caldrail
-
Posts
6,248 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
146
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by caldrail
-
-
I came across the August issue of National Geographic and not suprisingly the cover picture of a murmillo gladiator caught my eye. The feature was an article explaining what was actually going in the arena compared to popular perceptions of Roman blood sports, and not a bad article as such, though I would like to comment on some of the assertions made in the article.
Why would You Bring So Much Armour To A knife Fight? - Well, the gladiators sword did get quite small but remember this was a trend that developed over a number of centuries. The idea of a shorter sword is that the fight gets close in and fast, making for more impressive displays (the article stresses the need to perform for the public, though it neglects to point out that it was in the gladiator's interest to show off - it improved his chances of missio if he could not continue the fight). Perhaps more importantly the armour worn by gladiators was usually (not always) designed not to keep the gladiator alive, but to keep him fighting. The Romans wanted to see a professional fight, not a slaughter of men disabled by wounds. That might sound odd considering the other forms of arena killing, but it's all about context.
Gladiators Fought For Show - To some extent, yes they did. The article does mention fights staged sine missio (No Mercy) and that one fight was advertised as using sharp weapons, but it is well known that gladiators often fought demonstration fights especially in wandering troupes who could not easily replace their fighters and blunt weapons, also used for training, were expected. Morning bouts were generally considered warm-up events and nobody expected deaths at that stage. The headline acts might well be more serious, sharp edges, a chance for the audience to decide fate, and so on.
Gladiators Fought At Similar Skill Levels - Yes, this did occur, as for instance the account of a fight between Priscus and Verus at the Colosseum written by Martial, and famously the Emperor Titus gave both men victory and freedom for their epic duel. Whilst it is true that the public wanted a fair fight, sometimes it would not be possible to match people exactly or indeed it might not be wise to risk a star gladiator unnecessarily. So sometimes an expert would be matched with a tiro. The outcome was never certain, but highly probable.
Gladiators Survived 90% Of The Time - The rate of survival is commonly stated as such, but this would be between experienced fighters with reputations, such that even if they lost a section of the audience at least would be rooting for them and call for missio. However, the odds of a tiro fighting his first match might well be considerably more dangerous, with the possibility of facing a more experienced man, less investment in training, and no reputation to spur public support. Some statistics suggest that one in three gladiators got invalidated out in training, and another one in three would die in their first fight.
Our concepts of gladiator fights are often hopelessly distorted. Television and film usually show gladiators dressed in all sorts of get-ups and using weapons inherited from fantasy. Fights were strictly categorised into standard pairs and as the article does mention, controlled by referees.
Gladiators Swore An Oath To Be Punished And Killed - Yep, very true. They were slaves, whether purchases or volunteers, and expected to obey their masters.
"He vows to endure to be burned, to be bound, to be beaten, and to be killed by the sword." - Satyricon (Petronius)
Further, Cicero outlines the stoicism and loyalty of typical gladiators...
"Just look at the gladiators, either debased men or foreigners, and consider the blows they endure! Consider how they who have been well-disciplined prefer to accept a blow than ignominiously avoid it! How often it is made clear that they consider nothing other than the satisfaction of their master or the people! Even when they are covered with wounds they send a messenger to their master to inquire his will. If they have given satisfaction to their masters, they are pleased to fall. What even mediocre gladiator ever groans, ever alters the expression on his face? Which one of them acts shamefully, either standing or falling? And which of them, even when he does succumb, ever contracts his neck when ordered to receive the blow." - Letters (Cicero)
Yet things weren't always so honourable or dramatic. Suetonius records how Caligula stopped a fight and scolded the assembled fighters for being too wussy. One man immediately sought to impress the Roman head of state by slaughtering his hapless colleagues with a trident. Caligula was apparently appalled at the sight (and that from a man recorded as killing a helpless gladiator as a mock victory)
The article was overall quite good - and interestingly, printed the image of a full size gladiator sword across the bottom of a folding page!
-
1
-
-
Isn't there a famous mural that has in within it a depiction of a man tied to a pole and a lion biting (or about to bite) his face? It always gave me the shudders. Imagine the horror of the moment.
This was a common method of executing criminals. Not just lions. either. There's an anecdote (I wanted to track it but my 'safesearch' settings are locked into strict mode because I live in England and thus refuses to do anything except proudly announce my internet search won't happen) in the Roman sources where the writer describes how the victim is being attacked by a bear and no longer the shape a man would be.
