Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

caldrail

Patricii
  • Content Count

    6,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    144

Posts posted by caldrail


  1. Imagine that one day you've got a chance to go back to ancient Rome.

    What's the first or the most thing you want to do? And explain why.

     

    1 - Find someone who speaks english

    2 - Find people who won't rip me off

    3 - Find somewhere to stay (should be fun)

    4 - Enjoy the sights

    5 - Go to the arena - (not because I enjoy death and injury, I just want to know exactly what went on)

    6 - Go to a tavern for a primitive burger, warm diluted wine, a bit of gambling, and hopefully a good time without getting beaten up

    7 - Observe the military doing military things

    8 - Take as many photo's as possible without being crucified for witchcraft or whatever

    9 - Get home in one piece

    10 - Upset everyone by being a clever clogs

    11 - Bore everyone with reminisences

    12 - Make an absolute fortune with books and tv.

     

    There, that should do it.


  2. Antony and Cleopatra would have married. She had already agreed to it. That meant that Caesarion would have survived and thus provide a strong contender for the future throne. However, the senate were not easily going to accept cleopatra as a co-ruler. It would have heralded an unstable period for Rome. But then it already was wasn't it? The fight would have ebbed and flowed until either the senate, another contender, or the happy couple had prevailed.

     

    Speculation over!


  3. In the beginning of the film, when Spartacus is working in the salt quarry and bites a guard who strikes him for helping an exhausted fellow slave, the narration states that he 'dreamed of a time when slavery no longer existed'.

     

    Was their any anti-slavery movement anywhere, in thought or deed, prior to the last few centuries?

    Or would the slaves of that time have dreamed of owning their own slaves?

     

    :rip: Yep, and its absolute codswallop. Spartacus was never in the quarries of Libya (which hollywood believe was situated on mountain tops :wine: ). Lentulus Batiatus would have found his trainees from slave markets closer to home I suspect. As to whether he dreamed of a non-slave future I really do suspect he wouldn't have. Slavery was normal for that time. The fact that he'd been enslaved was a consequence of his actions. By becoming a bandit it was likely he would be so when caught if not executed, which shows he wasn't competely murderous as a criminal. Of course he wouldn't have liked it!

     

    Slaves were allowed to own slaves in roman law, though I doubt many did.

     

    If a slave was lucky and was well respected by his master he could become a freedman. Some Slaves who recieved little pay could buy themselves out of bondage. It is funny that you mention that slaves would dream of owning their own slaves as in the film the Gladiator trainer, Batiatus tells us, was once a slave and gladiator himself.

     

    He chose to raid and pillage rather than fight to freedom. He chose to head for rebellious Sicily where he could take advantage of the unhappy slaves of that region. He was no longer just a bandit, he was now a rebel seeking a base to operate, perhaps even with a longer view to becoming leader of a small state although there's no evidence he ever sought that.

     

    I believe that it was the slaves themselves rather than Spartacus who demanded that they turn back from the Alps to continue their pillaging of Italy. The slaves were made up of various groups from different areas, including Gauls and Germans. It was these that broke off from Spartacus's main group and became a seperate gang led by Crixus, a German (who in the film remains friends with Spartacus till the very end). Crixus and his men were ambushed by the legions and destroyed before Spartacus' rebellion came to an end. It does go to show that Spartacus did not have a firm grip on the bands he was leading and therefore those who disagreed with his policies would brake off and form their own groups like Crixus did. Perhaps if Spartacus had not been persuaded by his men to remain in Italy, the slaves would have reached freedom in Gaul. Then again, Rome would not be likely to forgive or forget their enemies.

     

    We'll never know. But I don't think Spartacus had an iron grip on his followers bearing in mind they had no military discipline or organisation. He was a leader who was led by his men.


  4. Was Jean Simmons character, Varinia, specifically stated to have been British? I had always assumed her to be just another of Batiatus' domestic slaves.

     

    "Spartacus" is, in my view, best viewed as an impression of republican Rome, on the verge of the principiate.

     

    Olivier's Crassus bears less resemblance to the historical Crassus and more to Sulla, even though the character refers derogatorilly to the latter. Indeed, I think "Crassus" in the film is best seen as an amalgam of all the military adventurers who came to dominate and threaten the republic.

     

    In the same way, Laughton's "Gracchus" refers back to the actual Gracchi (actually a generation or more gone) and to other staunch defenders of the republic.

     

    In this way, I think the director and writers simply used the story of Spartacus to weave a parable of oppression, imperialism and the quest for freedom - and in ideological terms it is probably as much about Zionism (a common theme of Hollywood films of the time) and McCarthyism.

