caldrail

The only culture I can think of that sacrificed at random was either the maya, aztec, or inca (I can't remember which one, but the inca strangled children on mountain tops). The random sacrifice indicates a culture lost in a sort of nihilistic dead end, and I remember seeing a program on tv suggesting the reason for these heart removals was appease the gods with blood and stave off the final judgement for another day. As for the bog bodies, this is a low key thing. Probably they're executions first and foremost but because the death is at the hands of the community that community must ensure not to sully its hands with the killing, so therefore the sacrifice element comes in by ritualising the killing in an 'acceptable' manner to the gods.

Animal shows seem to be a western thing, although the east certainly staged them. However, chariot racing was always more popular than the games so I'm not really suprised that the hippodrome at Constantinople featured little else. The christian influence is possible. However I get the impression that the humanitarian side of christian culture was slow to develope. Rome was Rome after all, and Constantinople its child. Regarding that story of the famous bear I've come across a vague reference to a female bear by the name of Innocentia that had a reputation for ferocity, plus it appears that there were famous lions that had killed venators in the ring. According to the research gathered by Eckhart Kohne and Cornelia Ewigleben, venatores were the arena hunters, usually spear wielders apart from a brief fashion for dressing and equipping themselves like gladiators, whom they were considered inferior to. The same research suggests that bestiarii were assistant beast fighters who performed the more mundane tasks of feeding, cleaning, and goading the animals into combat. Confectores were men who finished off wounded animals unable to continue when the fight had finished. Sometimes animals were granted missio for their impressive displays. A venator could ask but if refused had to continue. Women too served as venatores, assuming the role of Diana, Goddess of the Hunt. As far as I'm aware the prohibition by Septimus Severus against females fighters in the arena applied to venatores also. One thing that hasn't seen much attention is how these people trained. Animals must have been imported for these people to gain real experience of fighting them albeit in smaller numbers than large scale munera. Venatores were often taught weapon skills by barbarians who used them in their native land. The Ludus Matutinas was a specialist school for beast hunting. Some of the more extravagant skills attributed to venatores must be treated with some suspicion, since in one case the venator despatched bears by choking them with his arm down their throat. Bit hard to believe that one. As for capturing animals in the wild, its important that the beasts are not harmed. We know nets were used, even on large creatures like bears, but a popular technique was to distract the creature with multiple opponents and tire it out. It wasn't without risk. Mosaics have sometimes portrayed men hiding under shields from big cats. A cruder and almost daft idea is simply to herd animals into a funnel of reinforced netting regardless of species. Performing animals were prized exhibits and definitely not slaughtered. Elephants, being intelligent creatures, were commonly trained in circus tricks. Chimps tea parties were also staged, and at least one ape was trained to drive a chariot. Taurocentae (Bull-Wrestlers) wrestled these large animals to the ground in displays similar to rodeo's but its not clear whether the bulls were allowed to live afterward. Taurarii (Bull-Fighters) were men who fought bulls to the death.

Caldrail, I would enjoy reading the story of the gladiatorial bear -- might remind me of Ursus, here, although "bear" only in name. Would you please cite your source? Thank you! -- Nephele I've never read about, it was mentioned during a DVD interview with a leading roman historian. I'll have a poke around though.

Aha! According to Neil Faulkner "Decline and Fall of Roman Britain", what made britain worthwhile was the supply of metals such as gold, silver, lead, tin, and particularly iron. These resources are important in roman times for obvious reasons.

What we see in the late empire is a decay of traditional roman arms and equipment toward a gothic-style dark-age army. The rise of cavalry is indeed a major trend, as they move away from being a light skirmishing force toward the predecessors of medieval knights.

Well before it jammed up on me over the hugely impossible question of where to Oceanus Atlanticus I scored 115/162 on hard. Hey - who says computer games serve no purpose?

Correct. There's one case of a bear that became a total star for its displays of ferocity. Also, please note that not all carnivores were killed because they needed some to kill criminals. The value of animals increased toward the end of imperial beast hunts, simply because they were becoming scarce. I'm not sure if the supply actually dried up because there may well have been trade across frontiers for animals, but I do think one of the reasons for the decline in these performances was the increasing cost. It appears to be an economic bubble that deflated rather than burst. The late imperial era doesn't seem to have laid on lavish games.

