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
-
-
Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did.
I think you misunderstood me. The word emperor denotes a dynastic ruler in the oriental fashion. It isn't the same as the the word 'imperator' which you mention above. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think that we need to understand that the word 'emperor' meant something a little different than it does today.
Augustus was ruthless? Oh yes... A 19 year old youth does not set out to rule the roman world preaching peace and love. Augustus mellowed a little as he grew older, albeit a bit more crotchety, and deep down I don't think he was ever fully secure.
As for the wardrobe, it goes without saying that he wore toga's on offical business. Wasn't he keen on getting senators to do the same? Off duty, he kept things down to earth. And that included his diet too. I understand he wasn't eating 'rich imperial titbits'
-
yes I agree people wrote to one another, but I'm actually thinking specifically about officers writing to a dead soldiers family after the battle. Did they do this, or was it left to the dead man's mates to let his family know?
-
i'm writing a paper comparing rome in it's final years to our (U.S.) current place. you know, "are we on the same road?" kind of thing. anyways, i've been able to make some good points, the need to gain territory, forming a republic, idolizing athletes, terrorism, lack of interest in politics... but i was hoping for a little more. any ideas?
There are some suprising parallels between the modern US and Rome. This is basically for two reasons.
The first is that america based its constitution on a roman-style model. That was a deliberate move by the men who won the War of Independence - They would have read the classics and regarded Rome (despite a few soiled edges) as a perfect example of an organised state, something to which they aspired.
The second is human nature. The romans and the americans are both cultures from the same species. Sure it isn't quite the same, but human behaviour is relatively similar and we see this in the terms you mentioned in your original question. Its no coincidence.
-
Of course there were promiscuous women (of all ages) in Rome - there always is in any culture. Thats human nature. The extent of it varies depending on how much tolerance there is. In roman times, it was frowned upon for a woman to behave this way. But that probably made it all the more fun. For instance, wealthy ladies would sometimes arrange affairs with famous gladiators and charioteers despite their slave status. One woman was thrown out of an upstairs window by a angry husband - he managed to lie his way to freedom.
As today, politics and business have a seamy underside and sex plays a large part in that. It certainly did then. It was not for nothing that Sertorius Macro allowed Caligula to bed his wife.
Julia was a naughty girl, I have absolutely no doubt. Did she sleep with 80,000 men? Pardon? Thats enough partners once a night for 219 years. Wow. I'm impressed. No of course thats an exaggeration, though she clearly put herself about something terrible and deeply shamed her father.
Having exiled her, he refused to bring her back even when crowds heckled him over it. Somewhat later he did just that on the quiet, making sure the 'repentant' Julia lived in seclusion.
-
Your page seems ok to me but im no expert,Andrew Dalby and Pertinax are the Food experts around here (you have a picture of one of Andrew's books on the page).
We did get taught that the Rabbit was a Norman introduction but new archeological evidence proves that the Romans brought them here.
Roman rabbits were sensitive little creatures and something of an expensive delicacy. They certainly wouldn't have coped with the british climate in the wild. The norman version (re-introduced?) was a tougher beastie, and quite liked it here, breeding like.. rabbits... once they escaped captivity.
-
There's something that I'm curious about. So many times I see tombstones erected by friends and family to commemorate a fallen soldier. I notice that the individual named isn't always buried there. So... Did roman commanders write 'letters' to the mans family praising his virtues and offering condolences for their loss? Or was it that a young man said goodbye to his weeping mother one day and never returned? Does anyone know about this?
-
Augustus would have been keen to avoid any accusation of becoming a king - After all, that was one of the reasons for Caesars demise. I notice that he kept a less fancy wardrobe than later emperors too. He was saying "I'm an everyday kinda guy, just like you... except that I'm in charge." Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did. He saw himself as ruler of the roman world, as a dictator by any other name, continuing in the footsteps of Caesar without the accusations of royal airs and graces.
-
Do you think that it's possible that romans did not want to know much about the outside world?
The imperial ideology was that Rome have conquered the whole civilised world. Showing that large areas exist outside Rome will put to question the universality of the empire making it just a big state.
"Urbis et orbis" means nothing if you know geography.
I read a similar theory about the reasons why the chinese Ming put a stop to the succesful sea voyages that had taken them to Africa and Arabia.
