caldrail

Yet roman vessels sailed to Ceylon, and possibly further since roman goods are known to passed hrough Cambodia and reached China. However, an important consideration is whether there were any markets for roman traders. The supply of animals for the arena is not to be underestimated - it was an emormous logistic enterprise that whilst risky, was potentially lucrative. Given the increasing hardship of finding these beasts to stage performances all over the empire, it isn't so difficult to think of roman traders taking the plunge and pushing further round the coast of africa. However, the question was whether there are any records of such, and I have to say I'm not aware of any. The romans did however have a written guide to travelling the indian ocean.

Revisionism, plain and simple. Of course this can be healthy and considered normal as new evidence arises. Current events (at the time of writing) can influence a thesis, an obvious one would be "Naughty dictator/fascist one man rule" thesis of the nineteen thirties and forties, or the "white mans burden/for the good of civilization" thesis of the eighteen hundreds to support imperialism. Unfortunately certain quarters of this forum seek empiricism when as we know empiricism is an impossible thing in ancient history. Never was a truer word said, PC! I have always maintained that our own outlook influences our interpretation or even reception of history. And I do mean our own personal outlook - not just generational influences; the people rather than the politics. That's an over-simplification, but it should give you the general idea of why this particular woman loves her history. I shall be bold - yet again - and state that I have admiration for ancient autocrats. They do not all have to be like Saddam or Hitler. So unlike others on the Forum I shall maintain my admiration of Augustus, warts and all. But why do you say empiricism is impossible, Publius? Is it so impossible to think ourselves into the Roman mindset? I honestly and truthfully do not think it is so impossible after all. I live in a democracy (well, after a fashion) and would not countenance an Augustus today - for all his merits. But 2,000 years ago, in a different setting, well.... Too few people truly sparkle today. Must we cast away the jewels of history? I suppose my own personal interpretation and reception comes from the fact that I admire personalities, rather than systems. Revisionist? Well... I don't really see my views as such, and as far as Augustus's personality goes a lot of it seems to be an act, a public face. As a leader he also seems to have some shortcomings, including a curious lack of decisiveness under duress. Don't get me wrong - I do admire the bloke for getting the top slot but I'm not fooled by his publicity. Augustus was a crafty beggar and I think this made up for his relative lack of charisma. Where I think Augustus scores heavily is that he seems a shrewd judge of character. He saw Cleopatra coming a mile off! Now you might argue that sending Quintilius Varus to Germania wasn't very shrewd, and this again is an inconsistent judgement, because by reputation varus was known as a greedy man. Did Augustus see him as something different? But then, Augustus knew he wasn't too hot as a military man and sent him somewhere quiet where he could gain experience and reputation gathering taxes, and the machinations of Arminius weren't known to Augustus at that time. Its a conventional view that Augustus was a brilliant politician but I have to say, so far I haven't been convinced of that. Thats not revisionism, I'm not trying to rewrite history, I just see his reputation as something handed down by his supporters. All dictators develop personality cults to stay in power, and in that respect, Augustus succeeded admirably.

The trend is toward warmer global climates. On average, the world has usually been warmer than our current temperatures, so you might say that the earth is returning to normality? Its a little unfortunate, because we've become just a little dependent on our infrastructure which is based on the sea travel of former times and therefore at risk from rising sea levels. As to when another ice age occurs, who can say? The warm ocean currents are a delicate balance, and in theory could freeze britain very quickly if the warm water doesn't reach our shores. On the other hand, the planet wobbles somewhat and another movement like that would also spark off another deep freeze (it could actually go the other way, and we get another hothouse period). Ultimately, we cannot prevent climate change at all.

