Crucifixion

A Piece of the 'True Cross'. You can tell because of the Made in China sticker on the base.

Just a quick and morbid post from me. And what could be more morbid than the topic of crucifixion?

Crucifixion is a very nasty way to go. It is forever immortalised due to Jesus' death by this method, as meted out by Roman law. Few execution techniques match its cruelty and ingenuity. Off hand, I can think of three execution techniques that match or exceed crucifixion's unremitting horror, that is, 'Flaying', 'The Boats' and 'Impaling'. I've written about the latter two techniques in this very blog- search if you dare.

The Romans were not the first to use this mode of inflicting judicial death. The Persians were fond of this execution technique, and the Carthaginians were known to crucify their unsuccessful generals. And if you have ever read accounts of the first and second Punic wars, you will become aware that the Carthaginian overlords had goodly reason to be vastly displeased with their lacklustre war heroes, Hannibal excepted, of course. The Romans probably became aware of the practice through contact with the Carthaginians and began to adopt it as a form of killing miscreants. The practice's origins go back to the Bronze Age and the Assyrians, who were overly fond of this mode of execution. Pain and humiliation were not the only purpose of this gruesome method of execution. For the Romans, this display went deeper than mere physical torture. It was foremost a psychological display and a gruesome means of propaganda. Anyone witnessing a crucifixion would get the message: 'Fuck with the Romans and die horribly, horribly'. Crucifixion, as meted out by the Romans, was not for anyone. It was generally reserved for the most heinous crimes, and Roman citizens were exempt. But the exclusion of Roman citizens from this barbaric practice would not last. In the second century AD, the punishment was extended to Roman citizens, but was restricted to the very poor- ain't that the sad truth. Crucifixion was eventually outlawed by the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, as it was deemed too barbaric (no shit). Crucifixion was replaced by the relatively merciful hanging by the neck.

After Crassus defeated Sparticus in the Third Servile War, he had 6,000 of the slaves crucified along the Via Appia (73BC). A stark lesson to anyone thinking of taking up arms against Rome. The grisly spectacle did not end with death as the bodies were left to rot on the cross to be consumed by creatures from the wild - wretched scarecrows that laid bare testament to the brute atavistic power of Rome. 

Time for a Digression

In 75BC, a young Roman nobleman was on the way to Rhodes to further his rhetorical education. Whilst sailing, he was captured by pirates. At this time, piracy was rampant in the Mediterranean. Generally, the pirates seized the vessels' goods and enslaved all on board. However, Caesar (for it is he), as a Patrician, proved to be an exception. In such cases, a hefty ransom would be demanded. Once the ransom was received, the wealthy captive would be released. The pirates initially asked for 20 talents, not an inconsiderable sum. On hearing this, Caesar laughed and haughtily stated that a man of his station was worth at least 50 talents. The pirates readily/greedily agreed. Members of Caesar's entourage set off to various places in Asia to raise the money. Caesar was left with a friend and two attendants who joined him in captivity in the pirate's lair. During his stay, Caesar acted as if he were in the ascendant. The pirates were asked to be quiet when Caesar wanted to rest. He would regale his captives with his own Elegiac and Lambic poetry, and when their praise was scant, he would berate them and call them illiterate barbarians. Indeed, 'Pirate School' hardly taught such dainty fancies and was firmly concerned with issues such as epaulette cleaning and maintenance following all day parrot presence, how to screw on your wooden leg and how to vocalise, Aarrrrrrssse...... 

Caesar's demeanour was generally imperious (how appropriate) and overbearing. He would join in the piratical games and jokingly threaten the pirates with crucifixion when released. After 38 days, the money was raised, and Caesar and his companions were released true to the piratical code of honour. Caesar quickly raised a fleet at Miletus and left for the pirate den. He captured most of them and all their spoils, including his ransom money. He imprisoned the pirates at Pergamon and hurried off to see the governor of Asia, Marcus Junius, in order to seek permission to punish the pirates. However, crafty old Junius stated that he needed more time to review the case. Caesar was not a patient man, and after several rebuttals, he decided to act with celerity, a characteristic that would come to define him in his later years. He hurried back to Pergamon, and as promised, he ordered the pirates to be crucified. Apparently, Caesar had a sentimental streak as each pirate had his throat cut prior to crucifixion- thus, they were spared the prolonged agonies of the cross. Back to the gist/grist of the post......         

