caldrail

Republican sentiments seem to be flavoured with an attitude that a man must serve Rome. To serve well invites reward. Now this is an ideal that the competitive nature of roman society found attractive, especially when Romans discovered the reward of military conquest. It also occurs in civilian life. Romans of good families are noticeably educated and guided toward a career in politics. It was expected that they worked toward becoming successful as opposed to being simply desirable for those of ambitious nature. Notice how often romans of poor ability strived to get into the fast lane even when common sense dictated they stay on the grass verge. Bear in mind that many of the avenues for success we enjoy were not considered desirable by republican romans. We might become business leaders or media celebrities, both of which would be frowned upon by your peers back then. Money and status were everything - politics provided an arena to achieve them. Was this a good system for government? Well... it certainly worked for centuries didn't it? But it did require strong government. When the senate weakened then we see the system stagnating and open to opportunism, which in turn allowed the development of oriental style monarchies.

Human behaviour revolves around a group, a family, a tribe. We are after all social animals. Most of us soon find a staus quo that we're happy with. Where large changes occur, then key individuals rise to the fore, either because they are natural leaders or simply because there isn't anyone else to do the job. They are if you like the alpha members of the herd. Perhaps there's more to this. Brute force and ignorance can still achieve success but it requires a certain amount of talent, intelligence, cunning, courage - and yes, even luck - to be a great success. Necessity is an important reason why these changes happen. The other reason is personal gain. If a man stands to be rewarded for taking a risk, he is more likely to take the plunge is he not?

True, but remember that north africa had a better climate two thousand years ago (still arid, just a little less so). It wasn't for nothing that north africa was the most heavily urbanised area of the roman empire.

To my mind a scythed chariot has only one effective application - to travel along the side of an enemy formation and take out the nearest rank(s). This requires that momentum is maintained - not entirely unfeasible with at least two horses galloping, but what strikes me is vulnerability of this technique. Is that why these vehicles never achieved widespread use?

I notice that the ambivalent nature of roman society extends to slavery. On the one hand, they are 'talking tools', although as Seneca points out, they are often required to remain silent or risk a beating. Yet at other times, they are trusted companions who might even be allowed to run a business on their masters behalf. Not only were slaves bought and sold, they were also rented. For those unable to maintain enough slaves permanently this must have been useful - though the contract I read shows that the slave was required to work all hours to all intents and purposes. The renter certainly expected his monies worth. If your master desired something more personal, you would have no choice but to submit without complaint. I do notice the ambivalence also extends to obedience. Slaves were everywhere, in all walks of life, and at times their closeness must have bred contempt. The romans had a law that condemned all slaves in a household to death if one of them kills their master. Was that effective as a deterrent? Usually yes, but I notice such deaths occurred. In one case the remaining slaves were let off - a sign of humane behaviour? Or lack of will in applying the law? Or perhaps as a safeguard against arousing neighbouring slaves to revolt? The senate once debated the motion that all slaves should have some identifier, clothing or badge. This was defeated because as one senator pointed out, they would realsie just how many of them there were! Now that suggests to me a certain level of insecurity with the slaves in their midst.

That wasn't what I meant. I'm well aware of the complexity of slavery in roman times, and I hope you realise that I was using a single example rather than an entire treatise. Some romans did treat their slaves as cattle - your namesake was known for his lack of concern for their sensibilities. There's an enormous range of possibilities for slaves under roman rule. An industrial or rural slave isn't likely to be well-treated and usually got worked to death in poor conditions. Urban slaves did better, and some cases found very cosy existenses. Take the case of Pallas. Now there's a guy who sells himself in slavery and winds up becoming minister of finance under Claudius. For most though their lives weren't going to be much fun. Lets say a soldier requires a slave. For him the cost of purchase and keep is considerable, so the quality of the slave might not be what he desires - he must choose carefully. Later on his relationship with the slave might develop into something more casual and open simply because the two live so closely. On the other hand, an emperor may have four or five hundred slaves. For him they're simply... there. He isn't the least concerned with who they are or what they might think, they all have duties and they'd better perform them well or else. Someone else takes care of them. PS - I'm reading posts on this forum a lot these days but thanks for the tip about Plautus, I'll certainly read it if I come across anything