@Guy - Yeah, I got it, but look closely at the depiction. It can be interpreted differently. To me it looks like the lion is nuzzling a familiar human. Please note that 'throwing to the lions' is a common theme in the popular perception of Rome and the info is playing to that crowd. Okay, it might be the case, but I'm just not convinced.
-
Just a personal point of view but this does not look like an execution at all. If it was, the lion would be on top, triumphant, surely? Perhaps this has more to do with mythology or is a reference to someone associated with lions?
-
We're so used to polished marble classical statues it's hard to imagine the Romans painted theirs. The same with funerary monuments, all the original colour weathered away to leave worn stone. Rome had been a colourful place in the past (pun intended)
-
Hi. Stumbled across this film on YouTube this evening. Made in 2014 on a low budget by Polish students it tells the tale of how Otho began his move toward displacing Galba in ad69. IT plays a bit fast and loose with history, principally concerning Poppea Sabina (You'll soon find out why). Nonetheless although technically a 'C' movie the production standards are high, the acting passable, and there's more than a little hint of Gladiator about it. The film is in Latin with Polish and English subtitles.
Emperor, Imperator a film by Konrad Łęcki (in Latin and Teutonic :) - YouTube
-
1
-
-
We tend to get carried away with image of orgies and unbridled sex. Well, okay, sex was very available from slaves or cheap prostitutes. Yet I can't help noticing instances like Clodius trying to get off with Caesar's wife. Sure, she wasn't exactly rejecting him, but her mother was very moral and strict about relationships. True, Augustus found it necessary to impose laws to offset a lack of traditional marriage, but I wonder if we get carried away with the wall paintings assuming that such portrayals were ordinary. I mean, modern *or* is available widely but how many of choose to actually live in such an erotic lifestyle?
-
About the sica? My first thought when I saw the photo above was that it looked nothing like a sword, but of course, neither do the weapons held by many toy warriors today. I note the handle is definitely swordlike, whereas a strigil is a mundane implement that would not require so well formed a handle. I'm also drawn to the straps on her left leg, conveniently where a gladiator would have a padded shin (the statue does not - the leg is shown as either naked or close fitting). What puts me off more than anything else is the lack of a helmet, the left handed pose, and the lack of padding on her 'sword' arm.
-
Another stab in the heart of historical accuracy I see. Armoured brasiers? What we have here is modern day sexual fantasy I'm afraid, though it does beg the question what female gladiators appeared as. They were after all assuming what was male roles and categories - there were no seperate female styles that I've ever come across, especially given that female fighters were a rarity.
Among the ladies we see one equipped as a retiarius (trident and net). She would surely expect to face off against a more heavily armoured female murmillo? That was the usual contest. So why does she not have a right arm and shoulder guard? Why does her opponent not wear armour in the normal fashion? Why are there three contestants? And given that most gladiator classes were bare chested (to allow a clean kill and plenty of blood should the victim fail to defend him/herself adequately), it comes as no suprise that Romans would have found the contests amusing or titillating.
But it isn't just the fighters. I saw one member of the crowd dressed in a purple robe/toga. Really? Given that the highest order of Roman society, ie the Patricians, were only allowed a broad purple stripe on their clothes one wonders who this chap was and why he was so incredibly wealthy that he can dress in a higher fashion than the presiding emperor, and why such a person would be sat among the plebs? Of course he's just an extra dressed in whatever was available and vaguely romanesque, but the problem with this sort of thing is that it causes perceptual issues in Roman history to persist.
Pepsi just want to sell more cans (no doubt because I just got made redundant and can no longer access the works vending machines) and so pust scantily clad ladies in front of a crowd with symbols of virility. All a matter of context you see. Now if you'll excuse me, I wish to study this advert more closely
-
There's no mystery to this. We know there were female gladiators.
Interesting article but beware of a couple of factual errors... 6.4: Female Gladiators in Ancient Rome - Humanities LibreTexts
Short article but an interesting read.... JCS: Female Gladiators of the Ancient Roman World: Murray (ejmas.com)
-
There isn't much evidence for military protocol in the Roman legions. Legionaries weren't called 'soldiers' before Augustus (they were referred to as 'Brothers'). Specific ranks would be a little tedious so broad categories are likely, Centurion, Tribune, Legate. What you will have to become aware of is that the Romans may well have not used analogous behaviour to modern armies (a typical Hollywood or literary ploy).
