Announcement

Collapse

Archeology 201 Guidelines

If Indiana Jones happened to be a member of Tweb, this is where he'd hang out.

Welcome to the Archeology forum. Were you out doing some gardening and dug up a relic from the distant past? would you like to know more about Ancient Egypt? Did you think Memphis was actually a city in Tennessee?

Well, for the answers to those and other burning questions you've found the right digs.

Our forum rules apply here too, if you haven't read them now is the time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Roman Fortifications Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    According to Lon Abbott, a geology professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the siege ramp was largely constructed using slave labor.

    Rabbi Ken Spiro, who also has a master's degree in history also says that the ramp used Jewish slave labor in its construction.

    Robert DiPrizio, a military historian, in his Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts, wrote:

    After surrounding the fortress with eight military camps, the Romans oversaw in a nine-month period the construction by Jewish slave labor of an assault ramp to the top of Masada


    And FWICT the famous Israeli archaeologist and later Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Yigael Yadin, (who worked at some of the most important sites in the region, including the Qumran Caves, Masada, Hazor, Tel Megiddo) believed that Jewish slave labor was used to construct the ramp to deter the rebels from attacking the laborers during its construction -- but I'm not 100% on that.

    This makes sense in that the besieged forces would be loathe to launch arrows and stones at their fellow Jews forced to build the ramp whereas they would delightedly take aim at Roman soldiers. Plus, anyone killed wouldn't reduce the number of soldiers to be used in the attack itself.

    I should also note that Dean Smith, writing in History is Now magazine in a piece called Terrorists in the Roman Empire? The Sicarii in First Century Judea matter of factly writes that "The Roman forces apparently used Jewish slave labor from the sacking of Jerusalem to build a wall around Masada."



    There was no widescale use of slave labour on Roman campaigns, as I made clear in my original remark.

    Moreover, you seem to be entirely unaware that just as with modern armies the Roman legions were well equipped to do their own building and fortifications. Among their ranks were skilled craftsmen, surveyors, and engineers.

    I recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army and Graham Webster's The Roman Imperial Army.
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      According to Lon Abbott, a geology professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the siege ramp was largely constructed using slave labor.

      Rabbi Ken Spiro, who also has a master's degree in history also says that the ramp used Jewish slave labor in its construction.

      Robert DiPrizio, a military historian, in his Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts, wrote:

      After surrounding the fortress with eight military camps, the Romans oversaw in a nine-month period the construction by Jewish slave labor of an assault ramp to the top of Masada


      And FWICT the famous Israeli archaeologist and later Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Yigael Yadin, (who worked at some of the most important sites in the region, including the Qumran Caves, Masada, Hazor, Tel Megiddo) believed that Jewish slave labor was used to construct the ramp to deter the rebels from attacking the laborers during its construction -- but I'm not 100% on that.

      This makes sense in that the besieged forces would be loathe to launch arrows and stones at their fellow Jews forced to build the ramp whereas they would delightedly take aim at Roman soldiers. Plus, anyone killed wouldn't reduce the number of soldiers to be used in the attack itself.

      I should also note that Dean Smith, writing in History is Now magazine in a piece called Terrorists in the Roman Empire? The Sicarii in First Century Judea matter of factly writes that "The Roman forces apparently used Jewish slave labor from the sacking of Jerusalem to build a wall around Masada."



      Purely as an additional point.

      How many volumes does DiPrizio's work run to? He's covering a massive period in history and his title sounds rather populist. Nor is someone who writes about American recent military history automatically qualified to write about the same topic in the ancient world.

      I would also remind you that Josephus describes the events at Masada in detail.
      "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        There was no widescale use of slave labour on Roman campaigns, as I made clear in my original remark.

        Moreover, you seem to be entirely unaware that just as with modern armies the Roman legions were well equipped to do their own building and fortifications. Among their ranks were skilled craftsmen, surveyors, and engineers.

        I recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army and Graham Webster's The Roman Imperial Army.
        Nobody has ever denied that the Roman army contained engineers responsible for constructing fortifications and the like but that in no way contradicts that they would also employ slave labor in instances where the construction was particularly hazardous -- such as building the ramp at Masada.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Nobody has ever denied that the Roman army contained engineers responsible for constructing fortifications and the like but that in no way contradicts that they would also employ slave labor in instances where the construction was particularly hazardous
          Why are you so fixated on Jewish slaves and the Roman army? Have you been watching Ben Hur or too many sword and sandals B movies?


          As for the region being hazardous, in what respect? The Zealots were completely “bottled up” and they had no artillery. The work of building for their siege engines would have been protracted for the legions but not beyond their capabilities. And the legionaries did the building – look at Trajan’s Column. Those images show Roman legionaries building fortifications, not slaves.

          So far you have cited:
          1 geology professor - I have no idea why.
          1 rabbi with a Masters degree in history but the period he has studied is not mentioned and;
          1 military historian whose specialism appears to be recent US military history.


          While all the above are qualified in their respective disciplines and areas you have not cited a single historian specialising in Roman military history.

          I repeat that large quantities of slaves would have been a logistical nightmare [feeding, guarding, housing]. What Gwyn writes is of Silva is far more likely.
          I also recommend you read Josephus.

          "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Why are you so fixated on Jewish slaves and the Roman army? Have you been watching Ben Hur or too many sword and sandals B movies?

            As for the region being hazardous, in what respect? The Zealots were completely “bottled up” and they had no artillery. The work of building for their siege engines would have been protracted for the legions but not beyond their capabilities. And the legionaries did the building – look at Trajan’s Column. Those images show Roman legionaries building fortifications, not slaves.

