Leaderboard

The Principate began with traditional republican voting. Augustus had restored such procedures during his reforms. He passed a law in ad5, the Lex Valeria Cornelia, which set up a special advisory body of senators and decurial equites (senior plebs with civic responsibilities) to produce a list of favoured candidates called destinati before the Comitia. There's some debate over this especially because this body appears to have waned in importance by ad14. In any case, Tiberius transferred these elections to the Senate when he came to power. There is a hint in a document called the Tabula Hebana which suggests that better control of voting was to offset the risk of public riots. Tiberius had a stricter control over voting than Augustus, though this was not the case after Tiberius set up semi-retirement in Capri. By then the Senate had much more freedom to control voting and no doubt the ideas to remove voting from the plebs completely starts from that moment, as the Senate begin to find ways to avoid setting issues for the popular assemblies to vote on. It was easier to seek guidance from the senior man among them, the Princeps Senatus, or Princeps, or if you really have to use the word, Emperor, who might in theory prove an excellent scapegoat. The Senate had never liked sharing their privileges in governmental business with lower classes or outsiders. Tacitus holds that Tiberius influenced the selection of candidates by speeches, not by decisions. None of the Roman writers say that the Princeps controlled the Comitia. Dio tells us that the people continued to meet for elections. The Princeps appears in general to have intervened to prevent unsuitable candidates, such as those who canvassed or bribed their way into consideration, or perhaps for something as simple as personal dislike, but tended otherwise to let the Comitia vote as per tradition. There were exceptions such as Egnatius Rufus who got himself considered for consulship in 19BC and only the previous Consul managed to impede him. However, it is noted that Tiberius was only allowing enough candidates to fill the position, not to allow choice and this at a time when Tiberius was said to be refusing extra powers from the Senate, but this might not actually be the case as we know the Senate were asking for extra candidates and so Tiberius was simply acting to mediate the voting for the same reasons Augustus sought to. There were some public disturbances over voting during the early Principate, Augustus had Agrippa keep order in Rome, and it seems the caution exercised by the Roman leaders was justified. In ad7 a riot was so bad that Augustus chose to appoint magistrates directly. Although the Princeps made recommendations about candidates, the Senate continued to do business as they had in the late Republic, by filling posts by merit, agreement, or lot. By the time Caligula comes to power, the period of riots has gone, replaced by considerable apathy which no doubt suited the Senate entirely. The mechanism existed, persisted, but was essentially pointless as too many decisions were being made outside of the Comitia's reach. So intervention from the Princeps was a matter of expedience rather than the exercise of power, with the Senate taking advantage of change to assert their dominant role in government.

