omoplata

It is impossible not to be so very impressed with the Roman system. How safe and immune to manipulation many facets of social life were is just amazing. Then again, even under such circumstances, the republic could not last. Such is the undying force of human greed; like the water that wears away the hardest of rocks, it can wear away the strongest of social institutions...

This may seem like a small detail, but one I find extremely interesting. When Marc Anthony, Brutus and the whole lot were assembled at Caesar's funeral, Anthony started to read the will of Caesar, as you all know. Why did Anthony not modify Caesar's will and simply remove the reference to Octavius? This would have made him the unquestionable and very much sole heir to Caesar. 3 reasons I think this would have been exceptionally easy to do and would attract no suspicion at all are 1- Caesar had only met Octavius one time. 2- Octavius was only 18 yrs old Due to these two reasons, it is unlikely anyone would have suspected foul play when the name of Octavius didn't come up in the will (and when it did, people were quite shocked) 3- Brutus and Cassius were unaware that the will would even have been read and thus were were unlikely to have known its content. Add to this the fact that Alexander, a hero of Caesar, refused to appoint a heir. Caesar could have very well left the succession issue open and unanswered much like Alexander the Great. Anthony would not even have to insert his own name into the will as, in the absence of Octavius, he would have been the sole center of power by default. The fact that he did not doctor such a simple and potentially monumental change can be due to a few reasons: -He had tremendous respect for Caesar and couldn't bring himself to do it -Precisely because Octavius was such an insignificant character at the time, he saw no need -The record keeping mechanism at Rome was such that even the strongest and most influential Roman alive couldn't have done such a thing. -Others had already seen the will and would've called him out. What else.... what part of my analysis is wrong? Please critique Thanks

To those who picked a relatively long time period; how about if you had to pick one moment in the history of Rome, as in one snapshot? To me, it is the return to the city of Rome of the Senator Gaius Terentius Varro after the defeat in Cannae. He is said to have ridden into town with very few surviving men and directly walked into the Senate where a meeting was being held. As he stepped in with blood, dirt and grime all over him, the Senate supposedly stood up and applauded him, despite the enormous loss of life in the battle and the disastrous defeat. (please correct me if my version of the story is inaccurate)

Which event, time period or even individual represents, in your opinion, the very best of Rome? In my view, the incredibly courageous and resolute stance of the Romans after the battle of Cannae is most impressive. The very worst Rome has ever faced did indeed bring out the very best in Romans. What is your view?

Both posts are absolutely excellent thanks a ton

One topic that confuses me is the supposed reaction of the war elephants used by Carthaginians at the battle of XAMA. The generally accepted belief is that when the Romans blew their war trumpets, the elephants panicked and started running into the Roman lines, where the Roman soldiers opened up nice little gaps for these animals to run through and that was the end of the story. This sounds way too fantastic to me. First, I cannot believe that these elephants, raised to fight, could panic en masse merely due to blowing trumpets. Even if they did, the handlers would probably be able o pull them back into the ranks before they ran all the way into the Roman front IMO. The Carthaginians cannot be so unprepared and must have either encountered similar situations with their elephants before or at least anticipated these events (after all they heard Roman trumpets so many times before). The elephants could then have been trained to handle the trumpets, their ears closed at least to some extent with cotton/wax etc, or they could have been kept in the back until the war got heated and the trumpet calls would not overwhelm all ambient sounds and stand out so much (by any chance, does anyone known an estimated decibels for Roman war trumpets) Finally, if the elephants did panic, why would they run into the very direction where the trumpet sounds were coming from? Would they not run back to where they belong? Yes,some sources do claim that they ran back and in the process trampled Carthaginians, but the more general belief is that they ran into Roman ranks where the Romans opened up channels for them. Thanks to all

Good point But in the absence of an emperor, who had the gravitas to order a forced suicide? Neither Consuls nor the Senate or Censors could really order or force one during the republican era, I would think. What do you say? EDIT: I just looked up the 12 Tables (http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/12tables.html) and it says this on the last line: "There are eight kinds of punishment: fine, fetters, flogging, retaliation in kind, civil disgrace, banishment, slavery, death." Though strangely, this line is prefaced with a question mark. Furthermore, it doesn't specify who these laws are applicable to. So Roman citizens may still be exempt from the death penalty....?

