sullafelix

Are you not also leaving off the sanctity of the Tribune of the Plebes as a key element? Right or wrong, it still played a major role. Good points both and there's more! Pompey was awarded the sole consulship not just because Cato wished him to stand Rome's ground against Caesar but also because there was terrible violence in the city at that time. This was another special command given to Pompey, were the Senate supposed to stand aside and allow the city to fall to the riots? Whatever their cause they needed to be sorted out, and one of the best things to do not only for public order but also for public confidence was to put Pompey in charge. Caesar I have no doubt was aiming at tyranny by this point...it is conceivable that Pompey was still only looking for acceptance and preeminence. Cato was a principled man, personally i think Caesar was less so.

Absolutely..another thing that changed was time..in the early days of the empire a lot of the wars were self defence..then there was the booty of empire. But service changed it got longer and they weren't often close enough to get leave. Then the borders of the empire were fixed and there was little booty, it was about then that people first started lopping their thumbs off (did happen - yup). By the time of the third century anarchy people's loyalties had really started to change and rather than having a central loyalty to Rome often people had a more pressing loyalty to the local big wig on grounds of self defence. This is when we see the start of the feudal system. That's the really really short answer but the thumb thing did happen (I might have done it rather than serve 10 years or more in the Roman army!)

Hmm a tricky question I know that sme of the north of Italy was populated by 'Celtic' invaders but as to where the rest of the migrations came from I don't know. If I were you though I would start looking at some anthropology sites they are your best bet!

For some source material stuff on this look in Pliny's Natural History, Strabo's Geography and early books of Livy. Remember when reading dource material there is no distinction made between voting tribe and cultural tribe so be careful

was this just for loyalties sake, because they looked fetching with their big handlebar moustaches or because of a tradition?I seem to remember something about the tradition of a Gallic bodyguard going back to Augustus (or is that Horsecr*p?)

Tribes can be confusing, don't get them mixed up with the coting tribes of Rome which were different. The Etruscans were of course their own civilisation descended from the Villanovans. In the South of Italy a lot of the influence was Greek and so parts of the area are often referred to in textbooks as Magna Graecia. To add to the list of the tribes and Peoples though. There were also the Umbrians (central), the ligurians (late conquest top left hand edge) One of the easiest ways to look at who was most closely related to who is by looking at language. A lot of Italy spoke Oscan, some spoke Greek and the rest Latin http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/ital/ita.html check out this site for a useful little map of thr languages spoken and when

I take your point about india. However, remember India wanted out. Right up until the end of the empire the barbarians generally wanted in. In terms of using troops these were only ever strategically placed to maintain order against threats from without, not for the threat of force from within. When Rome orgiginally declared the freedom of the Greeks she had to garrison some towns against the continuing threat of Philip V. Greece is a very interesting issue in fact, Greece came to Rome for advice and for her to arbitrate in internal struggles as well as for defence against Macedon. Rome's conquest of Greece demonstrates her conquest by hegemony style that is actually more more like the current US hegemony than the Britsh empire. Later on under Lucullus the empire was expanded becase people wanted to join. This was always more the case in the more sophisticated eastern end of the mediterranean. Rather like the American Dream the pax Romana was an aspirational destination that came as a two edged sword. Internally if a town was naughty and rebelled they were generally sold into slavery and the town recolonised like Capua after Hannibal.

Thanks Pertinax I will check that out

I am sure that loads of you know that malaria was a big problem for the Romans and it has been proposed as one of the reasons why Tiberius Gracchus found Etruria deserted when he went through in the latter half of the Second Century BC. But I was wondering if anyone knows where malaria got to? I am wondering if it got as far North as say Liguria, does anyone know? Is it or was it present in any other mediterranean countries..all help would be gratefully recieved Oops my apologies tiredness got the better of me I meant to post this in Romana Humanitas..I am sure one of you will oblige and move me!

This is a bit of a bone of contention at the moment. There are two schools of thought one says that the slave run estates took over the countryside, the other (which is archaeologically driven) says that the evidence supports the survuval of subsistence level farming to an large degree. Its a fascinating area at the moment (my area of research so I would say that!) lots going on and many a good argument to be had! Personally I think that there is a lot more to be discovered but I suspect that we may have been looking at it in the wrong way!

