sullafelix

There is a a lot of work being done in this area at the moment. Brunt's Italian Manpower, by the way, is unreadable (famous for it too!) do NOT attempt to pick it up and settle down with it for a good read. However, the information in it is pretty good. There has been other work done by an Italian called Lo Cascio - most people, including me, think that his hypothesis is fundamentally flawed but it is interesting. The only real way of estimating population we have had until recently has been by using census figures and military levy figures. The problem is that this really only gves a rough figure for men over the age of 17 (in the Roman world). Population can be roughly extrapolated from these figures though. That said there is so much guesswork that goes into this process that we don't really know if the figures are anything other than half-informed wishful thinking. More recently people have started using demographic life tables from the post-medieval and modern era to look at the way ancient populations would have behaved, what their age distribution was life expectancy and things like that. You might want to look at the work of a guy called Walter Scheidel, he writes extensively on ancient demography in the Journal of Roman Studies and has recently brought out a book which I am sure you could find by googling his name. A word of caution here too though, this is all the rage at the moment but ther are many people who remain unconvnced abou the validity of imposing the behaviours of modern societies on those in the ancient world (and yes you guessed it I am that sceptic!). I could go on, but to be honest most people find ancient population studies just about as tedious as you can get so I don't want to bore you, but if you need any more help or pointing in the right direction let me know. I may even have some of Scheidel's articles as pdfs somwhere if you don't have Jstor access (that doesn't infringe any laws does it?!) Cheers SF

There is an online translation of Seneca's epistles, I know becaue I found it but it was rather difficult andit took some time. It was on some very obscure source site. Interestingly Seneca talking about Scipio's villa gives some idea of what bathing would have been like under the Republic and in a smallish private villa. There is some indciation of how the system worked and where the water came from as well as the fascinating news that Scipio seemed to bathe in the dark!

Yup no problem. Pompey and Lucullus did have a massive rivalry. Lucullus had lost the Mithridatic command to Pompey depsite having done the lion's share of the work. It was this that precipitated his retirement from public life. In fact this was one of the few times he appeared on the political scene afterwards and it is telling that it was in order to denounce Pompey's plans. As for the Clodius thing, Clodius was a bit of a scandalous creature and considered a political chancer. What Plutarch is trying to say is pretty much what you said. That Clodius used Pompey's fame to advance his own cause and dragged him around as a supporter, even trying to get money out of him for the favour. However, most peole saw it as a sign of Pompey's desperation and so it did him more harm than good. Enlightened? SF

Hi this is not really my area (as the name might suggest!). That said I have a close friend doing a PhD on subjects relating to Julian and I would have one word of warning about it, there is so little in the way of source material (and that coming from someone studying the Third and Second Centuries BC is saying something). They are finding it a real struggle to find enough to make anything really new out of it. That said, Ursus is right, if you can do it you will make a name for yourself. The problem I suppseis that apart from Ammianus there is not much of a major account of the life of Julian. That said as you are lookng more into the religious practices of the time than the man himself you may be on more fertile ground. That I wouldn't know. On another note though, and not that I know diddly about Mithras I have to admit, does this have any smilarity to basic tenets of Gnosticism too - what with Mithras being a lesser being dealing with mankind - why was he sent and was he noticbly imperfect so to speak? Sorry if I sound like a blithering idiot - this is just all very intersting. I taught parts of a course recently (grad student me - so slavery is my middle name!) on the Second Sophistic which became nicknamed "Being Foreign Under Rome" and I covered Neoplatonism (in one seminar poor souls!) which is a bit of an interest of mine (despite me knowing v little). I know that it is very hard to remove a Platonic structure from many of the belief systems of the time and that Platonism obviously is responsible for the concept of Gnosticism (surely - I may be wrong but I might as well do it with confidence hey?). Is the basis of Mithraism Platonic? Actually can we say that all Western (thats modern Western rather than Empire Western) montheistic beliefs are Platonic in origin as well as in structure? I don't know, I ask out of interest Enlighten me SF

Yup but that's Dionysius for ya...his account of the law of the Twelve Tables regarding infanticide is also rather familiar for the same reason. I'm not one to decry the eliability of the sources but this guy does eem to have a lot of Greek inspiration for his Antiquities. SF