Elite legions? Not strictly speaking, but some legions acquired good reputations. Others didn't, and I have come across refeences to a legion that was disbanded in dishonour. I think thats the key. There wasn't a permanent elite status as such, more a matter of professional pride. Of course, if a general thought a particular legion was worthy he may well treat them in an elite fashion, but that was conditional on their conduct. Legions did get mentioned for bravery. As for the media, that was very limited in roman times, and the victory was more important than any unit that contributed to it. Remember that no roman general is likely to give the kudos for the win to his troops alone - oh no - for reasons of personal aggrandisement and career advancement he'll keep the credit for himself, although he would no doubt praise his men for obeying orders and fighting fearlessly. Courage on the battlefield might assist your promotion prospects, but it wouldn't be guaranteed. If your face didn't fit, you went no further. Promotion wasn't quick in the roman military and experience was valuable for this. So too were your contacts. If your family were important or you had influential friends, your promotion prospects might blossom. However, having said that, take note of the career of Cassius Chaerea (The chap who instigated Caligula's death). He rose to the attention of the influential by virtue of his courageous service in Germania during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius, and eventually rose to become Prefect of the Praetorian Guard. The only real elite formation in the roman military was the praetorians, status that they guarded and exploited. They received better pay than ordinary legions and served for 16 years as opposed to 20 plus another 5 in reserve status.

Not at all. Asking questions is the basis of learning. If you don't question existing knowledge then all you do is learn by rote, and that does not produce understanding. Miltary matters have changed considerably since roman times in certain ways, but not others. For the romans, soldiers were ordinary common people. Even when some hero courageously defies death, he gets a mention in dispatches, perhaps a reward, then goes back to his unit as an ordinary soldier again. These days we tend to see the elite soldier as the solo warrior, fearless, totally in control, and highly skilled. A modern soldier who does something heroic might well be presented in the media as such. Not the romans. They wanted their soldiers to know they were part of a legion, that they must adhere to the formation, and must not assume status accorded to others. In some respects this seems hypocritical given the status some slaves like gladiators or charioteers achieved, but these were men who entertained and were intentionally lauded as heroic individuals. With regard to elite units, once again the romans were aware that men who thought too highly of themselves were prone to poor behaviour, and the praetorian guard are classic examples of this. Given elite status by virtue of their role, they used it to feather their own nest more often than not.

Except in most cases the inca populations welcomed their visitors as the return of the White Bearded God. There was hardly any resistance, and the spanish did some nasty things on the quiet, including the assassination of the inca prince in order to nab his gold. Further, the spanish introduced disease to the area that severly reduced the population from that time. No inca in 1000AD? Ok, but what culture were the local inhabitants before? Methinks there was something broadly similar or perhaps less unified and sophisticated.

One area where the romans were extraordinarily tolerant was religion. Despite the christian persecutions, which were occaisional and unusual, foreign religions were often adopted and 'romanised'. For instance, a celtic god in britain becomes Sulis Magna. Greek gods are renamed and become part of the state religion. Cults like Bacchus and Serapis gave some romans a chance to belong to secretive clubs. Culturally, the romans thought they were the center of the universe, and that all barbarians should be ideally be romanised. Senior romans liked nothing more than to see a former barbarian come to his senses and fit in. That said, there were always people in roman lands who did not accept roman culture, and much like foreign immigrants today, formed ghettoes. I'm not aware that the romans ever persecuted these ghetto populations apart from some nasty incidents performed by the likes of Caracalla in Alexandria, but even then he did that over a personal slight and not for racial or cultural reasons. In response to your question, the answer is yes, in that the acceptance principal has left us with a long lasting legacy of roman influence in our modern culture. Persians simply said - "You must obey your new lords". I doubt the mongols cared much. Dutch? Their empire emerges in the late medieval period with the increase in sea trade.

Return of republican twin consuls? Hardly, since the consular system still existed underneath the emperors. As to how the power sharing actually worked, its probable we'll never know, because it may well have been a gentlemans agreement between them or some arrangement foisted on them by someone else. Power sharing is done for two reasons in the roman empire. Firstly, because its a useful way of spreading the strain of rulership, but also because it allows a potential rival some room to breathe. Naturally there are flaws in such situations and without some clear understanding of limits or compatible personalities, the result is often conflict. For instance, Diocletians terarchy worked because Diocletian was a skilled diplomat with enough influence to ensure everyone behaved. Once he retired, the system broke down.

Contrary to some answers, the climate in north africa has been undergoing change for millions of years, and there has been a small change since roman times. Generally speaking the climate is slightly drier than previously, and the spread of the sahara isn't entirely man-made, although we haven't helped at all. There is some emperical evidence for this, in that the egyptian sphinx at Gaza has signs of rain erosion, but this has been hotly debated, mostly by people who don't like the idea that the sphinx is older than the pyramids nearby or that the climate has changed significantly. As for forests, I don't know of any evidence. Savana style scrubland and grassy steppes are known to have existed in roman times over large areas of north africa and most of these have now atrophied considerably. With agriculture and the irrigation that went with it, north africa was able to support a highly urbanised population in that region, and we know that the african coast had more roman towns and cities than any other part of the empire.

