Gaius Paulinus Maximus
-
Posts
1,604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Gaius Paulinus Maximus
-
-
Good to have you back Pan.
-
Thanks for Posting Breeze's Article Sylla, very interesting. I'm a big fan of David Breeze his writing's on Roman Britain, especially the North are always extremely informative and well written. The book on Hadrian's Wall by Breeze and Dobson is easily the best book on the Wall by far.
Of the five various reasons why Rome failed to conquer Scotland that Breeze examines.......
1. The highlanders were too warlike to be conquered.
2. The highlands were too daunting a place to conquer.
3. It was not worthwhile economically for Rome to bring Scotland into the empire.
4. The native infrastructure in North Britain was insufficiently urbanized to support the food supply for the Roman army and the imposed Roman administrative structure.
5. The political nature of the Roman empire and the geographical isolation of Britain combined with the events elsewhere prevented the conquest of the island.
Any of the given reason would be a good enough explanation why the Romans failed to conquer the North but I think Breeze's argument for number 5 is the one that's probably closest to the real reason why Rome didn't conquer the whole island.
-
Thanks for the link's Melvadius.
I quite like Mr Score's (project manager) theory....... "I like the picture of a group of Vikings landing on the coast and perhaps being caught out.
"There are 50 of them coming inland to raid but then they turn around and there are 200 to 300 locals and they can't get back to their ship."
He said the bodies that were found would support this theory.
-
Excellent site Ludovicus, Thank for bringing it to our attention.
I like this reflection from the author Thomas Cole........
"The mighty spectacle, mysterious and dark, opens beneath the eye more like some awful dream than an earthly reality -- a vision of the valley and shadow of death.... As I mused upon its great circumference, I seemed to be sounding the depth of some volcanic crater, where fires, long extinguished, had left the ribbed and blasted rocks to the wild flowers and ivy."
-
I have a coin very similar to this, it's the spikes on the crown that stand out.
-
This is a tough but very interesting question. It seems that the major source on the subject is F.W. Wallbank who wrote a whole paper on the subject. My less than scholarly interpretation of a couple of points is as follows.
By the time of the Punic wars, Senatorial Legati had replaced the Fetiales in the process of the declaration of war. This change was to ensure that if terms could not be reached, there would be no delay in mobilisation, in as much as when the Legati had spoken their final words, the two peoples would be at war. Previously, the Fetiales would state the grievances of Rome and follow, given that no arrangement was arrived at, with a declaration of war but that would need Senatorial and popular consent.
Whether or not, by the end of the third century BCE, the Legati still threw a bloodstained spear into enemy territory or employed all or a portion of the elaborate ritual used by the Fetiales seems very difficult to establish. I will look forward to your responses and those of others; after all most of us are here to learn and this is just the type of post that provokes really useful enquiry.
Early Roman society felt the need to provide both religious and moral justification for every war that it fought. The ancient fetial law stated that " no war was acceptable to the gods unless it was waged in defence of one's own country or allies" Though the Romans weren't unique in maintaining that they acted in response to the needs of their own security, they claimed the morale high ground in a uniquely Roman way. The appeal to the gods whose authority underlay the fetials actions was essential to make Rome's wars appear legitimate in the eyes of the people.
As you say the decision to go to war would have already been made by the senatorial powers in Rome regardless of the so called negotiating of the fetials, the demands made by Rome in order to avoid war would probably have been set at an unacceptable level, well out of proportion to the injury or offence reportedly committed. In other words Rome would want it to look like they'd done everything in their power in order to avoid an all out war, in order for it to appear legitimate, when in fact Rome thirst and hunger for expansion would have probably been the main instigation for war.
-
In Book I of Livy's History of Rome he takes time out to give an exact description of the ancient way that the Romans would declare war upon their enemies.
The procedure goes as follows.....
The ambassador binds his head in a woollen fillet. When he has reached the frontiers of the nation from whom satisfaction is demanded, he says, "Hear, O Jupiter! Hear, ye confines" - naming the particular nation whose they are - "Hear, O Justice! I am the public herald of the Roman People. Rightly and duly authorised do I come; let confidence be placed in my words." Then he recites the terms of the demands, and calls Jupiter to witness: "If I am demanding the surrender of those men or those goods, contrary to justice and religion, suffer me nevermore to enjoy my native land." He repeats these words as he crosses the frontier, he repeats them to whoever happens to be the first person he meets, he repeats them as he enters the gates and again on entering the forum, with some slight changes in the wording of the formula. If what he demands are not surrendered at the expiration of thirty-three days - for that is the fixed period of grace - he declares war in the following terms: "Hear, O Jupiter, and thou Janus Quirinus, and all ye heavenly gods, and ye, gods of earth and of the lower world, hear me! I call you to witness that this people" - mentioning it by name - "is unjust and does not fulfil its sacred obligations. But about these matters we must consult the elders in our own land in what way we may obtain our rights."
