DanM

What about Octavian's other sister named Octavia? Not the daughter of Attia, but the older half-sister by his biological father's first wife. I read somewhere that her son shared the consular position with Octavian sometime around 29 BC, but I can't find anything on the elder Octavia.

With all due respect to the plight of the "retarded gay whales", I did list many modern occurances of brutality. And if we cannot say things are getting better until its all good for everyone all of the time, then lets just use the lable of "hell on earth" for eternity because there will always be evil in the world as long as there are people. Although we are taking the scenic route to get there, I think we are staying on topic. At the root of this converstation is the point that modern ethics allow us to view events such as warfare, murder, slavery or the like in a way that is different than that of the Romans. As such, we cannot view Roman motives through our modern perspective without distorting history to fit a modern view. Until we recognize they are very different from us in some very important ways regarding ethics and morals, its impossible for us to begin to understand the Romans as they were.

The Christians did not bar decurions, many classes of artisans and many types of coloni from military service. That stuff came from the Emperors and the failed system of Imperial administration. With some exceptions, soldiers generally were recruited either from the freehold farmers or from barbarians. As the freehold farmers became increasingly exploited by the tax collectors through overassessments, their numbers shrank. We have documentation of many free farmers who willingly became sharecroppers (coloni) so they could avoid the worst excesses of exploitation. The logic being that it was better to be the sharecropper for a powerful man and be under his protection than to be a free man who is fair game for the tax farmers who will charge a higher than legal tax rate with no fear of consequence. As the numbers of free farmers declined, the number of available recruits declined too. When you combine that with the lower effective pay, worse rations and worst equipment, then it should be no surprise that the overall quality of the troops would decline.

I believe the Numidian cavilry units that served as auxilliary units within the Roman army often operated behind enemy lines. They would scout, harrass enemy supply lines and gather intelligence. They really aren't what I would think of as special forces within the modern sense of the word, but they did hit some of the functions that were listed.

Actually I am not discouraged and I think you guys are missing my point. I do not think we are more evolved than in the past. I do not think we have progressed along some eveloutionary scale towards a better place. I just think our societal conditioning has made many things less acceptable than they were in the past. Slavery is not acceptable in most parts of the world. Capital punishment is not accepted in many places and highly regulated in many other places. There are more direct consequences for rape, murder and the exploitation of children. Does that mean evil is gone? Of course not. But the greater effiiciency of our machines and greater capacity to kill is not the same thing as saying we are a more brutal society. The innovations of Henry Ford allow us to kill people in far greater numbers, but that does not mean Henry Ford is more brutal than Ghengis Khan. See where I am going with this one? Adolph Hitler was a horrible man who was brutal by anyone's standards. Same thing for Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein and a host of others who have killed on a massive scale within the past 100 years. But the difference is that these men are outside of what is acceptable in our modern society. They are outlyers. By constrast, Ferdinand and Isabella were considered heros is Spain even though many Jews and Arabs were forcibly converted tortured and/or murdered. The european knights of the first crusade where considered men of God and protectors of the church even as they killed every Jew and Muslim they could find in Jerusalem. The Mongols were considered a great power even when they exterminated entire cities in an effort to instill terror and enslaved conquered peoples by the thousands. The conquistadors and even Christopher Columbus are looked at as heroic figures even through they destroyed vibrant native cultures of the western hemisphere and killed millions through war, murder, exploitation and disease. And Julius Ceasar killed and enslaved Gauls by the hundreds of thousands over 8 years so he would have the prestige and the money to sieze power in Rome. The critical difference is that these people are not accepted as heros or great men in our time. In the past, mass killings and exploitation of entire peoples for the profit of a few was considered normal. Today things are not the same. Violence is no longer given such a free reign as an extension of poltics. While it can be done, there are a host of constraining factors that limit it and that create consequences if its worst excesses are allowed to occur. And the fact that we do not view out mass murders with the same generous or respectful attitudes as those of the past is a clear indication that modern society has different values. Simply put, Adolph Hitler does not represent the values of the 20th century, but our perception of Adolph Hitler does give a strong indication of our society's values. Sorry, but I really do not think you understand what I am trying to say at all. Human nature's capacity for both good and evil are constants throughout history and will remain so in the future. I never intended to say we were evolving towards some higher moral perspective. I only meant to say that our views about things like capital punishment, murder, rape, slavery and the wholesale exploitation of entire cultures is different than it was for the Romans of the 1st or 2nd centuries BC. That is why the actions of Julius Ceasar would be viewed very different today if he were leading the armies of some western nation. I am not trying to say that violence or brutality has stopped, but society's acceptance of these things has changed and that has an influence upon the actions of those that might benefit from the use of violence or brutality. If Julius Ceasar were alive today and behaving the same way, then he would be viewed as a genocidal maniac instead of being viewed as one of the great characters of history. But since he was viewed through the looking glass that was the accumulation of cultural values at the time, he is seen differently.

