sullafelix

Good point here! These slaves were often also kept in Ergastula (rural slave prisons) not nice places. Yes it is said that Cato worked alongside his slaves, but there is also an argument to say that this is mainly a literary/cultural device. If we look back at the story of Cincinnatus Livy iii.26 (ish off the top of my head) there is a strong literary tradition of great Romans working their own fields. I daresay they did, however, there is a strong case for saying that Cato was merely harking back here to those days, with the great roman tradition of nostalgia, and also in the same vein that if he did work his own fields it was mainly for show to exactly the same end. Cato's famous austerity and "roman-ness" in these ways helped to make him a great Roman legend that represented what it was to be a true Roman within a few years of his death. I think Cato was well aware that he was trying to present an ideal. As to the lack of evidence that slaves were brutally treated I disagree. Often if we try to say that slavery was brutal, and that life was often short and violent for slaves then we are told that we are looking at slavery through the eyes of modern morality. That is not what I am trying to do here, however, there has been too much of a swing to justify slavery by those of us who are Romanophiles. Roman slavery was among the most brutal the world has ever seen. Mention in the sources is rare, but much can be inferred from the structure of Roman slavery and the slave trade itself. There is some mention in the sources that I can think of though. Here is a bit from Plautus' Asinaria (545-56) LEONIDA Great praise and thanks we give deservedly to perfidy, when relying upon our tricks, our stratagems, and our devices, upon our confidence in our shoulder-blades and the hardihood resulting from the elm-twigs so oft applied, against the whips, the searing-irons, the crosses, and the fetters, the cords, the chains, the prisons, the stocks, the shackles, the collars, and taskmasters most cruel and well acquainted with our backs, who many a time before have imprinted(556) scars upon our shoulder-blades Then there is this from Diodorus Siculus about the reasons for the Sicilian slave revolts (34/5 2.1-2) 1. When Sicily, after the Carthaginian collapse, had enjoyed sixty years of good fortune in all respects, the Servile War broke out for the following reason. The Sicilians, having shot up in prosperity and acquired great wealth, began to purchase a vast number of slaves, to whose bodies, as they were brought in droves from the slave markets, they at once applied marks and brands. 2. The young men they used as cowherds, the others in such ways as they happened to be useful. But they treated them with a heavy hand in their service, and granted them the most meagre care, the bare minimum for food and clothing. As a result most of them made their livelihood by brigandage, and there was bloodshed everywhere, since the brigands were like scattered bands of soldiers and again this: (34/5 2.10) 10. There was a certain Damophilus of Enna, a man of great wealth but insolent of manner; he had abused his slaves to excess, and his wife Megallis vied even with her husband in punishing the slaves and in her general inhumanity towards them. The slaves, reduced by this degrading treatment to the level of brutes, conspired to revolt and to murder their masters. Going to Eunus they asked him whether their resolve had the favour of the gods. He, resorting to his usual mummery, promised them the favour of the gods, and soon persuaded them to act at once. Then of course there are the repeated slave revolts, Spartacus et al. I fail to see how there is a lack of source material for this. The slaves were discontent, and for good reason, they were often mistreated. If we go back to the animal analogy the treatment of animals depends entirely on the humanity of the owner. What would be wrong would be to impose a motivation of a desire for freedom for freedom's sake on revolting slaves, that would be a modern construct. Which makes it all the more likely that the sources are entirely correct when they give mistreatment as the main reason for the slaves' actions. I have limited the sources used to those covering the Republican era out of respect for the main subject of this thread but there are others too.

Salve, SF! If you are talking about domestic slaves (and if they were lucky), we (and maybe their owners) may considere them as pets. But as it seems that Cato was talking about rustical slaves, then you're right indeed; they weren't pets. They were cattle. Never been convinced about this urban slave/pet thing myself. OK there were some faitful old retainer types but in general although the duties were lighter the legal position remained the same, as did the attiutude. Classical, especially Roman slavery was absolutely brutal. I personally think far too many modern classicists have tried to put a decent gloss on it. You only have to look at things like the fact that no slave's evidence in court was admissable unless they had previously been tortured. Varro's description of rural slaves as tools with voice pretty much covers the country slave poor sods!