If Tiberius genuinely wanted debate he wouldn't have mattered, beause the senate didn't. They were happy with augustus by and large, and I suspect thought Tiberius would also prove a good ruler having had the blessing of augustus himself albeit reluctantly. Things probably wouldn't have changed much, because if Tiberius persisted then he would have thrown the succession to the wolves - and we know what happens to a group of ambitious romans with a free seat of power on offer. No, I don't think he did. I doubt augustus was looking ahead further than who followed him, and we do note that the romans never really settled on a formal method of succession. As far as I can see augustus wanted to ensure that his choice of man rose to power after him. Tiberius was not his first choice but there again circumstance intervened and in any case the choice needed to be acceptable to the senate to prevent another power struggle. Once again it was another balancing act by augustus. Hmmm.... I wouldn't say so. Pacified, content with a successful princeps, but not institutionalised. There were still men among them waiting in the wings to assume power if the opportunity arose. Remember they declared war on Claudius, and made Nero a public enemy. What I will agree to is the point of view that the senate were no longer in the driving seat. Like a multitude of back-seat drivers they were quite insistent on things sometimes, and their power reflected the strength of whoever was ruling. Later on we see an institutionalised senate but certainly not before the julio-claudians had run their course. {edit PP... just fixed your quote tags}

In the roman world, we have a very superstitious population. Ok not everyone is and some thumb their noses at such things, but the world was a frightening place for romans. A storm was not bad weather, it was an act of the gods. A river was not just flowing water, it was the dwelling or property of gods who might not let you cross safely. An invention isn't necessarily good. It might upset the gods and bad luck will follow. Many wealthy romans simply saw no reason to sponsor technological stuff because they already had enough labour to the job, that did the job reasonably well, that could be told to do someting else, that could be told to do it elsewhere. A machine in those days was probably fixed in place, suffered breakdowns, and could easily make the owner look a fool. Now some machines were useful . We see the romans using siege engines and artillery very effectively. Water pumps were useful because it made extraction in volume so much better, although I would note that many of these were slave driven as opposed to animal driven. There was even a stone cutting device driven by water flow. But devices like these were rarely widespread. They were used in one place and gave that industry an advantage. Which is another reason why technology did not spread or perhaps was even supressed. It gave your advantage to your rivals. So in the roman world we have a situation where technology is useful sometimes provided it works and doesn't upset the gods, but where ideas often fall on stoney ground. Remember that if a slave had a bright idea - "Master, why not build a device that does this?" - he gets slapped back into place in all likliehood. Wealthier men would not risk fortunes on foolish enterprises. To do so would invite disaster.

Caldrail - this fascinates me. Could you point us in the direction of the source that states this fact? It was something I had a slight issue with in the HBO/BBC Rome series. If you're wealthy, you have slaves. The number of slaves you own is an outward sign of your prosperity, something you'd want to advertise in those days. The number of slaves you free is an outward sign of generosity, an advert of your superior nature. If you free slaves then you will want them replaced. Once you own slaves then they must have useful tasks alloted to them or they're just using up space and food. So once you get them employed they take over menial tasks that you'd rather not do yourself. And since you require a job done at any particular time, then you'll need slaves available to see it done when requested. Diners for instance did not request a slave fill a goblet with wine - it was an automatic process - they simply held the goblet out and carried on conversing with the person next to them. The elaborate hairstyles of women in the imperial period are possible because of slave attendants. A person might require something moved from here to there, to collect goods from traders, to cook, to clean, to teach, to protect, to assist the household in any way. In that enviroment you become dependent on their presence as much as they are dependent on your goodwill. Therefore you want slaves in attendance at all times to take care of any business without fuss. Why labour yourself when you paid for those slaves at an auction? To be fair, I can't point at a single source and say there you are, told you so. There are however clues in roman writings that put this in perspective. When you read about the lives of romans take notice what the authors say about slave behaviour. For the most part they don't because slaves are not worthy of note - the are 'cattle', or 'talking tools', and that in itself shows how slaves were valued. Now take this example (I don't remember the source but its a true story). A young roman enters the house of another man to carry on an affair with his wife. He is discovered in her bedroom, but claims to enamoured of her female slave. By that ruse he saves himself from a possible death sentence (and the wifes too I might add) and is merely punished for misuse of another mans slave. The slave was present along with the wife and interloper. Although he seeks romantic adventure at the risk of scandal and even possible death, he sees nothing unusual about the presence of a female slave in the bedroom. In fact, he uses this to his advantage with some quick thinking. A private meeting without privacy - he does not fear the presence of a slave.