I think the romans were very curious about the outside world, but travel in those days was probably more risky than today (though you have wonder sometimes). Travel to foreign places is easy today, andI think we forget that. To go a hundred miles outside of the roman road system was a real expedition. It took time and effort, and some survival technique in many cases. The roman world was secure by comparison and in any case romans tended to look inwardly despite the conquests of the late republic. After all, Rome was the center of civilisation in their minds, so why would one want put themselves to so much trouble? Merchants of course did so because it might be profitable, and much exploration was done by them for commercial reasons. They needed new sources, markets, and commodities. These merchants were a useful source of information too.
In terms of military conquest, Rome began by annexing or conquering regions with an established infrastructure. As they reached the wild frontier however, it was no longer a case of exporting roman culture by trade or sword, it was now a case of colonisation. Romans never really got to grips with that, although prior to the Varian Disaster they were beginningto make inroads into the german forests - recent finds have uncovered abandoned roman towns much further into Germany than once thought. Therefore military exploration was restricted by policy and geography. Their lack of seamanship meant they would never expand naval power much beyond the mediterranean.
Romans were well aware of cultures in India and China just to mention two. Quite possibly they knew of others deepr in the african continent. Trade was active in all sorts of things, up to and including wild animals. That I think, was the focus of roman exploration.
-
The western armies would have lost some technique towrds the end, but it is true that barbarians were crafty beggars in sieges and tricks were common in ancient sieges. Sieges were possibly less important in later times anyway because resistance was less frequent. Remember that the west changed the capital to Ravenna, surrounded by marshes with a convenient water exit for an emperor under siege. Walls are not enough to keep attackers out. You need stout resistance and some hope of relief.
Regarding the onager - I honestly don't know how to help you any further. Actuallly I'm curious myself. Ive seen tv footage of such machines in action so I'll have to dig and figure out how they did it myself.
-
Remember that Nero had only to click his fingers and get hordes of workmen to build his palace. That would have left fewer to work on new tenements, and since many people were now financially ruined, there weren't as many who could afford massed ranks of dwellings. It is true that landlords would have claimed insurance payouts - was there enough money in the pot to pay for it all? No, of course not. Quite a few scurillous landlords deliberately burned their tenements for an insurance scam and... erm... got their fingers burned! I think it would have taken some time to get life back to normal in the burnt out parts of Rome. Rents on unharmed buildings must have soared! If you look at natural disasters today, it takes quite a while for life to return to normal. People do manage somehow, but the ruin is there for some time and things are rougher until its finally cleared away.
-
I think we'll have to differ, Caldrail. Cordially, of course.
Maybe our frames of reference, or our experience, are different. I've worked iin government for over 30 years, and base my judgements in part on what I see as unchanging principles of politics and power.
I suppose I also see Suetonius and to some extent Tacitus as giving us a tabloid or celebrity view of the roman political scene (in retrospect - remember, neither of them knew Augustus or Gaius). Would one base one's opinion of Brad Pitt or David Beckham on what one reads in the mass media, or is told about their private lives? Both are surely surrounded by flunkies and their slightest public move or what they wear, is likely to be dictated by contractual commitments to designers and PR companies; their lives ordered by secretaries and consultants. If Beckham wears a hat, it is unlikely to be because he felt like it - more because he has a prior legal undertaking to wear Adidas or nike or police etc products on so many days per year.
I would continue to argue strongly that Nero and Gaius were similarly influenced by a desire to follow certain paths to achieve certain goals - hence, especially with Gaius, the consistency through his reign. That he was sarcastic seems likely, that he saw the senate as opponents quite clear; that he have a style to his regime accepted. But I think rulers, by and large, act within a frame of policy - otherwise they would not last long. Gaius did not, because I think someone he offended took revenge, NOT because his regime was unpopular or unsuccessful.
Nero lasted longer and ruled well. one should be careful about the tablod hype - some of which i suspect relates less to nero than to Domitian and even later emperors.
If you think the Queen is a cypher today - look again at British government. She is and acts as a constitutional monarch, of course, and recent remarks by her prime ministers past and present (related to her 80th birthday) make clear her strict impartiality.
But Elizabeth II is immensely experienced and knowledable, and has the right (defined by Bagehot - a constitutional historian in the mid Victorian period) to be advised, to encourage and to warn. I am sure she does so, and has considerable influence - especially with Commonwealth governments.