What do we mean by brutality? At what point does the infliction of harm become gratuitous? Do we judge brutality by modern morality or the expectations of ancient Roman society? It's important to begin this short overview from a known perspective because our judgements on the conduct of Rome are not entirely objective. Rome is sometimes seen as the template for tyrannical imperialism. This is difficult to reconcile with the opinions and sentiments expressed by the Roman writers themselves, and indeed, seems to be based on little more than familiarity with the ideological tyrannies of more recent times. David Potter, author of Origins of Empire, describes Rome as "the most successful multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state in the history of Europe and the Mediterranean". Rome was a society that espoused moral values and austere lifestyles. A society that considered itself the epitome of civilisation. In much the same way we do today, as an expression of patriotic self-esteem. It was also an ambivalent society, for when wealth allowed, Romans enjoyed flouting their norms. Let's be quite clear about this - brutality is part of human behaviour, as undesirable as many of us would ordinarily see it as. Our modern societies try to protect citizens by legislation and law enforcement, but the infliction of arbitrary and excessive harm is nonetheless something that lurks among us. It lurked among the Romans too. Some might claim that it was much more overt than that, and to be fair, one would have to admit the extent of their brutality is notorious. I'm not going to dwell on the reports of individuals. As colourful and horrifying some of the antics that Roman caesars got up to might be, they represent a very tiny example of behaviour, one that distorts the overall picture. So therefore I put the Roman Empire on trial for brutality, judged by the common morality we share. The Roman Legions By far the biggest culprit were the common soldiers of Rome. In writings of the late republic and principate, one readily picks up the idea that Rome desired tough disciplined soldiers, able to follow orders without argument, able to withstand the rigours of campaigning, and to be frank - able to ram a sword into man, woman, or child without hesitation. It follows that a man prepared to be so violent isn't likely to be particularly well behaved. The Romans understood that. As it happens, Roman legions were often a disagreeable lot. They did argue with orders and were far closer to mutiny than modern armies would tolerate. Even the charismatic Julius Caesar had to ask his soldiers for consent to continue a war during the campaign against his rivals. At the death of Augustus, legions in Pannonia and Germania mutinied after being allowed time off to mourn or celebrate, seeking resolution of the harsh treatment and injustice they received daily. Heaven knows, lashes and wounds are always with us! So are hard winters and hard working summers, grim war, and unprofitable peace. Speech of Precennius - Annals (Tacitus) Nothing new there, Tacitus tells us. Harsh lives make harsh men. Roman legionaries would expect booty to reward their efforts at war, and their commanders were only too willing to please them by providing such opportunities. If there is a requisition and a soldier siezes your donkey, let it go. Don't resist and don't grumble. If you do, you will be beaten and you will still lose your donkey. Letters collected by Arrian (Epictetus) By tradition, a Roman soldier swore an oath not to steal from his comrades on campaign. Oaths may have been a serious business but they didn't always deter. Frontinus records in Stratagems that one commander, either especially stern or exasperated, ordered that any soldier caught stealing would have his right hand cut off. By tradition, a dishonoured legion undergoes a decimation - one man in ten is randomly selected and beaten to death by his colleagues. Brutality serves as a deterrent. Tough On The Streets Where human beings congregate in large urban enviroments, the levels of violence begin to rise. Rome was no exception. A certain level of thuggery was accepted, as young men of good families would roam the streets at night looking for people to beat up. But this sort of behaviour would be more or less restricted to the virile and testosterone driven male gangs. It seems unlikely that all young men behaved in this way. Your drunken bully who has by chance not slain his man passes a night of torture like that of Achilles when he bemoaned his friend, lying now upon his face, and now upon his back; he will get no rest in any other way, since some men can only sleep after a brawl. Yet however reckless the fellow may be, however hot with wine and young blood, he gives a wide berth to one whose scarlet cloak and long-retinue of attendants, with torches and brass lamps in their hands, bid him keep his distance. But to me, who am wont to be escorted home by the moon, or by the scant light of a candle whose wick I husband with due care, he pays no respect. Whether you venture to say anything, or make off silently, it's all one: he will thrash you just the same, and then, in a rage, take bail from you. Such is the liberty of the poor man: having been pounded and cuffed into a jelly, he begs and. prays to be allowed to return home with a few teeth in his head! Nor are these your only terrors. When your house is shut, when bar and chain have made fast your shop, and all is silent, you will be robbed by a burglar; or perhaps a cut-throat will do for you quickly with cold steel. Satires (Juvenal) But despite this potentially violent enviroment, there was also a curiosity among bystanders. Plutarch records how people rushed to the senate house to see the fallen body of Julius Caesar (and rushed away equally quickly just in case). There were of course occaisions when strong feelings arouse the citizens to anger. Riots were always a threat to the powerful in Rome because those caught by them might well be beaten to death, such as the fate of Cleander in the reign of Commodus. Little wonder then that the rulers of Rome were keen to divert the Roman mob with public entertainment. Sports And Games Without a doubt a major unifying element of the Roman Empire was the spread of games. Swordfights were performed for public entertainment with a very real risk of death or injury. Although fights to the death existed, the professional bout consisted of two men fighting with referees and rest periods until one or the other could not continue, his fate a decision of the games editor based more often than not on the mood of the crowd. In the morning men are thrown to the lions and the bears; but it is the spectators they are thrown to in the lunch hour. Letters (Seneca) It does the people good to see that even slaves can fight bravely. If a mere slave can show such courage, what then can a Roman do? Besides, the games harden a warrior people to sights of carnage and prepares them for battle. Letters (Cicero) The traditional swordfight with an honourable decision over the fate of those who could not continue was one thing; by the late empire, this had transmuted to displays of fighting designed to wound as a means of heightening drama. Little wonder that some experts feel that the gladiatorial games had lost their purpose in Roman society, or that Augustine records the addiction of a newbie spectator to watching violence . The Romans enjoyed other sports that carried a brutal edge. Boxing, where the bandages that protected the hand evolved into metal gloves designed to punish the opponent. The Pankration, or Greek wrestling, where there are only two rules to obey - no biting and no gouging of eyes - which got ignored in the heat of combat. Animals were slaughtered by the wagonload to thrill the public for as long as the supply of animals was practicable and affordable. At first for novelty, later for spectacle, and finally to demonstrate the power of Rome over nature. The extraordinary numbers of animals slaughtered in the arena is mind numbing, driving some species to regional extinction - something the Romans themselves were well aware. Slavery Another evil of human behaviour is the ownership of others. The problem has never entirely gone away despite the various moral advances in history. In ancient times, it was simply how life was. The Romans had mixed feelings about their possessions which were legally en par with animals. Some saw them as merely 'talking tools', others more willing to permit something approaching humane treatment. It was true that wealthy owners liked to free as many slaves as they could, in order to show how generous and humane they were, but one suspects a more expedient attitude was the motive. On the one hand, rural and industrial slaves might expect a short hard life, pushed to physical extremes and exposed to unhealthy enviroments. Others might be valued companions, loyal employees, teachers for their children, or entertainers to please the family and guests. The slaves engaged in the operation of the mines secure for their masters profit in amounts which are almost beyond belief. They themselves are however physically destroyed, their bodies worn down by working in the mine shafts both day and night. many die because of the excessive maltreatment they suffer. they are given no rest or break from their toil, but rather are forced by the whiplashes of the overseers to endure the most dreadful of hardships; thus do they wear out their lives in misery. The History of the World (Diodorus Siculus) Poor Psecas, whose own hair has been torn out by her mistress, and whose clothes has been ripped from her shoulders and breasts by her mistress, combs and styles her mistress' hair. "Why is this curl so high?" the mistress screams, and at once a whipping punishes Psecas for this crime of the curling iron and sin of a hairstyle. Satires (Juvenal) In one case, a slave had killed his master. Law demanded that all the household slaves should be executed as well. However, a crowd of protestors , trying to protect so many innocent lives, gathered and began to riot. They besieged the senate house. Within the senate house, some senators were anxious to eliminate excessive cruelty, but the majority were of the opinion that nothing should be changed. Annals (Tacitus) Sadly the outburst of popular support for the plight of the slaves achieved nothing - Nero enforced the rules. Conclusion We have to accept that brutality exists in human societies. In any such society, there is a general level of behaviour that is either tolerated or unsuppressed. Clearly this operates in both ancient and modern eras. Roman law was a reactive process, because free men had the right to free will and self determination. If you chose to exceed acceptable behaviour, then you were liable for punishment, if you were caught or brought to justice. However this means that men in authority were able to exercise whatever brutality they believed they could get away with. No doubt most maintained some semblance of moral behaviour, others were willing to test the boundaries, especially if far from close inspection. Yet much of this impression is based on reports of individuals such as badly behaved patricians and emperors. The Roman writers use the stories of brutality to describe the vices of an individual, to show what a villain he was, and one suspects that a great deal of this is exaggerated for dramatic effect. Seneca records his dismay at arena violence. Cicero records that a man was better off doing something useful than sat idly watching fights. And as much as we abhor the idea of gladiators fighting to potential death or injury for public entertainment, it was also recorded that these men were only too keen to please their masters, illustrating that violence is a part of the human psyche and sometimes socially acceptable. So - was Rome a brutal society? By design the Roman Empire was a benign state that allowed its diverse population to prosper in a spirit of competition and opportunity, a society with avenues for social advancement in spite of strict class divisions, a society that respected local customs as equally valid as Roman law, but it also had a greater capacity for greed and cruelty than we would allow. Brutality served a purpose in the Roman world, a tool that the ruthless found expedient. In other words.... What do you think I mean? I mean that I come home more greedy, more ambitious, more voluptuous, and even more cruel and inhuman - because I have been among humans. Letters (Seneca)

I had the pleasure of spending a few weeks in Istanbul earlier this year, with the aim of seeking out as many late Roman & Byzantine ruins as possible. I explored the Sultanahmet district, finding ruins of the great palace, I walked along the land walls (imagining the Ottoman siege as I went), I toured the Imperial way and I ventured north into the Galata region, across the Golden Horn. Pics and snippets of all the historical finds here: http://www.gordondoherty.co.uk/writeblog/walkingthroughconstantinople Hope you like

I have a minor problem with these types of announcements (they seem to be popular just now). Do they reflect current political or academic agendas? (whatever they may be? - I hesitate to even speculate on the current politics in Catholic Universities in the Northeastern US). How can they have statistically significant data on diet or life expectancy in the 4th or 5th century? how many graves? How do they date them? how do they know how old the people were or what they ate? Can the Britons really have had a longer life expectancy and higher standard of living when being ruled by dozens of petty warlords engaged in endemic warfare? Do people normally live longer in rural environments without urban centers? How do they know what tax rates were under the Romans and Saxons, did Saxons even collect taxes or just steal whatever they wanted? If things were so swell under the Germanic invaders why did the Welsh and Cornish resist and the Bretons emigrate? In the 60's and 70s there was a revisionist trend that claimed that the Germanic invaders were not such bad guys (proto-hippies?) relative to the authoritarian Romans (the "establishment"), Is this a resurgence?

