caldrail

Vanilla wine? I so want to try that.

As someone who has actually suffered mini-strokes, the symptoms described in the sources are epilepsy. The obvious effect is often little more than light headedness and a struggle to balance, barely noticeable to anyone else. That said, having reached 55 years of age in relative fitness, preparing to go on campaign against the Parthians, it strikes me he was due to live on for some years, epilepsy or not.

About time someone got caught, but the reality is looting archeological sites is a serious concern worldwide. I remember a group visiting a site in North Africa for a television documentary, only to find a large area of pot holes and mechanical digger trenches. Former colonial powers get a lot of modern criticism for taking stuff away from the countries concerned but their own local looting is way beyond that, money being such a great motivator.

If I remember right, Time Team tried out a Roman style brew to mixed responses.

Marching camps did not have a palisade. I used to think so before I looked into how they could guarantee the supply of suitable wood. They dug a ditch and rampart which was patrolled at night. They would have all been up all night finding enough trees to cut down, drag to the site, and erect. The two sticks they carried were for measuring. Military behaviour is nothing new

Does anyone know when the worship of Sol Invictus began? I ask because I'm watching a tv documentary where the investigator is shown a cave used by early Christian worship (c. ad68 specifically) and that a Sol Invictus engraving on a rock surface shows some Roman legionaries in what is now Israel were in fact spreading worship of Jesus. Doesn't sound right to me.

Just think, in two thousand years some students could be studying 21st century greeting cards messages

How many us write great poetry? Mine is downright awful and basic. For historical interest and insight into Roman culture, yes, of course Catullus should be read and preserved.

I think people often forget or have little concept of how individualistic Roman military equipment must have been. Everything was handmade, and so quality and detail must have varied enormously. Adding that personal touch is something inherently human, it's why warriors wore tattoos, why modern military aircraft sprout nose art once the fighting starts. Primeval display instinct, a touch of superstition, military pride.

Groan.... That video makes a whole load of mistakes. The most glaring is that Roman legionaries were all taught to swim. Simply not true. Vegetius suggested that Rome should do that in his De Re Miltaris because he thought it was a good idea based on a single precedent, but never Roman policy. What is most apparent however is that the video focuses on engineering. That's a modern perspective, and I say that because the Romans were a deeply superstitious people with strong concerns about rivers being the home of gods that would be offended by bridges. I do agree the Romans had clever people among them and used their capability well, but that had more to do with common sense than advanced technology. The engineering skill was no more advanced than we see in other strong civilisations of the time apart from one or two ideas like arches (due credit there). For those studying history, never take videos at their word - always apply critical thinking.

I remember being at our local library some years ago. The sky was cloudy, dark, with a strange brown tinge. I thought it was going to unleash a deluge but, no, it stayed dry. As I went off elsewhere the clouds were thinning, and the sun was a deep red at midday. Seriously surreal moment, but about ten minutes later, you could see the cloud of dust (Saharan dust as it turned out but I didn't know that at the time) thinning and moving north like a rolling fog bank.

I'm amazed. I thought the Khufu's Pyramid was already scanned and so on. I know it's unlikely, but imagine if they find the actual burial storage for the afterlife. Ye gods, the news will be adding, "and finally, we go to our correspondent for quick update on Ukraine". There'll be dozens of documentaries over the next five years. Can't wait....

I think its clear from recent satellite archeology that the ancient world was far more developed than we normally consider. Certainly the Roman Empire, but more impressively, Egypt was heavily urbanised along the Nile which bares little trace now. They had some very impressive castles too, something we don't normally associate with Egypt, and it shows Rome was not quite as unique as we tend to think.

Roman pagan worship did not involve congregations. Worship was individual, conducted in a similar manner to the client/patron relationship, visiting a temple as if entering the atrium of the deity concerned. They compensated by a lot of public festivals.

Can't believe I just watched a video about makeup. But what this video does underline is that the human instinct for display diversifies with wealth and urbanisation, more or less as it has in modern times. A different mix of culture, but we haven't really changed much, have we?

