[Cuirbolli]

Metal is much easier to work into armour than leather. Whilst you might not have needed a blacksmith with leather armour, you would have needed other tradesmen. Metal is far easier to repair. A damaged leather cuirass remains damaged.

[How Bloody Was The Arena?]

Does anyone know where I can get an English Translation of the Memoires of Diocles? Ap(p)uleius Diocles was a charioteer in 2nd century Rome.

No sorry I don't, but Im fascinated that such memoirs would exist from someone of that profession. If you find them, please let us know.

 

Gladiators were like athletes and some of them were like the baseball heroes of our time and typically, most of them were skilled in their art and put on a good display of fighting, when called for. The typical gladiator may have fought two or three times a year, maybe more. I think the better you were, the fewer the fights.

Not always true, it depended on demand, and how much money a lanista could earn by renting out his top men. Of course, they were valuable assets and not easily replaced, hence the reluctance of lanistas to risk them overly. The two or three fights a year applied to contract volunteer gladiators. Those condemned ad ludus stood a similar chance of surviving their sentence, usually five to seven years just like volunteers, but those condemned ad gladius - their task was to die for the crowd.

 

Like the typical Roman soldier, gladiators lived on a mostly vegetarian diet and I guess meat (pork for the most part) was a luxury, probably served on special occasions.

Barley and beans. Its not a wonderful meal and modern research shows there's a variety of responses from those who have to eat it, but it did tend to fatten gladiators and help build muscle. Desirable for strength and also protection against minor sword cuts. Meat was indeed reserved for special occaisions, which was the pre-fight feast the night before, a condemned mans last meal in many cases. The meal was provided by the lanista as a mark of respect and often a chance for ordinary people to meet these men and for some women it meant a risque dalliance.

 

Condemned slaves were often used in the arena as 'fodder' for skilled gladiators to despatch, as they would be poorly armed compared to the gladiators they would face. This was a form of execution and if anyone survived, it was up to the public to spare his life.

This is another example of roman ambivalence, because the audience did not want to see an unfair fight. They wanted thrills and spills. If the fight had lasted as long as Russel Crowes efforts in the film 'Gladiator' I think the event promoter would staining his sublagaria

 

I'm familiar with the games during the Republic, when it was practically unheard of to witness combats to the death. For most owners of gladiatorial schools, it was a sheer waste of money, effort and years of training to have a gladiator fight to the death. Of course, injuries could happen and death could result from a serious wound, despite prompt treatment. This would be more of an accident than anything else.

No, not true. The whole point of a munera is to spill blood. The funeral rites demanded that blood is spilled to honour the dead. Now because the average mourner doesn't want to be a murderer, it was felt better to have slaves fight each other, at least that way they'd have a sporting chance. We also see etruscan rites (from which roman games evolved) where a man with a hood over his head must fight an angry dog with a club. Even at mundane displays, at some point, a man must die to satisfy the crowd. later of course the funeral and religious side of things gave way to public entertainment. Nonetheless, it is true that a wounded gladiator that survived the fight would receive the best medical care available.

 

Gladiators earned money on each fight, with the lion's share going to the owner / lanista. However, they would get to keep any personal gifts / tips from their fan base. I guess some of the tips were also in kind as there are accounts of Roman matrons seeking the company of gladiators - who knows, maybe they just wanted to see them up close. These are more in the category of rumors than actual fact. I'm sure there were affairs going on but again, we have no hard evidence in the form of an actual anecdote that has been corroborated by several sources.

For a woman of good birth to seek the company of a gladiator is something considered scandalous - and that was part of the attraction. There is a story written in roman times of a wealthy daughter who runs away with a gladiator despite his facial injuries, forever throwing away her life of ease and luxury to be with this man of violence she has fallen in love with. Its the only example of a tragic romance that I've heard of in roman times. It has been speculated that Commodus was the son of a gladiator. he certainly bore little resemblance to his father Marcus Aurelius and his mother, the somewhat loosely moraled Faustina, was rumoured to visit ludii.

 

Some of the gladiators were, of course, civilians and not slaves. I seriously doubt that there were any of the nobility though, as gladiators were bound to the school and although some of them may have had visiting privileges (if their families were in the city), the majority of them would have been confined to the premises of the school and would have been subject to a rigorous daily routine - wake up, eat, train, eat, train, sleep. There may have been a free period in the afternoon when they would be allowed to hang out in the courtyard or play dice or do nothing. The lanista would always be around and for all practical purposes, they were like prisoners of the school and were bound by its rules.

