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
-
-
Wasn't that true of most of these cases? They simply wanted to preserve the roman culture that they had benefitted from. In England this fell apart when the legions left - A whole infrastructure vanished almost overnight. This was true of my area. A staging post called Durocornovium used to be there. It reached its greatest extent in the early 4th century AD with flour milling, baking, iron working, and especially pottery - and by the end of the 4th century it had been abandoned. Everyone had packed up their suitcases and dispersed. I don'y know of any disease hitting the area, it was too early for the saxon threat to have reached them. They simply lost their customer base. But I wonder how many of those who had lived there desperately wanted to continue?
-
Laws were passed aginst the owners that set free the old or ill slaves because they did not want to take care of unproductive burdens.
Ancient slavery was more varied that odern slavery. A slave could run his master fortune or be a high ranking imperial administrator while another could have a short life in a mine.
A succesfull slave would became roman citizen if his owner was roman and be quite rich as those caracters in Satyricon (my favorite classical book)
Romans had acces to very cheap slaves in the Late Republic and later when wars of conquest stopped and the morality evolved the number of slaves droped forcing a gradual change in the economic sistem. If once in Delos 10.000 slaves could be sold in a day, later there was no source for this kind of numbers.
In most european areas of the empire slaves were never too much used.
Off topic: I have a theory that romans did not crack on piracy because the slave capturing that pirates did was bringing profits for the senatorial elite in form of cheap slaves for the large estates and educated greeks for the villas.
In other areas of the empire slaves were never too much used.
Slaves were 'talking tools'. Their owners used them for whatever purpose they were good for, or whatever was most expedient. You didn't buy an educated slave to haul stones in a quarry, nor did you get a labourer to become a pedagogue for your kids. It really was a lottery for a roman slave, and a few won. A lot of them didn't. If an owner freed a slave, it was likely that freedman would still be part of his 'dependents'. Therefore the owner could show how generous and kind he was by freeing the slave, and yet retain his services under patronage. Ordinary soldiers kept slaves just likewealthy men, although obviously fewer in number! The attitude toward slaves did evolve toward a more humane one. I don't think christianity caused that - early christians kept slaves too. I think it was more of a case that with each generation people became more familiar with their slaves as they depended on them and were brought up alongside them, thus they became less of 'talking tools' and more like 'talking people'.
I like the pirate theory, but I think it only applied to a few romans with the right contacts. For most, pirates were parasites, thieves, and murderers upseting trade in the mediterranean.
It was the large number of rural slaves that drove the population of Rome higher than it might have because smaller plebian farms couldn't compete with the big slave-estates.
-
I'm sure Suetonius wanted to tell the truth, but many of his eye-witness accounts were either wrong, misinterpreted, or complete untruths.
-
Yes I think it would.
-
It needn't. It requires a keen eye, a good idea, and the willingness to carry it out to the bitter end.
Money? Siege engines were built on-site, not transported here and there. So unless they had pay for the trees they cut down, then costs were nowhere near what you imagine, apart from normal pay and supplies.
Experience? No that I agree with. But that applies to warfare of all kinds. It is true that Rome had experience and expertise in siegecraft that made them far more sophisticated than others.
-
-
I suppose we ought really to extend Rome via the Byzantines up to 1458AD. If that was todays date, the Rome begins around the actual time of the Punic Wars!
-
This sort of thing went on everywhere I suspect, although most fell by the wayside quickly without central support, and no-one recorded it for posterity. In England, lots of local warlords tried to keep Rome alive - this is where the legend of King Arthur springs from.
In actual fact, a few miles south of my home is the Ridgeway, a bronze age trail across southern england. Beside it is Barbury Castle, a hill fort similar to Maiden Castle but smaller. Barbury is derived from Bera's Burgh, or the 'Hill-top fort of Bera'. Bera was a Saxon warlord who fought a minor battle against romano-celts on the plateau below Barbury late in the 6th century. In fact, this victory allowed the Saxons to advance into south-west england, and another part of Rome was extinguished.
