Pertinax

I think the key might be that if you aspired to being a "Roman" and became one you were "intergrated" as we would now say-otherwise you were an outsider. The Romans didnt do multi-culturalsim you joined in and could be any race .

The Roman concept of "becoming effeminate" seems to be overtaking the behaviour of some Americans.This phrase does not have the modern meaning of any type of sexual orientation or sexual politics rather meaning "persons given over to sensual enjoyment", (oral pleasures)so that they are no longer morally true. I would further suggest that this might in contemperary terms be most obvious to our ancestors in overconsumption of food, rather than any sexual behaviour.In Briatain I would cite binge drinking as a similar behaviour. The Roman orators spoke out against "effeminacy" and the degeneracy of the Imperium as being manifest in the behaviour and charachter of particular Emperors and certain priveliged sections of society. So if we are Stoic in our outlook perhaps the parallels are visible? A further question arises -if you have a significant number of your population living in peace and prosperity do you have any obligation to stop them eating themselves to death ? If you look at "Arab" websites and blogs the interesting comment which always seems jarring to Westerners is how roundly the idea of democratic "equality" is laughed at on the not insignificant basis that although its nice to think everyone is equal a quick look round a shopping mall or train tells you the contrary. Which Emperor was it that despaired of the Senate actually working as a decent "republican " body? Ive wandered off a bit again there : I say a Stoic Emperor for me and thinner citizens.

I was just reading a small piece about a letter sent by a Roman Military Doctor to his parents, apart from combat casualties he makes particular mention of "combat fatigue" whilst dealing with the wounded (p53 of the Osprey Imperial Legionary 161-284). The biggest factor in the actuallity of combat at this time would be that the battlefield was not "dispersed" as it presently is in response to the lethality of present day weapons,the combat would also be utterly personal-no shooting at a faceless blob from half a mile away,(stressful enough but in a very different way). So,if you were on active duty you might well see a lot of close up violent death .I suggest that nowadays the general population consider death to be a remote and calamitous thing that happens as some sort of terrible mistake. We know that rural recruits were often considered better material for soldiering being accustomed to hard outdoor work, I would also suggest that unlike today most of these people would have killed animals for food (most people now have never even skinned a rabbit) and seen death often in daily life and lives frequently curtailed (chilbirth in particular). So id suggest that perhaps death would be no more welcome then as now but it would be understood to be immanent and not a cruel accident of nature. We know that medical care in the Legions was often much better than for the plebians and food supply was more asured,if I remember rightly life expectancy was also longer for retired soldiers than normal civilians. I suggest then that things might look brutal through modern eyes but perhaps what we consider brutal would be considered to be the reality of life. I just wonder what modern media coverage of endless disasters and wars does to a civilian population who in the past would hear about earthquakes perhaps a year or two after the event. Wandered off a little there but any thoughts?

My specific interests are combat medicine and "medevac" , military technology and psychology(ancient and modern world generally but Rome in particular). My general interests are everyday Roman life in Town and Country -im fascinated by Pompeii in particular and the glimpse it gives of ordinary real lives.