There were a variety of ways crucifixion could be conducted. The wooden cross setup, so beloved by Christians, was a favoured technique. Variants existed; sometimes, a single upright may have been used, and if the executioner was feeling lazy, a local tree would have served. There was variation in how the culprit was fastened to the cross. Jesus is depicted as having his hands secured by nails, whilst a single nail fastens both feet. Experiments with cadavers have shown that hands secured in such a way tend to tear through due to the 'dead weight'. And so it was reasoned that this was never a method, and victims were nailed through the wrists to prevent tear through from happening. And again, experimentation concluded that this was a stable and viable technique for securing hands. However, the recent discovery of an ossary in Israel has confounded this view as the bones clearly show that the bones within the box show clear evidence of nails through the palms. Thus, by placing the arms over the crossbeam and then placing nails through the hand, the support afforded by the overlapping arms would prevent the hand from ripping through. In addition, extra support could be provided by tying the arms to the beams. In fact, it is a rare event to find nails in the 'tomb' of a crucifixion victim. The nails used in this barbaric process were viewed as having magical healing properties and were sold on to merchants by the soldiers. The nails were often ground to make a mystical healing balm.   

Manner of Death

Crucifixion was an extremely unpleasant method of execution. The position of the body meant that whilst hanging free, a great deal of pressure was placed on the chest and diaphragm. This posture impeded breathing, and a breath could only be stolen by placing weight upon the hands and feet as a means to pull up the body to ease the restriction. Only then could the crucified individual draw breath. This move placed great pressure on the secured arms and feet, causing searing pain. This position, therefore, could not be maintained for long, and the body would soon slump. For the victim to breathe, this cycle would have to be repeated endlessly until exhaustion took over and the individual suffocated. Also, the inability to conclude the breath sequence led to a buildup of carbon dioxide in the blood, further provoking the agony. It is said that a strong man could last three days before succumbing. The torment engendered by this form of execution is unimaginable. The bible relates that Jesus died after a scant six hours. This is entirely plausible as Jesus had been scourged before crucifixion and was already ensanguinated and weak at the time he was fixed to the cross.    

Here endeth the lesson/lesion

Darwin: Introduction

Alfred Russel Wallace sporting a beard you could lose a ferret in

I am a great proponent of evolutionary theory, which Charles Darwin expounded 166 years ago. Although there have been debates about trifling aspects of the theory, the solid bedrock of 'Natural Selection', resulting in the transformation of species over a vast span of time, remains. Until some other theory comes along best fitted to the data, Darwin's fundamental insight remains unsullied.  

I'm about to embark on a series of posts regarding Evolution Theory with a particular emphasis on its Natural History. This is an ambitious series. Darwin and his theory are often studied in isolation. Darwin's theory appears in biology books as accepted dogma, and the author moves on. Of course, science books teach science and often leave out the crucial historical steps leading up to a seminal discovery. However, Darwin did not live in an intellectual vacuum. Evolution was in the intellectual 'air' and ripe for discovery in the mid-19th century. All the pieces of the puzzle were present; however, it required the genius of Charles Darwin to put them together in beautiful accord. Intriguingly, his contemporary, Alfred Russell Wallace, independently developed the theory, although he quickly stated that Darwin's analysis was primary. Poor Wallace has been lost to history's wasteland; few remember him today. 

Darwin rushed ' On the Origin of Species' to print after he received a letter from a fellow naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace. At the time, Wallace was engaged in biological research in the jungles of Borneo. The letter was a shock, outlining evolutionary processes resulting from differential survival and reproduction due to natural selective forces. Darwin and Wallace's concepts were similar but differed in several crucial regards. While Wallace emphasised selection at the 'group' level, Darwin envisaged the 'individual' as the unit of selection. In addition, Wallace envisaged environmental factors as paramount in the selection process. Although Darwin acknowledged the importance of the environment as an evolutionary force, he also emphasised the importance of predation and intra-specific competition within the species. A final point of difference between the men concerns the importance of 'Sexual Selection'. Darwin correctly noted the critical importance of sexual selection or mate preference as a force for individual change. Darwin's conception of the theory, with its provision for additional complexities, has been shown to be fundamentally correct. 

Wallace's independent discovery spurred Darwin into a frenzy of writing. Secluded in his study, Darwin wrote his seminal work in just under nine months. He had planned a much larger tome with an exhaustive, and to his mind, a complete exposition of his theory, making it watertight. The 490 pages of the first edition were a compromise and left out much of his research. Regardless, the book became a best seller, and the first run of 1,250 copies was sold out on the first day, prompting a second run of a further 1,500 copies.     

As said, Evolutionary Theory was in the air in the mid-19th century. And as Darwin was about to discover, after the publication of 'Origin' in 1859, a number of individuals would come out of the woodwork to claim credit and primacy for developing the theory. This would cause Darwin great distress as he had to examine each claim for credibility and validity. Of course, he attracted his fair share of cranks and charlatans. However, in the deluge of mail Darwin received following the book's publication, there were credible scientists with something important to say. Apart from Wallace, however, none of the claims seriously threatened Darwin's fundamental insight. On a different note, Darwin received criticism for not citing innovative thinkers from the past who had the intellectual honesty to publish evolutionary ideas. This was fair criticism and acknowledged by Darwin. His omission was a consequence of the rushed nature of the work.