Hi everbody, My interest in ancient Rome really leapfrogged six weeks ago when I visited all sites in the title. My brother-in-law and I were there for five days - and I want to go back! I have been interested in Rome ever since I was a Boy. This went as far as me wanting to study archaeology after school. However, this caused some uproar from my parents and other relatives so I did architecture instead - sigh! Anyway, my youngest son ended his dinosaur-Phase last year (every young lad has a dinosaur-phase) and this marked the beginning of the volcano-phase. Talking about volcanoes, Pompeii is never far away. As we now live in the wonderful age of the Internet, I came acoss material I could only have dreamed of so far. I visited Pompeii for the first time in 1982, but this was only for a day. The more I studied Ancient Rome earlier this year, the more I wanted to go back to Pompeii. I have three young children and clearly spending a while visiting dusty ol sites wouldn't exactly fit their idea of a nice holiday so I decided to ask my brother-in law instead if he wanted to join in. He immediatly agreed. So we took off for a two-hour flight to Naples on a Saturday morning and arrived there at lunchtime. We got the hire-car and drove to the hotel. Our first trip that day took us to the magnifcent Amphitheatre at Capua. The site is enormously impressive! It was a sizzling hot day and we were pleased to examine the cool underground cellars and cells. So much is still intact beneath the Arena. Isn't that splendid? I love these stairs! How many spectators actually walked here and watched the gruesome spectacle? Capua is easily recogniseable as one of the wealthiest cities in Campania. (Almost) Everything was tidy and clean. A far cry from what most of the Bay of Naples looks like! On Sunday we had Herculaneum on our list. We decided not to go strolling around by ourselves but to take part in a guided tour. The tour-guide waits until enough people have gathered and then takes you on a two-hour tour and after that you pay him/her how much you feel it was worth! It was worth every penny! On these tours you get to see so much more than walking around there guideless! The house of the Telephus Relief: What we weren't aware of is that Italy virtually closes down between 12:00 and 16:00! By the time we found a restaurant that was open, of course after 16:00 we were starving! We ate on the western slope of Mount Vesuvius overlooking Naples when a severe thunderstorm crossed us! What a sight! Looking Sourth we couldn't even see Capri anymore! Monday morning: Pompeii. The weather was attrocious! It was belting down! Anyway - better than being baked in the sun I thought! We were there at opening hours: at ten. Thousands of people flocked into the ancient city. Let me give you some advice: if you go to Pompeii - go there in the early afternoon. By then the crowds will have dispersed and a lot of people even left! Shortly before midday it stopped raining: I quite like this view because the Forum in Roman days was a crowded place. And this is what it was like on that Monday - it was a crowded place. When I was there in 1982 I had the impression that I was the only one there! And that was in Summer too. This view is now my screensaver: My brother-in-law doesn't like being in a crowd, there were too many people. We decided to leave. So after about five hours in Pompeii we drove up to the crater of Mount Vesuvius. You have to walk about the last mile or so. It was unbelievable! It Pompeii it was 34C° - on the top of Mount Vesuvius it was only 16°C! Pompeii as seen from Mount Vesuvius: Pompeii is the greyish shade in the upper left corner. You can make out the Forum: Tuesday: off to Stabiae! From here is where Pliny the Elder witnessed the Reuption in 79 ad. Here you can see yours truly very impressed by the sight. We are 15km from Vesuvius! And no, the volcano is not erupting, it is just clouds forming around the crater. Well, I have just tried to post and I have been told that I have posted more pictures than I'm allowed. I will delete the following and post it tomorrow once this has been approved by the moderators. See you tomorrow! Peter

Hello, I would like to recommend a book on the history of the relations between Romans and the peoples of temperate Europe, both those who lived within the northern border of the empire, and those beyond. It is very well researched and presented, with copious endnotes, illustrations (grave goods, cemeteries, etc.) and maps. Its title is The Barbarians Speak; How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe, by Peter S. Wells (Princeton University Press, 1999). Wells presents new evidence and re-examines existing evidence of cultural impact, resistance, and synthesis, both in the Roman provinces and beyond, as far as ancient Poland. Previous studies were biased in favor of ancient written sources, and these are now checked more critically against the archaeological evidence. The tendency to regard the conquered peoples as merely passive recipients of Roman culture is revised in favor of more dynamic interaction. I also like the cover, a portion of the monumental painting Romans Passing Under the Yoke, by Charles Gleyre, who painted classical and related subjects in the early to mid-19th century. His painting depicts the aftermath of the defeat of Roman legions in 107 BC by the Helvetians under Divico, mentioned by Livy and Caesar, et al.. It's a bit out of the period covered by the book, and, apart from the Teutoburgwald catastrophe of 9 AD, not much is made of Roman defeats. But it does suggest that the contents will counterbalance the tendency to regard the Romans on the frontier as an all-conquering force. One early part of the book I found fascinating was the account of the century preceding Caesar's conquest of Gaul, when the economic impact of Rome had already transformed Celtic (at least) culture along the future imperial boundary, as evidenced by the remains of enormous economic-industrial centers called oppida by Caesar. The oppida were independent to the point of minting their own money. One among many eye-openers in Wells's book.

Thanks Aurelia, did you get to see some of the other sites? In the Villa San Marco, the Villa Adriane and in Oplontis we were about the only visitors there. More on that below Here's part two on my terip to the Bay of Naples: The Villa San Marco in Stabiae. What a relief this was from crowded Pompeii! There was no-one there but my brother-in-law and me! We were there for three hours, taking pictures and filming the place. The frescoes were untouched by tourists. In Pompeii all the frescoes have graffiti scratched onto them by the tourists, these here were untouched! What a pleasant change! It is incredibal that we are 15km (10 miles) from Vesuvius and this place was still completely covered by ashes and pumice! Now this is impressive! You can see this volcanic rock which was spewn out of Vesuvius in the 79 ad eruption. You can see the damage to the pavement where it impacted! And we are ten miles away from Versuvius! Archaeologists decided to leave this rock where it is! Interior view of the Villa San Marco: After about three hours we decided to look for the Via Ariana. Here too we were the only visitors. In a conversation with the lady guiding the site, we mentioned wanting to go to Oplontis. For some strange reason we were advised not to go there! This was some sort of insight into the rivalling amongst archaeological groupes. We later found out why we were advised not to go to Oplontis: Oplontis receives government funding while the sites Stabiae don't. I wouldn't say that the Via Ariana was dissapointment, but it is severely damaged! Nonetheless the frescoes are very impressive. We went to Oplontis after all. Here we only had time to visit the Via Poppea and of all sites we saw, this one left the biggest impact on me. I don't know why, perhaps it's because this building is so amazing, and very well preserved and lovingly taken care of. The frescoes inside the Via Poppea are outstanding! Even remains of doors cast in plaster-of paris can be seen. Excavation started here in the 1980s thus relativly new techniques are being used - one can tell! It was in Oplontis where I was free to gather some pebbles of pumice from the 79 ad eruption of Vesuvius. They are right here in front of me now as I write this. I will treasure them! I hope you enjoyed my little narrative on my tour to Pompeii and other sites. I surely enjoyed sharing it with you! Thank you for bearing with me till the end. Peter

-- doesn't seem to be a Reply tab on Guy's post and can't find the OP on this topic. ..BUT-- According to Suetonius-- as Caesar sat down before the assembled Senate, several conspirators approached him as if to pay respects. The lictors were probably behind or off to the side and not positioned to defend Caesar from the attack which began suddenly and unexpectedly. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/suetonius/suetonius-on-the-death-of-caesar/ (ch 82) Maybe the better question is what did they do in the immediate aftermath of the attack? Maybe they just scrammed realizing that they had just failed their mission?