I forgot the andabatii. Two horsemen enter the arena and must fight each other blindfolded. The crowd must have loved that!

The great fire of Rome devastated 5/7 of the city. Many people were then housed in shanties and tents, or sought shelter in tombs, or even moved away temporarily if they could. Nero as we know took advantage of this ruin and designed a new rome full of wide boulevards and impressive architecture such as his own golden house, which he built as soon as possible (of course!). Private enterprise loves an opportunity and once the landlords had sold off the land to offset their losses then new buildings would have been raised. Now that means that there is work for builders who must have been in short supply, so the rebuilding of rome must have taken some time. To some extent temporary workers from surrounding areas would have flooded in to profit from the labour but I suspect they would have charged large sums for those desperate to rebuild. The majority of folk would have to wait patiently for new lodgings to be built. Sooner or later things returned to normality despite nero's vision of 'Neropolis'. By the time the colosseum is built I see Rome back on its feet, so the restoration was probably complete within twenty years - lets face it - would you want to live in a shanty or a tent for that length of time? Back then, that was a lifetime.

I don't think rumours are the cause, they are a symptom of popular perception. Ordinary people leave their children exposed at the palace gates because Nero murdered his mother. Nero burns christians at the stake for setting fire fire to Rome yet people decide he did it himself to create space for his palace - and that gave rise to the myth that he fiddled while Rome burned. People feign death or preganancy to escape his performances. Yet this is still the emperor who got the crowds cheering for entering a chariot race. People were just as fickle then as now. A ruler can do things that make him popular but the effect lasts only until the next embarrasement. Notice how modern day rulers suffer when things don't go their way.

Egypt? Low technology? I can asure you even the Romans and Greeks were astounded by the technology of Egypt. I meant what I said. The ability to organise farmers in workgangs raising massive pyramids has nothing to do with digging ditches and harvesting grain. Most primitive societies can manage something like that. Did egypt organise its farmers in a state-run enterprise to provide grain? No, it didn't. It was the collective effort of individual farmers like every other society.

The privacy you speak of is illusory. Remember that slaves were in attendance at all times so nothing was ever really private. I agree that wealthy people wanted a retreat from the hordes of hangers-on requested money or favours. Also the amount of extra-marital behaviour exhibited by wealthy romans would need some consideration. By custom a woman could not show herself naked even to her husband. Of course this got ignored right left and center but some decorum must be observed surely? Would you want your enemies and rivals to learn your innermost personal secrets? Slaves usually knew better than to talk but I'm sure some did for a small reward now and then. If privacy was so important, why bathe publicly? Why build communal latrines? Privacy as we understand it is an invention of modern western civilisation although I can accept that the romans were heading in that direction themselves.

Correct, I apologise for the error. On checking my sources I find it was the assyrians who experimented with such things. Whether they achieved widspread use is open to doubt as I suggested.