Wallace's letter forced Darwin to a rushed publication. Darwin was a meticulous researcher who sat on his theory for twenty years. Over the intervening years, Darwin's friends beseeched him to publish his results, but Darwin's painstaking nature prevented him from rushing into print.      

Darwin was arguably the greatest scientist of the 19th century. He unlocked the last great puzzle facing humanity. Before Darwin, theists' best argument for the omnipotent, omniscient supernatural deity was undoubtedly the answer to the perplexing question: How was it possible to produce the complexity of the natural world, that is, the elaborate intricacy of organic organisms, by natural means? Even the most basic bacterium is an immaculate web of biochemical majesty. How could this complexity come about by natural processes? The alternative: God did it. Thoughtful men acknowledged the obtuse absurdity of the problem. They knew that relying on the theist argument involving an invisible supernatural entity acting by means unknown, causing natural 'things' to come into existence, was intellectually unsatisfying. However, how could this degree of complexity observed in nature occur naturally? No wonder intelligent, educated folk relied on supernatural intervention. But here is the rub and the deadly dichotomy. Those same smart, educated folk were well aware that the theist explanation was no explanation at all and tantamount to superstitious magic and wand waving. Surely, there must be a naturalistic, fundamental explanation devoid of supernatural content.

Darwin's genius lay in the assemblage of the diverse puzzle pieces to provide a naturalistic and intellectually satisfying answer. And the answer turned out to be deceptively simple. It was so simple, in fact, that no one had thought of it before. Natural selection operating over aeons could modify the simple to the complex with remorseless, unrelentless force and potency. The irony: Darwin was not a trained biologist. In fact, his MA degree gained at Cambridge University was a prerequisite for entry into the clergy. Before his Cambridge education, he had spent two years at Edinburgh University, supposedly studying medicine. It is here that Darwin was exposed to a smattering of biological, chemical and geological training. However, given his shotgun approach to science and the curtailment of his clinical studies, Darwin never received a formal qualification in medicine or science.

The next post in this series will be an askew glance at the men who influenced Darwin, the men who provided the puzzle pieces. Darwin quickly remedied his error of citation in subsequent editions. Some of the men I mention were omitted from Darwin's survey. Their influence on theory was indirect due to their impact on later thinkers, and therefore, will be included for completeness. I suspect this work will require several posts, as there is much to cover. So, hold on and hang on to your hats. Tis is going to be a wild ride with a few hot gypsies thrown in, Hola!  

My Vintage Compound Bow

 

Fred Bear's 'Whitetail Hunter' Compound Bow Rendered in Sepia*

As my regular reader knows, I'm an avid archer and run a small online business selling bows and archery accessories with my son. I am compulsive, and if I become interested in a topic or pastime, I tend to become obsessed and absorbed, to my wife's horror. For instance, at last count, I own 33 bows of all types. Although most of my bows are traditional horse bows, English longbows and flat bows, I also own modern recurves and even compound bows. In fact, I own two modern compound bows. I admit that these types of bows are not my primary focus; however, I appreciate them for their efficient modern features and performance. That said, there is something atavistic and soothing to shoot a bow without sights, an arrow shelf and fancy embellishments. 

A couple of years ago, my son-in-law gave me a vintage compound bow made in the 1970s. The first compound bow was patented in 1966, so my bow represents a very early iteration. Indeed, my bow differs markedly from the compound bows on sale today. In the 70s, the technology was still in its infancy, and the modern variety has evolved significantly to become the masterful piece of engineering we see today.

Once I had the bow in my possession, I placed it on a bow rack in the barn and let it gather dust. Anyway, the other day, I decided to examine my serendipitous gift for some reason that remains inexplicable to me. I noticed that the bow sported the Bear name and Logo. The Bear company is a highly respected bow manufacturer founded by Fred Bear nearly a 100 years ago. After gently cleaning and waxing, I checked the bow for wear and damage. The mechanics of the bow are fine, and the limbs are without delamination or damage. The bow is in excellent condition, barring minor aesthetic demerits that are inconsequential to its operation. I placed a few arrows through the bow to judge its performance, especially compared to its modern counterpart. 

Due to the modern compound bow's short axle-to-axle design, grasping the string with the fingers is virtually impossible due to its acute angle when drawn. To mitigate this issue, the string is fitted with a D loop, allowing it to be drawn with a hand-held mechanical aid. My vintage bow has a longer axle-to-axle configuration and is designed to be drawn without a mechanical aid. The draw weight of the modern compound bow can be adjusted by moving the cables' position with respect to the cams, allowing multiple draw weights up to 70 lbs to be achieved. I estimate that the draw weight on my 'prototype' bow is about 35 lbs. Initially, I could not discern how the draw weight could be altered. However, after a thorough inspection, I observed two small free-moving wheels on either side of the riser. I suspect the draw weight can be increased by moving one of the cables onto the wheels- I see no other way of adjusting the bow.