Saluting has been debated for a lo/ng time and most people feel comfortable with a modernesque protocol, but the sources do not mention saluting outside of honouring a commander as opposed to recognising his superior rank as we do. What this means is that ordinary salutes may not have happened, but that soldiers who approved of their commanders may have deliberately or spontaneously saluted them as something.
Incidentially using the word 'Domine' might well have been seen as 'licking the backside'. In fact, such language does exist in letters recovered from Vindolanda. It does not refer to rank, but names the recipient as 'Master'. That's a very subordinate form of phrasing because it infers that you are indentured to the recipient in some way. Legionaries swore an oath of obedience - this was necessary because obedience to another man is the same as slavery, and Roman soldiers would not tolerate such associations. They were free citizens, soldiers or not.
The upshot of this is that I am thinking in terms of names being more contextual than actual rank titles in many cases. Remember that in the legions, loyalty is fixed toward individuals rather than offices.
-
1
-
-
I can't find any official name either. There was a Battle of Compiègne in 715 but that has nothing to do with the Romans. Why does an anci.ent battle have no name? Usually because the Roman sources don't get very specific about it, commenting that a battle was fought with such and such an outcome and don't relate it to anything except a general area.
-
There is so much to say about this, not least the lack of evidence for Jesus. But regarding the spear - why a spear? Surely it would have been a pilum? The transposition, as always, is medieval. During the Second Siege of Antioch in 1098, the desperate crusaders were told by a priest named Peter Bartholomew that the 'Holy Lance' would be found. They found such a weapon, and were inspired to continue. Lance? A spear was said to be among relics held in Constantinople. It doesn't take a leap of imagination to see that this is another example of medieval hypocrisy regarding Christianity.
However, one should be wary of accepting the gospels as history. They were after religious stories written by people other than the saints normally attributed. The four gospels we have as canon today first become forwarded around 160 (not the Council of Nicaea in 325 as normally stated) but please realise that there may have been as many as fifty of them, all diverse, and thus unreliable as accounts.
Incidentially the description you made of Jesus receiving a thrust into the heart isn't something I've heard before and would appear to be a hyped up version of the tale, since a bored legionary asked to confirm a crucified victim had died isn't likely to be so symbolically accurate. he would want a reaction, not a drama.
-
1
-
-
The Roman 'institutions' as you class them begin to atrophy toward more localised forms of society in the last hundred years or so of the western empire. Partly due to the corrupt and inefficient nature of increasing bureaucracy I might add.
The point I tried to make originally was that asserting power wasn't always necessary for the Romans. Their culture was not set up for heavy handed top level directives anyway (since the empire was governed via provinces in the Republic and Principate despite increasing oversight and direct interference by the imperial household) so if you care to notice, the sources discuss mostly how the Emperors affected the immediate Roman world around them with the exception of the legions, which they were usually made commanders of (since we get the word 'emperor' from 'Imperator'/ 'Victorious General'). Occaisionally a situation develops and the emperor intervenes, as he has made himself entitled to do via his imperium / 'right to command', or perhaps the emperor needs a military victory to justify his title, so we get episodes like Claudius in Britannia or Antoninus Pius building a new wall in Caledonia.
Since overt power carries inherent risks in the Roman world, such as going too far, making a pigs ear of it, or simply failing to impress anyone, Romans typically prefer to influence. This is one reason why emperors, even the most inept and ridiculous of them, quickly develop supporting factions beyond those that helped them to power, because it's much much safer to make initiatives if it's the emperor that orders them rather than you, since if it all goes wrong you can either blame him or some unfortunate minion in the command chain.
The base form of influence is the client/patron relationship. Sure, I'll pay for your daughters wedding, so long as you keep me informed about what Gaius Felix is up to. Or yes, I'll take care of those pesky bandits, because you supply me with decent grapes. And so on. Again, this is very much a localised form of influence.
-
Are there any examples of such "peaceful" removal in the whole Roman history (without murdering the removed emperor, which is supposedly meant by word "peaceful")?
I nearly said no. But I can think of one. Romulus Augustulus, who was told to go, and clearly Odoacer wasn't expecting him to complain too loudly.