Volunteer gladiators were slaves just like those condemned, except that they could retain their wives and families and would be allowed out of the ludus for rest and relaxation. It was well known that men of noble birth volunteered, either because they wanted stardom or because they were desperate for cash. Augustus made rulings to restrict the number of gentlemen entering the arena. For gladiators bought as slaves the ludus was little more than a prison. Indeed, it was a vigorous life. Studies of gladiatorial skeletons show heavy muscular development and signs that they lived barefoot. I should mention that the way a particular ludus was run depended on the character of the lanista. Lentilus Batiatus might have been a hard tasker but its likely he was also careless, hence the escape of Spartacus even after the plot was discovered.

 

On the bloody aspect, I doubt we would have seen much blood, except for a few nicks and cuts as a result of the fights. Again, in later periods, things may have been different as there are accounts of mass combat and slaughter during spectacles hosted by Nero / Commodus. However, I doubt they would have used highly trained gladiators (think racehorses - would you put your prize stallion to death after one race ?. Prisoners and condemned slaves (in the case of Nero, Christians maybe ?) would have been used.

It depends. The morning event began with practice bouts with thr rudis, the wooden sword. This was designed to wet the appetite of the audience and allow them to place bets on the perceived skill of their favourites. Some fights were to the first blood, and the first obvious wound would have the referee stop the fight and announce the winner. Some fights were sine miisione, or 'without remission'. In those fights one man had to die, and no call for mercy to the crowd was heeded. Augustus banned those but I believe they returned later. usually a prize gladiator was given a lesser opponent for the reasons of survival and continued profit, but remember that this person was famous and in demand. Many of them died, so survival was never a sure thing. Those who had been freed by the editor or the emperor, or those who had bought their freedom from their winnings, sometimes returned to the arena later. Either because they couldn't make a life for themselves outside, or because they simply preferred the life they had left behind. behind the scenes were the financial deals done with lanistas. Mostly these were to increase the spectacle, to increase the blood spilled, and the lanista was getting some compensation for risking his best men. I wouldn't be suprised if on rare occaisions a lanista allowed a good man to be killed if sufficiently renumerated - it was only business.

[Significance of the Citizen]

The favor of the public counted for something, but the army, the pretorians, the people of the palace and the Senate were more important.

Probably there is a gradual change from Augustus to Diocletian.

Well lets be a little precise about this. The legions, praetorians, and the senate didn't usually act as a group any more than the roman mob. It always devolved to individual initiative from their leaders rather than popular uprisings.

 

In the case of the legions, we don't the army revolting as a whole. Instead, the charisma and popularity of a single commander has reached the point where the soldiers dissatisfaction with the current emperor has resulted in them persuading or demanding that officer accepts the throne on their behalf. This is done away from Rome regardless of how anybody else feels. It is a mutiny by any other name, one in which the legions commander decides to lead his men both to satisfy his soldiers demands and to further his own career. If the remaining legions were pulled in a short civil war would result. The interesting thing is how often legions did not prevent these uprisings. Its as if the commanders of the legions decided that it was safer to sit on the fence and see who won. Otherwise it portrays the average emperor as a very poor general.

 

With the praetorians, we see a group of privileged men who nonetheless are still typically greedy. Their closeness to the ruling caste bred a certain contempt I think, as they were witness to all the shenanigans that went on. The praetorians seem on the one hand to ignore public mood but I don't think they did. They were very mindful that without the emperor their cushy number was at risk. That said, a praetorian revolt was still usually the work of a handful of individuals, not the praetorians as a whole. The reasons were usually personal, not political. Caligulas murder for instance, after Cassius Chaerea had become angered at the insults andmickey taking aimed at him. Or when caracalla was marching east on campaign, he was murdered by a single officer while he went to the toilet by the road. The assassin was chased by praetorian horsemen and killed with spears. The point is that one person acted, the others retaliated.

 

The senate was always a breeding ground for ambition. Whereas in the past there was always public office and the consulship to strive for, in the empire the top job was reserved. The senate only acted together for mutual interest, usually survival, and the case of ordering an officer to bump off Didius Julianus is an example. When a coup detat was in the air, it would again be the work of a handful of men, again working on personal motives rather than political. Senators who acted without regard to popularity often came off worse - again the case of Didius Julianus comes to mind.