Unlike the modern variety endowed with a myriad of bushings for the attachment of fancy sights, arrow rests, and accommodation for stabiliser rods, my bow is bereft of adornments. Again, compared to its more evolved kin, the bow is less complex regarding cable and cam configuration.   

The Shooting Experience: I was pleasantly surprised by the shooting experience. There was no hand shock, and the draw was smooth. Even without sights, the bow was reasonably accurate at 30 metres. Arrow speed is comparable to a fast modern recurve. Of course, the modern compound bow throws the arrow considerably faster, as expected.  Overall, a great shooting experience and I'm highly impressed with the build quality of the bow as it as stood the test of time and shoots just as well when it came out of the box about the time I was sporting long blond hair, platform boots, a cheese cloth shirt and flared jeans (may Woden forgive me).  

*Notus Bene: This image is a stock photo garnered from the netty. To be honest, I was too lazy to take a photo of the bow in my collection (big fat Arse).        

K2-18b

James-Webb Telescope in Relative Repose

Are we alone in the universe? Whether alone or in a universe teeming with life, both prospects are equally terrifying. To date, we have zero definitive evidence for the existence of life outside our terrestrial bubble. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is an international research institution set up specifically to search for life in the universe and has been running for the past 41 years. Currently, it is estimated that over 50 billion US dollars have been spent on what many folk would contend is a fruitless and ultimately useless programme. The money would have been better spent on practical projects helping to sort out, or at least contributing to and ameliorating, the many problems affecting humanity. I will not become mired in the controversy here; suffice it to say that, in my opinion, it is money well spent.

Various techniques are employed in the search for extraterrestrial life. My primary interest concerns 'life forms' outside our own solar system. In contrast, a sister research programme focuses on the possibility of life within the solar system. Of course, in this instance, the emphasis is on detecting lower life forms, akin to our Earth-bound bacteria. Indeed, our companion planets and our moon appear essentially inhospitable to life. An absolute requirement for the formation and propagation of life is the presence of liquid water. Liquid water only forms under restrictive physical conditions, and water, in liquid form, has not been unequivocally observed on planets within our solar system. However, there are indications that liquid water may exist on Jupiter's moons. Interest has centred upon Jupiter's satellite, Phobos, and the possibility exists that water may be present under occluding bodies of surface ice. Furthermore, other celestial bodies within our solar system might be viable candidates for the presence of life. I won't be discussing these possibilities today, as the purpose of this post is a tad more ambitious.

Today, I want to concentrate on the search for life outside our solar system. It is sobering to think that only within the last 30 years have we been able to detect planets belonging to stars within our Milky Way galaxy. Planets are commonplace, and most stars have their own collection of orbiting planets.   

Two methodologies are employed in the search for extraterrestrial life. The most ambitious involves looking for advanced technological signs that would indicate the presence of highly advanced organisms at least as advanced as ourselves. There is also a more modest sister programme. In this instance, the researchers are looking for general biomarkers. It is possible to detect the presence of chemicals in a planet's atmosphere using spectroscopy. I'll not discuss spectroscopy here, although its discovery and methodology are worthy of a separate post. For our purposes, it is sufficient to state that the device analyses electromagnetic emission spectra. By examining the spectra for specific absorption profiles, it is possible to determine the chemical composition of the source of the electromagnetic radiation. This is a powerful tool with applications in astronomy, biology, chemistry and physics.

There are a variety of organic compounds associated with life, albeit simple life. These chemicals usually cannot be formed by known inorganic, physical processes; therefore, their presence can be used as a general marker for the presence of life. A number of planets outside our solar system have recently provided promising results using spectroscopy. Although the results are indicative, they are often equivocal. However, in a recent paper, researchers claim they have detected a planet with a very strong set of biomarkers. Again, it needs to be stressed that these markers do not indicate advanced life and, if confirmed, are likely to be associated with primitive non-complex life forms. A Cambridge University team examined the atmosphere of a planet aptly named K2-18b and discovered a set of chemicals usually associated with simple bacterial organisms. This is another great discovery for the James Webb telescope. To date, it represents the strongest evidence for extraterrestrial life. However, it needs to be stressed that additional work is required for validation. 