Hang on a minute I know what ou are talking about! try Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.74 "For, having ordered every one to draw a line around his own land and to place stones on the bounds, he consecrated these stones to Jupiter Terminalis and ordained that all should assemble at the place every year on a fixed day and offer sacrifices to them; and he made the festival in honour of these gods of boundaries among the most dignified of all. 3 This festival the Romans call Terminalia, from the boundaries, and the boundaries themselves, by the change of one letter as compared with our language, they call termines.111 He also enacted that, if any person demolished or displaced these boundary stones he should be looked upon as devoted to the god, to the end that anyone who wished might kill him a sacrilegious person with impunity and without incurring any stain of guilt" It was Numa Was that what you were after? SF

This was in a thread I stumbled onto a couple of months back. The reason for my interest was because it sounded very familiar as compared to modern but somewhat archaic phraseology used in terms of boundary markers and stones and their placement and maintenance nowadays, as law requires. Faustus -------------------- Ooh tricky can't think of much primary source material off the top of my head. There mayu be something in the Lex Agraria of 111 but otherwise the secondary material that may help is Gargola's Lands Laws and Gods or A.Lintotts Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Romn Republic. Do you know if this law was specifi as to the type of land covered. Could it be something to do with the occupation of Ager Publicus? If so maybe it is in the Lex Licinia. SF

When I was a kid I loved all the sword and sandal epics. So when I had to pick a degree any degree in about 10 seconds I chose classics. Good move, now I am a grad student and hope to never leave the empire again. I started off as a romantic interest in this great lost civilisation with their amazing dominance of the world. Now that I specialise in Republican history it is things like the practice of politics and all the questions to which we do not know the answers that keeps me fascinated. The were such a pragmatic and practical people, legalistic to the point of obsession and yet capable of producing some of the most beautiful architecture, art and poetry. As a city itself Rome exerts an enormous fascination the two sides of her; the great display and grandeur and then the overwhelming squalor and violence. SF

Indeed the British aristocracy invented the Ha Ha a sort of trench below a platform meaning that there was an uninterrupted view of the countryside unblemished by such eyesores as sheperds. The idea of a rural idyll is denifatley a literary construct in Roman times. It is certainly an ideal stemming from the perfect Roman virtues being summed up by characters from their early history like Cinncinatus who was tending his small plot in a loincloth when the call came for him to lead Rome in an emergency. In reality the advent of intensive farming meant that slave labour was extensively used and abused. In Sicily in the Second Century BC one of the reasons why the slaves revolted was that were expected to wander the hills (shepherds again) naked. This could not have been comfortable in high summer or indeed in winter! They did work in chain gangs (although not all of them all of the time) and we have found some chains in the UK. SF Good post by the way!

Ah enlightening thank you, there go my plans to quickly master Rumanian though! I shall have to confine that one to the bin marked things to do after the thesis! (Along with learning Magyar and Russian!) SF

I have been told, but have no idea how accurate this is, that Romanian is one of the closest languages in vocab and structure to classical Latin. I should imagine it must have plenty of Byzantine and Ottaman influences too - does anyone know the truth of this? SF

Thanks for this, I cannot tell you how invaluable it is - It was a happy day when I realised I no longer needed to sit down and trawl through Cassius Dio to find the settlements. I ought to tell my students, but part of me wants to keep this to myself, I have done enough to allow myself the odd shortcut.......they on the other hand..hmmmmm maybe soon if they impress me. Very impressive list though SF

