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
-
-
When we look at Commodus we judge him by modern morality. The same is said for other 'bad' emperors but the others? Trajan after all arranged the deaths of thousands in the arena to celebrate his victory in Dacia and he's supposed to one of the good ones.
Severus might have been cynical but then he was a soldier first and foremost. Perhaps hard-nosed, a realist, and certainly one well used to the details of command. He was also the man who banned female gladiators.
-
Yes. I don't know how tractable camels are as plough-pullers but its certainly within the bounds of reason. Horses were too expensive for that work, both in purchase and feed, and the larger breeds intended for pulling hadn't existed then. This sort of thing isn't unusual. Goats were used to pull small chariots for wealthy children in some cases as we know from Julius Caesar. If you're poor and you need something to pull a plough, you make do with what you could find, breed, hire, beg, or steal. Mules would have been a good choice if a little unwilling at times. Oxen even better but such large animals must have been uncommon, paricularly in some areas like deserts.
-
So , caldrail and PP , Severus wanted to use Commodus' popularity (with in the army or the masses) ? It is a very logical argument , I accepet it .
Yet , we are talking about 197 , that is 5 years after Commodus assasination (people's memory you know) and why in the Senate ? He could praise Commodus in the arena , why in the very very Anti-Commodian Senate ? He could say "I am a new Marcus Aurelius" or something like that . Is there another example for an Emperor praising a "bad" Emperor by all standards ?
The episode is Fascinating .
Commodus was popular with the crowd - inevitably since he strutted his stuff in the arena on a regular basis. The senate was a different ball game. They were a class apart from the mob. Any threat to Severus was going to arise from them. Some of their members had conspired to eliminate Commodus and place Pertinax in charge. Besides any personal advantage, this was done to ensure a smooth transition of power. Unfortunately Pertinax was less adept as a politician than desired. The praetorians got upset about the limits being imposed upon them, got drunk, and went round to the palace to sort him out. Fair play to Pertinax, he had some backbone and confronted the mob, but to no avail. Then the shameful auctioning of the throne took place leaving Didius in charge. Severus meanwhile has himself promoted to emperor by his soldiers on the frontier and marches on Rome. He does a deal with Niger to prevent rivalry. Didius appeals to the senate to allow him to share power with Severus, but that negotiation failed. One does not share power by force. Didius sends assassins to kill Severus - again, a failure. The senate more or less curry favour with the approaching Severus and his army by having Didius killed with further ceremony, and do not contest Serverus's claim to power. The senate has actually shown weakness by doing so. They fear retribution or proscription.
The fact is Severus could say pretty much anything he liked. The praetorians were replaced with his men and control was very firmly his. Marcus Aurelius was the wrong personality to be identified with. Severus wanted a stronger, more virile image to associate too, and in any case, Marcus Aurelius had died and passed power legitimately to Commodus. The Gladiator Emperor was therefore the last who had attained power by legimate means. It was a way of suggesting to the senate that their shenanigans were over - that succession would return to less bloody ways whether they liked it or not.
-
The escape of Spartacus from the toe of Italy. Crassus had built a wall to trap him there after the pirates had stiffed him for his cash and sailed away without his followers on board. The only course open to Spartacus was to break out. Although a talented commander, Spartacus lost 6,000 men for only 100 roman casualties.
Or what about Horatio at the bridge? Single handedly he kept an enemy army from crossing into Rome until the bridge could be destroyed.
-
Alesia.
About 45,000 Romans and 'supposedly' 250,000 Gauls.
Definately, the double circumvillation by itself was something only the greatest Roman Generals could achieve.
Let alone the odds against them.
PC
The double circumvallation wasn't planned by caesar, it was a matter of expediency. He had to find some way of keeping out the gallic relief army and still maintain a siege of alesia. Caesar ran into manpower problems because of this decision and found it difficult to find enough soldiers to man the palisades. In fact this was another example of a situation going horribly wrong but Caesar keeping his head - it might well have cost him it. As for the construction, that was simply the legions doing what they had trained for. They must have denuded the local area of trees for the construction. Also remember that the gauls inside alesia were desperately short of food, something caesar was well aware of, and the entire reason why he proceeded with this siege in the first place. Actually I agree, it was Caesar doing what he did best that comes across in this action.
-
It is difficult to estimate how much Commodus was loved by the masses , we don't have their point of view...but let us assume that he was loved by them , so since when an Emperor (an African soldier) listen to the Roman mob ?