Yes he was. He lost his position after the Samaritans complained to the governor of Syria (Judaea was a satellite territory at the time under Syrian jurisdiction). Pilate was recalled to Rome to answer to Tiberius. however, the trial might not have taken place because Tiberius had died. Lucky old Pontius. But his career was over.

This is not disputed. Provincial representatives of Rome did not go there to rule. They were wise enough to let local tribal inheritance (usually romanised it must be said) do the actual running of the province. But Romans were about money. It graded their society, it lubricated their activity. And since in provincial service they were the last word in Roman and native law, extracting wealth was an opportunity. Some were worse than others it must be said. Quintilius Publius Varus for instance gets a special mention for getting wealthy at the expense of Syria. Not in any praise either, just mentioned as a particularly greedy example.

If elections were not seen as properly convened, it wasn't acceptable. Egnatius Rufus found that out. I would poin out that the tribuncian power held by Augustus was to ensure that elections were indeed properly convened, as well as preventing legislation from acting against the interests of the plebs. I just read a website that says Augustus invented a new tribunicial form, well, Augustus assures us personally he invented nothing new. The same website consistently describes him as sneeky, covert, even machiaveliian. His reported behaviour does not suggest that, the idea of stage managed transition of power is merely a rationalisation to make the preconception of absolute rule make sense. ...Agrippa, whom the friendship of the emperor had raised to a third consulship and soon afterwards to a share in the emperorʹs tribunician power. Paterculus Not the behaviour of a tyrant, is it?

If Augustus was a tyrant he would have lasted months, not decades. His behaviour was not typical of tyrants or dictators in the modern sense. I know that's a popular conception but if you read the sources, he emerges as a more idealistic personality with genuine republican sentiments - we've been though this before. But about proscriptions? Yes, he did, mentioned as being the most ruthless among the Second Triumvirate - and also the most reluctant. You can't ignore that to suit your preconception. But then he was hardly alone. The need for wealth provoked means to achieve it. And if Augustus had such a power to obstruct government - why the piggin' hell did he not go down in history, even by the revisionist Cassius Dio, as doing exactly that? It's an accusation made to suit a preconception. it's imaginary. The Senate of the time remained in control of the greater part of the Empire, Augustus did not act against that and even when he had to change his military priorities, he merely swapped control of a province with the Senate. They lost nothing overall. Sure, he could get ugly if he felt the need, but that was Rome. It was a tough city. Novosedoff- you cannot rule an empire by veto. Not possible. All you'd achieve is resentment, not only from the obstructed senators, but citizens who would see nothing was getting done. The Senate contained the most powerful and influential men in Rome. You would want them on your side surely? As for opposition, he had plenty. But Roman government was about litigation and debate. Now. Go ahead and impress me. You can do that by finding actual examples of veto. There must be some if he obstructed governmental business in favour of his own. If you don't accept the principles, then back your argument with evidence. A few theories in a book that agree with you won't cut it. Actual incidents please.

Augustus did NOT become a tribune at all. It was illegal for him to do so. He was granted the right to retain tribunician power and these powers were regularly renewed. I notice people who see Augustus (or any other Princeps) as all-powerful point at his power of veto immediately. Remember that Augustus could not realistically veto everything. Why would he? What's the point of reforming republican government over the course of a lifetime just to prevent it from working? Why would Augustus claim to have created the best possible Roman government if he had no intention of allowing it to function? It's nonsensical. Novosedoff - Whilst I'm not really going to argue about your view of corruption in high places, such behaviour, even in the ruthlessly greedy Roman Empire, was not universal. Why would the Romans write about corruption in the sense they do if the sort of corruption you point at was an ordinary part of life? Everyone would know it went on and it was pointless making an anecdote about it. Please realise that corruption in elections was the primary reason for public unrest and also the major motivation for Roman rulers to intervene.