I'm tired of quoting primary sources that you ignore. Feel free to make up whatever nonsense you like since you're apparently unconstrained by any facts. Next up: Cato eats babies! I didn't make them up, Syme, Gruen, Everitt did....Must re-constrain myself...must... Stop Basta! Enough already, whilst I am all up for lively scholarly debate the key word here is scholarly. P. Clodius rather like your namesake I am afraid your argument is pretty but flimsy and self-serving. Cato is right go and look at the source material. I do not care how many people's opinions you read in secondary sources they are not the same as having read the primary material well enough to be able to put your own interpretation on it. I would imagine that you are arguing with someone who really knows their stuff on their namesake (far better than I do mine). As for Syme, beauttifully written, but sometimes a little out of date now. Also what do you know of Cato's family history, or indeed the families he chose to marry his kin into? History is about people, and some people are moitvated by true and strong principles, Cato was certainly one of them. My apologies for the slight Off Topicness of this next section but it is related to ambitu Thank you for your condecension on the other hand Cato, I am q. well aware of this, and if you cannot see what pressure came from people being able to actually inspect your ballots you show little imagination as a historian. Secondly whilst the term optimates is not found the term boni is found extensively in Cicero it amounts to the same thing the good, the best the right kind of people. Firstly, if you take away threat of force, rewards etc what influence do you have??????????????????????????????? Especially if you then remove the client realtionship, which to an extent I agree has been overplayed considering the amount of source material we have for it. However, lets not get carried away here and call it an insidious myth, that would mean there was little support for it in the sources, but in actual fact the importance of clients in elections is attested. Pompey had problems with his political career (or would have had if it wasn't for Pirates and Spartacus), we know that the relationships existed, but we do not know how much influence they had in daily life. However, we can say with some certainty that they were mentioned in relation to elections and also in court cases as performing actions because of their client relationship. No not all of Rome ran along these realtionship lines but it is hasty to throw some primary source material out when you rely on other such source material to prop up your argument. we cannot pick and chose for convenience, show me the source material that proves that the client relationship was an insidious myth. It was real: Plut.Tib Gracc 13 regarding the election of a client, Marius 5 for the claims that a patron did not normally give evidence against a client in court; and finally, a long one here Dionysius: The regulations which he then instituted concerning patronage and which long continued in use among the Romans were as follows: It was the duty of the patricians to explain to their clients the laws, of which they were ignorant; to take the same care of them when absent as present, doing everything for them that fathers do for their sons with regard both to money and to the contracts that related to money; to bring suit on behalf of their clients when they were wronged in connexion with contracts, and to defend them against any who brought charges against them; and, to put the matter briefly, to secure for them both in private and in public affairs all that tranquillity of which they particularly stood in need. 2 It was the duty of the clients to assist their patrons in providing dowries for their daughters upon their marriage if the fathers had not sufficient means; to pay their ransom to the enemy if any of them or of their children were taken prisoner; to discharge out of their own purses their patrons' losses in private suits and the pecuniary fines which they were condemned to pay to the State, making these contributions to them not as loans but as thank-offerings; and to share with their patrons the costs incurred in their magistracies and dignities9 and other public expenditures, in the same manner as if they were their relations. 3 For both patrons and clients alike it was impious and unlawful to accuse each other in law-suits or to bear witness or to give their votes against each other or to be found in the number of each other's enemies; and whoever was convicted of doing any of these things was guilty of treason by virtue of the law sanctioned by Romulus, and might lawfully be put to death by any man who so wished as a victim devoted to the Jupiter of the infernal regions.10 For it was customary among the Romans, whenever they wished to put people to death without incurring any penalty, to devote their persons to some god or other, and particularly to the gods of the lower world; and this was the course what Romulus then adopted. 4 Accordingly, the connexions between the clients and patrons continued for many generations, differing in no wise from the ties of blood-relationship and being handed down to their children's children. And it was a matter of great praise to men of illustrious families to have as many clients as possible and not only to preserve the succession of hereditary patronages but also by their own merit to acquire others. And it is incredible how great the contest of goodwill was between the patrons and clients, as each side strove not to be outdone by the other in kindness, the clients feeling that they should render all possible services to their patrons and the patrons wishing by all means not to occasion any trouble to their clients and accepting no gifts of money. So superior was their manner of life to all pleasure; for they measured their happiness by virtue, not by fortune. R.A. 2.10 We don't know quite how it worked, but we do know it existed and to say it doesn't it part of a school of historical study of little or no merit because it ignores the source material that we have and replaces it with assumption and conjecture. SF PS Hi Asc thanks for the pointers I knew I knew that passage about the narrow passages, couldn't remember where it was for the life of me and good point about the Carthage thing

