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
-
-
Dumb luck? I think not. Octavian was an ambitious and ruthless young man, clearly inspired by his adoptive relative Julius Caesar and clever enough to learn from caesars mistakes.
Hiding his power? Well octavian did not adopt the title of an autocrat. What he did was proclaim that he was the first citizen, the most important of many, which eased the minds of the senate who may have feared another dictator or even worse a monarch.
Remember that political power at the end of the republic was vastly increased by the exercise of military clout. By being able to call upon armed forces, aided by Marcus Agrippa, he has a powerful bargaining chip and a means to eliminate his rivals. Military success is always a plus point in roman minds and his part in the civil war did him no harm.
Of course, as augustus he relied on his popularity to maintain his status and conducted a careful balancing act between rule by decree and as an apparent servant of the people. At various stages he tests the water to ensure his popularity is still there, and at others appears a little nervous that his power might be declining.
-
Even if the audience may not know a lot about the empire, they probably will know about the 'hollywood-version'. No need to tell them anecdotes about the depraved emperors, gladiators etc. They already know this, and you'll only be perpetuating the stereotypes. Use your time to tell them something they don't know. For instance, focus on a period they won't be familiar with, such as the third century, or the fifth.
Avoid the obvious (What was the Roman legacy, why did Rome fall/rise), you won't have the time to deal with such broad topics anyway. Instead, leave them a single, well-made point that changes their perception of Rome, if only just a little. That's what will make them want to know more.
I disagree. My experience in the music industry taught me that a cold audience isn't conducive to original material. Give them something they understand and like and they'll applaud - after all, didn't emperors do just that with games and chariot races? Broad topics can work just fine if you don't dwell on them. For your average listener someone going on about 3rd century coinage (for instance) isn't going to change their perception except for the worst. Play to the crowd I say. And whilst I'm thumping my tub, I agree, there isn't any need to pass on stereotypes. Why not focus the lecture on why these sterotypes are wrong?
If the audience is of a learned variety then by all means be specific and explain a subject they may not be aware of.
-
Well if it were me stood there....
I think I'd start with SPQR in large letters and explaining its significance. What it meant, why it was important 2000 years ago, where it came from. That way the empire is seen in context.
Then I'd stress the extent of the empire in geographical terms. How one man controlled this vast swathe of land from one city. Some anecdotes about the excesses that some emperors were prone to.
A bit about the economical strengths of rome to follow. How the earlier success against carthage had enabled the empire to treat the mediterranean as a roman lake, mentioning the transport of grain from egypt, metals from britain, the animal trade, luxury goods from India and beyond.
Then I'd describe how they held it all together by the exercise of brute force, with legions, and displays of violence.
Finally, I would draw parallels between their age and ours and ask - Are we so different?
-
Caldrail - please could you direct me to the ancient source that says that Gaius hated his praenomen. As for the nickname sticking because every other Roman was called Gaius - I'm not sure I can concur there. No Roman of standing was known by his praenomen - except, one presumes, among his own very close family and friends - therefore having an Emperor actually named 'Gaius' would not cause a problem. Tiberius was known as 'Tiberius' after all - his praenomen. I suppose it's a bit like later Royalty - Kings known by their Christian names etc.
It was mentioned either by suetonius or tacitus. For romans I agree - calling himself gaius wasn't a problem. But then its recorded he never liked the name - I wonder if he associated it with childhood discipline? I seem to recall that he's referred to as Emperor Gaius frequently but its only hearing that name within earshot that annoyed him, so then I'd say that he regarded that as a breach of ettiquette. He was Caesar of Rome, and expected his onlookers to address at such.
My own theory is that the name 'Caligula' was probably never used during his reign, except by his enemies, as a taunt. I think posterity has latched onto it in the same way. The name comes dripping with the traditional picture of a madman. Why should historians use as it as a unique identifer when there was no other emperor called Gaius? There would not be any confusion.According to the same source, caligula was used during his lifetime. It was after all his nickname as applied by troops on the german border when he was a child mascot. They called him caligula ('little boots') with some humour. In all probability it amused senators to hear him called that as much as soldiers, and people being what they are, nicknames tend to stick. As for dripping with the traditional picture of a madman, of course it does. He's been presented as such since his reign. However, caligula seems to have had something of a troubled childhood. I've said this before, but the impression I get is that his parents were not overly loving, possibly too busy to care for him, and he got more attention from the soldiers. Later of course he was a young man with some behavioural faults and I would say deeply annoyed at being addressed by his childhood nickname. He certainly looked at the senate with some disdain (the story of Incitatus) and as for the rest of Rome, did he not say that if Rome had but one neck he would hack it off? Well maybe he did or he didn't actually say that, but that anecdote was recorded to illustrate caligula's contempt. Oh yes, I've just remembered, didn't he execute a foreign ruler for wearing a purple cloak?