 

The situation in the roman crisis of the 3rd century is that popularity was becoming less important, and individual motive the entire point in securing the throne. There wasn't time to gain popularity, because if the individual didn't act quickly, the current emperor would become popular and that would make the murderous coup far more risky.

 

So - always in the background is the consideration of public mood in one way or another. Without it, your survival after a coup was very much at risk.

[Significance of the Citizen]

One of the things that struck me in the movie Gladiator(just saw it again recently) was a comment by one of the senators (the one Derek Jacobi). I don't remember the exact line so to paraphrase he said something in along the lines of Commodus getting so much power based on the favor of the people of Rome. My reply was a snicker and the mental comment: "nobody really gives a hoots about what the citizen likes". I reconsidered the comment since then and now think that it was a little out of line.

 

But nevertheless, I still cannot picture the emperor really having much power based on the favor of the populous of Rome. If it were so then the fate of Vitellius might have been different, since the citizen body clearly favored him over Vespasian.

 

Also, when we look at Tacitus' account*, we find that the people's "favor" was really one of the weakest things of all, since it swayed with the favor of fortune.

 

So this then begs the question: To what extent was the favor of the people helpful, if at all, in holding the throne?

 

*"The acclamations and cries which habitual flattery prompted in the people were at once extravagant and false" (TH.1.90)

 

Popularity as a ruler was a very important thing, although not all emperors worried about it as much as others. Augustus worried about his popularity almost to the point of paranoia, whereas caligula seems indifferent and at times contemptuous. Thing is, if you're not popular, then a plot by rival senators to oust you is far more likely to succeed. Take poor old Didius Julianus. He bought the throne from the praetorians and was absolutely loathed by the public despite every effort he made to become popular. The senate in fact ordered an officer to kill him to ensure the arrival of Septimius Severus would not result in a purge. Didius had no public support hence no-one worried whether he died or not. Elagabulus similarly met a sticky end because the bloke was a complete embarrasement and in any case, what use was he? His mum held all the strings. Without public support, he never stood a chance. Now a better example might be Titus. When he came to power he was viewed as a disreputable character, and most romans expected another nero. To his credit, Titus reinvented his image and made great strides to be known as a good ruler. His inaugral games at the colosseum swung it for him. After that triumph of public entertainment, he was remembered as the great ruler he had wanted to be.

[Cuirbolli]

As I said, such breastplates were worn as decorative 'status' objects. It is interesting about gladiatorial depictions on tv and film that consistently show this sort of armour protection. As far as I'm aware, the only gladiators that had any torso protection were secutors and that only covered the top half. It was a metal guard too.

[A Tribune and his cohort]

No, we know that smaller units than legions built marching forts. I think you might be confusing those with the more impressive legionary forts which were built for long term occupation. Small stone forts often housed cohorts too, not the legion as a whole. Even watch towers were occupied for periods longer than a day.

[A Tribune and his cohort]

2) Would a lone cohort travel more than a days march from their legion and

if so how would it camp fortified or unfortified?

in time of war...NO!, they must return at base camp before night fall, even if on a mission.

in time of peace... they travel by village to village within a day march, the settlement will

be their safety haven or protection against surprise attack.

 

3) Do you believe cohorts undertook such missions without the direct suppoprt of their legion?

yes!

a legiones cohortia is the modern day equivalent of military battalion,

so it is almost a self contained unit that everything it needs is almost their for the war and mission.

 

Hung by your own petard! There is a difference between the permanent or semi-permanent legionary fort, and a marching fort built by a unit en-route. The cohort is linked by organisation to its parent legion, and although it may conduct missions or postings as a seperate unit, it does not become entirely autonomous. As for marching, cohorts did not rely on travelling from settlement to settlement. They couldn't. The roman army often operated in regions where suitable settlements were not available. Thats the rationale for the marching camp. At the end of the days march, the cohort must encamp and make some effort to protect themselves with a ditch and palisade. This was standard roman practice. It gave the men some measure of security, and its notable that one military punishment required that guilty soldiers sleep outside the camp. It also had a psychological advantage in that it planted a roman flag inside hostile territory, saying to all observers that the romans are here and they're staying. Even if the camp was for one night, the statement was made. Every week, a unit was expected to conduct a route march and that involved an overnight camp made in this way. The legion as a whole wouldn't have done this because they needed to perform a whole range of local duties, so individual cohorts would therefore conduct these marches and encampments as a matter of course. It does bring up the question of how legions or their cohorts did this in desert regions where wood was not freely available, and settlements almost non-existent. There are plenty of stone roman castles left in isolated parts of north africa, so was the situation similar to hadrians wall, where units are posted along a chain of fortifications?