So no matter what the crime, a citizen -whether patrician or plebian- could not be punished by death? What was the worst possible punishment allowed by law? Just exile? Very very interesting, thanks for clarifying

I was just reading the life of Cato the Younger by Plutarch (http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/cato_you.html) and noticed this sentence: "Thus was the house almost wholly turned by Caesar, apprehending also the anger of the people; insomuch that even Silanus retracted, and said he did not mean to propose death, but imprisonment, for that was the utmost a Roman could suffer. " This is in reference to the speech of Silanus in the Senate where he is first proposing the capital punishment for the Cataline conspirators, but then softens his stance as Caesar wins over him, as well as many other Senators. The thing I am curious about is the severity of punishments doled out to Roman citizens, and in particular to patricians. I practically never heard of a patrician lawfully sentenced to death (though you hear of unlawful political murders). While my grasp of Roman history isn't very good and I might have missed many occurrences of such, it is safe to say, I guess, that a patrician being sentenced to death was a very rare event. I also have never heard of a patrician kept in prison for extended periods. It looks like the mos that ever happened to a noble Roman was exile, and even that was often in the form of voluntary exile. Am I mistaken here or was such really the case? Are there many noblemen who were subjected to harsher sentences? If not, were the "honor code" and fear of exile, which must have been a tremendous blow to a Roman I am sure, the primary forces keeping the upper ranks of society in check? Thanks

Excellent answers, thanks so much to all...

Can someone please briefly explain the recruitment practices of the Roman Army before Marius? What I am trying understand is why there was a property qualification to serve in the army before Marius suspended the property qualification for military service in 107 B.C. Part of the reason I guess is that you wish to ensure the soldiers can afford the military equipment. But if someone shows up with the shield and sword and helmet and so on, which he bought by selling his land or inherited, why did the army care if the person had sufficient land before accepting him into the service? Furthermore, who attended to the land of these soldiers while they were away? Did they usually have slaves to take care care of their land while they were on campaign? In addition, was service in the army primarily a privilege and therefore restricted to higher social classes? If so, what was to be gained from it beyond prestige and honor (which were very significant gains to be sure)? Was there any financial gain to be had from service? In later times, commanders allowed soldiers to sell slaves from the conquered populations, but was this a common practice before the Marian reforms, when soldiers were not dependent on war spoils, financially? Thanks in advance PS: by the way does anyone here follow this blog? http://www.mikeanderson.biz/ I liked it a lot

OK, this phrase absolutely captivates me, yet remains a big mystery. According to Wikipedia:

OK Gentlemen, I have gone through all Seneca quotes in this link and noted the ones I like best http://thinkexist.com/quotes/seneca/ No way to know hoe many of the 459 quotes that are attributed to him are actually his and a small number is obviously not his, but a mix up for sure. Nonetheless, it appears that this is broadly speaking a good list, as I was able to cross-check some and found the hit rate to be satisfactory. For your viewing pleasure...

The catapult quote is one I had read a long time ago. I cannot provide an authoritative source for it really. But Seneca is in a league of his own; definitely my favorite thinker of all time. Here is another quote from him: "Time heals what reason cannot"

C'mon Gentlemen... we have the longest list to work with. I will add another one: Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt ...When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults What an elegant way to express an idea.

