sylla
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by sylla
-
-
Gladius Hispaniensis said:Ave
I am quite aware that the famous Gladius Hispaniensis was not in use in the Roman Army until the Second Punic War when the Romans adopted it from the Iberian tribes but what did they use before that? If it isn't too much trouble would someone bother downloading a picture of such a weapon? Thanks in advance.
The origin and timing of the gladius seems to be still an unsettled issue, chiefly because of the ancients' uncritical use of ethnic labels (like the "Samnite" weapons), the equivocal archaeological evidence and some controversial references on the earlier use of this kind of sword (like Manlius Torquatus).
Sadly, this issue's debate has been heavily contaminated by (presumably misunderstood) national pride's considerations from (and maybe also against) the modern Spanish side.
Regarding the swords used by the Romans previous to the Gladius, Polybius mentioned both the Gallic Machaira and the Greek Xiphos; archaeological evidence is equivocal again, basically because, contrary to other Italian peoples, the Romans didn't include weapons in their burials.
-
All in all, one of the best Pepsi
-
From the BBC's site, their current article on An Overview of Roman Britain (by Dr. Mike Ibeji) states the following regarding people's view of Rome:
"... grand, monolithic dictatorship which imposed its might upon an unwilling people, dictating how they lived, how they spoke and how they worshipped. They see the Romans as something akin to the Nazis (which is hardly surprising since the fascists tried to model themselves on Rome)."
Dr. Ibeji's own impression:
"Yet perhaps Rome's most important legacy was not its roads, nor its agriculture, nor its cities, nor even its language, but the bald and simple fact that every generation of British inhabitant that followed them - be they Saxon, Norman, Renaissance English or Victorian - were striving to be Roman."
-
All in all, one of the best Pepsi
-
I understand the definition of Civitas was essentially political, primarily based on cultural and historical considerations and only indirectly affected by demographics; its status was highly appreciated because it implied some degree of administrative and economic autonomy (local taxation included), and such status was directly decreed by the executive power (ie, the emperor). Most cities were small and many might have been considered villages by modern standards. Morley's estimation for the average population of the Italian cities under the Principate was 3,000; most of the Hellenic poleis were even smaller.
-
OK - I'm going to shock you all! Let me say first of all that my choice of what kind of Roman I would have been has nothing at all to do with my present day political leanings ...
...whereas mine, on the other hand, does. An EXTREMIS POPULARIS for me - sometimes the will of the people demands a temporary suspension of democracy
The "suspension of democracy" (temporal or not) and the "will of people" in the same phrase seems like an oxymoron to me; that sounds more like modern dictator's chat.
-
You know, the extensive papyrological research of Dr Sara Phang is still regarded as the standard text on the study of the Roman military family issues , and Professor Scheidel reviewed virtually all the available literature to comment her; so it would be really helpful if you might quote the sources that allow you to so easily dismiss them.
All due respect to Phang and Scheidel but I've no reason to accept their argument because they apparently reviewed everything. They seem to be searching for deep inner meanings in something straightforward. Sometimes learned people search for clever and subtle connotations in a field of study. That doesn't make them right. The Romans weren't subtle at all, and in dealing with warfare, had very practical mindset. They knew full well young men without partners are more competitive and aggressive - exactly what they wanted for their legions. People back then weren't fundamentally different from today (apart from some customs and lifestyles) and you don't see any of this inner subtlety in men trained to fight and kill. back then, fighting was even more acceptable and a way of life for many. Even with religion involved, I seriously find it hard to accept the Romans were intellectual about warfare.
Then, your sources speak for themselves; inferring is indeed easier than reviewing. We don't even have an argument here.
-
No Roman politician would have considered himself a "popularis"; it was always used as a pejorative term against others. Everybody's own perception was as an optimas, the best of the best. And naturally, virtually everyone used his influence on the mob to cheat where and whenever it was possible.
-
Why only bachelors? To avoid the societal stress the sudden disappearance of many family providers would provoke?
That was an accepted risk of the time. The Romans never thought about 'societal stress' until the mob was banging on the doors.