            So far you have cited:
            1 geology professor - I have no idea why.
            1 rabbi with a Masters degree in history but the period he has studied is not mentioned and;
            1 military historian whose specialism appears to be recent US military history.


            While all the above are qualified in their respective disciplines and areas you have not cited a single historian specialising in Roman military history.

            I repeat that large quantities of slaves would have been a logistical nightmare [feeding, guarding, housing]. What Gwyn writes is of Silva is far more likely.
            I also recommend you read Josephus.
            Funny how you excluded the famous Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin, who worked at Masada from the list of those I cited.

            And the military historian you scoffed at has studied historic battles in Judea even writing a book Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflict while the historian who is also a rabbi had been authorized to give tours of Masada by the Israeli government so you can probably presume that he just might know a little about it.

            You also chose to ignore "Dean Smith, writing in History is Now magazine in a piece called Terrorists in the Roman Empire? The Sicarii in First Century Judea" although with a name that common I don't know what his exact qualifications are but apparently he knows enough to write an article for a historical society's magazine.

            In face of all this it appears that you have some vested interest in denying what is generally mentioned matter-of-factly by historians, or that you just can never admit to making a mistake.


            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              Why are you so fixated on Jewish slaves and the Roman army? Have you been watching Ben Hur or too many sword and sandals B movies?

              As for the region being hazardous, in what respect? The Zealots were completely “bottled up” and they had no artillery. The work of building for their siege engines would have been protracted for the legions but not beyond their capabilities. And the legionaries did the building – look at Trajan’s Column. Those images show Roman legionaries building fortifications, not slaves.

              So far you have cited:
              1 geology professor - I have no idea why.
              1 rabbi with a Masters degree in history but the period he has studied is not mentioned and;
              1 military historian whose specialism appears to be recent US military history.


              While all the above are qualified in their respective disciplines and areas you have not cited a single historian specialising in Roman military history.

              I repeat that large quantities of slaves would have been a logistical nightmare [feeding, guarding, housing]. What Gwyn writes is of Silva is far more likely.
              I also recommend you read Josephus.
              Two points.

              A. Why would you think that Romans would glorify slaves by including them in such a monument? The only way you would expect them to be depicted is as prizes of war being led back to Rome.

              And even more to the point the column was built to celebrate Trajan's victory in the Dacian Wars which were fought in southeastern Europe and had absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish revolt some four decades prior. It was Vespasian and Titus who crushed the revolt and then left it to Lucius Flavius Silva to deal with Masada.

              2) As for slaves being a logistical nightmare, apparently you are ignorant of the fact that in their campaigns abroad Roman generals sent back thousands of captured soldiers to be sold as slaves. In fact, in his the campaign against the Gauls Julius Caesar is reported to have captured approximately a million people and made them slaves. Even if this number is exaggerated, even a tenth of that would still be 100,000 slaves they had to deal with.

              The fact is that slave traders would accompany the Roman army on their campaigns and after any battles they would buy the defeated soldiers and their families, and then arrange for them to be sent back to Rome and the other major settlements in the empire.

              It sounds like the Roman army were old hands at handling large groups of slaves and weren't hopelessly inept at it as you would have them be.
              Last edited by rogue06; 11-14-2020, 02:15 PM.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Funny how you excluded the famous Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin, who worked at Masada from the list of those I cited.
                He was working some fifty years ago and recent academics have suggested possible muddying of the evidence, to wit the bones found by Yadin and buried with full military honours at the foot of the ramp in 1969.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                And the military historian you scoffed at
                Kindly desist from attributing things to me I have not written. I have not “scoffed” at any historian. I have simply pointed out that his work appears primarily concerned with modern history and the US involvement in the ME. I also asked you how many volumes his work Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflict ran to [given the time scale he is covering] and you never replied. Furthermore, how far back was he proposing “Ancient Times” should go? Was he intent on returning to the Palaeolithic and rock shelters?


                However, having found the work online I see it runs to a mere 384 pages and is in fact a series of “thumbnail” articles. The Masada entry runs to barely one page and furthermore it is written by a Richard M Edwards whom [so the list of contributors tells us] is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Wisconsin colleges. Further investigation reveals that “Richard M. Edwards teaches philosophy and religious studies for the University of Wisconsin colleges”. I fail to see what degree of expertise this conveys regarding his expertise on matters concerning Roman military history.

                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                while the historian who is also a rabbi had been authorized to give tours of Masada by the Israeli government
                That means very little. It is not unknown for tour guides to be less than accurate as most of us will have experienced. I would also remind you of the “myth” that has developed for many in Israel and beyond regarding this event. The ceremony with which the bones found by Yadin were buried at the base of the ramp in 1969 with full military honours is evidence of the significance of the historic event to a country that had recently won a decisive war against its modern adversaries.


                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                You also chose to ignore "Dean Smith, writing in History is Now magazine in a piece called Terrorists in the Roman Empire? The Sicarii in First Century Judea"
                Smith is not telling me anything I did already know. If you want to read about the Sicarii read Richard Horsely.


                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                In face of all this it appears that you have some vested interest in denying what is generally mentioned matter-of-factly by historians, or that you just can never admit to making a mistake.


                I have not made a mistake. Furthermore an article by Dan Gill from 2001 in Biblical Archaeology Review proposes that the ramp was not nearly such a huge building project as previously though. As he notes “A study of the geology of the area clarifies the matter: It reveals that most of the spur is a natural topographic feature and that the Roman ramp was only about 26 feet thick.” [See Bible Archaeology Review September/October 2001]

                Such a building achievement would certainly have been well within the capabilities of the Roman legions and would not have required hundreds of Jewish slave labourers.