-
True. Mind you, being a woman she probably borrowed it.....
-
Tiberius seems to have a sociopathic side to his character. Whilst he did his duty earlier I wonder if he felt his efforts were not sufficiently rewarded? After all, he only became emperor because everyone in front of him died off. Also, having to follow Augustus on stage must have been a daunting prospect, and I think tiberius felt something like the son of the boss that he always had to fill the shoes of. In any event, he grew tired of the cut and thrust of roman life. He just didn't like people and this tendency increased with age.
-
Not officially, although I wonder if the burial clubs might help them? A generous officer might help a soldier he deems worthy, or perhaps his mates would club together and assist.
-
I know pretty much how river vessels were laid out, but does anyone know anything about sea-going vessels suitable for trading across the med? The reason I ask is I've come across text that suggests these vessels were rowed across when carrying animals, but I'm not so sure. The logisitics of it are a little hard on animals and crew. Roman sailors may not have been the greatest but then surely they had some savvy about loading those big crates aboard when dealing with masted vessels with rigging? Anybody know?
-
Apparently Gibbon also mentions the degradation of the land
"Since the Age of Tiberius, the decay of Agriculture had been felt in Italy; and it was a just subject of complaint that the life of the Roman people depended on the Accidents of the wind and waves. In the division and decline of the Empire the tributary harvests of Egypt and Africa were withdrawn; the numbers of inhabitants diminished with the means of subsistance;and the country was exhausted by the irretrievable losses of war, famine, and pestilence."
Now does he mean an actual loss of soil fertility or just in the number and effectiveness of farms?
Rome was always an urban civilisation. The large slave-estates of the late republic/early empire had more or less put the small farmer out of business. I wonder how many country estates were given over to holiday homes as opposed working farms? Given how vital agriculture was I suspect the degradation of farming during the late empire was due to many factors. Young men are being drafted forcibly into the army, the stability and safety enjoyed by their forebears is becoming a thing of the past, the possibility of raids or foragers of either side, the loss of markets (?), never mind any enviromental issues.
-
I feel a little uneasy about the link given at the start of this thread, and about metal detecting for personal gain full stop. Although the organisation based in Colchester may well be conscientious, and work in concert with archaeologists, I have had personl experience of metal detectorists ruining archaeological sites in my area. My personal view is that metal detectors and ancient sites ought not to really go together because an element of greed, to the detriment of the rest of us, always seems to creep in. Stuff that should go in museums ought not, in my view, end up in private collections, given that this material is finite in nature.
Agreed. Archaeology works best when items found are left in context, not simply hauled out of the ground. If you find something, what lies beside it? Is there a building on the site? Skeletal remains? Ancient debris or refuse? All things build up a little story of what was going on all those years ago. A metal detector, for all its usefulness, simply tells you something is there and the natural temptation is to pull it out of the ground and walk away to register your success in some way. Actually its a fail when you think about it.
-
There are cultural differences too. The german fashion for a sideways topknot (hairstyle that is) for instance, or perhaps the style of clothing, weaponry etc. What about tattoos or warpaint? Housing styles?
-
On a tangent, the edicts of both emperors were law in each 'half'. If there were only one 'cause', the Empire would not have fallen.
Not necessarily. The problems in the west would have been the same in a united empire, although I accept they may have been better able to cope militarily or economically. The problem is that the united empire was becoming ungovernable by one man (which is why it split in the first place) so the united empire would have found it harder to cope on a political level, and the empire would have lost territory under pressure anyway in my view.
-
Yes its noticable that the collection of artifacts in my area is of low quality, local greyware for instance, or the remains of iron tools or bucket fittings. However, a crushed silver bowl was recovered from one villa site, and a wine strainer from okus ridge. Someone had obviously imported some of that red pottery as their sunday best.