The planet in question lies 124 light years from Earth and is roughly 2.5 times the size. In addition, the planet lies in the so-called 'Goldilocks Zone '.  This implies that temperatures on the planet are compatible with the formation of life and indicate the presence of liquid water. The atmosphere is analysed as the planet passes across its small red dwarf sun. Two chemicals have been detected, dimethylsulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). Both of these chemicals are associated with phytoplankton found in the seas on Earth. If the results are confirmed,  the implications are profound. Intriguingly, the analysis suggests that the chemicals are in very high concentrations. These high concentrations are impossible to replicate in our terrestrial setting by non-biological means. From the report, the latest measurements provide a three-sigma certainty, which is tech jargon for a 99.7% certainty. Although this result provides strong evidence for DMS and DMDS, further confirmatory work is required before everyone gets too excited.

So what does all this mean? Even if the work is confirmed, this does not necessarily prove that life exists on K2-18b. While it is true that DMS and DMDS have previously only been linked to biological processes in a terrestrial setting, this does not rule out the possibility of a non-organic origin. There may be unknown physical forces responsible for this unusual chemical profile. Current research is focused on the possibility of producing DMS and DMDS under laboratory conditions without recourse to biology- watch this space. 

Although the results from this study provide the best evidence of extraterrestrial life, so far, extreme caution needs to be exercised. DMS has been detected on comets, which may suggest production by physical and chemical means alone, although past biological processes can not be ruled out. Let us assume that after the Astrobiologists have performed their due diligence, the results can only be interpreted as indicating the presence of life, albeit simple bacterial life. Of course, in reality, there is never absolute certainty in science, only a level of statistical validity.  With that caveat out of the way, let's speculate. The presence of extraterrestrial life would have fantastical implications. It would confirm our strong suspicion that independent life is possible elsewhere in the universe and suggest that the formation of life is inevitable given the right physical conditions. Our Milky Way Galaxy contains at least 100 billion stars, most of which contain orbiting planets. From a 2015 study, scientists have estimated that, on average, 1 to 3 planets exist within the habitable zone of their host star. Each of these planets is a possible incubator for life. Therefore, our galaxy should be teeming with life. Again, it must be emphasised that this does not necessarily mean we are inevitably dealing with the presence of sophisticated, technologically advanced life. I suspect that the probability of advanced life is extremely rare for reasons I will expound in a future post.   

References     

Nikku Madhusudhan et al. ‘New Constraints on DMS and DMDS in the Atmosphere of K2-18b from JWST MIRI.’ The Astrophysical Journal Letters (2025). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c8 

 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society on March 18, 2015.

        

Carrhae II

Surena Sporting a Cool Tan and Hair Style

 Carrhae- Analysis and Aftermath

The battle of Carrhae was a decisive loss in the annals of Roman history. Of the confident army that crossed the Euphrates in 53 BC, 20,000 were dead, 10,000 captured, and only 5,000 made it back to tell the tale. 

Many leading Romans opposed the campaign, including Cicero, who claimed it was a war without cause. This was true, as a treaty existed between the two empires. Others claimed it was a war of aggrandisement, allowing Crassus to achieve military success equal to the other Triumvirs, Pompey and Caesar. Again, this is also true. His campaign route was also criticised. His senior officers strongly suggested that the invasion should occur through Armenia to secure that nation's significant military aid. Crassus coldly rejected the offer. He likely wanted an exclusive victory. A victory reliant solely on his own merit and the subsequent glory, Crassus didn't want to share. In this regard, Crassus was no different from a class of Romans on the treadwheel of the Cursus Honorum. The act of provoking war and chasing personal fame was inbred into aristocratic Romans. Honour and accolades awaited. The Parthians were a mere vehicle for Crassus's soon-to-be Triumph in Rome. But first, he had to swat away those pesky Parthians. Of course, the Parthians had other ideas and a well-honed battle plan.

The Roman political system was built for ambitious aristocrats to obtain money and secure honour, which could only be achieved by the force of arms. In this regard, Crassus was no different from Caesar, Pompey, and many other Romans. The clamour of approbation would have vanished if Crassus had achieved a solid military result.    

Crassus's worst mistake was not acquiring intelligence about his enemy. He had little knowledge of how the Parthians waged war and made no effort to rectify his mistake whilst on campaign. Crassus suffered from the belief that the Roman military system, once unleashed, was unbeatable. His gravest fault was hubris. Not acquiring crucial military information concerning your enemy is unforgivable in a commander, and Crassus would suffer accordingly. The Roman way of war consisted of set-piece infantry battles; however, the Parthians did not oblige in this instance. The Romans, unfamiliar with this type of warfare, as it consisted of cavalry archers adroitly managed, suffered accordingly. Surena showed his mastery of logistics by using camels as arrow bearers to replenish his mounted archers- the arrow barrage would continue to nightfall. The Parthians were skilled mounted archers who could shoot frontally and backwards on the feigned retreat. Although the Romans were heavily armoured and protected by the large scutum, inevitably, the arrows would find a mark. Publius' cavalry sortie was ill-considered. It was quickly surrounded and destroyed after being lured away from the main body of troops. It is telling that when Publius exhorted his cavalry to attack, his men protested, exhibiting their pierced hands and feet. 