                "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Two points.

                  A. Why would you think that Romans would glorify slaves by including them in such a monument?
                  The Romans never glorified slaves, they were simply there. Property not persons. Have you actually examined all the relevant frieze depictions on the Dacian campaigns to be found on Trajan’s Column?

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  The only way you would expect them to be depicted is as prizes of war being led back to Rome.
                  We see the spoils of war from the Jerusalem Temple on the Arch of Titus while on Trajan’s Column we see the Dacian spoils of war [i.e. men, women, and children being taken into captivity].

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  And even more to the point the column was built to celebrate Trajan's victory in the Dacian Wars which were fought in southeastern Europe and had absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish revolt some four decades prior.
                  Why are you telling me what I already know? If you were not already aware of the fact, Trajan’s Column is probably the best contemporary depiction we have that shows the early second century Roman army actively on campaign.

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  It was Vespasian and Titus who crushed the revolt and then left it to Lucius Flavius Silva to deal with Masada.
                  Vespasian was not at the siege of Jerusalem. It was Titus who ultimately crushed the rebellion and took the city.

                  Vespasian had commanded the army in the early stages of the revolt but he returned to Rome during the turmoil of the Year of the Four Emperors. It was left to Silva to conclude the mopping up operation over the following years and that included Masada.

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  2) As for slaves being a logistical nightmare, apparently you are ignorant of the fact that in their campaigns abroad Roman generals sent back thousands of captured soldiers to be sold as slaves.
                  Which Roman generals, which campaigns, and which period of Roman history are you referencing? Roman history has an exceedingly long duration.

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  In fact, in his the campaign against the Gauls
                  It was not a “campaign” it was a series of campaigns. Julius Caesar was Proconsul of Gaul for over ten years. He also took hostages and often pardoned defeated tribes. This was all part of the pacification of Trans-Alpine Gaul.

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  The fact is that slave traders would accompany the Roman army on their campaigns and after any battles they would buy the defeated soldiers and their families, and then arrange for them to be sent back to Rome and the other major settlements in the empire.
                  Where is the evidence for this alleged “fact” of yours and once again which commanders and which specific campaigns are you referencing? I am of the opinion that you have been watching Gladiator and Spartacus rather too often.

                  Do you imagine that after Julius Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus all captured prisoners were sold as slaves?

                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  It sounds like the Roman army were old hands at handling large groups of slaves and weren't hopelessly inept at it as you would have them be
                  You must learn not to misattribute things to me I have not written. This is the second occasion in the space of two replies that I have had to admonish you. I have never alleged that the Roman army was “hopelessly inept” in any respect, although throughout Rome’s long history it incurred major defeats and often brutal humiliations. My point has been that in a mopping up exercise after a bloody and extended period of war, an army on campaign in a barren and inhospitable area of Judaea would not have wanted, or needed, the encumbrance of hundreds of slaves that would have had to be guarded, fed, and housed. You seem unwilling [or unable] to recognise this simple military logistical fact.
                  Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 11-15-2020, 05:11 AM.
                  "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    He was working some fifty years ago and recent academics have suggested possible muddying of the evidence, to wit the bones found by Yadin and buried with full military honours at the foot of the ramp in 1969.
                    And yet he is still considered one of Israel's top archaeologists in spite of your ham fisted attempt here to besmirch him, and he says slaves were employed in the construction of the ramp.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Kindly desist from attributing things to me I have not written. I have not “scoffed” at any historian. I have simply pointed out that his work appears primarily concerned with modern history and the US involvement in the ME. I also asked you how many volumes his work Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflict ran to [given the time scale he is covering] and you never replied.
                    No. You merely ASSUMED that his work appears primarily concerned with modern history and offered nothing to support this assumption.[1] You attempted to summarily hand wave him off which is a form of scoffing.

                    Further what is the relevance of how many volumes does his work consist of? Some of the most highly regarded works of history consist of a single volume. For instance, Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization is widely respected despite being a "mere" 239 pages in length and Diamond's highly respected Guns, Germs, and Steel is a single volume and covers 13,000 years of history.

                    Moreover, the number of volumes has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I provided yet another historian who has studied this and concluded that slave labor was indeed utilized at Masada.

                    And he is hardly an outlier. Most historians that I found who mention do so matter-of-factly in the way you mention something that is widely known and nearly universally accepted.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Furthermore, how far back was he proposing “Ancient Times” should go? Was he intent on returning to the Palaeolithic and rock shelters?
                    This sorry attempt at obfuscation is as transparent as it is irrelevant. What is it with you and your obsession to try to distract and deflect by insisting we travel down rabbit holes whenever the evidence is clearly stacked against you? All that matters is if he covers the Roman-Jewish wars. You know, the time when the siege of Masada actually took place.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    However, having found the work online I see it runs to a mere 384 pages and is in fact a series of “thumbnail” articles. The Masada entry runs to barely one page and furthermore it is written by a Richard M Edwards whom [so the list of contributors tells us] is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Wisconsin colleges. Further investigation reveals that “Richard M. Edwards teaches philosophy and religious studies for the University of Wisconsin colleges”. I fail to see what degree of expertise this conveys regarding his expertise on matters concerning Roman military history.
                    Again, the fact that historians mention the use of slave labor by the Romans at Masada in an offhand manner serves to demonstrate that this is seen by them as a fact not in need of further elaboration. It would be like a discussion on evolution mentioning Darwin's trip to the Galapagos islands without feeling the need to present the evidence that he did so.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    That means very little. It is not unknown for tour guides to be less than accurate as most of us will have experienced.
                    I'm not talking about how you hired some kid or self-appointed tour guide to show you around, but rather a historian who was also certified by the Israeli government, who FWICT, take these sort of things seriously.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    I would also remind you of the “myth” that has developed for many in Israel and beyond regarding this event. The ceremony with which the bones found by Yadin were buried at the base of the ramp in 1969 with full military honours is evidence of the significance of the historic event to a country that had recently won a decisive war against its modern adversaries.
                    And is once again irrelevant flailing on your part to distract attention away from the fact that it is accepted among historians that the Roman army did use slave labor at Masada.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Smith is not telling me anything I did already know.
                    Obviously false in that he told you, like numerous other historians, that the Romans employed slave labor during the siege of Masada.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    I have not made a mistake. Furthermore an article by Dan Gill from 2001 in Biblical Archaeology Review proposes that the ramp was not nearly such a huge building project as previously though. As he notes “A study of the geology of the area clarifies the matter: It reveals that most of the spur is a natural topographic feature and that the Roman ramp was only about 26 feet thick.” [See Bible Archaeology Review September/October 2001]
                    A nice aside but once again irrelevant.