By hard graft and plenty of cash. Rome of course built a navy from scratch against Carthage after capturing a beached carthaginian vessel (thus reverse engineering how such ships should be made, even if they weren't too clued up as to how to use them in war. It was by using the Corvus, the droppable ramp, and fighting sea battles with land troops in a way that Rome understood well, that gave them an opportunity to fight Carthage with some advantage. There are other instances of ships built in a hurry. Germanicus had one hundred coastal vessels put together for an expedition to penetrate Germania by river for instance, not to mention the two seperate fleets assembled for Caesars invasion of Britain. The creation of a fleet of ships at short notice is an exercise in logistics that the romans excelled at. Ships of these kinds did not need permanent shipyards or dock facilities. You might just as easily put them together on a convenient beach. The larger galleys I'm not sure about, given the sizeable weight these vessels must have displaced. However, apart from the knowledge of form and design, the actual construction wasn't especially complex and required the sort of artisans commonly available in coastal areas. Your soldiers might also be employed in logging for instance.

What would happen to a contractor who supplied shoddy armor to, say, Sulla? Depends. If Sulla had requested it he would no doubt have selected some arbitrary and unpleasant fate. If his underlings had requested the armour, then I imagine they wouldn't want Sulla knowing about it! Who knows?

Thats not my arguement. He rose to power like any mafia boss, by using people and putting the squeeze on others. Force of arms and tyranny (well, he wasn't an ogre, but then as I've stated before, being nice to everyone won't win you power in Rome) got him there. Seems to me as if it is your argument. It didn't take him forty years to reach the top slot. Therefore it isn't my arguement. No, they rule countries too. Saddam, Gadaffi, Castro, Hitler - Hey, your country got annoyed at all of these at one point or another, and your own media has indeed labelled them gangsters! Lets cut the nonsense. Was Augustus the greatest politician ever? Not even close. He was a very cautious man, without any of the 'who dares wins' risk strategies that often mark successful men (including Julius Caesar). Even his policies in Germania reflect that, with gradual colonisation underway with an almost touchy-feely assimilation. He seems to lack that Roman conquering spirit that we see in people like Julius Caesar or Trajan. Strange for a man who in other ways was competitive. Ok, he fought a number of civil wars and took out the opposition. Lets not forget that at the end, Antony almost gave him the support of the senate by siding with Cleopatra. It was a gift that Octavian pounced on, showing he had a certain amount of wits, but Octavian did not have that support before nor was he going to persuade the senate without such an excuse. Having achieved power, he remains there for some forty years. Now I agree thats an achievement in itself given roman sensibilities, but again it does not mean Octavian was especially gifted. He survived in power, and succeeded in political survival. He did so not by charisma, nor persuasion, nor threat, but by cash. He bought success. He found Rome in brick and left it in marble, and boasted in his will of the magnificence of the games he had staged. Unable to achieve the personal popularity that Caesar could, he resorted to civil bribery and propaganda. As a politician Augustus is somewhat lacklustre. Although he made some adjustments like his military reforms, he isn't remembered for the events and advances of his reign, but the manner he got there, and the length of time he stayed in office. In many ways, he resembles a third world dictator.

Armour is expensive to purchase , requires maintenance and repair after battle damage, and creates noise in movement, and can easily hamper inexperienced troops. It might also be possible that purchased armour is incorrectly constructed in the first place. Any of these could give rise to a legion whose commander decides to put armour aside.

Thats not my arguement. He rose to power like any mafia boss, by using people and putting the squeeze on others. Force of arms and tyranny (well, he wasn't an ogre, but then as I've stated before, being nice to everyone won't win you power in Rome) got him there. Once in power, he needed to keep the senate sweet, and sometimes didn't. Whilst the story portrays him glowing terms - he was a successful ruler after all following years of political turmoil and uncertainty - I cannot see a masterful politician calmly manoevering his way through forty years. Things improved for him, as his carefully contrived image bore fruit, but he wasn't given an easy ride in the senate by any means, and often I suspect couldn't act for fear of tipping the balance and upsetting people just a little too much, something very clear in his mind following the death of Caesar. Seriously, if you put aside the regal politician and see him as a ruthless mafia style ganglord, you're closer to what he was and how he acted.