Cato We can agree to disagree on Polybius, but as a note I didn't say that he got the structure of the constittion wrong, merely the practice, what he saw was an ideal and what he failed to see was that that ideal was very easily corrupted. As to what it has to do woith ambitu - everything and I have to say I am surprised you cannot see that - but in short ambitu is corruption and I am claiming that Polybius failed to see the corruption endemic in the structure of the system , namely the problem of personal ambition and lets face it he wrote extensively about people like Flamininus so he had ample opportunity to spot the flaw. Onde type of corruption is not completely seperate from another after all, they are all symptoms of a general malaise. As to how did secret voting increase bribery. Ok the problem with non-secret voting was not bribery, it was pressure. This bit is bit lengthy but I think it is neccessary to answer this question - so I apologise in advance. Rome was an extremely hierarchical system, the very fact that the majority of Rome's citizens were considered the mob and that the the high ups who did not want reform called themselves the Opitmates should give some idea of that. Cicero complained about the end of the secret ballot in his work on the Laws ( I am going from the version in Lewis and Reinhold as I have nothing else to hand) saying that the end of it stopped the nobles (for want of a better term) being able to exert their influence on the ordinary people (III. 33 - xvii. 39 as given in L&R). Bear in mind most people would have been part of a client relationship. These relationships would not have been neccesarily concrete but they would have been used at elections. Also when magistrates were being elected they had backers and these backers were extremely influential men who would have made sure that their clients voted the way they wanted them too. My point is that bribery was not neccessary. You have forgotten a very impotant part of Roman society's structure Cato. OK so why does this have any effect on ambitu? When they could not bring pressure to bear they had to resort to other means. The pressure of open ballots had been very real, with people voting the way their betters wanted them to. We live in a more or less classless society and so it is easy to forget just what influence these high ups had over the ordinary citizens. But with this influence gone they had to find another way. This coincided with the problems of the early Second Century, i.e. many poor italians (OK no voters there) and citizens being forced off the land and swelling the numbers of the jobless poor in Rome. They sold their votes to the highest bidder and this practice only continued to increase through the last century of the Republic. Cicero said that you could tell which voters and agitators were which by knowing what kind of men they were. We are here talking about gangsters and criminals, although Cicero could be a bit of an old woman about such things I can imagine that there were quite a few well-known agitators for sale etc. It was Crassus who said that you had to make three fortunes in your year abroad by the way and he knew what he was talking about. Magistrates only held office for a year and there were quite a lot of them, that is a lot of elections, and a lot of money for the poor. As to whether or not candidates could rely on the getting in after the money had been paid, the "enforcers" as we shall call the men with the money would have something to say if they counted the number of votes they should have bought before the election and predicted a victory and then lost the election, more importantly they would have made sure that the voters knew this. By the middle of the First Century there were armed gangs in the streets of Rome in the pay of politicians. As to the death penalty - check up on the trials for bribery - no executions - although there were convictions - exile was the ultimate price for a convicted Senator not execution, certainly for bribery. Here again Polybius is guilty of mistaking the ideal for the practice. The reason? - possibly he finished his histories at the end date of 145 although they were probably written sometime after 129 and before 118 (after which he died v soon we think). So although the law had changed by this time (secret voting had come in) he may not have lived to see the effects, but I can tell you he would not have lived to see the death penalty used for election bribery. I will let you know when I find some bribery cases. Now I really must go to work. Cheers SF

I don't know about that, this place is actually about 2 miles from me. It desperately needs conservation work. It has been mainly excavated by an enthusiastic although q. skilled amateur (not me! I have no skills!). Why should selling it to a private individual mean that it will not be open to the public? Even if one of our national heritage bodies owned it you would be charged to see it (rightly so - its not free to conserve), there would be a gift shop etc etc. In the hands of a private individual they will probably do the same. In fact I would rather see it in private hands from what I have seen of heritage conservatio in this area. This is 1066 country, where the Battle of Hastings took place ( which I am going to assume most of you know about). The Abbey on the battlefield is very well managed by English Heritage, but it isn't earth shattering in its presentation although its historically astonishingly important. In the town we also have a musuem of shops, privately owned, it is a tourist attraction and it is fantastic, it has won many awards and is a real labour of love, although it undoubtedly makes a lot of money. Nearby we have some smugglers caves, which again are privately owned and brilliantly presented. We need to keep people interested in their history and to do that we need to really bring it alive, I sometimes think this is done with more orginality and flair by the private sector. I think that we can control what the private sector does to our heritage but I see no reason why they shouldn't make money out of it too, shouldn't people be rewarded for their work? By the way, the place is not attached to a vill or anything and currently stands under a platic roof in a wood, where no-one can see it as it gently moulders away. It is thought to have been an army baths probably for washing off after a hard day iron mining. I have an open cast iron mine face and two old roman quarries on the farm. They have been dug and surveyed and we found almost sweet FA, interesting, but now they are just part of the farm again, and one is under an orchard, even though I am a classical historian I say that life has to move on. Italy would starve if you stopped them doing anything where there was some archaeology SF