Or is it an inducement to settle down and work on increasing the population? "Don't want to have your head cleaved by a Celtic sword, fili? Then find a nice Latin girl to marry and settle down."Roman soldiers of the Republican period were not allowed to marry. Simple as that. It made for aggressive men willinging to fight.
The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later.Depends on the period. During the early Republic, the ruling would have been very strict, and given the limited size of consular armies easier to administer. As time went on, this ruling was relaxed somewhat. Still in place, still a traditional expectation, but conveniently ignored if a soldier could get away with it (which pretty well sums up what sort of men they were overall).
As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure.Of course it doesn't. The Romans already understood why.
The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded.I can see why the notion arose. Illegitimate sons of serving soldiers were viewed favourably by recruiters.
Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians.Nonsense. A legionary swore to serve a legion and it's commander in a special ritual. They were already symbolically seperate.
Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians.Nonsense. Roman soldiers never willingly surrendered to civilian law and shielded each other from it. Juvenal wrote a piece in his satires about 'judges in boots'.
Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.No. It had everything to do with preventing distraction of soldiers motives and keeping them angry. Having sex is a known calming factor. Having kids is a known motive tio settle down, thus working against the requirement to be mobile at a moments notice. As for citizens, it's recognised that recruiters thought highly of legionaries sons (a somewhat hypocritical view?) and Augustus wasn't against population increases at all. Far from it. His franchise system required the distribution of populations and the more successful the new town, the more wealth came back to Rome.
You know, the extensive papyrological research of Dr Sara Phang is still regarded as the standard text on the study of the Roman military family issues , and Professor Scheidel reviewed virtually all the available literature to comment her; so it would be really helpful if you might quote the sources that allow you to so easily dismiss them.
-
Hello. I am new to these fourums so if my question is out of place please tell me.
I was always facsinated with this question. Now one on one. 1 cohort of Legionnaires versus 1 unit of silver pikemen. Who has the advantage? Now the cohort has mobility and the phalanx has reach. With no cavalry to support the cohort can they overcome the Phalanx? What do you think? And I am talking late republic cohorts.
Livy's verdict was definitive:
"(The Macedonians) were armed with round shields and long spears, the Romans had the large shield called the scutum, a better protection for the body, and the javelin, a much more effective weapon than the spear whether for hurling or thrusting. In both armies the soldiers fought in line rank by rank, but the Macedonian phalanx lacked mobility and formed a single unit; the Roman army was more elastic, made up of numerous divisions, which could easily act separately or in combination as required."
-
So, who won Pharsallus ? Maybe it was good old Poempy and Caesar just lied ?
"Everybody lies"
Gregory House, MD
-
I'm well aware of the fact the soldiers did build a life, but i'm not sure it had been the spirit of the law... even if on the other hand there were serious concerns on demography in Augustus' staff. Maybe we should see this as a way for soldiers to procreate and produce sons who'll be attracted by the army without having roman patrimoine go their way through automatic inheritance linked to the marriage ?
Yet as I said I never looked in depth on that subject.
Some legal prescriptions regarding the irregular families are known; for example, Hadrian decreed the children of soldiers who had died intestate be able to inherit if there were no legitimate children or relatives who took precedence.
The problem with the pool theory is that the soldiers' offspring were not Roman citizens, meaning they couldn't be recruited as legionaries; there's no evidence (according to Scheidel) that such individuals would have had any additional advantage or incentive for being recruited as auxiliaries than any other peregrini.
-
...today is a report in CNN about one of the archaologists at the site (pretty amazing she is from the Dominican Republic, not really the country you would expect to have someone with such a passion about this period of time) http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/19...opatra.mystery/
In fact, Dominican researchers have been Hawass' partners for some time, including many of his highly publicized findings.
-
The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later.
As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure.
The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded.
Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians.
Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians.
Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.
Also a reason one must not forget but is very valid from at least augustean period would be to have the soldiers free to move quickly from one place to another : no spouse means no tie to the land and the ability to go from Rhine to Persia without growling ( of course they were malcontants, but the rationale can be understood.
I've not looked for the date of introduction of the rule, that might provide us with elements.