Crassus was too trusting of his native guides and failed to unearth their motivations for providing help. In fact, they had been planted by the cunning Parthians to purposely lead the Romans astray (silly Crassus).  He was lured into the waterless desert, a terrain perfect for Surena's horse archers. The treacherous Arab guide, Ariamnes, also assured Crassus that the opposing Parthian army was relatively small in number and posed little threat to the mighty Roman legions. Again, during Crassus' final retreat, he was lured into unfavourable marshland by treachery.

No doubt, Crassus was a fool for not accepting Armenian help. The Armenians could supply 36,000 troops, and an invasion from Armenian territory benefited the Romans. Surena would have had difficulty enacting the battle on favourable terms due to the hilly terrain, which was totally unsuited for cavalry. Also, the Armenians knew the territory well and would have guided the Roman army along the most advantageous route into the Parthian heartland. Furthermore, the Armenians were well aware of the battle order of the Parthians and their reliance on horse archers. This knowledge would have served the Romans well and helped formulate troop dispositions. Although the Romans had encountered horse archers before, these experiences were little more than skirmishes. The battle of Carrhae was the first time a Roman army faced a massed cavalry army entirely devoted to archery.

Crassus was complacent. The Romans had previously faced off against eastern armies and generally had defeated much larger armies with relative ease. Crassus, therefore, underestimated the Parthians—a grievous fault in any general. Ultimately, his overweening confidence contributed greatly to his downfall. This is particularly puzzling as Crassus was no novice to war. Indeed, he was deemed a competent soldier and was responsible for finally ending the Third Servile War led by the legendary Sparticus. However, this victory occurred decades ago in 71 BC.     

Aftermath

This was a decisive Roman defeat, and with the defeat came lost prestige. Also, seven Eagle Standards carried by the legions had been lost to the enemy, a major disgrace for Rome. The standards were finally returned in 20 BC after negotiations with the Parthians mediated by Augustus.

The Triumvirate of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar had been a difficult political balancing act. Crassus' death changed the political dynamic, and soon, Caesar and Pompey would go to war to vie for ultimate power in Rome. The scene was set for the dreadful and debilitating Civil War of 49-45 BC. The aftermath signalled the death of Republican Rome and the introduction of Imperial Rome. In addition, Rome's ambitions in the east were curtailed, and the Parthians took advantage of the defeat by invading Rome's ally, Armenia. This placed the Parthians in a favourable position to invade Roman-held Syria. Initially, they were beaten by Cassius, he of Caesar assassination fame. Over the next two decades, Parthia invaded the Roman East at will, occupying Syria twice. The Parthian victory ended the concord between these two great empires and placed the Roman province of Syria under grave danger for decades.

Conclusion

Crassus's bid for vainglory not only ended in personal tragedy but also brought grave consequences for Rome. Rome's perceived invincibility was no more. It also precipitated the collapse of the Republican system that had served the Romans well for many centuries and hurried the arrival of one-man rule. The defeat broke the peace with the Parthian Empire, and the following incursions by the Parthians into Roman-held territory would be the source of much mischief and calamity for the Romans for years to come. Thus, Crassus' defeat had profound implications for Rome and ultimately would set the scene for great misery, death and destruction.

Footnote

Suruna, the Parthian general at Carrhae, did not survive long following his great victory. Unfortunately, he was seen as a threat to the incumbent Parthian monarch, Orodès II, and was thus unceremoniously dispatched.   

 

  

Carrhae Part I

Parthian Shot

Rome of 59 BC was in a state of political flux. The Republican system was coming to an end. Ambitious Romans were vying for ultimate rule. The first Triumvirate, which consisted of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, was an informal association between these talented, rich and powerful men. Crassus was the richest man in Rome, while Pompey was a highly successful general. Caesar was the junior member of the group, but the other two recognised Caesar's undoubted political and burgeoning military ability. The idea of the Triumvirate was to influence and dominate the political scene using their wealth and political reach. They utilised this combined power to ensure each member was assigned a province to maximise their political ends. In 55 BC, Crassus secured the governorship of Syria. At this time, Caesar was busy conquering Gaul while Pompey was sent to govern Spain,

Although Crassus was extremely rich and immensely influential on the political scene, he wanted to increase his gravitas by a spectacular military victory. He felt inferior to his two political colleagues in this regard. Pompey was an acclaimed general with many important victories under his belt, and Caesar was making a name for himself during the conquest of Gaul. That said, Crassus was no military slouch himself, although his greatest feats were decades ago- he needed to burnish his military reputation with a great victory.  It was no secret that once ensconced as the governor of Syria, Crassus intended to provoke war with the powerful Parthian empire to the east. Thus, in the autumn of 54 BC, Crassus crossed the Euphrates River with an army of 50,000 men. He quickly overcame several towns in Mesopotamia. Many of the towns in the region contained a large Greek contingent sympathetic to Rome, greatly aiding his success. After leaving garrisons in the subdued towns, he retreated back over the Euphrates and retired into winter quarters. Crassus was puzzled. During the campaign, the Parthian army was nowhere to be seen, leaving the Roman army unmolested.