Its a fascinating subject. What comes across is the regret of thinking romans for the loss of these fine animals yet the total inability of roman culture to conserve them. The animals had to be wild - ferocious - for real. Tame cats in a park would not do. During the inaugral event at the colosseum, emperor titus had a beast trainer executed because the terrified lions refused to fight and slunk away back to the cages, leaving an emperor in politically insecure position somewhat embarrased and concerned for his own future. Titus was not a man to suffer fools.

In ancient terms, sacrifices and criminal executions were often the same. The druids would sacrifice criminals for that purpose, and in a way, so did the romans at times. But I accept the criticism

Via the crusaders too - When they weren't haplessly slaughtering arab mathematicians that is.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about them. There were germans in the regular legions too. Arminius's brother served with the legions on the german frontier for instance. They would have been in small numbers given that most were recruited directly into auxillary units as you mention. Nonetheless, the attractions of serving in the legions included regular pay and citizenship plus benefits on retirement, so a few individuals would certainly have been tempted.

A day at the Colosseum began with beast hunts in the morning. Firstly predators are set loose against prey. Possibly a pair of dangerous animals are pitted against one another. Perhaps a bear and a bull are chained to one another then goaded into displays of anger. Then the bestiarii walk into the arena and are set loose against the predators, or any other creatures wandering the sand. There might be interesting diversions, like circus tricks performed by exotic animals. By midday, animals are set against criminals, who are often wheeled into the arena tied to a stake. The scale of these performances was frightening. The largest recorded event, Trajans celebration of the Dacian victory, is said to have resulted in the slaughter of eleven thousand animals. There were at least ten arenas in the empire seating more than thirty thousand people. There were more than a hundred amphitheatres of all sizes in Italy alone, never mind the the rest of the empire. All of these places staged some beast hunts during games. The supply of these beasts from all corners of the empire and beyond was a massive industry in itself. First these animals needed to be caught. Hunters were frequently found in frontier regions, and more often than not they were ordinary legionaries, soldiers whose specialist skills brought welcome revenue to the legion. One such legion was said to boast 'Ursarii', or bear-hunters. A record from Cologne mentions that fifty bears were netted in six months. The dangers of capturing these animals must be fairly obvious. An animal is often at its most dangerous when cornered. During the empire, there were huge animal depots in the trading cities of Rome, Carthage, Lepcis Magna, Cyrene, Alexandria, and Antioch. Like an exotic market a person could wander along cages of all manner of beasts and buy them. In fact, these depots were a sort of slave market for animals. Expert trainers could be hired, something for which alexandria was noted for. From these cities the animals were usually transported by ship to a port nearest the destination, which often meant Ostia (for Rome). A ship might carry four or five elephants. Each of these creatures by modern standards requires a lot of care. An adult elephant each day requires three bales of hay, twenty five kilo's of fruit and veg, twenty five kilo's of concentrated dry food, and two hundred litres of water. Thats a lot of space on board set aside for provisions on a sea voyage! The animals would be treated carefully. Angry elephants aboard a sea vessel must have been a terrifying prospect, and experts believe that ships were lost for that very reason. Most creatures were carried in wooden or metal crates, kept dark so the animal remained placid. Cages for hippo's and rhino's must have weighed several tons and needed a lot of manpower to move around. We know it was possible for roman sailors to load and unload such cargoes because they also did so for marble and granite blocks of considerable size and weight. Of course, we can't forget the potential of weather to send ships to the bottom with the loss of its valuable cargo. Not only that, the privations and stress of capture and transport were very hard on sensitive animals and expert analyses suggest as many as 50% died before the performance. There is a large mosaic in a sicilian villa belonging to a wealthy politician (name unknown) that shows the various stages of animal performance. From this source its clear that less dangerous species were herded on and off ships along the gangplank. The scale of this operation is hard to comprehend. In Ostia, street mosaics depict animals and clearly there were shipping agents who specialised in this lucrative but risky trade. Animal reserves, called vivaria, were set aside to hold animals before the games got underway. Ultimately, the depridations of these events made an impact on the enviroments in which they were hunted. On the positive side, it meant that huge areas were rendered safe for agriculture. On the negative side, the animals were hunted to near extinction. A 4th century writer mentions that there were no more elephants in Libya, no more lions in Thessalay, nor hippopotami in the swamps of the nile. In typically roman style the beast hunts of the empire were organised to the last detail, from which huge profit and loss could be made. The psychological need of Rome to display their mastery over nature came at a heavy price.