Roman emperors were very keen to please their public if they had any sense. Imagine for instance your a emperor at the games. The gladiator has surrendered and pleads for mercy. He's beaten your favourites often enough and you've just lost a bet. The crowd however thinks he has fought well and shout for clemency. Do you do what you'd like and condemn him to immediate death? Or do you listen to the crowd? Do you want to be thought of as cruel or honourable?
The same occurs outside the arena. If the public feel strongly they are going to become very vocal. If you're not a popular emperor, then an ambitious senator will be licking his lips and plotting your downfall.
Emperors did listen to the crowd - but it did depend on their character.
And what about him taking the name Pertinax , who , let say , was in the conspiracy to kill Commodus ? He could not represent himself as a Pertinax and as a Commodus at the same time , could he ?Pertinax is from a latin word for persistence is it not? It was applied for that reason I suspect, although it is interesting that severus did so. Roman names were often nicknames that had meanings like this. Julius Caesar's name actually translates as 'curly'. However, severus had taken power in rome and perhaps by calling himself pertinax he has symbolically assumed the old mans former status and reputation as his own, so that no man would look back and see severus as somehow less than his predecessors.
If I am not wrong , Nero was very much loved by the masses...why Galba (or Otho or Vitellius or Vespasianus) , who was in the same (more or less) position as Severus did not defied him and praised him ?In the case of the Four Emperors of 68-69ad, the men concerned were of a different character from Nero and to associate themselves with him would invite senatorial dismay. The senate after all had finally declared Nero an enemy of the state. Is this new emperor asking us to return to ways of Nero's time? As for severus, Nero was long gone - a figure of history. His need was more immediate.
Maybe , as one said (Amit , 2003) he tried to justify his intended persecutions (Teror) against the Senate by claiming that they conspired to kill a lawful Emperor ?Well... they had. The senate ordered a legionary officer to go to the home of didius julianus and execute him. Didius had been abandoned by his family and slaves and begged for his life alone. The soldier was not impressed, and conducted the execution forthwith. The praetorians stood back and allowed it to happen. Their attitude was that it was his own fault - the tight fisted wally had reneged on his promise of a huge donative. What did he expect?
Severus marched on rome as a rebel in real terms. He conducted a classic coup-detat. He needed credibility as the roman leader and therefore associated himself with the roman succession.
-
Serverus did that to show that he had no praise for Didius Julianus. For all his faults, Commodus had some popularity with the roman masses simply for appearing in the arena 735 times. Bear in mind the situation. Commodus is bumped off. Pertinax, a respected general, is put into power almost immediately and may well have been a part of the plot, though is conjecture. Pertinax makes too many changes, and doesn't really have time to listen to well meant advice. The praetorians in particular are miffed at the changes which they see (correctly) as an attempt to curb their power. So they bump him off. No susprises there. Now to preserve their institution and make a fair bit of cash in the process, the praetorians auction the throne. Didius Julianus and his father-in-law are the two contestants. Didius wins by offering tons of cash and telling the praetorians that his rival was a friend of Pertinax, so there'd be trouble ahead if he got the vote. Didius is loathed by the romans when he comes to power. He has no military credibility. He takes to the arena in a blatant attempt to emulate commodus's popularity. He didn't earn the empire, he bought it. A shadey business deal. Worse still, he reneges on his promise of a donative and the praetorians did what praetorians always did when they got miffed. Severus turns up with his army. He assumes control, eliminates the praetorians as untrustworthy and places his own men as the guard, then proclaims commodus as a god. It was simply a way of saying that he was now the true succession, that he honours those who ruled by consent, and that usurpers have no place in his regime. Remember that commodus ruled as co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius for six years before the old man died. Commodus was the 'first man born to the purple' - He inherited the throne and severus acknowledged that.
-
What worries me is how accurate can we be about celtic languages? Latin survived as a dead language purely because the christian church preserved it, but we don't know how it was spoken by romans. 'Celtic' on the other hand hasn't anything like that that continuity. Take for instance a hill fort near me. Barbury Castle. The name is definitely english and derives from Bera's Burgh, or the 'Hilltop Fort of Bera'. I'm sure you can think of other examples. My point is that our modern perception of these names is coloured by a historical blending and change, not to mention the invasions of our lands by romans and normans, both of whom foisted their own languages on us and therefore coloured the local dialects somewhat. Can we really be accurate about celtic names that were rarely recorded in the first place?
