caldrail

Also the species are not those involved in the Roman arena and hail from a single eniroment in which they co-existed and knew each others habits. Thus the mountain lion attacks bears succesfully because it knows how to suprise one and probably has no intention nwhatsoever of tackling one face on. African lions, such as those imported by the gold miners in the 19th century, did not have experience of bears at all, and as vaunted as the american grizzly is, caledonian bears in particular had quite a reputation. One account talks of a victim chained to a post to be attacked by one such animal and the writer tells us that whilst still alive, the condemned man's body was nowhere near as a man's should be. It doesn't take much imagination. I'm also wary of accepting a statistical argument based on modern sources (never mind the anomalous origin of the data). In terms of size and maturity, the Romans would have quickly realised that a bear was young and/or smaller. Since the games editor was attempting to please the crowd, it follows he would want the most impressive animals. Exotic beats of all sizes were usually paraded for the amazement of curious Romans. IT was the dangerous animals, other than those used for hunts, that were named Denatati and chosen because their potential violence was harnessed for corwd pleasing battles between beasts. Elephants were also used because their size, and reputation as an animal or war, made them impressive too. Rhhinoceri were pretty much unstioppable when finally persuaded to attack. Bulls were used in this way too, bearing in mind that the Romans had access to the now extinct aurochs breed, much more violent than than our dodgy modern agricultural descendants. It wasn't just animals being goaded with spears until they did something. We have evidence of animals tied together such as bear and bull so that the two would get angry and frustrated, thus attacking sooner or later, adding an elent of speculation and expectation in the crowds mind

Hello mate. You know that when you challenge you need to realise that your perceived argument may be based on biased or incomplete sources. As for the recent par-tay, check out the amercian gold rush of the 19th century. Those miners got a little bored and set up animal fights for entertainment. Hey... The bears won. Every time.. But then cougars were in short supply in Europe and Asia. Not that it matters. In the case you state, the cat attacked from an optimal position. That was far less likely in the arena. In any case Martial tells us of the difficulty of getting lions to actually fight. Bears seemed to take to it rather more easily and as I said, the Romans sometimes made heroes of them. I mean no insult buddy, but you might impress me more with some historical study.

That I suspect was circumstantial Not only because of violence, theft, and territorial encroachment, but also because of their political infuence as outsiders to the accepted regime. Also... Where now is the ancient wealth and dignity of the Romans? The Romans of old were the most powerful, now we are without strength. They were feared, now it is us who are fearful. The barbarians peoples paid them tribute, now we are the tributaries of the barbarians. Our enemies make make us pay for the very light of day, and our right to life has to be bought. Oh what miseries are ours! To what state have we descended? We even have to thank our the barbarians for the right to buy ourselves off them! What could be more humiliating andand miserable. Why has god allowed us to become weaker and more miserable than all the tribal peoples? Why has he allowed us to be defeated by the barbarians, and subjected to the rule of our enemies? We enjoy immodest behaviour, the goths detest iit. We avoid purity, they love it. Fornication is considered by them a crime and a danger, we honour it. Salvian (writing in the 440's) Although Salvian is stressing the differences in culture to underline his sermon, it would appear to based on a very real perceived comparison of morality. In other words, the bigotry was evolving because of a conflict in culture. We see the same trends in our modern times.

However we can describe the Romans as 'culturalist' as they certainly did have opinions about other civilisations compared to theirs. The initial incursions of goths were by initation, as they were desperate to avoid the Huns (and opposing gothic factions), and since Valens had already fought and won a war against them with an agreement to become arians (the religion, that is), Valens was well disposed to allow them to cross the Danube and settle. The Romans in the area immediately took the Goths for everything they had including children sold as slaves to pay for overpriced goods by rapacious merchants. The resulting 'rebellion' of goths was in response to this situation and the attempted assassination of gothic leaders. Those goths that went on the rampage afterward were gradually obstructed, mostly very successfully, by Roman raiding forces put together for that purpose. The goths lost a small battle at the River Maritsa but Valens was unwilling to wait for western support and encouraged by an over-eager Sebastianus (who was by that time desperate to keep his job against the intrigue aimed against him) met at Adrianople. Constantinople was not however seriosuly challenged by the goths and Fritigern (the foremost gothic leader at the time) was reputed to have said "we do not make wars on walls". In some respects then the hostilities were the only course of action left to the goths if they wished to remain free (although not explicitly stated, it does look like the local Roman administration had in mind to exploit their visitors to the absolute maximum). In other respects the Romans were consumed with inner rivalries and resistance against gothic violence, at least to begin with, was disorganised and in some respects rather feeble.

