Jimbow

If you fell asleep on duty, one of the potential punishments involved the rest of your contubernia being ordered to beat you to death. One centurion was nicknamed 'Fetch Another', due to the regularity with which he broke his vinestick on the backs of his men. Thought to be rarely used and more of a deterrent, the death penalty could be given for desertion, mutiny, or insubordination. Length of service, rank, previous conduct, etc, were taken into consideration. Even allowances were made for young recruits. Decimation was also used (extremely rarely) for entire units by the drawing of lots, and the unlucky 10 percent were beaten or clubbed to death by their own unit. Mutinous legions could be disbanded. Minor punishments were corporal punishment (castigatio), monetary fine, (pecunaria multa), added duty (munerum indictio), relegation to an inferior service (militiae mutatio), reduction in rank (gradus deiectio) or dishonourable discharge from service (missio ignominiosa). Jim.

The good of the State always took precedence over friendship. Besides, maybe Brutus no longer regarded Caesar as a friend, but an enemy of Rome and its values. More so if he felt Caesar wanted to be king. Jim.

Oh great, another number to avoid! Jim.

My 13th birthday was on Friday 13th. I am VERY superstitious about that number (cat ate my breakfaaaaaast, friends forgot my birthdaaaaay, cake didn't arriiiiiive, got banned from swimming over a misunderstandinnnnnng....)

Could be like English. How long has it been since Old English/Anglo-Saxon was in widespread use in England, recognisable as being Germanic? Now all you have mainly are swear words (pretty good ones too) and names that are recognisable instantly. As much as the words were similar I wonder if a modern Englishman could hold a conversation with Alfred the Great? Welsh comes from the Anglo-Saxon word for foreigner (wealas). Then the Vikings went and put their oar in (excuse pun), but many Viking dialects had great similarities to the Germanic languages. Then, of course, the French/Normans popped over, and how many modern English can hold a conversation with a Frenchman? Not many at all. The difference is that the Cartahginians were the dominant culture in their area. But, geographical islolation from Phoenicia and a more immediate influence from their neighbours and subjugated populations must surely have changed the tongue? You could say the Normans were like the Carthaginians, and not even our monarchy uses French as its first language anymore, although there was an interlude of German. Although French did blend into a form unrecognisable as French in England, Carthaginian must have been about as similar to Phoenician as Old French is to modern English. Well, there's a logical flow to that, somewhere...... Jim.

Don't forget they were also drunk. Jim.

Matt L also posted some pics of his signum parts on RAT: http://www.romanarmy.nl/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1496 They look very tasty. Jim.

Terry Nix has standards for sale at: http://www.niximperial.com/ and http://www.niximperial.biz/ One specific page on the .com site is: http://www.niximperial.com/nixpage04.html I can't vouch for the standards, but I've bought from him before and Terry's usually keen to answer your queries. Cheers, Jim.

I think it would also depend if you see the USA as an empire, as opposed to a nation. Not only did the Roman Empire and Republic see concern through its whole history at the erosion of values, but my older relatives see concern in the erosion of values from the 1940's I personally see it as sentimentality for what was likely a mythical age anyway, by and large. Prior to Prohibition anything went in the US, and Europe. My own grandparents would be at the docks to get their fish at 5am, and they used to laugh about how they got high from passing the opium dens there - and that's 1930's northern England! When something is criminalised it seems to become a common perception that it was always wrong. Violent protest is also perceived to be a fairly modern phenomenon, but the UK saw race and political riots in the 1930's. Quite often when Roosevelt and Churchill appeared on Glasgow cinema screens during WW2 they threw things at it and booed, but when Stalin came on he got a standing ovation. The modern media has a very textbook view of history and attitudes by and large, and the textbooks were a great source of rules to follow for the Romans, I'm sure. People never *really* change imho. Fear of what you've described is often a means for politicians to get what they want, so they promote it. No doubt Roman senators did likewise. Jim.