-
Roman politics was very much in your face wasn't it? Your home daubed by graffiti for one candidate or another, oraters preaching the virtues of one and the faults of others. These dishes, bearing messages of that nature. Candidates putting on public entertainment at lavish expense purely to gain an electoral advantage.
In fact, had the romans invented the printing press, I imagine the amount of junk papyrus coming through your door would be as bad or worse than today!
-
The question of Boudicca is interesting to me. When I was but a lad, trying desperatley to stay awake and not fidget during history class, she was aleways known as Boudicaea, which surely is the greek version. Now - is Boudicca an original name or simply a modern 'celticised' version of the greek version?
-
Propaganda was also prevalent in the amphitheatre. The Romans would sometimes stage fights between Gladiators that was directed against a certain real enemy, such as a Roman Gladiator that defeats a stereotyped German etc. After all they really did have Gladiator types called the Samnites, who were based on past enemies.
The Colosseum must have been a fairly large advertising board for the Emperors, as it would draw in the crowds where various demonstrations of the Emperor's might would have been made. A re-enactment of a famous battle perhaps?
Yes. The romans liked to see portrayals of glorious victories played out before them. It was actually one of the bloodier forms of gladiator combat in that hundreds of men per side might take part. Often these were undesirables such as criminals or prisoners of war. Quite a fitting sentence in roman eyes - to pay for their defiance by dying in battle for the edification of the crowd. These re-enactments were of course abstract - there was no attepmt to make the formations realistic. The same was true of naval re-enactments held on lakes.
I wouldn't say the colosseum was an advertising board, it was an arena for public entertainment, but of course emperors had every reason to please the people by putting on lavish games. Remember that a good event was not guaranteed - Titus was embarrased on the inaugral event because the lions refused to attack anyone, preferring instead to slink away in fright.
Or maybe the prisoners from the Emperor's own campaigns might have been displayed before being slaughtered.The primary reason to stage a re-enacment, apart from the spectacle that is. The romans derived a sense of cultural self-worth from seeing their former enemies humiliated as second best warriors, reduced to performing in public, which in roman eyes was a dishonorable profession.
I wonder how much of the fights that took place in the amphitheatre's had a political reason behind them. Perhaps to cause fear and revulsion of one of the enemies of the Empire?Fights were indeed often politically important. They were put on both to impress the crowd and keep them happy. A successful event was a considerable boost to the sponsors standing. Unfortunately, games were not staged to vilify enemies before the war. Oh no, that was reserved for the victory celebration afterward. To vilify them beforehand was to invite a very horrible political and personal disaster if they started winning!
-
The latin names weren't always conversions, they were often original names applied because the barbarian names were too rustic or inelegant to be used in polite company, so they simply gave them another name. Arminius for instance, has no connection with that persons germanic name (which is a matter of debate in itself). It was given to him because he served in the roman army, and any soldier must be given a latin name both to promote esprit-de-corps and to make darn sure he understood he was a roman soldier now, not some barbarian from barbar land looking for citizenship. Gladiators and charioteers received stage names. Spartacus is a good example - we simply don't know what his original name was. The owner simply walked up to his latest acquisition and asked him where he was from, and usually made up a latinised name to cover it. The more famous performers might receive a name suggesting heroism or danger such as 'Hercules'. Interestingly some were given soft names like 'petal' (The mind boggles!!!).
-
A related article
The article overall is good in its honesty that in the end the subject will probably never be truly solved but then the author writes "There is no evidence that we are wrong to wear blue and the wearing of white would surely be incorrect for field order" without reference to sources other than what his group of reenactors wear
Why would white be incorrect as field order? Ancient cloth isn't going to feature on any soap powder commercial - its just too dull. Furthermore it was cheap and available. The greeks were quite happy to use it.
-
The information I've got to date amounts to this...
The chinese explorer Chang Ch'ien investigated central asia c.138bc and brought back reports that included Egypt. Caravans have already begun circulating goods between Rome and China without direct contact. East to west trading predominates. The parthians were keen to foster this trade. Rome exported glass, copper, tin, lead, red coral, textiles, pottery, and currency. They imported arabian incense, chinese silk, and from India precious stones, muslin, and spices.
In 85ad roman links with Taprobane (ceylon) had been established.
A chinese general by the name of Pan Ch'ao was busy controlling oases in the mongolian desert against any threat and fended off a Kushan invasion from India in 90ad. Following that, Pan Ch'ao led his army across the Pamir Mountains to reach the Caspian Sea. There he made contact with the parthians in 97ad who persuaded him not to send an embassy to Rome. The parthians I think, were wary of allowing themselves to be threatened by a roman/chinese alliance.