-
Doesn't this depend on how you define civilisation? At what point to you cease being a barbaric tribesman and become a civilised man? For me, reading and writing must be considered an important step but then primitive societies sometimes evolve ways to record ideas even in an unsophisticated fashion. Or is it urban living that defines it? At what point does a village of mud huts progress to a civilised town?
-
Firstly, I have read from other sources, including Heather's 'The Fall of The Roman Empire', that the climate which persisted in the Mediterranean during the period of Roman collapse remained relatively unchanged up until the little Ice Age during the middle ages, only with the exception of the disappearance of some fauna. Therefore, I believe that climate change is not a feasible explanation for Rome's demise. In starkingly blatant contrast, strong archaeological evidence of agricultural intensification and a blossoming population in both halves of the Later Roman Empire(I believe one of the archaeologists was a Frenchman named Goffart, cited by Peter Heather), that leads me to doubt the idea that the Western Empire was overthrown solely by environmental/resource mismanagement. Though, i would like to learn more about the evidence some of you cited about resource depletion in Gaul, Spain, and Egypt.
Climate change is not being put forward as the cause of Rome's demise, rather as a contributory factor. You can argue how deeply the effect was felt - I might even agree - but lets remember that civilisation at the time rome was very dependent on agricultural production, itself vulnerable to enviromental factors. Without food, the urban population of the city of rome, a million at its height, could not maintain its prosperity. The intensification of agriculture partly results from demographic changes in the late empire as rural estates become almost independent. Also, the burdgeoning population was as much the result of immigration both hostile and passive as it was from successful farming. Farms do not become huge successes for no reason. If the food surplus is too large, prices fall, unsold produce rots, and farms actually go out of business. This to me means that any increase in rural production is the result of increased demand.
Secondly,I believe the argument that the barbarization of the army led to the decline and fall of Rome is utter rubbish. 'Barbarization' occured even during the republic, as half of the consular armies were composed of 'socci' or allies, many of non-Italian origin. So-called 'barbarians' had been always drafted and recruited into Roman armies for their valour and their military prowess. Many emperors and high-ranking generals in the Late Empire were 'barbarians' including: Stilicho, Aetius, Flavius Constantius, Ricimer, Majorian. Many of these 'barbarians' were even more loyal to the Roman 'cause' than the local Roman elites in the provinces themselves. It was only in the incorporation of whole groups of 'barbarians' into the Empire as military overseers, which gave them a considerable share participation in Roman realpolitik, that tore apart the balance of power in the West.No its not rubbish. Barbarization in the republic was done to a formula. A barbarian could join the regular legions as an individual, or en masse as auxillaries under roman command. Either way, training was done to roman pattern and the troops conducted themselves accordingly. They became romanised as part of the army. In the late empire, this process collapses. Because of the demand for soldiers and the lack of enthusiasm of potential recruits, the late empire found it necessary to include barbarian formations under their own command. The romanisation of earlier periods was being set aside by necessity.
Thirdly, there is strong evidence that the Eastern Roman Empire was no mere backbencher in the field of Western Roman Politics. During the turbulent invasions of the Rhine and the Danube, both East and West armies coordinated to intercept whole barbarian tribes crossing the frontiers of the Empire. Though it can be said that their military sources were stretched to the limit, as a considerable portion of the Eastern Roman armies were stationed in the Eastern frontier where the threat of Sassanian Invasion was a very real one.Even during the rise of Attila, Aetius' counter-attacks in Gaul and Italy coincided with Eastern Roman intervention in the Great Hungarian Plain, prompting Attila to stop his advance into the WRE two times. As late as 468 AD, the Eastern Roman Empire still intervened in Western politics to appoint a suitable emperor, Anthemius, and to finance and send military expeditions that would have crushed the Vandals in North Africa and curtailed the Visigothic ambition in both gaul and spain but sadly ended in failure. Therefore, there was no shortage of assistance from the East thus debunking the notion that the WRE fell because of the East folowing its own 'destiny'.
Yes I can see your point. But then one of the reasons for the empires split was because government had become too difficult for one man. It was if you like a failure of local government that forced decisions up the chain until the emperor became overwhelmed. Having split, and despite any internal arguements, both halves were linked by common political and cultural history which is a strong factor in the way two nations do business with each other. After all, britain and france ought to linked given we share royal families but we've been arguing since the 14th century!