     

    Against that background, whether a woman was a Brit or not seems scarcely important.

     

    Phil

     

    <_<

     

    Yes, Varinia is aked by Crassus where she came from and she replies 'britannia'. She was a bit hesitant - I think Laurence Olivier nearly caught her out with an ad-lib. Kirk Douglas had read Howard Fasts novel about Spartacus and was inspired to make the film, portraying the rebel as a noble prisoner struggling for freedom and honour. Laughtons character is named Gracchus for convenience - it was a suitable roman name and in no way should it be considered a historical character. Laurence Olivier was every bit the roman patrician - a fine piece of acting - but the lack-lustre young caesar jars very badly.

     

    Of course the real wife of Spartacus (if indeed she existed) was definitely not british. Before the conquest of britain a slave from that area would have been very rare although I accept that sometimes people did get traded on and roman merchants were working in britain long before Claudius arrived.

     

    Nor was Spartacus the square jawed hero of the 1960's film. Far from it, he comes across as a quick witted and charismatic rogue. He was an army deserter, a bandit, a slave, a gladiator, a rebel.... But not noble in any way. It was a measure of his ability that he stayed at large for two years - and only when he chose or was forced to fight a pitched battle did he see defeat.

     

    Spartacus, for all his faults, really was a courageous man. Although he broke out of the ludus where he was training as a gladiator, he did so not because he was afraid to die, it was because he refused to fight for someones pleasure. When his defeat came, its recorded that he fought hard in a an attempt to reach Crassus and kill him before he was overwhelmed by legionaries. Possibly thats a romantic addition to the tale, but it does fit his character. His greatest faults were greed and nonconformism. He could not adjust to the discipline of the auxilliaries, nor the discipline of the arena. He was either swayed by his own victories or the demands of his men and turned south when he could have escaped north. He chose to raid and pillage rather than fight to freedom. He chose to head for rebellious Sicily where he could take advantage of the unhappy slaves of that region. He was no longer just a bandit, he was now a rebel seeking a base to operate, perhaps even with a longer view to becoming leader of a small state although there's no evidence he ever sought that.

     

    Modern mythology has given Spartacus a place he did not deserve. All hollywood films about Rome are somewhat impressionistic rather than realistic portrayals of ancient times. The paying public doesn't know much about Rome and prefers to see it as the monolithic pit of greed, corruption, and mad despotism that results in a more colourful tale. Something against which the hero can justifiably strive.


  5. At some point in time, any curious scholar of Roman history asks that ultimate "what if" question - what if the Roman empire, in all its glory and splendor, survived? Of course, the city of Rome survived several terms of barbarian rule and centuries of invasions throughout the Middle Ages, mainly thanks to the stability of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. However, for kicks and giggles, lets think along different lines.

     

    Suppose Marcus Aurelius, or any of the later emperors, succeeded in returning Rome to a true republic, as it had been in the first century B.C. With the stabilization of infrastructure within Rome, the de-mercinization of the army could occur, and the East-West split never would have occurred. The population of Rome could have remained strong, especially since they would still be receiving royalties from the booming eastern trade, instead of Byzantium. With all these factors, 476 A.D. couldve marked a decisive defeat of the Visigoth tribes instead of the end of the Western Empire. From this point on, I leave it up to you to decide - what wouldve, couldve, or shouldve happened?

     

    A timeline I devised is as follows -

    - With a still strong military, Rome could have kept its posession of Judea, eliminating the need for and of the Crusades

    - Another conquest of Germania could have Romanized the whole north of Europe, eliminating centuries of history that would have later fueled Hitler's ideals of German supremacy. This same Romanization of Germany could have prevented the Reformation and the beginning of Protestant faiths.

    - Roman power, lasting well into 14th and 15th centuries, could have prevented both Moorish invasions of Spain and Ottoman invasion of Turkey, and maybe even the holy land. Conflict over Jerusalem may have never happened, both then and now. Hard to imagine, huh?

    - In the age of exploration, Roman influence could have been extended throughout Africa and into the New World. In other words, we would all still be speaking Latin!!!

    - As mentioned above, the absence of Hitler and the Nazi regime could have prevented WWII.

     

    And most importantly...SPQR would have won the 2006 WORLD CUP!! BOOOH!!

     

    Of course, I am only scratching the surface of endless possibilities, so this is what I ask you now - what if Rome had returned to a Republic, and survived the barbarian invasion of 476 AD? Would SPQR and her posessions still be on our maps today? I'm very interested to see what you guys have to say!

