Kosmo

More then a couple sharing a room it's not unusual in today's Romania for the poor. Extended families sometimes still live toghether in a house, most with their own rooms. The fast increase in real estate prices and rents in urban areas makes this the only possibility for many people like poor and young. Sometimes this has other reasons like old people caring for their nephews and receiving care from children because of low quality or inexistant public services. Nudity was present not only in public baths, but also in palestre for gymnastics. Sometimes intimacy, technolgy and social segregation are correlated like in the Reaniassance. The lord's family moved away from the common rooms of the castle with the apparition of advanced heating. They used often carriages instead of horse and foot distancing themselves from the commoners. Public celebrations were replaced with shows for invited guests. The space of the city was changed as areas for the rich appeared. The language used was somehow different and also manners, habits and dressing. Rome did not go far on this path and rich and poor were not really segregated.

The use of water mills for grinding grains but also for other tasks like crashing ore and cutting stone. The tehnolgy did not have any major improvements from roman level until XIX century. Complex water lifting devices for irrigations considered as arab, but wide spread since ptolemaic Egipt. This were diffused by romans. The increase in size of some domestic animals including horses. Better ways of horse control and of cart construction. Mining tehnolgy with large scale use of water. Etc.

The authenticity of this part in Tacitus it's controversial as it was pointed in another thread here. Some say that it's a later christian modification of the original text. Public executions were carried in the arena in morning before the gladiatorial fights. This executions were often for people convicted 'ad bestiam'. So, throwing people at wild, hungry and enraged animals was usual until the reign of Hadrian that made most sanctions to be of work in a mine. Other methods of execution were used as well, like sending convicts, one by one, against another one with a knife. The one who lives in the end wins. It was considered unelegant to go at this executions and most people came only when the gladiatorial fights started. Other convicts were killed in theatrical shows as pointed before. Some had a sexual content. All this it's what I rember from J. Carcopino.

My opinon it's that only people with some higher status knew how to read. As a large majority were poor and from rural areas and at least half of population were women then I say that 10% it's a fair estimate.

What do you think?

They also had overshot water mill. Hmmm !

A good article on the subject: Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy, by Andrew Wilson in The Journal of Roman Studies

Reading the quotes it seems to me that in the first case it's about the number of roman citizens in the city of Rome and the second about the number of citizens in the empire. The loss of half of citizens, does not mean the lose of half of the population of the city. We can believe that female population, slaves, the others without roman citizeship and foreigners suffered much less. It was the citizen class that suffered the most because they were still the manpower of the legions (toghether with italians) and the target of repressions.

Development of Dacia Greek trade relations were vary early important, so in same places in Dobrogea, not far from the greek cities of the coast, greek and local ceramic mix in equal quantities. In greek cities like Histria tombs of get aristocrats were found for VI-IV centuries and also hallstatt type ceramic. Over the Danube greek ceramic was found in many places and also local potters imitated greek models. The transition to Latene culture it's witnessed in all parts of Dacia, but the eastern and sothern regions are ahead of Transilvania. This means extensive use of iron objects including ploughs, wheel made ceramic, increased trade, use of coin, increased use of large fortifications and mentions of kings in greek sources. When romans conquered Dacia Sarmizegetusa had a citadel, a sacred area, and two civil areas. It had paved roads, aqueducts and sewage. Other dava had developed caracteristics as well. Dacian aristicrats had buildings with two floors and hellenistic tiles. Dacians build many temples with interesting arhitecture. For military arhitecture we see fortified setellments, forts with garrison buildings and liniary fortifications. The stone masonry bears hellenistic inflences. The defence system had some 80 major fortifications build and restored in 200 years. Demographic growth it's proven by the increase of number and size of settelments and of cultiavated areas. They exported agricultural and animal products, salt, wood and minerals. Burebista, reportedly, tried to stop wine cultivation but he failed. After the begining of his rule dacic coin issues copied roman denarus. Dacians had mines for iron, gold, silver, copper and lead, probably also tin and mercury. The iron workshop in Sarmizegetusa produced large quantities of high quality products. It is possible that they also had there a glass making workshop. There are several quarries from where they got several types of stone. Salt was also mined from many places. Wood working was probably very used, but little remains. The Sarmizegetusa cistern was digged in stone (10x7 meters) and placated with wood. Pottery was heavily influenced by greek, hellenistic and roman types. Silver working left many examples as more then 100 treasures dating from II BC to I AD were found. Gold finds are very rare. Few knew writing as Dio Cassius mentioned and as greek and roman short texts on pottery prove. Markings with letters were found on stone blocks in the capital. Dacian names of healing plants are mentioned by Dioscoride and Pseudo-Apelius. They used surgery instruments and termal waters.