                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    Such a building achievement would certainly have been well within the capabilities of the Roman legions and would not have required hundreds of Jewish slave labourers.
                    Blatant attempt at straw man argumentation.

                    Nobody has ever argued that the Romans were incapable of such engineering feats without the use of slaves. What historians and archaeologists are saying, and you are summarily dismissing, is that it was constructed using slave labor, not that they needed slave labor.

                    The Arch of Titus (which was built to commemorate the Roman victory of Titus and his father, Vespasian, in what would later be called the First Jewish War) was "built by Jewish slaves." And according to Josephus, slaves conquered during that war were used to build the Coliseum as well. And yet according to you, saying so is equivalent to saying that the Romans couldn't have constructed them by themselves without slave labor. That is utter nonsense.




                    1. and I should note that it is irrelevant if it is his primary field of interest. David Levy was just an amateur astronomer and yet that doesn't invalidate the fact the he is the co-discoverer of the Shoemaker–Levy 9 comet which collided into Jupiter back in the '90s. And it was Janet Stephens, an amateur archaeologist and professional hairdresser, who is credited with recreating the Sini Crenes, the unique and elaborate braided hairstyle of the Vestal Virgins that symbolized their chastity. History is replete with examples of people making significant contributions outside their field of expertise.

                    And before you attempt to twist my words, I'm not saying that DiPrizio made any significant new contribution in his book, but rather it is immaterial whether or not this is his field of expertise if what he wrote is accurate -- and there is nothing except the opinion of some hubristic frau in Germany to indicate that he did
                    Last edited by rogue06; 11-15-2020, 07:39 AM.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      The Romans never glorified slaves, they were simply there. Property not persons. Have you actually examined all the relevant frieze depictions on the Dacian campaigns to be found on Trajan’s Column?

                      We see the spoils of war from the Jerusalem Temple on the Arch of Titus while on Trajan’s Column we see the Dacian spoils of war [i.e. men, women, and children being taken into captivity].

                      Why are you telling me what I already know? If you were not already aware of the fact, Trajan’s Column is probably the best contemporary depiction we have that shows the early second century Roman army actively on campaign
                      .
                      Trajan's Column has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the Roman army used slave labor at Masada. This is yet another indication of your attempt to distract and deflect away from that.

                      My first point about the Romans not glorifying slaves still stands though and apparently you agree. The fact is that if slave labor was used at Masada you would hardly expect the Romans to build a monument that commemorated or even included the slave's contribution.
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Vespasian was not at the siege of Jerusalem. It was Titus who ultimately crushed the rebellion and took the city.
                      Never said otherwise oh picker of nits.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Vespasian had commanded the army in the early stages of the revolt but he returned to Rome during the turmoil of the Year of the Four Emperors. It was left to Silva to conclude the mopping up operation over the following years and that included Masada.
                      And how exactly does this contradict what I wrote? Talk about "telling me what I already know."

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Which Roman generals, which campaigns, and which period of Roman history are you referencing? Roman history has an exceedingly long duration.
                      It was common practice throughout their history. There is no need to go down another one of your rabbit holes unless you seek to align yourself against the overwhelming consensus of historians here as well.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      It was not a “campaign” it was a series of campaigns.
                      More irrelevant and pedantic nit picking. What exactly do you think this accomplishes?

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Julius Caesar was Proconsul of Gaul for over ten years. He also took hostages and often pardoned defeated tribes. This was all part of the pacification of Trans-Alpine Gaul.
                      Irrelevant to the fact that he, like numerous Roman generals both before and after him, sent huge influxes of people back into the Roman Empire as slaves. Are you really questioning that?

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Where is the evidence for this alleged “fact” of yours and once again which commanders and which specific campaigns are you referencing?
                      Dear Lord you really are arguing against this.

                      I hadn't realized that you were such a contrarian arguing against so many things that historians take for granted (see the thread about Crucifixion as yet another example). Are you arguing that Roman armies never enslaved those they captured or are you merely claiming that slave traders didn't accompany the army much in the same way many types of camp followers did? It sounds like the former given your challenges.

                      In a footnote in his "Caveat emptor: toward a study of Roman slave-traders," published in the Journal of Roman Archaeology, John Bodel notes that Ammianus Marcellinus, the Roman soldier and historian, "describes in detail the 'official' slave-trade conducted by Roman army officers with Goths captured in Thrace in 376; cf. also Themistius, Or. 10.135D-1368." The only way to have conducted this is if the slave traders were there at the scene.