[Ex-Caesar.]

Given that the republic was becoming unable to contain individual initiative, then after the civil wars it was almost certain that someone would rise to become dictator/emperor/monarch - whatever title you want to call it. Autocratic rule was unpopular with senior romans. It meant they couldn't share in power for one thing. So unless the individual rising to the fore was powerful enough and popular enough, then the civil wars would have continued, or some very bloody intrigue at the very least. For that reason, I agree that the republic was doomed by its own failure, and sooner or later autocratic rule was going to replace the roman oligarchy. As later history shows, a lesser man simply led to another power struggle and continued instability.

[Tiberius - personality]

Personally I see Sejanus as a symptom of something more general in Tiberius's nature. He was only too keen to put aside the day to day stuff and clearly hadn't realised Sejanus had ambitions of his own. By that stage, Tiberius's disaffection with public life had reached the point where he was only too glad to have a trusted advisor take on the strain. Notice that Tiberius did not resume public life after Sejanus was revealed as a usurper, with all the lessons learned therefrom, but continued to live in semi-retirement.

[The Great Fire of Rome, 64 AD]

Do you know any terrorist act/open revolt carried by christians?

Saying that between christians and jews was no big difference (but we know not of jew persecution then or christian persecutions at jewish revolts) and afterwards christians rewrote history, makes it hard to argue against this theory, but for me looks like an attempt to equate christianity with extremist islam.

Not mentioning that we have only christian sources for executions and something that might be a christian modification.

 

I understand your point. The parallel is there although the situation in Rome was slightly different in that ancient 'terrorists' wouldn't have the training or sophistication that we see today. As for 'terrorist' incidents, its impossible to say. We're talking about handfuls of aggrieved individuals who act without modern organisation. Given that Rome may have suffered up to a hundred fires a day, of which two or three might be considered serious who's to say how many were started by pyromaniacs? Of the knifeings that went on after dark, were they all thieves or were some political murders? If so, the number of these incidents are small. people of this nature don't act with wild abandon. They usually plot and plan, seeking mutual support until their increasing confidence and brashness results in activity, after which they would tend to lie low in order to escape suspicion. What they wouldn't do in the lack of modern anonymous communications is boast about it publicly. However, there are claims that evidence of propaganda leaflets dating from this era exist. I haven't seen any.

[The Great Fire of Rome, 64 AD]

I haven't found much aside from the reports of Tacitus and an archaeologist named Andrea Carandinas, who's been digging in Rome for 20 years. Only four districts were left untouched, and three were completely flattened. The inference is that many of the public buildings were indeed burned, but it would help if I knew which area they were in. The center of Rome, around the palatine, was ruined so if the buildings you metion were there, they too suffered from the fire.

[Training and Practice.]

Practice fencing might have been commonplace. A fathers duty may well have extended to teaching his son how to wield a weapon. I remember seeing a saxon sword at Swindon Museum and being struck by the small size of the handle. Then it ocurred to me that this weapon belonged to a youth, possibly following his father on raids to earn experience and manhood. The fact that it was left on the field north of Barbury Castle suggests he never learned quickly enough.

 

I don't believe there was any formal training for fighting amongst these people. They weren't that organised. Then again, they were warrior societies and everyone around a child used these weapons as a matter of course. They grew up with them and observed at close hand how they were used. As youths there may well have been much aggressive contest amongst each other, jostling for position like young men do. So, instead of training, they accumulated experience and received occaisional tips or instruction from their seniors.

[Helmet & Artifacts.]

Nice pic, but I should stress that this particular helmet was worn by someone important. Common soldiery wore helmets with less decoration or fancy face guards at this time.

[Latifunda in the Provinces]

Rural slave labour was known to be cruel and backbreaking. I doubt the rich farmers worked as hard as the slaves did.

