sullafelix

Two points on this firstly 1 tribune would have not been able to reflect conflicts in public opinion Secondly there is plenty of evidence that in cases of important legislation the rural tribes turned up in force as they did for the Gracchi. The Senate was not always successful in getting rid of them. Also the voting tribes may have been made up of rural citizens but quite often enfranchisement meant that they moved to Rome and so would have been able to represent their ribes quite effectively. Sullafelix

Hmmmm, depending on when in the 2nd Century, I would say you could extract figures from Polybius, Livy (though we loose his guidance during that period) or Appian from the various campaigns going on and back into a figure from there? Campaign armies could have 15,000, 30,000, 50,000+ (not counting auxilaries) so It hard to give a blanket figure. On a complete side note, I've been at festivals with 70,000+ people and when I consider seeing that many people on an ancient battlefield at one time I become rather awed at the thought... Cheers for the pointers I will follow them up Sullafelix

Really? I am no huge fan of Livy myself, but which bits of his punic wars accounts do you find unreliable? As for Polybius he is not exactly reliable himself. His grasp of Roman politics is shaky beyond belief for a man who spent so long at the centre of power. Good general and so his battle stuff is usually pretty bang on, but even some of the figures are a little contentious. Cheers Sullafelix

Hi I need a little help. I am trying to find out what proportion of eligible men would have been serving in the Roman army at any one time. I really need some idea around second century BC. Do I have to work it out from Census figures myself or does anyone know of someone who has put this down somewhere. Brunt's Italian Manpower doesn't cover it ....alkl suggestions gratefully received. Sullafelix

First, I clearly meant the Roman world declined culturally, but if you're a fan of monarchy and serfdom, I can see why you might think the ascension of Diocletian was a good step for Rome. But really--*never* declined? Not even when the barbarians invaded? You must think that quite a few professional Roman historians are naive then. Perhaps, from your enlightened anti-decline view, you can explain the sudden collapse in the production of luxury goods? Or the sudden halt in the production of tile roofs? Or the drop in imports? Or the collapse of metallurgy? If the Roman world simply transitioned gracefully into the medieval world, as you suggest, where did all this wealth go???? The church By the time Diocletian came to power the church was major force and after Constantine the Great it was the major force in Roman politics. OK OK so a two word answer would seem really smug so I had better elaborate. Firstly that is where the money went, all of it that hadn't already travelled outside of the empire anyway. The church believed that riches prevented a man from getting into heaven because they corrupted the soul. So they would take the money from you as they were holier than thou and save your soul....really There is no sudden disappearance of luxury goods that I can see. The plastic arts of the fourth and fifth centuries are fantastic, the mosaics of Ravenna are fabulous and the graves continue to be just as fab as ever. But the luxury goods were no longer for personal adorment they were for God. Money was admittedly tight, but it had always been tight on an economy scale. The Roman Empire ran with much less in the coffers than people thought. Also the personal fortunes were now in the hands of the church. Trust me the churches had roofs. OK some of the provinces went through a period we call the dark ages. But don't let the label fool you, we don't call them the dark ages coz everyone ate mud and wore sackcloth, we call them dark ages because we know v little about them. The sudden drop in income at the end of the third century crisis was because they had 50 years of fighting and had nothing to do with anything Diocletian did. Serfdom was certainly not his fault either. People had willingly made themselves serfs during the crisis. Big landowner down road has fortified villa, keeps him safe from the marauding bands (terrible problem with those). Local poor have abandoned their land because of same bands and go to local lord for job and protection near his fortified villa. Suddenly serfdom. That is how it happened. As for Diocletian's court being penniless, yup they were but the whole aristocracy was. As for the barbarians invading...oh please the whole of the Western Roman Empire was extensively barbarised as were parts of the East. They made up a vast portion of the army. As for invading why did they invade? It wasn't to destroy like the mindless hairy brutes old fashioned historians would have us belive they were. t was because they wanted a fairer share in government in what was ostensibly their empire too. Also they were being pushed by the Huns. Finally remember the guy who sacked Rome was a Christrian Goth called Alaric and he had wanted the rewards he felt he deserved. The power behind the throne was also a barbarian called Stilicho. These barbarians were extensively romanised and had been living next to the roman empire for hundreds of years, In fact in many places in provinces like Gaul it is almost impossible from the archaeolgical remains of peoples living within 200 miles or so of the frontier to say what culture they belonged to romanised barbarian or roman because the fashion for all things barbarian was so strong. The thing is what looks to us like decline felt to the Romans like transformation if anything. We look at this with hindsight. hese days because we live in cynical times we tend to underestimate the effect of Christianity, but we shouldn't. Rome was all about showy opulence the medieval world was not, it was about the spiritual life. The church ruled everything, and they were not concerned with improving your life they were concerned with saving your soul. In other words the society of the later roman empire consciously rejected all the pomp and ceremony after Diocletian and adopted a simpler life in an effort to get closer to god. So they would not have considered it decline and for us to do so is to patronise them. Read some more up to date historians you will find I am not a lone voice in the wilderness. Cheers Sullafelix

