caldrail

Caligula vs nero, and its looking as if as Nero's superior talent and fun personality is winning out

Much of this info comes down to us from satyric poets and moralists of the Roman times and much of it was very likely true. However we should keep in mind that many of the people who report the curruption of the Roman world usually like to exaggerate for their own purpose. The same moralists today who complain about the degeneracy of the world. Should we generalize and say that this world is nothing but a *or*/sex addicted enron like society? No. My opinions come from letters written by romans to their friends, or from grafitti left by disillusioned romans. This is the society that charged a tax on going to the toilet for crying out loud. And lets face it, although plenty of romans disliked degeneracy their concept of it was a little different from ours. Prostitutes could rent alcoves at the back of wealthy homes. Landlords charged high rents for rat infested jerry-built condo's. In fact, roman society functioned like a watered down version of the mafia. They left us plenty of evidence for it.

Greek influenced. Remember though that the carthaginian army was largely composed of mercenaries. Despite the hellenistic leanings egypt had an individual style to its armed forces. I think its harder to put egypt in one category or another.

Firstly both would have you put to death for suggesting they were short of sanity. Caligula - No, not a raving looney, but a very maladjusted young man. He had no restraint on his malicious mickey-taking and in an immature fashion attempted to explore the limits of his power over others in much the same way a young child does with his parents. Claiming to be a living god? Well he wasn't alone there. Lots of autcratic rulers with fawning courtiers came to that conclusion. Nero - A young man who grew up to self determination despite his mothers control. Again he discovered he could do anything and decided to have a good time all of the time. And just to make it better, he'd give everyone else a good time by performing in public. Nero didn't burn rome - he was 35 miles away in antium when that started. He also rushed back to organise relief efforts. It was his lack of judgement that he chose to build his palace on former residential land. Did the christians deserve burning? No not really, although there is some circumstantial evidence that christian activists had something to do with it. Case unproven. Murdering his mother? Truth is nero was left little choice but to. You want a real nutcase? Elagabulus.

Good point. I haven't seen any. However, it strikes me that they'd have little use for it. First of all poison might be expensive to obtain, and then you might need someone to prepare and administer it. Lower classes tend to be more direct. A knife in the ribs or a darn good thrashing usually better for them. The upper classes require more subtlety, hence the use of poison.

Possibly, but in the light of evidence given above I now see Sulla not so much as Montgomery Burns, more like Fat Tony. I know this is speculation, but Chrysogonus's fate does have similarities to a gangland execution. "Chrysogonus... Chrysogonus... I made a freedman. I let you buy a villa at cost price. And this is how you repay me? Huh? You drag my good name through the court. What am I gonna do with you?..... Shaddup. I don't wanna hear these excuses. Throw him off the rock..." In reality though I would think Sulla found a legal excuse to execute chrysogonus?

Its often been suggested that the romans were prone to lead poisoning. I've always been a bit suspicious of this. True the roman plumbing was composed of lead pipes but the amount of lead picked up is insignificant and in any case, a protective chemical layer tends to form. On the other hand, the use of cooking vessels made of lead has better credibility. This poisoning wouldn't have dropped a roman dead in thirty seconds, more like senile in thirty years. So rather like today, some aspects of roman lifestyles were unhealthy.

Yes. Roman society functioned on wealth as a symbol of status. In a very competitive atmosphere this means that people will tend to make money or take financial advantage at any moment. We see this everywhere. Extortionate landlords, caveat emptor, etc. The military would have been no better. I was always struck by a letter from one roman to another, telling him that he shouldn't argue with the legionary who stole his donkey.