@ polecat - it is great site that I did not knew nothing about. Thank you. I do not agree with some of the maps, but they are mostly accurate. I'm interested also in Thracia, but, unfortunetly, not many sorces are available. @ Ramses the Great. Do you ask if they evolved from greek first mentions to later roman ones? They did. The establishment of a great kingdom during Burebista, development of "cities" (more accurate "dava" a sort of oppidum- hill fort) especially of Sarmizegetusa and extensive minting and use of coins are a good proof. We should remember that Herodot had a high opinion on them and they are usually positively portraied. Unfortunately most ancient books that spoke about Dacia, and we know that were many of them, are lost, so we have to rely a lot on arheology that has some limitations.

Finley did it! He said that technolgy did not evolve and he was convincing, so, I believed him. Roman technolgy evolved in all aspects of life until the end of the empire. Many innovations that were claimed to be made in Middle Ages were already in large scale use in the roman empire. And rich people wanted to get richer. as always, especially as status depended on wealth more then in other civlisations. Regarding slavery I must point that it was not in contradiction with innovation as the later development of cotton gin and the use of steam engine in Caraibeean sugar plantations proves. If we say that a strong motif to develop technology is to need labour saving devices (a thing that I disagree with) then the demograhic decline of the empire was a good enough motif. I believe that romans improved existing technolgy, they diffused it in backward areas and made innovations.

All roman limes walls that I know had a ditch, even those made of earth and timber, so I think that this one has to. A more precise answer could be found because portions of the wall still exist. Wiki says he did had a ditch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasian_Wall

In 72-71, during the third mithridatic war, Terentius Varro Lucullus, defeats the bessi and the moesi and conquers the greeks cities along the Black Sea coast that were allies of Mithridate Eupator. With the help from batarni and geti this greek cities rebel against Rome and, in 61, Antonius Hybrida it's defeated near Histria. In 60 Burebista attacks the celtic areas NW of Dacia and defeats the boii led by Critasiros and the tauriscii, pushing them west. He also breaks the alliance with the scordiscii and attacks them. After that celtic forts are controlled by dacians as happened in Zemplin (Slovacia). He rules the entire Danube left bank region up to Bratislava. Then he heads to the Black Sea and he destroys Olbia, Messembria and Histria. Tyras, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis, Odessos and Apollonia submit to him. At this moment his territory stretches from Middle Danube to the Balkan mountains and to Bug river. He has 80 fortified cities and forts and a large army. He gets involved in the roman civil war siding with Pompei against Caesar. Around the same time with Caesar assasination Burebista is killed in a revolt. His kingdom is divided in 4 parts, later in 5 and the outside areas break away. Licinus Crassus, proconsul of Macedonia, attacks in 29-28 B.C. the regions south of Danube defeating the dacians of, maybe, king Cotyso. Romans use a friendly local king, Rholes, and the city Callatis against the ruler Dapyx and king Zyraxes sieged in the fort Genucla. One of the succesors, Dicomes, promises help to Marcus Antonius against Octavian. After roman expansion in the Balkans dacian raids over the Danube in the areas of future Moesia (at this moment belonging to the odris kings) and in Pannonia remain a frequent occurance as witnessed by Ovid in exile at Tomis. In the capital at Sarmizegetusa Deceneu becames king, followed by Comosicus, Coryllus/Scorilo that ruled 40 years and Duras in the time of Domitian. Possible there are some kings that are still unknown. In the winter of 85-85 AD the proconsul of Moesia, Oppius Sabinus, it's killed by dacians. The emperor Domitian cames himself to the Danube and the invaders are pushed over the river. Moesia it's divided in two provinces and war preparations are made. King Duras gives up the throne to his nephew Diurpaneus- Decebal. The romans cross the Danube on a bridge made of ships led by the prefect of pretorium Cornelius Fuscus. In the spring of 87 AD the romans are defeated and Fuscus is killed. Probably after this victory Diurpaneus assumes the surname of Decebal meaning "to onor the great one" or " the powerfull". Next year Tettius Iulianus defeats the dacians at Tapae (Transilvaia's Iron Gates). Because romans had to fight also in other areas a peace it's concluded in 89 AD. Diegis, probably the brother of Decebal, concludes the peace with Domitian that established Dacia as a clientelar kingdom of Rome and offered subsidies in money and tehnicians to Dacia.