But the Empire WAS greatly reduced in size--until Aurelian reclaimed it. What makes you think Diocletian put it back together? Like Frankenstein, Diocletian simply cobbled together a medieval monster from the parts of a dead world. The spirit of "I am a Roman, and you are just a king" was gone; all that remained of Rome was an inertia-led zombie. A little harsh I feel! Also wide of he mark.What Diocletian did was not medieval, although we are standing at the threshold of the medieval age. His reorganisation of the empire was simply to split it along lines of cuiltural difference anyway, lets not get too romantic about the unity of the old roman empire there had always been the greek speaking east and the latin west. Secondly he refreshed the imperial cult, and reimposed the sanctity of the position of emperor. That's what all those little squat figures of the Tetrarchs are all about See how they don't look like anyone? That's so that it is the office of the emperor that is important. Also see the funny headdress, that's the start of the diadems, which is the fancy orientalising bit. I think it is rather naive to imagine that the Roman Empire declined and was replaced by the time of Diocletian, or indeed to think that it declined at all. This is a richly fascinating bit of history that deserves more than sweeping statements. Cheers Sullafelix

Surprisingly the Gracchi never mention latifundia by name, the name iself is a later invention. Nor do they mention what we would think of as large slave run estates. But Tiberius Gracchus is supposed to have travelled through Etruria and seen nothing but barbarian slaves and not a free man tilling the soil. So it is an implication perhaps, but we have to be careful not to assume. As for the archeological sites, latifundia definately existed but it would appear not until later. We have foud a fair few but virtually none pre-date the mid-first century, so some hundred years after the legislation of Gracchus. Personally I suspect that we are missing the "birth" sites of the latifundia and there is some kind of missing link, probably we are misinterpreting some of the medium size farms. After all the latifundia method of farming was very complex and must have developed rather than sprung ready made from the pen of Cato. Not neccessarily, free labour has an incentive to work , slave labour does not. The average life expectancy of these first generation barbarian slaves was only about 18 months after capture, They were kept in terrible conditions and the number of slave revolts that started with agricultural slaves at about this time is testament to that. Think forced labour or concentration camps and you will get the idea. Also many jobs in agricutlure especially something like viticulture are extremely skilled and it is thought that slaves did not neccessarily have experience of the right kinds of agriculture. Then of course there is the fact that you have to feed slaves, that significantly reduced the profitability of a farm as you needed more land to feed the slaves and not only did that land not make a profit itself but also it took manhours away from profit making activities. maximal output may have nothing to do with economy, it may be a matter of pride or status. However, I am being unduly pedantic, I know! Cato and Varro certainly wrote about making a profit. the problems is when you follow the sums through, it does not appear that they would have done! This may have come as a shock to them I'll grant you but nevertheless it seems as though they were paying too much for land and that the extra cost of purchasing and then looking after laves would have made the slave method of production unprofitable. Why did they do it? Dunno I'll let you know when I figure it out! Cheers SullaFelix

The Latifundia (spelling humbly corrected ) are supposed to ahve been large slave run estates that started in the middle of the second century. The traditional view (known as the Gracchan Tradition) is that rich landowners dripping in gold from the spoils of Rome's new empire were desperate for somewhere to invest their new money. So they pushed the poor landowners off the land. This led Tiberius Gracchus to bring in agrarian reforms in 133BC portioning up the public land (much of which was being occupied by these rich landowners) and handing out to the poor. Of course the legislation didn't work, Tiberius got bumped off as did his brother ten years later and the rich contiunued to expand their ownnership of the Italian countryside. This meant that the legions would have had problems recruiting until the Marian army reforms some 25 years later. Why? because the Roman army had a property qualification for citizens wishing to join up. OK so in summary of the first bit the traditonal view is that large slave run estates caused problems for the Republic by causing a large landless underclass to form and reducing the numbers of men available for the Roman Legions. BUT (and its a big one) The archaeological record does not support the traditional view. Although large scale depopulation of some areas of Italy can be found it is much more difficult to find latifundia. These do not seem to have appeared until the middle of the first century. ALSO (yup there is more) Studying the agricultural writiers like Varro, Columella and Cato it does not really appear that slave run estates were any more productive than free labour methods. AND....... We have to remember that while we think in terms of an economy, the term and the concept did not exist in the ancient world and so it may not be the most efficient form of production that won out. There were plenty of other considerations as well like religion, status etc. Finally....(Oh Thank God they sigh!) What was their impact on the Republic? It is hard to say because we do not yet understand what happened. Why was there depopulation? What was the attraction of slave methods of production? When did the latifundia actually start? Were the agricultural writers writing about the actuality or about the ideal way of farming? Just in case you hadn't guessed you have stumbled upon a hot topic in current Republican History and Italian Archaelogy.......The jury is still out Nice topic SullaFelix