                      Keith "K. R." Bradley, who has both written and edited numerous works on slavery in the ancient world (including all 3 volumes of The Cambridge World History of Slavery) wrote about connection between slavery and warfare made in the Digest (a.k.a., the Pandects) of Justinian noting that the definition of slavery provided by Florentius, the Roman praetorian prefect, was used by it, and which declared

                      Slaves (servi) are so called because commanders generally sell the people they capture and thereby save (servare) them instead of killing them. The word for property in slaves (mancipia) is derived from the fact that they are captured from the enemy by force of arms (manu capiuntur).[1]


                      Who exactly do you think the commanders sold the people they captured to if not slave traders? And do you think that they just magically appeared after the battle? Oh wait. Bradley answers this when he says that they would have been sold directly after capture to slave traders who followed Roman military campaigns.

                      At the risk of citing Wikipedia, their article on the Conquest of the Iberian Peninsula relates this about Marcus Portius Cato (Cato the Elder), who commanded a consular army of two legions plus 15,000 Latin infantry and 800 cavalry there

                      Seven forts of the Bergistani (who lived in the north of Hispania Citerior) revolted. They were reduced to submission without any serious fighting. Cato returned to Tarraco, but they rebelled again and this time, when he defeated them again, he sold all into slavery to discourage further rebellion


                      What's this a Roman general selling slaves? I wonder who he sold them to or do you envision him selling them one by one at an auction block?

                      Further, in his The Enslavement of War Captives by the Romans to to 146 BC by Jason Paul Wickham (who while not a historian himself but his work has been cited by several in their works) he notes, again matter-of-factly like he is conveying common knowledge) that

                      In a discussion about ransoming captives In some cases ransom was simply an alternative to slavery, the victor requesting a fee for release that, if not met, led to the captives being handed over to the traders following the army


                      And in chapter 7 (titled Slave Traders) it starts off by saying

                      Captives were generally purchased by traders nearer the site of battle rather than transported by the armed forces to markets.37 That mercatores followed the army is clear,38


                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      I am of the opinion that you have been watching Gladiator and Spartacus rather too often.
                      I hate to break it to you but I really could not care any less about your obviously ill-informed opinion.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Do you imagine that after Julius Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus all captured prisoners were sold as slaves?
                      And yet again our pedantic princess engages in constructing straw men.

                      Please show where I said that all prisoners were sold as slave. The fact remains that it was common practice and one of the primary ways Rome fed its appetite for slave labor and your argument is with legions of scholars in various fields who's research has shown it to be true.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      You must learn not to misattribute things to me I have not written. This is the second occasion in the space of two replies that I have had to admonish you.
                      This is indeed rich coming from someone who felt it necessary to pretend that I said that all captured prisoners were sold as slaves. Unintended irony is always the best sort of irony.

                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      I have never alleged that the Roman army was “hopelessly inept” in any respect, although throughout Rome’s long history it incurred major defeats and often brutal humiliations. My point has been that in a mopping up exercise after a bloody and extended period of war, an army on campaign in a barren and inhospitable area of Judaea would not have wanted, or needed, the encumbrance of hundreds of slaves that would have had to be guarded, fed, and housed. You seem unwilling [or unable] to recognise this simple military logistical fact.
                      It sounds like you envision them shaking in their boots, fearing an attack out in the Judean desert from a foe that was virtually annihilated.

                      The cold hard fact is this would be little different from what happened after nearly every one of their victories. And yet it never stopped them from gathering up huge numbers of prisoners to sell to the slave traders. And at Masada the number would have been far less than what they typically handled.




                      1. I should note that William D. Phillips Jr., Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Minnesota, and who has also written a few books dealing with slavery, quotes this piece from Florentius as well in his Slavery from Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade as doesTheresa Urbainczyk, who also has written a couple books dealing with slavery and taught in the School of Classics, University College Dublin in her Slave Revolts in Antiquity
                      Last edited by rogue06; 11-15-2020, 10:06 AM.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        And yet he is still considered one of Israel's top archaeologists


                        That nothwithstanding, his contemporary Yohanan Aharoni was at odds with him over the two conflicting accounts of the way the ancient Hebrews arrived in Canaan. Much more recently Israel Finkelstein has challenged Yadin’s dating of excavations at Megiddo where Finkelstein has excavated for over ten years and he contends that Yadin’s chronology is wrong and lacks any confirmation by independent potsherds.

                        Yadin was clearly a renowned Israeli archaeologist but he was not infallible.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        in spite of your ham fisted attempt here to besmirch him,
                        Yet again I must request that you stop misattributing comments to me that I have not made. You are in danger of giving the impression you habitually resort to mendacity.


                        The remarks I commented upon have been made by other academics in the field. As you are aware of the Biblical Archaeology Review I recommend an article from November/December 1998 by Joseph Zias entitled Whose Bones?

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        and he says slaves were employed in the construction of the ramp.
                        On what archaeological and contemporary historical evidence?



                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        No. You merely ASSUMED that his work appears primarily concerned with modern history and offered nothing to support this assumption.
                        I looked him up on Amazon. The only book I could find on Amazon.com was a publication from 2002 entitled Armed Humanitarians: US Interventions from Northern Iraq to Kosovo. Otherwise I would not have made my observation that his work appears primarily concerned with recent US involvement in the ME.


                        The title of his work you cited encompasses a huge period of human history and is less than precise in its title. What are Ancient Times? It is a vague phrase that can mean almost anything.