Actually that is not completely true. While the Roman merchants probably did not travel to China or India with great frequency, there is evidence that some did reside in cities of Arabia and eastern Africa. I believe the Etheopian church traces its foundation to a Roman of Syrian descent who was a personal aide to the king of Etheopia. Also I remember reading accounts of how the slave of a Roman merchant was installed as King in one of the Kingdoms of Southern Arabia as well.

He is one of my favorite historical figures of all time. He's probably about the closest thing to an action movie star in any of the history I have studied. If anyone is interested in the exploits of the de Hauteville family, John Julius Norwich's "The Normans in Sicily" is a great book.

There were a variety of reasons, but I think the one at the root of the problem was the fact that the Empire never did a good job of effeciently centralizing its adminstration. In the early years of the principate, most of the administrative work was done at the city level. Virtually all of the Empire was broken out into city territories. The city might administer a few square miles or a few hundred square miles of surrounding countryside. Alexandria was a rare exception in the fact that it did not administer any land outside of the city itself. Anyway, each of these city governments were run by a city council comprised of the local landowners of any observable wealth. While practices varied somewhat from one part of the empire to another, there would often be between 100 and several hundred members. Even though there were many members, there was usually an inner council that held the real power and this would usually include around 10 of the wealthiest and most powerful men. They would elect 2 chief magistrates and a variety of other leaders to head up things like the baths, fire brigades, nightwatchmen, roads, markets, etc. Also, the city governments were the ones that collected the taxes, conscripted levies as needed, etc. When they were compromised as an institution, the ability of the Empire to marshall its material resources was seriously impaired. These local city governments had 3 sources of income. They could levy some taxes. The curia, as a body, owned some land. And the members of the curia would also contribute their personal wealth to make up shortfalls. For example, some rich guy might donate the money for a new public bath or aqueduct so everyone could praise him and tell him how wonderful he was. Its hard to appreciate how much this sort of public praise was valued by the upper class romans of the early empire. Wealthy members could also give money to games for the benefit of the city, give away food in times of famine or do other public works. The building boom that went on in many imperial cities up to the time of the great currency crisis can probably be attributed to the sort of chest thumping ego displays that we are talking about here. So what were the benefits of holding positions on the city councils other than ego? The lands owned by the city governments were periodically leased out to different curia members and this could be a nice source of wealth if you got the concession. Ditto for tax farming and the like. What were the downsides? Well, starting with Diocletian, if your city council could not collect the fixed rates of taxes assessed to the property within your district, then the city council as a whole was liable for the shortfall. That meant that in times of invasion or plague or drought the Emperor could insist that you pay the full amount of fixed taxes due on the land in your district even though the occupants had nothing to give. This sort of thing could ruin the fortunes of the local notable families and it happened often enough. Also, the contests to see who could be more extravagent than the last guy eventually led to a standard of public giving that few could afford without bankrupting their families. Finally, the Emperors sucn as Constantine, Constantinius, Diocletian and Valens appropriated the income sources of the city governments. They took away their tax base. They took away the lands owned by the city. In the end, the only thing that was left was the contributions of the curial members. Its one thing to spend your money on something flashy that will impress people. Its quite another thing to spend it on something less sexy like road repair or sanitation. Eventually, this became a bad deal for the curial members and they started leaving in mass. The ranks of the Senate swelled to thousands. Many left for the clergy or joined the army. And many others paid massive bribes to get bogus Imperial appointments that would exempt them from curial duty. The state tried to combat these avenues of escape through legislation restricting or regulating entry into things such as the army or the church or the senate with limited success. In the end, it did not work because the Emperors broke the system through short sighted administrative policy. To add insult to injury, once the city governments died out, the imperial administration became even more corrupt. I will go on if you want, but I just noticed how long winded I have been in this post and I will cut it short for now. Like I said, if you want more on this subject all you have to do is tell me.