I'd say! Normally, the emperor named his own successor (invariably ratified by the hollow men in the Senate). But what if the emperor were killed before naming a successor? Who would be the emperor then? At various times over Roman history, the successor was--a person of abiliity adopted by a good emperor (Hadrian), the idiot son of a good emperor (Caracalla), the victor in a civil war (too many to list), the first person found by the palace guard (Claudius), and the winner of an auction conducted by the palace guard (Didiamus Julianus). In my view, the impotence of the principate to handle the succession undermines completely its reason for being. I see your point on this but it is a bir a sweeping statement and makes all monarchies subject to the same kinds of instability does it not?. Besides which the Republic was far more unstable.

That's what some people say, but what about all the innovations in engineering that the Romans made? They didn't come into existence without capital, and that took someone convincing someone else that the idea was worthwhile. If they really had such a totally different mindset, how did all these innovations come to exist? I would have to say what innovations? Their inventions were taken from the egyptians and the greeks, in the main and there is increasing evidence that some was taken from the western end of the empire too. Much of Italy was Greek well before it was roman. Even where you get overt mention of engineering etc you often find that the engineer is Greek or Asiatic. What the Romans were good at was scale, but they were not innovators. I would challenge you to find much that we can safely say that they did invent. On the other hand there is lots we know that was Greek, for instance water pumps, cogwheels..the list goes on. Sullafelix

First of all try Suetonius and Tacitus, we are lucky enough to have had this period covered by two of the best historians ever. If you need some more clarification try HH Scullard from the Gracchi to Nero. It is very basic and straightforward. You will find it in any university library, but otherwise it may be out of print. Good Luck Sullafelix

By the gods! Show some imagination here guys. There are loads of jobs within history and the museum side of things! Archivist, conservator, collection keeper and curator. On the private side of things archivists and estate experts for large estates (more in Europe than the states). Museums are no longer just big cold buildings. Insurance valuer etc You would be far better off doing something with your history degree though, like conservation or archaeology. Some things are postgraduate training depnedant and nothing pays brilliantly. So it is vitally important to get out there volunteering during your degree and get yourself ahead of the game. Some of the training is dependent on your having previous experience, which is tough, but volunteering will help with that enormously. Small finds expert, site manager...restoration expert....loads of stuff just don't do straight history, add another string to your bow.... Good Luck! Sullafelix

Hmmm.. strikes me that there is not much thinking like a Roman going on here. Roman's didn't go a bundle on technology. It was too much like trade, and those with the money to put into technology or invention were more concerned with other things. There are some exceptions like the younger Pliny, perhaps, but even his uncle who we might think of as interested in the way things worked was only really interested in the natural world. There was a great interest in the natural world, but as for technology they were happy to borrow and steal but they would not put energy into it themselves. Don't bet on any great innovations. Also if they had invented electricity, they would have been more likely to use ti to do something impressive and useless in a temple than to do anything useful or industrial with it. It was a totally different mindset to ours.

Indeed this is quite a good theory with a lot to merit further study. You might be interested to know that certainly one thing that has been noticed in the archaeological record for large parts of Italy are changes in the patterns of alluviation in river valleys. We know for instance that large parts of the most fertile land in Etruria started to flood from the end of the second century AD onwards and that this process got worse and continued through into the medieval age. What caused this is uncertain but it has to be assumed that either greater rainfall or man made deforestation had something to do with it, or possibly both. Certainly this affected the kinds of agriculture available. However, be careful with the concept of the wine driven rural economy, it is thought that some of our figures now must be wrong because we think that the Roman Empire would have been swimming in wine if we use the figures of people like Columella and Cato. Archaeologically this is hard to prove, because vineyards rarely leave much trace in the archaeological record. There is also extensive rural depopulation in the later empire which had much more to do with social and political reasons than anything else. That said, an inability to grow traditional crops in Italy and other parts of the mediterranean basin would also have profound economic and scoial consequences. I would say this could prove to be quite an interesting part of the overall picture. Have a look into paleaobotanical and osteoarchaeological studies of the relevant time periods. I would recommend a look at Graeme Barker's "A mediterranean Valley" which is a summary of the Biferno River Valley Survey.