The roman army did not create the empire. They won enough victories to ensure that threats were eliminated where possible but the expansion was political as well as as military. It was mercantile as well violent. Remember that for much of their reign the romans were at peace. A soldier could sign on, serve 25 years, and receive excellent health care whilst never seeing combat. Soldiers need to be kept busy or else you get trouble. Make no mistake, once you've trained a man to hardship and killing he needs something to do. All armies face this problem. A pathetic and weak collection of rabble that couldn't chew and spit gum at the same time? That describes every army that ever existed at one time or another. What makes an army cohesive and able is superior leadership, training, and esprit-de-corps. To a large extent the romans had that. Their centurions were professional career officers who were under no requirement to retire at all. That meant there was a body of experienced leaders who maintained the standards of legion behaviour. Unfortunately all too many of these men were corrupt, something the romans were never able to eradicate. It was endemic to their society and this affected the nature of the men under their command. My point is not that the roman legions were poor. My point was that they were sometimes poor. That they did rebel, that they did lose a few battles, that they were not the efficient steamroller we like to believe. The romans liked to plug their victories loud and proud. Well so would we in their place. How often do we celebrate the battle of britain? That means we read of soldiers conquering right left and center. To some extent thats exactly what they did. They were far better organised than their enemies (or victims) and that gave them a huge advantage. An even bigger advantage, literally, is that the roman recruitment pool became so large that replacing losses was far easier than for others. The romans did take losses. The early battles of a campaign were often disasters until a better general was found than the amateur political appointee who had vaingloriously led them to embarrasement. Look closer. Try to see the legionary as an individual rather than a cog in a ruthlessly effiecient killing machine. A man of humble birth has volunteered and found acceptable by the legions. He is taught drill, weaponry, and labouring. He must endure the privations of route marches and camps, in all weathers. He is expected to draw a sword and kill on command. He is cheated of his pay by his more experienced colleagues. Some he must use to bribe a centurion or be liable for some of the more undesirable fatigues. The rest he will spend on whores and booze when he gets the chance. If he is caught sleeping on guard, he faces terrible punishment. If he and his colleagues show cowardice, he may be called upon to beat a friend to death. This was a harsh regime designed to produce killers. It did. However as I've said life in the legions wasn't always so grim. Duties were variable and assigned on a rota (sestercii allowing). Would I severely underestimate them? No. But I would take careful note of who their commander was and the strategy he displayed.

Caldrail is indeed interested. Cicero shows his daring and oratory. Chrysonogus shows what a chump he was to invite scandal. Sulla shows his true colours.

Christianity has a habit of claiming the moral high ground. Sadly it doesn't deserve it. For all the good works there's just as much sin committed in its name, no different from any other religion. One thing to bear in mind is that Gibbon lived at a time when christianity had a firm hold on society. I've never read Gibbon so I can't say whether I agree with him or not but for him to suggest that christianity was guilty is something of a brave step and I don't think we can easily discount his opinions. At a guess I would suggest that he's trying to find a simple and elegant solution to that historical puzzle and the nearest answer he can find is the church. Christianity influenced the fall of rome but I can't see it as being responsible for it.

One thing we admire about roman buildings is the technique of heating them. By allowing hot air to circulate below the floor and up through channels in the wall it means a room can be very comfrotably warm indeed. However it occurs to me that heating an entire villa, some of which were of a considerable size and complexity, is almost impossible. Archaeology bears this out, because a fire large enough to heat the entire home would have required an enormous furnace - and that furnace required fuel. Thats a lot of timber put aside to burn. I've never read anything to suggest the romans engaged in any large scale deforestation except where warfare was concerned, when the local damage is only for the duration of hostilities. So - Only a portion of the house is heated during winter. In britain this must have impacted on family life, but what about household slaves? Were they condemned to freezing conditions in the slave quarters? Perhaps not, but they wouldn't have a good time of it. Did this mean that life for a wealthy family was any different for a family in italy, or north africa? On the one hand they would have lived as romans did everywhere but surely this retreat to warm sections of the house meant that their lives were restricted from their normal way during cold periods? Socialising is an important side effect. Of course wintery weather makes it less likely you'd receive visitors but they're not going to think much of your hospitality if they're put up in palatial but freezing bedchambers! I wonder if family life (particularly in britain or northern europe) became much closer in winter. It had to.

As far as I'm aware she was real. Herbalists weren't unusual back then and most would have learned something of poisons - they needed to otherwise they'd killoff their customers! The impression I get is that the romans didn't do much to progress the science of poisoning. They relied on Aconite, henlock, and arsenic (actually an arsenic oxide which you could build an immunity to with regular small doses. We read of romans doing that. Agrippina the younger was one). Cyanide is a bit exotic for roman tastes. I'm not saying it wasn't used, just that it wasn't commonly employed.