-
Olympic games are a modern phenomenon and bear a passing resemblance to the contests held in antiquity. The are of course greek in origin, and for that reason were usually scorned by romans, particularly since contestants were supposed to compete naked (another example of roman ambivalence). Nero bucked the trend by staging such contests, but were they ever really popular? Only amongst cities with greek tendencies or perhaps those that had been banned from staging spectacles, such as Pompeii after the riot with Nucerians.
The fact that cities staged events after a ban is of no suprise to me at all. It was public entertainment and any such diversion in otherwise hum-drum lives was welcome. Gladitorial fights continued into the 6th century in places despite christian objections and rulings to that effect.
-
Considering the visits to museums featuring roman artifacts such as Swindon, Cirencester etc, one thing I notice is a definite disparity in quality. Most of the artifacts aren't particularly well made and therefore for common purchase I would say. However, a certain percentage are of much higher quality and without doubt intended for customers who appreciate the finer things in life and can afford them. I wonder if these finer objects were made to order or simply put on display until a wealthy person decided it would look good on the mantlepiece?
-
Originally animals were caught purely to parade them in fron of an urban audience who might never have seen these beasts for real. Of course, having got them and transported them to the arena, what can you do with them afterward? Many of these animals are large and potentially dangerous. So inevitably it was decided to stage a hunt to entertain the audience and rid the owners of their problem in one fell swoop. This quickly became an expected norm, hence the demand for animals.
To begin with, animals were gathered locally simply because it was easier. later, the hunters must have gone further to find them, or since the novelty value was important then agents sent to provinces to secure exotic beasts there. In any event, the available animals are getting further and further afield, until the empire is to all intents and purposes dependent on spending large amounts of cash for 'foreign' animals. Another reason for economic and arena decline toward the end (not the only one of course!)
PS - I referred earlier to chimps tea parties. That was a mistake on my part because I don't think the romans came across any chimpanzees. Ape tea parties would be more accurate, and especially funny for roman audiences given the antics of their betters!
-
The british were a truculent lot weren't they? I think the romans put some effort into maintining peace here and only the raw resources made that worthwhile. This was also the reason that senators or equestrians weren't rising from this region - they weren't sufficiently romanised to acceptable? The irish were probably only nuisance value, whilst the picts were more of a handful. After all, one of the reasons for hadrians wall was to control trade across the border. That way rebellions sponsored by pictish support were forestalled.
As for the 5th century I'm not aware of any decline in mineral extraction. The only reason therefore that britain is cast adrift is purely to concentrate on home defence given the increasing difficulty and costs of supporting the military.
-
Therefor, is there any sequence to "Caesars", regardless as to whether they ruled or not?
We tend to look at 'Caesar' from the 21st century (and earlier historians of course) as being the title of the Emperors, but in fact this is a more modern convention, as is referring to Imperator Caesar Divi Filius as 'Octavian' to avoid confusion, or the Emperor Gaius as 'Caligula' (although why that has stuck I will never know). Caesar was nothing more than a surname in the late Republic/early Principate. In fact, Augustus' position was not 'Emperor' but 'Princeps'. 'Imperator' - from which we get 'Emperor' was a military title. So, in answer to your question, Gaius, no - I do not think a 'sequence' of Caesars is helpful. We do know that later on in the Empire the heir apparent/presumptive whatever was known as 'Caesar' but this came much later. As far as Augustus and the Julio-Claudians were concerned, Caesar was merely the family name. If we were going to be really pedantic about it, the 'Caesars' ended with Nero.
Nicknames are frequently used in roman culture and these do stick. Felix means 'lucky', Pertinax means 'persistent', caesar means 'curly' (seriously, it does!). But because the names are used frequently the ordinary meaning is lost and the name becomes accepted. Also, the nature of roman families are less formal than our own, so a elder male of the family could simply adopt anyone as his son and pass his family name to them. Its a very diluting way of ensuring inheritance based on a society where death is commonplace. Only 2 out of 5 romans survive beyond the age of 20, so the elder male makes sure his family does not die out by this method. As for the name caesar, because it had been the family name of the principates leaders it was accepted as a 'rulers name' in much the same way that nicknames became important. Regarding Gaius, his 'caligula' nickname took hold because every other roman was named gaius and also because he never liked that name. True, he didn't like the nickname 'caligula' either, but his hatred for the name gaius was worse. Its a unique identifier that modern historians have reinforced to ensure identification.
