caldrail

However we might like to consider that such toys aren't easily mass produced. The vast ranks of plastixc soldiers we're accustomed to today weren't available back then (obviously) and thus no more than a handful would be typical in my estimation - we certainly have no record of toy makers contracted to recreate the tenth legion in miniature, although in fairness the children of wealthy families were often treated very indulgently (even alowing the amusement of extteme cheekiness from the youngster). It would appear though that in general toys were less important to childhood than our own experience. The descriptions of children (which seem to somewhat in the background in Roman eyes) rests more on play-acting, larking about, or mischief, none of which require toys and instead rely on the child learning how to relate to the adult world around them.

It's somewhat galling to note that every other person with the same name as me appears more often on the internet. So much for my publicity department...

I would have thought that the reason we don't see much of childrens toys in archaeology is that there were never many of them to begin with. Child labour was a fact of life for the poor and even those from wealthy families were obliged to grow up very quickly.

Strictly speaking a woman was the possession of either her father, guardian, or husband. Traditionally women were supposed to be the maternal pillar of the family, the organiser of the household. It was however a very typical role in a male dominated world although the Romans had an uncharacteristic respect generally for their womenfolk, so to compare them to modern day middle eastern values, they didn't hide them. Women were not educated apart from perhaps music to entertain her partner, though in reality many did learn how to read and write. There were changes in this gender relationship. During the late republic for instance, which was the old austere style of society now coming into wealth and prosperity by virtue of their conquests and dominant trading position, I note that men and women sat together in public entertainment (Life of Sulla - Plutarch) whereas when larger formal stadiums were built, women were restricted to the upper levels of seating. There is a curiosity then about imperial women. On the one hand they had a lot of free time (or at least the wealthier ones did) which allowed them to get up to all sorts of activities. The sort of lustful behaviour that Sempronia shocked the republican world with was no more than gossip in imperial times. Yet at the same time, despite this apparent freedom, there does seem to be an increasing formality about gender relations, and we see Augustus passing laws with the intention of spporting traditional family life.

A phrase used to describe a slave in Roman times was 'talking tool'. Does that illustrate the point? Much depended on circumstance. The Romans themselves were well aware that their kitchen slaves ate the same food as they did on the quiet. Some were allowed to run businesses or informal families (though legally the children were the property of the slave-owner). Cicero often mentions slaves being used as oral or written postmen (and tears his hair out at the clumsiness of some of them - note that slaves used as messengers in this way are not described as travelling alone). We even have instances of slaves becoming close friends of their masters or after manumission, marital partners. That however disguises some very harsh treatment. Claudius brought in some laws relating to slave ownership (not for slave rights I should add) when he observed several unwell slaves having been abandoned to die. Jealous wives might well give attractive female slaves a hard time, as a man was free to use a slave as he wished, but a woman was not supposed to have sex with hers. Bear in mind that as a slave, you were not considered a human being under Roman law. Whilst it was sometimes a good idea to show humanity toward your slaves in order to impress society with your good character and generosity, this was often on face value only. Many of the trades given to slaves were obviously onerous, and what choice did they have? In terms of gladiators much the same applies. The star athletes were treated very well - taken to the best social functions and sometimes made the subject of errant womens desires, and so forth, but they were still slaves nonetheless. Most were confined to barracks (since many had gotten themselves into a gladiator barracks to escape hard labour in rural industries, arguably professions with shorter life expectancy, and escape from the barracks was always possible). Therefore the treatment of a slave depended on what function the slave was suppopsed to perform, who required those services, and the character of that person. There seems to have been something of a love/hate relationship in general. The Romans were very concious of their proximity to people who may well have reason to bear a grudge against them.