The avars run away from the great turkish federation. It is unknown when and why the huns left Central Asia, but definetly was long before the Gokturk state was established.

Under the name of dacians or geto-dacians are considered several groups, dacians proper that lived in Transilvania, geti, called like this by greeks, living in Moldova and Muntenia and moesi living, toghether with other thracians between Danube and Balkan (Haemus) mountains. All this groups spoke the same language and shared a similar material culture. They are divided in many tribes. This is the northern branch of the thracians. During the period between the V-II centuries Dacia gradually evolved in the frame of Latene culture. In IV century a great fortificatied city was build close to Danube at Zimnicea. In Moldova at Stancesti near an VI century fortification a new one was build in the IV century. The two covered an area of 45 hectars. In time some settelment disapeared but for example In Transilvania in III-II the number of dacian setllements it's 3 times larger then in previous centuries. 10 new great dacian setllements called "dava" apeared during the second century BC. Greeks settled the coast of the Black Sea, founded several cities and traded inland. In the second half of the IV- century celts violently settle some valleys in Transilvania. Discoveries of celt objects were made in 150 points including large graveyards and princely tombs. They influenced dacians in metallurgy and pottery. In the II century BC they were assimilated or pushed to the west and north-west. The origines of the bastarni are controversial, being considered germanic or celtic (this is what I believe). They defeated a king Oroles and settled in Moldova in the II century. 100 years later they were pushed out or destroyed. Dacians are led by kings from the aristocracy (tarabostes-pileati) that control commoners (capillati - comati), making war, building fortifications, gathering treasures with objects with religious symbols and trading with greeks. The art objects show an art common to thracians, geti and scythians that is zoomorphic with persian and scythian motifs on greek models. Their religion was quite unique and influential, but details are confuse. Zamolxis, god or prophet, it's mentioned by classical writers. The geti living in Dobrogea were defeated by Darius in his campaign against scythians and, with the help of Philip II of Macedon defeat a scythian king Atheas. Other known kings are Zalmodegikos that took tribute from Histria as did "basileios" Rhemaxos. One named Moskon issued silver coins. Alexander the Great in his campign against triballi thracians crosses the Danube and takes a city, maybe Zimnicea, in 335. In 326 his general Zopyrion it's attacked in the plains north of Danube Delta while returning from a campaign against scythians, and killed and his army destroyed. The diadoh of Thracia Lysimah fights a war against a get king called Dromichaites. After several batlles, around the year 300, Agathocles the son of Lisimah it's captured. In 292 his father it's defeated and taken prisoner. At this time there are 4 centers that issue coins representing maybe the most important tribal unions. Later dacians, like celtic scordisci and bastarni, raid roman Macedonia. One of this raids it's defeated by the proconsul of Macedonia M. Mincius Rufus in 109-106. In 82 the get king Burebista and the high priest Deceneu join forces and create a powerful kingdom. It is unknown how the unity was created but local coin issues stop. Sarmizegetusa becames the center of power of the new union. Burebista, with a strong army, crosses the Danube and pillages Thracia to the borders of Macedonia and Illyria. He is followed in his retreat by C. Scribonius Curio, the proconsul of Macedonia but no battle was fought.