-
The only culture I can think of that sacrificed at random was either the maya, aztec, or inca (I can't remember which one, but the inca strangled children on mountain tops). The random sacrifice indicates a culture lost in a sort of nihilistic dead end, and I remember seeing a program on tv suggesting the reason for these heart removals was appease the gods with blood and stave off the final judgement for another day. As for the bog bodies, this is a low key thing. Probably they're executions first and foremost but because the death is at the hands of the community that community must ensure not to sully its hands with the killing, so therefore the sacrifice element comes in by ritualising the killing in an 'acceptable' manner to the gods.
-
Fascinating posts! What about Constantinople in regard to animal shows? My limited knowledge of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire tells me that chariot races were the only public spectacles that were performed in the hippodrome there. What about animal fights? Did the Christian founders of the city prohibit cruelty to animals as well as to prisoners and criminals?
Animal shows seem to be a western thing, although the east certainly staged them. However, chariot racing was always more popular than the games so I'm not really suprised that the hippodrome at Constantinople featured little else. The christian influence is possible. However I get the impression that the humanitarian side of christian culture was slow to develope. Rome was Rome after all, and Constantinople its child.
Regarding that story of the famous bear I've come across a vague reference to a female bear by the name of Innocentia that had a reputation for ferocity, plus it appears that there were famous lions that had killed venators in the ring.
According to the research gathered by Eckhart Kohne and Cornelia Ewigleben, venatores were the arena hunters, usually spear wielders apart from a brief fashion for dressing and equipping themselves like gladiators, whom they were considered inferior to.
The same research suggests that bestiarii were assistant beast fighters who performed the more mundane tasks of feeding, cleaning, and goading the animals into combat.
Confectores were men who finished off wounded animals unable to continue when the fight had finished. Sometimes animals were granted missio for their impressive displays. A venator could ask but if refused had to continue.
Women too served as venatores, assuming the role of Diana, Goddess of the Hunt. As far as I'm aware the prohibition by Septimus Severus against females fighters in the arena applied to venatores also.
One thing that hasn't seen much attention is how these people trained. Animals must have been imported for these people to gain real experience of fighting them albeit in smaller numbers than large scale munera. Venatores were often taught weapon skills by barbarians who used them in their native land. The Ludus Matutinas was a specialist school for beast hunting.
Some of the more extravagant skills attributed to venatores must be treated with some suspicion, since in one case the venator despatched bears by choking them with his arm down their throat. Bit hard to believe that one.
As for capturing animals in the wild, its important that the beasts are not harmed. We know nets were used, even on large creatures like bears, but a popular technique was to distract the creature with multiple opponents and tire it out. It wasn't without risk. Mosaics have sometimes portrayed men hiding under shields from big cats. A cruder and almost daft idea is simply to herd animals into a funnel of reinforced netting regardless of species.
Performing animals were prized exhibits and definitely not slaughtered. Elephants, being intelligent creatures, were commonly trained in circus tricks. Chimps tea parties were also staged, and at least one ape was trained to drive a chariot.
Taurocentae (Bull-Wrestlers) wrestled these large animals to the ground in displays similar to rodeo's but its not clear whether the bulls were allowed to live afterward. Taurarii (Bull-Fighters) were men who fought bulls to the death.
-
Correct. There's one case of a bear that became a total star for its displays of ferocity.
Caldrail, I would enjoy reading the story of the gladiatorial bear -- might remind me of Ursus, here, although "bear" only in name.
Would you please cite your source? Thank you!-- Nephele
I've never read about, it was mentioned during a DVD interview with a leading roman historian. I'll have a poke around though.
-
Aha! According to Neil Faulkner "Decline and Fall of Roman Britain", what made britain worthwhile was the supply of metals such as gold, silver, lead, tin, and particularly iron. These resources are important in roman times for obvious reasons.
Legionaire Questions
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted · Edited by caldrail
No. But the mans friends may have helped if they could. Also the burial clubs acted as charitable institutions so although compensation is unobtainable, perhaps a charity payment might be forthcoming. It was not a sure thing.
An honourable death requires that witnesses saw him die in act of courage. Otherwise its an unfortunate turn of events. Soldiers in war become very callous regarding death and injury.
Neither. It was more honourable to win.