caldrail

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.

A recruit could expect six months of basic training, including drills, route marches (at least once a week), and weapon practice with items deliberately made heavier than standard issue, in order to build muscles. All the other stuff too- animal care, ablutions, fatigues, artillery skills - It really is an eye-opener to consider just what the average recruit might have learned 2000 years ago.

I get the impression that fishing hasn't really changed much in 3000 yeras or so, apart from some clever gear in recent times. Technique might have improved a bit as well I guess, but I would expect a roman fisherman to do well in competition. He's fishing for lunch, not a photograph.

Yes, I see what you mean. I think the traditional gladius/pilum was a clever compromise that worked for the romans. Hence its success and the glowing reports by many historians. In the hands of a klutz, the weapons are no better than anyone elses, so training was a vital component. I really cannot believe that tempered metal was unknown to roman swordsmiths. They made these things in massive quantities for a considerable period. The knowledge to work metal this well must have been known. It is possible though that certain areas had better or worse skills in metallurgy. Spanish steel had a high regard in ancient times that survived well beyond the renaissance.

As a conquest state, Rome had a 'virile' quality. It had pride and purpose. The decline of the army (hastened by Constantine) did indeed contribute to the fall of Rome, but it wasn't the only cause. It seems the civilian element declined too. Romes instability didn't help matters, but even after their resurgence before the end, it never regained that sense of uniform endeavour it once had.

The street level has commercial premises, traders and artisans whose trade counter is open to the street. The middle floors have tenants crowded into small rooms with little furnishings and no running water or cooking facilities. Very little heating either given the fire risk of these wooden framed flats. The highest attic level is worst. Freezing in winter and blisteringly hot in summer. Throughout the block rats and pests are evident. The entire building was built quickly and it shows. Cracks have appeared everywhere and plaster is crumbling off the walls. The family next door got evicted for debt last week and the landlord is putting up rents to cover the cost of his litigation. Didn't get much sleep last night. The people below us had a right arguement over something. Then some idiot upstairs threw his mess over a wagon in the street. The slanging match went on and on. Never mind the wagon got stuck at the corner for an hour or two. Oh well. Off to the granary in the morning and pick up my dole I suppose...

Inferior weapons would have done nothing for moral or survival though...

Was there any greek connection? I'm thinking of Atlas holding up the world.

I'm suprised that the romans didn't temper their steel. Are you sure? I would have thought a soft steel blade wouldn't have lasted much longer than bronze. Or was it that early romans didn't? As regards to technology in ancient weaponry, don't be misled. It isn't like today where technology can improve performance considerably. Back then, a blade either cut you or not. The bludgeoning damage was a function of weight and method of application rather than any intrinsic advantage. However - the shape and weight of a weapon as opposed to a particular armour type, given the correct style of fighting to take advantage of it, is the key. Chainmail breaks on a sharp point, so an impaling or thrusting weapon is better. Plate armour resists this and crushing damage too, although a heavy weight might deform the armour and injure its wearer. You see what I mean? Its horses for courses. If you use the right weapon with the right training, style, and aggression against a particular defence then you have an advantage. Otherwise you don't.

Ok, so he isn't in immediate risk of discovery and humiliation at the hands of nasty jailers. So.... How about getting metal from a bucket? There'd be one or two lying around a jail, and if its past its best, would the sympathiser feel moved to give him a bucket 'as a toilet'? Having done so, it would have been a ready source of materials to construct the items he desires. The metal would be tougher to work with, but iron fittings weren't exactly substantial. Its not impossible for a creative prisoner to make good use of it.

No not really. I accept that massed ranks offset the need to be accurate, but I think you'll find archery is more demanding than that. As I stated, an archer would want to be accurate - its a matter of professional pride. As for the centurions, they'd be a bit busy to notice you were aiming. They might even approve. Perhaps its more likely they'd beat you for leaving your thumb behind!

There were indeed checks and balances. Public opinion plus a great many laws and taboos relating to moral behaviour. Having as much power as they did, I don't think extrovert emperors felt so restrained as common men.

Morality in Rome actually means more or less the same thing in our society. We tend to ignore such things when its convenient or rewarding, and they did too. We have superior investigation techniques that keep us in check - they had slaves to spill the beans. Its all a question of checks and balances. Morality is an ideal. Few of us come close. As for palaces, these are displys of wealth, power, and ego that people sometimes build for themselves. Again, its little different today. We see millionaires buying large slices of land for outrageous houses they can't fill. You raise an interesting question about accusation, which I actually agree with to some extent. However a public performance is just that, so there were witnesses. The authors may disapprove of such 'infamy' but generally the plebs were thrilled to bits to be entertained by their leaders.

In that instance, yes. Its the waste chucked out of the window of the plebian dwellings at night that would have caused a good deal of mess. They had no facilities for carrying away solid waste. Or was that only a few lazy individuals? Did the responsible majority carry their waste somewhere to dispose of it sensibly?

