caldrail

Cat lovers look away. There is some gruesome evidence that cats were bred deliberately as sacrificial offerings.

I disagree. Insulkae came in levels from two to a legal maximum of seven floors, though one building in Rome managed to stay upright with nine. Yes, as living spaces, they had flaws and limits, no contest. That does not dictate quality of life. Please note that in all the Roman writing, it's noise they complain about. Graffiti does not refer to social problems, it's mostly childish boasts about sex or insults, perhaps the odd moan that someone doesn't love them. The Roman poor were a vocal lot. They didn't shy away from venting their opinion when they spotted their glorious leader walking about. Claudius got pelted with stale crusts during a grain shortage for instance. Commodus received a hostile mob and sacrificed his friend to them. That was why panem et circuses was so important. The poor didn't complain about their sccial conditions, just whether they could buy or receive food. One has to allow for the conditions in the rise of Christianity. It wasn't about spirituality, like it never is with that form of religion, self appointed cult leaders making a living from their converts and those converts rejecting traditional pagan worship because it did not answer their needs reliably, whereas Christianity simply told them it's okay, whatever they suffer now, they'll be resurrected in eternal life. It's the pettiness of lead curse sheets that make this clear - asking the gods to punish whoever took their bowl. But what source are you using for agrarian slavery? The Sicilians, having shot up in prosperity and acquired great wealth, began to purchase a vast number of slaves, to whose bodies, as they were brought in droves from the slave markets, they at once applied marks and brands. The young men they used as cowherds, the others in such ways as they happened to be useful. But they treated them with a heavy hand in their service, and granted them the most meagre care, the bare minimum for food and clothing. As a result most of them made their livelihood by brigandage, and there was bloodshed everywhere, since the brigands were like scattered bands of soldiers. - Diodorus Siculus As the master, so the slave - Satyricon (Petronius) Domestic slaves were not automatically better off. They didn't do the jobs considered necessary, they did whatever jobs the owner decided they should, and wealthy men maintained overly large contingents as a sign of prosperity. Some of them were able t sample the food of their masters in one manner or another, but a harsher owner might find that intolerable, and the idea they were comfortable and well off is not consistent with the evidence I come across for the majority of them. But poor conditions in poverty are not automatically unbearable. This is why I think you cling to modern values too much. I don't like using modern examples but for instance take a look at Africa. People there live in slums, have little or no money, but find ways to get what they need most urgently, and smile. They remain jovial, aside from a religious cult or rebel gang here and there. Was the Roman Empire really all that different? No, there's little evidence to suggest it was. Sorry, I will not agree with your perception of Roman slavery.

No, I can't agree with your conception. I don't doubt some peasants had a real tough time of things, poverty is not an easy existence, but notice how little emphasis the Romans place on social commentary. Granted, literature was written by the well to do who conformed more or less with traditional values, yet the only time we hear much of the common folk is during shortages, grain in particular, or when something bad happens. Entertainment could be had for free, street theatre, the arena, the circus, with handouts of food and possibly a kind of lottery. Also, we have to consider the social support from patronage which so rarely gets an adequate mention. I'm well aware of the crowded and expensive living conditions of the urban poor. And other aspects of lower class life. yet you conveniently ignore one specific thing that sets slaves apart from peasants - slaves must do as they're told. Epitaphs from Romans run the range. From those whose lives were downright pointless and miserable, to those who had a great time and left humorous hints to those who read the inscriptions that marked their graves. Clearly being poor wasn't so bad for everyone, but seriously, aren't you trying to to foist modern expectations on ancient Rome? Sounds like it to me. Oh god, not Spartacus.... I don't think you understand what he was about at all. A rebel against the injustice of Roman society? No, just a an out of control bandit who tired to stay ahead of Roman justice while looting up and down Italy for two years before he finally got cornered and defeated. I wouldn't play the Spartacus card if you want to win a debate like this.

With respect, American slavery is neither here nor there. There's plenty of academic work on Roman slavery based on literature and archeology. Rome was a different beast. It allowed humanity to a free man as a privilege of freedom. A slave had no such right or privilege because they had no freedom, no choice, and did as the owner required or expect to be punished for disobedience, a condition resembling that of an animal as far as Romans were concerned. Life expectancy for a typical Roman was forty years, not twenty five, although three out of five did not survive beyond twenty one. If pregnancy was as good as a death sentence, the Roman Empire would not have happened. As for peasants, there was a world of difference. Poor, perhaps, but human, and eligible for citizenship with the right background. They could own slaves. They could vote in the Popular Assemblies until the Principate and still be a member of them until the Dominate. Were Roman slaves treated differently to servants in 19th century England? I really need to explain that? Of course it was different. Servants were employees, usually British citizens, though the standards of low paid work and service were different to today. They could, after all, choose to leave if they wished. A Roman slave choosing to leave was a renegade and expected harsh punishment if caught.

