caldrail

Women were only supposed to know enough to converse and applaud their fathers/guardians/husbands opinions. A know-all woman was not desirable. In any event, she was likely to learn from the men around her. Of course this general rule has exceptions. Elagabulus's mother ruled rome behind the scenes while he... erm... did other things.... did she not? She must have acquired some knowledge and experience to allow her to deal with roman government and military leaders. Was she the only one? I think not. However she was in a position of wealth and power and therefore would have found it easier to obtain this education. Women of a lower station would have struggled unless she bought an educated slave with enough sense to employ him usefully.

I've seen some authors hint at it, but not in any primary source. I'd love to know because it would make landlords motives much clearer.

You might be on a loser here. The populations under roman rule had access to travel that was very rare for ancient cultures. A spaniard, a syrian, and an arab ruled Rome, a merchant from Palmyra married a british freedwoman, and a cohort of nubians stood guard on hadrians wall, just for a few instances. Without a systematic study of roman remains it would be difficult to see any clear overview of the roman empires demography.

Interesting whats being said about octavians military ability. He was a leader of his own faction rather than a general and employed skillful soldiers somewhat better than some generals might. But isn't it true that the greatest leaders are not just orators or generals, but successful managers too. There are many historical fugures that rose to prominence and fell by the wayside because their management skills did not match their ambition.

The mock naval battle at the Fucine lake was an attempt to please the public. Most emperors played to the crowd to some extent, and since claudius was clearly unable to cavort about pretending to be a gladiator then he did the next best thing. Typically for claudius, it was almost a farce.

Many teachers held their lessons in the street because renting a property as a school was too expensive. And they were often fearsome characters too - many a child was whacked for improper behaviour or stupid replies.

I don't think Claudius was an oustanding administrator at all. He did ok - nothing to be ashamed of - but he did get pelted by stale crusts by an angry mob as I recall. So it wasn't just the great and good who thought badly of him but his not-so-adoring public too. It was a shame because Claudius had friends in high and low places. He was after all a personable gent by all accounts even if some people weren't too keen to be seen with him. As for the use of freedmen I can see why he did that. They were loyal to him, and claudius was very aware that a plot could have him removed - and killed - at any time. He was nearly bumped off by the senate remember. He also seems to have been somewhat insecure as emperor. No prizes for guessing why!

Very true, But the loyalty these legions had for there commanders and for each other was absolute. To my mind its because they had ONLY been commanded (and paid) by the same Dux. I know im not citing any sources but this is a hypothetical situation. suppose a good deal of the centuries in Caesar's army HAD served with Pompey and Liked him. I am no expert, but I would think that getting his legions to attack other Roman legions. Men they had previously fought with. Officers they had previously served under. Wouldnt the US verses THEM political factor have been reduced? Personally, I think it would have MUCH harder to cross the Rubicon under those circumstances. yes Caesar would have been popular but would he have been popular enough? Would he have had the fanatic loyalty that made Pharsalus a success and brought Octavian to center stage? Would this have forced Caesar to play ball with the senate? I think so, but I dont know. Again I know I am not an expert and this is entirely hypothetical. But am I making any sense? am I making any valid points? More importantly, what are the holes in this theory? The roman army was not a single institution. There was no roman army in that sense. They had a number of legions - seperate armies if you will. Each commander had his quota of men under his charge and he was responsible for their conduct and performance. The legions were motivated by the leadership skills of their officers but also because victories meant the men could carry away booty. Succesful completion of their 25 years would mean honourable retirement plus their pension and even a plot of land. The men had every reason to follow their commander into battle. However, the commanders had no reason to be loyal to Rome other than it was hand in hand with their personal ambition.

A big difference indeed, and also a big difference between rural and urban communities I suspect. Well someone has to say and I guess it has to be me... We're ignoring sex. They did do it you know! Prostitution was readily available in Rome and very cheap too. Prostitutes painted their adverts on walls offering special services for a few copper coins. It wasn't unknown for men of status to have alcoves built into the wall in the alleyway behind their house which they could rent to ladies of the night, whilst the older less attractive women desperate for customers might ply their trade in the tombs out of town which was free. Of course we know that deliveries in Rome were made at night after the ruling of Julius Caesar. So mule skinners and wagon drivers were winding their way through the maze of pitch black streets. They must have needed lantern bearers surely? Party goers weren't likely to stay too long into the night, and if sensible a handful of slaves accompanied the tipsy gentleman to his home. If not, then possibly a mugging at knifepoint or even a murder might take place. Did taverns stay open all night? I don't recall any law mentioning drinking hours. Taverns were common - a place to drink and socialise - or perhaps seal that deal behind someones back. I can also imagine a poor family having a sing song in those winter evenings to entertain themselves and their livestock.

Remember that the development of roman arms and armour isn't the result of science or a central think tank - it was the sum total of local experience and experiment. When one legion made a success of a small change it was likely to spread to other legions.