Check out these Osprey books: Republican Roman Army 200

A Man U supporter dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates. St Peter looks him up and down and asks, "What do you want?" The Man U fan replies, "I wanna come into Heaven!" "Get lost!" St Peter says. The Man U fan's taken aback and cries, "But why? You haven't even looked in the Book yet!" St Peter gives him a disgusted stare. "Right, me and God are Liverpool supporters, you support Man U, and they're filth. Get lost." The Man U supporter pleads with him, saying he's done charitable things in his life and deserves a chance. "Yeah, yeah," St Peter says, "heard it all before. But, go on, let's hear it anyway." The United fan takes a big breath, "Last Christmas, in honour of the birth of our Lord, I gave ten pounds to Save the Children." St Peter raises an eyebrow and thinks for a second, "Nope, not good enough. Take a hike." The Man U fan cuts in, "Wait! Last Easter, in honour of the Ressurection of the Lord, I gave ten pounds to Help the Aged!" St Peter again looks him up and down. "Hmm, very good of you. Not good enough though. Hell's that way." "Whooaaa!" The poor fan shouts. "Only last week, for no reason at all, I gave ten quid to a homeless man! "Damn!" says St Peter. "I don't know now. I can't make a call on this, it's too important. You wait here, I'll have a word with the Boss. I'll be back in ten minutes." And off he goes. Sure enough, ten minutes later St Peter returns with a smile on his face. "Good news! I had a word with God and we're both agreed." He reaches into his pocket. "Here's your thirty quid back! Now, get lost!"

You should see an edit button to the right, if you're logged in. No probs Jim.

Germanicus, That's absolutely true, but also I think, in business, there is a notable difference, and that is the completely abstract concept of a 'corporation'. I'm pretty sure that if you tried to explain what a 'corporation' is (a legal entity that has rights usually only reserved for individuals) to a Roman they would find it initially difficult to grasp. "Where is he?" would probably be his first question, whereas in his day he would be able to actually confront the actual physical person who had done him wrong, instead of having to take action against a ghost, in a manner of speaking. A corporations duty is, quite simply, to make money for the shareholders, and its officers are there to guarantee that will happen. It is actually a legally binding duty (I know, I have my own business, and I'm rubbish at that ). When you look at it, it is actually madness, and one that only came into being by lawyers exploiting loopholes in the law. The excellent documentary 'The Coroporation' very successfully reveals the actions of one to be the same as a psycopath There has been the odd debate about the Roman manner of conducting business, where it is said it is more like dealing with the Mafia. I agree with that, I have to say. In modern times it is far easier for individuals to hide themselves away when they need to be called to account for their actions. "I was only doing my job." unfortunately is probably pretty accurate when a firm screws someone. "I'll send da boys 'round" I find to be much more honest At least you don't have to deal with their lawyers. Jim.

Or could it be that the writers of the existing texts didn't really know or recognise true love as they were obviously very preoccupied with their own pursuits of.... writing texts? In an age of "lack of paper, printers and blogs" mostly highly intellectual writings would have been reproduced in a form that could survive the centuries, surely? Used as teaching texts for example. We know that literary and scientific genius is not the best reference for affairs of the heart in modern times, so why would it really be any different then? An expression of ideals is one thing, but expression of true feelings, especially those experienced, and the 'simpler' ones, is another. Jim.

I haven't actually, Germanicus. And one of the reasons is I find many of the elements also disturbing. Maybe it's age, but that's akin to maturity. After working in the videogames industry between 1987 and 1998 I think I can also be very proud that in all that time I never showed a person being killed once. I think such games as the one above are the result of bone-idle imagination, or lack of, and do nothing to help the industry gain credibility as a serious medium. Young teenagers are buying such games (even though they shouldn't be able to), and it will lead to strict regulation and enforcement. And, I have to say, I hope it will, as the games companies are obviously unable to police themselves. You wouldn't believe some of the sugggestions I had to lambast in order to make sure they didn't happen. Might not make financial sense (which was an argument against me), might make me a prude (which many who know me would laugh at), but some things are more important in my opinion. I think it's a less-than-healthy common perception that a real killing is like the half-wit fantasy deaths we see in films and games, but the reality is very different, involving every emotional response possible, or simple numbness which is in itself telling. There is little of this in media. A disassociation from the death without consequences is the usual way for such actions to be represented. But, going back to the original subject, this could be said of the heroic and epic tales of ancient times, so not much change there I guess. That aside, I don't believe games are completely realistic, as the emotional consequences, along with the actions, of shooting someone in a game are not the same as watching a real person die after shooting them in the real physicl world. I suppose psycopaths are the only ones who can really shoot someone point blank in reality and have no emotional or psychological response to their actions. But, I think it takes it a stage closer, which is more disturbing as technology progresses and it would be a first-person experience. Only 2 senses (sight and smell) are input into, without the touch, smell and (?) taste, along with the *real* response of a *real* person who has been shot. Currently, I think such games are more related to violent porno, but a snuff-like experience is not that far away, if someone wanted to really do it. Wanting to see the gladiatorial games introduced for execution is another matter altogether. How watching people being tortured and killed for personal entertainment can be seen as okay is beyond me. A pause for thought is necessary there, and I'm sure it is the result of just an idea popping into somone's head. The games were not a civic duty to enact execution, strangulation and crucifixion were available (bad enough as any execution is imho), they were entertainment for the masses at a time when life was regarded as much cheaper than now. Or at least I hope so. Jim.

