caldrail

But what is the evidence for this "decay"? The only evidence that's typically offered is Cato's crabby complaint that young men began to question their elders (which I would call moral progress, not decay) and that women spent more on luxuries than they had before (hardly a moral vice, imho). EDIT: By "the end of the period", I assume you're talking about the second century; if not, can you clarify what period you're talking about? Roman commentators moan about this during the principate. Juvenal mentions the 'awfulness of roman women', and Tacitus notes his disapproval of 'modern' morality regarding sex (I still need to find that quote - bear with me). We read of one roman who, having reduced himself to something considerably less wealthy by putting on lavish banquets, commits suicide. I therefore conclude that these displays of partying were fashionable, and in order to remain part of the 'in' crowd one needed to stage these parties. Not all were orgies of course, some were perfectly well-behaved social gatherings despite the extravagance on offer. However, I do see these events in parallel to modern day partying and therefore the orgy is equivalent to a wild cocaine party for celebrities and guests. At first these things are shocking and a well kept secret, then others begin to emulate them in order to appear at the forefront of the social calendar. Later it becomes ordinary, a mundane event where such behaviour is a regrettable but tolerable norm. This seems to happen in all societies at some point (its happened to ours). This behaviour is linked to personal affluence and boredom. Todays youth have more money than previous generations and seek diversions in a way that previous generations wouldn't. The quote from Cato is interesting because I've never seen it before, but it does seem to back my contention that morality was beginning to ebb in the face of roman success and wealth. This was after all the period in which the senate failed to retain control and wealthy men accumulated power by the use of private armies to all intents and purposes. The other intersting aspect of Cato's complaint is that we see this repeated in other historical periods. A tudor period writer moans that the youth of his time did nothing else than get drunk and dance all night for the purposes of getting laid instead of leading moral lives and working hard. Sounds familiar? I think all societies go through these ebbs and flows.

According to the Daily Mail, Saturday 17th Feb, a stone block has been unearthed at the site of an amphitheatre at Chester. Apparently this is the first time a block like this has been found in britain which puts paid to the theory that provincial games were mere displays - this block was used in the arena to chain animals and/or victims for the kill. There have been some discoveries of the victims remains on the site. The Amphitheatre of Deva Victrix (Chester), the largest remaining in britain, seated an audience in two storeys, with evidence of ornate stonework on columns.

The ornamentation was a symbol of status, since it was more expensive than plain armour. Therefore if a common soldier wore ornate greaves he's going to get pulled to one side by his centurion to answer some fierce questioning. He might well have themn requisitioned and find himself on nasty fatigues for his presumption.

Public morality was beginning to decay toward the end of the period with the increasing affluence of the wealthy classes. Orgies as such are a feature of the imperial period as far as I'm aware, partly because of the wealth available, the emulation of imperial partying, keeping up with the jonesii, and also because of the increasing amount of spare time available to bored individuals. I agree. The plebs could not afford in any way to stage such excesses. Nor would they receive invites!

Humane? Possibly, but the impression I get was that the persians cared less for their poor than the romans did, and were every bit as ruthless.

We tend to forget that our climate changes constantly. We live in a dynamic enviroment. Usually these changes are small but occaisionally, either because of geographic or astronomical phenomena, the climate can change radically for a short period. My favourite example comes from the 6th century Ireland, where the evidence from tree rings and other sources shows that during the dark ages the winter never let up for four years solid. Thats pretty tough on your survival chances believe me. I did read somewhere (sadly I no longer have the book) that an eruption of krakatoa during the late empire or early dark age had far reaching effects this side of the world. For those interested, krakatoa is indeed growing again and will no doubt erupt explosively at some point. Volcanoes and sea water are temptestuous partners. Just ask the minoans. The santorini explosion killed their civilisation in one fell swoop. The earth wobbles too. This wobbling was the cause of the original ice ages when it affected the flow of warm water northward. That could happen again very easily. In fact, this talk of global warming is a little incorrect. Britain is heading back toward the african-style climate it once had between ice ages anyway, all we've done is hurry the process a little. Get the picture? In fact, we're still recovering from the ice ages even today. Britain is rising out of the sea after the weight of ice a mile and a half thick thawed away. Its also tipping over. The northwest is rising, the souteast falling. Evidence shows human habitation at the bottom of the Solent after the ice ages. There's a castle in wales whose sea gate is well distant from the shore today. When we read of icebergs on the seine or of severe winters, make sure this isn't an isolated period rather than part of an overall trend.