Have a look at the Vindolanda tablets from the fort of the same name on Hadrain's wall. there are things like complaints about the weather and requests for thicker socks. Quite illuminating

Oh I agree, by Caesar's time, the Republic did not have much of any power. Just keep in mind that the Republic of Caesar and the Republic of before...even before Sulla, was quite different. Hmm, I would take issue with that. Surely Caesar's Gallic legions were originally voted him by the Republic?Admittedly his command was extended by the informal alliance between Pompey Crassus and himself but it was not until Caesar and Pompey fell out that the Republic lost all power, it was in fact the machinations of the Optimates that really pitched Rome into civil war. As for who paid the army I was always under the impression that they were paid by the state (later this was sometimes not while they were on campaign but after their return) but their loyalty was to their general because it was their general who decided the rules of booty and his skill at picking good targets and affinity with the needs of his troops that partly dictated how much they would make. Booty was far more important to soldiers than their regular army pay because it could amount to far more. It was the main reason why people were willing to sign up in the Republic.

It wasn't the size of the empire that caused it to fall apart. Are you comparing the later empires to the Roman one, because if so it carries some serious problems. The British empire, for example, attempted to keep control by military occupation the Roman empire did not work like that. The Roman empire was very definitely an exponential process, it ended up in control of Greece because it felt it had little alternative, as it grew later it certainly became much more of a controlled and intentional process but the beginning was not like that and it was the start that formed the shape of the rest of the empire.

I'm not sure of this. Cato, dealing with a farm staffed by slaves, tells you how to word the contract when you hire a gang to pick olives or harvest the grapes. The reason is not necessarily that these were skilled jobs, rather that they demanded a lot of labour for a short period. You may have something there, I have just reread the passage and I think that all bets may be off on this being evidence of free labour. On reading it closely I notice that only two thirds have to be pickers, the rest presumably are overseers and other associated tasks like basket menders people transporting the baskets. It may be that it was a profitable business to run gangs of slaves for this purpose. It is an interesting point because often this passage is used to show that there was quite a lot of free labour used even on slave run estates. It has raised a whole load of interesting questions for my research. I know that there was free skiled labour by the way (Pliny mentions it for a start I'll find a reference). Mainly free labour would have been engaged in the sorts of jobs that were one offs or annual. I can think of vine training on tall trees planting specialist crops, capturing birds that sort of thing. Quite often the sort of thing that is still contracted out today..thanks for that though it has really made me think Sulla

Defense in depth? Do you mean how the size of the empire established a feeling of giving a buffer and or safety net if you will that would slow down or halt an invading force long enough for a major Roman army to confront the threat? Or am I missing your point completely? I'm a little confused. I thought defense in depth was something the romans did earlier, not later. It was during the empire that perimeter defense became the norm surely? Or did that that change toward the end? Sorry just to clear this up. defence in depth was a policy initiated under the Antonines. It was further refined by the Severi and at the end it was the norm. It works like this you fix and fortify you borders then split the army into two types. Legions stationed at strategic points within the empire and limitanei or frontier troops manning the defences. The advantages are that you have a highly mobile army. The disdavantage is that half your army is rotting on the frontiers slowly becoming more farmer than soldier while the barbarian hordes ravage across huge swathes of the frontier. It also means that you have legions stationed in Italy from where they pose as much threat to Rome as they do the enemy.

Age 35 Gender F Occupation; part time lecturer and school teacher Yup I think it is there is no way you can prove a link but I the wya I see it firstly it helps with the ghastly me first culture that we have developing ans secondly it desensitises the viewer