Actually, I think Honorius is on a much better track to start with Norwich. Norwich is an easier read than Gibbon and I think his writting style is much more enjoyable. Although Norwich doesn't go all that deeply into the details, he does a very good job of telling the story.

Thanks for providing some stats to compare war deaths by century. I just think you are missing one critical element of the analysis. Its not a matter of total numbers of deaths, but a tracking of the percentage of those alive in the century who were killed by war deaths that really matters. If we had 1% of today's population 3,000 years ago, then anything other than a ratio of war deaths/living in that century will be kinda misleading. And it still goes back to the values of the time. People in our century are killed with guns and bombs. A much higher percentage of the people in earlier centuries were killed by disease, knives, clubs and hands. I have never killed anyone, but I imagine a death by a sharp stick, rock or knife would generally be more brutal than being shot by a gun at 60 meters. Maybe I am wrong. Also, when thinking of brutality, don't just think about those who died. In the past, it was common practice to enslave the losing side. At least those that were attractive whether they be men, women, boys or girls or those with some useful skill. And yes, I agree the 20th century is not a shinning example of the best potential within humanity, but that still does contradict with my belief that we are showing incremental improvement when compared to earlier times. The fact that technology is making the job of killing more effecient and more possible to do on a massive scale is not necissarily the same thing as saying we are waging more brutal wars than in the past. That doesn't make it "better", but I believe it does make it less brutal. Finally think about this one last point. Has there ever been a time in history when more people could live free of the fear of violence in their daily lives? While I will admit there are still horrors and death on massive a scale, I still believe we are seeing incremental improvement over time as societal expectations move.

Maybe theoretically they couldn't kill them, but I recently saw something about Roman merchants being killed in the Red Sea cities along the African coast from time to time during the later Empire when a local state would have problems with the Empire. My guess is that they were killed in other places too for similar reasons.

When it can be attributed to the decline of the army, the decline of the cities, the reduction in the Empire's overall population and even be given as the provocation that unleashed a group as destructive as the Goths, its hard for me to look at it in such a neutral light. ... and corruption was most definitely worse in the later empire. If you want, I can give you a long list of respected historians who have published works that very clearly state the level of corruption was far worse.