Caesar did indeed give slaves to his men. having a legionary as a master probably didn't score highly on care of the slave. Many would have been set menial tasks like cleaning, cooking, or simply lugging stuff around in the baggage train. I don't know what became of these slaves - no further mention is made of them - and we have a surviving letter from egypt in which a soldier tells his family "Nothing happens around here without money" so the odds are many were conveniently sold quickly as transferable booty, which I suspect Caesar had in mind all along. As for getting slaves to market, that wouldn't necessarily entail a journey to Rome though I imagine many of them ended up there. There is one precedent however in the case of a Roman general called Galba (not the later caesar) who duped lusitanian tribes into captivity. Having executed large numbers he put the rest in chains and sent them to Rome. In other words, having been cowed by the csrnage and chained, it only required a small detachment of soldiers to keep them on the journey. As for slave escapes, we know this went on, and that shouldn't suprise us. However the escaped slave could expect severe punishment if caught and even if as in this case they probably had no identiying feature (other that being nervous gaul warriors), slavery was not unusual in the ancient world and there's often a grudging acceptance of their lot. The ability of an individual to rebel or escape depends much on their morale and spirit - I doubt those gauls had much of either left.

I would argue that the increasing social mobility as the empire aged was very much a symptom of the empires decline. Think of Rome as a huge multinational corporation (the analogy works very well).

There is of course an option that a legion now and then employed a drummer for the purposes of generating loud noises in the charge. That had been the case in Republican times but set aside as standard practice in the imperial. Widespread use of drums is not illustrated in monumental art, or any other in Roman archaeology, whereas we do see evidence of those instruments we normally associate with the Roman military. Perhaps the soldiers merely enjoyed camp music rather than hear drums on the field of battle?

Drums were not used by the legions, not only for cultural preference, but also becuase the noise would prevent orders from being heard. Troops marched to the 'pace stick' which a centurion would strike against a shield or whatever, a sharp and audible sound with less echo and resonance than a drum.

Why wasn't there another Plutarch in the Middle Ages? Someone to write parallel lives comparing great Romans to their eventual germanic masters. Were any of the germanic warlords worthy of such comparisons? Theodoric the Ostrogoth? Charlemagne the Frank? Or should we look to the modern era and compare Caesar to Frederick the Great, Bismarck, or even Hitler? No true Roman regarded a barbarian as his equal When in Rome, do as the Romans, as the saying goes. In fact some of these warlords are discussed by byzantine writers such as Zosimus, Jordanes, and so forth.

I have remembered that there is an account of Roman legionaries mounting raids on German villages in the late empire, using shields as flotation devices to cross rivers and attack stealthily.

I'm not aware of any description in the sources of Romans struggling with overweight water-laden shields. That doesn't mean there isn't one, I just haven't found anything like that. There was a case in Germanicus's campaigns in Germania when the legions were marching in areas subject to tidal flooding, literally up to their necks in water and many slipping and drowning under the weight of equipment. Tacitus doesn't specifically mention the shield as I recall but it's worth checking.

Funny how sometimes we get reminded of things we did long ago. Watching a progam talking about the private lives of those vivacious and intense Roman citizens I couldn't help but smile. A little while ago I was contacted by an old friend who wanted to know if I was interested in a get-together over a pint. It meant a night in the company of a former girlfriend, P, but to be honest I was only too happy to meet up and swap stories. P and I had been in a casual relationship for years. Although it did fall apart somewhat, we're stil friends. Game on. So we got busy laughing and joking. Only one of the old crowd wasn't there. P's friend S, a quiet, quirky lady whose company we accepted as the normal course of things. She'd been... simply... there. Where was she, I asked? The world was not at one with itself without S in the background. P looked at me with that sort of face that concealed secrets, guilt, and things I was not meant to know. Oh no. There are no secrets between P and me. The gentle interrogation began and finally she sighed and asked "You remember that day we went to Savernake?" I did indeed. On that particular day I wanted to go hiking in Savernake forest. P was never a woman keen on walking further than she had to but I guess she wanted some excuse to escape her daily routine and opted to come with me, at least as far as the car park. Her friend S came with her for company. I got a day in the forest, they got a picnic in the woods. Finally I returned to the car, weary, footsore, but as always refreshed by my wanderings around what passes for wilderness in England. Immediately I noticed an odd atmosphere in the car. Were those two enjoying a joke at my expense? The more I probed for an answer, the more they shared a glance and giggled. Women... I dunno... But that was a long time ago. P rolled her eyes and in one breath admitted that S had made a pass at her. S? S made a lesbian pass at P? I was utterly fascinated. Back when I first met S, she was always looking at me and until I got used to her I always wondered if she fancied me. One night I decided to find out. No, said S with a firm gesture, no. But it made no difference to the dynamics of our social group. No hard feelings. Nonetheless I had nagging doubts. On one night in a pub I was sat with both P and S together and some bloke sauntered past enquiring which of the girls I was with. For some reason that annoyed me and I quickly answered "Both of them". Neither of my lady friends made any denial. Both were happy with my declaration. Does that sound a bit odd? It somehow felt that way. I looked at P with new found respect. My former girl was a lesbian? Did you, I asked with an amused stare? "Nooo!" P answered quickly. There it was again. That look on her face. Well, not to worry. It's a funny thing about human relationships that we can sometimes be very tolerant and open about them. P bit her tongue as I made fun of her. I know her too well to be fooled by that innocent playfulness with a wine glass. She probably doesn't know this but it was all too obvious that things had gone further than an awkward enquiry between friends. Not that I minded at all, because as it turned out I was having as much fun as she was. Local Crime Of The Week Just the other day I discovered that police are looking for a man who robbed some teenagers at gunpoint round the corner from where I live. That sort of thing doesn't usually go on in England and never outside a big city. Makes me wonder if the death threat I got last weekend wasn't entirely paranoia. Or maybe it is. Kinda hard to tell by now...