The Principate began with traditional republican voting. Augustus had restored such procedures during his reforms. He passed a law in ad5, the Lex Valeria Cornelia, which set up a special advisory body of senators and decurial equites (senior plebs with civic responsibilities) to produce a list of favoured candidates called destinati before the Comitia. There's some debate over this especially because this body appears to have waned in importance by ad14. In any case, Tiberius transferred these elections to the Senate when he came to power. There is a hint in a document called the Tabula Hebana which suggests that better control of voting was to offset the risk of public riots. Tiberius had a stricter control over voting than Augustus, though this was not the case after Tiberius set up semi-retirement in Capri. By then the Senate had much more freedom to control voting and no doubt the ideas to remove voting from the plebs completely starts from that moment, as the Senate begin to find ways to avoid setting issues for the popular assemblies to vote on. It was easier to seek guidance from the senior man among them, the Princeps Senatus, or Princeps, or if you really have to use the word, Emperor, who might in theory prove an excellent scapegoat. The Senate had never liked sharing their privileges in governmental business with lower classes or outsiders. Tacitus holds that Tiberius influenced the selection of candidates by speeches, not by decisions. None of the Roman writers say that the Princeps controlled the Comitia. Dio tells us that the people continued to meet for elections. The Princeps appears in general to have intervened to prevent unsuitable candidates, such as those who canvassed or bribed their way into consideration, or perhaps for something as simple as personal dislike, but tended otherwise to let the Comitia vote as per tradition. There were exceptions such as Egnatius Rufus who got himself considered for consulship in 19BC and only the previous Consul managed to impede him. However, it is noted that Tiberius was only allowing enough candidates to fill the position, not to allow choice and this at a time when Tiberius was said to be refusing extra powers from the Senate, but this might not actually be the case as we know the Senate were asking for extra candidates and so Tiberius was simply acting to mediate the voting for the same reasons Augustus sought to. There were some public disturbances over voting during the early Principate, Augustus had Agrippa keep order in Rome, and it seems the caution exercised by the Roman leaders was justified. In ad7 a riot was so bad that Augustus chose to appoint magistrates directly. Although the Princeps made recommendations about candidates, the Senate continued to do business as they had in the late Republic, by filling posts by merit, agreement, or lot. By the time Caligula comes to power, the period of riots has gone, replaced by considerable apathy which no doubt suited the Senate entirely. The mechanism existed, persisted, but was essentially pointless as too many decisions were being made outside of the Comitia's reach. So intervention from the Princeps was a matter of expedience rather than the exercise of power, with the Senate taking advantage of change to assert their dominant role in government.

Friends, family, associates, and anyone who planned a return on the deal. Romans had a bad habit of using people they knew as 'credit cards', and for that matter, earning interest from anyone who needed money.

What we have then is Dio moaning about Rome's leadership. Whilst it is true that using Imperator set a precedent, that does not imply the title was hereditary especially since we don't see it used by children of the ruling individual unless they happened to follow into power - which was not in itself hereditary, because that would violate Republican themes. Augustus did not inherit the title from Caesar. He adopted it himself and was subsequently acclaimed by the soldiers another twenty times.

Imperator was not a political post but an honour conferred by troops to a successful victor. It did become part of the default name adopted by future Roman leaders (and Dio tells us it was their favourite - the Romans loved military glory) because Augustus set the precedent. Note that although Augustus used Imperator as part of his name to underline his entitlement to superior military command, it was received as an honour twenty one times during his lifetime beginning in 43BC. It was certainly not hereditary, especially since legions developed a bad habit of asserting their political voice by declaring military commanders as their choice as imperial leader. Likewise his tribunicial power. He did not ever take the title of Tribune - as a senator it was illegal for him to do so, but his right to tribunicial power was given by the Senate and the actual privilege renewed annually.

I stopped at question 1. There was only one Dictator Perpetuo and he was never a hereditary Imperator. Or have missed the point of this quiz?