-
As to whether Caligula actually did it with his sister, I'm not sure. It seems unlikely yet his closeness to Druscilla was a little over the top. At the end of the day its the victors who write history, so Suetonius and Tacitus etc simply recorded what the witnesses had told them. They may have been mistaken or lying out of their backsides. They may also have been telling the truth as they saw it - again - we'll never actually know.
I think he did have physical relations with his sister, though this more due to the fact that growing up he was not close to anyone except her and they were all they had and so it kinda developed... one could blame Tiberius and all of his actions against Caligula and his family by his uncle that caused this and helped shape Caligula into a candidate for a future monster once in power.
I understand your reasoning. The trouble is, christian dogma holds that romans were all decadent orgiastic madmen and has done since the dark ages. This colours our attitudes with a little help from Hollywood. Don't forget that Romes had a plethora of laws and taboo's concerning moral behaviour - they were there for a reason. Ok, they did go a little OTT sometimes which can happen when there's tons of wealth lying about, and given the stuff some emperors got up to maybe you have a point
Thing is, emperors attracted the sort of comment we see modern day celebrities get from the tabloid press. Rumour mongering was even stronger then since they had no tv set to be hypnotised by. It might not actually have been true. Did Nero And mum get together? Again, I doubt they actually did. Personally I think he had fantasies along these lines and Agrippina knew it. That woman was manipulating him shamelessly, later desperately, by dubious immoral suggestions. How did she know? Acte.
But thats just a theory of mine.
-
Training. On the level of ordinary troops that's what matters the most. The best of leaders can't do much with bad troops, like happened with the decisive battle between Hannibal and Scipio where the majority of Hannibal's troops was very inexperienced etc, while Scipio's forces were battle-hardened veterans for the large part. Even with a bad leader good troops can hold out for a while at least. Still, skilled leadership counts for much (after all, Rome's legions supposedly were, soldier for soldier, better than Hannibal's men even when they fought in Italy). In the best of times, it was the whole package that counted - good training and equipment combined with some of the best military geniuses in history, like, obviously, Julius Caesar.
Spartacus was an able leader who led his army of slaves from victory to victory. A small core were gladiators, most were nothing of the sort. The best of leaders can work wonders with almost anything. Not the impossible it must be said, and I do agree that training is important. Experience is the best teacher, and vital for success. You can train a newbie all you like but until he experiences the battleground himself he can never match those that have.
-
Exponential? I wouldn't describe it as such. For any conquest state there is a surge in expansion until it becomes difficult to control the area conquered, at which point conquest states turn into defensive states that either find themselves conquered or dissipated. It happened to Rome, its happened to a lot of other nations - France, Germany, Great Britain etc.
-
My point was that people didn't experience the entire empire, merely the parts they lived in. We use the term Pax Romana to describe a period, they didn't. Our view is very different from theirs.
I still see this 'small-world' attitude even today with holidays worldwide. There are plenty of people in my area that think the nearest town is on another planet. The romans were no different.
-
GOT IT!
(caldrail jumps up and down on seat excitedly)
The answer is the Clibanarii, introduced by the emperor Constantius in the style of the persian cataphracts
Oh darn, beaten by seconds....
-
What about generals? I'm thinking in terms of people like Julius Caesar
-
Just some additional examples... Claudius found incest so nice... he tried it twice.
Claudius was the son of Nero Drusus and Antonia Minor (Daughter of Marcus Antonius). His second wife was Messalina who was the grandaughter of his mother's sister (daughter of Antonia Major and Domitius Ahenobarbus). Does that make them second cousins, or first cousins once removed? (this has always confused me).
Finding out that being married to a cousin wasn't such a wise idea, Claudius figured he would bring the family closer together and chose to marry Agrippina the younger. She was the daughter of Germanicus (Claudius' brother) and Agrippina the Elder which made her Claudius' niece. My memory is failing me here, but I do recall that she was also a suspected play thing of her brother Gaius (Caligula).
Talk about keeping it in all the family.
Oops. Messalina was his third wife. The first was Urginanilla (did I spell it right?), the second was Aelia Paetina - a close relative of Sejanus. Yes you're right though, Claudius did technically commit incest .