Having read my reply I've realised just how similar my views are to Robert Graves. Well I won't apologise for that because he read the same sources as me. What I would like to point out though are some pertinent reasons why the 'I Claudius' view is wrong. Robert Graves puts Claudius as the reluctant hero of his tale, a man with genuine humanity and a sympathetic character for the reader. In reality Claudius wasn't so nice. He would sometimes arrange private torture sessions where he could study the faces of the victims. A sadist? Sort of. Remember its likely that Claudius had been bullied when he was younger, and his mother had spared no affection for him. His accession to power wasn't so clear cut as the BBC serial suggests. After the death of Caligula, enough senators were willing to proclaim Claudius an enemy of the state. The principate was hunky-dory under Augustus, but Tiberius? Too many senators had suffered under Sejanus or saw their friends lost. Caligula came to power with many senatorial hopes but all they got was an immature youth with a nasty sense of humour. These men wanted a republic again, to return to time when they wielded power amongst themselves. Had the praetorians not supported Claudius (they had no choice - it was the lower paid regular army or the corn dole otherwise) he would have been executed. Also it must be said that despite his intelligent rule Claudius made some gaffes. He lacked finesse and wisdom. Indeed, he was desperate for credibility that he sent the legions to Britain. It was also why he was at the head of the legions during the last moments of the campaign, pretending that his presence had made the difference. I also sense that Claudius had a problem with his personal gravitas. People didn't seem to jump when he said frog. I think that many people saw Claudius as a meal ticket. Sejanus had already used him to bring his own family closer to royal status. Caligula had used him as a butt for his humour but also because as consul he was no impediment to Caligulas whim. Messalina (his third wife) became contemptuous of him and later married a younger man as a prelude to deposing Claudius. Aggripina the Younger used him shamelessly to get Nero onto the throne and thus rule Rome herself through him. Therefore it wasn't just his physical imperfections that Rome villified. It was his lack of majesty, his lack of steadfastness, and the lack of justification for him sitting on the throne in the first place.

Yep - I agree. An outstretched arm is a simple human gesture of acknowledgement. Not quite a salute in military terms though.

What about gladiatorial combat? The christians were beginning to act against this in the 4th century. Without the need for fighters a whole market for slaves goes out of business.

You know what? I'm willing to bet that roman expletives weren't too different from ours.

These ceremonies took place quickly, it wouldn't take much organising. So these fetials were a sort of religious herald? I notice that warfare in the earlier periods was therefore ritualised to some extent. Not really suprising I suppose - we see the same behaviour in other cultures too. What is more revealing is that these rituals are dispensed with in later periods because its more convenient and efficient to forget all that messing around and simply get on with it (as opposed to.. say... samurai culture which saw increasing ritual with decreasing frequency of war) It therefore appears to me that war was becoming less of a glorious calling and more of a bloody business to be dealt with.

In that period there was definitely a fashion for the 'body beautiful'. Claudius certainly wasn't. Nor was he of noble stature. That was galling to many senators who would consider themselves above him. Its also true his behaviour wasn't quite as refined or sophisticated as expected. He was something of an embarrasing bore, given to excrutiating unfunny jokes at socially awkward moments. Had he not been born into the royal family, Claudius would never have been a success in public life. Lets face it, the only reason Claudius made consul was because Caligula wanted to make a fool of him and upset the upstart senators. We love him because we sense his ordinary vulnerability, his intelligence, and some sympathy for a terrified man pulled from behind a curtain by rampaging praetorians and thrust into center-stage against his will. I am aware of the theory he plotted to rule. Possibly, but I don't think events were unfolding at his desire. More likely he would have been terrified of being discovered too early if indeed he was plotting. I really don't think he was. In one sense he's a clown. He stutters, limps, makes social goofs, and embarrases everyone. On the other, he's an able ruler with a weakness for clever women. The leader of the known world was led by his nose.

Can you think of any examples where a previously hard-fighting group of veterans suddenly got lazy simply because they ate better? I'm skeptical. I would say this sort of thing occurred after major sieges. The soldiers have plundered the site, they've gotten considerably wealthier, and blow it quickly on good living. Unless the commander gets a grip quickly, his men are likely to wander off and enjoy themselves. Mind you I accept your point as I can't think of any roman example but then discipline was always a strong point of the legions despite the corruption that went with it. It must also be said that the commanders didn't want fat lazy soldiers and in all likeliehood made sure they worked off a few pounds (unless they spent some of course!)

I bow respectfully to Phil25's accumulated knowledge of roman history, with whom I do sometimes agree.

Why anything you like. Did it have human-like hooves or were they simply mis-shaped and gave a slight impression of toes? Did the witnesses tell porkies to sound clever down at the tavern? Did Suetonius believe that tale or did he make it all up? We don't know. But omens were very important to romans and even if it wasn't true he needed an omen to suggest that Caesar was destined for an unusual life (perhaps 'riding on the backs of others'?) Naughty boy Suetonius. But I forgive you because it made a good read. Which was why he wrote it in the first place.

Trainee singers would spend time lying on their backs with lead weights on their chest. This would improve breathing and allow better sustain. Apparently. Probably true though.

The early church encouraged equality but I sense a lot of hypocrisy. Churchmen kept slaves without any guilt whatsoever. Slaves were a sign of status. To free slaves showed generosity and wealth and that meant having slaves in the first place. Slavery was a roman institution although christianity did dilute this somewhat.

Midwife? Courtesan? Gladiator? Entertainer? Plenty of female slave occupations. Then- as in later times- some women would have posed as men to pursue a more interesting life. Or earbash your father and get yourself married off to someone worthwhile. Life was often short and women did end up running business's after a spousal death. Or earbash your husband and get him to let you do something interesting. Women were active behind the scenes in politics, and I recall one woman was allowed to drill the troops by her husband.

As I recall,the last western emperor was a young lad with little real power (Romulus Augustulus). He was a figurehead for allintents and purposes, and dumped when it wasn't convenient any more.

Roman youths were educated in a regime that encouraged initiative and risk. Young men were supposed to aim for excellence in war, sport, and politics. Octavian already had the correct mindset at an early age - It was expected that he should strive to be the best (although many of his rivals would choose to reach so far but not go for gold as it were). When the opportunity arose he went for it. I agree though that its difficult to sense when that fateful decision was taken. Roman youths must have matured sooner than we do - they had no choice - and perhaps young octavian watched his elders assume power, wealth,and no doubt decided that he too would do so one day. Once Octavian was part of the circle of influential men his course was clear- and I personally think Caesar had much to do with Octavians career move.