I've read accounts of cleopatra that suggest she wasn't a supermodel. However, she was an egyptian queen and power attracts doesn't it? Images on coins are a bit suspect I think. The scale of the relief is small and it depends on the skill of coin maker as to whether it actually bears any resemblance. My guess is that despite her imperfections, she nonetheless had a personality that mattered.

Its very much a case of swings and roundabouts concerning elephants. They're easily panicked, eat humungous amounts of forage, and aren't really suited to warfare. However, they happen to be large obedient animals that make short work of any human being who gets nasty with it. In a sense, the elephant serves the same role as a tank. For all their faults, elephants were repeatedly used by ancient armies and therefore were considered to have military value. If they were useless, no-one would have bothered. Besides, they make labouring at the camp something of a breeze.

Reading up on this I find that the Durotriges, the british tribe in the west of england, were trading throughthe port of Hengistbury Head with Gaul, and doing well out of it until the middle of the first century BC. They were also rabidly anti-roman. After this period roman traders had basically taken the rug from under them and the Durotriges's prosperity failed.

The north african climate was definitely wetter than today, and considering that the area was the most urbanised part of the empire it must have had a viable agriculture to support the population. Over-grazing since then hasn't helped, and the point raised about deforesation may be relevant.

This was pretty much a standard training method of roman combat, both military and gladiatorial. The purpose of course is to build strength, a useful commodity in violence. I remember one time I was on the shooting range, firing .303 enfields. The recoil was evident and although I was hitting the target, I was not getting a close group (and therefore, not a markman award). For the last time I decided to fire a .22 rifle. Now that was pretty puny compared to the military calibre I'd been using, but it felt like I could literally reach out and place bullets on the bull-eye. Sadly I still didn't get a markmanship award because one bullet went straight through the hole made by a previous shot! The point of course is underline the use of heavier weapons for practice. It does work.

Modern re-enactment is a useful resource but the technique of throwing a pilum a la legion isn't known - its being simulated as best as they can. The romans of course trained their men with experienced soldiers, many of whom may have seen combat for real. The important point to remember is that the pilum isn't being thrown for distance like a javelin. The impression I get is that a 'flat' throw intended for accuracy doesn't achieve the desired result. There must have been an element of arc in the trajectory, which I doubt was of a steep angle like modern athletics. The short range ascribed by re-enactors is based on their experience and I accept their findings.

First impressions count don't they? In any case, roman opinions are notoriously biased. To be regarded as an accurate description it would need to put in context.

Also many people involved in such deals already knew the result beforehand, they'd done this calculation previously. It wouldn't suprise me if some hadn't learned whole series of figures much like we used to with the 'times table'.

But the issue is whether the Picts, Scottis, et alia, would have been so troublesome had the Romans not invaded in the first place. The picts and irish weren't any reason to invade at all, and I doubt the romans were aware of their presence until they started moving northwards. Caesar after all was only concerned with cementing relations inside britain, the southern half particularly, besides the glory of being there first. A total conquest as such wasn't the point. How long was he there? Two weeks? Caesar had invaded gaul and it was known the inhabitants had strong links across the channel - he mentions this if I remember right. By dividing the britons Caesar made it easier to hold gaul, who had taken quite a pasting from him. Claudius invaded because it was seen by him as an easy victory to be had for military credibility. Caesar had already softened the place up as well as the various traders and agents at work there, so a disunited population wasn't going to present too difficult a challenge. Claudius after all could not risk a failure in foreign ventures without a possible death sentence at the hand of his detractors. Lets not forget the resources available in britain such as tin, lead, iron etc.

Actually I don't see this as entirely propaganda. Some of it would have been naturally given roman ambition, but the poor? No, they weren't thinking in terms of thousands of years but the next generation or two. They wanted to remember their loved ones. As for the politically motivated roman, its a different matter. They had a vested interest in marketing themselves.

It does seem a bit odd. I know he marched against parthia (never got there though - pays to be careful when you stop by the roadside to relieve yourself) but despite his sympathy for military life I haven't read of any campaigning in judaea at all. Is it possible that this is a distorted record of another episode like the one in alexandria?

I accept your point with good grace

Nonetheless those legions were posted to britain. Therefore the romans considered it worthwhile. Britain was part of the empire but it was potentially troublesome, plus the picts and possibly the irish were sources of conflict that needed warding off.