Plutarch was rewarded by the Caesar of his day (I forget which one it was) for his work in settling differences between greece and its Roman masters.

"Hey mate!" Hissed a builder as I strolled by the old college car park that is now being fenced off in preparation for Demolition Day. "Can I borrow yer barbells?" Pardon me? Either that young man has discovered that erecting the ramparts around the site is physicaslly demanding and urgently requires a body building regime, or I've just been propositioned by a gay builder. Walk on, Caldrail, walk on... I mean, what on earth was that youngster thinking? Does he really believe I carry large weights around in my pockets? No... Don't answer that. On The Home Front Saturday 21:30 hrs. A voice outside my home is heard to say "We'll come back when he's in." I did suspect that might be the local burglars and as a precaurtion stayed up late. Nothing happened. Tuesday 23:45 hrs. There was an odd crinckly noise. "Yeah... He's in there." I checked the entrance to my home but no sign of entry was observed. Wednesday 03:30 hrs I was woken abruptly by a loud doorbell noise. Not my own, it must be said, but my neighbours did not respond either. I'd been dimly aware of noises before that in my slumborous condition. No sign of entry. In the light of that recent death threat you'll have to excuse me for being a tad suspicious of bumps in the night. Was I overhearing those pesky local thieves, or was this a more sinister threat, or merely just somebodies idea of a sick wind-up? I hadn't really thought of it before but DW, our local intrepid online jopurnalist, has been subject to some pretty nasty attitudes from certain members of the public and I have been associated with some of his journalistic projects. Have I been targeted by bully boys intent on seeing off DW's allies? So far the Police haven't been taking DW too seriously about the masses of insults and threats directed at him. The internet is full of talk, as it were, but is this a sign of a war leaking into the real world? I'll have to stop feeding my rottweiller.

The persistence of empire as a political structure reflects the dymanism of the politics within it. In situations where the leadership becomes moribund, we see increasing instability and inaction in the face of threat. Thus the Roman Republic fails to obstruct the rise of dictatorial individuals and eventually submits to autcratic rule. We see both Parthia and Persia falling apart because they cannot obstruct the rise in power of their nobles (in much the same way that King John would later bow down to pressure and sign the Magna Carta in England eight hundred years ago). Nor for that matter is Egypt able to do more than make token resistance against Roman annexation.

