sullafelix

Hi I am currently studying the rural communities of Italy in the Second Century BC. I am trying to establish whether or not we can really think of farming as coming under the heading of economic history when there was so much else other than money that influenced the way in which farming was conducted. At the moment I am looking at the religion of the farming year. I have scoured Pliny, Cato, Columella and Varro and am about to go onto Virgil's Georgics. Does anyone else have anywhere else I can have a look?? All help is gratefully received on this one Cheers Sullafelix

I agree with all of the above really. The principate was neccessary to fill the void that had been left by the collapse of the Republic. As a Republic lover myself I harbour some resentment towards Augustus on an emotional level but even I have to admit he was the saviour of Rome.

I wish you were one of my students! This is a good conceptual answer, but you need to give it a bit more weight yet. You are right to an extent but don't forget certain other key points. Firstly the resistance of the boni (or optimates as they might better be called at the end of the Republic) to all forms of reform: this dogmatic stance meant that revolution became the inevitable outcome. If you will not reform then huge dramatic change eventually takes place (eatern europe iron curtain etc!). Secondly the reforms of Marius which had the side effect of giving Rome a dangerous army in that it was more loyal to its general than to Rome, witness the marches of Sulla and Caesar. Finally it may be (and this really is just a thought) that the system of patronage did a lot to destabilise the upper echelons of society. Try reading a book by Epstein called "personal enmity in roman politics". Add that lot to the increasing pressures caused by the expansion of empire and the corrupting effect of all that wealth and you have a rounded picture of the fall of the republic Hope that helps!

Well I'd rather not say where I teach because that way I can say what I like, although this of course means you can choose to believe me or not (chuckle). By the way I mean by all the grief, all the hassle. The actual quest to be truly accurate and not commit errors of fact is a bit of a sod in all honesty. I in no way mean to denegrate the knowledge of other forum users, many of whom put my small amount of knowledge to shame. What I mean is that to be properly academically credible all the opinion on this site would have to be of publishable standard that's all. I can give you a clue as to where I teach though, look at my user name. I work in the UK in the South East at the same university I graduated from and my love of this character comes from the inspirational teaching of my tutor, who is considered something of an expert on the man. That's as much as I am going to give you though, and if you work it out don't post it please.

I can give you a reasonably definitive answer on this one. I am a university lecturer in this subject, albeit a very junior one at the moment, without a PhD to my name as yet (witness my sunken cheeks, the dark circles under my eyes and my extreme poverty). However, as I tell my students time and time again. Don't reference web sites unless you have good reason to believe they are academically credible. There is stuff out there that is, look for eductional institution urls and credible online translation sites like the excellent perseus tufts digital library. For school work (I also teach school!) it is more acceptable, but I still would try to avoid it where possible. That said although I wouldn't actually reference this site (as it does not have pretensions to be academically accurate with all the grief that entails) it is quite useful and I get quite a lot of good little pointers from it. A good question to ask all the forum users is where they got their information form on any subject, Often we can give you chapter and verse on the source material. Of course most importantly it is rather a nice forum with a lot of very helpful and knowledgable enthusiasts of all levels (OK its late can anyone spell knowledgable for me?)

Cheers Pertinax I think I would have been a woman of many children is all I can say to that. I also herad about a half lemon filled with honey....this too has its drawbacks but nothing quite so grim! Anyone else got any wierd and wonderful Roman medical facts..this could run and run...sorry bad choice of phrase....

Roman women painted their faces with white lead...probably meaning they were all barking mad by the age of thirty. But did the men indulge in any make up, or was it just the poor plucker who got their custom at the baths? :pimp:

Er the Romans had contraception, that much I know. But I recently heard that one preffered method was a barrier method where the woman employed crocodile dung to form the barrier......someone tell me it isn't true by all thats good and decent....... apologies for the base topic by the way but where else am I gonna find this out!!