I take the view that people then are fundamentally no different than today. Their culture was different, their mindset varied from ours to some degree, but they were still human beings and as such we respond as social animals in certain ways. Strategy? Commodus may well have had that in mind, but Nero didn't. The reason I see caligula as a psychopath is that his behaviour was different from the crowd. He made no attempt to dignify himself, and poured scorn on anyone who did. He had no respect for anyone. That after all was the reason for his demise - he made fun of Cassius Charea's soft voice despite his proven courage. No successful soldier of Rome is going to like being taunted as a poof. Caligula refused to conform and that marks him as a psychopath. Ok, you remain unconvinced. You stress the role of advisors. To some extent we can include Nero in that, because he did listen to cronies. So did Commodus until he learned not to trust them. Caligula did not attract cronies in the same way. He was not going to take advice from a lesser mortal. However - a leader of a conquest state does not remain in power by being nice, nor by being swayed by voices in his ear. Certainly there were people who sought power by whispering advice such as Sejanus or Cleander, but I can't recall any of them surviving long. These men were in positions of power that allowed them to express themselves in terms of public image. A slave couldn't. Nor could many senators for fear of ridicule. All three became confident individuals for different reasons. Caligula did so because he wanted to test the limits of his power and couldn't find any obstacle. Nero because he discovered the 'celebrity' within himself. Commodus did so because his father Marcus Aurelius had brought him up to attain the throne. It was unfortunate that Commodus was 'not a moral man'

Agreed, but I haven't come across any specific mention of dung collectors/merchants. Now that doesn't discount the work of slaves, but the condition of roman streets wasn't much different from any other period in history. They were filthy and smelled a lot. Remember that permanent stepping stones were laid across the road between pavements in Pompeii.

Well.. If you want detail, you have to consider more than just an emperor as a performing artist. I included DJ to show that it wasn't just the obvious three that performed in public. Others did too, although for one reason or another they aren't remembered for doing so. Was that lack of star-quality. I think so. DJ was a second-rate performer and no-one enthused about his performance. All the more reason for him to buy the empire - he stood no other chance of absolute power. The public of course didn't believe he deserved it as history shows. The word psychopath is misunderstood. It doesn't mean caligula was an axe-wielding maniac although killing people obviuosly didn't bother him. It means he didn't fit in with other people to the point of violence. Caligula had a nasty sense of humour. He enjoyed making fools of people. Also I detect a certain petulance in his behaviour. So, I would say that he wanted attention. Although he was applauded as emperor after the dreary rule of tiberius he could see gladiators getting applause and felt envious. He wanted all the applause, he wanted people to believe he was the best, that he was... special. Because he had grown up without enough love and support. Nero is in a class by himself. He had style, something to say. After the suffocating presence of his mother had been removed (finally) he wanted nothing more than to enjoy himself. Well he was emperor wasn't he? Why couldn't he do what he wanted? Commodus was widely known for his prowess with a left-handed style, something he was proud of. Yes, he did fix fights. By giving his opponents wooden practise swords the outcome was loaded in his favour considerably. But then, Commodus was there to demonstrate his virility, not to have it challenged. He was emperor. It wouldn't do to have the ruler of the roman world carried off on a stretcher and have his throat cut before dumping his body in the tiber. Sure, plenty of emperors came to sticky ends (commodus did too - his intended arena victim had him strangled). Commodus was a man who...well...cheated in order to win. That was his nature. He developed a public 'image' comparing him to the ancient hero Hercules. You know, I can't help wondering if Commodus had some sort of hang-up over sex. We know he had a groinal swelling. Was he compensating by these displays of aggression? Regarding Tony Blair, I place him on par with DJ. But thats just my opinion. It wasn't that important. Caligula might have wanted to shock his audience, in order to gain attention if nothing else. Nero didn't. He wanted fun and didn't see why the class system should prevent him from getting his kicks. Commodus wanted to impress, not shock.

Or something made from straw? Perhaps a loose stone conceals a small altar with symbols carved into the stones behind? Christianity doesn't dictate that a full altar and ceremonial set is required for worship.

Urine was a useful commodity for fulleries, as a bleach for laundry, and would be left in pots for collection more often than not. Solid waste was thrown onto the street - a particular hazard of night-time travel around the streets. I'm not aware that anyone was employed to sweep this away, it was probably like most periods in history - the waste decomposed or was washed away by rain. The smell must have been awful, and it certainly would've attracted pests. However - since Pliny the Elder describes using solid waste for fertiliser, then someone made some effort to gather it. But was that purely a rural activity, or did someone collect dung in the towns and cities? I suspect the former. Yes, middens have been found.

People like Caligula, Nero, Didius Julianus, Commodus etc played in front of the public for two reasons. The first was ego. They were people who wanted adoration - What better way to gain that than public performance? Our Tony Blair has done the same thing. The second was a more practical reason - it improved the public image of the ruler. It showed he was superior, clever, artistic, creative, or just about anything else he could claim. Of course, Caligula thought he was better than everyone else. As a psychopath, he had nothing but contempt for people below him and that included senators. He was after the most powerful and important person on the planet wasn't he? I seem to remember he put a foreign ruler to death for wearing a purple cloak. So it comes as no suprise that he decided to prance about in front of the public. Poor old Caligula. He just wanted to be loved, but he just couldn't handle it when he was. Nero on the other hand was a born celebrity. He really was. Although his talent for music and theater wasn't exceptional, he wasn't going to let that get in the way of achieving applause from his adoring audience. Didius Julianus is a little different. He pretended to be a gladiator when he was consul - why? - to prop up his image and political support. I don't think he made a good impression though. Didius comes across as someone who just didn't shine. Commodus wanted to display manhood - his virility. He wanted to be admired for his prowess in the arena, to take a share of the adulation that successful gladiators attracted.

Didn't the romans themselves have problems with fimaly trees? They often claimed famous or heroic ancestors. Julius Caesar claimed to be descended from the goddess Venus didn't he?