I would like to be a high class courtesan, keeping poets happy and living a life of luxury until my looks faded. Imagine all the things you would learn through pillow talk, all the secrets of the great and good. The blackmail possibilities would be endless! Either that or I would actually liked to have been Sulla, a great guy, a great warrior and leader of men, ruthless stylish and still died in his bed!

Thanks for the effort sullafelix but I don't think this is the one. I'd found this myself and discounted it because the Via Aurelia, which it's on, runs up the Tyrrhenian Sea coast to Gaul while Castrum Novum (now Giulianova) is on the Adriatic coast on the other side of the Appenine mountains from Rome. Part of the problem might be that Castrum Novum/Novum Castrum (New Fortress) is such a generic name it might have been used more than once. You are right...I realised my mistake yesterday, apologies. This is a Castrum Novum in Etruria and there were two overall. The one in Etruria is much better known and I have not been able to find much on yours I am afraid, just stuff that backs up what you already know. I will however be able to find out more about its role in the Social War for you.

Sure no problem. Start with the Perseus Tufts Digital Library and then move on to other sites like The Classics Library. If you are not sure what ancient sources to look through, try Suetonius' 12 Caesars (Life of Augustus) Cassius Dio (boring but informative). Suetonius is a good read, often, in my opinion anyway, wrongly despised for his sensationalist approach to things.

Slightly off topic, but just a pointer about the Cato thing. It is incredible how fast the legend of Cato took off and was appropriated by the heirs of Caesar. The best example I can think of is the fact that he appears on the shield given to Aeneas by Venus in Book 8 of Aeneid, where he appears alongside, Romulus and Remus and the Battle of Actium, and The Sabine Women.

If you find anything please let me know. There seems to be rather limited info on it because it was such an early colony and so close to Rome in the first place. I did find out it was rebuilt a little ways away from the original site in the Middle Ages. It seems to have been a minor colony who's purpose was to protect Roman interests on the Adriatic--hence Castrum-- but it's importance seems to have waned once the majority of the central Adriatic coast and surrounding Italian tribes were absorbed into the Republic. I haven't yet found a lot on the history but I have found a site about the archaeology, which is http://www.comune.santamarinella.rm.it/mus...ese/a3126.html# As to the votes thing. The Social War was a war of independence fought after the Italian tribes had given up hope of ever getting the roman citizenship given to them. However, although they lost the war they did get the vote, funny how things turn out! I shall find out the ins and outs of that for you too. I'll be back when I have more

Tend to agree with you on the general piety thing about Augustus. Shame we don't know about the Arval brethren I have tried to find out myself and failed. There was an astonishing amount of religion involved with things rural though. Pliny writes extensively on the subject. I sometimes wonder whether the subsistance farmers of the italian countryside were very religious and superstitious or whether, in fact, they thought that religion was fine for them as what had time for it! I am not sure we will ever know the answer but it is intriguing.

I am currently reading up on Roman colonies at this time as part of my research I will see what else I can find out for you if you like.

Hasn't there been loads of research done by interested medical bods on what it was that happened to caligula. I thought he was supposed to have had some sort of brain fever....

Going right back to the beginning I would say Economic collapse (caused essentially by fixing the empires borders and by never discovering the concept of fiduciary coinage) The barbarisation of the army that the roman empire never really collapsed but that the west ended up being sacrificed so that the east could live. Rome was geographically hard to defend and the money was in the Eastern half of the mpire where the borders were more easily defendable than the west but there are plenty more reasons too

Not sure I really agree with the thrust of your statement Praetor Urbanus Whilst undoubtedly the principate saved the empire I think it a little unfair to decry the parasitic families of the republic as though they did not continue on in the empire. After all the rich continued to be rich and the poor contiued to struggle. The end of the Republic can't be implied to be some kind of victory except for the ambition of one man. That the empire lasted is equally no surprise, after all the army, as created under the republic kept things going nicely. One man rule? Most certainly and very autocratic you only have to look at the letters of Pliny the Younger to see that at the beginning of the second century even quite trivial matters were still referred to the emperor. Administration may have been done by junior official but I would have thought that it was reasonable to say thatthe emperor ruled nonetheless. Can't the case for the empire being strengthened by provincials can be used by either those for or against? OK some of the foreign emperors were very good, Septimius Severus is my favourite (not I might add for his ability), and there were others who were better. However, later on when we get to the third century anarchy we start to see that the problem with provincials was precisely that they did not have this great cultural heritage that held the republic up to be something sacred along with all its offices and customs and the whole empire destabilised and came perilously close to collapse with everyone putting themselves before the good of the empire, proving that the imperial systems was just as open to subversion and corruption as the republican. I agree with completely that we are too quick to talk about the decline of Rome and that we should perhaps talk more about its transformation into the medieval period. Just a thought Sullafelix

If the Arval Brethren was revived by Augustus do we know roughly when they went of use during the Republic?