-
Its highly unlikely that lead pipes were solely responsible for lead poisoning in romans. The water could not have picked up enough lead. Womens makeup was far more dangerous, containing lots of lead that was in close proximity to the mouth and - well use your imagination. Cooking vessels are another culprit.
Lead poisoning wasn't a huge factor in roman health given that only two out of five survived into their twenties, but I will concede that senile old men were common enough to attract notice in those times. Senility of course is a symptom of lead poisoning although there are many reasons why a roman might suffer so.
-
The Welsh Flag? I'm not so sure about that. It's more likely that the flag is based on Merlins battle with the dragon that so impressed Uther...
-
I have seen these - but I don't remember the details. I suspect they were auxillaries though. The only romans I know of who armoured themselves like this were the crupellarii - and they were gladiators.
-
I'm not a medical-person, but as far as I'm aware consuming small amounts of poison won't imbue you with poison saliva over an extended period. More likely you'd end up seriously ill, although its recorded that some people did this to build up resistance against assassination attempts. Agrippina the younger for instance, who was well aware of Nero's initial attempts to bump her off.
-
I would also remember that it depended on where you lived. The majority of romans didn't travel far from home (holidays for the rich, would-be rich, and the well-armed excepted) so their view of the Pax Romana would definitely differ from ours. In a quiet province, things would seem peaceful. Elsewhere there may be another hairy horde coming over the hill and peace has just gone out the window.
We're looking at this from the overall perspective of a consistent united empire.
-
It depended on the period and circumstances. The point of the republican army was that the army belonged to the republic not the general. The Romans grew suspicious of even aediles paying for public grain out of their own pockets, so a general paying his troops out of his pockets would be a huge scandal. To reward one's troops then one had to take the roundabout path of having ager publicus being legislated to the soldiers.
In later times of civil war, sure you have the generals stamping their own coinage and giving it out, but this was a violation of the norm.
Possibly, but I doubt the republic had much control of the legions that Caesar formed with his own cash, nor those raised by other individuals. As usual, powerful people ignored the rules for a greater end.
-
"Their drills were like bloodless battles; their battles bloody drills."
I'm not sure what time period this quote comes from, but I chose training.
Edit - fixed quote. Also, I think this might have been Suetonius, speaking of Hadrian.
That was from Josephus if I remember right, so about the time of the Jewish Revolt.
-
Average legionaries did all kinds of things. They might escort new recruits to the base fort, mount guard on places within the province, do repairs on equipment, or fatigues, weapon practice, drills, route marches once a week. The major engineering works were uncommon and certainly not desirable to the average grunt!
If the soldier was an immunes (pardon the grammar), then his craft would be practised or perhaps he had some other quiet job waiting.
-
Not so. All armies could practice siegecraft to a lesser or greater degree
Give me some examples then.
To quote Adrian Goldsworthy in "The Complete Roman Army" :-
"The defences of most Roman forts would have posed few problems for an army with some knowledge of siegecraft. However, for much of the Principate only the Romans possessed this technology."
Can anyone provide some examples to contradict this view ?
Mr Goldsworthy is thinking in terms of towers and catapults etc. Don't forget, fire is the most basic siege weapon and everyone had that. Most would have been capable of mining under the walls. I do agree that your average barbarian isn't sophisticated and would've had difficulty with the roman fort, but what about established cultures like the Parthians? Are you seriously suggesting they couldn't have found some expertise had it been necessary?
The Societal,political And Historical Consequences From The Fall Of Ro
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
Seeing as barbarians were running Rome after 476AD I'd say the consequences were very important. A lot of them had overrun the west not to destroy it, but to capture it, to rule it, to become like romans. Of course they couldn't because they weren't sophisticated enough (and running Rome wasn't as easy as the romans made it look) but I do find it amusing to think of hairy germans wearing togas and strutting around like tin gods. I'm sure there were a few.
It isn't really my period, but I'd hazard a guess that the barbarians basically snatched an expensive toy and wrecked it because they couldn't read the instructions.