reference is from a man named Nennius, whose Annals Cambriae (Annals of Wales) mentions our famous warrior as the victor of twelve battles against the saxons, picts, and irish. Nennius infers that Arthur is Dux Bellorum (Duke of Battles) and therefore a military leader and not a king, a title ascribed to him from the eleventh century in romantic fiction. In fact, its clear that Arthur commanded an army assembled from those of british kings. His campaign began with a battle at the mouth of the River Glein. Four more were fought on the River Dubglas in a region named Linnus, followed by another by the River Bassus. More victories took place at the Forest of Celidon, the Fort of Guinnion, the City of Legions, the River Tribuit, the Mountain of Agned (or Cat Bregouin), and at last his epic finale at the Battle of Badon in which Arthur was reported to have personally slain 960 men. This account is difficult to prove because the locations are no longer known. The afore-mentioned Gildas, a monk whose main work was the De Excidio Brittanniae of AD540, had personal reasons not to praise or mention Arthur. His brothers were pirates whom Arthur had executed, and the story goes that Gildas took all his works mentioning Arthur and threw them into the sea. This establishes the time at which Arthur lived since Gildas was said to have been born in year the Battle of Badon was won. The Venerable Bede doesn't even mention Arthur at all. The earliest reference of all is credited to the bard Taliesin, who is said to have included him and his quests in a sixth century poem. But what of the Britain that Arthur knew in the 6th century? He was born into a world where roman power had collapsed. Following the abandonment of Britain in AD410, a series of petty rulers emerged until AD425 when Vortigern claimed Britain as his realm in its entirety although its only established that he ruled Kent. In AD440 he appealed for help against the picts to two Jutish chiefs, Hengist and Horsa. According to contemporary sources, the english king escaped a saxon plot to murder his nobles from which he escapes to Wales, where he later dies in a fire, but theres no mention of the defeat of Vortigern in the Battle of Aylesford in AD449, nor his earlier attempt to ask the saxons to go home. Finally by AD450 the roman government had evaporated. As late as AD495 the saxons were still arriving, followed by the angles thirty years later who went on to dominate northern england and create the realm of Mercia. The historical sources of these times are not judged reliable, but its noticeable that Vortigern is described as a villain for inviting the saxons into Britain. These were days of tribal migration and battles for territory. Despite the terrible reputation won by the saxons, both they and the angles were capable farmers who preferred the flatter lowlands for agriculture, which left mountainous refuges for the hardpressed and disunited britons. The real Arthur is perhaps a determined capable general, a man who has set himself the task of pacifying the island. If these ancient texts are to be believed, then Arthur was a brutal and cruel man who preferred swift justice and freedom to act. His persona certainly made an impression since he was later placed as the hero of mythic tales when clearly his peers regarded him as a tyrant. Right from the beginning his reputation as a warrior had been turned to romance by the bards of the time despite the censorship of the chroniclers. By all accounts, his campaigns were a success, yet the fighting continued until the 7th century. The Seven Kingdoms of Britain were set to be dominated by saxons and other germanic tribes until the arrival of Vikings and their Norman descendants.

Oh Neil.... I used to think the same way about these things. The name atlantic is based on the legend of atlantis, not the other way around. The rising sea levels were just as likely due to the earth wobbling on its axis, the same reason for the ice ages, but since the hothouse period following the K/T event the earths climate has refused to stabilise. The atlantic opened up from the jurassic period onward. Even if the azores plateau was above sea level at any time, I don't believe this accounts for the atlantis legend. How did elephants get there? Please don't say by atlantean ship.... The arguements you give above are standard for those supporting the atlantic landmass theory, which has no substantial proof. The atlantic floor is rising and has been since pangaea pulled apart. There may well be a future landmass in the atlantic, but not in the past. Graham Hancock, Erich Von Daniken, Andrew Tomas - they all want to make a name by discovering some truth about the world that has been hidden or ignored by respectable science. Truth is, they look for coincidence and call it evidence. They look at ancient art and appraise it for modern technology. They see what they want too and misinterpret without question. No. King arthur is based on a story written by a medieval writer based on legend. It was a novel of the thirteenth century, that has become accepted by the masses as semi-historical. The same is happening with Dan Browns Da Vinci Code. Or the Holy Grail? What a wild goose chase that is. In this case, the grail never existed at all. It was first mentioned by a medieval writer named Chierten Des Troyes who wrote an arthurian tale called Percival - and he never actually finished it, dropping dead somewhat inconventiently. Later writers added their own endings to the tale and the original purpose of the grail was lost, replaced by a christianised plot about the last supper. Arthur was a real person - he's mentioned in dark age writings - but probably wasn't a king, more likely a warlord defending against saxon aggression. The possibility of an individual hero from seperate real people doesn't work for me. It happens the other way around. An individual does something, gets remembered, then his story grows and becomes romanticised out of proportion. The legend of atlantis is compelling but then it was intended to be from the start. Starting with a legend then trying to prove it against all odds isn't good history/archaeology, because you become blinded to the evidence that disproves it. I'm not saying there weren't any civilisations we're not aware of in distant ancient times, but that I don't think they were as succesful as later ones nor as expansive as plato claims.