lhwrsaswreuinoabeon fraid mines a longy

I have some info for you on this one. Firstly the law of Romulus only applies to males and the firstborn female (Dionysius of Halicarnassus ii.15). There was no legal objection to exposing the rest of the female children. There is at least one reference in literature from the Republican Era that comes to mind. Plautus puts it in as an integral part of "Casina " (Or a Atrategem Defeated). Its in the prologue line 41 where someone observes an infant girl being exposed. It could be argued that Pautus is using Greek Comedy as a model BUT and it is a big BUT Plautus had be talking about something with which his audience was familiar. I think the argument is fairly persuasive, there is a lot in Plautus that has been changed from the Greek model in order to be familiar to a Roman audience. It is logical that the same applies in reverse and that he would have removed things that would have appeared unfamiliar to a Roman audience. If you have access to it check out P.A. Brunt's Italian Manpower (a more powerful sleeping drug has yet to be written I warn you!) pages 148-154. Hope that helps

This appeared in The Times a couple of days ago...made me chortle anyway enjoy Nasty shock for lead thieves as Caesar

Oops my bad about the Plutarch, although it is in there too. There is case to say that the De Ag is ore theory than practice in some areas, this would be one of them I suspect.

Indeed point taken, but a slave is not a pet, re-homing old dogs is difficult because they cost money. A worn out slave was likely to be false economy is what I'm saying here I guess. Also a slave's progression through work and age was likely to take him to some very menial and light duties job. For instance opening the door is an attested one. This can be done by a pretty decrepit old soul. In an urban setting this was in fact pretty normal. In a rural setting an old or sick slave is little or no use. A poor family could not have taken the risk of an unproductive mouth to feed. On the latifundia old age was not likely to be reached anyway, they were often like forced labour camps.

Cool cheers

Hmm this is a question I have been forced to ponder myself in the course of work on the grat sourpuss, and this one question keeps coming to mind: Sell his old broken down slaves to whom exactly? One wonders what the price for a broken ancient and or disease raddled slave might be and in what market place? I tend to wonder whether this was not more theory than practice. He does not talk of turning them out, but of selling them. I think that there is perhaps some typical Plutarch hyperbole in this aspect of Cato's life. What do you guys reckon?

Just a little addendum here on Roman Grain types. They did grow mainly wheat where possible, keeps well, crops heavily, makes nice bread etc. However, they also grew Spelt and barley according the soil and climate types locally. Spelt makes a a very rough bread as (and this is if memory serves me correctly so don't sue me if I am wrong!) the grain cannot be husked. Spelt was grown as an emergency crop. Try this for a taster, you can still buy Spelt flour in Wholefood shops Roman Army Bread Recipe 1 pounds Spelt flour 1 teaspoon Salt 3 tablespoon Olive oil 15 gram Fresh yeast 400 millilitre Warm water (35-40C) 1 teaspoon Honey enjoy

I am looking for sources on equestrian (equites/eques) landholdings in the Second Century BC in Italy (nothing too specific hey?) Does anything spring to mind for anyone? Third Century would be even better. I need to be able to quantify their wealth or at least their realtive wealth to the rest of the population. Basically I just need enough information to have a stab at proving the affordability of slaves in agriculture at this time. There is nothing in Velleius Paterculus and precious little in Livy. I don't think Tenney Frank has the right information. Any ideas anyone??

Do you know if there is anything online as yet. I have got to trawl through stuff at random at the moment looking for stuff relating to land ownership. Has any kind soul made the sorting of the CIL their life's work yet The lazy and opitimistic grad student strikes again

How about Fulvia..I am quite willing to do her bio...?

I think this is a fabulous idea in general. I can see how it would prove very useful and interesting. Might I suggest anther topic as well, because this is one that university students (mine anyway!!) would find very useful The Gracchi I suggest this because it is certainly one of the most contentious areas in Roman Republican History and certainly one of the most frequently studied at University or College.

Civil war is particularly decimating for a population for many reasons. Perhaps the first thing to say about it is that it is not really casualties that we need to think about in terms of the effect on populations. The real effect is the reduction in fertility. men of reproductive age die removing their reproductive potential and and those that are not killed are often not able to reproduce. Similarly women have no access to men and well without that as we all know.... the Roman Census was taken at infrequent enough intervals to show up this sort of discrepancy. Secondly civil war decimates the land of both sides further causing malnutrition and death. Malnutrition is also a major factor in fertility. Thirdly the effects of civil war are also punitive for the losing side, even if the losing side make up part of the overall population. Caesar was very forgiving but there were many exiles and suicides in the time following the war. Appian is the other main primary source on the Civil Wars. However, if you want information on the population the place to go is, unfortunately because it is famously unreadable!!, P>A> Brunt's Italian Manpower. The other ones you should have a look at are E. Lo Cascio Journal of Roman Studies (JRS) "The Size of the Roman Population: Beloch and the Meaning of the Augustan Census Figures" (1994) Vol 84 , Keith Hopkins "Conquerors and Slaves" and also anything written by Walter Scheidel ( of which there are a series of articles also contained in the Journal of Roman Studies in 2004/5 for a modern approach to demographic modelling in the classical world (also mainly journal articles). I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with Scheidel myself for various reasons but he is certainly an important scholar in this area. Hope this helps SF

It's still tattoed on my ankle does that count?