I'm not suggesting you don't read Gibbon, but there are several authors out there who were much better for me. AHM Jones is the guy to go to for hard facts. His two part series titled "The Later Roman Empire" is the cornerstone for my understanding of the period. Jones' "The Decline of the Ancient World", "A History of Rome through the 5th Century" and his "Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire" are all excellent books and relatively inexpensive to buy online. You won't find all of them on Amazon, but Alibris has them all as well as some more expensive ones I have not bought yet. If you want to understand the guts of the Imperial government and how it worked over time, its hard to beat AHM Jones. Peter Brown is another excellent author. My personal favorite is his biography on Augustine of Hippo. It gives a very good account of many aspects of daily life in Roman North Africa in the last stages of the Western Roman Empire. Also his book titled "Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire" is a great read and I believe very insightful. You really can't go wrong with Peter Brown. If he took the time to write it, then its probably worth your time to read it. If I were to compare AHM Jones and Peter Brown, I would give Jones the edge on the details and facts while giving Brown the edge on understanding the culture and values. Its a matter of preference when deciding which one you will read first, but I believe you would gain a lot from both authors if you took the time to know their works. Also, if you like late Roman and ealy Byzantine Christian heresies, its hard to beat Steven Runciman's "The Medevil Manichee: A Study in Christian Dualist Heresy". Don't worry, its not just about the Manichee. He also talks about the Bogomils, Cathars, Paulicans and several other groups that were all labeled as Manichees by people outside of their communities. It's more of a history book than a theological study although he does take the time to give you enough information so you can, for example, distinguish the theology of the Paulicans as opposed to the Manichees. If you have any interest along these lines, then it really is a fascinating and informative book that will give you very little overlap with things you will read in other sources. If you want something that is fun, light and easy to digest then John Julius Norwich's 3 volume set on Byzantium is great. It was my introduction to later Roman history and I believe I have read each book at least 3 times over the years. Also, Norwich's "The Normans in Sicily" is a great book that does spend some time on the final gasps of Byzantine Italy. I love Norwich's writing style. He is a lot of fun and makes it seem more like gossip about people you both know than some dry, boring account of people who died 1,500 years ago. If you want to learn more about the monastic traditions of the christian church in the middle eastern provinces of the later Roman Empire, then William Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain" would be a good choice. It recounts his trip through much of the modern middle east a few years ago where he visited a lot of the old monastaries that are still occupied and functioning. Most of the book is a combination of modern observances and analysis of historical accounts of the place he actually visited. If your particular area of interest is Byzantine history, then the Dalrymple book is even more important since the church played an ever greater role as time passed. J.B. Bury is another good author. While he also edited Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", I honestly liked his two volume set titled "The Later Roman Empire" much more than Gibon's work. He also does a great job with the details and the facts. Finally, there is an organization called Dumbarton Oaks that has been publishing what appear to be fascinating articles on very specific subject matter for this period of history, but so far I have been unable to get my hands on any of the papers. Thats why I say they appear to be fascinating. The titles intrigue me as well as an occasional synopsis of an article that I might find. I first learned about it through the bibliographies of some of the books I have read and I just can't seem to find a way to gain access to these papers. If you or anyone else has a sugestion as to how I could get access to the works of this group, I would greatly appreciate it.

What about the corrupt army officers. One of the biggest reasons the limitanii were of limited military value was the corruption of its officers. They would routinely pocket funds dedicated to buting food, equipment and supplies for their men. They would extort their soldiers into kicking back a portion of their pay and they would keep dead or deserted soldiers on the rolls so they could keep their pay. As a result, the soldiers of these units were poorly trained, poorly disciplined, poorly fed, poorly motivated and the units were seriously under strength. And lets not forget the "elite" units who were by Justinian's time nothing more than highly paid fops who purchased positions within these units precisely because they knew it was the surest way to avoid seeing combat.

One of the striking points I remember when watching the "Making of Rome" was that interviews with different actors kept coming back to the theme of how this was a very different society with different values and different expectations for its people. I think the scene with Pollo and Octavian is a great example of that fact. In addition to the examples you guys have been giving, don't forget Octavian. Remember when he was talking to Pollo about his poor abilities with a sword and he said that he had no problem with killing people. He only had problems with the physical side of swordplay. Also, he was the young child who calmly told Evander he would die and it was only up to Evander to decide how much pain would be involved. In today's society we would label such a kid as a sociopath and give him an intensive program of drugs and therapy to alter his behavior. By the time modern psycology was through with him, he would be making fingerpaint pictures and crying along with selected Bett Midler songs. In his time, however, he was the greatest man of his era who ruled the known world. By the time of his death, he was Rome. The entire show is a very sharp constrast in cultures (Roman vs Modern) if you allow yourself to look at it that way. I heard this series cost 100 million dollars to make. And since HBO is very savy from a marketing standpoint, I am sure they would not enter into such a project unless they left open the possiblity of a sequel if it were a commerical success. Do you remember if a particular school of philosophical thought pushed the ideal of not having too much sex or too much emotional attachment to a sexual partner? If so, and we can accept the fact that the early Christian Church borrowed heavily from many of the philosphical ideals in practice throughout the Empire, then it might be possible to look at ancient Greek philosophy as the ancestor of later Christian Puritanism. Its just a theory, but its kinda funny to think about. .....and I know that most people like to link Egyptian and Syrian ascetic traditions to Christian tendencies towards puritanical beliefs, but that doesn't mean its the only possibile explanation. Especially when you look at the development of the western branch of the church which I believe was more influenced by Augustine than by the Egyptian fathers.