Like many roman writers, theres a lot to learn from it but you need to think about it and cross reference to get at the truth I think. Some time ago there was a post about gaulish cavalry. I read up about them from Caesars work and noticed two seperate threads. One was that caesars allies weren't particularly effective - they fled from a smaller force of german horsemen who threw stones at them - and that gaulish horsemen were very fond of horses and paid huge sums for their pampered beasts. There was also another passage describing their home life as extolling tolls from travellers. So I get the picture that caesars allies were little more than bandits who used their ill gotten gains to buy expensive horses they couldn't afford to risk in battle. Although caesar doesn't criticise them, I imagine he was less than impressed with his allies performance. He doesn't write this, but the clues are there. On the other hand Caesar is ambitious and wants to enlarge his public persona to further his career. There is nothing the romans like better than a military hero so he over-stresses his victories and very definitely exaggarates his statistics. Why else did he invade britain twice with near disastrous results? He wanted the reputation for being the first to attack that mysterious rain-soaked island beyond Gaul. Courage and conquest. In fact, although his commentaries are a good record of what the man did, its also a monument to his image.

No it isn't. Nero has been given a reputation for being an orgiastic pyromaniac anti-christ. Well.... no... not really. The trouble was Nero grew up under an insecure enviroment with a domineering ambitious mother. Once he came into manhood, Rufo, Burrus, and Seneca, his former mentors, and his mother removed (shall we say?), then all the restraints were off. There simply wasn't anything to stop him. Early on his reign was well regarded so really Nero could do anything he wanted. He wanted to be a performer - that was his basic instinct, so in effect you have exactly the same thing as a 'Wildman of Rock'n'roll'. It really was the same. He led a party lifestyle with no holds barred. He could indulge in all manner of excitment including nightly muggings (and killings), chariot racing, and musical performance. He never had any great talent for any of these things but his companions praised him far beyond his efforts. Imagination since then has filled in the blanks and turned him into this demonic individual dedicated to excess. Not quite, but I doubt Nero saw himself as evil. When the great fire of Rome occurred in 64ad, Nero rushed back from Antium 35 miles away to co-ordinate relief efforts because 'My public needs me'. Nero was an unpleasant character in our terms. He was cruel and capable of killing. So what? So were most other emperors - thats why they got to the top of a cruel competitive conquest state. Yet despite the nastiness that overshadows his reign Nero comes across as someone with something to say for himself. He was an extraordinary character.

ouch!!! Gladiators came from various sources. Some were slaves sold to the trainer, some were criminals, prisoners of war, or volunteers looking for fame and fortune. All had to take an oath on entering the ludus (training school) "I suffer myself to be whipped with rods, burned with fire, or killed with with steel, if I disobey" The lanista (trainer) owned his students and life was usually spartan, almost prison-like, although at times some gladiators were allowed out for R&R. Volunteers served a term of between 5 and 7 years after which they could leave with whatever cash they had saved from their winnings. Criminals might serve a similar term as their penal sentence. The average expected lifespan of a gladiator was 4 years, so the odds weren't favourable, assuming they were one of the two-thirds that survived training. Remember that a gladiator might fight between two or three times a year unless a special event took place. Gladiators didn't always fight in the colusseum. Events might also be staged in the circus, the forum, in private gardens. Some were bought from the lanista as bodyguards and a few even saw service in the legions as guards, trainers, or 'special forces'. Lanista's sometimes took troupes on tour in the provinces playing to entertainment starved romans. Most of these fights were likely to be to the first blood. Gladiators were expensive commodities and few lanistas wanted to see them killed. For a larger sum of cash, then a fight to the death was bought. The various gladiator types have historic or religious significance. The Retiarius (net-man) is the fisherman, a type of gladiator sneered at by the male public for its cowardly retreating style of combat, and often a handsome young man was chosen by the lanista for this role because then the women would root for him. The retiarius was a later arrival during the principate. The murmillo (and even more true of the later secutor) is the fish-man, the opponent of the retiarius. A standard gladius was used by them. The Thraex was in the style of thracian swordsmen using a boomerang shaped blade that could be used to attack around a shield. The Hoplomachus in the style of greek hoplites with a light spear. Similar to these were the Equites, the horsemen. Essedarii were chariot fighters, saggitarii were archers (though we don't know how they competed), and the Samnite was a gladiator that fell into disuse during the end of the republic. Dimachaerii fought with two blades. A last meal was given by the lanista the night before a contest, allowing the gladiator a chance to 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die'. Normally a gladiator was fed a diet of barley and beans to fatten them up, since a layer of fat was considered a good defence against minor sword cuts. By tradition gladiators supposedly saluted the games editor (the emperor in later periods) before a contest - "We who are about to die salute you" - but this is only recorded once during an event presented by Claudius. Fights were conducted according to rules, and usually referees were present. Instant obedience was expected from gladiators in the arena and the referees word was not to be ignored. Music might also be played along to the performance at smaller events. The usual fight was a one-on-one, either to the first blood or to the death as required, but there were different types of fight. Some were conducted within a box which the fighters could not leave. There was also a wooden platform defended by a gladiator against all-comers. Variety was especially well-regarded, but the romans were there to see a fair fight that thrilled them with displays of courage, ferocity, and skill. Longer fights might even have rest periods given by the referee. For those unable to continue, either exhausted or wounded, the only option was to ask for clemency from the games editor (who would take notice of the crowds reaction). This was done by a raised hand/finger. If sufficiently impressed, the editor would allow the defeated gladiator to leave the arena alive with his honour intact. If not, then a swift death followed. Blows to head or to the neck have been recorded, but the standard death was a sword thrust down through the top of the shoulder into the heart. A dead gladiator would have his throat cut away from the arena - just in case he was faking it! Experienced gladiators often became doctores (junior trainers) working for the lanista to train the new batch. Those who served their time or were able to buy their freedom left the arena as infama, or people on par with slaves, actors, etc. Never again could they hold public office. Some gladiators might be freed by the games editor as gesture to the audience, something the owner's weren't too keen on! In later times important people, sometimes emperors, would enter the arena in breach of this custom to wow their audience. It wasn't unusual for freed gladiators to return to the sand either because it was the life they knew and loved, or because their new life was unsuccessful.