                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Further what is the relevance of how many volumes does his work consist of?
                        Because a book that has as its title Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflict covers a huge and complex subject, geographical area, and historical time frame that ranges from ancient Sumer, via the Assyrians, Babylonians,Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arab Muslims, Crusaders, Ottomans, French, Italians, and British. In other words around 6000 years of recorded human history.

                        And while a single volume work can treat on all this, it is, by its very nature a synopsis.

                        Moreover DiPrizio did not write the article on Masada. That was written by a Richard M Edwards whose disciplines are philosophy and religious studies not Roman military history.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Some of the most highly regarded works of history consist of a single volume. For instance, Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization is widely respected despite being a "mere" 239 pages in length
                        Ward Perkins is not attempting to cover the entire imperial history in details. His specialism is from 300-750 CE and his book is also dealing with the Western empire during a specific period of time.


                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        . and Diamond's highly respected Guns, Germs, and Steel is a single volume and covers 13,000 years of history.
                        It is a general work and one volume cannot encompass 13,000 of history. It can only do so as an overview.


                        I have an entertaining and fascinating volume entitled The Pox: The Life and Near Death of a Very Social Disease. It is by Kevin Brown who at the time [2006] was Curator at Alexander Fleming Laboratory Museum in Paddington, London. However his work is not the definitive history of syphilis and gonorrhoea to be regularly cited as the one and only authority on those diseases.

                        However, the title of DiPrizio’s work belies its content and the article on Masada is barely one page long.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Moreover, the number of volumes has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I provided yet another historian who has studied this and concluded that slave labor was indeed utilized at Masada.
                        Again, based on what archaeological and contemporary historical evidence?


                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        And he is hardly an outlier. Most historians that I found who mention do so matter-of-factly in the way you mention something that is widely known and nearly universally accepted.
                        So far you have yet to cite a Classicist, a Roman military historian, or provide any accredited archaeological evidence or contemporary source material on this specific topic.



                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        This sorry attempt at obfuscation is as transparent as it is irrelevant.
                        It is not in any way “obfuscation”. It is a request for precision and clarity regarding DiPrizio’s use of the term Ancient Times.



                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        All that matters is if he covers the Roman-Jewish wars. You know, the time when the siege of Masada actually took place.
                        Really? In your opinion you consider a one page article “covers the Roman Jewish wars”?


                        Have you any conception of the enormous corpus of literature pertaining to this subject? Clearly you do not. I therefore recommend that you should go and consult some of it.

                        However, I am not surprised that you make such a ridiculous remark given that your credulity on this subject permits you to consider a tour guide website as a legitimate academic source and to be cited in justification that Jewish slaves built the Arch of Titus.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Again, the fact that historians mention the use of slave labor by the Romans at Masada in an offhand manner serves to demonstrate that this is seen by them as a fact not in need of further elaboration.
                        No reputable academic does any such thing.


                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        I'm not talking about how you hired some kid or self-appointed tour guide to show you around, but rather a historian who was also certified by the Israeli government, who FWICT, take these sort of things seriously.
                        Once again given the significance of this historical event in the modern Israeli psyche there remains the risk of a tendency to “print the legend”. Furthermore there remain questions about what actually happened. And where did those pig bones come from?


                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        And is once again irrelevant flailing on your part to distract attention away from the fact that it is accepted among historians that the Roman army did use slave labor at Masada.
                        It is not accepted among historians and you have yet to provide any attested archaeological evidence or contemporary source material in support of that contention.


                        Your persistent claim that the Romans did use slave labor [sic] does not magically make that assertion true. What Gwyn Davies wrote is probably far more plausible but you dismiss such a suggestion because you seem fixated on the wicked Romans forcing poor enslaved Jews to be unwilling labourers in bringing about the demise of their Jewish compatriots.

                        I am only surprised you have not introduced scenarios akin to those of Cecil B deMille in The Ten Commandments and superimposed wicked Roman overseers whipping Jewish slaves for the wicked Egyptian overseers whipping Hebrew slaves.


                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Obviously false in that he told you, like numerous other historians, that the Romans employed slave labor during the siege of Masada.
                        I regret that your insistent and somewhat peevish insistence that you are right, cuts little ice with me.


                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        A nice aside but once again irrelevant.
                        Why is geological and archaeological evidence an “aside” and “irrelevant”? Please explain.



                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Nobody has ever argued that the Romans were incapable of such engineering feats without the use of slaves. What historians and archaeologists are saying, and you are summarily dismissing, is that it was constructed using slave labor, not that they needed slave labor.
                        Once again, there is no archaeological or contemporary source evidence to support your allegation.


                        Furthermore why would Silva who is in the middle of a campaign besieging an enemy fortification [with the attendant skirmishes] put himself into the position where he has to feed, water, guard, and contain large numbers of additional unwilling individuals. Kindly explain your reasoning.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        The Arch of Titus (which was built to commemorate the Roman victory of Titus and his father, Vespasian, in what would later be called the First Jewish War) was "built by Jewish slaves."
                        I almost spilled my coffee because of laughter when I read that.


                        My mirth [and incredulity] increased when I clicked on your link which takes me to Sightseeing Tours of Italy an English language Italian holiday website. https://www.romecitytour.it/attractions/arch-of-titus/

                        [Sarcasm alert] You clearly consider this link to be both a valid and reputable source in support of your contention. However, that you choose to proffer such a scholarly and erudite source quite beggars belief in your acuity and competence. With your reliance on such academically weighty citations do you really expect me to give your entrenched views any serious consideration?

                        We know that Rome possessed slaves from all over the known world and some of those slaves would have been used for preliminary work moving base blocks into position; some of those slaves may also have been Jewish. However, the Arch was designed and built by Roman architects and decorated by Roman sculptors.