     

    ~ T. Cornelius Brutus

     

    All empires collapse eventually. Rome expanded by absorbing or conquering established nation states with existing infrastructures. Expansion slowed to crawl when Rome encountered the wilderness, something it hadn't really tackled until it reached Germania. Originally they began to colonise but the Varian disaster changed their policy. The wilderness was not for them. It was only for military gain that Rome expanded into britain, dacia, and the middle east. There was less to gain by that time, since Rome was well established and personal ambition of the generals was turning inward.

     

    It has been said that the worst enemy of Rome was Rome itself. Now I agree with that absolutely. By the time we reach the pax romanus Rome was no longer the dynamic civilisation it had been, it was moving on momentum and this would ebb away.

     

    There is no way in my view that Rome would have survived as a post-principate republic. Having set the precedent for despotic rule the old standards had been eroded. There wasn't the will to make Rome greater than it already was.

     

    I'll go further. Without strong individual leadership Rome would have fragmented faster than it did. It was the weakening of the senate that saw the arrival of the emperors, and although some opportunities did arise the senate never regained its former vigour. Roman democracy had failed in favour of autocratic strength. Rome was looking inward more and more and this would have occurred anyway regardless of which political system it adopted or had foisted upon it.

     

    The old wealth of Roman conquest was being squandered and increasing administration costs were paid by ever higher taxes. Legionary service was becoming a necessary evil rather than a proud calling. Foreigners were increasingly rising to high position. Whether Rome was a republic or empire it made little difference. The internal and external pressures were the same.

     

    Now if Marcus Aurelius really had rebuilt the republic with 'steadfastly loyal Maximus' as its guardian, how long could that have continued? Until said Maximus was too old or too weak to influence it. Then the rebellions would have begun and another king/dictator/emperor would have assumed power, at least over part of the former neo-republic. Other parts would have split away and much the same way as diocletians legacy, civil wars would have reduced the former empire to ruin.

     

    I say the New-SPQR was doomed. It would have lasted a few decades at most, and its demise would have brought Rome to its knees far quicker than history did.


  6. Well, commanders always had the reason to be loyal to Rome because if they weren't, the Senate could always send out another commamander and army against them. On strong and exceptional leaders could really hope to turn against Rome. A mediocre general would never get away with "crossing the Rubicon."

     

    The loyalty of generals was always questionable. Time and again they rebelled or their men proclaimed them emperor. It was simply a question of whether they stood to gain from serving the senate and Rome or pursued their own agenda at greater risk. Caesar understood this - and he crossed the Rubicon not simply to better himself but also because he was in danger of being rendered helpless by his rivals. He had no choice. Other generals had every choice. If Rome was seen as weakened and ripe for a military coup sooner or later someone would be tempted. The men would quickly support a popular commander rather than a distant and feeble ruler.


  7. Aha! Here's something I turned up by the poet Martial...

     

    Tongilianus, you paid 200,000 sesterces for your house. An accident, too common in this city, destroyed it. You collected 1,000,000 sesterces. Now I ask you, doesn't it seem possible that set fire to your own house, Tongilianus?

     

    Hmmm.... At first this suggests that Mr T has had his house insured and was paid handsomely in compensation. However it seems more likely that he sold the land on which the property stood and made a killing. perhaps he bought a decrepit property at a knock-down price, rented it for a while, then burned it and sold the land for profit? After all, insurers are never going to be generous in our age or theirs. That amount of profit suggests it wasn't insurance, just another shadey deal.


  8. Possibly, but remember that all societies allow a certain amount of 'cross-dressing'. Granted that certain moslem countries find that unpalatable but the difference in our society is that the former barriers have been disassembled. A man or woman can now expect to perform any role in society on an equal basis. Is that a good idea? Actually no, I don't think it is, but I don't want to view women as lesser beings.

     

    Whilst I accept your arguement about Livia I have to point out that she was in a privileged position.


  9. The Gladiat (I think thats what they call those devastating little swords) is regarded by experts as the most efficient sword ever. I have also heard it called a 'Spanish Short Sword'. Is this because it was originally used by a Spanish tribe? When did the Romans 'lend' the idea?

     

    Do you mean Gladius? They were extremely efficient, a gladius in the hands of a trained Legionary was more than likely the most deadly sword in history.

     

    The gladius was originally from Spain, or at least, something similar was developed in Spain and in typical Roman fashion, the Legions adapted it for their own use. <_<

     

    The gladius was developed from swords used by their spanish enemies. The original 'spanish sword', the gladius hispaniensis, had a leaf-shaped blade with a seriously long point. It was then developed into a straight sided blade, then the 'pompeii' pattern with a shorter point. Originally the use of the gladius was very strictly in a thrusting motion. Later, during the principate, we find the gladius is being swung about just as much as thrusted. The sword was decreasing in length and swordplay more complex, both a result of changes in style due to elongated peacetime and because of the influence of gladiatorial doctores who sometimes got themselves hired to train soldiers.