Polybius enthused about the balance of executive and popular power. I'm not sure his views on this were entirely valid since Rome practised democracy with a block-vote system - citizens could vote but it wasn't one man one vote at all. Also the vote was influenced not by political policies or ideals that modern politicians sell to the public, but public generosity, image, and under the table deals. Corruption was part of Roman life and for all the disapproval it could generate, Rome functioned by it. Caesar was unusual in that he was a populist politician and appealed to the public in a more personal manner than the upper classes of Rome generally considered normal. I don't think he swept anything away at all in that respect - he was merely adding to the mix of buisiness that went on regardless. It is of course noticeable that although we call future autocrats of Rome 'emperors', that word is ours, not theirs. The ruler was called 'Caesar', in that he was the new caesar to replace the old in deference to the original, serving as a dictator for life by another name. Also I should point out that the legions loyalty to Caesar was not guaranteed and it wasn't always plain sailing for him. Further, the idea of marching an army into Rome to establish a power base wasn't new - Sulla had already broken that taboo once before and proven it could be done in spite of laws and tradition. What I would say is that whilst the earlier caesars, the infamous Julio-Claudians, spent their reigns in competition with the senate as much as living out dramatic and excessive private lives, and we see each of them (Augustus included) seeing off threats against their lives though in fairness a few of them succumbed to such pressure for one reason or another. Once the stability of government was restored after the Year of Four Emperors, there is more of a partnership in power between senate and caesar, and as the autocracy metamorphosed into a monarchy over time, so the senate receded in influence and this has been identified as one major reason for the economic and governmental decline of the Roman Empire. In other words, Caesar established a precedent, a standard of achievement, a name by which future ruklers would be called. What he did not do was change Rome.

The quote above is trying to apply the sort of tactics the nazi's used to Roman occupation. Crucifixion was a criminal punishment ordered by a magistrate or senior noble, and regarded as a means of humiliating the victim at the same time, so clearly questions of honour are involved. I would seriously doubt that upper classes were subjected to anything like that sort of punishment. There's very few examples I know of, which in itself might be indicative of the tolerant attitude the Romans had toward class. Caractacus was dragged to Rome in chains but allowed to live in Rome after showing defiance and courage in front of the senate. Caligula had some foriegn VIP killed for being more fashionable than he was, and Caesar had Vercingetorix regularly paraded as a prisoner until it all got boring and the gaul was quietly ritually strangled. Soldiers arriving in a foreign village were more prone to looting and killing, depending on whether there was anything worth taking, the urgency of the route march, the behaviour of the people toward the soldiers, or whether the commander wanted to please his men with an opportunity to gather booty. Mostly legions would simply march through and not take any notice of such a small settlement. After all, the Romans were very keen to co-opt their leaders and thus create societal alliances at top level.

The romans were not known as great sailors. Although Thor Heyedahl 'proved' the egyptians could have cross the Atlantic, you would have to ask yourself whether that was actually likely since Mr Heyedahl knew where America was and the Egyptians didn't. Greeks were competent sailors with suggestions of long voyages - they maiontained seaward trade into the Indian Ocean after the Silk Road was closed by chinese withdrawal in Roman times. As for discovering America, there's no mention of any heroic sea voyages that would give the Romans any credibility for this achievement. Far more likely the white bearded foreigners were vikings if this story has any truth to it.

Christianity was hardly an advance. It was not a roman invention to begin with and remained one mof many foreign cults (with an extremely poor reputation) until Constantine patronised for political reasons. Christianity wasn't interested in advancing Roman culture but profitting from it. In any case, the Romans had long been skilled diplomats before christianity turned up. I disagree vehemently. Both Ine and Alfred of Wessex were great lawmakers in Britain, with architecture and the first english navy resulting from the prosperity following the victory over the Danes. Other kings of the early medieval period developed cultural aspirations in Britain. At the other end of the scale, it was in Britain that religious orders very nearly kick started an industrial revolution in the 15th century. Modernity was also affected by the spread of islamic science following the crusades plus the favourable (if somewhat risky) societal enviroment of the increasingly prosperous Europe in its entirety. Such knowledge was only in the hands of specialists and treated as such. In some ways this was to avoid rivals capitalising on someone elses expertise, but on the other hand there are examples of skilled knowledgeable people being put to death so their knowledge did not pass elsewhere. In fairness I don't see much of this from the Roman sphere but all the same the Romans had not advanced much further than any other society. They were for instance still using exactly the same siege warfare assets that the greeks had pioneered before them. The existence of a three bladed water powered stone cutter is a proven remnant of their cleverness - but there was only one. These machines were not in common use, just unique examples of such mechanical devices here and there. That to me is merely the evidence of human ingenuity, not an advancing Roman science.