Whilst in winter quarters, Crassus was approached by the king of Armenia. The king offered to supply 36,000 men for the campaign if Crassus invaded Parthia from Armenian territory. Undoubtedly, the wily Armenian king hoped his help would aid in annexing territory from the Parthians. The alliance made good military sense, but was rejected by Crassus. Perhaps Crassus did not want to share and dilute his military victory by invoking the help of a foreign power. Thus, Crassus crossed the Euphrates again in the summer of 53 BC. It was hoped that this time he could provoke the Parthians to battle, undoubtedly securing a decisive Roman victory and bringing glory and accolades that Crassus thought were rightly his. However, the Parthians had other ideas. A traitorous Arab guide persuaded Crassus that the best route was through desert territory, but this was a ploy to draw out the Romans into a waterless wasteland.  

The Roman way of making war was the standard Western method of war inherited from the Greeks. Large infantry armies would face off and engage while cavalry occupied a subordinate role. Here, Roman discipline, training and arms would prevail over the ragtag Eastern army. Once again, Roman arms would sweep all before it- a new Roman province would be born. While marching east, Crassus' scouts encountered a Parthian army on its way to battle. Crassus' day of glory had arrived. But unlike his expectations, he was not to face an infantry army. The army, 10,000 strong, was mostly comprised of mounted horse archers. The remaining contingent consisted of heavily armoured horsemen (Cataphracts).           

To counter the archers, Crassus had his men form an open square. In this way, he sought to avoid envelopment as he continued his march. The archers surrounded the Romans and shot volley after volley into the Roman square. The large scutum carried by the soldiers protected them well from the arrows, but an arrow would occasionally find a foot or hand. Crassus surmised that the arrow storm would soon end as the archers exhausted their supply of missiles. However, the cunning Parthian general, Surena, had ensured that his men would be well supplied as he had organised teams of camels laden/burdened with replacement arrows. Crassus hadn't bargained for this continuous barrage, and the casualties were starting to add up. It must have been infuriating for the troops as they could not reply. At this stage, Crassus reasoned that the only way to get to grips with the enemy was to utilise his cavalry. Under Crassus' son, Publius, the cavalry stormed out of the square. In response, the archers took flight and retreated. As the archers retreated, they twisted and delivered a backwards parting shot. This technique became known as the 'Parthian Shot'. The retreat was a feint, and soon Publius and his men faced archers and heavy Parthian cavalry. The Roman troop became surrounded, and in desperation, Publius beseeched one of his men to kill him lest he fall into the clutches of a cruel enemy. The defeat became known to Crassus when a lone Parthian rider paraded in front of the Roman line holding Publius' severed head.   

At the sight of his son's detached noggin so carelessly displayed, Cassius suffered a bout of 'Nervous Prostration' and lost the will to command.  Two legates took control and issued orders for a night march back to Roman-controlled territory. As night fell, an eerie silence descended upon the Roman camp as the Parthians called a halt to all offensive activities. The Romans took advantage of the lull and set out in the dark, desperately seeking to reach friendly lines. It was a pitiful sight as the wounded were abandoned, knowing that morning would bring certain death.   

By the morning, the battered remnants of the Roman army had reached the Roman-held town of Carrhae. During the night march, wounded men and stragglers had been left behind only to fall into the hands of a vengeful enemy in the morning. Eventually, the Parthian general, Surena, arrived outside the town and demanded that Crassus be sent to him in chains. It was deemed that the town could not be defended from the Parthians, and Crassus decided that his men should split up into separate groups and make a forced night march to reach the Euphrates. However, a traitorous guide led Crassus's ragtag army into a swamp. Under these dire conditions, the Romans took refuge on a hill. In the morning, Crassus agreed to treat with the Parthians. Surena offered safe passage from Parthian territory if Crassus signed a peace treaty. During the meet, the Parthains placed Crassus on a horse draped in rich trappings, clearly mocking Crassus for his wealth. The Roman party recognised the insult, and a fight broke out between the opposing troops, and during the melee, Crassus was killed. It is said that molten gold was poured down Crassus' mouth, but this report is likely hyperbole on behalf of the reporter.    

This post is already too long, and I haven't started on my analysis. It will have to await until the next post, coming soon.            

Ancient Folk and Big Stones

This post was inspired by a YouTube video I watched about a Mesoamerican site earlier today.