-What did he introduce to weaken Republicanism!? Strictly speaking he didn't introduce anything but instead achieved an existing role which was made his permianently due to his popularity with the common people. Because Caesar had become 'Dictator-For-Life' Suetonius declares him the first 'emperor' of Rome, or more accurately, that he was the prototype for the 'Caesars' that followed in that they too were esssentially dictators-For-Life. Previously in the Republic the post of Dictator was a temporary executive commander sworn in for six months or until the emergency had been resolved. It was not a permanent post before Julius Caesar obtained it and only normally assigned in times of danger to Rome, when it was clear that absolute command was advantageous over the usual more protective semi-democracy Rome ordinarily practised. -How did this affect the people of Rome?! Other than to accustom people to populist autocracy the effect on the lower classes was marginal. For them life went on whoever was in charge. For the senatorial classes it meant that their former privilege of power was eroded, and as a result would eventually erode further, reducing the emphasis on public duty and ambition beyond self-interest. -How did it affect the military?! It didn't. Although Caesars successor, Augustus, undertook reforms of the legions and attempted to impose political control over the legions as part of the First Citizens role, with partial success. -How did it affect the economy?! I'm not aware that the economy was overly afflicted. However, it does remain an observable record that industry in the empire prospered to its maximum in the century following Caesars reign.

Maybe they were Gauls? Sorry, couldn't resist that one

Be that as it may, the bear is more formidable - we have recordss of bears as named star competitors in the arena but I can't off-hand recall the same for lions, whcih although powerful carnivores in their own right, were usually sent into the arena in numbers and difficult to recognise individually. In any case, the bear is the more powerful, and this was proven in the more recent contests.

An interesting subject. There's been some study on the capability of big cats, even with reference to activity in american gold rush towns where animal fights were staged to stave off boredom, though in those cases the lion always lost to the bear because the cats skeleton really isn't that strong. There seems to be something very symbolic in these artistic recreations of a fight between lion and tiger - almost as if the Romans are attempting to stage 'gladiatorial' fights between powerful carnivores of roughly equal stature. That they managed to get the cats to fight at all is something of a grisly achievement - at least one animal trainer was executed in front of a colosseum crowd because his animals skulked around the periphery of the arena in terror of the strange enviroment they found themselves and refused to fight.

The battle of Mona merely destroyed the druidic power base. The Romans had already begun acting against them long before Claudius ordered his troops across the channel. Augustus had druidic worship banned, so I understand, and Claudius had druidism banned completely as it acted politically against Rome. There are however mentions of druids in the dark ages in remote areas, and irish cchristianity of that period is depicted as supplanting remnant druidic worship. Further, one Roman source mentions druids in Galatia, though in that case the writer is probably referring to gallic tribal judges, a class of people from whom the druids organised themselves in western Europe.

Why oh why did I ever doubt my geography teacher thirty five years ago? The man was a genius. He even saw though my usual 'fool-the-teacher' style of homework. A man before his time.

It's always going to be a bit speculative though, isn't it? If the image was derived from bones as experts seem extraordinarily capable of, I would accept it, but statues are not actually facsimiles in the Roman world but rather icons of a personality cult, sometimes idealised, sometimes simply symbolic and woefully inaccutrate if recognisable as a 'brand'.

Romans did not automatically authenticate the fatherhood of children - it was a matter of confirmation, and thus largely choice even in cases where it was clearly obvious. Unless the father proclaimed the child was actually his, it legally wasn't. In any case, if an ownrer fathered children by a slave woman then those children were by definition the property of the father and slaves, not actually children of his. If a woman bore a child from a slave father... Oh no... That's not done... Either the child is abandoned, left with caring people anonymously, or adopted by a family by ruse or private agreement.