Sorry, but I have to take issue with some comments I found on forums here. Slaves were generally treated well, often playing integral roles in the household, including companionship as well as nursemaid/governess/teacher Whilst it is true that some slaves had respected and professional roles, these were often skilled people offering their trade via slavery, and as volunteers they tended to be better trusted and treated. However, the vast majority of slaves, either former free people or born slaves, were not. 'Talking Tools' is the phrase Cato used. They were to act without unnecessary attention. At a dinner a Roman elite merely held out a goblet. He expected it to be filled, and didn't ask. The slave was not supposed to speak, just fill any goblet held out. There's evidence of poor treatment from various sources, not least the satire of a lady's servant who is bullied and attacked because she has aroused the jealousy of her mistress by attracting the amorous attentions of her husband. Household slaves generally lived in dark cellars, below the family home. A male Roman could have a slave as he chose, male or female. The women were not supposed to use slaves like that, it was scandalous, though such things did go on. Those slaves unfortunate enough to be bought for born into rural industrial labour could expect short hard lives, extreme physical labour and workplace hazards. Some facilities, such as metal foundries, could be downright poisonous. They might expect to be corraled like animals. Animals... That brings me to the essential point about Roman slavery. Under Roman law, a slave has lost or possessed no humanity, equal in status to animals, because they had no say or choice. There's a description from around the time of the Slave Revolts of a Sicilian slave in appalling condition, virtually ignored and starved by his master. It is true of course that beginning in the late Republic but noticeable more from the Principate were laws to restrict what owners could do to their slaves. Abandonment of sick slaves left to die, casual sale or gift to the gladiator schools for unwanted slaves, and other abuses were curbed. Yet a lot of this was for public image - a country villa might have wonderful gardens facing the entrance tended to by willing slaves in good condition - to the rear, out of sight, the manual labourers penned and herded, with overseers from among them just as willing to lash their victims as their approving masters. Roman slaves were often given wages/"spending money" above and beyond room & board, and were oftrn in a position to take on extra work for pay outside the household. That was hardly common. Slaves were indentured servants, not employees. Some were allowed to have monies - Gladiators for instance by law were entitled to receive a portion of the winnings if they won a fight, some were allowed to run businesses on behalf of their master, some were allowed informal families of their own - though any children were slaves of the master automatically - but it would be a foolish master who let his slaves run around doing their own thing. Working for profit isn't a common theme in Roman writing and for good reason. Such slaves might well have had an ulterior reason for being allowed to operate semi-independently, and that would be to observe rivals and inform on them. Slaves were manumitted for a number of reasons, none of which were primarily the welfare of the former slave. Some were freed to create the public image of a generous man. Others as a reward for long service though that would be exceptional. Sometimes saves might be freed for more subtle reasons, and Augustus tried twice in AD 9 to get wealthy owners to donate slaves to be freed and sent to Germania as emergency third class troops. He resorted to legal action and punished some of their owners. Slaves were of course below the horizon socially, and we hear very little about them, but that doesn't mean their lives were happy and ordinary. Most Romans cared more for their dog than a slave in their ownership.

They got caught? After all those other pilfering incidents over the years? There's no justice!

It certainly isn't the worst video on gladiators I've seen, but I noticed a few errors and exaggerations. Like all videos, take it with a pinch of salt.

"Byzantine "Empire" is the modern name for the Eastern Roman Empire, and back in Medieval times, they were known as Romans. The schism between the Catholics and the Greek Orthodox chuches is well known, so the observation is basically valid.