I don't think I would look at it in those terms. It wasn't some linear movement measured by the incremental number of newly corrupt people in a previously pristine cultural landscape. The Romans were corrupt in the days of the Republic. Cato made a nice little fortune off the peoples of Cyprus who paid him a king's ransom to ensure that Roman soldiers did not use their homes as barracks. And thats just one example. To me, this is a matter of looking at how centralization of the Imperial administration increased the amounts that could be stolen and the audacity that could be shown while stealing it. Think about all of the men who became wealthy because one of the later Roman Emperors granted Imperial lands to him. All it took was access to the Emperor and some reason that would motivate him to give it to you instead of someone else. Through this rather odd practice, the Empire lost a huge source of revenue forever. Also, its not just a matter of people taking bribes. If you were a high ranking member of the Comitatus, then you were in a position to make appointments or influence the Emperor's choice for appointments. In this role, you could secure massive bribes and also use your influence to extort massive amounts of money for not using your power to harm those with money. Look at what they could facilitate in exchange for the bribes. One of the side effects of the growth and centralization of the Imperial administration was the destruction of the decurion classes. Men fled service in their local city governments like it was the plague, because the burden placed upon them while performing this service became ruinous. Although men were normally compelled to serve if they were born into the class or had sufficient wealth to qualify, they also had two means of escape. First, the wealthier members could often be promoted to the Senatorial class and thereby by exempted from curial duties. Second, they could get a bogus appointment for a day like being named govenor of some minor province for the day of August 6 of that year and thereafter be exempted from decurial service. When people had sufficient wealth for admission to the Senate, then of course they took this option. When the Senate was not available, they paid enormous bribes to the government officials who could secure a bogus appointment to a position where they would never actually serve. The end result was that some drinking buddy of the Emperor got rich at the expense of one of the local city governments who just lost a potential source of leadership and wealth. When that happens over centuries, it adds up to a significant drain.

Exactly my thoughts. Once Asia Minor was compromised as a source of manpower and wealth, the Empire was never the same again. If this battle had been won or never fought, it is entirely possible that present day Greece (or maybe it would still be called the Byzantine Empire) would comprise the present day nations of Turkey, Greece, Armenia, Bulgaria, Albania and Cyprus. Actually, that would make a cool plot for an alternative history book.

Actually I think the reason the Romans starting bribing barbarians to not attack them was because their army was no longer capable of protecting the borders. Look at Justinian's policy along the Danube river or against the Persians as an example. As for the reasons that barbarians were being hired into the army to such a great degree, I think much of it has to do with the manpower shortage that came with what was most likely a declining population base. Many segments of the population were effectively barred from military service. For example, many landlords would pay an additional surtax to exempt their coloni from conscription. Also, the native troops that were raised had to be armed, fed and paid by a corrupt system that did not provide adequate resources. As for Italy not being treated with enough respect, I have to disagree. By the 4th century it had become a liability. The amout of tax dollars that were spent on subsidies of food, wine and games for the city of Rome were staggering. I am not saying that Italy was a useless province, but short of reforming the giveaway culture and rampant entitlement programs, it could do little to contribute to the defense of the Empire.

Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but wasn't there some distinction along the lines of whether you were the active or passive partner in a homosexual relationship? If my memory is correct, then I believe there was much less of a stigma for giving than for receiving. And accusing someone of being th submissive partner was how you would slander or denegrate a Roman man. Also, the thing about promiscuity even fell upon married couples. I think there were some literary sources that even rebuked men for loving their wives too much. Does anyone have any references they can give along these lines? Was it somehow tied to a philosphical or religous value? I think I read it in one of my Peter Brown books, but its been a long time and I may be mistaken. But thats what a historically-based fictional story is supposed to do. It should be true to what is documented and fill in the undocumented areas in an entertaining, plausable manner. Unless you have some documented proof that Pollo and the young Octavian did not torture and kill a man in the middle of the night and dump his body into the sewer while Ceasar occupied Rome, I don't see the problem. As for the part about Ceasar, I agree. I really expected to see more until I realized that he was not the primary character of the story. Yes he was the primary character of the historical event, but the story is far more about Pullo, Vorenus and Octavian up to this point than about Ceasar, Mark Anthony, Pompey or Brutus. Maybe things will change, but thats what I see so far. The historic chain of events is the background and nothing more.

