sullafelix

Big fan of price controls and feudalism are you? I know I know but you can't expect someone to a genius all the time can you?....Of course he also gave us the bureaucrat too eeek! But to have been able to pull the empire out of that hole and set it up for another century or so (in the West far longer in the East of course) was quite remarkable. The reform of the imperial cult etc all strokes of pure genius...

The chinese had waterclocks by now, and there were the candle clocks too. I expect thats how they told the time at night. The concept of time zones really only became relevant when one started to be able to travel far enough fast enough to beat the sun...not a Roman issue they were good but not that good. So no such thing as world time or local time only time Sulla felix

Quite the opposite. According to Veyne's chapter on slavery in "A History of Private Life" (pp. 54-55): Completely agree apart from one small proviso. A lot of the slaves in the Republic were first generation and this continued to be the case with rural slaves well into the Second and First Centuries BC. They were bred but many farms found bringing up slave children to be an unneccesary burden and they did not keep the gender mix required to do so anyway. Also in bad years slave infants were routinely exposed. There is mention in the agricultural writers of good slave breeding practice but it is thought that not all large farms practiced it. On a farm a child is essentially unproductive for at least the first five years of its life and that is being conservative, because even after this age there is a need for some maternal input into childrearing and that keeps the female slaves from full productivity. There is also the issue of profitability, when it is remembered that in some parts of the Empire the exchange rate for Roman goods to slaves was ludicrously low. I have often wondered whether that much slave breeding went on in reality, a slave would have to be very expensive to be more expensive than rearing one until the time came to sell it or use it. Domestic breeding programmes in urban areas are a lot more realistic as models, especially for large households and brothels but for the rural area it would seem to be that either they had to be bred as a form of livestock when prices were high enough to make it profitable or that the farms would have to buy in slaves. Also there was in the countryside quite a large amount of free non-slave labour that could be utilised when possible. The imperial age is not really my bag but I know that in the Republic we are talking about the vast majority of slaves being agricultural and thought to be first generation. Sulla Felix

I'm utterly opposed to politcal correctness and private speech codes, but there really is an enormous difference between those private sanctions and government-imposed ones. The media and pressure groups are not exercising 'thought control' anymore than you are--they are attempting to persuade others, and anyone is free to argue back, disbelieve, ignore, whatever. And they frequently do. The important point is that the media (insofar as it is deregulated) does not speak with one voice--but the State does. In my view, there is an enormous difference between a university firing Irving for his views (which is fine as far as I'm concerned) and the state putting him in jail for these views. If you don't think this difference matters, why don't you ask Irving for his opinion? I agree. Which is why I disagree. I take your point and to an extent I agree, but UI am not dure that political correctness hasn't actually become more restricitng than a central government ban. I mean and this is a trivial example, but here in blighty many of our councils are banning things like the word Christmas from Christmas celebrations, our own University (can't say which one) had a tree of light this christmas and there is very much an air of saying only what is acceptable and not courting controversy. That sort of attitude in the private world has allowed our government to get through legislation on the restriction of free speech under the guise of being anti-terrorism...it's all nuts! I think its probably a chicken and egg argument.

I would like to put myself forward (i always do) In answer to at least some of your questions 1. How I look in evening wear - am often mistaken for the marquee the event is being held in 2. Like Alaska - large white and rich in blubber 3. I can tell the least appropriate joke possible for any given occasion 4. a a stone pine b life is better than the alternatives, time is not on my side and the nature of the unverse is mysterious c by genetically engineering dogs that don't cr*p Did I win yet? Sulla

Diocletian....wow! just look at what he acheived, not only did he save the empire but he also reorganised it in a very visionary way. A very cool guy