[The Great Fire of Rome, 64 AD]

In AD64 the city of Rome suffered a fire that destroyed or damaged ten out of fourteen districts, more than three and half square miles of devastation. The fire began in a shop beside the Circus Maximus and quickly spread along the length of that stadium. Driven by the dry wind of the hot summer it then travelled down the Triumphal Way and began burning homes of the aristocracy on the Palatine hill. From there it destroyed the forum, the temple of vesta, and spread into the wood and brick slums of the subura, home to hundreds of thousands of poor people.

 

The fire was intense. Experiments at the Building Research Establishment at Watford on replica roman rooms suggest that with typical furniture and construction a room could be destroyed utterly within thirty minutes reaching temperatures of six hundred degrees. In fact, archaeological evidence has turned up shattered bronze statue bases that suffered temperatures up to a thousand degrees. The radiant heat was literally causing houses to spontaneously combust. Even the traventine stone was melting.

 

The fire lasted six days, then mysteriously re-ignited at the estate of Tigellenius, Nero's close advisor, and burned for another three days before it finally went out.

 

Given Nero's enthusiasm for recreating Rome it was suspected that he was behind it, thus giving rise to the legend that he 'fiddled while Rome burned'. In fact he hadn't. Nero was at Antium partying with friends thrity five miles away when the fire started. Some aristocrats suspected he had burned their houses on purpose, since politics was decided in their atriums as much as the senate floor. However, its also true that Nero's own palace, the Domus Transitoria, was also hit by the fire.

 

Although the city had seven thousand firemen, none had tackled the fire and its reported that 'menacing gangs' prevented attempts to do so. People were observed torching buildings whilst openly claiming they were obeying orders to do so. On the one hand, the claims that Nero had started the fire as a land clearance scheme seem to have crecedence, but it also seems unlikely he would burn his own palace and that home of his close advisor. Unfortunately, despite Nero's relief efforts and his building safety legislation brought in afterward, his new Domus Aurea was such a statement of power that claims against him were difficult to avoid.

 

Conventional wisdom holds that Nero became aware of the increasing criticism and blamed the unpopular christian sect as being responsible. They were perfect as scapegoats. Rumours of vampirism, necrophagy, and denial of the imperial cult put them beyond the pale. The persecution of christians that followed was the first, and was so cruel that many romans began to have sympathy for them. Its because of these burnings and crucifixions that Nero is popularly known as an anti-christ.

 

The fire took place on the evening of July 19th, the same date as a major fire more than four hundred years earlier. There was also an egyptian prophecy known at the time throughout the eastern mediterranean that a great city would fall when the dog star Sirius rose. In AD64, Sirius rose on July 19th. Christians, many of whom were disaffected jews, had no legal recourse to vent their complaints so were prone to apocalyptic prophecy as a way to express their anger. Although christianity is now seen as a passive peaceful faith, back then it was not. The violent fundamentalism we now expect of islam was present in christianity then, and within a few years of the Fire, a revolt in Judaea took place led primarily by religious zealots.

 

The christian activist theory relies on these points. July 19th would have been seen as the perfect date to bring retribution to decadent Rome. Indeed, these sentiments are expressed in the Book of Revelations ascribed to St John thirty years after, although its unlikely he actually wrote them himself. If the Seven Headed Whore of Babylon was in fact the Seven Hills of Rome as the theory requires, then the description makes quite clear that hatred of Rome and its domination of the world was keenly felt by contemporary christians, who were exorting others to wreak revenge on the city in exactly the same way that modern moslems do against america today.

 

If the Activist Theory is correct then why has this not been translated into modern acceptance? The most obvious reason is sanitisation of christian history. As Rome turned away from pagan beliefs the bishops of Rome would not want their compliant flocks to see a religion tainted by the anti-roman zealotry of their predecessors.

 

Of course this is difficult to prove. There is a hint of conspiracy theory about this. The dates may be mere coincidence, and the Book of Revelations is possibly only the result of a nightmarish vision of someone high on mushrooms. Nonetheless, the parallels to our modern world are there and the Activist Theory, if proven, would mean that Nero did not pick on the christians as scapegoats, but exacted revenge executions on the cult that attempted to destroy his empire at its heart.