This is a very interesting thread. However, I wouldn't say that the case for an exponential growth rate in population is anything like proven either. Also I would exercise caution before taking on board what Rosenstein has to say about crops in his book. It is simply not true to say that a subsistence farmer would not put all his eggs in one basket and grow only one crop. In fact subsistence farmers are very likely to do this. On a small plot it is almost impossible to grow enough of anything to feed the family especially something that will store and provide a staple food. Look at the Irish Potato Famine. There were famines from time to time and they would have affected mortality. He also uses the model life tables of Coale and Demeney which I think are very inaccurate for looking at ancient civilisations and certainly cannot be used to show things like age distribution in ancient societies despite a current fashion for using them. ( There is a reason for this but it is long and involved!) One of the things I would say about this topic in general is that although it would be nice to know the Roman population we almost certainly never will. The data collected in ancient times was reasonably accurate but we do not really know who it covered and also we do not the levels of motivation for either dodging the census or in seeking to be censed when you had no right to be. Using model life tables as Rosentstein and many other modern historians do is just compounding inaccuracy and ignorance with error and calling it progress... :mellow:

Going back a bit I know, but what about the Metelli - let's face it - if there was a pie their fingers were in it up to the bottom knuckle for hundreds of years....

Do you have access to a classics library of any kind (ie. are you a uni student?) If so I would reccomend Kathryn Lomas excellent source book on Roman Italy. also the following" Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman world 140BC to 70BC" by Keith Bradley I would help you further but frankly its not my area either sorry!

You don't think Sullas aims were the recuperation of the republic ? Seems to me all his political reforms had that in mind, the danger came when they were overturned. Another thread perhaps. I heartily agree (well I would wouldn't I?) Might I suggest that if you want a really informed opinion on the whole Sulla thing Valerius that you ask the expert we have at the moment. Dr Keaveney literally wrote the book on it...but I would of course welcome a seprate thread discussion about my erstwhile namesake.

I voted for Late Republic although to be fair I go from middle to Late Republic. I have passing interest in the Julio-Claudians but hen no interest until we get to Septimius Severus and then its all fascinating until the fall of Rome. So I guess I like the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end (anyone who has started to talk in paradoxes is proabably working too hard!)

Hmmm A bit of Mommsen bashing going on here I see. Well I have to admit that much as I admire the man's work I have found a couple of holes in it myself that were caused by the less rigorous methods of scholarship employed in nineteenth century. When Mommsen says "it can be assumed that...." be very cautious!!!

Thanks for the heads up. Not my area but quite a good thread to keep up though as CFPs can pass you by and some of us do need to get stuff out there from time to time. If I hear of anything will add it here!

I am intrigued by this I have to say. I know that you do acknowledge the barbarian input into the Empire at this point but I wonder whether it is not still a rather negative view. We tend to talk in terms of the barbarians destroying our beloved empire but it wasn't really like that. We know that Stilicho and Alaric both just wanted in. The archaeological context of the Roman empire especially in Gaul in the fifth century shows an enormous amount of Germanic influence from burial styles to fashions for jewellery. This was two way traffic and we should try not to be culturally biased about it. This leads to us talking about the Dark Ages in terms of collapse and destruction. In actual fact they were a time of transformation. They are Dark only because we don't know a great deal about them. In Britain there was widespread destruction of the Roman infrastructure its true. However, it could also be argued that Britain was the least romanised of all the provinces so we shouldn't judge the Dark Ages by Rome's most northerly province. I think talking in terms of complete economic breakdown as a result of the barbarians destroying the infrastructure is possibly a little old-fashioned as a view. The barbarians were extremely sophisticated people who had been trading with Rome for some 500 years and now occupied positions of great power. Economic problems had dogged the Roman Empire for as long as it had existed I know very little about the other end of the Dark Ages and what happened at the end of them, but I do think we should stop talking about the dark ages in such a negative way, that is why most archaeologists have abandoned the term with regard to Britain and now refer to sub-Roman Britain.

The Samnites are very unlikely to show much DNA link to the modern day. They were almost entirely wiped out in the First Century BC. By Oscans I assume you mean Oscan speakers and that is really hard to say because they comprised several tribes. I have to say I find the Tuscan not Etruscan discovery quite a surprise myself I would be intrigued to find out how the DNA record in ancient times compares to profiles today in some of the less popular parts of Itlay like Calabria (modern) or Puglia.