caldrail

True, but the sahara is worse today than it was 2000 years ago. North africa back then had a slightly wetter climate that made it easier to irrigate and farm. A drier modern climate and the result of over-grazing by domestic animals has made it what it is today. Of course the desert interior was always as arid as we see it now, its just that the desert has grown in size since.

I have to strongly disagree with that. During the periods of that time Constantine sought out images in his dream that God came and talked to him. It is understandable if the Western Romans did not change as soon as this happened. Although Constantine put an end to this as soon as he saw his dream. Even at before the Christianity spread, the Eatern Roman Empire held no gladitorial fights. Constantine immediately reformed his empire to become strong Christian believers. If God came to him in his dream to spread the word why would he continue to do this. Just a note on the Roman pagan like the Roman Christian. Before Christianity came the only thing the Roman pagans did for entertainement was attend gladitorial fights. Though when the Christianity came it has been stated that so did the gaditorial fights shortly after. Constantine was not a devout christian, nor did he really believe in christianity. He chose to bcome christian on his death-bed just in case there was some truth in it, and that way he could absolve himself from his sins which were considerable. As for the vision, I really don't believe that was genuine. Constantine used christianity to weld his crumbling empire together shamelessly. I agree, christians of the time were as bloody as pagans. Of course they were. That was how people were at the time, and romantic notions of christian belief shouldn't cloud how we see them. Christians of the time kept slaves and went to church on a sunday then off to the arena to watch them kill each other. Its true that christian belief taught a more humane view of the world, but it would take a long long time for that to become human nature. It was a violent time that bred violent people, christian or not. Christianity today isn't the same that was taught to romans. It's changed over the centuries and is a lot softer in tone than it once was. Gladitorial combat survived in the provinces in a much reduced form after the prohibition, but it did take some time to die out. The killing of animals in the arena survives to this day.

No self respecting archer would want to be inaccurate. Unlike muskets, which were inherently awful, the arrow is a very accurate weapon indeed, as demonstrated by primitive cultures since the year dot.

No they haven't. They learned the hard way in WWI after the amateurism in the 18th and 19th century. Fighting a european war forced the american armed forces to adopt a different approach. The same lesson was reinforced inWWII, Korea, and finally in Vietnam. Why did it take so long for the US to become more professional? Because they didn't want to fight foreign wars. Now that the US is involved in constant brush wars (particularly now that the media has made the horror of war too real for the stay-at-home public), the need for professionalism has become a major factor.

No, we're not, especially from the perspective of the romans. Its true there was terrible poverty back then just as now, but life was usually simple. I think people were often friendlier in day to day dealings too. The flip side of course, is that life was often bloodier and always a great deal shorter.

Britain was perhaps more of a co-operative society than a truly romanised part of the empire, something that survives in the mind-set of britons today I think. I also think this happened in the middle east too, though less so in africa. Despite the early success of Augustus in colonising germany, the germans rightly or wrongly decided that Arminius was the chappie to lead them and they threw away roman culture. How ironic it was that they then viewed Rome with envy in later centuries.

Like any other prisoner, he would have used anything that did the job. Perhaps he smuggled in a discarded blade? Or did he steal one from a jailer? Did he bribe someone with whatever scraps of food he had left-over? As long a the metal had a robust angled edge, he could begin to carve with it. Or did he adapt an eating implement? Uncommon perhaps, but then prisoners get very creative when staving off boredom. Keeping an altar in jail would be awkward I think. It requires effort to create the artifacts, to pursue the rituals, etc. The jailers may not have approved. However since this is part of your plot I would say almost any symbol appropriate to christianity, albeit of a small and humble kind, would have sufficed in those circumstances. No prisoner could afford to be fussy.

Agreed. I see history as a jigsaw puzzle where you can't see the picture on the box. Not all the pieces are there, but you can still see a picture if you carefully fit together what you have. But that means all of it. Study of one field is difficult without considering others. Everything should be in context, or understanding is lost.

No, it isn't. Wonderful drama, but not right. Roman racing chariots were much lighter in construction. The Ben Hur film uses triumphal chariots that the horses are struggling to pull for the entire race. Ben Hurs nemesis would not have raced. It would have destroyed his social standing. He would have sent a slave to race for him with strict instructions to win at all costs. As for the scythes on the wheels, the referees simply wouldn't have allowed that.