Shades of Seismosaurus, found in Argentina, which was believed to up to 140ft in length. They hadn't finished excavating the thing when this announcement was made, so perhaps it was a bit optomistic? Or is the report above ill-informed?

He also tended to panic more easily than some, and bore grudges. His major motivation for achieving power wasn't so much to rule or put Rome back together (noble motives? From a roman conquerer?) - It had a lot to do with revenge for Caesars death. Yes he did that, but he wasn't the master he appears to be. I'm not suggesting Octavian wasn't any good, I'm pointing out his deficiencies which his success and subsequent excellent press is blinding us to. I'm not a detractor, far from it, I'm in awe of the young mans willingness to step forward and be recognised. Rather like those modern teenage millionares for instance. Nor do I believe he was a puppet - although there were many who wanted just that - because he managed to break free of that sort of control. However, he did so with support, not by persuasive arguement. You see, its mentioned above that no-one else could bring peace to Rome. Rubbish. There were plenty of players waiting in the wings, but the situation was that Octavian and his peers were the ones in the best position. Once they slugged it out for control, then only Octavian was left. That doesn't exclude the potential of anyone else, and just because the roman historians don't mention someone who never achieved anything is not proof they were useless. If you're in the roman world during political strife, you only raise your head above the parapet when you believe you're in a strong position - which was exactly the case with Octavian. Without Caesar, he may well have been consul once or twice, and not remembered for anything more. This happens with human beings. But for an open door, there are so many talented individuals who never rise to fame. Some might not have the confidence to do so, but such confidence can be taught, as Octavians was. Some might not make the right contacts. Others may not have a face that fits. I do not accept Octavian was the best because his story says something different. Many of the respondents on this thread are seeing him as someone who 'created victory' with his own two hands. had he done so, then yes, his success would have been spectacular. But that just isn't the case with Octavian. He was good, not brilliant, and he had an advantageous situation to begin with.

Britain was on the edge of ice age europe and a stronghold of neanderthals rather than cro-magnons. Now I should make clear that the ice expanded slowly (it didn't appear overnight) and there are periods in the ice ages where although britain is a very harsh place to live, it isn't always buried. Reindeer hunters are possible during those periods, and the as the ice expands the animal population moves further south since there's little chance of surviving on it. We see polar bear remains unearthed in london and oxford, and these beasties must have been among the most northerly of the creatures toughing it out in frigid england (though the remains mentioned might not have been the most northerly of those).

You honestly think they'd find anything? Not that it matters, America and Britain would send in troops anyway to keep the peace between seperatist archivists and hopefully do a deal on vatican oil

In the city of Rome there was the Acta Diurna, a bulletin service that posted details of births, deaths, significant shipments, military victories, and excuses for disasters. This would have been copied by slaves and read to a master the same day. The roman road system was useful for communication since it was built for military and administration purposes, and there were waystations where riders could sleep and exchange horses, much like the american pony express. Sea traffic was another slower method of diseminating information. News effectively travelled between individuals in roman times, followed by rumours in more general circulation. Whether or not this contributed to roman decay is hard to say, since the situation was more or less identical during the roman height. The empre was increasingly insular toward the end with communities deciding to go it alone rather than fork out heavy taxes to Rome. There is therefore a change in attitude towards Rome rather than the means of spreading news, so its the way people interpreted news that perhaps had a more significant effect, but in that case its merely a symptom of the general malaise than a direct cause.

