caldrail

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.

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.

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.

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?

You're going to fail. Republican Rome is full of ambitious determined young men eager to rise to the top. No matter what system you install, you'll run up against the roman character. When power is on offer, people will go to great lengths to grab it. Good luck with your alternative Rome, but my estimation is it will end in a bloody civil war between the leading contenders.

Some generals raised legions of their own - Julius Caesar for instance, who no doubt had to pay out of his pocket. Donatives were sometimes expected by troops, but this was a tendency later on during the empire. In short, whoever raised the legion stumped up the cash. After all, they were only paid three times a year and with conquest you could always let them pillage and loot, or perhaps a plot of newly razed land would satisfy them?

Commodus wanted to be gladiator to wow the crowd, make himself popular, and boost his own ego. As to whether Faustina really did get laid with a gladiator.... probably. She was promiscuous, but we'll never really know. Be careful about charges of incest. If you had a political rival, one sure way to crush his career was accuse him of scandalous activity, and if you were seen kissing your sister... oh dear.... In truth it might have been harmless and an ordinary expression of sibling closeness, but once your enemy noted it and had witnesses see it too the 'truth' will out. 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. In reality, I would expect incest to be as common as it is in our day.

Not so. All armies could practice siegecraft to a lesser or greater degree, its just that the romans had professional engineers within their ranks that gave them a keener edge in this field.

IMHO? Professionalism. Post-Marius the romans structured their legions to maintain a high standard of drill, discipline, fitness, aggression, and control. I don't recall any army of the period that was equal, although leadership wasn't always their strong point - hence the success of a largely mercenary army under Hannibal, or a slave rebellion under Spartacus. They did however motivate their troops with a harsh regime, pay, citizenship, pension scheme, and the promise of rewards from donatives or generous generals. They belonged to an army that gave each man a place. He knew what it was, what was expected of him, and how he was expected to achieve it.

Defense in depth? Do you mean how the size of the empire established a feeling of giving a buffer and or safety net if you will that would slow down or halt an invading force long enough for a major Roman army to confront the threat? Or am I missing your point completely? I'm a little confused. I thought defense in depth was something the romans did earlier, not later. It was during the empire that perimeter defense became the norm surely? Or did that that change toward the end?

I think you're taking the meaning too literally... Pax Romana means peace within the roman world, not war on the frontier of it. It didn't mean an actual existing situation, rather it was an expression of roman power and control. It was an ideal, if you will, something the romans believed in and strove to maintain. Lets face it, by and large they did.

Many romans enjoyed a good joke, even at their own expense didn't they? A few certainly didn't. I don't imagine making fun of Caligula, Commodus, Domitian, or Caracalla would have done much for your life expectancy. At the end of the day, romans varied in character just as we do. Some laughed, some got annoyed. I get the impression that a clever roman jest was something you simply had to grin and bear with good grace. There was always tomorrow, and a chance to even the score!

There were no time zones. The romans didn't really need them, nor did they appreciate there was any need for them. They probably assumed that day/night was the same everywhere, although a few astute scholars and travellers may have noted the length of daylight varied depending how north or south you were.

My favourite is Didius Julianus. Seriously! At first you might simply write him off as a cowardly prat, but in an understated way he was colourful character. I don't admire him, I just find it curious that a man with a succesful career in politics was naive enough to believe he could buy authority, power, and respect simply by telling everyone they were going to be rich.

In some ways I agree. Slaves engaged in manual labour were there to work and it shouldn't suprise anyone that being recruited as a gladiator was seen as a desirable alternative when the opportunity arose. The relationship between master and slave in roman times isn't the same as more modern times. Deep down, the roman masters were wary of their slaves. They lived in houses surrounded by people that might have reason to kill them in their sleep. One senator brought forward a suggestion that all slaves should be identified with iron collars or something similar. This idea was disapproved because it was pointed out that slaves would soon realise how many of them there were! Deep down, roman slaves were wary of their masters. Should one slave break ranks and kill his master, then all the slaves in that household were facing a sentence of death. It did happen, though few romans were willing to carry out this ultimate sanction on behaviour. Treatment of slaves varied enormously. Cicero for instance was clearly loved by his slaves whereas I doubt the same could be said for Cato. If a wife thought her husband was showing undue attention to a female slave, that slave would very likely be put through hell! Therefore not all slaves would have wanted to escape. Like a real life Lurcio, a slave might have found a sinecure and wouldn't want any other kind of life. On the other end of the scale, we see rebellions in Sicily because of the harsh treatment they had received. A well behaved and trusted slave might receive manumission. They knew that, it was one reason to behave. As a freedman, he would probably still serve his former master in a detached way under patronage. I must apologise for my previous post because I made it seem as if slaves were forced to copulate on an industrial scale. Of course they didn't. A few cruel owners would have forced a couple occaisionally, or a kinder owner would have persuaded or allowed them to.

