Ursus

I don't claim to be an expert, but I seem to pay more attention to social, cultural and religious issues than many Romanophiles. My weak spot is in what most of you seem to specialize in - military affairs.

Home town history? I think someone took a dump in the woods once, and founded a town on the spot. It's remained pretty much a toilet ever since.

Roman law favored the propertied classes. This was because, theoretically at least, the propertied classes took the brunt of State service. Like I said in the other thread, Romans had an unassailable sense of social class, and these classes defined the rights and duties of the individual in the class. When the Romans absorbed conquered people into their empire, the local elites were often the first to Romanize since Roman law supported them over the common locals. It was far from egalitarian, but it might be "fair" if you think those who better serve the State deserve better treatment from the State. It was what a lot of Romans themselves believed apparently. *shrugs* England and her former colonies are more influenced by Anglo-Saxon common law than Roman legal codes. As a former colonial, I really don't like common law. It gives judges entirely too much power. I'd rather the power be in the hands of the legislatures who were elected to write the legal codes in the first place. Sorry for the social commentary, but I thought it was appropriate here. My legal code is descended from barbarians. It sucks.

P.C. Thanks. Just too much free time on my hands. ;-) PP and Spar: To me the system of orders makes sense on theoretical level. I don't think I totally buy the belief in absolute egalitarianism our modern age proscribes. The basic idea seems sound to me - that one is ranked in one's society according to the wealth and service one invests to the State. That one's political rights and perks are tied to one's contributions to society. Remember the lowly proletarians from the early republic, who had no vote whatsoever, but who were exempt from taxes and military service and only expected to contribute their proles (offspring?). Heck, half of Americans don't vote anyway, but they are forced to pay taxes and register for military conscription. To me the system is only unfair if there is no opportunity for advancement. If people are locked into a social caste from birth, such as ancient Hindus, that would be terrible. But if there is opportunity for advancement up the ranks, and theoretically a possibility for demotion down the ranks due to punishment or deriliction of duties, that would seem fair. All the books I read suggest people did move up (and, less frequently, down) the ranks in the imperial Rome. So there was mobility, if somewhat limited.

Following from the thread on politics, I thought we could look at the role of class structure in Imperial Rome. So in the early Republic there were basically two distinct divisions, the Patricians and the Plebs. The Patricians could be further divided into Senators and Equites. By Imperial times we have a complicated social hierarchy. Augustus restored the Republican system of orders, but there were now sharper differences - although things can be roughly divided between the social haves (honestiores) and social have-nots (humiliores). Honestiores: Senators, Equestrians, Decurions 1) The Senatorial order. Requirement: one million sesterces. Perks: right to hold various offices, right to sit in Senatorial seats in public, right to wear the toga with a broad purple stripe. Recruitment: by the Princeps, among the wealthiest and most powerful families across the empire. Restrictions: strict moral legislation imposed by Augustus. Forbidden to marry freedwomen or perform in public spectacles. Subdivision: the ancient families with Consular ancestors were known as nobiles and were more prestigious than newly recruited Senatorial families. 2) The Equestrian order. Requirement: 400, 000 sesterces. Two previous generations of free birth. Perks: right to sit in equestrian seats in public; right to hold various offices; right to wear toga with narrow purple stripe and wear a gold ring Recruitment: From Romanized propertied classes across the empire Restrictions: strict moral legislation, could not perform in public spectacles Subdivision: small minority holding high office for emperor called the "equestrian nobility" and had special titles. The Praetorian Prefect came to virtualy outrank Senators. 3) Decurions. Requirement: vague requirement for wealth (around 100, 000 sesterces), social prestige, and moral status Perks: right to hold local office, distinction among local population Recruitment: local men of property recruited by provincial government for municipal service Restrictions: were not paid for their services, and were expected to contribute their wealth to the community. Subdivision: the wealthiest and most powerful were called the "New Men" who had exploited the prosperity of the Pax Romana and risen above local obscurity. Humiliores: freemen and slaves Requirement: none, other than being a slave or a freeman of no political and economic significance. Perks: few to none Recruitment: born into a social class, or sold into slavery Restrictions: no real part in political process Subdivisions: Freeborn could make fortunes and become decorians and onward. Slaves could buy or be granted freedom, but any recently manumitted slave could not hold office. Some slaves employed in government service or as household servants of the power elite held more wealth and influence than freemen. (the above is largely taken from _The Roman Empire_ by Garnsey and Saller). Romans were obsessed with their social status and paraded it everywhere. It was said every Roman except those at the very top (the Emperor) and those at the very bottom (slaves) were simultaneously a patron to those in the lower orders and a client to those in the higher orders. This interlocking client-patron relationships basically defined Roman society. Roman Social Class Conscious. Virtue or Vice? Inegalitarian social structure offensive to modern sensibilities? Or a smoothly ordered social system where those who contributed the most wealth and political service to the system were rewarded with high social status? What say you?