I went to the #LegionExhibition in London last week. As the name suggests, the exhibition is very much focused on the Roman military, and specifically during the Principate (spanning 27 BC - AD 284). There were some terrific artefacts on show - my favourite being the crocodile armour! But the smartest thing about the exhibition, in my opinion, was how they threaded it all together using the career records of an Egyptian legionary named Claudius Terentianus. A papyrus archive found at Karanis, Egypt, contained several letters Claudius had written and sent home to his family. They reveal how he tried and failed to join the legions in AD 110, thanks to a lack of satisfactory references. So, he instead joined the marines - a less prestigious and lucrative career path. His duties would have included building roads and guarding the grain fleet harbours as well as long and hazardous sea voyages. The letters tell of very practical and human things - his struggles to fit in with his marine colleagues, his need for new shoes and socks, and of his injuries sustained when fighting to supress a revolt. He was deployed in the east for a time, likely in Emperor Trajan's war against Rome's rival superpower, Parthia. Having proved himself he finally achieved his goal and was permitted to join the legions! Here's a couple of photos (of Augustus, and of the Dura Europos shield!) Full gallery with commentary is on my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/GordonDohertyAuthor/posts/pfbid02AqWchBNFauQHLTcK3QSCTLCxziY67inptoe68vHwr1jPAzA9jHXNALNh8ZXW2C6gl

https://www.thebyzantinelegacy.com/ven-byzantine- sez (embolded by me): I am a Venice fanatic but not so much the Byz angle (St Mark etc) so may be a contra-indicator for you. I found Murano and Torcello islands painfully blah. Pay attention to ferry schedule for Torcello; you may have to commit to a very short or long wait for the return. Stopover in Burano which is super cute, if well over the top. They have/had coin bathrooms with no change made at the time. Mosto and Turchi facades go by fast on a waterbus, so maybe look for viewpoints from other side of canal. One is a hotel and the other a zoolog museum, so visiting may have complications. I normally love museums, but in Venice I only find the huge Maritime museum inspiring. Nobody visits there, and the staff tries to herd everyone out way before the 1:30 closing, but you may find Byz cannons or whatever. Consider a quick excursion to Padua for mosaics, etc. The charming neighborhoods in Venice are Dorsoduro (SW) and Castello (NE). The famous walk of train station - Rialto bridge - San Marco is a cattle drive horror show punctuated by pigeon poop. To get from west to east walk the alternate route of bus station - Academy bridge and onward; that's what Italian commuters do. Venice has the worst food in Italy since it has negligible Italian customers. Instead of tourist gelato which tastes like shaving cream with food coloring, get sorbetto tailored to more refined taste. Instead of stockpiled wet cardboard pizza slices, order a whole pie with gourmet ingredients they have to prepare for you. Above all, wander around at dawn and night when daytripper hordes are gone.

Sensationalism sells. "locked in?"- they don't mention a collapsed roof. Maybe they just haven't uncovered a door yet. There must have been a way to bring in food, fodder and to evacuate manure, not to mention the finished bread. How did they get the men & animals in there in the first place? How many modern bakeries have windows to provide a view for workers?... Did the skeletons have chains on the limbs? Were donkey skeltons found? Blindfolds or just blinders like modern working equines use? Hollywood has given us a false impression of the life of ancient slaves. Slaves were in all likelihood treated more like we today treat our working animals- horses, hunting or sled dogs, etc--- We may not let them sleep in our beds like Zza Zza and her lap dog, but we feed them well and don't mistreat them either. But the excavations at Pompeii give us such a fortuitous opportunity to gain insight into the daily life two millennia ago. With the exception of powered machinery, practically everything we have and do today had its counterpart in ancient Rome.

Sebastianus, observing the indolence and effeminacy both of the tribunes and soldiers, and that all they had been taught was only how to fly, and to have desires more suitable to women than to men, requested no more than two thousand men of his own choice. He well knew the difficulty of commanding a multitude of ill-disciplined dissolute men, and that a small number might more easily be reclaimed from their effeminacy; and, moreover, that it was better to risk a few than all. By these arguments having prevailed upon the emperor, he obtained his desire. He selected, not such as had been trained to cowardice and accustomed to flight, but strong and active men who had lately been taken into the army, and who appeared to him, who was able to judge of men, to be capable of any service. He immediately made trial of each of them, and obviated their defects by continual exercise; bestowing commendations and rewards on all who were obedient, but appearing severe and inexorable to those who neglected their duty. - Nea Historia (Zosimus) So by long unfamiliarity with fighting the Roman soldier was reduced to a cowardly condition. For as to all the arts of life, so especially to the business of war, is sloth fatal. It is of the greatest importance for soldiers to experience the ups and downs of fortune, and to take strenuous exercise in the open. The most demoralised of all, however, were the Syrian soldiers, mutinous, disobedient,seldom with their units, straying in front of their prescribed posts, roving about like scouts, tipsy from one noon to the next, unused to carrying even their arms. - Letter to Lucius Verus (Fronto) Causes of the Decay of the Legion - The name of the legion remains indeed to this day in our armies, but its strength and substance are gone, since by the neglect of our predecessors, honours and preferments, which were formerly the recompenses of merit and long services, were to be attained only by interest and favour. Care is no longer taken to replace the soldiers, who after serving their full time, have received their discharges. The vacancies continually happening by sickness, discharges, desertion and various other casualties, if not supplied every year or even every month, must in time disable the most numerous army. Another cause of the weakness of our legions is that in them the soldiers find the duty hard, the arms heavy, the rewards distant and the discipline severe. To avoid these inconveniences, the young men enlist in the auxiliaries, where the service is less laborious and they have reason to expect more speedy recompenses. - De Re Militaris (Vegetius) Now in the place of Valens, his uncle, the Emperor Gratian established Theodosius the Spaniard in the Eastern Empire. Military discipline was soon restored to a high level, and the Goth, perceiving that the cowardice and sloth of former princes was ended, became afraid. For the Emperor was famed alike for his acuteness and discretion. By stern commands and by generosity and kindness he encouraged a demoralized army to deeds of daring. - Res Gaetica (Jordanes) Dr Adrian Goldsworthy has commented on the strengths of the late Roman soldiery, regarding their ability in 'low level warfare' (raids and ambushes) but the skills of large set=-piece battles had withered along with the Centurionate.