I am intrigued by this thread. It strikes me that Austria's patently silly laws seem to be veering towards the sort of opression they are trying to atone for. I say atonement advisedly here, there is a general feeling of acute shame both in Germany and Austria. It is probably time we forgave them for what happened in the war (not forget mind you!). If we don't move on soon then I can see the neo-Nazi movements spreading. The more down you are on something, the more disaffected elements in society will back it and we run the danger of history one day repeating. As for for that bloody stupid man and his academically unsound theories he should be allowed to say whatever he wants wherever and whenever he wanst to. Partly becuase it should be his right to say so and partly because otherwise we give him exactly what he wants - publicity. The other thing about this thread is it is amazing watching the Brits and the Yanks going for each other on this whole thing. I am an anti-war Brit...just to make my stance clear. I think it was ill-conceived and poorly executed. I think that Bush has done terrorism an immense service and Blair should climb off his lap and we should stop trying to be American and get back to being European. I also think that both our governments are just using terrorism as the big bad bogeyman to control us with, we los our freedoms bit by bit day by day, one day it is ID cards and CCTV and the next it is free speech when you are not allowed to preach hate (in a truly free and fair society there would be no-one to listen to the preacher). In Britain you now cannot denigrate anyones religion and that includes jokes...we no longer live in a democracy. However, I am also appreciative of existence of the US and I understand the argument that if they are expected to do the policing of the world they should be able to have the main say in how they go about it. I disagree but I understand the case. But what truly stuns me here is the concept that you guys think you still have free speech......it isn't governments that impose thought control on us it is pressure groups and the media. Politically correct speech is one of the most pernicious evils ever to be foisted upon us. Free speech is free speech. Its not just Austria...its all of us the only way to maintain free speech is to damn well keep saying what you think...which is why this place is such a jolly good idea. Spiffing...crumpet anyone? I only have few minutes before I go to the dentist to have my teeth yellowed! Sulla Felix Freedom is not a right it is a responsibility!

All I know is that in a drunken frenzy after receiving my degree results I got SPQR tattooed on my ankle. Looks good though..I am thinking of having something else on my other ankle suggestions on a postcard please, nothing too long it does hurt a lot!

Quite so, no intellectual snob quite like a roman one...there is in fact a satire of Horaces where they take the mick out of a local town mayor for being a social climber and in fact they mock him dreadfully, laughing in his face in a way we would find repellently cruel. Their sense of humour was harsh, after all they loved nothing better in later times then to se people dressed up as clowns goading prisoners or indeed being eaten themselves in the arena...oh how we laughed!!

newborn, cold at night hot in the day no liquids my best guess something less than 16 hours in most cases, less for those abandoned at night, also remember predation by animals, not nice.. I think it was probably a romantic ideal the Greek stuff

Well there is quite a lot too it I guess so I will try and sum it up in short choppy sentences! He was not a man of the people, he was a man of the right kind of people. Anything smelly and unwashed he couldn't/wouldn't relate to. So despite being a brilliant general he was constantly trying to make sure his troops didn't rebel...this was his one big military failing and partly led to his losing the Mithridatic leadership to that upstart self-publicist Pompey He was a friend of Sulla's He was an optimates and the main reason he is een as a failure is that he retired as soon as he got back from the Mithridatic campaign (more or less). Unlike Caesar and Pomepy his friends were unable to form the right kind of platform to save his command from you see and he had a bit of a hissy fit on his return. To my mind this is understandable...you know "where the hell where you lot when I needed you?" type thing. It is rather telling that the only political business he conducted from this date onward was to come into the forum to give Pompey a hard time (ooooh he hated that man!). Then, of course, he becomes rather decadent which was abit unRoman. Most of his political stuff failed too before he went away, even when he was Consul. he was a Sullan and he failed to uphold the Sullan Constitution another black mark. That's why, but it is out of all proportion to the level of his acheivments though. I find the stuff about coming into the forum to give Pompey a hard time rather endearing really..I mean I would be furious! Sulla Felix There is an excellent book called Lucullus a Life by Arthur Keaveney on this subject but its a bit hard to track down and about $200 to buy!