You should take China off the list.

Strange enough in romanian they are called also carpi, only my poor knowledge of historical terms in english made me change it. And carps are vicious creatures that attack fishermans ego as I discovered last summer when I went fishing in Danube Delta and they were jumping out of the water to mock me as I caught none of them. Thru this cronology I'm trying to show that romans never had an easy time in Dacia. Traian's decison to conquer Dacia and to extend on the left bank was subminated by Hadrian decision to reduce the areas under control. This left roman Dacia with a narrow frontier on Danube with the empire and long borders with hostile populations. For the defence of the Danube frontier posesion of Dacia brought little benefit as barbarians often attacked Pannonia and Moesia Inferior as goths, iazigi and carpi did. For the defence of Dacia romans used Legio XIII Gemina at Apulum, Legio IV Flavia Felix at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa and later at Berzobis and Legio V Macedonica at Potaissa. Also auxiliary forces of 16 alae, 50 cohorts, 15 numeri and some singulares were used making a total force of 50-55.000 soldiers. Auxilary units forts are almost 100 in Dacia. It will be interesting to know if the gold mines and the other sources of revenue were able to cover for the price of defence. I see the roman actions in Dacia as caught in the middle, the worse position between the movement of the frontier far north of Danube, maybe pushing to the Carpathians in Central Europe and keeping the Danube frontier of Augustus. If the kingdom of Dacia was a danger it was also a buffer that was destroyed. After Aurelian's withdrowal the defence of Danube was in a far worse position than in the times of Domitian.

All this steppe federations conteined people of diverse ethnicities. They were Altaic people, probably turkish speakers, but for obvious reasons we know very little about their language. They came from Central Asia, but when and how it's debated. Some say that were reminants of Xiongu that threatened China, thus being nore mongolian. Others say that they were from some time in the areas North of Caucasus. I believe more this other theory, because of the later history of bulgars. In Romania, huns came in 376 after defeating the visighots and establish a center in N. Moldova. Until 420 they control area the areas east of Carphatians and a princely tomb was found at Conesti and several tipical hunic objects throut this areas. After 433 they move to Pannonia under the leadership of Atilla and create a federation with alans, ostoghots and gepids. After this in Transilvania, the heart of Dacia, urban life dissapears and also the Cernehov/Santana culture. After Atilla's death (452) and Nedao battle (454) they are replaced in Transilvania by gepids

106 AD, roman conquest of Dacia 107-108, war with iazigi, sarmatians from the Tisa region, W of Dacia 117, after Trajan's death war with iazigi in the West and the roxolan sarmatians that lived East of Dacia. Hadrian abandones South Moldova, Muntenia est of Olt river and western Banat. Some points of control are kept , but largely the roman border is restored on the Danube and Dacia is connected with the rest of the empire thru a much norrower corridor. Estimated lenght of the new borders of Daica -1.000 roman miles (1.479 km) after Eutropius. On Olt river the limes alutanus was built with a lenght of 260 km and 15 chesters. East of Olt was limes transalutanus, 235 km long and with 14 fortifications from Carphatian mountains to the Danube. Other limes was in Banat area. 142-143 - war with sarmatians 157-158 - war with free dacians 166-after 180 - the marcoman wars. In 167 large areas of Dacia are destroyed including the gold mining areas and temples outside the walls of Sarmisegetuza Traiana. The governor of Dacia's and Moesia Superior it's killed in combat in 169. Costobocian dacians strike south of Danube in 170 from N. Moldova. 179 iazigi get trading rights on a road thru Dacia to the roxolan sarmatians in the East. After 180 war continues with german burs north of Dacia. 183-184 - war with free dacians north of Dacia 236-238 - Maximinus fights sarmatians and dacians 238 - goths and carps attack south of Danube in Moesia Inferior 242 - carps attack Moesia and Thracia. South and East Dacia are seriously affected between 238-242. 244-247 - the great carp attack. Large destructions in Dacia. Limes transalutanus abandoned. Captives freed by romans and many treasures burried. At the great chaster at Potaissa a gate was blocked for some time. Dobrogea it's destroyed by goths and the war there continues. 251 - emperor Decius it's killed by the goths led by Kniva somewhere in S. Dobrogea before 257 - Gallienus fights free dacians After 260 - situation unclear in Dacia, units from Dacia fight in civil wars in the empire, no inscritions can be dated to this time, little or no money finds. Most literary sources mention a first abandonment of Dacia. This withdrowal under Gallienus was regarded as total (for the entire Dacia and the province was recovered and abandoned again by Aurelian) or partial (some areas left by Gallenius, the rest by Aurelian) 269 - the great victory of Claudius at Nis, in Serbia, over the goths 270-271 or 274-275 - Aurelian withdrows from Dacia. It is unclear if he had control of the province or it was already lost.