                        Or would you have us believe that among these Jewish slaves was a collection of skilled artists experienced in depicting the human form?

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        And according to Josephus, slaves conquered during that war were used to build the Coliseum as well.
                        Once again he is writing about the use of slaves within the capital city not accompanying a Roman campaign.


                        I can think of nothing more ludicrous than a legionary deciding when embarking on a campaign to take along some additional slave labour on the off chance the troops might want some entertainment.
                        You write the most arrant nonsense.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        And yet according to you, saying so is equivalent to saying that the Romans couldn't have constructed them by themselves without slave labor. That is utter nonsense.
                        Consider the following examples.


                        Who do you think built the Roman roads across the empire?
                        Who do you think cut the road through the Cazun Gorges [aka the Iron Gates]?
                        Who do you think built Trajan’s bridge on the Lower Danube?
                        Who do you think built Caesar’s two bridges across the Rhine?
                        Who do you think built Hadrian’s Wall?
                        Do you seriously imagine that the Roman army when on campaign or establishing its frontiers took with it hundreds of slaves to do all that work? It was all done by the legions. That is attested fact.

                        As to your footnote, Levy is an skilled amateur in his own field. Janet Stephens is a trained hairdresser.
                        No one denies the skills and/or local knowledge of the informed amateur. However, there are certain disciplines where formal academic training is necessary if not essential.

                        One cannot suddenly become a papyrologist, philologist, or epigraphist. Nor can anyone suddenly begin to sequence their genetic material in the kitchen. And neither does competency with an electric drill or saw qualify an individual to attempt brain surgery.

                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        And before you attempt to twist my words, I'm not saying that DiPrizio made any significant new contribution in his book, but rather it is immaterial whether or not this is his field of expertise if what he wrote is accurate -- and there is nothing except the opinion of some hubristic frau in Germany to indicate that he did
                        Where does hubris come into this? Or are you affronted that a mere woman should challenge you of all people?


                        Given that you do not even know the actual author of the article in DiPrizio’s book that you are citing as such an irrefutable source you once again manifestly demonstrate your incompetence.
                        Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 11-16-2020, 07:12 PM.
                        "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                        Comment


                        • #42

                          Goodness me you have been busy trawling the net, haven’t you? However, I am not overly impressed and would make the following observations.

                          As to Trajan’s Column no one has ever suggested it referred to events at Masada and it was no sense an “attempt to distract and deflect away” despite your contention. The monument was referenced for being a close contemporary and extremely important primary source [given it was built in 113 CE]. It clearly illustrates the activities of an early second century Roman army on campaign.

                          Let me now turn to my observation that “Vespasian was not at the siege of Jerusalem” to which you replied with “Never said otherwise oh picker of nits.”

                          Perhaps you should have been more judicious in the composition of your remark at post #36 where you wrote:

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          It was Vespasian and Titus who crushed the revolt and then left it to Lucius Flavius Silva to deal with Masada.
                          Purely as a point of information the revolt was “crushed” with the siege, capture, and destruction of Jerusalem and Vespasian was not present at those events. Nor was Masada the only clearing up operation. The fortress of Herodium was surrendered, but other pockets of resistance had to be eliminated including Machaerus which had been taken by the Jews after 66 CE and which was besieged and captured by Lucilius Bassus commanding Legio X Fretensis in 72 CE [Josephus, BJ. VII, 176].


                          Incidentally, it appears from Josephus' narrative here, that the former commander of Legio V [Macedonica] Cerialis Vetilianus had been placed in command of Legio X Fretensis and left in charge of the province as locum tenens until Vespasian [now emperor] decided on its future. As it was now to have a legionary garrison instead of half a dozen auxiliary units, it could no longer be governed by a mere equestrian procurator, but required a legate of senatorial rank; and since the garrison comprised only one legion, the governor was also its commander. So Vespasian and Titus did not exactly leave Lucius Flavius Silva to deal with anything. Lucilius Bassus was in fact the first praetorian governor of Judaea. He died in office and Flavius Silva replaced him, concluding the cleaning up operations in the province by dealing with the surviving Jewish insurgents at Masada.

                          Hence it would appear that what you wrote was not precisely what you intended. Perhaps in future it might be advisable to read through your work carefully before submitting it.

                          Also in your post #36 you wrote that
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          As for slaves being a logistical nightmare, apparently you are ignorant of the fact that in their campaigns abroad Roman generals sent back thousands of captured soldiers to be sold as slaves.
                          [My emphasis]


                          Firstly I am not ignorant of the fact that prisoners were regularly taken and that individuals often [although not always] ended up as slaves. However, secondly, and perhaps more importantly given your continued allegations concerning Masada, your remark contradicts your own contention. As you have very clearly stated in that remark, captured prisoners were sent elsewhere. Hence they were not kept with the army for the duration of its campaign to act as an additional large labour force as you are contending occurred at Masada.

                          Now let us move on to my comment on Caesar’s campaigns. You considered this to be “More irrelevant and pedantic nit picking” and asked me. “What exactly do you think this accomplishes?

                          In answer to your second question what it accomplishes is to demonstrate that you are actually far less au fait with the events of Roman history than you are currently attempting to suggest.

                          Your next remark merely served to corroborate my above opinion. In response to my observation that Caesar often pardoned defeated tribes, you wrote this:
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Irrelevant to the fact that he, like numerous Roman generals both before and after him, sent huge influxes of people back into the Roman Empire as slaves. Are you really questioning that?
                          [My emphasis]

                          We can all certainly question that remark. You seem to be unaware of the simple fact that when Julius Caesar was alive [or indeed his predecessors] there was no “Roman Empire” to which slaves could be sent. There were various provinces ruled by proconsuls under the Roman Republic.