Well...tax farming legislation ebbed and flowed through the history of the Republic. I think they probably did indeed carry notable political clout, but I agree I don't see how they could have affected slavery. Indeed they carried huge clout and here is how. Tax farmers (publicani) were from the equestrian class. Various different Republican politicians gave the equestrians greater powers. But it was the times that they were allowed onto the juries (Gaius Gracchus) that they gained the most clout. Then they could and did prosecute Provinical governors for various kinds of corruption. The favourite trick was if they came up against a governor that was refusing to allow them to turn the screw really hard in a province they would bring a trumped up charge against him and have him ruined. So they had considerble clout

Hullo Professor I am currently studying the Roman Republic and am especially interested in the study of the ancient agricultural economy. However, my question is a little more general. Do you think that we can study the ancient world through its economy or does this approach raise problems in that the ancients themselves had no concept of an all-encompassing interconnected economy? Thanks Sulla Felix

It sounds likely but I can't make the dates match. He wasn't a million miles away though in Armenia (pontus then) and then came right back towards the narrow mouth of the black sea. I wouldn't be surprised if he was there and in fact I would be stunned to find that there was another general of that name then. It is ost likely him. Tell me what your evidence is and I will probably be able to confirm it for you

I chose SullaFelix because Sulla is my favourite character in Roman history, much malinged dictator and felix was the nickname he had because he was happly and lucky due to his association with hercules who apparently got him everything he wanted.

Not great apparently, I'm afraid, bug-eyed, hook nosed and saggy in all the wrong places, bad chin...but stunningly huge beautiful fresh tracts of land!

Er I am a university lecturer (not saying where then I can say what I like about my job) part-time at the moment, completing my PhD. I specialise in Republican politics. Tragic isn't it really, in my free internet time what am I doing? I am here immersed back in the forum. Currently marking first year essays....sigh

Well put and we should also remember that a Roman soldier was not neccessarily willing to serve because he would have a better life than he experienced at home. Generally he was willing to serve on the promise of booty, witness the problems that Lucullus had with his troops on the Mithridatic campaign when he denied them that. Fear of punishment and iron hard discipline were what kept Rome's army together, especially in times of peace, there are plenty of instances when the writers talk of the problems of maintaining discipline in peace. Decimation was one of the last resort punishments, most often used for cowardice and for rebellion, and rebellion tended to be a peace time malaise. Later under the empire the army found it increasingly difficult to enlist men because although the godawful punishments were still there but after the boundaries of the empire were fixed the opportunites for booty were far and few between. So remember when dealing with your troops punish them today only if you can reward them tomorrow. Ave atque Vale Sulla

That in itself is worthy of discussion I think. I would agree wholeheartedly by the time period in question (early 3rd century AD), but can we say the same for the Republican period? Considering that wars were fought over the inclusion of the closely related Italian allies, an interesting (if perhaps only semantical) debate could be made. Gosh...I love this topic...and as you brought it up! Citizenship certainly mattered from about 125BC when the town of Fregellae revolted. Essentially the concept of citizenship to the provinces was too alien to be conceived of but even the romans had a sneaking suspicion that they were doing wrong by the Italian allies by this time (who were not Roman citizens but did provide a lot of the troops for the Roman army). The Italians on the other hand were doing v well out the empire abroad but getting diddly at home. This annoyed them a great deal as abroad they were treated by the provincials as Romans but back home they were a subject people. Over the years they became more and more dissatisified with their lot and agitated for citizenship repeatedly and then giving up hope fought the social war to break free from Rome. They lost the war but got citizenship. Funny how things turn out isn't it! Of course you have to ask what social class were these Italians...well of course they were the rich Italian elite so to them at this time citizenship mattered as much as class. Sorry completely off topic Sulla

It is in Livy...somewhere....but basically I think it was when rome was beseiged by the Samnites. Mucius Scaevola swam the Tiber and tried to bump off the opposing king, however, he got the wrong guy and was captured. The king said I am going to kill you unles you tell me all your secrets now I can't remember who did the sticking in of the hand whether it was the king or Mucius but the upshot was that Mucius proved his barvery by holding his hand there until it burnt away. Then he said you will never defeat rome because we are all that brave and there are a thousand others like me. The king surrendered...that's impressive, stoopid perhaps but definately brave. That is your off topic reply :pimp:

caracalla was the son of Septimius Severus. As such he was part of the last of the great dynasties of the empire before you come to the christian era - The Severi. He had a brother called Geta and Septimius Severus left them both in charge but Caracalla quickly diposed of his brother. he was not a very good emperor, or indeed a very good human being. His principle legacy was the baths of Caracalla which can still be seen in Rome today they were very impressive. Geta appears nowhere because everywhere Caracalla had his brother's image removed. he is also rembered for his nuttiness and his cruelty. I can't remember much more about him but you should try reading up on him in the Lives of the Later Caesars. It isn't terribly reliable but it is about all we have. Hope that helps