Roman soldiers actually had women and children on a regular basis, and they were not banned from doing so; it was just that such unions (conubium) were irregular but legal, out of the marriage usual prescriptions. Irregular families were probably as much a tie to the land as the legal ones.
The precise legal text for the military marriage ban has not been identified yet; it seems this rule came from the early principate, quite possibly close to the Lex Iulia et Papia (18 BC).
-
I am puzzled by the celibacy requirement the Roman army imposed for military musters. I mention it here, but do not really understand it. Why only bachelors? To avoid the societal stress the sudden disappearance of many family providers would provoke?
Or is it an inducement to settle down and work on increasing the population? "Don't want to have your head cleaved by a Celtic sword, fili? Then find a nice Latin girl to marry and settle down."
The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later.
As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure.
The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded.
Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians.
Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians.
Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.
-
Is there any textual evidence on Mark Anthony or Cleopatra being buried at all?
There is, actually.
Plutarch's Life of Antomy:"Many kings and great commanders made petition to Caesar (note: Octavian) for the body of Antony, to give him his funeral rites; but he would not take away his corpse from Cleopatra, by whose hands he was buried with royal splendor and magnificence, it being granted to her to employ what she pleased on his funeral."
Later:
"When she understood this (note: that she was about to be sent to Rome), she made her request to Caesar that he would be pleased to permit her to make oblations to the departed Antony; which being granted, she ordered herself to be carried to the place where he was buried, and there, accompanied by her women, she embraced his tomb with tears in her eyes, and spoke in this manner: "O, dearest Antony," said she, "it is not long since that with these hands I buried you; then they were free, now I am a captive, and pay these last duties to you with a guard upon me, for fear that my just griefs and sorrows should impair my servile body, and make it less fit to appear in their triumph over you. No further offerings or libations expect from me;"
And after her suicide:
"But Caesar, though much disappointed by her death, yet could not but admire the greatness of her spirit, and gave order that her body should he buried by Antony with royal splendor and magnificence."
Thanks a lot.
BTW, you have a great notebook.
-
Another point to make is that Roman accounts of battles cannot all just be lumped into "propaganda" as far as the numbers are concerned. Or at least, they can be sorted into categories of the swallowable and the completely ridiculous.
Caesar's accounts fall under the "swallowable" category. By and large his Commentaries have the ring of truth to them. There are inconsistencies here and there, likely some exageration, a couple of rather obvious falsifications, but by and large it checks out. The best summary of this I think comes from Christian Meier, certainly not an admirer of Caesar, who nevertheless concluded that his reports can largely be taken as fairly close to accurate (at least, as close to accurate as records in the Ancient World get). A part of this comes from the fact that when reasoned out, everything (or rather, most of thing the stuff) that Caesar writes makes sense when you think about it - is believable. In the biographies on Caesar by Meier, Goldsworthy, Freeman, and Gelzer that I've read, the historians have come to the same conclusion.
On the opposite end of the spectrum I can think of no better example than the reports of the battles fought by Sulla (although Alexander the Great springs to mind). The accounts of his battles against Pontus my contain accurate versions of the events of the battle, but the numbers are completely illogical and clearly made up. The casualty counts of Caesar's battles have the benefit of making sense; as per the broadly summarized post I made above, when reasoned through step by step what we know of the events matches the numbers. As opposed to Sulla's.
We agree on Alexander; there are no records of any Persian reports that might have countered the semi-legendary accounts on the remote Persian campaigns. To find an analogous narrative from Caesar, we ought to check on the Helvetian campaign; its figures are clearly beyond any ring of truth.
Roman accounts on the Republican Civil Wars (Caesar's included) should certainly have fallen under the "swallowable" category, analogous again with the Soviets
-
I'm not talking about acounts of the battle of Pharsalus just saying that not everything we have is anti-Pompey. Indeed, quite a bit is thouroughly anti-Caesar. Plutarch's work is an interesting study in which he seeths with contempt for all of Caesar's early career, is full of boundless admiration for the Gallic War, and is back to anti-Caesar once he crosses the Rubicon. On note of which - Plutarch also talk at length about Pharsalus, statedly utilizing Pollio's work rather than Caesar's, and from him we learn about the additional tactic used by Caesar of ordering his men in how to use their pilla. Suetonius does not talk at length on the battle, although as he also states that he used Pollio as a reference he must have been familiar with it.