-
1
-
-
It is fundamental to the Roman Empire that the use of the word 'monarchy' should be understood. We're not talking about a medieval succession system (and that got brutal sometimes) but in the case of the Romans, a system where it became possible to assume an overriding assemblage of power - with the proviso it wasn't yours by right, but by support. This was why the canny Augustus reformed the Roman government as he did. By holding onto at least 50% of power, he avoided accusations of tyranny but retained enough support to deter anyone from challenging his grip on power.
A long time ago I was asked whether an emperor could be removed from power peaceably. The answer (which I found difficult at the time) is yes - just very unlikely. It meant refusing to confirm the various powers at the renewal dates, which normally wasn't a problem, since most politicians saw that supporting the guy in charge was safer. Therefore if you want a change of ruler, you either challenge directly with military rebellion (and this did happen quite often albeit not always successfully) or you conspire, either assassinating him or arranging for some terrible and swift demise. Such conspiracies were rarely serious but rarely able to remain undetected.
-
I am going to find it hard to avoid thinking of Sian Philipps portrayal in I, Claudius!
-
The other day I was browsing a back issue of a BBC history magazine when I stumbled upon an article supporting the release of Guy De La Bedoyere's recent book on life in the Roman legions. In it was a statement that the Roman Empire relied almost entirely upon the legions for the assertion of imperial power. Now, as a younger man, I would have accepted that without a hint of doubt - it's a common theme when discussing the Romans, and they said of themselves that they loved the portrayal of military culture rather more than having to endure it.
But was that statement correct? Granted, Guy De La Bedoyere is a successful writer and television expert, but the idea that the empire had only the legions to extend power doesn't work so well if one is critical. Firstly, the legions weren't everywhere. They were stationed in areas requiring a higher security presence. Secondly, despite a reputation for efficiency and effectiveness that would make elite armies envious, the legions were neither. They were corrupt, rarely close to anything like full strength, senior officers politically motivated, and their soldiers relentlessly bolshie. For all their supposed invincibility, they left an impressive list of defeats.
The sources contain many instances of intervention by the legions, sometimes ordered, sometimes just rebellious or motivated troops throwing their weight about. It's that very drama that made the Romans record such anecdotes, and therefore we might well suspect our understanding is being distorted accordingly. Of course the Romans had other means of establishing power, but isn't that entire concept misleading? We're used to the rather more coherent empires of the last 150 years, the colonial powers, the communist bloc, or the fascist supremacists. Little wonder we see parallels with such constructs.
I'll say this up front. The Roman Empire was not a totalitarian state. Nothing like it. In fact, as a political entity it was suprisingly benign, but then Roman culture was based on ideas of free will and self determination. Rome did not as a rule control peoples lives in the manner of more recent empires, and indeed, it would have been extremely difficult for them to have done that. It demanded loyalty and tribute, but free people were free to pursue their lives as they saw fit, with the proviso that if you got dangerous to ordinary peaceful existence, the result would be heavy handed.
Note the rebellion of Spartacus. The first response to his escape to Vesuvius and ensuing banditry was not the military might of Rome, but local people getting their act together and trying to arrest him, albeit unsuccessfully. Note the occupation of Germania during the administration of Quintus Publius Varus, who considered (wrongly as it turned out) that the natives were beginning to see Roman law as superior and accepting Roman oversight as a result. Note the factional nature of Roman society, with chariot racing teams presenting a political influence all of their own. Note the use of commerce to influence regions. Note the existence of the client/patron relationship, the very beating heart of ordinary everyday Roman life. So we can see a large number of means by which the empire manipulated rather than controlled. It ought to be realised also that the empire was not a single unified state under the Caesars as is normally portrayed. It was Rome, a city state, that held influence over provinces of varying status that had local government derived from their native peoples and remodelled to Roman style.
But of course, as Roman monarchy re-asserted itself after Augustus, so these rulers obtained personal control of provincial areas formerly administered by the Senate. So the situation was a long process of change instead of a stable and conformal ideal. So, the empire didn't need the sort of central control we normally think of nor was that practicable, as indeed the decay of the empire would prove as emperors became dominant lords of all they surveyed. Law, commerce, and the unseen machinations of patricians in their own atriums are not often found in Roman sources as such, being somewhat invisible or dull, thus they didn't write about them. Does that mean these methods of influence didn't exist? I think the Roman Empire needs a different image than the one the Romans bequeathed to us at their own cognizance.