Phil, I love a good, friendly debate and this one is very interesting. To became a hellenistic ruler with the capital in the East Antonius had to change the basics of roman politics. It is true that money came from the East and this is very important, but there are other factors in the grand picture. I don't see Antony as a ruler of the East, but as a roman that used his control of the East to gain power in Rome. Most political factions since Marius were based outside Rome, but all had the goal of conquering power in Rome. On what could base Antony his control in the East? One source was his ptolemaic dinasty. The other, roman legions and treaties thru out the East. His forces obeyed him as a roman politician and as a party leader. He had to rely constantly on Rome for reinforcements and for legitimacy. The cities and the the kingdoms of the East obeyed him because he represented Rome, not because of party affiliation or political sympathies. Rome had to accept that much of her work in the East and most of her money were lost. To make Rome accept that he had to control her. If he becames an hellenistic king from the East he had to fight against Rome not as party leader, but as a foreigner. There was little reason for a commoner to fight against Augustus, but he had everything to lose from that shift of power to the East. Much later the empire was divided constantly, but this divisions were short lived and often reversed, at least, until the outside pressure became to great. Even after that the two capitals competed. So, my theory is that the empire was hard to divide and that the city of Rome was of great political significance and not just a place from where to rule from.

During the iconoclast emperors the focus of intelectual life returned to the study of classic writers. Even some forms of pagan mysticism, like astrology, returned to favor. The classic studies remained important, despite the deep christian feelings, and the last moment was the cultural renaissance under the paleologian dinasty. This shows that they considered classical culture as their ancestry and tried hard to reconcile Platon, Aristotel and Plotin with christianity as their III and IV century ancestors did. They played polo? I thought that this was a persian sport picked by brits from moghul India.

Very interesting the article you linked Pertinax. Tidal water mill it's quite complex technology and shows that they had good understanding of tidal movements unfamilliar along the mediterranean. My mistake about their use of watermills comes, maybe, from the fact that they did not have windmills.

Rich people did not work and that would be my desired status. If I had to work then merchant would be the best. Travel a lot, meet people, have some money and a small villa in the islands of Greece. Bad would be cheap slave, peasant or just poor. Eunuch will be the absolute worst becuase of job requirements.

Why is this considered the glorious beginning of colonisation and US birth when Virgina was already a flourishing colony? I guess it's northern bias, but maybe it's more to it. I'm fascinated by that period between the early discovery voiages along the coast until the last war against the french.

It was usefull agianst small bands of marauders. It was not meant to stop a large army, but to keep the environs of the city safe when Thracia was overrun by raiders. The problems was that large armies came thru it and destroyed it repeatedly making it too expansive. It was completly abandoned when Byzantine positions against the bulgars were consolidated along the Balkan mountain range and there was no threat of large scale raiding. Also norse attacks from Black sea made the areas outside city walls dangerous.