I have just come back from a short trip to Portugal and had the chance to explore Roman Lisbon 😊 Here are some pics of the sites I visited. The city's Roman theatre is one of the most important monuments of the roman Felicitas Iulia Olisipo, with visible structures from the 1st century CE. The Casa dos Bicos is a beautiful XVI century palace hosting the José Saramago Foundation and houses archaeological exhibits from various periods, including Roman foundations. The exhibition presents remnants of a preserved and salted fish production unit from the Roman city of Olisipo (modern-day Lisbon), which was most likely set up next to the fluvial beach of the Tagus River during the 1st Century CE. A fragment of a Roman wall and semi-circular watch tower also highlights the reinforcement of Roman cities’ defence mechanisms from the late 3rd century onwards, while other archaeological finds show how the Roman wall was subsequently integrated into the Medieval wall. The ruined Carmo Convent is one of Lisbon's most hauntingly beautiful sights. It was its greatest medieval building, but stands as a reminder of the devastating earthquake of 1755 that destroyed most of the city. Its roof collapsed on the congregation as it was attending Mass on All saints’ Day, and was never rebuilt, but the Gothic arches still stand. Most of the architecture dates back to the 1300s, but Manueline (Portuguese Gothic) windows and other details were added later, in the 16th and 18th centuries. The sacristy’s small archaeological museum presents an eclectic collection that was donated by archaeologists in the 19th century. Among the treasures from Portugal and elsewhere are the Roman “Sarcophagus of the Muses” and other Roman artifacts.

Beg to disagree. Afterall there is a field of Study called Mariology and it gets just as much focus as Biblical Studies and Christology in one Church. (even more in some Orders and Regions)...........

Things like that did happen. There's a picture of Marlene Dietrich arriving at a railway station in France before WW2 and she's in a trouser suit, looking very fashionable and daring with a crowd of hangers on (all male), but moments later she got arrested. I have seen photos of a female climbing club in La Belle Epoque, ascending a tough rock face in long dresses (I am told they sometimes climbed in knickers when blokes weren't around because the dress was heavy and cumbersome. So whether you got away with pushing the frontiers of public sensibility was always the same as now. Fame, wealth, confidence, support, opportunity. Same with ancient Rome. Women were expected to be demure and dutiful, but as Rome got wealthy on the back of conquest, so women started taking risks and pushing at social boundaries. One lady called Sempronia absolutely shocked polite society but a generation later in the Principate, her antics would only have raised an eyebrow. We have women like Julia, Augustus' daughter, who was so annoyed and frustrated at her father's moral crusade and stifling family atmosphere that she rebelled and became very wayward. Eventually her father found out about her hedonistic lifestyle and was so angry he had her exiled to a small island. The public heckled him in the street to bring her home. Or Agrippina the Younger? Never overt, but a woman who had gossip and controversy follow her like attendants. Did she sleep with her brother Caligula? Was she trying to get off with her son Nero at a social dinner? We don't know. Or on a different theme, Julia Ferox in Pompeii, who after the death of her husband hired out her home as a social club and apparently did roaring business. But - and I say this advisedly - it is interesting that clothes were labels as much as accoutrements to the Romans, and taking a privilege you weren't entitled to, or trying something new was worse than actual bad behaviour.

Firstly one might try remonstrating with the individual. Possibly you might be in a position to use coercion to get that person to comply or else. Or you could complain to a magistrate and have him picked up by urban guards or other soldiers for a stiff telling off, physical punishment, or if considered a severe case, used in some humorous but ultimately fatal way in the next games as a lesson for others not to try this sort of thing.

I’m still intrigued by the statue of a “dog.” Assuming it is not an image of a lion, I am still wondering which breed of dog it could be. Could it be the now-extinct Molossian hound? (This breed might be the ancestor of the modern mastiff.) The breed was referred to in ancient Roman and Greek sources: Here is one of my favorite funerary stones from the Getty Villa in California: Here’s an article about dogs in Ancient Rome: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1603/dogs--their-collars-in-ancient-rome/ Here is Gordon Doherty’s excellent article on “The Dogs of War.” https://www.gordondoherty.co.uk/writeblog/thedogsofwar

Lanuvio (ancient Lanuvium) is famous for being the birthplace of two Emperors, Antoninus Pius and Commodus (Marcus Aurelius also spent his childhood there), and for its temple of Juno Sospes (the Saviour). One prominent native of Lanuvium was Lucius Licinius Murena (consul, 62 BCE) whom Cicero defended in 63 BCE. A Roman bridge, the so-called Ponte Loreto (2nd-1st century BCE) and a Roman road, the Via Astura, are still visible today (signposting for Ponte Loreto is very good from the city centre, so it is relatively easy to get there). The ancient Via Astura connected Antium to Satricum and Lanuvium. (Own pictures) Temple of Juno Sospes: In 2012 a sensational discovery was made in Pantanacci, in the Ager lanuvinus (not far from the Sanctuary of Juno Sospes): a votive deposit in a cave containing thousands of artifacts (4th-2nd century BCE), including pottery (also miniatures), anatomical votive offerings among which a series of oral cavities stand out, and last but not least, four elements in peperino bearing engraved scales, part of a majestic statue depicting a snake. It could be the well-known snake sacred to Juno, to which a specific cult was dedicated. (Own pictures) The Museo Civico Lanuvino is a little gem and the museum itself is scattered around the city (“Museo Diffuso”) as several locations can be visited, such as the room where the Pantanacci votive offerings are on display (albeit a very small part of them, as thousands of objects have been excavated so far!) but also the archaeological museum, where you can find a section with inscriptions, proto-historic pottery, votive offerings, fragments of frescoes, a beautiful winged griffin from the theatre of ancient Lanuvium (2nd century CE) and much more.

If you're ever in or around Rome I recommend you visit Cori! It is located 45 km southeast of Rome and was founded by the Latins (its ancient name is Cora). The city boasts two Roman temples, the Temple of Hercules (second half of the 1st century BCE) and the temple of Castor and Pollux (the Dioscuri) also from the second half of the 1st century BCE. The archaeological museum is hosted in Cori's Augustinian convent, which includes a beautiful cloister. Here are a couple of pictures I took during my last visit to Cori a few weeks ago.