I promised I'd find this reference, so here it is....

The archaeological record supports this statement absolutely, at least with respect to Western Europe. In 400, ordinary people lived under tiled roofs, had a varied selection of pottery vessels suited to multiple functions, had access to luxury products made some distance away, and access to imported wines. A hundred years later they were living under thatch, cooked, ate and drank from basic round pots, had virtually no luxury items unless very rich and drank beer or mead. So they lived in less grand homes. But what about the quality of life? There's more to that than luxury items, which most people couldn't afford anyway even during the pax romana. As I mentioned, the dark ages might have been a nightmare for some regions but then some people might have said the same thing during the height of the roman empire. This was also the period that saw the rise of islam and its conquest of north africa and spain. They were supportive of learning and culture if I remember right. The Byzantines were still there and doing ok. I really don't believe the vikings thought the dark ages were a nightmare either. Which incidentially brings me to the point about dark age technology. Viking longships. Hey, its a start, ok? Dark architecture? Whats wrong with thatched huts? Can you make one? What about moorish palaces, what about byzantine art and literature, not to mention islamic writings. To call the dark age a nightmare is a gross misunderstanding. We call it a dark age because it was a dark time for us.

Thats probaably an obvious choice but no, he wasn't. Caligula was actually popular with the masses, and despite his reported behaviour, didn't ruin the empire. Be careful, because his 'madness' is more likely the result of a cruel sense of humour and absolutely no self restraint. What about Elagabulus? A 14 year old transvestite who wanted to pursue his orgies and wierd rituals whilst his mum ran affairs of state. Or Commodus, who entered the arena as a gladiator hundreds of times and whose opponents were only allwed wooden swords. Perhaps Didius Julianus, who bought the throne from the praetorians and died three months later begging for his life despised by everyone. What about Caracalla? He murdered his brother in front of his mother and conducted a nasty purge in Alexandria because of some alleged comment. Constantine perhaps? Although called the Great by christians, he remained a pagan until his deathbed, tried to get a relation worshipped as jesus, and told some real whoppers to his soldiers and public. There are other examples of bad emperors that I haven't thought of, but I'm sure with a little reading you'll discover just how many of them were pretty awful people.

Oh yes. The dreaded Atlantis. Trouble is, the legended city has been placed at just about every point on the earths globe in an attempt to fit in with plato's description. I think thats wrong. Plato originally got the story from Solon, who heard it from egyptian priests. Plato used the story for a morality tale and his version of the city is deliberately exaggerated to emphasise the fall of a great civilisation. In no way can you take his description absolutely literally. There was an interesting report last year about someone who was surveying the mediterranean between cyprus and israel, where undersea rock formations apparently resemble plato's description. This is not entirely impossible. The northward movement of the african tectonic plate has blocked the straits of gibraltar at least once, and perhaps as many as ten times in prehistory. Each time the med has evaporated and become a huge salt desert valley. Eventually of course the dam breaks and the sea floods back in, with a wave moving at an estimated 400mph and filling the sea again over the course of a century. What a waterfall that would have made! So there is a remote possibility that people lived down there - but its a hot salty desert. A great city state, with verdant pastures and all manner of wild beasts? It just doesn't fit the facts. As for myself, I 've come to the conclusion that the minoans were antlanteans. The explosion of Santorini is probably the most likely cause of the legend. During an eruption of the volcanic cone in the island centre, sea water got into the fissure after an earthquake. This causes a massive explosion, like krakatoa in the nineteenth century. The coastal cities and facilities of the minoans were inundated by a truly awesome tidal wave resulting from it, and their culture devolves into cannabalistic survivors. But - there is a tantalising picture somewhere that shows an ancient city on a conical mountain rising out of a sheltered bay. My guess is that Atlantis may well have existed, as an important city in the minoan state, and that it stood on the volcanic cone at Santorini. Which is why we can't find it because its now spread over the mediterranean! Its also why Plato made his wild story about it - there was nothing to see and describe for real. So he decided to write about it 'beyond the pillars of hercules', way out there in unexplored earth. As for the tales of widom and ancient mystical science far exceeding our own.... yeah right....