     

    Was it the most deadly blade in history? Not even close. It was a good weapon. What made it so effective was the way it had been used by the soldiers. The shortening of the blade required a higher standard of swordplay however and this was one of the reasons that it was dropped very quickly in the 3rd century ad in favour of the longer cavalry spatha.

     

    The most deadly blade is without doubt the japanese katana. Versatile, light, equally usable in thrust or cut, frighteningly sharp, and considerably better made. There simply hasn't been anything better.


  10. I really do have to emphasise the nature of roman ambition. Roman youths of good families were brought up to believe that it was there station in life to achieve. Think about the american college system and how it prepared young people for success - not just with education, but with standards of behaviour and attitude toward the world. So it was with Rome. Octavian was no different in that respect. He was however in a better starting position and perhaps more talented than many of his rivals. Also the patronage of roman culture played its part, as successful men would want proteges in their pockets - it increased the strength of their faction at grass roots albeit with some risk of treachery later. But then, the young man concerned would be well aware that his opportunities to progress depended on the old man who guided his efforts.


  11. I think you have to be aware of what the symbol is. In this case Claudius was 'allowed' to chuck spears at a sea-beast both for the religious symbolism and also to emphasise Claudius's manliness. Yes, he too is a bold and skilled hunter.... yeah ok. As far as you argue about the symbolism of spear throwing I do agree. It changes nothing else. After all, Claudius had some friends and if a person of lower station presented the beast for killing, then surely Claudius would smile on him?


  12. The world viking means to go raiding. To go a-viking. The seamanship and travel lust of the nordic bunch hadn't developed during the roman period although there may have been some tenuous trading contact - the vikings would have heard of this massive empire to the south. If it had, the late roman inhabitants of britain would have recorded them. They didn't. They were wholly concerned with saxon intrusions and I therefore wonder if the vikings inherited saxon naval know-how?

     

    If I remember right the varangian guard of the byzantines were vikings?


  13. 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.

     

    Yes, well, this is what the men might have thought. But it would be interesting to know what the women might have thought. If we just assume that what the men thought is the only thing that mattered, aren't we being a bit sexist?

     

    :D No not sexist, just pointing out that the roman world was male dominated and women were supposed to fulfill certain roles in society. It isn't unusual - we see the same attitudes today. Our modern western equality is unusual in human sociology. However, I do think - I have said it - that roman woman were able to extend themselves beyond their restrictions given certain circumstances. Many would have had no choice but to conform and many were perfectly happy to do so. Others would have chosen to strive against restraint. British culture used to be like that and I would be interested to know just how far roman women suceeded in obtaining equality.


  14. ...it was the sum total of local experience and experiment.

     

    Would you put the lamellar arm defences adopted by the eastern legions (not I think the western) and perhaps used by Trajan's troops in Dacia, into that category?

     

    Phil

     

    All the variations in roman armour fall into that category. We see their equipment as more or less uniform - it wasn't. There's a huge variety in the shape and style of roman helmets for instance, although it is possible to trace the development to some extent. Equipment was originally provided by the men themselves and later with offical assistance. The centralised fabricae that produced such things to order as a government facility came toward the end of the west - one more reason to raise taxes up a bit more. When a senior roman decided or was ordered to raise a legion he had to obtain equipment locally. There was bound to be variety. In actual fact I haven't seen anything resembling a dress standard for roman soldiers although I do accept they followed a general form. That isn't to say there wasn't one, I just don't know of any.


  15. Thats about all most people know - much of the information about them has been lost. Including claudius's history of the estruscans I think.

     

    They also provided the origin of roman funeral rites / gladiatorial combat. We know they sometimes set a man with a sack over his head against an angry dog. Roman urban planning also has its roots in etruscan culture.


  16. 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.


  17. Salve!

    Before I depart for Eboracvm -I would like to throw in a new thread : do members have information/links/observations on -the population of the Imperial period, its growth ,distribution, morbidity,ethnic make up?

     

    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.


  18. 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.


  19. 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.


  20. 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!


  21. Either way if they shuffled one cohort to another legion it would still rely on that new legate for supplies, pay, food etc so if the one legate wanted to turn upon the state they could still do it as the cohort relies on whoever controls the army. I think it was more important to keep the soldiers occupied with tasks rather than switching them from one legion to the next.

     

    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.


  22. Title says it all, how did the Romans usually spent their time between sunset and going to bed?

     

    I assume there was a big difference between upper and lower class...

     

    cheers

    viggen

     

    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.

×