[The Great Fire of Rome, 64 AD]

... One theory suggests that christian activists did indeed torch rome in an ancient terrrorist outrage. The case is unproven but intriguing, and there is some circumstantial evidence that seems to point in that direction ...

 

So what is this circumstantial evidence?

 

I'll look it up. Report to follow. For myself I have doubts because Rome suffered fires regularly and there was another great fire during Titus's reign wasn't there? Regarding house insurance I opened a thread on this forum on that subject earlier.

 

On the other hand, its known that Pompey became rich by buying land after buildings had burned down at cut prices

 

DOH! I meant Crassus....

[Legionaire Questions]

Was it more honrable to be fighting the barbarians, or to be fighting fellow Romans in the many civil wars that Rome had?

Neither. It was more honourable to win.

 

Except for Cato!

 

Actually Caesar's late triumph over romans was badly viewed by many. So, at least for his time it was not a glorious thing to gain victory in civil wars.

 

A civil war is bound to arouse strong feelings. Partly this was inspired by caesars success and talent, both of which were considerable. Julius caesar remained popular with the plebs so it was people amongst the senatorial class who quite literally wanted to stick daggers in his back.

[Celtic Swords.]

Yet there has been a british sword of this period unearthed which display advanced construction techniques, the metal blade having been folded in a herring bone pattern for strength as much as appearance rather than simply hammered out.

[The Various Caesars]

To me it just doesnt make sense. Caligula could not have been insane enough to believe that he was popular among the men in Rome. The fact that he handed out 100 denarii to each soldier following the attack on Neptune, means he did consider the men. If he did not secure the throne through the soldiers, then how would he expect to hold it?

 

No emperor handed out donatives because he thought the men deserved it. These payments were to buy their loyalty, not reward it. Caligula reportedly said "Let them hate me as long as they fear me", which isn't the statement of someone who worries unduly about popularity. Caligula was not an accomplished politician in any way. He was too self centred for that. having been given power over the empire, he regarded himself as a god and expected everyone else to recognise that. Not insanity I should point out, just the result of an over-inflated ego. Caligula seems to suffer from the behavioural problems that we might associate with child-stars today. He grew up in the public eye, probably forever being told how to behave yet being feted by the public. Once freed by his accession his immature (and utterly malignant) mischief rises to the surface unrestrained by lesser mortals.

 

Caligula was actually popular amongst the roman public. He was cheered on by the plebs. It was the senate or those who dealt with him personally who became disenchanted with his ways.

 

I draw your attention to the embassy of Philo that visited Caligula with complaints on behalf of the jews. Clearly Philo expected he might be executed for his trouble, yet Caligula gives them the run-around to deflate their arguement and then dismisses them as misguided. Truth is he never took them seriously to begin with.

[Provincial Administration]

I can't help thinking that one of the underlying reasons for the roman decline is provincial administration. Why did one emperor happily control an empire in the principate but found it impossible two centuries later? One answer among many is that provincial governemnt was becoming lazy, negligent, and in many cases passed decisions up the pyramid. Or was provincial government too risky?

[The Great Fire of Rome, 64 AD]

According to roman historians ten of the fourteen districts were devastated. Thats five sevenths. Rome was a tinderbox of wooden framed buildings closely packed together so a firestorm of that size isn't so unexpected. The problem is, there are reports that people actually fed the fire. Suetonius mentions that people were seen carrying firebrands and claiming their masters had ordered them to do it.

 

One theory suggests that christian activists did indeed torch rome in an ancient terrrorist outrage. The case is unproven but intriguing, and there is some circumstantial evidence that seems to point in that direction.

 

More likely is the desire for landlords to cash in on buildings that were falling down anyway. A lot of those apartment blocks were jerry-built and vermin infested, so claiming insurance payment or selling off the land for a quick profit might have been a motive. On the other hand, its known that Pompey became rich by buying land after buildings had burned down at cut prices - so was an entrepeneur at work here?

[The Lixae]

So the lixae were undesirable camp followers, opportunists and thieves who also supplied soldiers with items for renumeration. I can see why they were sometimes banned.

[The Various Caesars]

I'm a little frustrated because I can't find the original reference that I remember reading. For that reason I apologise to Augusta until such time as I can prove my case.