I went for a research donder (Scottish for walk/excursion) down to the site of Trimontium, where once Roman and tribal forts stood proud. Here's a short docuvid of my findings:

I just saw this awhile ago. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21395115/roman-emperors-photorealistic-portraits-ai-artbreeder-dan-voshart

As you might have noticed the forum does look a bit different today! Our previous forum software reached its "end of life", so I had to make a decision either to shut it down or invest money and upgrade it to the newest version. Even though the forum discussion slowed down considerably over the years, i still believe there is more than enough interesting content and still enough contributors that it deserves to live on in a fresh and secure environment. So here it is the newest version of our forum software. I appreciate if you guys check it for any bugs and little errors so I can forward it to the developers to iron any bugs out you might encounter! Thanks!

Sorry I haven't been too active on this forum lately, but I did just post up a video on my YouTube channel featuring my modest collection of Roman artifacts. Feel free to check it out! (And I apologize for the obvious gaffe; I said 31 AD for 31 BC there at the end!)

Caligula wasn't crazy. I agree he wasn't especially well adjusted as an individual, but then the Romans were often colourful characters. What we can easily observe is his immaturity. He takes nothing seriously except his own importance and safety. He plays games with people, he acts out roles, such as general, auctioneer, gladiator, statesman, and so on. However his sense of humour is black, and as a cruel personality, almost like a child torturing ants, he is callous to lesser individuals. In fact his sense of humour did nothing for his survival chances. Cassius Chaerea, the Praetorian Prefect at the time, was a war hero from the conflicts in Germania. Unfortunately, Chaerea also had a soft voice, and Caligula teased him mercilessly about his manhood. Right up until Chaerea - alongside other conspirators - stabbed him in a tunnel leading to the theatre. There a re a number of anecdotes that seem to portray him as a nutter. Making his horse Incitatus a senator? He threatened to, on the grounds that the Senate were useless and his horse could do a better job, but anti-Caligulan propaganda and misinterpretation by witrnesses gave birth to the stories of his madness. Did he want to be worshipped as a god? Apparently, but then, this was considered normal for rulers in Egypt and it is no surprise he considered moving his capital to Alexandria (Egypt was also forbidden for Senators by Augustan rules thus he would rule as a god-king with no interference from those pesky layabouts in the Senate). His booty gathered at the expense of Neptune? Caligula had raised three legions to invade Britain, his attempt at military credibility, which like everything else he could not take seriously, staging fun and games along the way to the continental coast, where his troops, fearful of what lay ahead, mutinied on the beach and refused to embark. Caligula shamed them by ordering them to collect seashells - if Neptune was his enemy, then his booty will be from him, and presented the collection in Rome in order that the legions would be humiliated but of course the whole point was lost. There's a great deal of speculation about all sorts of weird and wonderful ailments he suffered during his famous bout of illness but really that's like trying to diagnose disease from a story. Can you identify the mental illness suffered by Frodo as he bore the Ring toward Mount Doom? Any conclusion is possible.

From News Guardian comes this item on a new exhibition dedicated to: Exhibition runs "until September 10, across 10 sites in the North, including Wallsend’s Segedunum Roman Fort, Baths and Museum and the Hancock Museum in Newcastle."

In his 'Penguin Atlas of Medieval History' Colin McEvedy states that the last pagans were around at the time of Heraclius (early 7th century). I don't know what his source was, however. A year or two ago on BBC I saw a news article about modern greeks who have started worshipping the old gods, dressing in ancient greek clothes and going to Delphi etc etc. As an agnostic verging on atheism I say good look to them, at least it is a religion directly ancestral to their own culture. The thing that made me laugh was an Orthodox bishop, saying they were infantile and that their religion was nonsense. Really? From someone who believes that a guy walked on water and rose from the dead?

I think for this thread the main sticking point would be the definition of 'evil'. Do you mean that they did things to hurt people on purpose with no 'valid' reason behind it? That they acted in a selfish way in order to get what they wanted, without taking the feelings of others into account? Or their 'atrocities'? Or are you talking about the individuals who ruled and ordered such things? Or some other reason? By defining the term 'evil' you could open the whole debate.

In the course section "Girls Growing Up," this picture of an ancient Roman doll from the second century AD was presented. This is the only information I could find about the image: Italy, Rome, Via Trionfale, Wooden doll from sarcophagus of Crepereia Tryphena Italy, Rome, Archaeological Museum, Roman civilization, 2nd century a.d. I am fascinated about the hair style and the movable joints of this "Ancient Roman Barbie." Here's an interesting video about the hair styles of that time. guy also known as gaius

Here's a nice introduction to Roman coins for us non-numismatists (non-coin collectors):

Now we run into an inescapable problem. Many assume that the Romans used a comparable pyramidical system of ranks - it seems obvious to us because modern systems are so similar and prevalent, not to mention easy to understand. But our organisational needs vary somewhat from those the Romans deemed important. Any specific comparison is not recommended. The equivalent ranks mentioned in Wikipedia are nonsense. There was no direct equivalence because ancient and modern use different tactics, organisation, and authority. Nowhere in the Roman sources is there a convenient listing of ranks. Vegetius merely mentions that troops 'rise through the ranks' and rotate among the cohorts. The thing is, our needs evolved from the use of gunpowder on the battlefield and the rapidly increasing need to manage a battlefield rather than lead it in the manner that the Romans used to. Centurions had far more authority to act on initiative than today - necessarily, because the Romans had not developed battlefield management and did not keep their generals at the back directing the battle. They never created a corps of runners, or any sort of overall communication system - messages were always sent ad hoc and it is mentioned that using runners was a risky venture due to casualties or mistakes. These days we need to spread our forces out, to prevent large casualties from single hits, to prevent flanking movements, and to deny territory to the enemy. The weight of fire that firearms development has made a difference too. Whereas in the days of muskets men were massed for maximising the short range inaccurate smoothbore flintlocks, the basic level of soldiering went down to the 'squad' in WW2 and now automatic weapons are making the smaller 'team' more usable. Back two thousand years and the squad is a disaster waiting to happen, easily overwhelmed by numbers, and thus the Romans group together in larger numbers. The only reason that basic units like the century were of around a hundred men (or a bit smaller in imperial times) was that was as many men as a single man could lead in battle conditions. If the Romans had been able to have one man lead the entire army in one go, they would have happily done that. Note how senior legionary officers behave. Caesar recalls how he ranged behind the line, urging men on, forcing them back into line when they wavered, or when he felt confident, picking up a sword and shield to fight alongside his men in the front rank. Try doing that today. There is a case for believing the Romans had a different system of rank - I've written often about this - based on temporary status in the same way a politician gathered offices during his career, but for this answer, avoid direct parallels. There are no NCO's as such, but there are soldiers with better status and some responsibility. Centurions are junior officers with their own hierarchy and social class. The remainder are senior officers, not career military men as such, though some did serve in that manner, but more often politicians or hopeful politicians serving their time to gain military kudos. If you want to create a sci-fi story and don't need precise Roman classifications, then adopt whatever names you need. You might even combine ancient and modern titles for added flavour. If this is a time travel scenario then your travellers are going to find a military system they would see some parallels in, but many nuances they did not expect. Always remember that money made the Roman world go round, and their military was no exception, effectively independent of the state though under the command of its representatives.