OK nasty punishments...well there are a few actually. Having a mullet stuck up your behind always struck me as quite unpleasant. Apparently they used the mullet because it had nasty scales so when it was pulled back out.....ouch (now that would make your eyes water). You could punish your wife and her partner if you caught them inflagrante, even kill him as I rmember rightly. The favoured method of execution in Rome though was strangulation by a bloke with big hands! Incidentally it was illegal to strangle a virgin girl and so if you needed to do that, like on the odd occasions that they executed a whole family, you would get the executioner to...well I am sure I don't have to spell it out....first then strangle her. Also don't forget what they used to do at the games, they could get quite imaginative. They used to re-enact various incidents from Rome's earlier history, for instance. One of their partciular favourites was to get a condemned criminal and get him to play Mucius Scaevola. Scaevola was a great hero from Roman early history and he once proved his bravery by holding his hand in a brazier until it burned clean away. Guess what they used to do to the criminals centuries later...poor swines. Anyway must go and get on with some actual work. Toodleooo Sulla

This is a very difficult area but a great one for an armchair meglomaniac like me. A lot of the problem was the fact that the frontiers of the empire were fixed under Hadrian, no new territory = no new resources = economic crisis. The policy of defence in depth was, in my humble opinion anyway, a flamin' disaster because it ruined the quality of the army. No overseas expeditions = little chancy of booty for your average legionary = recruitment problems for the army. Personally i would have abdicated and moved to the carribbean but if that weren't an option then adopting diocletian's tetrarchic reorganisation pretty sharpish and also inventing the fiduciary coinage system so that money works like it does under our system instead of only being worth whatever it was made of. Oh and banning christianity

I am intrigued by the polybius thing, I value him as a hsitorian, especially as a tactician. It is a shame his treatise on tactics was lost but I wouldn't have called him insightful, after all his lack of understanding of the Roman Constitution is incredible considering the years he spent living right at the heart of roman politics...just a thought mind. I have to say I like him a lot...even if he is a little dry! suetonius was a great historian and a rippng good read. He is not tabloid no no no no....he's great flamin' brilliant. Livy on the other hand....yawn yawn yawn all very grand all very worthy but really i would rather stick pins in my eyes!

Hi I am doing some research into the agriculture of Roman Italy in the second and first centuries BC. I want to do a critique of the surveys that have been done but am swimming in a sea of processualist theories. help I am drowning...if you understand archaeology techniques when it comes to surveying and would be interested in finding out a bit more about the Italian rural archaeology of the Republic please ride to my rescue

I am glad somone knows Arthur's work I was a student of his. he is excellent and although his views on sulla are sometimes considered to be a bit over positive I think generally he is right. The interesting thing about the reforms is that all any of them attempted to do was to take the republic back to the stuctures and magistracies that were considered to have made it great. For instance although he reduced the powerof the tribunes he left them with the power the office had originally been created to excercise, namely that they had involvment in the legal process and could protect the ordinary individual citizen from the whims of magistrates. Also dictatorship is a word with terrible conatations in our society and, after Julius Caesar and arguably after Sulla, in Roman society too. But of course it was a historical office that was used to get Rome through a crisis. It is arguable that Sulla only took a traditional office for he good of the Republic and then laid it down when he thought he had cured the evils of the republic. He was a reformer with vision but also a strong sense of tradition who understood the Roman antipathy towards power being rested in a single person for any length of time. Incidentally it helps if you read Sulla the Last Republican in a belligerent irish accent you will get closer to his thought processes. :pimp:

Also you want to lok at the lives of the later caesars which is by various sources some of it is highly fictional but it attempts to what Suetonius did for his twelve caesars for the rest of the motley crew...treat with caution however and the life of Aexander Severus is considered to be fiction

Gosh well the name will give it away really I guess but The Gracchi, Sulla, that really horrible complicated bit of republican politics that takes in the first "triumvirate" I am also researching the agricultural economy in the first and second centuries BC. Then we skip a few generations and go to the Severi the Third Cenury Anarchy religion at the fall of rome, the barbarisation of the later army and the artistic transformation from classical to medieval. Basically i like all the bloodthirsty ones and the ones with a certain style