By the end of the 1st century ad chinese merchants have established links in roman Syria. This appears to be a one-off visit.
100ad saw the publication of 'The Peoples of the Erythraean Sea', a roman guide to navigating the Indian Ocean.
The Silk Road was opened for business c.112ad. Caravans did not usually travel straight through but goods were passed between local peoples, and the parthians/persians in particular gained an economic boost from the additional tolls.
By 360ad chinese merchants were said to have reached the Euphrates. I'm not sure if this was a regular occurence or another exploratory mission.
During the 3rd century ad the Silk Road is becoming unviable as the chinese are pushed out of the Tarim basin. Both Rome and China are under pressure from northern barbarians. Sea travel becomes the alternative. Greek ships are known to reach Ceylon, and chinese vessels meet indian merchants at Oc Eo in Cambodia.
-
"... but as with roman traders in china, ...."
Off topic, but would you please expand on that?
Not by much I'm afraid. I've only read a few scant sentences on the subject. We know rome and china had trade links. China wanted roman gold, Rome wanted chinese silk. They were well aware of each others existence, and it was only the distance that prevented any official dealings. Now to some extent the trade route was a relay of merchants passing goods on, but I can't believe that nobody travelled to see it. Human beings are inquisitive creatures and where potential profit is involved, they're willing to take risks. Now this means that possibly a handful of people made the journey ever. You might wonder why nothing was made of it, why a roman 'marco polo' hasn't come to our attention. I accept that, but then look at the disbelief Marco Polo encountered when he returned. He only got the credit because of the wealth he smuggled back with him. I am going to look further into this area because the possibility of ancient travel fascinates me. It wasn't impossible, people knew these lands were there, the potential gain was obvious, and so were the dangers involved.
Funny thing is it turns out to be the complete opposite of what I expected. According to my research today it was the chinese who made contact, not the other way around. Apparently they convinced the persians to put aside their hostility and linked up with roman Syria in the 1st century ad. Which in itself is interesting because previously I've come across references to an aborted attack by a chinese army against the roman eastern frontier in the 90's ad which I cast doubt on partly because the parthians/persians weren't going to be happy about foreign armies marching across their land. Its looking very interesting.
-
"... but as with roman traders in china, ...."
Off topic, but would you please expand on that?
Not by much I'm afraid. I've only read a few scant sentences on the subject. We know rome and china had trade links. China wanted roman gold, Rome wanted chinese silk. They were well aware of each others existence, and it was only the distance that prevented any official dealings. Now to some extent the trade route was a relay of merchants passing goods on, but I can't believe that nobody travelled to see it. Human beings are inquisitive creatures and where potential profit is involved, they're willing to take risks. Now this means that possibly a handful of people made the journey ever. You might wonder why nothing was made of it, why a roman 'marco polo' hasn't come to our attention. I accept that, but then look at the disbelief Marco Polo encountered when he returned. He only got the credit because of the wealth he smuggled back with him. I am going to look further into this area because the possibility of ancient travel fascinates me. It wasn't impossible, people knew these lands were there, the potential gain was obvious, and so were the dangers involved.
-
The phoenicians then knew of britain and where the tin was coming from, or at least some of them did. That knowledge was likely to make an adventurous merchant think seriously about visiting the place and cutting out the middleman. I'm not saying the whole phoenician fleet turned up at land's end one morning but as with roman traders in china, once a locality is known someone is going to want to visit. I accept your point that it wasn't a widespread practice. I just think some people did travel there. There is after all circumstantial evidence to suggest that jesus himself travelled through gaul and visited britain as a young man. You can pour doubt on that because it isn't proven and may only be christian boasting, but small numbers of traders did reach our shores.
-
His lack of support for public games didn't help, but his persona- his 'image' - was never going to endear himself to the plebs. They simply didn't see anything about him that they liked. He was a remote, slightly sociopathic guy. I would say he lacked an attractive personality and never had that charisma or manner that made friends.
-
I think we can safely acquit the mosquito of any blame. Have Talmud arrested for wasting the senates time!
The trouble with roman deaths is that they never did an autopsy. A person dies in discomfort. Was it fever? Or was it poison? Without a scientific test and bearing in mind the unsophisticated anatomical knowledge of most romans there really isn't much visual difference.