...Project is not over yet, should be next year in May, more here http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/projects?ref=AH%2FK007211%2F1

One thing about armour manufacture - why was so much armour needed? The thing about swords, helmets and the like is that they do not wear out and can last several generations of soldiers. For example modern re-enactment groups will tell you that once you have some chain mail, you never simply discard it because making more is such a swine. Instead it gets used and reused, and woven into different sets of armour. We know the ancient Greeks had family sets of armour passed from father to son, and I'd be surprised if the legion did not take - or buy- a soldier's armour from him for re-use when he retired. So surely a fabrica was topping up an existing armour supply rather than making new gear for every recruit?

An interesting article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/12005864/Secret-pagan-basilica-in-Rome-emerges-from-the-shadows-after-2000-years.html guy also known as gaius

I started the unit on Ancient Rome with my world history class. I ducked across the hall and changed into toga and sandals, waited for the tardy bell to ring, then strode straight into the room and delivered Mark Antony's funeral oration from Shakespeare's JULIUS CAESAR without a word of explanation to begin the new unit. They loved it!

A great thread - the sort of thing that keeps me coming back to UNRV. I've often wondered why people do crosswords when trying to decipher and reconstruct inscriptions is more challenging and constructive. Ofcourse, once you've mastered (!) CIL, there's CIG and IG. I've always considered IG to be the black belt of epigraphy.

Can I add two bits worth? A good definition of marriage among the Roman elite is 'serial polygamy'. That is, you can have a large number of wives, but only one at a time. Cato even divorced his wife so that she could marry Hortensius, and remarried her after Hortensius died. I'd recommend this as a starting point to the discussion http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf With Augustus the autocrat (which is where we started) we need to remember that the position of emperor was dynamic. The line between the Principate and Dominate is largely artificial. Labels like 'emperor' or 'king' cover a much more complex reality, and are labels rather than definitions of what the role entailed. Augustus probably saw himself more as a princeps senatus rather like Crassus or Aemilius Scaurushad been, though with more power and authority. By the time of the Lex de imperio Vespasiani the princeps is not a person but a job description, and this law details the titles and powers that a new emperor would take up. Likewise we see Caesar move from a cognomen to a rank (Galba was the first non-Julian to call himself Caesar). However, we can't argue even Tacitus' interpretation of what being emperor meant to Augustus, let alone Zosimus' interpretation. The office evolved much too fast for that. Even Augustus was not the same emperor in AD 14 as he was in 30 BC.

Just wanted to stop in and introduce myself. I am a National Guard Soldier who is nearing the end of my career. I am looking to the future and hope to turn my love and passion for history into a second career shaping young minds in the classroom. I have been fascinated by the Roman Legions and Roman history since I was young. I have long lurked on the boards and wanted to say Salve!

My 50 year old prostate is clear and unambiguous proof of some extremely unintelligent design. I would elaborate, but I've just got to nip to the loo again.

Losing a battle means that the other guy was a better general, not that the loser was a bad one, and the scale of the defeat does not mean an equivalent lack of military ability. After all, Napoleon lost at Waterloo. So for a true stinker at matters military, may I promote the claims of one Quintus Marcius Philippus, general during the Third Macedonian war; a man who was actually and undeservedly successful? This is a leader who took his army - including elephants - on a journey through the narrow mountain paths of the Olympus range - a march from which when committed there was no turning back. Philippus eventually brought his men down into Macedonia , exhausted and starving, into a narrow valley with no chance of escape or resupply. The head of the valley could have been blocked by a few hundred men, especially as there was a large defensible temple ideally situated for that purpose. Thus the Roman army was led into a position where it must surrender or starve. As it was a strong, well-equipped army army, it was only put in this position with great difficulty, and the huge self-restraint required to ignore several more militarily feasible options. Had Philip V still being running Macedon, it would have been game over. However, his son Persues decided that the only logical reason that the Romans would have made such a crazily suicidal move was if they had outflanked him elsewhere, so he pulled his army back to defend the capital. So, by literally incredible stupidity, Philippus gave Rome the bridgehead in Macedonia that they needed to win the war. It is yet not too late for his amazing lack of talent to be recognized.

Salvete, omnes - I've been a member at UNRV for some time, but I rarely get over here. Despite that AND because of that, I thought I would post a Hello once more. Rome has been an interest for me (to whatever degree!) since I was a teen (a late 1960s teen) when I read Rex Warner's translation of Caesar's Gallic War. And I have made some study of Rome and the Latin language since. But I wanted to say hi, and say it especially to Ursus and Nephele, who greeted me when I first arrived here, years ago.

Win!!! Author Thomas A. Timmes is so kind to give away two downloads of his latest ebook Legio XVII: Battle of the Danube. All you have to do is to answer here a simple question: What was the name of Thomas A. Timmes first novel? a] Legio XV: Roman Legion at Home b] Legio XVII: Roman Legion at War c] Lego XVII: Roman Lego for You We draw two lucky winners from all correct answers! Winners will be announced here. Competition ends 23rd of December Set during the 2nd Punic War, this book immerses readers in battlefield clashes, innovative tactics, strategic planning, and inspiring leadership. It starts when Timur, Chief of the Cimbri/Teuton Tribes, leads 300,000 people on an epic six year 700 mile migration through land occupied by hostile and friendly Tribes from Jutland to the Danube River. Timur’s 90,000 man Army crosses the river at night and overpowers the Suevi defenders, whose leader, Bethica, appeals to Rome to repel the invaders. Roman Proconsul Manius Tullus is the Senate’s choice to lead Legio XVII, Legio XX, and two Roman Auxiliary Legions across the Alps into Germania where he is reinforced with 20,000 Suevi tribesmen. Major battles are fought at Augsburg and Landshut before Manius’ Legions face off with Timur’s Cimbri/Teuton warriors at the climactic battle of Regensburg.

Just bought Dying Every Day when I saw it up there, it looked good.

I think that two writers from the same cultural milieu, describing similar events that occurred forty years apart in the same part of the world will probably parallel each other to a remarkable extent. That doesn't mean one is based on the other; it simply means they were men who lived close to one another in time, in the same geographic region, sharing a similar religious and cultural vocabulary, and chronicling events as they saw and understood them. Josephus' books were not published until well into the 90's AD. The Synoptic Gospels were almost certainly completed by 70 AD and possibly a decade earlier, according to most mainstream New Testament critics. Paul's letters were all written before his death in 68 AD. I think the parallels you cite are coincidental and meaningless, especially when you consider that the similarities in wording are frequently used to describe radically different events and circumstances, something the cherrypicking of phrases fails to reveal. Last of all, if the Flavian Emperors would go to the trouble to invent a new religion, why on earth then would they not legalize it and promote it? Why is Domitian remembered as a persecutor of the early church? Why would Nero blame the Great Fire of Rome on the Christians if the faith did not exist until a decade after his death? I am a newbie here on this forum and hope I am not speaking out of turn, but your hypothesis makes little sense to me.

