caldrail

I think its impossible to view an ancient culture and judge in their terms. We live 2000 years on in a world that has to piece together the fragments their civilisation left behind. Whilst we're getting more sophisticated about history and archeology, there are huge gaps and we do need to remember that. On the other hand, the romans were people not much different from us. They lived with all the sins and virtues we see today. These days our viewpoint is different. We expect different responses in many situations although much remains the same as it was then. In my younger days I was pretty well useless at history (no sniggering at the back please) because it was all dates, events, and treaties. It just didn't make any sense no matter how well the learned teacher explained them. These days I look at history differently. Although we need to know about dates, events, and treaties, we also need to know the people who made them, why they made them, and why others followed their lead. I think a humanistic approach to history is vital to really understand Rome, simply because so much of their history is personality driven. I'd like to think I've made headway there - I suspect I've got many years to go. But isn't that the fun of it?

An important point about crucifixion is that the victim dehydrates. Although inactive (obviously) surely the victim would perish in a matter of days through lack of water especially in hot climates. And thats without the discomfort of being lashed/nailed up there in the first place. Starvation isn't really an issue because the victim would be dead before this had an effect. As for asphyxiation, I can't really say, but if it did add to the torture it would only do so when the victim was already close to death.

1 - Was the landscape more fertile than other places in the West or maybe the climate was ideal? The climate might have been a little damper than today, but I doubt that was significant. Given the local geography, the area wasn't any more fertile than any other river valley. 2 - Was it mass migration of different tribes? I don't recall any such migration, as the surrounding areas already had established cultures - Etruscan, Sabine etc. They were competitors however. 3 - Where the Romans just more superior than their neighbours mentally or physically? I wouldn't haver thought so. However, they were clearly learning from cultures around them, Estruscans in particular. Right from the start, the latins absorbed cultural ideas they liked and made them their own. 4 - Was it Greek influence and what seperates them from the Greeks? Greek influence emerges later mostly in art and literature. It is interesting that the Byzantines were greek rather than latin so the greek influence was very important and more so as time went on. 5 - Where did the organization and technology come from in terms of construction, politics and the army? Innovation and hard learned experience. One thing the romans really did excel at was adopting ideas that worked. More importantly, their system of patronage allowed them to develop organisational skills based on personal initiative, responsibility, and reward. 6 - Why where they able to overpass their neighbours the Greeks & Carthage to the south and Gaul & Germania to the north. They nearly didn't more than once. To some extent the increasing size of roman territory allowed them leeway for early mistakes because their recruitment pool was getting larger. In the early days roman commanders stood to gain mightily from conquest. There was a attitude that 'offense is the best defense'. Now exactly how paranoid Rome was against its neighbours is debatable, but they certainly learned to enjoy conquest. 7 - What circumstances allowed Rome to rise from a small village to the most advanced city and turned into the greatest empire ever known. It was well placed. Location, location, location. In the beginning, a strong sense of community and mutual interest. Having fended off their competitors they grew confident in themselves, yet at the same time they felt threatened by cultures such as Carthage. It was only when Rome became defensive rather than a conquest state that the rot really sets in. In its younger days it was a dynamic civilisation that rewarded risk-takers.

Thats interesting, because when I read about such things there are plenty of wrongdoers meeting their ends. The noxii for instance. I agree that crucifying 6000 rebels in one hit isn't run of the mill, but nonetheless I find it hard to accept that death sentences were rarely carried out. I do accept that the honestiores could call on their status and supposed moral standing to help them out in fix, and that their sentences were more lenient than those handed out to humiliores. As I've already mentioned some senatorial class defendants were absolutely outrageous in their emotive excuses. With a little drama they could pull an aquittal. Indeed, I'm coming to the opinion that giving a theatrical performance on the floor of the senate was a very healthy talent to have. At the other end of the scale we have abuses of power from certain emperors who sent people to their deaths on a whim, or perhaps a supposed insult, or simply to steal. Justice seemed to have depended on your influence more than anything else. If your network of friends and supporters are with you, your chances of being let off increase. That's another reason why lower classes were more likely to be sentenced. People might be sentenced to the sword, the gaming school, the animals, the prisons, the garrotte, the stake, or just exiled. These sentences are in the records because they happened. I don't think it was always that rare.