Right...don't worry I have checked my info carefully before writing this time (ahem) Metics legal position metics interests in Athens were the responsibility of the Polemarch's court they were legally prostatai they had proper status though. Aristophanes mentions them Ar.Acharn.508* The when and where aspects It is reckoned that at the time of the Persians expulsion from Athens there were not a whole load of Metics there. However, an enormous upturn in the wealth of Athens and her glory days brought an influx of them so that by 431 3,000 servedwith the Athenians (Thuc.ii.31.2). It is worth remembering that to serve with the hoplites you had to be of a certain degree of substance so it is liekly that there were even more small scale traders and so on as well. The general esimate is 10k but was prob larger check out the following source references Diod.xi.43.3* about releasing metics from taxes to encourage them to come to Athens. Overall it si thought that the metics were better treated and encouraged by Athens which is why they went in such numers. Remember the cncept of a multiracial nation is new when discussing citizenship. the concept of giving citizenship to someone of a different race was alien (no pun intended!) * I haven't got all the abbreviation keys to hand sorry but if you can't get them your end let me know but there is stuff out there..sounds like an interesting paper Sulla

As I remember rightly from undergraduate courses (lost in the mists of time!) I seem to remember society being certainly divided into a warrior nobility and then the grunts. I would imagine that their priests came from the nobility in general but there is also the possibility of the mentally unstable or physically deformed also being mystics and or priests. There is a burial at Vix usually listed as the Vix Princess but it is more likely that she was a priestess and she showed some physical abnormalities as well. I think the problem here is that there is not just a lack of unbiased source material on them but also that the archaeology is difficult becuase it has been mainly obscured by Roman occupation in the earliest part. I ahve just had a quick flick through Caesar and tacitus and I can't really find anything useful to answer this question Sulla Felix

Looks to me like an ordinary execution. Why favor something as elaborate as human sacrifice? I am delving way back into the depths of my memory here but didn't some of the bog bodies have evidence of mistletoe and other ritual meal type ingredients in their stomachs?

Cato , my apologies I had not meant to associate your comments with those of tflex I wouldn't do that to you! Neos Dionysus mea culpa my bad didn't read closely enough kinda just assumed you were talking abut one of the naughty island states that revolted from time to time and had to pull down their walls etc. That said come on out and fight tflex! defend you position..ahem gosh too much caffeine methinks! Sulla

I understand your desire completely but I suspect that after the first four hours you would have wanted to smack the arrogant sanctimonious old windbag about a bit....really Personally I would love to have met Sulla (gosh what a surprise). I thnk he had a certain sense of hard edged style. Anyone who can address the Senate to the screams of the dying (he was excuting a few thousand blokes outside) with words to the effect of " I am a reasonabe man you have nothing to fear from me" may be a pyschopathic git...but he has a sense of humour, I like than in a dictator! Sulla Felix

I am not entirely sure whether I agree with this. The Athenian Empire was extensive and controlled the Ionian coast some sections of the Greek mainland and a lot of the Western Med. The glory days of the Periclean Empire were short lived, however. I can't even begin to start with where this is wrong! Firstly the Athenians were an enormous military power. They had a huge naval fleet and most of the decisive battles of the Persian wars were naval. The Spartans needed them as much if not more than they needed the Spartans. Secondly Persia wanted Sparta as much as she wanted Athens, because she had realised that if she divided Greece by conquest the Greeks would unite against here so it was here intention to have a go at Sparta too. Thirdly the brave Spartans who stood heroically at Thermopylae lost a battle that they should have easily won due to their incompetence...true. Sparta only broke with Athens in the end because she was worried that Athenian democracy might rub off on her people and stop her being able to keep her Helots down. Finally what precipitated the Second and most important of the Peloponnesian wars was the fact that the terms of the 30 year truce were ill-conceived on both sides and had led to neither Sparta nor Athens being able to expand their empires because they had left themselves with nowhere to go. The whole treay and the two opposing leagues were balanced precariously on a diplomatic knife edge. In the end Sparta probably bore the least of the blame for the Second Peloponnesian war. Athens did agitate but she was also helped in this by the fact that Corinth (Spartan) was also desperate to have an empire and wanted to precipitate a war. :fish: This is very good point and Athens was undoubtedly very heavy handed with those of her empire who wanted to get out. However, we tend these days to be too quick to judge imperialism by modern standards. The smaller states in the empire mainly wanted the protection. Small states cannot stand alone, today we have economic imperialism and small states still need it, witness at the moment the influnce the West is trying to exert over Palestine...Palestine is almost entiely reliant on Western aid...that's hegemony! In the ancient world small states needed the protection of a large empire to exist. Better heavy taxes to the Athenians than domination by the Persians. Cheers Sulla Felix Its quite refreshing to tak about the Greeks for once