The term Dark Age is partly a reflection of the importance of roman culture in our history, since the romans somewhat arrogantly assumed that theirs was better than everyone elses. Now, that was fine until the reign of Honorius. In AD410 he received an embassy from Britain begging for military support - The Groan of the Britains. He refused, and from that point the britons were on their own. They attempted to retain some semblance of romanic life despite the incursions of foreigners (the period from where the legend of King Arthur springs). Archaeology shows that many roman habitations are becoming abandoned at this time, as romano-celts either choose or are forced to assume a more simple/celtic lifestyle. The old roman order had collapsed without external direction leaving communities to struggle on. What was left was under pressure from the foreigners who were expanding across britain piecemeal, colonising and raiding. On the one hand, the period is no longer 'under the light' of roman culture, whilst on the other fewer historical records survive from this period making a 'dark hole' in history. The locals at the time may well have regarded themselves living in a 'dark age', now that the golden age of roman power was past. In fact, the dark ages were no more ignorant any other period nor was it any more savage. It was a chaotic violent time however in which britain was undergoing political and demographic change. Many of these statements can also be applied to mainland europe since the collapse of the west in AD476. The roman empire had changed since its glory days and was no longer the unified culture of old nor one that lived by the same standards. Therefore the term 'Dark Age' is something of a misnomer. What is strange about this period is that the remainder of the roman empire, the Byzantines, seem to fade away from peoples conciousness as something too distant when they had much more immediate problems to face, yet the byzantines maintained a sophisticated city state for centuries.

The name will probably come from before the Danelaw existed.There was Danish settlemets all over Britain Hundreds of years before the Danelaw came about.Same goes for the Saxon's/Angles/Jutes who came over,there was no sudden urge to migrate and invade it happened over hundreds of years. Yes, that would make sense. Studying the ordnance survey map of that hill there are plenty of anglo-saxon names surviving and its clear they had danish neighbours at one point. Goatacre is medieval, but Tockenham and Lyneham are obviously saxon. Nearby Littlecott is too. Bradenstoke (where the medieval abbey stood) isn't a name I recognise. Does the suffix Stoke mean anything to anyone?

I really don't see much cultural evolution at all. Roman culture changed rapidly. An end to the austere life expected of a roman, the institutionalisation of public entertainment, the autocracies, the lowering of public morality, and the beginning of the inward looking empire that bought and brought the outside world toward it. It really was more of a revolution, but one that was bound to happen at some point, because you get the impression that roman society was building up pressure for a change from the social wars onward.

Probably because they couldn't afford them. The generals on the other hand could offer their men booty from their victories. The senate tried more than once to relieve people of their command but the men were behind their commanders.

No historian has ever suggested this motivation. The standard explanation is that Octavian curtailed manumission to relieve demands on the corn dole. Previously, slave owners could relieve themselves of the cost of feeding their slaves by passing off the costs to the state via manumission. Wasn't another reason that too many slaves were being freed in peoples wills as a way of being remembered as a generous man?

Cicero seems to me to be someone who was a great actor. His oratories were supposed to be dramatic affairs with sweeping gestures. Perhaps then a passionate man, one who rested on his laurels somewhat, someone who saw himself as a privileged person and worked to protect his place in life. Despite his attempt to curtail the ambitions of up and coming personalities, when it all went wrong he finally chose to end his life with some dignity, at least if the story is true. Compared to some romans, a man of some principle if a little self-important.