All these writers and a few others besides, none Caesar proponents, had access to plentiful material on Pharsalus and other battles that we have lost today, and by and large what they had must have matched Caesar's account.
Then, after your careful review, our lack of Pompeian accounts on Pharsalus of any kind has been confirmed.
Both Suetonius, but especially Plutarch, were rigorous researchers; writing close to two centuries after Pharsalus, the only alternative account they were able to quote came from the Caesarian Pollio, in all likelihood because they found no other. In any case, Suetonius wrote nothing about the battle, and most of what Plutarch wrote (the pila trick included) came explicitly from Caesar
-
A reasonable explanation, but it leave another question in it's path, why was the area never very romanized? Fair enough it was under Roman influence for a shorter period of time (I've never really read anything on the Romanization of Britain) than some other areas but it should still be enough?
A shorter period of time?
The Romans were present in Britain for 367 years, they officially (not counting Caesar's brief flirtation in 55/54BC) arrived in 43AD under the invasion of Claudius and finally left the island for good in 407 AD when Constantine III was proclaimed emperor by the Roman troops in Britain and crossed the Channel with all of the remaining units of the British garrison, Roman Britain effectively ended. The inhabitants were forced to be responsible for their own defence and government
-
Do you know why the Brits lost Latin as their language when it was preserved in so many other parts of the empire?
I'm not intirely sure but I would hazard a guess it was probably something to do with when the Anglo Saxons arrived in the 5th Century??
That didn't answer the question; there were plenty of Germanic invaders all over the whole former Western Empire, and in most of it the romance languages are still alive.
-
Alan Moore's The Watchmen. A fascinating depiction of an alternate history for the late XX century.
-
Oh, and I wouldn't say that "no Pompeian accounts of the battle survived". That's not really true even today when many works of Roman history have been sadly lost. At least one other definitive account of the battle by Asinius Pollio (admittedly a Caesarian, but by all accounts he was unafraid to criticize Caesar, and may well have been one of the many who fell out with him at a later date) was around as a source for a long time. There would almost certainly have been many, many more accounts besides this. Almost all the leading Romans involved would have left their own opinions in their archives, and many other probably wrote of it. These works were all available for those who wished to write on the battle later, and in their broad strokes they apparently matched the account Caesar gave.
I'd hardly call Cassius Dio, Plutarch, or even really Suetonius pro-caesarian, quite the opposite really. I don't think I even need to mention Lucan.
Check out your sources; despite its name, Lucan's Pharsalia tell us nothing about the battle itself. From all your quoted sources, Cassius Dio is the only one that actually described the battle, essentially copying from Caesar's account.
As far as I'm aware of, no Pompeian accounts of the battle survived.
-
"The latest news is the discovery of six silver denarii which narrows the date of the battle down to between AD230 and AD235: one of Caracalla, three of Elagabalus, and two of Severus Alexander".
-
Just two examples -
1. When did the praetor or propraetor Sicinius landed in Epirus with his 5,300 troops ? Before or after the opening of the consular year 171 (ie december 171) ?
2. Walbank thinks that the consul Licinius landed in Epirus (with his 35,000 soldiers) in early April 171 (after a comitian decleratiuon for war) but Gruen thinks that the comitia voted for war only in June 171...
Livy's mess probably came directly from his primary sources, like Polybius and Antias. This was in all likelihood related to the shame for the subsequent Roman defeat at Callicinus by Perseus, a deeply despised adversary. As you said, there's no scholar consensus regarding the chronology; my impression is that Sicinius led a preemptive strike before the opening of the consular year, as Perseus' cause at the Senate was doomed from the beginning; however, the Romans subsequently lost their initiative, mainly because of their overconfidence and petty bureaucratic arguments.
How are the Ancient Romans viewed in Great Britain today?
in Provincia Britannia
Posted
Nothing new under the sun: all countries (peaceful, innocent or not) have always considered evil incarnated any Empire that tries to subjugate them, all and each one of the Empires included: George III for the American fathers, Napoleon for the British, Attila for the Romans and so on,