                          In post #36 you wrote
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          The fact is that slave traders would accompany the Roman army on their campaigns and after any battles they would buy the defeated soldiers and their families, and then arrange for them to be sent back to Rome and the other major settlements in the empire.


                          In response to that emphatic statement I asked “Where is the evidence for this alleged “fact” of yours and once again which commanders and which specific campaigns are you referencing?”

                          For some bizarre reason, known only to yourself, you considered that question to be an “argument”.
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Dear Lord you really are arguing against this?

                          I would point out that a question cannot be an argument. It is merely a request for information.

                          You then presented a superficially impressive collection of cut and pastes taken from a variety of sources, which, within their original contexts, referenced very different events and periods of Roman history.

                          However, arrant carelessness quickly became evident. You made the following statement
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Keith "K. R." Bradley, who has both written and edited numerous works on slavery in the ancient world (including all 3 volumes of The Cambridge World History of Slavery)

                          In point of fact the Cambridge World History of Slavery series runs to four volumes not three as you asserted:

                          Volume I: The Ancient Mediterranean World [Eds. Keith Bradley and Paul Cartledge]
                          Volume II: ad 500ad 1420 [ Eds. David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman]
                          Volume III: ad 1420ad 1804 [Eds. David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman]
                          Volume IV: ad 1804ad 2000 [Eds David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman


                          Bradley along with Cartledge, Eltis, and Engerman is one of the Series editors.

                          You later commented on Jason Paul Wickham whom you described as follows:

                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Further, in his The Enslavement of War Captives by the Romans to to 146 BC by Jason Paul Wickham (who while not a historian himself but his work has been cited by several in their works)
                          [My emphasis]


                          The work of Wickham’s that you mentioned was his Ph.D thesis [submitted in 2014]. He is therefore an accredited Classicist and historian. He is currently based at his alma mater, Liverpool University, England.

                          However, perhaps you can give us the names and works of those historians whom you allege have cited his thesis in their own writings.

                          Or have you inadvertently confused Dr Wickham with Moya K Mason [sadly now deceased]? She held a Masters in Classical Studies but worked [among other things] as a freelance research consultant, proof-reader, editor, and writer and is indeed cited in various books and articles, as well as university course work.

                          You then went on to accuse me of being a “pedantic princess” who “engages in constructing straw men”.
                          In light of your earlier statement at post #36 where you emphatically stated:
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          The fact is that slave traders would accompany the Roman army on their campaigns and after any battles they would buy the defeated soldiers and their families [sic], and then arrange for them to be sent back to Rome and the other major settlements in the empire


                          I asked you a direct question concerning prisoners taken after Pharsalus.

                          What is your answer? It is a simple enough question.

                          In light of that statement regarding slave traders and defeated soldiers perhaps you could also explain on what evidence slave traders set off on campaigns with the Roman army? And at the same time perhaps you might also explain how and why the families of defeated soldiers were consistently within close proximity of battle zones and during campaigns?

                          As to your next remark wherein you asked
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Please show where I said that all prisoners were sold as slave


                          I have quoted your emphatic statement twice now. However, in case you have forgotten it, here it is again.

                          At post #36 you wrote
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          The fact is that slave traders would accompany the Roman army on their campaigns and after any battles they would buy the defeated soldiers and their families, and then arrange for them to be sent back to Rome and the other major settlements in the empire.
                          [My emphasis]


                          Now let us move on to the last pertinent section in your reply where you wrote:
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          It sounds like you envision them shaking in their boots, fearing an attack out in the Judean desert from a foe that was virtually annihilated


                          Firstly the “foe” was far from “virtually annihilated” and prior to the circumvallation around Masada being completed it was possible that a raiding party could have suddenly broken out and attacked the construction of the siege works as indeed had happened during the Roman assault on the Antonia fortress in Jerusalem towards the climax of the campaign that finally ended the First Jewish War [Josephus BJ. VI,12].

                          You then wrote:
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          The cold hard fact is this would be little different from what happened after nearly every one of their victories
                          [My emphasis].


                          We can note here that you have modified your earlier contention in post #36 where you wrote
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          The fact is that slave traders would accompany the Roman army on their campaigns and after any battles

                          You are now contending:
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          what happened after nearly every one of their victories
                          [My emphasis].


                          Once again you are self-evidently contradicting yourself.

                          Suffice to say that your slovenly and perfunctory writing in this last reply combined with your citation of a Italian holiday tour operator in the previous one [not forgetting your insistence on the Crucifixion thread that Spartacus was a Roman citizen because he was in the army] has left me to draw the inescapable conclusion that you are quite obviously completely out of your depth here and actually appear to know very little about these detailed subject areas.
                          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 11-16-2020, 07:16 PM.
                          "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Post #41

                            Erratum: I can think of nothing more ludicrous than a legionary deciding when embarking on a campaign to take along some additional slave labour on the off chance the troops might want some entertainment.


                            Should read I can think of nothing more ludicrous than a legionary legate deciding when embarking on a campaign to take along some additional slave labour on the off chance the troops might want some entertainment.

                            .
                            Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 11-17-2020, 05:31 AM.
                            "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by rogue06, 11-23-2020, 07:11 PM
                            9 responses
                            58 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by rogue06, 11-09-2020, 06:44 AM
                            1 response
                            11 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Seeker, 11-01-2020, 12:47 AM
                            8 responses
                            69 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post ReformedApologist  
                            Started by Teallaura, 08-05-2018, 08:07 PM
                            42 responses
                            7,532 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X