Whats interesting is how often people today are living in the same area as their ancestors dating way back. There was a welshman was was discovered to be a descendant of some ancient remains in grave nearby a couple of years ago. I like the map of Danelaw. Dauntsey - the example I used above - is roughly at the top of the 'h' in Farnham. There's a large hill to the southeast of Dauntsey (The slope of which is called Dauntsey Bank, famous as the site of the first locomotive to break the 100mph barrier) which has a plethora of medieval names and one disoluted monastery, now only some crumbing stones. For those who want to find it, RAF Lyneham Airbase is on top of the hill. The point is that if Dauntsey means Isle of the Danes, then they were living well south of Danelaw. What I don't know is whether they were living on the Lyneham hill or on a smaller patch of dry land in the marshy lowlands northwest. Looking at the map, I realise that Anglia (the root of England) doesn't actually cover what we know regard as England. Am I wrong, or is the north referred to as Umbria? Does anyone know the root of that name?

Inspired by the Vikings eh? No, I don't think so. islanders tend to become sailors at some point. We know however that Alfred the Great had a large navy to fend off pirates and raiders, so to some extent the possibility of viking incursions meant that the british had to become sailors. The same thing happened for the romans under threat from Carthage. In the words of George Clooney (Three Kings) "What is most important in life?..... Necessity."

There is evidence of a chort of moors stationed on the Wall. I'll try to dig up the reference.

Yes. Military life back then wasn't so different than today. There would have been stragglers and an infuriated centurion waiting to shout at them very loudly when they turned up. However, remember also that they never had medevac capability, so any stragglers were in danger of being picked off, rather like the Foreign Legion in modern times, March Or Die. I imagine many of the stragglers were actually keen to keep up.

A part of me still hankers after those heady days following Augustus. The Julio-Claudians may have been murderous, bizarre, self-important, arrogant wastrels, but they had class! Another reason I like the period is that it follows a time of civil strife and uncertainty. So, we have something like the Restoration, or the Roaring Twenties, or the Swingin Sixties. A time when people were basically trying to let their hair down and enjoy themselves. Its a colourful period and when we think of the empire, its the principate that first comes to mind.

Possibly, but we also note the spherical weights added to pila of the later imperial period to increase penetration. Was there an improvement in shield protection? Possibly, but it seems unlikely. Ok Friend, then take a pilum, hold it near the point, and try to raise it. Quite apart from the effort to lift the shaft to a horizontal attitude is possibly more than you're physically capable of, you will also notice that the leverage of the weighty shaft is more than sufficient to cause a bending moment in a piece of metal less whose stiffness is very low. Its just physics. No, you don't quite understand. The impact with the shield is instantaneous and soft shank or not, the penetrative momentum will push the pilum point through before any bending takes place. Only when the pilum comes to rest, either in the shield or also in the gentleman holding it, is any bending likely to occur. Wooden guards? Not on pila. Are you describing a spear of the late empire? By that time the pilum, was falling into disuse and was replaced with a number of differing spear designs. I don't really think the pilum could be described as free-swinging. Under gravity the end of the shaft will drop to the ground very quickly in this case. If perhaps it didn't - and I must accept that there's a possibility of it - then the shield has an awkward weight hanging off it and the bearer simply won't be able to use his shield effectively, even if he's strong enough to continue holding it up. Try this yourself. Make a bogus shield with a 6' wooden shaft sticking out of it. You will struggle! As I said its interesting that the re-enactors failed to achieve these results because other re-enactors have supported the bendy/hinged pilum idea. This has been popular wisdom for some time....

Vikings identified themselves as the son of their father sometimes, but nordic naming isn't something I have any information about.