I think one of the main factors in the growth of the empire was that it was an exponential process. It had a lot to do with their military prowess which was impressive and after the Latin wars they had subjugated their immediate area and surrounding tribes. However, when Rome subjugated an area she did two things that were extremely important in the growth of her territory not just physically but also in terms of influence: Firstly she would confiscate some territory and turn into ager romanus, then she would sign a treaty which would normally impose a great deal of Roman influence sometimes she would impose Roman law (I'll come back to this) and sometimes it would just be trade and marriage regulations (commercium and conubium) and an undertaking to provide a levy of troops to serve with the army. Her treaties were not all the same and worked pretty much on a Greek polis like structure, this meant that different statuses were conferred on different peoples and towns. Thus the highest statuses became aspirational goals for towns in her area of influence. Next she would often establish colonies on some of the confiscated territory, this helped with the maintenance of order (they were military in purpose) and also promoted the process of Romanisation in the area. Thirdly she would build roads and other infrastructure which vastly improved the lives of those they affacted as well as making the ovement of troops more possible. She also had a policy of supporting the local elites in her conquered territory so that she could get tax from them with the least difficulty. This meant that effectively Rome became the arbitrator of local disputes (which is definitely what happened with the Greeks). It also of course helped to shatter the traditional social structure. When someone sorts out all your squabbles for you you become unable to do it for yourselves (try Plinys letters on this one, its a bit later but it shows you what had happened to the Greek east by the Fisrt Century AD) Finally because the Roman mind is a legal one they often provided frameworks for trade and law etc that were far in advance of anything their peoples could produce and therefore they adopted Roman law which further aided the process of Romanisation. You can see all these processes at work in Rome's unification of Italy first off (Read Livy especially the books about the Hannibalic War) and then later on they used the same processes to conquer the rest of the world. That isn't all there is to it of course but it is the nuts and bolts of how they first found the process. The most interesting thing is the fact that military occupation is the one thing that is completely absent as a long term method of maintaining control. basically they almost stumbled upon a very efficient method of maintaining control. In the Greek East for instance all the different statuses of the towns and cities caused them to squablle with each jealously rather than with Rome who they went to sort out the squabbles ...masterly! Does that seem reasonable guys>

I have put it down to economic collapse. However, I have a close run second which is not up there, and that is the policy of defence in depth..what does anyone else think?

Hullo Dr Heather Thanks for joining us here I was wondering I realise that Late Paganism influenced early Christianity to quite an extent but was this actually two way traffic and was late paganism influenced by early Christianity? Thanks

I am not denying that a certain amount of slave breeding went on at all. However, in the Republican countryside this was not the main source of slaves. Also the skilled jobs even on large slave run estates were often done by hired free labour.

Along those lines I would just like to add the easily ignored fact of heatstroke, less of a problem in Northern Gaul perhaps where hypothermia might be the issue. I mean its a bit exposed up there really isn't it?

"To prevent chafing: When you set out on a journey, keep a small branch of Pontic wormwood under the anus." Cato the Elder was a real hoot, no? Rustic as they come, possibly mean as they get too, but always a hoot. Personally, and no flattery intended here, he remains the favourite of all my research sources. There's something so jolly about his slave keeping practices and his recipes.

How true two of my favourites are planting turnips naked by moonlight praying and this gem from Cato which I will give in the original Latin because I am sure some kind soul will translate it pretty quickly but the process of translating it made me laugh heartily (I don't get out much) and I wouldn't want to deprive you! If no-one translates it fairly pronto I will...promise Intertrigini remedium: In viam cum ibis, apsinthi Pontici surculum sub anulo habeto Sulla Felix

here's a thought...what did they call twin girls to differentiate between them...I don't suppose we know but it just occurred..any ideas anyone? Maior and minor would seem to be out

I would have to take issue with that Kosmo. I speak only for the Republican era though I have to say. The Republic was the begining of large scale slavery in Italy and as such most rural slaves were from abroad. We have source evidence of this from the Gracchan period and Varro also records the desirability of slaves from Greece. Secondly (and I wish I had the reference for this nugget of information on me but wrong desk!) rural slaves had a life expectancy of something under two years, so no breeding programme would keep up with that, they must have been being brought in from abroad. Everybody from Brunt to Rathbone to Toynbee has estimated the slave population of Italy at this time and it is thought with some degree of accuracy at least to the point of being able to give us some idea of the proportion (this is of course a difficult area as the population of Augustan Rome is hotly contested!). Finally breeding programmes on farms are particularly difficult because the gender mix is wrong only the foreman usually had a wife provided for him. In farming of course small children are unproductive because you have to grow even more unprofitable crops to feed them as well (read my previous post) and bad years on the farm preclude breeding livestock so in all liklihood in the Republican era the vast majority of rural slaves (and they were the vast majority of slaves)were first generation. Sulla Felix