 

As regards the legions, I don't think caligula cared one jot about them. There were mere soldiers for crying out loud. However, we do see his disrespect of individuals in the case of watchwords, which was a source of mickey-taking for him. In fact, this behaviour probably cost him his life because Cassius Chaerea did not take kindly to being called effeminate given his proud war record.

 

I think caligula wasn't concerned with political gain over his name, rather that people should jolly well recognise his superiority.

[How Bloody Was The Arena?]

Does anyone know how and when Munera became Ludii?

 

I mean how exactly did a human sacrifice ritual lose its original meaning?

Additionally before the construction of permanent amphitheaters did the Romans set up temporary wooden structures as they did to put on plays?

 

Much has been made of Bread and Circuses as an negative institution. Part of the loss of their societal vigor has been blamed on the increasing number of game days. But did Romans have any alternatives? What caused the snowballing number of Games?

 

Munera are the gladiatorial games which evolved from funeral rites in the two hundred years before the empire. Ludii are the training schools for contestants, and although I don't know which was the first, I believe Julius Caesar set one up?

 

In the original human sacrifices, it was considered a good thing to honour the dead with the spilling of blood. Thats a typical funeral rite for meditteranean cultures. Now because no-one wanted to be a murderer, the answer was to get two social undesirables to fight each other to death. Later, some people wanted wanted their deceased relative to get a more impressive send-off, so perhaps two pairs. Three? Then people began celebrating their deaths much later, usually when they were running for public office and in order to impress, staged bigger and more varied rites. Sooner or later the funeral rite wasn't necessary, and these events were staged purely to impress.

 

Before the empire displays were often ad hoc, set up in forums or other public spaces. Indeed they did make amphitheatres of wood. Famously one shoddy effort collapsed during Tiberius's reign at Fidenae with thousands of casualties, the promoter finding himself exiled for cutting costs. There is a story about a convertible arena made of wood. Usually one half was used as an ordinary theatre then when an arena was required, the other half was wheeled around. There's some dispute as to whether this building ever existed.

 

There were alternatives but remember the roman public enjoyed these games. They were exciting in much the same way as a top-level boxing match, or perhaps more so, given the mortal drama of it. The increasing number of days devoted to games was simply to keep people happy. An unknown citizen once called out to caligula 'How about a days games, Caesar?', to which Caligula duly obliged. Also bear in mind the second purpose of games was to impress evryone with the promoters status and generosity. Titus for instance was remembered as a great ruler because his inaugral games at the colosseum were a success.

 

Regarding the sexual aspect of gladiatorial combat, this is part of human psychology. Females do tend to respond to a strong warrior type, both as protector and provider, so a display of violence and the glory attached was almost certain to give the participants sex appeal. It did. Wealthy women were sometimes prone to having affairs with gladiators despite their lowly status in society, and even the wife of the emperor Marcus Aurelius was rumoured to do so. In rome a typical woman of means might have lots of free time and no career aspirations. The excitement of dating a bold warrior illicitly was substantial. It might be noted also that at such displays the women were seated right up at the back, furthest away. There's an element of frustration here I think because society is almost keeping them at arms length from these men, hence the curiosity value of getting close.

 

I would like to add a footnote about women gladiators as sex-objects. Now whilst some men may have considered scantily clad females hacking each other to death as something titillating or amusing, I sense a disquiet about women fighters too. These women were rarer than male fighters (obviously) and in all likeliehood their lanista was more protective. A pregnant gladiatrix cannot be hired out for profit. Men are more predatory sexually and easier targets exist. It probably occurred on very rare occaisions but I doubt most men found it appealing to bed a woman scarred in combat who was quite capable of seperating them from their testicles without blinking. It would certainly make me think twice!

[The Various Caesars]

After all it was truly a term endearment given to him by the legions and an emperors bond with the army was as important as any relationship in the imperial court. It (along with the obvious cognomen of Germanicus) was a constant reminder of his affiliation to the great man and general that was so beloved by the people.

 

Thats not the impression I got. The name reminded him of his troubled childhood and what I tried to explain earlier was that caligula clearly had something of a chip on his shoulder regarding status. If caligula had any regard for the legions I would accept your point, but he treated them with the same arrogant mischief as everyone else. Did he not order them up and down a beach collecting sea-shells instead of actually invading britain?

 

Try Lives of the Caesars by suteonius, I think he refers to the naming problem. I'll have to wade through tacitus again to find anything!