probably, but I guess it would get pulled apart very quickly on these forums! Actually there are people who can define it better than I. Given the differences in emphasis of roman business a general understanding is sufficient surely? Or otherwise you get bogged down in an arguement over definitions. Because the middle ages saw western culture drag itself out of the dark ages and on toward a more sophisicated society that was increasingly properous and wealthy. Farming during the dark ages was very inefficient and unreliable, yet by the end of the medieval period we see farmers becoming wealthy landowners in their own right. No. It opens the possibility of freedom for those who succeed in business. Thats a restricted subset of society and thats always been the case. Those are willing to take financial risks and exploit others often reach a point where they can enjoy their success. For those compelled to work for them, those freedoms are unavailable, and one could argue that they have lost freedom by the necessity to work for others. As for working for the state in communistic societies, that has no freedom whatsoever, since that situation is foisted open society and those who operate freely do so because they are bucking the system, and therefore risk an even greater loss of freedom than those who obey the rules. Further, those in higher echelons of such societies usually rise by manipulating their contacts within the hierarchy, not because their business skills are any good. In roman times we see shades of this (I'm not suggesting the romans were communists!). If you want to advance your interests its all very well getting wealthy on business success, but you would find your freedoms curtailed by the expectations of those senior to you. For instance, a merchant who gets above himself in the eyes of the upper classes isn't going to get certain lucrative contracts. Those will go to merchants who know their place. Advancement in roman society is very much a case of influence with influential people, and this impinges on the roman business world.

But this doesn't make any sense either. Plebeians and senators were not mutually exclusive groups. In fact, most senators WERE plebeians. What do you think a plebeian is? Senators always came from the aristocracy with the exception of Cicero. Plebeians were of the lower class, the mob. When the mob was angry, havoc struck. Senators came from those who were wealthy. The aristocracy is a mis-applied term because membership of the senate was on the basis of how much cash you had, not who your father was, although I accept that people being people a senators son got preferential consideration, itself something very roman. Whether or not the origin of a family was plebian is immaterial. What mattered was which social class you belonged to. You were either senatorial or not. Notice how much scorn is poured on Octavian for his families humble origins. I really do not believe that a roman senator regarded himself as a pleb.

Was Rome the First Capitalistic society? I haven't the faintest idea, but Rome certainly was capitalistic. It was the most developed capitalist society of the ancient world and made a virtue of that way of life. How much and in what ways was capitalism in Rome limited if it was? Caveat Emptor. Since the buyer must beware, then contracting is a sort of inxurance policy that you get what you pay for, since you're able to sue in a roman court for failure to uphold the contract. Since the romans were suing each other at the drop of a hat, clearly there were plenty of tricksters around and possibly not too many laws to prevent such abuses? Was capitalism in Rome a channel for talent (encouraging it with status, monetary rewards, incentives, survival, etc.) much as artist's (and the sciences') Patrons like the Medici were later? It was, with the priviso that men of quality and standing didn't dirty their hands with grubby business deals. Of course they did, and used agents or slaves to do the work. For middle class romans business success was essential to their future prospects, as without wealth they couldn't rise (or raise their kids) to the senate. For lower class romans, success meant getting fed. Slaves sometimes ran businesses on behalf of their masters and I suspect this sort of position was something the would go to great lengths to be successful at. The alternative? Hard labour or worse? Could the talent needed in all fields to accomplish the needs of Rome have been distributed without the freedom of the marketplace? (thus was it a free market system?) Romans were hardly socialist. Their society functioned on patronage, the ancestor of fuedalism, where one man agrees to serve another in return for support and preferential treatment. Distibution of talent was n't even close to their thinking. Far from it, it was better to have good men in your service. Is the Free Market the founding force for actual freedom? The leader in "free" market services is the (trader) contractor (including the "general contractor" and the "subcontractor") No, since not everyone has the capital or talent to create business, therefore some people must necessarily work for others and so relinquish some of their freedoms in order to survive. Wouldn't contractors have then enjoyed more freedom than the bureaucratic types of the Empire? Perhaps, but since they generally wanted to part of the roman system and do well out of it, they conformed and behaved pretty much s bureaucratic types. There must have been maverick individuals however but I wonder how much actual freedom they had, since 'In Rome, Do As The Romans'. In other words, if you don't fit in you get squeezed out. And: (seemingly unconnected) Is the trading "instinct" the seminal value of freedom's rise in Greece? There's been a tv series about ancient greece that discussed the rise of democracy. I would say trading has little to do with it. 1. MONEY CHASES TALENT ( my own phrase used to "mentor" young would be contractors) This leads to, and translates into the First Value for a Contractor's survival: Yes, although this should be modified to MONEY CHASES PERCEIVED TALENT AND THOSE WHO FIT IN YOUR POCKET. 2. The first value of the successful contractor is to recognize talent. Without that skilled (talented) help no contractor can long succeed against competition, and therefore without which cannot survive. Without "LIVING" that value there is no sustained survival for a Contractor or even a Sub-Contractor; it is their life-blood. Don't forget patronage. It wasn't a totally free market. If a certain supplier of garum can do odd jobs for you, then you buy his wares, even if there are more talented sellers around, especially if those more talented sellers can part you from your purse all the easier. 3. Contractors not only find talent, they distribute talent into the free market-place. I don't think they searched for talent in such a way. Talent was useful but skilled men weren't going to share those skills easily. Therefore a few talented men and a lot of slaves doing what they're told become the norm. 4. Talent brings new ideas and techniques, those too are spread into the marketplace of skills, tools, and methods available The roman marketplace was nowhere near so forward looking. New ideas and techniques tended to be localised and retained by the inventor in order that he can corner the market. There was no porfit in sharing skills. 5. Some were considered greedy, ruthless, opportunists, and are even so today. These seem to be the skills that work to drive (many if not most) contractors to accomplish their goals. (the virtue of selfishness?) Yes. Some indiviuals in human societies, not just romans, are of a mindset to exploit others. 6. We hear a lot about Contractors in ancient Rome; Even tax collecting was "let" out to contractors. (Why? ~~ a partial answer: though some would say tax collecting is not a talent; they perhaps should try collecting money from citizens and strangers, organize the resulting collections, and see how far short they fall in their endeavor, if bereft of talent.) Romans liked their leisure time, and if you were given an onerous boring duty, why not pay some other scmuck to do the legwork? 7. What was the effect of slavery vis-