But I am unsure what your point about her was.
Nero probably was quite extrovery, whether he had an ego-problem neither you nor I can tell, since it is invisible in the record. many of his claims, like Olympic victories, are capable of political explanation. in any case, in Nero's case, I am not sure he took much interest in government except in a wider sense - his pre-occupations were primarily artistic.
As for the Domus Aurea, I thought I had made my views plain - an experiment (probably copied in part by Domitian) - to re-position the role and perception of the princeps in society and state (a statement of his divine separateness with had Antonian/Ptolemaic origins and followed the precedent set by Gaius.
Note the consistency and direct transmission of the political legacy:
ANTONIUS - ANTONIA (daughter) GAIUS (grandson) - NERO (nephew) - DOMITIAN (saw Nero's style at first hand) - all within easy - if not living - memory of each other.
Phil
Regarding the queen, it was you who mentioned her
But I stand by my comments about her.The tabloid style of history from Suetonius and Tacitus is a point well made (I've said the same thing), yet I cannot ignore what was written. Some events were probably misunderstood by witnesses or the witnesses simply lied - I've no way of checking other than politely asking the BBC if I can borrow the Tardis. However those are the sources. Whilst I don't take them at face value, I am aware that something like that happened.
Would I base my opinions on celebrities from the media? Well of course I do. So does everyone else. Its only when you get to know these people in their day to day lives that you really discover what they're actually like. I've never met Beckham or Pitt. Am I missing out? The tabloids say yes, I say perhaps. But because the tabloids say these individuals turned up to an event in certain attire I can draw a safe conclusion that they were doing their duty, that corporate advisors may have been present, and that a few people went away happy as larry that they'd met a star. See what I mean? The event occurred. The report may have been distorted but it happened.
You say that rulers don't last long if they don't fit in with policy. Well Caligula didn't. He arrived in tide of popularity in 37AD and was cut down by Chaerea and his mates four years later. Thanks for confirming my point
Nero ruled well? Up to a point, although I agree with you he wasn't too concerned with duty. Its rather like the US president deciding to tour with rock bands and drive formula one cars this season. Its certainly newsworthy! I actually think Nero had less of an ego problem than Caligula. There's a common thread through reports of that time that suggest Nero wasn't as self-confident as he might have been. In fact, one of the reasons for his outlandish behaviour is to shore up his own confidence by doing these things. Remember when he was a lad, roaming around the city at night with his gang beating up anyone they came across? That sort of violence was a common occurence amongst young males. Once discovered, Nero was a lot less confident about this activity and I suspect he began to shy away from it.
Sorry, but Nero himself said about the Domus Aurea - "Now I can live like a human being". This at a time when refugees from the fire of Rome were struggling to put their lives back together. Whoops. That was a bit careless Nero.
-
Whole units were brought into the late roman army not as auxillaries, but front line units. They weren't organised in the roman fashion, merely a tribe that volunteered for service. As the west drew to a close, it was getting harder to find recruits. Military service was no longer seen as glorious, and it would cause problems for the local economies more than it had in previous times. Hence the increase in thumbless civilians. Hence also the decree that such individuals were liable forservice after all, although I doubt the recruiters bothered with them much except as labourers. The old roman organisation was decaying and a more 'barbaric' style of army was becoming prevalent. That doesn't necessarily mean the late roman army was ineffective, it meant that the army was even more dependent on the skill and leadership of its general and less so on rank-and-file commanders.
-
The bit about rust is fascinating but does that actually work chemically? Does it result in 'stronger' metal? I doubt that, though I have to accept the Iberians knew a few things about making swords. More than I do anyway!
-
Hmmm.... not convinced that personality plays no part. I accept your point about politics, although I would remind you that the queen of england is a 'rubber stamper' these days. She works as an ambassador, nor really as the head of state.
How can you possibly not see Nero as having an enormous ego? He was full of himself. His Domus Aurea was an expression of wealth, power, and ego.
I agree sources are biased. They always are in roman history. But you have to compare their regins with others of different periods, and the Julio-Claudians come across very differently from later emperors. Many later emperors are exactly what you describe - simple politicians and nothing else. However, there are always some whose character is far beyond that. What drives a politician? What makes him ambitious? What makes him plot the deaths of his rivals and the persecution of his enemies? That is very much personality driven and politicians are very rarely simple straightforward administrators. People like that don't usually rise to the top. In the viciously competitive roman world, that was even more true!