I have to say I'm finding this thread rather disturbing. As a UK citizen (one without capital punishment, and may it remain so IMHO) I am VERY glad that bare-knuckle fighting is illegal here, and there would likely be many a demonstration to never allow its other form, UFC, to become legal here. A comparison between modern Western democracies and the Ancient Roman Empire is pretty useless when it comes to ethics of blood sports. The gladiatorial games were originally started as funeral games in homage to the deceased. As for there being a comparison between a gameshow and the gladiatorial games, there is none. Watching people being put through trials of discomfort, where it is guaranteed no harm can come to them, which the audience is aware of, is lightyears away from real people being maimed, gutted and actually killed. Some may compare it to a gameshow, but the reality is it more like watching a snuff movie. I believe most people would find that completely unacceptable in society today, and anyone finding a snuff movie enjoyable should seek immediate psychiatric help. Jim.

I can't find the reference right now, but I came across it many years ago, and it refers to a black centurion stationed in Britain. There was a suggestion that he took a local wife and had a child with her. If I can find it I'll post it. Jim.

Centurions definitely got stuck in, suffering higher than normal casualty rates, I believe. They also covered their mens' backs during a retreat to give them a chance of escape, one legion losing a huge amount of their centurions during one retreat. Can't remember the reference, but it'll be in another thread I'm sure. Jim.

Vespasian. And the first question would be, "So, when you were in the military, what colour tunics did you lot actually wear?"

Check out 'Warfare in the Classical World' by John Warry. ISBN 0 86101 034 5 It has Zamma, Cannae, Pharsalus, Argentoratum, Boudica's Revolt, Idistaviso, Carrhae, Cynoscephalae. Not sure if they're in the detail you want. Jim.

That's exactly the point, although the question can turn out to be as debatable as the colour of a legionary's tunic The second image is of foreign troops serving in the Byzantine army, btw. It may be there were different salutes in different periods for different purposes. Who knows. I do like the idea of Mussolini and Hitler getting it wrong, though

There is as much likelihood the saluting gesture was by raising the flat hand to the head, as a Fascist type of gesture. Some even propose the touching of the head goes back to the Stone Age, but really came back into recirded history use when the British changed the rules as their hats and helmets were getting too big during the American War of Independence (the hat was lifted prior to that). There is even a description of the Roman salute being the men lowering their arms. Can't remember the source, could be Vegetius or Polybius. Jim.

No. But then, I'm an atheist. I think you assumed a little too much there I don't believe it was a factual report. Also, I think Jesus being Caesar is just as unbelievable. Actually, in this case, I feel there is a need to argue, especially when a tenuous link at best is professed to be an all-revealing truth and changes history. Oh c'mon. We all know religious faith is all about belief without the need for proof. At least in the context it was used here, which is accurate by the way. We're not speaking latin, we're using english here.

I'm not at all certain, but would the 'IV' not be 'IIII'? I know 'IV' was used, but I thought 'IIII' was much more common. Examples of both: from livius.org Jim.

I think the point has been missed. I do not believe for one moment that the story of Jesus Christ is based on the story of Julius Caesar. They were separate men, they led separate lives, at differrent times, they both wore sandals. The wearing of sandals is the closest they'll ever get as far as I'm concerned. Parallels between individual's lives happen every hour. Especially if you 'stretch' the imagination.There are many examples of it in fiction. Mohandas Gandhi was the Duke of Wellington. It's the same thing.