A couple of things here in reply to that one Cato: bribery had not been neccessary in the days when voting was not secret, which I believe was not until 139BC. If voting was not secret bribery was both to an extent pointless and uneccessary. Secondly I have some difficulty with your choice of Polybius for this one. Polybius was well known for having actually NOT understood the Roman Constitution. Something which I have always found puzzling as he lived so close to the centre of power during his time in Rome. There are various things that are actually wrong with Polybius' assessment of the Constitution. In summary, Polybius thought that it was a near perfect system Senate, People and Consuls each balancing each other and providing a check on each other's power. However, to any but the most casual of observers it was clear that this was not the case and that in fact personal ambition and the structure of the cursus honorum meant that what was normal was in fact the excercise of Senatorial power in the cause of their own interests. We are talking here about a time before Optimates and Populares. For one example of what I mean we can scroll forward slightly from Polybius to the middle of the Second Century and see that the work of Tiberius Gracchus was effectively stymied first by having a Senate stooge as one of the fellow tribunes (Octavius), which was quite normal; and then, once the legislation was eventually forced through, by the studied absence of the consul needed to rule on problems arising from it (Appian 1.19 where the consul embarks on the task and then leaves because he realises how difficult it is). I have no argument with the point that bribery became increasingly common, or at least increasingly obvious, and that this led to a greater number of trials, but to say that the system was fairly uncorrupt before is stretching my belief beyond the point of snapping and to say that Polybius understood the constitution is to fly in the face of quite a lot of scholarly thought on the matter. For instance - the death penealty for bribery? technically yes, in practice no, not at all, a massive fine or exile. Also have you considered the fact that we know very little about large parts of the Fourth and Third Centuries as we lack much source material? True sumptuary laws were often repeated, and true it doesn't prove that an expensive fish corrupts the dinner guests BUT it does prove that large fish were being eaten and that it was so widespread it was not possible to stamp out. Also the other thing with both the consumption of lavish dinners and electoral bribery is that they are essentially very difficult to catch someone doing essentially they rely on informants. One of the reasons why these cases become more prevalent in the Late Republic is because frankly everything was going to hell on a handbike, the political system was more sharply divided and because corruption, self-interest and violence had become so much more a part of Roman political life. However, self-interest was written into the cursus honorum and always had been, bribery was nothing new. The lack of respect for the political system did make it more prevalent and more public though. As did the availability of more money for those handing out the bribes. There are a raft of interconnected reasons. I take your point about the effectiveness of bribery but I would just say supposing you are Joe Pleb, man on the via and two blokes ask you to vote one gives you 50 Asses one gives you a 100. Who do you reckon it might just serve your interests better to have in power? SF

Just a side note here, ritual scarifices made a difference because they made a difference to when things were done ergo they made a real physical difference to practice and to crop yields. Secondly just a note on the ambitu thing, has no-one heard of the saying in Rome that to win office you needed to make three fortunes one to win office, one to defend yourself at your bribery trial and one for yourself? Bribery was a huge thing in Rome, the system was riddled with corruption at every level. We are all here assuming that the bribery was paid pre-election, people are not that stupid all the time! How about "If I get in then I will enrich you, favour you for office etc etc?" Also what about client relationships. There is no evidence to suggest that clients were the yes men they are portrayed to have been, some clients would have been traditional and based on geography like Pompey's from his home town, but others would have been made through trade and through the exercise of political power, or during military service. The repeated laws show that not only was it a problem, but that it was so endemic that that it was impossible to stamp out. Romans had to expend huge amounts on bribery, they didn't do this for their own health. To assume that they spent money in the mistaken belief that they were securing votes is to patronise one of the purest political systems the world has ever seen. Not something any of us are in a position to do.

The cost in the UK is between 8 and 15k sterling per year (for non-Uk citizens for Uk citizens it is about 3,500), it takes a minimum of three years to do your PhD over here. Most universities in the UK will offer a PhD programme. Getting it done in three years is tough, it comes down to picking the topic wisely. You will need a good degree, 2:1 equivalent or better. Unis over here with very good archaeology departments include Reading, Southampton, Britsol, York, Durham and of course Oxford and Cambridge. Hope that helps. SF

Actually Rome was quite late to mint money in comparison to the Greek South of Italy. Right a quick run down of Italy before the Romans, not all of this is exactly gospel I warn you. Magna Graecia - Basically what we would think of as Southern Italy, sort of Naples downwards. Q a sophiscticated society that was a mixture of Oscan and Greek speaking peoples (it had once been Etruscan but they were swamped by Greeks). Extensive trading systems and coinage pretty early on, terriories include Campania, Lucania, Bruttium and Apulia principally Samnium : In terms of the boot in the middle at the height of the ankle Then there are some small but important peoples in the middle the Frentani, The Marsi, the Paeligni As you go further North the area around Rome was called Latium and then you go further up into Etruria and the Sabine Territory. Why the rundown? Well Italy was not unified before the Social war and so there was an enormous amount of variation across the penisula. However, the Etruscans are probably who Rome had to thank for many things o do with the form of governement, symbols like the Fasces (the axe in the bunch of rods) are etruscan for instance. Purple cothing as a symbol of power is Etrusan as well.Archaeologically speaking there were Villanovan huts on the Palatine hill. The villanovan culture was the forerunner of the Etruscan culture. If you have access to a good library I suggest you check out Scullard's The Etruscan Cities and Rome or any decent history of early Rome. Its a good question tyou ask though, how does a new civilization arrange its government? In general though, we look with the benefit of hindsight at the points in history where new civilizations arise. Like the start of livy for the start of Rome etc, but in reality they are ususally splinter groups from something else or a continuation of something. Pre-Roman Italy is fascinating though when you look at it with an eye to what made the Romans the way they were.