-
There's been an idea that some of Tut's items were repurposed from those made originally for his mother, not least the tomb where he was found (apparently the tomb built for him was hijacked by an architect for his own use after Tut died and looted. Using a former tomb has apparently preserved the burial goods). Tombs were built with a left hand turn for a male. Tut's tomb has a right hand turn and there's been considerable debate about the possibility of an added wall to block off parts of the original layout.
-
The strigil was a common cleaning tool used by anyone with an interest in personal hygiene. Claiming it's a gladiatorial item is misleading.
-
The impression I get is that Justinian saw reconquest as a duty, both as a 'Roman' and as a Christian. He was a reformer, a man who made sweeping cuts to the administration of the empire removing many elite men, clearly unafraid of the reactions others would exhibit in response to his directives. Indeed, his reign saw the old senatorial order replaced by a three tier system of status that required service to progress. None of this was luck - just hard headed decisiveness. Such a man would not rely on luck to re-establish the old Roman world surely?
-
The site of Stonehenge is world famous, but much less known is the connection to a wooden circle at nearby Durrington Walls. Now a similar site has been found in Germany.
Archaeology breakthrough: Researchers unearthed ancient homes at German 'Stonehenge' (msn.com)
-
I get a little baffled at why people think the Republic was 'falling'. There had been instances of individuals seeking to rule over it for a long time before in one manner or another, so a transition to one-person rule might well be regarded as inevitable - but the essential truth is that the Republic was a more hazy concept than we generally assume anyway. Okay, with a nod to high minded principles, the Romans threw off monarchial tyranny and set up a form of Republic but don't let that word fool you. It was not a modern democracy at all.
Rome was administered by elected magistrates who were given bundles of power according to the title they held temporarily from an elite group. In other words, tyranny was not eradicated in favour of proletarian empowerment but instead managed among selected individuals. The entire raison d'etre, the civic duty of the elite taking care of the general public, was for some a guiding principle but for many something to pay lip service to in favour of self interest, so really the emergence of warlords and eventual takeover by one of them isn't that suprising after a period of inflated wealth from conquest.
Antony and Cleopatra were intent on dividing the Romano-Egyptian world between them and their children. They had already attended public ceremonies dressed as gods. Clearly Marc Antony was buying into monarchy in a big way, something that Octavian was able to use against him as propaganda.
Yet the important fact remains that even after the dust had settled the institutions of the Republic remained. The Romans continued to call their empire 'The Republic' pretty much toward the end, even though we have Marcus Aurelius describing himself as an absolute ruler and Diocletian declaring himself as one. Those who repeat the mantra of Augustus becoming Rome's first emperor fail to grasp that he reformed the Republic, not swept it away as a dictator. Yes, he reformed it in a way that gave him at least 50% of the political support, but one can rationalise that not just as a convenient 'ruse to power', but instead a very necessary policy of survival in a political bear pit.
-
1
-
-
Interesting but not consistent across the empire, because the staple diet - bread - was milled with stone that left a fine grit in the flour, causing excessive wear on teeth. This would have affected the poorer sections of society primarily.
-
@ Crispina - The museum is small but you're right, it's a fascinating visit. Make sure you visit other sites along the Wall too because there are variations in settlement pattern.
@ Guy - A naked horseman? Not sure I'd want to try that, but notice the helmet. Hardly a traditional legionary item but very reminiscent of a gladiatorial type, suggesting an eques or mounted skirmisher consistent with the spear. But naked? That was something Greek or barbarian, and typically an eques had a modicum of armour. A local variation? Of course this might simply be a funerary memorial to a gladiator so the nakedness would have symbolic meaning rather than a simple rendition of actual; appearance.
Antonine plague
in Salutem et Sanitas
Posted
Pandemics aren't likely to be all that unusual. I was watching a video earlier today discussing how neolithic peoples in western Europe may have suffered a catastrophic drop in population from disease - with the caveat that it also conforms to issues with colonisation. Too many people moving into one region, setting up farms, and not surviving long because they haven't adapted to local conditions well enough. Noticeably these population shrink to around half of what they were then become stable. This happened in Britain during the 4th millenium BC.
However I did understand that much of the disease associated with the classical city of Rome was malaria, spread from standing water (Although the Cloaca Maxima was a feature the Romans were proud of, it is wrong to see ancient Rome as having a sophisticated drainage system catering for the whole urban sprawl)