Well, Spartacus lasted quite a bit longer than 10 seconds. Also, the political gang-warfare led by the likes of Clodius and Milo was undoubtedly unlawful, and most of these brigands got away with it for some time. Spartacus is given the credit for the rebellion but lets not forget Crixus and Oenamaus, who both had a hand in starting it. He only stayed at large for two years, the last of which became a running fight to stay ahead of his enemies. More importantly, the survivors of the final battle against Crassus (which Spartacus didn't survive - Sorry Kirk) were famously crucified along the Appian Way. All 6000 of them. And that really does show how Rome dealt with violations. They simply didn't mess around. If the law called for you to sewn into a sack with animals and thrown into a river, thats what they did. Its no wonder that people like Galba brought his crying children into the senate to avoid a sentence for war crimes against the Lusitani. Its true that money and influence could help you find an alibi or excuse, but you still had to convince your judges that your case was just. A glib tongue was as useful as a bag of gold. Once the sentence was passed, there wasn't any death row, no final appeal. They dragged you away and dealt justice, often in front of an expectant crowd. I suppose those jailed could always hope for clemency - it did happen - but the prisoners were just as likely to be led to the nearest arena for some nasty demise. Rome was ruthless in applying the law. Despite this, Rome was a lively place and you'd certainly see law-breaking if you turned the wrong corner. I also think that many miscarriages of justice must have occurred. Does anyone have an example of a miscarriage of justice that came to light?

Well I've skimmed through Caesars campaign against Gaul, and it does turn up some interesting points. The gauls, by and large, were very fond of horses and paid large sums to obtain them. Their cavalry was variable in quality. Taking Caesars allies, the Aeduii, as the reference point we see them set to flight by a formation of gaul horsemen an eighth of their number, and these men used stones as well as javelins. They were bold certainly, but I wonder how things would have turned out if the Aeduii had bothered to put a better fight. I think Caesars allies weren't too keen to leave an easy life extracting tolls from travellers. The germans also had cavalry. They bred their own horses, smaller, uglier, but hardy and obedient. They also developed a curious tactical trick by having a cavalryman/infantryman team work together, sometimes leaving the horses to fight, sometimes allowing the infantry to hitch a ride. This cavalry could operate in conditions the gauls wouldn't, and I wonder how effective this was against Rome.

Plenty? Now thats interesting and not what I expected. I shall definitely dig into this subject further.

A neat way combining the momentum of a phalanx with the versatility of manipular swordsmen. Both self supporting in offense but much less flexible when defending I would think. Thats a formation for a very agressive stance on flat terrain. I've not read about that - did it work?

Citizenship never went away, it just became less important because later periods gave it to everyone. Foreigners therefore had an added incentive to cross the Danube even if the romans didn't bother themselves much.

Agree again. However, the stability of egypt and its produce was of enormous benefit to Romes burgeoning population. It should be remembered the climate was wetter 2000 years ago and crops were easier to grow than now. If I remember right, Sardinia had a very nasty culture (even for roman tastes) and output wasn't guaranteed. Wasn't there a pirate problem in Sardinia?

Sulla really did believe he had saved Rome, hence his retirement to ordinary life. Of course, he had his own interest in mind. Very few people take enormous risks politically without a good reason, without something to gain. As with any culture, including ours, laws apply to those who get caught bending them. Traditions are often cast aside when expedient - the romans were past masters at that!

I think trying to understand something by intense analysis of the finer points of latin isn't going to solve it. Understanding what it really meant to romans means understanding roman minds and circumstances, which is what I tried to do in my previous answer. Latin is a language with complex grammar, and unless you're born to it the nuances tend to be lost. I doubt ordinary romans ever spoke or wrote correct grammar 100% of the time, which is one reason why so many roman kids got whacked by their teachers.

I agree. Egypt was a vital breadbasket for Rome.