A withdrawal.

The Romans did indeed desert the area, but it's disputed whether the Goths were left in charge. Some say the Carpi were more likely. In any case Constantine I reconquered Dacia in 336 (and it was again abandoned soon afterward when Constantine died)

Strictly speaking Galba in 150BC offered the Lusitanii land that he was fighting over in order to resolve the conflict, although in his case it was nothing more than a ruse to trick the Lusitanii into surrender.

They say that in Britain you're never more than six feet from a rat. Experts of course brush that aside as old wives tales, but clearly they haven't discovered Swindon. I often come across one straying into sight along footpaths and although they prefer to shy away from me, shy they aren't. One or twice I've nearly trodden on the little monster. I say this because I'm seriously starting to wonder if I'm sharing my home with a furry squatter. So far there's no confirmed sighting of a rodent inside the house but it's becoming hard to accept that I'm not just buying food for myself. The evidence points to a mouse rather than a rat as I don't seem to have contracted the Black Death just yet. Or is my visitor getting impatient for me to die horribly? I woke the other morning to find yet another impressive scratch on my person. Not a pleasant thought. Bigger Critters Finally my bladder won the competition with the feature film on television last night. Time then to relieve the increasing physical and mental stress and so it's off to the loo. As I walked in and switched on the light a flash of brown fur sped away from view the other side of the glass. What the...? A fox? I had no idea a fox could get up to that window. That was a serious shock to the system. Had the window been open the crafty little critter would have been inside and chances are I would only have known after the contents of my kitchen had been spread across the floor in search for food. With newspaper stories of foxes losing fear of human beings and seeing if they can eat one very much in mind, it was a sobering thought. That's one window I'm keeping shut this summer. I saw him later on stalking around the yard, pausing to investigate the possibilities of a dumpster, then vanishing into the shadows as it sought something to eat. Now there's a thought... Was the fox at my window merely to chance his luck, or was it trying to get hold of something in particular? Even Bigger Critters Never mind being eaten by small furry mammals. It seems a few nights ago I disturbed an attempted burglary. Didn't see anything but there were two of them as one warned the other I was coming. Maybe I should be public spirited and warn them of the risks of carnivore attacks? Hmmm... On balance, I'll let them die horribly. Serves them right. With a bit of luck it'll catch those two graffiti artists I saw at work in the alley last night as well. Luckily we humans come equipped with superior intelligence, communication skills, and plenty of experience in eradicating anything we regard as pests. Welcome to the food chain.

You're probably right, but bear in mind that formal treaties weren't quite the same as today, since barbairan tribes didn't adhere to Roman literary standards thus often they established 'friendship' or informal agreements under oath which were binding nionetheless.

I'm struggling to think of an example I must admit. Hadrian returned territory in Dacia and the Middle East, but in those cases, histilities had already been settled and the move was diplomacy aimed at preventing revenge campaigns. There is of course the withdrawals in Caledonia?

What next? A seven foot tall skeleton with diverse genetic origin complete with rusty bolts either side of the neck vertebrae?

Clearly musical instruments weren't highly valued back then.

Plutarch does describe how the drum is constructed and indeed appears to understand exactly what a drum is, even with bells attached.

I was amused also by the weariness Cicero displays when he mentions the various excuses put forward by small groups of slaves entrusted with messages both near and far.

There is a mention in Plutarch's account of Crassus in whih he mentions that the Parthians at Carrhae did not use horns or trumpets like the Romans, but instead used drums with bells attached, more to do with making an intimidating noise than transfer orders I imagine.

Now I'm annoyed. The Clark family (if that's their real names) have opened Caldrail Ltd back in 2004 and done no business whatsoever since. Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Maybe they thought I was going to be famous? There's hope for me yet.

Let's not forget that children are not widely known for looking after their toys and thus many simply disintergrated under use or were destroyed as the children came of age.