As for Titus's mistake, who knows? Maybe he forgot to feed the dog? Was he referring to a religious mistake? had he upset the gods somehow? But it is an interesting thing to say on your deathbed, and quite possibly he believed he'd left himself open to attack.
Domitian got reported as smothering titus in snow for dramatic effect. The author believed him responsible for his brothers death obviously, and it it is within the bounds of reason that he had a hand in it. I just don't think the 'hollywood' style murder took place. If it got reported, then there were witnesses, so why wasn't that story universally accepted as historical fact?
Really the only choices are death by disease or suspicious substances. Take your pick, because we'll probably never know. Given the state of roman health, despite the hygiene available to wealthy romans, I suspect it was no more than disease. Domitian of course was under suspicion of nefarious deeds because thats the kind of guy he was.
-
Caldrail I must contradict you here about the barbarian technology and it's influence on combat tactics.
Not much of a contradiction really. As I said, for celtic warriors, the quality of their swords did not affect their style of combat. That was a cultural bias. In order to be viewed as a man you had to show bravery, and peer pressure to perform wild acts of heroic abandon is fundamental to celtic battle. I agree not all did, because human nature dictates that some are less willing to risk themselves than others, but that was the sort of battle they considered worthwhile. They fought individually, not as a disciplined team. It was their prowess that was on display.
Archaeological evidence has shown some swords were of extraordinary quality. These were however expensive and only the wealthiest celts would own them. The rest would have to make do with the cheap stuff, but that still didn't change their outlook. To do otherwise would invite derision and disgust.
It was true of roman swords also. Most soldiers had theirs provided by the state, although they still payed for them by stoppages in pay. A sort of hire purchase agreement. Wealthy officers would have better quality swords made for them to order.
Quality is a very real issue in roman times. It displayed your authority and status, not your ability to fight.
-
Infantry wins the day,medieval knights are not all as they were cracked up to be.And the the cultures of gaul,germany did not just run around like mad man.Infact gaul had a good culture with trade made up by villiages almost like medieval europe,gaul was rich in gold and silver and had great metal workers,a little more advanced then just mass crowd of yelling mad men.
The barbarian technology of sword making isn't relevant to the tactics they employed in battle. Although extraordinarily courageous, these men weren't very sophisticated in combat. The whole point of their tactics was to frighten the willies out of their opponent by yelling and charging headlong with a sword swinging above their heads. They fought individually, not as a unit. Thats all ok but that doesn't mean they were stupid too. The germans in particular had evolved methods of rapid mobility by horse sharing, yet they understood that throwing a stone was often just as effective as taking weeks to lovingly create a bow and a quiver full of arrows. Its just that barbarian cultures often prized individual bravery as a way of earning respect from their peers as much as their enemy, hence they conducted themselves on the battlefield in way that they thought would achieve it.
-
It would have to be pretty blatant too. Soldiers were notorious for sticking together and any crimes against them were tried by military court martial. Considering how lax the romans could be about enforcing rape charges, given the difficulties in the ancient world of actually proving guilt, it went unpunished in a lot of cases I'd imagine.
-
Ok. According to my reading the clibanarii used sarmatian style helmets (spangenhelm), sort of a rounded conical style, increasingly popular in the late empire. It is possible that some cavalrymen used helmets of the nature portrayed above as a matter of local supply.
-
I get the impression that Britain was regraded as a potential target, but that the romans were not hugely impressed with what they found there. The land and climate really didn't suit them. Besides the obvious glory in conquest it should be remembered that brittania and gaul had close links. Having put gaul under roman rule, Caesar would have been aware that their friends across the channel could support rebellions in gaul with almost impunity. It was also a matter of security that the potential threat of britons becoming troublesome ad to be addressed.
The vikings would later later attack coastlines of europe because there wasn't anyone to stop them. Roman rule by then had virtually vanished in favour of local kings who simply hadn't the resources to stop committed warriors sailing up the estuary and doing viking things. Remember what happened with Alfred the Great. After he inflicted defeats on the vikings in britain and got a surrender from Guthrum, they settled peaceably. No more raids in britain at least.
Roman Houses
in Romana Humanitas
Posted
Slave quarters depended on the building itself. The owners wouldn't want visitors wandering past their bedchambers so somewhere in cellars or the back of the house. There's a wealthy mans house on the palatine which has a cellar complex devoted to slave dwellings which had narrow badly lit corridors with low ceilings that would have forced one to stoop. For a rural villa there may even have been a seperate building.