With these words the ambassador returned to Rome for consultation. The king forthwith consulted the senate in words to the following effect: "Concerning the matters, suits, and causes, whereof the Pater Patratus of the Roman People and Quirites hath complained to the Pater Patratus of the Prisci Latini, and to the people of the Prisci Latini, which matters they were bound severally to surrender, discharge, and make good, whereas they have done none of these things - say, what is your opinion?" He whose opinion was first asked, replied, "I am of opinion that they ought to be recovered by a just and righteous war, wherefore I give my consent and vote for it." Then the others were asked in order, and when the majority of those present declared themselves of the same opinion, war was agreed upon. It was customary for the Fetial to carry to the enemies' frontiers a blood-smeared spear tipped with iron or burnt at the end, and, in the presence of at least three adults, to say, "Inasmuch as the peoples of the Prisci Latini have been guilty of wrong against the People of Rome and the Quirites, and inasmuch as the People of Rome and the Quirites have ordered that there be war with the Prisci Latini, and the Senate of the People of Rome and the Quirites have determined and decreed that there shall be war with the Prisci Latini, therefore I and the People of Rome, declare and make war upon the peoples of the Prisci Latini." With these words he hurled his spear into their territory. This was the way in which at that time satisfaction was demanded from the Latins and war declared, and posterity adopted the custom.
My question is, How long did the Romans keep up this long and drawn out declaration of war? Livy states that the ritual was continued by the fetials right up until the time of the writing of his History of Rome but I just can't see it. I can believe it was performed in the old days when Rome under the kings was still a growing power and constantly quarrelling with the surrounding city states like Veii or the Albans and Sabines. But would they have still performed it when Rome had become a great power and began expanding across Europe and North Africa?
-
Top class as always Neph
How many more installments have we got to look forward to?
-
As Pablo Picasso once said "It takes a long time to grow young"
HAPPY 3rd BIRTHDAY NEPH!!!
Have a good one my friend!
-
During the 4th century AD the large scale replacements of indigenous units with barbarian units, commanded by their own tribal leaders and fighting in their native styles, and the influx of barbarian officers and men into regular Roman units, which adopted barbarian equipment and fighting techniques, combined to make the empire's army less efficient, and more prone to desertion and treachery. In the 5th century AD Barbarization was curbed in the eastern half of the empire, but it was increased in the west, the east went on to survive whilst the west didn't.
Do you think that the barbarization of the Roman army played a major role in the fall of the western empire?
-
Welcome to UNRV uuontario.
If you want to learn about Roman history then you've come to the right place.
As well as the link provided by Nephele, check THIS one out too.
-
Cheers all... to be honest, it was the Gemell book that got me curious. Nice spotting that man/woman/otherwise! (just taking the piss GPM!)
Thought as much!!
How dare you take the piss you dirty rotten Kiwi!!!
-
GPM, I'm just impressed that you read that boring load of sh*te! Sallust was a blowhard. Let's all keep that in mind.
Haha Sulla, I'm just impressed that I managed to impress you!!!
Yes OK maybe Sallust was a bit of a "blowhard" but let's not forget that this is as near to first hand evidence as we're going to get, This load of shite was written by a Roman who lived and breathed in the times we all love learning about so in my opinion for that reason alone it certainly warrants reading. Whether or not we like it or believe it is another matter.
-
I only ever had one hangover, at age sixteen; it's still ongoing
"The wine urges me on, the bewitching wine, which sets even a wise man to singing and to laughing gently and rouses him up to dance and brings forth words which were better unspoken."
Homer really knew what he was talking about didn't he??
-
I'd have to agree with Sylla, Parmenion's father was a Macedonian nobleman called Philotus so that and the fact that he was Phillip II of Macedon most loyal and trusted general must go a long way to prove he was of Macedonian stock.
In one of David Gemmills novels it has Parmenion as the son of a Spartan warrior and being raised as a Spartan but this is just fictitious, so this could be where some of the confusion about his heritage comes from but as far as I'm aware he was 100% Macedonian.