Shields and spears do break - as I've already mentioned. But they don't explode. Hoplite combat isn't a rugby charge. You try running with those long pikes! It was a steady advance at walking pace, relying on the mass of men to push the enemy back (or harm him if he didn't). Lets be honest, if a forest of sharp objects advances on you its difficult to stop it. The reasons a commander may not wish his unit to pursue is that he no longer remains in control of his men and it renders them vulnerable to cavalry action. Roman legions were primarily heavy infantry, not skirmishers. They were best employed in ordered ranks maintaining supportive close order.

It doesn't mean they smoked it. A cargo destined for medecinal use? How do they know it was used to calm the sailors? Seems a bit strange, because rowers and lookouts aren't going to give their best if they're feeling overly relaxed! There's no supportive evidence as far as I'm aware for drug use aboard roman vessels.

You are seriously losing credibility

Shields and spears exploding? Not from an infantry engagement - there isn't enough energy and momentum involved. I wonder if thats more to do with sub-standard equipment. After all, not all wooden shafts are perfect. A rout does not necessarily involve heavy casualties, although I admit the possibility is strong. A tired unit of roman soldiers might not be willing to chase, its commander might not be willing to allow it, and the enemy might simply run faster. Thats why cavalry are employed in this role.

As I said before, the pilum is a disarming weapon. It removes shields and men from an enemy formation. It doesn't need to kill them. After all, you're not going to charge a cohort of roman soldiers with a darn great stick hanging out of your leg. As for the morale, its as well to bear in mind that barbarian cultures often revolve around fighting and personal honour as a way of life. For that reason, they aren't easily routed, at least to start with. Fighting was very much in your face back then and this was accepted by both sides. Actually I do agree that casualties from pila are likely to be low, but 3% seems a bit too low to me. I wonder how the learned gentleman arrived at those figures. Look at it this way. Imagine you're about to charge to romans. You're ready, keyed up, and spoiling to shed some of their blood. Despite your taunts and yelling they remain steadfastly quiet. Their front ranks step forward and throw a forest of spears at you. You might avoid one or two, but these fast moving objects are coming in at a volley. There are warriors either side of you trying to avoid them also. You probably can't step back either. Leg and foot injuries are possibly frequent. One chap beside you has his forearm pinned to the shield, another falls stunned because the shield knocked back against his head. I think that barbarian warriors are likely to have a looser formation than the roman heavy infantry but that depends on whether they have shields. One benefit of shield carrying isn't just personal defence, it allows you to front a shield wall. Its an important advantage, because as modern research shows a shield wall is a suprisingly formidable barrier. That after all is another reason for that large curved roman shield. Many barbarian cultures, gaulish and germanic, did not usually carry shields. They might throw stones at the romans before an attack. Don't laugh, stones hurt. Soldiers were killed in the trenches in Crimea from people lobbing stones into the opposing trench. Caesar records that his aedui allies were sent into quick retreat by stone-throwing german horsemen. In fact, the romans were well defended against stones. The same cannot be said about most barbarian warriors facing pila volleys. I think 3% is too low. Anything up to 10% on the first volley depending on how many pila get thrown in the first place. That said, if the number of pila are restricted then obviously we see less casualties. I would like to add the case of Caesar vs Pompeys men. I forget the battle, but from what I read there was one case where his unit refused to advance. He exorted and cajoled them, calling his men cowards and poofs, but they remained in place. He then dismounted, grabbed a shield from one legionary, and marched on his tod toward the enemy. They of course could not believe their luck. The call to ready their pila came and they threw the volley. Caesar took some on his shield, which he must have dropped there and then because of the weight of roman pila stuck in it. He managed to step over the rest that came close, and then caesar beckoned on his men. Having witnessed their commanders survival, they were once more invigorated to fight. A charming tale (I don't know how true that was) but it strikes me that the pila volley was inaccurate. Despite all the training it was at the end of the day a mass effect weapon much like muskets of later era's. Of the hundred or whatever pila thrown at caesar, not one injures him. Of course, he was alone, he had freedom of movement, he was armoured and had a large roman shield. Barbarian warriors en masse did not. PS - Hamstringing an enemy in rout is all but impossible. Injuries to the head, shoulders, and back are more likely. Please inform your dungeonmaster

Regarding the kushan coinage, would it be more likely to assume that because greek ships were regularly trading in the area from the 2nd century ad onward that bilingual coinage had practicakl value rather than any indication of greek-speaking people in a part of the world only reached previously by alexanders army, most of whom were homesick and wanted an end to the great mans campaigning?