Me and Polybius agree completely on social science. Nation states are analogues of biological life and exhibit birth, growth, aging, and eventual death. It was inevitable that Rome would eventually disappear off the radar. As societies mature they become ritualistic and less able to respond dynamically to the threats from the world around them. It is interesting that you see Rome as a flawed republic because Polybius was admant that his republic was by far a superior model for society. Perhaps he would do. Rome was never really a technologically minded society anyway. Partly on religious grounds, being a superstitious lot, partly because of the slave economy, but also because there was no encouragement of science from those holding the purse strings. Patronage was geared toward politics and wealth, not the extension of knowledge. The problem with the Roman Empire is that it generates all sort of imagery, mostly to do with power, excess, and glory, which is attractive to us on an instinctual level. Being part of a strong tribe has definite advantages in survival and prosperity. What that blinds us to all too often is the other side of the equation. Rome was a greedy society, a ruthlessly exploitative society, one that Mary Beard says "sucks people in". It regarded itself as the centre of civilisation yet in the same way that people were used up by the potential and demands of society, so was culture. Rome absorbed culture from everyone it encountered to a greater or lesser degree. They placed their own stamp on it. Played with it a while, used what was thought useful, and cast away anything left over. Notice that the barbarian invasions of the late empire were not inspired by a desire to get rid of Rome, but rather to grab a share of it for themselves.

I dare say there's a few people who want me transported to the colonies. The thing is in order to be a success out there I would need to be motivated and willing to overcome discrimination against pommiehood. I'm not accusing the australians of being bad people but there would always be a natural inclination to favour people from their own homeland. It just wouldn't work and all I'd do is spend a lot of money acheiving nothing.

Not so long ago an office manager held up my CV during an interview and demanded to know why I thought I was famous. He had in fact completely missed the point. Firstly, I never used or even suggested the word at all. Sencondly, did he really expect me to be modest during a job interview? Too late. He was outraged by what he thought was pomposity. He was after all a small time office manager and meeting people with something to say for themselves, however modest, was beyond his experience and threatened his self worth. As it happens that sort of thing isn't unusual. The problem with being a has-been is that you struggle for credibility whether you're modest or not. Famous people live in some far off fantasy world you see. Certainly not the one inhabited by ordinary Swindoners. Back in the days when I worked in a warehouse my former adventures in the music business provoked outrage as well. Only on the one occaision when I got up on stage and performed behind a drum kit did the scorn fall quiet. It turned out I could play after all. Anyway, as I always say, if they're talking about you, you're famous. It's all a matter of scale. So although I grind my teeth sometimes at the comments, opinions, ridicule, taunts, and insults offered by members of the public who have no concept of fame beyond their popularity with friends and Facebook, I have to say that they are talking about me, not themselves. So who's more interesting? Sadly there's a flip side to fame. The glamour quickly subsides in the face of stalkers and loonies. For two years one young man has made persistent claims I own property of his. I don't, of course, but I guess it makes a good alibi for burglary in his maind. More to the point, yesterday evening, for the very first time, I received a death threat. Not, I have to say, a life experience I really wanted. Going Soon? Demolition men were spotted this morning in the old college car park this morning. That's the first I've seen any activity there. Okay, they were standing around chatting rather than blowing things up, but hey, at least they found the place.

The idea that Caligula was insane is as old as Suetonius. I don't think he was a looney at all, but rather a nasty youngster with an ego out of control. Much of the stopries attributed to Caligula that suggest insanity can be interpreted differently. For instane... His horse Incitatus as senator? That was more likely an insult to the senate which Caligula regarded as a bunch of time wasters. Legions collecting sea shells as booty? That was the result of superstitious reluctance on the part of the legions. Caligula was taking the mick out of these supposedly tough warriors and since Neptune was clearly his enemy that day... Taunting Zues in the temples? Probably, but that might be no more than a silly young man showing off and overheard by someone who didn't understand that.

It really isn't that much of a mystery. Caligula was immature, emotionally disturbed, and had an inflated ego to drive his nasty sense of humour. If ever there was a young man with too much power, it was him. Christians saw him as an example of decadence, Hollywood saw him as an example of excess, Suetonius saw him as an example of scandal. As with many celebrity rulers people see in him whatever they like.