Important point - Marcellus was an ambitious young chap wasn't he? Was augustus only pretending to support his cause? You know, make him feel like he's getting somewhere? Or was augustus genuinely grooming him for success? I wonder if marcellus was going to get pulled off his high horse at some point (or even executed if augustus viewed him as too much of a threat).

A written constitution may have helped if it had existed long before. The problem was that Sulla had no intention of falling in with roman custom. He'd already decided to act. The difference a constitution would have made is that Sulla would have found it harder to get away with it. Whereas he could hide his actions behind ambiguous expectations and a policy of 'doing the right thing', against a solid legal precedent he would have acted in an overtly criminal manner. He saw a gap and went for it basically.

We will never know all the poisons the romans used. Caligula's 'Columbinum' for instance was certainly effective (having been tested on the unfortunate gladiator columbus) but it was his own formula. What on earth was in it? I also wonder if some deaths attributed to poison were nothing more than heart attacks brought on by all the reasons we get lectured about today?

How many leading Romans of Sulla's time--or any time leading up to Sulla--engaged in the systematic, wholesale slaughter of whole political classes? The notion that Sulla was just an "ordinary person, full of flaws" strains credulity, and the reasoning vividly demonstrates who the real beneficiary of that "judge not" nonsense is--the most wicked and the most corrupt. When Sulla retired, he was a debauched, bitter, evil old man. Moral relativism would only have warmed his black, rotten heart. Well I never regarded him as an ordinary person. I agree, such people do not do sulla-esque things. Corrupt? Of course, most romans were. Thats how their society functioned. The same behaviour is everywhere today, its just that the modern west has more laws and willingness to combat such things. You seem very anti-sulla. Ok. To me he's symptomatic of roman ambition and greed, but some of the things I've read give him a more rounded personality than Montgomery Burns. Sulla wanted to be top dog and cleaned house to suit himself. I see that sort of thing going in business around me.

Sulla was no more reprehensible than any other leading roman of the time. Wealth and status were the same thing in roman eyes thus we see greedy behaviour everywhere. Now the quote from plutarch interests me because sulla did no more than keep his former employee at arms length. He was not punished? Was it not a crime to steal a mans property in such a way? That guy had become an embarrasement to sulla by making himself too obvious (there is a possibility that he made a genuine mistake and paid the price for it, but it doesn't look good does it?). Whatever the reason, sulla brushed him aside and carried on regardless with his reforms. Now to me that means sulla had clear objectives - he knew what he wanted to achieve. No wishy-washy do-gooder then. Sulla also needed to maintain distance from any political scandal. This all brings me back to my former opinion. Sulla wanted to remould rome to his ideal and didn't care too much who got hurt in the process. And if he made a few sestercii on the way - so much the better. That is typically roman and fully understandable. Their society was competitive, more cutthroat than ours. In actual fact Phil I can see sulla as being just a tad two-faced.

Interesting. Poison seems to be an important factor in the ancient world. I understand that the Sardinians astonished the romans with their liberal use of it. Apparently when dad got too old to work the farm his kids asked him to do the decent thing.

Interesting, but I can't see sulla in that light. However much he may have wished to save rome he certainly made no effort to prevent personal gain from his followers. He knew the proscriptions were often theft with menaces. By the time he retired, Sulla saw no reason to change anything - he'd already done what he set out to achieve. Further, if he regretted his decision then retiring makes no sense. Surely he would have stayed in politics and attempted to control the damage as it were?

Western warfare follows two finite paths. The romanic/greek style of rigid formations, or the horde style of western barbarians who shout very loudly and attack with complete abandon.

Not according to new guinea tribesmen, who do occaisionally suffer from strange maladies passed on from human consumption. Agreed. The romans thought that a very barbaric practice, hence the initial horrified suspicion about christians. Then again, individual people do sometimes behave amorally and unethically without regard to accepted custom. In secret it must be said, but there's always one or two..

Didn't julius caesar once face a barrage of pompey's pila? If I remember right (and I might be wrong here) he avoided the lot or took them on his shield, looked thoroughly invincible, and inspired his tired men to charge. Pharsalus?

Correct. A false impression because the pagan romans misunderstood the symbolism. The christians were accused of eating babies too.

They would have been given one as part of the military ceremony, and allowed to wear another thereafter as described. In some cases, the wreath might have been artificial?