No real similarity. Different cultures and I don't think the produce would have been too similar either, apart from a few coincidences due to agrarian economies and low technology.

I agree about the comparison with poorer countries and thats very much the case. Everything is rougher and readier, no-one worries too much about modern western-style privacy, and in any event, bush radio's weren't invented then. People just helped each other along (normally) and got on with their lives. Things must have been a bit tough normally. I'm lucky. I was born in britain and live well compared to the third world. For that roman family I think day to day survival was uppermost in their minds. But it wasn't all grim. Families like that often experience real joy in their lives for the most simple reasons.

Of course. Arminius had already arranged the site where the ambush would take place and was intent on making sure Varus blundered right into it. I get the impression that Arminius was a perceptive guy. He realised varus was no great soldier or able leader, so he felt no qualms whatsoever about going to Varus personally and telling him that rebeliion was in progress. It was the truth after all. He just left out the bit about him starting it.

I'm not so sure. I do remember seeing some stuff about egyptian chariots. Mind you, although potentially effective, scythed chariots have serious shortcomings because you would very easily injure your own side, and you need forward velocity for any appreciable effect.

Augustus was in a difficult position. He was following in the footsteps of julius caesar and look what happened to him. I think augustus pulled off a delicate balancing act with some skill. He even offered to retire at least once, and was implored to continue. A publicity stunt? Possibly, but also the sign of a popular ruler who got it right.

Isn't it astonishing how much emphasis we place on roman britain as opposed to roman europe? Is that a cultural thing? In that we owe so much of our modern civilisation through the british empire and america from our roman past? Very curious.

There was also the matter of unifying the empire after the civil war, which was close to ruin. At that time christianity was nothing more than a collection of individual churches and cults (much the same as islam declares itself to be today, and there are some similarities in organiational terms). Many of them were there to exploit their parishioners - there are tales of very wealthy christian leaders. However, christianity was becoming more popular and since it espoused a single god, Constantine decided he would use christianity as a method of tying the empire together again under one religion, hence the Council of Nicaea. Actually he failed in that respect because christianity remained prone to heretical cults, but it helped. It should also be remembered that Constantine tried to get one of his relatives worshipped as Jesus. As for that vision of a cross before the battle - Sorry, Constantine, you weren't exactly being honest were you? Constantine was outrageous. He really was.