The issue is not easily resolved. Nero had become deeply unpopular with the upper classes for his blatant un-roman behiour, outrageous money making schemes, and grandiose self absorption. As at any time in the latter half of Roman history, any perceived weakness or lack of opularity invites ambitious men to conspire or mount coups, especially since the communication disctances to provincial areas and the availability of standing armies loyal to personality and paypacket rather than patriotism, was all the more dangerous. Nero had been for a long time trying to push the Senate down. It's believed by some that whilst the Great Fire of Rome in 64 was an accident, it was further enflamed by conspiracy in order to destroy the homes of the landed wealthy in Rome, where all the political dealing was done behind closed doors. Very much "An act of God" then . For these reasons it's not beyond speculation that a great many senators were already conspiring to get rid of the Caesars and restore full republican rule - they had almost done so earler after the death of Caligula, but the Praetorians intervened and installed Claudius to safeguard their jobs. People routinely assume that the Republic had finished and Empire begun with Augustus - that's merely a historical convenience and not a condition of political reality. There was a Roman empire during the late Republic, and the Empire still called itself a Republic with most of the institutions still intact to some degree. Caesars were not absolute rulers either - their powers were granted by the Senate, though obviously in some cases the reasons a particular man came to power meant that giving them the power they wanted was a better bet, and then again, in the case of rulers like Nero, some simply ruled as if they were absolutely in charge regardless of the actual situation. So could the Empiure have split in 69? yes, it could have, but note that none of the usurpers stayed in the provinces and set up a breakaway state. They all headed for Rome and fought it out, or perhaps took advantage of a situation. So in reality, sooner or later, someone was going to take control of Rome and its provinces. It really was a case of winner takes all.

The Scots have a seperate identity from the English despite being part of the United Kingdom (which ironically ws set up by a scottish king). It's a manifestation of the Roman vs Barbarian inheritance which has coloured european politics since ancient times. I'm not saying the modern scots are barbarians (they're quite a cultured people when they stay off the booze) but they descend from tribes the Romans never conquered. Of course the earlier history of England and Scotland is one of extended conflict, and whilst it may seem strange that this isn't something that's forgotten, these old hostilities can survive in the folk memory for exceedingly long periofds of time. As with any people that have a regional identity, there will be those who want to establish indepenence on the assumption that life will be more suitable for them - the same motives drive hostiltiies in the middle east and africa for instance (it was also part of the issue in the American Civil War - slavery was something used as a moral rationale by Lincoln). Nationalism can be a heady brew thus many Scots might vote in favour despite any sensible argument against it. Personally I think the only reason this has come about is Alex Salmond wants his name in the history books. What ultimately might happen to the Scots is not really what he wants to hear right now.

After some thought on the subject, here's an outline of why 'basic training' is a flawed idea when discussing Roman legions. In a modern army, there is usually a central training organisation, units, or bases dedicated for the purpose of initial training. Having learned how to be a soldier, the individual is then posted to his assigned unit. That did not happen in Roman times. They did not have centralised training. It was not possible therefore to guarantee standards in basic training of raw recruits. Legions recruited individually, either at their own initiative or via the elite Roman to whom command of the legion has been allocated. Any training was conducted within the legion. There was no guarantee of a standard basic training. If the legion was at their home fort on peace time duty, a recruit might be given more attention and fitting in with the men would be simpler. If the recruit joins at a time when the legion mobilisations, tough, he's in the legion and must march to war as best he can. This is where the contubernium system serves admirably, because the soldier is introduced to a familia, a brotherhood of seven other men (the Contubernium was NOT a squad in modern parlance, it was not assigned duty or sent into combat as a unit, far too small for useful application other than a buddy system for morale and support). Also the role of the Centurion has to be emphasised. Despite much opinion that various Roman ranks and military titles were 'the equivalent of NCO's', there is no actual comparison. Rome did not like giving responsibility or command duty to men of lesser station, they had enough issues keeping them loyal and disciplined without letting them develop ideas of their own. Virtually all the Roman military titles below Centurion were jobs, not ranks, denoting either specialist categories or pay grades, but with levels of status - not command. The Centurion is the boss, the alpha dog, the organised version of a raider chieftain from Rome's earliest days. He is responsible for the leadership and training of his men. He has, in fact, considerable leeway in tactics and initiative, even given territorial responsibility sometimes. Technically the Optio "Chosen Man" is a job too rather than a rank in modern terms, one who serves as a 'right hand man' under the Centurion's authority, not his own.

Slaves made gladiators by purchase or court ruling (Ad ludum was condemned to the training school. Ad Gladium was to be put to the sword. It didn't matter how, and such men often fought in pairs until they died. Ad bestias means thrown to the beasts, or just as liikely, tied to a pole so the the crowd can see the ferocious beast in action) were essentially prisoners. Gladiators sold to private individuals might form personal troupes with their own premises or work as bodyguards within the house. Volunteer gladiators usually had the option to come and go. However, it isn't always so cut and dried. Star gladiators of whatever origin might be allowed to attend functions held by important people who want them on the guest list. Sometimes a lanista might be paid for some reason to let the gladiator out of barracks (it is often suggested that lanistas prostituted their gladiators because it was known that wealthy ladies in particular sometimes indulged themselves with private liaisons. Gladiators were symbolic of virility. Scarred, ugly, it didn't matter. However, too much sex would sap the gladiators performance, which is one reason why legionaries weren't supposed to marry, so a lanista might not be too keen to do this). Sometimes a volunteer who isn't being reliable might find out what being a slave is.

I've been listening to this over the last few months. Quality content that digs deep and shines light on the why when where and who of the fall of the West. Recommended!

If one is fortunate enough to actually live and work in one of the most famous cities of the world, what does one do when not hunched over a desk or negotiating Rome’s notoriously bad traffic? Mott LL Groom was one such lucky individual who lived in Rome for not one or five or ten years but a whopping twelve! A history major and Romanophile from an early age, Mott immediately set about pursuing his passion and wandering the ancient streets in his quest for all things Roman. Like a typical tourist Mott initially followed the well-established tour routes, but it wasn’t long before his chronologically-oriented mind began to rebel against the standard tourist tours. As Mott’s disenchantment grew, he decided to develop his own more logical tour... ...continue to the full review of A Walk With the Emperors: A Historic and Literary Tour of Ancient Rome by Mott LL Groom

Read the review, seems a good one to add to my wish list