The Knights Templar was a religious military order like others in the medieval world. It all stems from Pope Urban II, who received a letter in 1097 from Emperor Alexius of Byzantium asking for some military help against the turks who had invaded section s of the eastern empire and occupied jerusalem. It is interesting that the turks did not persecute christians at this time, but having a christian site occupied by saracens of a heathen faith was too much. The pope held a meeting and declared it was less sinful to kill a non-christian. That sparked off the first crusade, and its astonishing just how powerful the christian hold over peoples hearts and minds was at that time. Sure, a lot of men went east for more earthly reasons (to grab land and cash) but entire villages in europe downed tools, packed a few belongings, and went off to do their duty in the holy lands. Now that soldiers were allowed to kill for christ, it was simply a matter of doing that as service to christ for those of a more spiritual nature, thus the military orders came into being. Apart from the religious duties required, these men were effectively operating as modern private military providers do today, offering security services. Inevitably they got rich, and that was the problem. The rumours of conspiracies and secret agendas through the masons are tripe more or less. It was all about money from the start, and it was money that finished them.

The senate wouldn't have thought so. I doubt Nero saw either senate or plebs as superior in any way apart from how entertainment they could afford to give him.

Our ideas of elite military status are afflicted with the americanesque rambo mentality, the 'special forces', the 'mercenary' as a gun totin' hard man. That has nothing to do with the thread, and is nothing more than an insult to Yankee, British, and other lads who break their horns for their countries objects. On the contrary. Our perception of military affairs has changed since roman times. As for insults, its nothing of the sort. The 'mercenary' genre is big business now, and despite the neutrality laws of the US, mercenary culture has a fertile ground there, with plenty of media interest and entrepeneurs running schools for this sort of activity. Although there are still idiots and psycho's signing up to adverts in Soldier of Fortune, there are also professional businesses who organise military support. Witness Blackwater, whose staff are getting a reputation for being trigger happy in Iraq. I'm not talking about the armed services of our nation states and therefore no slight on their activities is made. Far from it. I think the armed services of both britain and the US are much maligned for sensationalist news. Sure, they make errors of judgement or act heavily at times. Course they do. They're not policemen, they're soldiers. They are men trained to commit violence in the interests of their nation, and they do pretty much what they're taught to do. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, please have a look outside your own front door before you criticise me for pointing out changes in military culture since 0AD. As for having nothing to do with the thread, the question asked was about the elite status of roman soldiers. The concept of elite status has changed since then. I see no reason why this should be viewed as an insult, especially since I happen to be one of the few people on the internet that doesn't slag off the US military.