What is your favorite quote from the Roman Empire? I'll start: Dum Spiro Spero The translation, to the best of my knowledge, is: As long as I breathe, I hope It is generally attributed to Cicero, but I guess there is no definitive evidence regarding its origin. Please correct me if the source of this quote is anyone else. Also, does anyone have a link to a reliable database to such quotes (i.e. one that provides references for the quotes and has good translations where possible) Thanks

I have recently finished reading a book that is a collection of Cicero's letters and some of his other works. At the moment, I am reading Anthony Blond's "The private lives of Roman Emperors". In the first book, Cicero recounts an occasion where an enemy soldier defects and offers to poison his commander in return for a good chunk of gold from the Romans. Although the Romans feel confident that the soldier can deliver on his promise, they refuse as they consider this an unjust tactic and a dishonorable victory. The second episode that paints a similar picture of the Roman military is from Mr. Blond's book. Caesar, during his Western European campaign, accepts two leaders of the German tribes he is at war with and then imprisons them. He next goes on to slaughter the headless armies. This tactic is severely disapproved in the Senate -despite having led to victory- and Caesar has to work hard to justify his actions. These accounts were rather surprising to me, as they do not sit well with the ruthless image of the Roman army I had in my head. Are these exceptions or rather the rule, you think? Were Romans always so particular about how they won their battles? How do you reconcile such honorable methods of fighting with the backstabbing so rampant within the Roman political arena? Thanks to all

Very well put Pauilinus. A question for all of you: Some of the other boards (on other, unrelated topics) that I belong to have one or two large threads, where minor questions that may not be worth starting a new discussion for are posted. Do we have such a thread here? I can start one, but did not want if there is an ongoing "All Random Questions" thread already. In addition, is there a thread already where we can post inspirational quotes and texts from ancient Rome? Parts of Cicero's letters, texts from Plutarch, quotes from Julius Ceasar and so on? I have searched for both, but no luck. If there is no objections, and they do not exist presently, I would like to start both of these threads, and we can -if they attract enough interest- talk about turning them into stickys.

What aspect of Ancient Rome do you admire the most? Personally, I am most impressed by their customs, traditions and rituals all of which exude strength and honor. From the standard-bearer in the army to faces carried by the lictors, there is such deep meaning behind all their tradition...

Thank you very much GhostOfClayton. This helps put things in perspective. If I may ask an unrelated question: What exactly is the best translation of "Curiositatum Omnium Explorator" in your signature When I google it, I get several translations, including: "a searcher-out of all strange things"

It is remarkable how well the legal system worked in Rome, I think, but at the same time it is equally remarkable how easily money and influence were able to invent exceptions to the rule. Was it Crassus who would set people's homes on fire -or so it was speculated- only to show up at the worst time and offer to buy the property? In your opinion, when was Rome the most just and fair? What era? And during that time, how just was it really? If two natural-born citizens, for example, both of whom had a good standing in Rome had a dispute and neither had extreme sums of money or influence, how likely was the court to rule justly and fairly in a legal dispute? Were court decisions timely or often came so late that it mattered little by then. Would love to hear your views Thanks

Absolutely fascinating... To even think that someone might have re-written history armed with the dates of the prior eclipses... amazing really

Thank you so much Gentlemen, I also agree -with my insignificant knowledge- that it looks improbable Rome has slowly emerged as a result of a gradual coalescence of nearby cities/tribes. But if it all did indeed begin with a migration/colonization from another city, why would the Romans no acknowledge that? If this is how they emerged, their existing (own) historical accounts seem to almost wish to hide this fact, no? Was there hostility perhaps? A forced evacuation of some kind or anything else they'd rather forget?

Cato, Well written, thanks a lot. I also just read Ursus' review of the book in his link and that was also very well done. I did find the book -based on the review- to contain plausible assertions, but indeed some theories are take a little too far. It does overlap with some of what Cato has written above, so there is a little bit of a base there I guess. If Cato can elaborate as he suggested he could, that would be much appreciated... Thanks much Gentlemen

I am just having such a hard time understanding how the Roman Empire's long and colorful story could have started. When one reads the removal of the king and the oath taken to never allow anyone to become king again, one can clearly see the mentality and the courage as well as determination that would have given rise to the values later seen in the Republic and the Empire. But how about before then? What was there really at the very beginning? Do we really know or did the Romans, with their myths of the wolf feeding the two brothers and all obscure this part of the history to much? I recall reading some "out there" theories, perhaps not accepted by the mainstream historians, that the start if the Romans was not at all what we are told and that there was actually mass migration and all, but I would be curious to hear the views of the more knowledgeable members here.... Thanks to all