As far as I understand crowd behaviour of that time, betting among plebs would have been much like that you see in SE Asia - fast, hectic, money changing hands quickly with raised voices. Wealthier people would have been a little less excitable usually - especially since the sums involved were inevitably higher! Like you I can see touts setting odds and taking bets. I don't think it was as well organised as we might see today at, say, a horse race, but certainly it went on. Why else would bad luck tokens be sold in such numbers? People haven't really changed much in 2000 years, so yes, I agree, modern habits like gambling are rooted much earlier in our history.

My question concerns the legions. It seems that centurions, like modern senior NCO's, were the people who maintained the standards of army life and discipline. They were professional career soldiers some of whom would be serving on the front line even into their eighties. So - given the general decline of the legions toward the end of the west, were centurions of this time also declining in standards and to what extent did they set the pace of decline?

Rural slaves varied in occupation. Those involved in heavy labour would indeed last a short time, but agriculture is a skill/science of its own and I would certainly expect knowledgable slaves to find less strenuous duties. Truth is, rural slaves were bred. Shamelessly. I'm not sure if they ever kept up with demand but do remember that slave markets might be some distance - and slaves born in slavery were much better workers.

Surely they weren't deprived of a loincloth?

I agree. Trade can take objects a long way even back then.

One on one fights had referees and you'd better darn obey them. There were rest periods in longer fights, and sometimes a gladiator would be treated for a minor wound before continuuing, much like modern boxing matches. Some fights even had limited areas to fight in - a rectangle you may not leave. Set piece fights were harder to control. Things like one gladiator defending a platform against multiple opponents might be awkward to stop. Fake battles? Once unleashed it would be carnage and I doubt anyone would want to stop it! As for the post about the similarity with bull fghting - You know, there is some truth to it, and thats already what I've mentioned. The entertainment is paramount. Simply butchering an animal - well its not really all that much fun is it? For most people anyway. However, whilst death was part and parcel of munera it wasn't always so. Comedy and spectacle was also important. Generosity too - when the handout of gifts took place I dare say the audience would fight amongst themselves much to the amusement of the games editor!

Also there's evidence that some units simply disbanded here in england, or simply melted away when the pay stopped. These men would have merged into civilian populations without difficulty since they almost had already by that time.

A standard empire-wide monetary system did not occurr until the third century. Prior to this, coins were issued on an ad hoc basis when the supply of money was short. This eased tax collection besides allowing the wealthy to store cash. Money was a commodity in a world based on barter, and there is plenty of evidence of speculation and dealing on various coinage. The 'almost-standard' inherited from the republic was... 1 gold Aureus = 25 silver Denarii 1 silver Denarius = 16 copper Asses Sestercii arrived later when the denarii dropped in value due to inflation, a problem well known to romans. Eastern coinage like obols, drachmas etc were comparable in value and became standard after power and wealth migrated to Constantinople, though I don't think the process was immediate. One later emperor tried to reinstate neronian money, so the old roman habit of issuing coins willy-nilly remained. Older coins were issued to celebrate important people. There are coins showing the faces of great generals etc. These might become worthless overnight due to political change, or even dangerous to own.

The ecologies of europe and north africa were damaged by the romans - and this was one of the reasons for the demise of the arena - it became too expensive to find animals, and the local zoo's simply weren't able to breed enough animals for the fights. There was a species of pygmy elephant in north africa rendered extinct by roman games. Prices? Ah thats a good one. Good animals fetched good prices. Novelty was always at a premium, rarity and rumour added to the price even further. The supply of animals relied on specialised hunters, often serving soldiers, and required manpower, cages, food, water, shipping - it was no small endeavour! Many animals didn't survive the journey so the investment was risky. By comparison, a slave was n't worth anything as much if his fate was to die in the arena. Skillful or educated slaves fetched higher prices and wouldn't have been the first choice to die ad gladius or ad bestias. Lets not forget also that 'safe' animals were also herded into the arena. Zebra's, antelopes, gazelles, and ostriches in particular entertained the crowd. The venators (hunters) showed their skill by bringing them down with spears or bows. You are spot on. Except that a particular slave might also happen to be a famous gladiator, victor in umpteen fights, hero to the crowd, idol of the ladies, and actually well connected socially, if you follow what I mean. Now that slave might be a bit more expensive than a few beasts, and his owner would not be keen to sacrifice his life needlessly.