Rome had a policy of preparing the way. Before this territory was invaded, deals were done and one tribe set against another. A case of divide and conquer. Also, barbarians aren't usually united. It takes a leader like Arminius to present a unified obstacle. Sorry, I missed the point. I agree with most of what you said, particularly since Rome as an empire didn't have the same appeal with romans that it once did. But it did for the barbarians. They were keen to be in on the deal to improve their living standards etc. Its just when they finally got there they didn't really like running it, and weren't to good at it

LOL! This is a forum, not a english exam. Besides, I prefer to treat peoples opinions with respect whether I agree or not. I'm entitled to an opinion too. In a sense I agree provided the tribune to be promoted has actually commanded in battle. Commanding say, a cohort or an army is different, largely due to less coherence with increasing size. Hey... I used a clever word!

I thought I was

Quite so, but remember the Magna Carta was won by gathering a bunch of nobles and threatening the king with rebellion.

He was a lawyer. Admin was something he gave his officers.

As far as I'm aware, the original battle site, which extended a considerable distance, was deforested centuries ago. A small area has been restored to natural condition in recent years but I'm not sure if thats at the location where the battle took place.

Its interesting that Hannibal copies roman arms and armour, but were they really up to legionary standards? I doubt it. Its more likely they came close but no cigar.

Not quite. Gladiators were of varying standard. A criminal sent out was going to die, and I suspect the crowd wanted to see how much he suffered. In that respect, the arena could be '8 out of 8'. Prisoners of war were often used for fake battles since they had plenty to get rid of, but I can't really see how umpires controlled the fight, so that too was bloody by neccessity. Professional gladiators on the other hand were highly trained from the start. The real obstacle for them was surviving their first fight, giving them useful experience and improving their survival chances a lot. These fights were rigidly controlled. Romans wanted a fair fight, an interesting fight, an exciting fight. It should be noted that most gladiators armour was arranged so that a fatal wound would cause the most spectacular blood loss. This was for entertainment. No 'scratches above the eyebrows' to stop the fight. For their own part, gladiators were very proud of the entertainment they provided - it brought them fame, fortune, and in some cases some very desirable perks for a slave. So although the audience might have persuaded the games editor (or emperor) to spare 90% of losers they did so because the man involved had literally fought for his life. Had he been a wuss, then a kill was demanded. He was not worthy to be spared. Blood was less important than the excitment of two men going toe-to-toe, but it served to dramatise the defeat of the loser. There were even fights without mercy, where a losing gladiator was automatically executed. Imagine the curiosity of watching two women fight as gladiators. They may have been the fairer sex in a mans world, but they were called upon to fight to the death too for the crowd. With animals, the audience wanted to see nature from a safe distance. They wanted big cats leaping at their victims, bears tearing their victims apart, elephants throwing victims like rag dolls, or rhino's and bulls smashing victims aside. They wanted speed, agility, ferocity, sheer danger. With bestiarii (animal fighters) in the ring, then we return somewhat to the gladiator, since now the audience has someone to cheer, and see how bravely he faces a creature that can kill him instantly. So many of these animals were slain to demonstrate the power of Rome over nature that blood was indeed very visible, but again, it wasn't an end in itself, rather a advertisment that this creature had died. Having said that, entertainment was paramount. Not all the acts were fatal. We see one-on-one fights to the first blood, or practice bouts with wooden swords. We see clowns pretending to fight badly, or displays of animals doing things rather like the circus of recent times. The arena was indeed sometimes a bloody place, but only when blood was called for.

I think this practice had died out during the periods of my interests, 220's BC to 80'sAD No it hadn't. We know from remains found at Ephesus that women left their children in the sewers to die. Also, when Nero had Agrippina killed, protestors left babies outside the palace as a gesture of disgust. If a roman child was disabled, it was unlikely to survive anyway so the average father would probably not waste time rearing it to adulthood. Since these unwanted children were a ready source of slaves, the actual percentage of infanticides isn't as high as it seems.

Its easy to see the celts/germans as Hells Angels with swords and furry swimming trunks. But despite that, lets remember that they also raised families and provided for them even if they were somewhat brutish.

I'd be more interested in the guy who knows how to win a battle and inspire men to do just that. Your viewpoint is probably similar to the romans, but then some roman commanders had indeed risen from the ranks. An emperor or two as well.