First of all, modern recreations are not exact, they're reversed engineered and only approximate at best. Also, the method of use is also subject to the same research and guesswork. That said, there's probably not too many ways to throw a spear! When considering the impact, you also have to bear in mind the strength and construction of the shield, which might vary from the reproductions. Case 1: The early pilum with two pins, one wooden, one metal. The pilum is thrown and strikes the shield. The weight of the impact forces the point into the shield structure which gives way - the pilum penetrates. The sudden impact load on the point is transferred to the shaft via the two pins. One is made from metal, which merely deforms and doesn't break. The wooden one cannot deform under shock load and snaps, leaving only the metal pin as a hinge, and from that moment the pilum is rendered useless as a weapon. However, the impact is already made, and for a brief moment an uninjured enemy must take time to remove the awkward and unwieldy pilum from his shield or simply abandon the shield altogether. It isn't guaranteed that the pilum can be withdrawn because its possible for shield splinters to close up behind the point during withdrawal. The pilums that have penetrated the shield and with enough force to injure the enemy behind it have already served their purpose, and the impact with the shield has already broken the wooden pin. Case 2: The later pilum with soft iron shank. Again the pilum is thrown and strikes the shield. The weight of impact forces the point through the shield but the shaft carries this blow without any damage to the fixings, which are not designed to break. When the pilum comes to rest, either in the shield or the body of the bearer, the weight of the shaft causes a bending moment that acts on the natual pivot point which is the shield hole. Therefore under gravity or perhaps forced by some shield movement the pilum shank bends, making the point useless thereafter. There is still a likeliehood of shank-bending if the bearer is killed or injured. In both cases remember that the enemy is probably using a shield wall formation, and are therefore attempting to keep their shields presented for protection at all costs. Assuming the bearer isn't injured, then the pilum is a large weight making the shield very unwieldy at best. In a shield wall situation it might not be possible for the bearer to reach over and extricate the pilum without exposing himself to danger or dropping his weapon. The technique of standing on a pilum isn't as difficult as you think. The pilum ahs already bent or fallen to the ground under gravity, and the bearer of the shield is more concerned with the legionaries about to skewer him to waste time fiddling about with removing the pilum from his shield even if he could that in the heat of combat. You don't actually need to stand on it squarely, merely kick it. There's enough leverage to pull the enemy shield down. Please realise that the enemy is probably trying to use his shield to good effect during a roman advance or whatever and since he's under fire from pilum salvoes, not to mention the imminent arrival of sword thrusts, he's already in a defensive stance and might not be able to see everything going on in front of him. Its interesting that the recreations didn't achieve the results expected

The real problem with such refuse would be in the smaller side streets that wouldn't have the luxury of sidewalks. Having said that, where sidewalks are in evidence then the majority of spoil might still hit the street. Why? because if someone wants to dispose of it they have basically two methods of putting it out the window. The first is simply to tilt the container, so it falls directly below. This would soil the sidewalk for sure but then that might actually be seen as an antisocial way of disposing of rubbish. Possibly more likely is that the person would 'throw' the stuff out with a flick of the arm. In that way, the sidewalk is spared and the spoil hits the street, at least usually, though it might depend on how high the window is.

Its true that roman medical care was quite good, recognisably proficient even by todays standards, and that this care was one of the perks of legionary life. Indeed, we understand that legionaries in peacetime had a better life expectation than most civilians. Nonetheless, the legionary life was no bed of roses. You would be expected to work, march, and fight as directed and woe betide you if the commanders thought you were a slacker! The men however took any excuse to avoid hard duty including bribery, someting the romans were never able to eradicate. This was one reason why artisan or scholarly skills were so useful in the roman army - it meant you were quickly placed amongst the immunes and therefore could sit in a warm barrack room whilst your mates were out there building roads and aqueducts. The hard labour of civil engineering was useful in that it provided free labour, kept the men busy, and also hardened them to physical work in the outdoors. Athletes on the other hand don't usually work in this pattern. Their physical effort is actually harder on the body because its concentrated into a smaller time frame and uses more effort within it. The roman soldier has a hard slog ahead of him, and despite the dicomfort of primitive equipment and lack of weatherproofing, if he grits his teeth and focuses on the task ahead he can indeed get through it. Human beings really can achieve extraordinary levels of endurance at times, and military life shows this to this day.

Lets understand what we mean by the urban poor. Most people in the city of Rome were not wealthy. Some had trades and could live reasonably well but thats still poor by our standards, unless they were able to expand and own several businesses. The real urban poor were the immigrants who came to Rome seeking work and finding none. These people lived in squalid conditions that we associate with third world poor today. The grain dole didn't actually raise their standard of living at all - it merely prevented them from starving and also prevented any food riots. Arguably, like any social charity, the grain dole did nothing to encourage these people to seek work and probably a fair few of them were scrounging off wealthier men.

If I'm not mistaken England does indeed mean Angle-Land. That doesn't mean they were dominant, perhaps only that they claimed a larger slice of land, or perhaps claimed it first. There is a difference. The saxons themselves had an unsavoury reputation back then. One monk writes that the saxons are 'a race hateful to god'. Certainly they were expanding aggressively but it took time - it wasn't a massive invasion and blitzkrieg by means - more like small landgrabs by communal groups at the expense of the romano-celts. As I remember, it took something like a century before saxons took territory in wiltshire. Also notice that danes were resident in wiltshire too (Dauntsey = Isle of the Danes) at some point well south of the Danelaw border. So we have small groups wandering into the wilderness and claiming land from mother nature or even better any locals who happen to have done it for them.