Yes there are. Some important ports silted up and disrupted trade. There's speculation that an eruption of krakatoa caused weather problems this side of the world, the increasing dryness of the north african climate (although the romans themselves collapsed before this really bit). Disease was a large factor in city life of the late empire.

Germans in the regular legions wore regular dress and learned latin commands or got shouted at. After all, the policy of roman legions was to post soldiers away from their homelands in order to forestall patriotic rebellions. It wasn't unusal for troops of a unit to be from a single area. For instance we know that a cohort of moors served on hadrians wall. I'm not aware of any german examples apart from the personal guard of caligula, who decided their big hairy image was just right as protectors.

You'll need to charge admission Cato! Like nightclubs or lapdancing establishments do today. That way you profit from this behaviour and do indeed become more affluent. Apart from the orgy-goers who wake up with headaches and empty bank balances. Which is pretty much what happened after the pax romana.

Poor working class people often evolve sub-cultures that are very virtuous. Because they're poor and have to work hard to survive they don't take kindly to wastrels amongst them. But of course, with poverty comes crime, so on the other hand you might see more theft or petty violence. As I mentioned earlier, the youth of any generation invites criticism. Parents always view their kids behaviour with disdain or horror. Its the extent of the departure from the norm that we have to look at. Sempronia is named and shamed because she stands out during the republic. During the principate she would be the source of scandal still but most people would gossip and not be particularly suprised. But what about the late empire? The wealth is evaporating, taxes are higher, and people once again must toil for their keep, and increasingly they must send their menfolk away to defend the borders. At least more than some of their ancestors anyway. Also, the addition of christian teaching means that licentious behaviour is frowned upon. So, the people of the late empire seem to lack that orgiastic edge because... well... they did lack it. In fact, it didn't matter which dynasty had ruled the early empire because the behaviour of the roman public was being influenced by circumstance. I take your point about Juvenal, but then, do you know of any texts of his time praising roman women for their virtue and respectable demeanour? I doubt it... Apart from an individual tomb or two, which in itself is a message from the deceased's loved ones and therefore a little biased perhaps? There is an inverse relationship between peoples social habits and the affluence of their culture. Thats true of any age in history. If you think about it, tonights tv news probably shows young people behaving badly in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons that Juvenal and Tacitus so disapproved of.

The aborted colonisation of germania really ought to get a mention, and part of caesars intentions on his two landings in britain was to open trade and relations with friendly tribes rather than simply crush britain underfoot. He was softening britain up for a future annexation besides cutting off gaulish support and glory seeking.

yes he did, otherwise you'd have to delve deep into family trees because caesar is a family name that became synonymous with royalty after Julius made it fashionable to rule as dictator.

Mummification of course was reserved for the celebrities. Common egyptians did what? Something similar is true of romans. The wealthy got the expensive memorial processions and wakes. I doubt the poor got any consideration at all.