Modern literature tends to stress a difference between Republic and Empire, but really that's merely a rationale to justify the use of the word 'emperor'. When you read the sources, certain things become obvious - there was no new state. The 'Roman Empire' was nothing more than a continuation of the Roman Republic with evolving leadership. The 'Fall of the Republic' never happened - there's no such event described in the sources. There's no word in Latin for 'emperor' anyway. How could Roman leaders be something for hundreds of years with no word to describe it? It's ridiculous. The words we use in translation now meant something different back in the day, and worst of all, so many people, even academics, insist on trying to define the Roman Empire in modern terms and themes. Rome was a city state that dominated their empire, a patchwork of regions and territories with varying levels of status and relationship to the parent state, from occupied regions administered by the legions to provinces with full citizenship rights. The Italian tribal states, although brought into a formal relationship by Augustus, were never legally provinces at all. When people in the empire said they were Roman, it was their relationship to the eternal city they referred to. That was what Rome wanted. Loyalty and taxes. Although the empire became a full autocracy when Diocletian declared his word was law and ushered in the Dominate, none of his successors ever relinquished republican credibility completely in the West. The East went further though. They started crowning monarchs with Leo I in 457, and within a couple of hundred years later had introduced imperial titles that did mean 'emperor'. But what change did Augustus bring? The Roman Empire? It's nonsense. Rome began its empire two hundred years before Augustus with territory in Western Sicily. Augustus did not sweep the Republic away, he reformed it, and became its leading statesman. Medieval fallacies say something different and are responsible for our romantic ideas about the imperial Romans, but the truth is that SPQR remained the official name of the state until 476. We're talking about a couple of thousand years of history, so yes, there were political changes along the way, and as both Virgil and Polybius predicted, the Roman state went the way of all empires and declined.

There's been a lot of investigation and debate regarding the legacy of the Alexandrine Empire. Apparently there was a major river system extending back from the Black Sea toward the Himalayas, only remnants of it still exist, once a major trade route and ruined settlements follow the ancient course. I don't know too much about this, I've only seen television documentaries

I'm not aware of any specific instance of rhinos being used but Rome loved novelty. Augustus had crocodiles brought into the arena but they were something of a disappointment. Ostriches were popular, the crowd found them hilarious. Elephants made an impression. In one event a number were being hunted - if that's the correct term - and bellowed to the crowd for help, or so it seemed to the audience who felt sorry for the beasts. Yet there's also an account of elephants flinging horses and riders around like rag dolls. One idea was to see if elephants could walk a tightrope. But it didn't always go as planned, one raging bull managed to get into the crowd at one event and you can imagine the panic ensuing.

As much as the RAF defence was determined, well flown, and kept Britain in the war, I have to point out that wasn't the worst bugbear facing a German invasion - the English Channel with its notoriously fickle waters and the Royal Navy Home Fleet waiting at Scapa Flow to intervene were both well known to Germany and why Hitler stressed secure ownership of the Channel as the basis of three of his requirements before he would authorise the operation. Everyone seems to suggest the Luftwaffe gave up - they didn't - time was against them. Because the RAF fended them off long enough the window of opportunity was closing, one reason why Germany turned to strategic bombing rather than focused attacks on the RAF, and another reason why the offensive was put on low priority. However, the Blitz continued - there was no cessation of bombing although they turned to night operations, and fighter strength was already being conserved for Hitler's desire to expand eastward having realised the Soviet Union was a 'Rotten Edifice'.

Rome couldn't defeat Scotland because it wouldn't exist until nine hundred years later. They had however defeated the assembled army of Picts at Mons Graupius, but annexation didn't happen - Agricola was recalled before any political settlement and tested for loyalty.

Guy, it was British airspace. Of course we had air superiority over it in 1939, what the heck do you imagine the RAF was for? The whole point of the Luftwaffe campaign was to challenge that air superiority and suppress the RAF over SE England. This is kindergarten stuff.

But we didn't 'win' air superiority - we already had it and retained it. Had we lost that as the German initially wanted, then the threat of invasion escalated. That did not guarantee it would happen because there were three other clauses relating to the security of the English Channel before Hitler would authorise the operation. Germany knew full well the Royal Navy was waiting in the wings. However - the defence by the RAF delayed the situation long enough for the window of opportunity to close - the English Channel is a wayward bit of sea often enough and weather in the winter would have effectively made supplying an invasion force impractical. So unlike the many who thing the Luftwaffe 'gave up', I'm pointing out that Germany made a conscious decision to change strategy, besides being angry that the RAF had bombed Berlin in response to a ad hoc attack on London. The objective of air superiority had lost impetus both because of the timing. Besides, with Hitler thinking of eastward ambitions, the Luftwaffe needed to conserve their forces for the coming attack on the Soviet Union. After all, surely Britain would finally accepot defeat if the U-Boat blockade forced them to? But to clarify a point, the British in the Channel Islands were not required to speak German or eat sausages - not that they had many of those available anyway.