I would have to go with L. Licinius Lucullus. A close friend of Sulla's (but don't hold that against him!). He was a true and noble Roman and a bloody good general. He all but won the Mithridatic campaign before Pompey took advantage and stole all the glory (nothing new there). Lucullus was a great lover of all things Greek and wept while his soldiers burnt a town he had instructed them not to. He was also furious with one of his officers when they took a notable philosopher prisoner and enslaved him against his express orders. The officer freed him but Lucullus pointed put that freedom "thus granted was a real diminuition of what he had had before". When he retired he lived well and left us his name as a byword for elegant excess. In his military heyday he expanded the Roman Empire's frontiers further than anyone before him. Cities queued up to join because of his reputation for fairness. He removed tax burdens and sorted out the finances of many peoples. He is remembered for being fat and a failure ------ Posterity Sucks! Sulla Felix

I'm with Cato on this one. There was no one province that remained the most important throughout the span of the Republic and into the Imperial age. However, the most important thing for Rome was to be able to feed her proletariat. This became increasingly difficult, for a number of reasons, for Italian farming to achieve. Before Aegytpus the province of Sicilia was important for grain and afterwards Aegyptus became increasingly crucial. Before either of these the most important piece of land to the Romans was Campania the bread basket of Italy. Sulla Felix

a stunning turn of phrase...I think you have just livened up my spelling comments on first year essays...thanks SullaFelix

Without wishing to sound like a wining git because I really do love my work...just a word about my cushy cloistered life m8! By the time I have my PhD I will have worked s*dding hard for seven years. I spend up to 14 hours a day researching and writing. I also teach both at school and at university to make ends meet. When I qualify I am not guaranteed a job by any means and when I do get one I will be paid less than most secondary school teachers. Now I enjoy what I do but there are moments and this one of them when it occurs to me that students have a very funny idea of what an academic's life is really like. These days in the UK students tend to think that because they are paying for their educations that they have right to a degree. Not so, and when you sit in front of your next lecturer and imagine their cushy life do try and remember that they have studied for a long time to get where they are with nothing but a passion for their subject and a determination to prove something to themselves to drive them on. Try demonstrating your respect by reading for a seminar or two we quite like that, also remember a University does not exist to educate you, research first students next...really. Definition of a uni lecturer someone who talks in someone else's sleep. By the way I chuck people out for falling asleep or pretending to...some of my colleagues have more arcane methods...... Right, rant over SullaFelix

Right my PhD supervisor (his latin is so much better than mine) Digestion pills antibiotics if I can't take my PhD supervisor then a modern saddle (I'd make a fortune!)

Build me a pyre and surround it with professioal mourners!

Wicked I think that game will keep them amused for a bit

Hullo all Been away for a longish Xmas break and am now also teaching at secondary school. I am teaching an unusual and fab bunch of kids with high IQs and various learning difficulties. Concentration is not their strongpoint!! But they are loving the whole Rome thang and I was wondering if any of you guys can think of some good kids resource sites. Nothing that requires more than about 10 minutes at a time mind. They are from about 12-17. Social history is v definately their thing! Teachers sites are very useful but there is not much on the Classical Civilisations front. Cheers for any help by the way! Sullafelix