There is. Do you wonder where these women come from? In the good old days, poverty made our latin women chaste. Small huts didn't provide opportunities for immoral behaviour. hard work, lack of sleep, hands rough and calloused from working wool, Hannibal near the city, their husbands performing militia duty - these things just don't allow vices to develop. Now however, we are suffering the effects of a long peace. Luxury, more destructive than war, threatens the city, and takes revenge for the lands we have conquered. No crime or lustful act is missing, now that tradtional roman poverty is dead. Juvenal, "Satires", 6.286-295 Obscene wealth brought with it foreign customs, and unmanly luxuries and ugly affluence weakened each generation. Juvenal, "Satires", 6.298-300 This was the view of someone who lived around AD100. Although the accepted ideal roman woman was a proud supportive matron, the women Juvenal discusses are airheads and ladettes. His contention (and mine) is that the stabilty of the principate allowed orgiastic behaviour to develop. Earlier, when rome was under threat from others or itself there was a much more robust attitude, although I notice a reference to a woman called Sempronia involved in the cataline conspiracy whose moral standing is called into question despite her obvious sophistication. She would perhaps be one of the vanguard of those prone to excessive lifestyles as the inhibitions of republican life were wearing off. This orgiastic behavior is present in human societies but supressed by the need to work or defend. Once the free time and wealth are available, then the brakes come off. After an extended conflict, there's always a tendency for the young generation to adopt a party lifestyle much to the disapproval of their elders. For example the roaring twenty's at the end of WWI, or the swinging sixties after the ending of rationing following WW2. Something similar happened in Rome but on a longer lasting timescale. After the various wars and civil unrest at the end of the republic we have the peace and stability of Augustus. I think its no coincidence that Augustus made laws to promote marriage and moral behaviour, and again no coincidence that he womanised as soon as the door closed.

The information I've read mentions the willingness of persian leaders to torture and punish the citizens who get out of line. Perisan culture was almost medieval in structure with poor people treated as serfs. This meant they were bound to the land and were bought and sold as part of the estate. I see persian nobility as people who didn't let their minions get out of control.

I think the personal loss in the ancient world was every bit as great as today - although tempered by cirumstance in a hostile dangerous world. Legionaries paid their dues to burial clubs, whose responsibility was ensure a decent grave for soldiers far from home. Even poor people paid sums of money to have tombstones raised, with memorial inscriptions that hint at a very loving relationship. However its also true that romans exposed their children, something we find hard to understand today.

But what is the evidence for this "decay"? The only evidence that's typically offered is Cato's crabby complaint that young men began to question their elders (which I would call moral progress, not decay) and that women spent more on luxuries than they had before (hardly a moral vice, imho). EDIT: By "the end of the period", I assume you're talking about the second century; if not, can you clarify what period you're talking about? Roman commentators moan about this during the principate. Juvenal mentions the 'awfulness of roman women', and Tacitus notes his disapproval of 'modern' morality regarding sex (I still need to find that quote - bear with me). We read of one roman who, having reduced himself to something considerably less wealthy by putting on lavish banquets, commits suicide. I therefore conclude that these displays of partying were fashionable, and in order to remain part of the 'in' crowd one needed to stage these parties. Not all were orgies of course, some were perfectly well-behaved social gatherings despite the extravagance on offer. However, I do see these events in parallel to modern day partying and therefore the orgy is equivalent to a wild cocaine party for celebrities and guests. At first these things are shocking and a well kept secret, then others begin to emulate them in order to appear at the forefront of the social calendar. Later it becomes ordinary, a mundane event where such behaviour is a regrettable but tolerable norm. This seems to happen in all societies at some point (its happened to ours). This behaviour is linked to personal affluence and boredom. Todays youth have more money than previous generations and seek diversions in a way that previous generations wouldn't. The quote from Cato is interesting because I've never seen it before, but it does seem to back my contention that morality was beginning to ebb in the face of roman success and wealth. This was after all the period in which the senate failed to retain control and wealthy men accumulated power by the use of private armies to all intents and purposes. The other intersting aspect of Cato's complaint is that we see this repeated in other historical periods. A tudor period writer moans that the youth of his time did nothing else than get drunk and dance all night for the purposes of getting laid instead of leading moral lives and working hard. Sounds familiar? I think all societies go through these ebbs and flows.

According to the Daily Mail, Saturday 17th Feb, a stone block has been unearthed at the site of an amphitheatre at Chester. Apparently this is the first time a block like this has been found in britain which puts paid to the theory that provincial games were mere displays - this block was used in the arena to chain animals and/or victims for the kill. There have been some discoveries of the victims remains on the site. The Amphitheatre of Deva Victrix (Chester), the largest remaining in britain, seated an audience in two storeys, with evidence of ornate stonework on columns.

The ornamentation was a symbol of status, since it was more expensive than plain armour. Therefore if a common soldier wore ornate greaves he's going to get pulled to one side by his centurion to answer some fierce questioning. He might well have themn requisitioned and find himself on nasty fatigues for his presumption.