They had a few math/science types like the guy who designed the Hagia Sophia. I think the best school for it was in Alexandria. Even if it wasn't always their day job, they did have guys I would class as scientists. Regardless, it was the fact that they did not value math and science as much as other disciplines of study that predisposed them to not properly utilizing the advances they did achieve such as the steam powered engine. If a business or government leader cannot understand the undelying principles well enough to connect the advance to a vision of how it could be applied, then its not very likely that anything will ever be done. And since so few leaders of Roman society had an appreciation of math or science, it shouldn't be surprising that so little was achieved under the Empire.

I'm not trying to whitewash the 20th century by any means, but you need to revisit your history books a bit before you convince yourself it is the most brutal or violent century. You think the Isreal-Palestine conflict is brutal now. The crusaders butchered every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem when they captured it. You think the religous fanatics (either Muslim or Christian) are bad today, try the Spanish Inquisition or the 30 years war. You think our invasion of Iraq is brutal? What about the English invasion of France in the 100 years war. Until this century, rape during the course of war was not commonly accepted as a crime. Ditto for robbery, torture or extortion. The Mongol hordes would depopulate entire regions that resisted them. The Ottoman Turks would regularly take the children of Christian peasants and raise them as soldiers. Look at what the Spaniards did to the native peoples of the Carribean Islands, the Incas, the Mayas and the Aztecs. Look at what the Americans did to the native peoples of north America. Capital punishment may exist, but its not a spectator sport in our time. We don't feed prisoners to wild animals or force them to hack each other apart. And we don't crucify them anymore either. Its not just a matter of numbers. Under such a standard, whatever time period has the most people will almost always win. Its a matter of how these cultures viewed the sanctity of life and its about the creative, sadistic ways they would end a life.

This is a very good point, but it really does not contradict my point. The two events happened at the same time. As the Empire centralized, taxes went up, corruption went unchecked and waste was rampant. At the same time, the holdings of the great senatorial families (especially those of the west) who paid little if any taxes increased by leaps and bounds. As such, the Empire faced the double whammy of a shrinking tax base and a less efficient means of using the resources it was able to collect. When you couple that with the fact that the western empire had to double the size of its army due to external pressures along its border with german tribes and the fact that it could no longer rely upon the greater financial resources of the eastern half, then its easy to see why the western Empire fell. It simply collapsed under its own weight.

I don't know about ancient Rome, but its certainly true on HBO.

I remember reading someone's explanation of this point and they said it was because of the institutions of slavery and effective serfdom (the coloni). The reasoning goes that a society so dependent upon cheap labor would not be as motivated to use steam power to create labor saving devices. For me, however, this explanation always seemed lacking. How many references have you guys read that all come back to the point that agricultural labor became progressively more scarce over time? Wouldn't that be a good motive for developing labor saving devices? To me, it all goes back to the fact that Romans looked at the study of science and mathmatics as inferior to the greek classics or oratory skills. It was all fine and good to hire someone to design a church or an aqueduct, but I believe the inherently conservative culture of Imperial Rome wasn't open to progressive scientific thinking. The bottom line is that science was a sideshow to the Romans and they would not have known a good invention if it bit them on the backside.

Everything worked out OK regarding the flood. We were told we might receive 24 inches of rain over a 36 hour period and only received 5 inches of rain over a 24 hour period so I guess we got lucky. The remains of hurricaine Rita were supposed to have stalled over my area, but we were lucky that the storm went a different direction than the one predicted. Now I have to decide what to do with the 1,000 pounds of sand I put into the walls I built around my home.