-
I was wondering about this very thing, but in a more abstract way-in fact its so abstract im not sure its an articulate point-what was the Persian world view? What was their consciousness in relative standing to the Romans? Were they as firmly centered in notions of law/religious certitude and martial excellence? Did they have an Imperial mind set? This was something I was going to put forward in the " ask the expert " arena but I feared that it was too tenuous a topic...any Parsii/Persian/Iranian experts out there?
I have a longstanding fascination with the Clibanarius as a pre-Medieval "knightly" figure in terms of prestige/honour in a clan setting.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=575
I'm not a persian expert, but....
The clibanarii did not have the same 'knightly' worldview as the noble cavalry of medieval times. They were only common soldiery, although a certain amount of status and prestige always follows men who go to battle protected better than their comrades.
Martial excellence was important to persians, but on an individual level as opposed to the romanic organised approach. Archery was a vital component of the persian arsenal and generally speaking they were very very good at it.
I think the persians get ignored sometimes - they deserve better. After all, they kept the romans busy for centuries.
---------------------------------------------
After a little reading on these people, I am struck by the resemblance of their society to the western medieval, albeit with an oriental flavour. They were every bit as cruel as the romans, possibly more so in their dealings with peasants. Apparently they were quite good at siegecraft too.
-
True but I don't see any sources describing this in roman times. Thats my only objection.
-
Thatch was generally unacceptable as roofing due to material supply and fire risk, although it may have happened occaisionally. Wooden shingles (preferably oak) were a common alternative. As indicated, slate was a later development and only used if present in the area of construction.
-
In order to get out of military service, many men would cut off their thumbs. The brother emperors, Valentinian I and Valens, did away with this loophole, and men had to serve, thumbs or no thumbs. Does anyone exactly how these men were trained to use their weapons, and how effective they were?
That's an interesting question that begs another, just how were they accepted by other soldiers?
I can't imagine much confidence by peers or leadership in someone who's actions show them out to be a coward to such an extent they'd chop an appendage off. It points to things being so bad just a warm body would suffice. I'd train them up--assuming a work around on the no-thumb thingy--and put the schmucks right up on the front line the first encounter we had with some sturdy troops right behind them.
Since thumbless individuals were not accepted for military service, soldiers would treat them with contempt. The whole point of cutting off thumbs is to avoid military service. Remember what happened with draft-dodgers during the vietnam war? It would have been no different then.
-
This would only apply to a post-marius army anyway. Before that armies were levied year on year when the situation demanded it. In times of peace there was no standing army in the early roman period. I agree with Mr Goldsworthy for the sake of saying it, but it soon got lengthened to 25 years. Length of service was one reason for the mutinies during Augustus's reign.
-
I find it difficult to see it in terms of polciy. DJ probably did - he wasn't extrovert as the other three and he was deliberately attempting to wow the crowd. I would suspect Commodus if he hadn't gotten carried away with his own importance. Nero? His policy was to enjoy himself. Caligula? He wanted a laugh at someone elses expense.
These were people with enormous ego's. Such people don't usually worry about whether its going to have the right effect, they just do it. I am curious about your viewpoint because you seem to see it as a political thing, without any personality issues involved.
-
As far as a slave could carry it?
-
Roman forts were as pre-fabricated as possible, so a supply of clay tiles may well have been available. Slate would have been used later I think, for repairs, if similar clay tiles weren't available. I'll check some sources on this.
-
So it was watered down as much as the seller could get away with! I do remember something about a well-to-do roman casting scorn on someone for *not* watering his wine. That was uncouth it seems.
-
No. Metal buckets were lead but I didn't mean them. I meant a wooden bucket with iron fittings. Suprisingly they do endure. Such fittings were found in the town where I live. They look a bit flimsy but thats probably because of a couple of millenia's worth of burial.
I agree about jail terms. A long term prisoner would either have been exiled or bumped off one way or another. The romans don't seem to have much patience for keeping people locked up unless they actually do something useful while incarcerated.
Is This A Lie?
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
Stonehenge is just one of a huge network of sites sacred to the neolithic europeans. I doubt myceneans had anything to do with it, nor does egypt deserve any credit. I live not far from Avebury. I can assure you there's no heiroglyphics there whatsoever