The author was examining the massive granite blocks at the site, some of which weighed 120 tons. In addition, these stones had been quarried 2.5 miles from a mountain, moved across a river, and then moved uphill to their final resting place. This feat of engineering would be a challenging endeavour today, given modern engineering tools and technology. Yet, a pre-metal culture managed this problem on multiple occasions.  Graham Hancock etal would argue that this was not the work of Mesoamerican Indians but a lost civilisation (c12,000 years ago) applying advanced technology. This is a serious argument that needs addressing. 

Some support the proposal that there were technologically advanced civilisations before our present system. These civilisations existed thousands of years ago (?12,000) but were destroyed by a cataclysmic event, erasing all trace except for the monolithic stones that stand today. They often point to various authors of ancient pedigree who discuss and narrate oral traditions that existed in their day. The most famous of these authors is Plato and his presentation of the lost Atlantis.   

Let us look at the claims objectively. Anatomically modern humans have existed for about 300 thousand years. These folk were as intelligent as anyone gracing Tipton High Street today (may the gods help us!).. The first civilisation, which we know, occurred around the 4th millennium BC in Mesopotamia. We might ask what humans were doing before this time, and, given the time involved, why didn't a civilisation arise before this period and flourish?  And when I mean civilisation, I mean a highly technologically advanced civilisation, perhaps even more advanced than today. Is this unreasonable given the time scale involved? Remember, much of our technical advances have been achieved over a relatively short period of 200 years. All traces of a civilisation from 12000 years ago would now be lost. Metals would corrode and deteriorate, and even persistent plastic would degrade. The only structures left are the colossal stone works that we observe today, scattered throughout the globe. It is a compelling argument, but it suffers from two fundamental problems.

Any technologically advanced civilisation requires a substantial energy source. That energy resource must come from fossil fuel exploitation—coal, oil, and oil-refined derivatives such as petrol. Natural sources of energy simply won't do the job. They are too dispersed and geographically isolated. Before the introduction of nuclear fission, oil/petrol was by far the best energy resource we had. This is because these products, especially petrol and diesel, are highly energy-dense. For instance, the energy available in a litre of petrol is 33 megajoules and is only exceeded as an energy source by diesel (39MJ/L). It is hard to comprehend how an advanced civilisation would not have exploited the large reserves of fossil fuel at least during its initial stage of development.  Now here is the rub: there is no evidence whatsoever that fossil fuels were extensively extracted until the industrial revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. No doubt, coal was mined by the ancient Chinese and the Romans, but not to the extent that would be required to fuel the vast energy requirements of the 19th century and beyond. The same applies to oil utilisation. In certain regions, natural oil deposits bubble to the surface, and the ancients capitalised on these easily obtained resources. The point is that there is no geological evidence for extensive mining of coal or oil extraction by an unknown, very ancient, advanced civilisation. If there had been heavy exploitation from a lost age, c10000 BC, it would have certainly left a 'geological imprint' readily observable today.

My second point also relies on geology to a large extent. It is hard to consider an advanced civilisation without metallurgy. There is only so much that can be achieved with stone and wood. Metal and metal ore mining is a game changer in the evolution to become an advanced technological civilisation. Imagine a combustion engine made of wood and stone.. Metalworking is essential, particularly the science of blending metals to form alloys—alloys with particular and peculiar properties designed to overcome a specific engineering problem. Again, as with the energy issue, there should be evidence of large-scale ore exploitation going back to before known civilisation, and this is simply not the case. Gold and copper appear in their pure form on the surface or in river beds and thus were utilised by humans (c7000 BC). The first mining shafts to extract copper ore were found at Rudna Glava in the Balkans (c4000 BC), and by 3800 BC, copper mines had been excavated on the Sinai Peninsula. By 2800 BC, tin was also mined, bringing forth the amalgamation of copper and tin to herald in the Bronze Age. Iron was first mined and utilised by the Hittites (1500 BC), and further processing of iron to steel came forth in the 11th century BC. Aluminium extraction and widespread usage did not occur until the end of the 19th century. While bauxite, the ore containing aluminium, was mined for various uses in the ancient world, its extensive mining did not come about until modern times. Thus, there is no evidence in the geological record for extensive metal ore mining before known ancient cultures and certainly not the exploitation required to maintain a highly developed technological society. The evidence is in the stone. 

My final point concerns perceptions relating to our ancient ancestors. For Hancock and similar folk, an insulting stain spreads throughout their thesis. There is an underlying insinuation that known ancients were somehow inferior in intelligence to ourselves, and of course, to a lost civilisation from 12000 years ago. And this is not the case. The ancient Egyptians, the Mayans and other ancients were smart, and though they might not have had our advanced tech, they were not devoid of advanced ingenuity. Nuff said. What do my readers think?