And that's why I like the guy. He was "conservative" on an intellectual and religious level, but was willing to adapt social institutions to see those ideals were better conveyed in an evolving world. Radical conservative. Populist conservatrive. Call it what you want, I would have thrown my lot in with Octavian had I been there. :-)

Ursus = bear. Sort of a familial and personal insignia for me.

I'm 27. I look younger. I feel older.

Well, what would you call Augustus? He was a conservative at heart but had to use some radical means to achieve and maintain power.

One might imagine the office of princeps becoming gradually restrained by law and custom as various royal traditions have done in other countries, such as in Britain. Unfortunately the system for both the emperor and the "nobles" (for lack of a better word) was too unstable to evolve along those lines. The Republic might have worked if it had been considerably overhauled to take into account the reality of a world spanning empire. Unfortunately the Romans were too conservative (or, rather, the Senatorial oligarchy was too entrenched) to bring about decisive change except at the hands of a strong man government. I certainly prefer Republics to Empires. But I don't mourn the fall of the Roman Republic because as it existed it couldn't deal with the realities of empires. The Empire gave Rome and its provinces another chance at survival, at least for a few generations before the parade of idiots and lunatics began. Power corrupts? I would say it was the corruption of the patrician oligarchy of the Republican era, rather than the corruption of later emperors, which is what ultimately led Rome on the track it did.

Every Roman family honored the genius, or divine spiritual essence, of the male head of its household (paterfamilias). When Caesar and Augustus claimed to be, in effect, the paterfamilias of the entire Roman race, they cajoled the Senate into granting them apotheosis. Which meant that the genius of the emperor would have its own state cult, and that individuals could honor the genius of an emperor in their domestic settings. In the East the Caesars were worshipped as gods on earth. But in the West it was more along the lines that one was honoring the spiritual essence of the individual as a sort of guardian angel or protective spirit. And this grew quite logically out of ancient Roman familial religion. Augustus was so popular that his genius was honored at the private hearth of many common ciitzens, and it was also honored on the crossroads where citizens were used to honoring the Lares, or local spirits, of the neighborhood. To pious Romans Augustus became, in effect, a guardian angel. ;-)

I actually have a lot of interest in Egypt, which had an empire during the New Kindgom period. But since that wasn't one of the options I went with Alexander.

I thought I'd bump this up for the new people. Why are *you* interested in Rome? So far, the military buffs are leading.

Roman culture was very urban in character. Temples, baths, markets and so forth were all part of urban life. In the Western Empire when a tribe was conquered Rome would build a city (or expand upon an existing proto-town) and develop in into an urban center whence the conquered tribe could interact with Rome. This inspired tribes to move in from the hills and woods and lead a "civilized" life where they could enjoy the fruits of Romanization. The towns would always be the strongholds of Romanization while those still living in the countryside would be far less effected by Roman culture. All those forts, aquaducts, roads and so forth also had very practical and economic benefits to the empire, too. My favorite examples of imperial architecture are the Romano-Celtic temples in the West. Not only are they interesting from an architectural standpoint, but they served as a place where Celts and Romans could honor their gods side by side. They helped foster a religious and thus political peace between the two cultures.

I used to grumble that nine out of ten threads were dedicated to minute military affairs, but as the site has grown we have more diverse topics on Roman culture, religion and ethics, thankfully. I've made suggestions to also include a board for cultures related to Rome like Greece, Britain, Egypt, etc., as those cultures relate to Rome. I think that would open up a new playing field, and would be quite fun. We already had a nice discussion on Celto-Roman affairs. The social lounge has a lot of nice, fluffy topics. I'm not sure what type of diversity you are looking for. This is, when all is said and done, a Romanophile forum. :-)

But they had to rely on Egyptians and other Easterners for such things, because Rome and Greece didn't have much of a tradition of magical things (unless you count divination, which is a different animal). The lack of magical stuff in the Greco-Roman cultural framework is one of the reasons why the native religions fell out of favor and why people turned to Orientalism - they wanted a tradition of magic and mysticism to help save them from troubled times, and they couldn't get such things from their own religions.