Just FYI here is Appian's account of the meeting between the triumvirs before the proscriptions (taken from the Penguin Classics translation, typos all my own!) BC IV.5 "They marked down not only the powerful men they mistrusted, but also their own private foes. In exchage they surrendered their own relations and friends to each other, both then and later. Extra names were constantly added to the list, some from enmity, others only because they had been a nuisance, or were friends of enemies, or enemies of friends, or were notably wealthy.....The point was reached where a person was proscribed because he had a fine house in town or country. The total of those condemend to death and confiscation of property was about 300 senators and 2,000 equestrians. These included brothers and uncles of the men who proscribed them and of their subordinates, if they had done anything to offend the leaders or these subordinates" on the other hand my namesake was no ****** cat either Appian's description of his proscriptions follows. " With these words he immediately proscribed about forty senators and 1,600 of the equestrian class. He seems to have been the first to publish a list of those he punished with death, and to add a statement detailing a prize for killers, rewards for informers, and penalites for concealment. Soon he added other Senators names to the list...." There then follows a sorry tale of woe about the punishments meted out across Italy, especially to the rich, for colusion with Sulla's enemies. Now I like Sulla enormously...obviously. He was not perfect, but he had style, and he was man of principle and everything he did he did for the preservation of the Republic. That's what sets him apart for me. He was ambitious but he was not entirely self-serving like Pompey, or as arrogant as Caesar, or dishonorable like many of the Opitmates.

I think depending on which version you go with the effect he was aiming for was either (Plutarch Appian) we must show our intentions, is time to get on with it or (traditional) right well that's shown our cards the game's afoot

A sense a little bit of modern cultural bias creeping in here... Remember we may all be fully paid up pacifists but to a Roman war was the only true way of winning Glory and glory was what what it was all about and seen as very honourable. Having said that civil war was seen as a terrible thing. However, and there are many threads about this up here somewhere I am sure so I won't go on. Civil war under the Republic was entirely ineviytable due to some inherent weaknesses in the system the most obvious one being that the whole thing hinged and ran on personal ambition. SF

Very true, another big player in the slavery of Ancient Rome was the impact of military service. The military levy required large quantities of men, this removed them from society and the economy. As many as 25% of the male population between the ages of 17 and 30 were in the army on campaign at any time. This meant that for large landowners ( the ancient world was an overwhelmingly agricultural economy) free labour always carried with it the risk of losing men to the draft. Slaves were not drafted. Men were willing to go into the army for the spoils of war during the Republic and the early part of the Imperial period. However, as time wore on, and especially after the Third Century Anarchy (a period of some fifty years and utter turmoil) men became less willing to join up as the length of service grew and the opportunities for getting rich dwindled. In fact at this point serfdom started to take hold as people looked to local landowners to protect them from military service. It also has to be remembered that the majority of slaves were male. This means in practice that whereas a free man may have a large family to support a slave did not and this did help to make them cheaper. A lot of our assumptions about the economic viability of slave labour have been based on erroneous assumptions about the high cost of slaves. I would dispute that most unskilled manual slave labour was expensive. I would say more but I have yet to publish this...when I do I will provide full backing for my argument (don't hold your breath though - we tweed wearers are notoriously slow!) SF

Actually that map is very good. There is also some interesting stuff about the archaeology of many of the Italian towns. Again its in Italian but if anyone finds anything interesting they don't understand I would be happy to provide a quick rough translatation. Thanks Silentium Cheers SF

Hi All I have a real poser for someone. I am trying to compare prices in the Republic. I am fine on sesterces denarii asses etc. However, I have a price in quadrigati. I know what and when they were but have no idea what they were worth relative to other coin types. I have tried the various dictionaries and numismatics sites to no avail, so now i am throwing myself on someone else's mercy. Any help out there?????? I'll give ya a denarius? SF