In a number of ways probably. The abandonment of the pilum, the exchange of gladius for spatha, the return to chainmail, the dilution of training, the decreasing reliance on centurion experience etc. I'm sure we could think of others.

I'd like to see you pull a bow without a thumb! Not the actual pulling hand, that requires the two strongest fingers. Its the bow hand. You're going to get bruises on your forehead without thumbs.

Possibly correct, but I have heard that roman *or* has been unearthed in context with Tiberius. He may may not have been a dirty old man, but perhaps he did enjoy the roman equivalent of 'Playboy'?

Many of the older famous families simply died out as suggested above. Wars had a part to play in this. The Julio-Claudians went a bit further and destroyed themselves in plots. Its believed that most, if not all, important families in the late empire were descended from slaves. Actually I think its a terrible loss that your ancestors are unknown, and so do other people, which is why tracing your family tree is so popular these days. So much is lost. We discover who they were, perhaps what they did, their relationships, and when they died. But thats it isn't it? I want to know who these people really were, what they were like, what lives they led. I must admit I haven't traced mine though. Too busy discovering roman lives!

Weren't they the same people that gave german knights a bloody nose during the middle ages?

Science is the application of logic, art is the application of intuition. The study of history, be it archaeological or theory, requires both to arrive at a solid conclusion. A couple of nights ago I saw Timewatch on TV, discussing the find of thirty roman skeletons in York. Some had iron rings around the ankle, some were buried face down, all were decapitated and some heads swopped. Huh? After much speculation and research, the people investigating came to the conclusion that these weren't slaves, criminals, prisoners-of-war, or roman casualties. They were members of the roman administration, executed on the orders of Caracalla for getting in his way before he came to power. Now that I hadn't expected.

Reading and writing would have earned them 'immunes' status very quickly, or the occaisional administration duty failing that. Desirable, but most soldiers were very likely illiterate.

I thought lictors were the same as bailiffs?

Did he choose people who could already ride? Or did he have them trained? I'm a little suspicious that everyone was a horse-rider back then. Its not quite the same, but I recall the US Cavalry of the 19th century, who recruited people who hadn't sat on a horse in their lives before putting on uniform, and they weren't anything like John Wayne and his men. Remember the modern armies employ soldiers who can't drive. They have to teach many of them. I personally think Caesar had his centurions gather enough men who could already ride. Caesar was too canny to rely on amateurs, although his gaulish allies weren't as capable as he'd hoped.

Not revisionism - romanticism. Exactly what I suffered from before I got more serious about roman history. I'd watched Derek Jacobi, Peter Ustinov, Laurence Olivier, Kirk Douglas etc and swallowed all that nonsense In one way it was a good thing - it got me into roman history. Funny thing is though, as I strip away the myth and legend I discover things that might seem a little more mundane to some but are just as fascinating. For me, the romans are becoming real people, not square jawed shakespearean actors. I love it.

I doubt swimming was as widespread as it seems. For romans, bodies of water were obstacles they regarded with superstition. A river wasn't just flowing water. An angry god would drown you. Bear in mind that a legionary in battle order probably struggled to stay afloat. Thats why bridges and fords were so important. I'm pretty sure Caesar never ordered his men to swim across the Rhine. Historically swimming is an uncommon pursuit, although a vigorous and healthy roman lad would likely view it as a manly challenge!

So then - The mother of invention is necessity. Without military threat, the need to compete in technology lessens. In commercial terms however the romans failed. Although they became brilliant organisers and experts in logistics on a grand scale, they didn't evolve technology except on a local level, as a result of applied engineering. So we see clever pumps for raising water, or water driven stone-cutters, or similar things that are used in one locality but not generally adopted.

I don't think paganism ever really died out - there would always be people who chose not to accept christianity and we see plenty of witch-hunts & inquisitions even to this day.

Such contact was tenuous and via a long trade route. There was no diplomacy between them although both empires knew of each others existence. Roman gold reached china, chinese silk reached Rome.

I must apologise - I've just uncovered roman road maps that were in common use especially for couriers. They weren't geographically correct, but were drawn in a 'strip-map' format showing road junctions and rest-stops. A bit like motorway diagrams we get today.

The throwing arm only needs to lift a sling - Its the rising motion that pulls the sling and its load over the top. Are you using too heavy a missile? You need to use ropes, not springs. Yes it is hard to twist the 'spring'. Put your back into it soldier!