I belive later Romans would cut off their thumb tips to try to get out of military service.

Romans thought of sex in terms of power, not of gender. Relations between males was generally fine, but the person of inferior social rank had to take passive sexual positions to the person of superior social rank. If someone of superior social rank was found to be the passive partner of someone of lesser rank, he would lose respect. He would be considered effeminate and under the influence of a social inferior. Any male thought effeminate for any reason would be scorned, since he wouldn't be seen as manly enough to serve at his proper place in Roman society. The Romans would despise some of the gender bender roles associated in some modern homosexual quarters. Also, men were still expected to marry and produce heirs. What Romans tolerated was bisexuality, not homosexuality. The notion that someone could be exclusively homosexual and not have anything to do with the opposite sex is a very modern one. The Romans would not tolerate same sex marriage, since it would be seen as a threat to the fundamental institution of Roman society - the family. Augustus assumed power at a time when the social fabric of Roman society known to the early Republic had broken down. Divorce and adultery were rampant, less families were having children, and traditional Roman values had gone by the wayside in the pursuit of imperial wealth and power. He frowned on homosexuality because he wanted to discourage anything that might interfere with a revival of traditional Roman family values. However, there is speculation that he himself was homosexual, or at least that he started his career as the passive sexual partner of Julius Caesar (that's what his enemies gossiped about, at any rate). And if he had been sincerely more interested in men than women, it would explain why he was immune to the charms of Cleopatra when better men than he couldn't resist her. Edited to add one final note: homosexuality (or, rather, bisexuality) was tolerated only among males. Females were not supposed to sleep with anything other than their husbands.

I think the Roman civic salute that is the focus of this thread is different from the military salute. The military salute would be applied in a purely military contexts from soldiers to officers. The civic salute was used by citizens and senators. For instance, when Caesar won a civic award for heroism at a young age, thereafter everyone (even Senators) were required to rise to their feet and render him the civic salute.

I've never read Toynbee, though it does sound fascinating. However, I'm a practical man and I think most things have a practical explanation. In modern political science terms, there is the concept of "imperial overstretch." That is empires have a tendency to expand and over exert themselves. There comes a point when the costs of maintaining an empire exceed the benefits of the empire. And of course if the non-profitable portions of the empire are not discarded immediately, the long term effect will be a drain (and eventual collapse) of the entire empire. (Look at the Soviet Empire -- its far flung assests were simply too expensive for them to hold on given their poor economy). In relation to Rome, the question we have to ask is: which parts of the empire were profitable to maintain, and which were unproductive or even counter-productive? At what point did the Roman Empire expand beyond the ability to maintain itself? Well, most of the real wealth was in the East. And the Byzantine Empire did survive nicely for several centuries even with enemies on all sides. I'm not sure how much Western Europe was really profitable. A book I read makes the case that the areas immediately along the Mediterranean basin were easily integrated into the economy, but the rest of the Western empire was more trouble then it was worth. It would have been more profitable for the Romans to simply have traded with Gauls and Britons and Celto-iberians than to have conquered them. But however you slice it, the Empire was simply too big, there were too many unproductive areas, and the long term consequence was the collapse of everything except the wealthier Eastern core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_salute According to this the salute was fairly common among a number of cultures. Therefore even if it's not quintessentially Roman, it does long predate Mussolini and Hitler.

What exactly do you mean?

They were thinking it might be the only reason people like me would tune in. ;-) Seriously, I haven't seen it, but I must watch it if only to see just how bad it really is. And, to see Kiera Knightly, too.

Like you I enjoyed the production values, the visual feel of Rome. But everything else was a waste of my time.

What Kind of Warrior are You? Your sphere is Ronin (Look for great Ambition and Success), and your class is Arms Master (Pragmatic and Stout). You are a Mercenary. Great strength that stands alone. You're strong enough in solving problems that you'd loan your skills out -- for a price. To be a Mercenary isn't necessarily to be a literal Soldier of Fortune, but it does mean that you have great practical knowledge of the world, and great ambition. And by applying both, you will climb the ladder of Renown to great personal triumph and glory. This is actually accurate. I'm willing to work hard and do dirty work -- but you have to pay me well. And I always look out for number 1.