-
Nursing a fall down some stairs right now and a concussion. But on the good side, gives me time to read my newest Caligula book! *nurses hurt head*
C'mon Rompe, surely you should know by now that booze and stairs don't mix!!!
Get well soon and enjoy the book!
On a personal front, yet again I'm nursing a hangover! How come the older you get, the worse the hangovers get??
-
I just finished "Eagle in the Snow" by Wallace Breem. It was a far departure from Scarrow and Duffy and took a good 50-75 pages before it sucked me in.
But I'm still thinking about it. I think that, for me, defines a special kind of book.
I am just about to read that. So it is very different from Scarrow you say? well I might still read it all the same...
As I've said before, I absolutely love this book, it's the book that sparked my interest in Rome when I was young and I've read and re-read it many times since. JGolomb hit the nail on the head when he said that even after he'd finished it he was still thinking about it. I can't pin point the exact reason why I think it's so good, I've read books that are more exciting and entertaining but Eagle in the Snow was just so well written and evocative that it got me hooked on ancient Rome and for that I'm eternally grateful.
-
I'm a big fan of both and have read them many times but I find myself returning to Suetonius more than Tacitus. I think that the Twelve Caesars is fantastic and really entertaining, at times it reads like a tabloid from ancient Rome, giving us all the juicy gossip on the "celebs" of Rome.
-
HERE'S a recent article about this long awaited film, it sounds like it's going to be quite an interesting movie. Kevin Macdonald has a good track record of making good award winning box office films so fingers crossed he'll do a good job with the Eagle of the Ninth.
-
Hi Marius,
There are a couple of Romilius that crop up in Smiths Dictionary, notably T. Romilius Rocus Vaticanus who was consul in 455 B.C. and was a member of the first decemvirate.
I'm sure Nephele will be able to give you a bit more info on the history of your name, she's our resident expert on Nomina Et Gentes.
BTW welcome to UNRV.
-
Thank you. I'll order it when it's released in about a month.
I'm about to put in an Amazon order and it looks like you enjoyed the Forgotten Legion by Kane. How does it match up against the Scarrow series?
J
I reviewed The Forgotten Legion for UNRV a while back, have a read and see what you think
Kane's not quite in Scarrow's league yet but it was his first ever novel and in my opinion he did a very good job with it.
-
I've recently finished the third book in the Genghis Khan (Conqueror) trilogy by Conn Iggulden, I know he gets a pretty bad press around here for his "stretching" of the truth but for out and out fast paced entertaining storytelling IMO he's one of the best around.
Genghis Kahn, Life, Death and Resurection by John Man.
Ancient Warfare: A Very Short Introduction by Harry Sidebottom.
Currently reading Warrior of Rome: Fire in the East pt 1 also by Harry Sidebottom.
Think I might get the book recently reviewed by Ursus called Black Ships by Jo Graham, sounds like quite an interesting read.
Gaius - it appears that Warrior of Rome is just being published in the US this fall. Sounds like it was popular overseas? Did you like it?
Jason
I think the book was fairly popular over here, It didn't break any records or anything like that but on the whole I think it was pretty well received. I for one thoroughly enjoyed it, I thought it had a great storyline, interesting characters and above all else it was very well researched.
The second book in the series "King of Kings" has just been released over here, I haven't got round to reading it yet but judging by the reviews I've read it appears to be even better than the first book.
-
Nice little find DC,
I'm up to chapter III at the moment and going strong!!
-
A HEXHAM archaeologist has challenged perceived wisdom with startling claims that Hadrian's Wall was originally built of wood.
In a 65,000 word thesis published on his website, Geoff Carter says his hypothesis answers some age-old questions. Archaeologists have long wondered why the ditch that runs parallel is several feet away from the Wall itself, reducing its effectiveness as a deterrent to invaders. They also question why the ditch curves inwards towards each of the milecastles. The answer, says Mr Carter, is that the ditch was originally dug at the foot of a timber wall that was put up as a temporary measure.........
Read the full article HERE
Also read Geoff Carter's thesis HERE
You can't beat Amazon!!
in Libri
Posted
Today I was looking through the bookshelves of my local Waterstones book store and I came across a book that I hadn't seen before called Et Tu Brute?: Caesar's murder and political assassination by Greg Woolf. I've read numerous books on this particular subject but am always on the look out for a new take on this monumental event in Roman history. I was in the process of proceeding to the checkout when I thought it best to check the price first, the inside cover told me that it was selling for