caldrail

I remember being at our local library some years ago. The sky was cloudy, dark, with a strange brown tinge. I thought it was going to unleash a deluge but, no, it stayed dry. As I went off elsewhere the clouds were thinning, and the sun was a deep red at midday. Seriously surreal moment, but about ten minutes later, you could see the cloud of dust (Saharan dust as it turned out but I didn't know that at the time) thinning and moving north like a rolling fog bank.

I'm amazed. I thought the Khufu's Pyramid was already scanned and so on. I know it's unlikely, but imagine if they find the actual burial storage for the afterlife. Ye gods, the news will be adding, "and finally, we go to our correspondent for quick update on Ukraine". There'll be dozens of documentaries over the next five years. Can't wait....

I think its clear from recent satellite archeology that the ancient world was far more developed than we normally consider. Certainly the Roman Empire, but more impressively, Egypt was heavily urbanised along the Nile which bares little trace now. They had some very impressive castles too, something we don't normally associate with Egypt, and it shows Rome was not quite as unique as we tend to think.

Roman pagan worship did not involve congregations. Worship was individual, conducted in a similar manner to the client/patron relationship, visiting a temple as if entering the atrium of the deity concerned. They compensated by a lot of public festivals.

Can't believe I just watched a video about makeup. But what this video does underline is that the human instinct for display diversifies with wealth and urbanisation, more or less as it has in modern times. A different mix of culture, but we haven't really changed much, have we?

Yes he was. He lost his position after the Samaritans complained to the governor of Syria (Judaea was a satellite territory at the time under Syrian jurisdiction). Pilate was recalled to Rome to answer to Tiberius. however, the trial might not have taken place because Tiberius had died. Lucky old Pontius. But his career was over.

This is not disputed. Provincial representatives of Rome did not go there to rule. They were wise enough to let local tribal inheritance (usually romanised it must be said) do the actual running of the province. But Romans were about money. It graded their society, it lubricated their activity. And since in provincial service they were the last word in Roman and native law, extracting wealth was an opportunity. Some were worse than others it must be said. Quintilius Publius Varus for instance gets a special mention for getting wealthy at the expense of Syria. Not in any praise either, just mentioned as a particularly greedy example.

If elections were not seen as properly convened, it wasn't acceptable. Egnatius Rufus found that out. I would poin out that the tribuncian power held by Augustus was to ensure that elections were indeed properly convened, as well as preventing legislation from acting against the interests of the plebs. I just read a website that says Augustus invented a new tribunicial form, well, Augustus assures us personally he invented nothing new. The same website consistently describes him as sneeky, covert, even machiaveliian. His reported behaviour does not suggest that, the idea of stage managed transition of power is merely a rationalisation to make the preconception of absolute rule make sense. ...Agrippa, whom the friendship of the emperor had raised to a third consulship and soon afterwards to a share in the emperorʹs tribunician power. Paterculus Not the behaviour of a tyrant, is it?

If Augustus was a tyrant he would have lasted months, not decades. His behaviour was not typical of tyrants or dictators in the modern sense. I know that's a popular conception but if you read the sources, he emerges as a more idealistic personality with genuine republican sentiments - we've been though this before. But about proscriptions? Yes, he did, mentioned as being the most ruthless among the Second Triumvirate - and also the most reluctant. You can't ignore that to suit your preconception. But then he was hardly alone. The need for wealth provoked means to achieve it. And if Augustus had such a power to obstruct government - why the piggin' hell did he not go down in history, even by the revisionist Cassius Dio, as doing exactly that? It's an accusation made to suit a preconception. it's imaginary. The Senate of the time remained in control of the greater part of the Empire, Augustus did not act against that and even when he had to change his military priorities, he merely swapped control of a province with the Senate. They lost nothing overall. Sure, he could get ugly if he felt the need, but that was Rome. It was a tough city. Novosedoff- you cannot rule an empire by veto. Not possible. All you'd achieve is resentment, not only from the obstructed senators, but citizens who would see nothing was getting done. The Senate contained the most powerful and influential men in Rome. You would want them on your side surely? As for opposition, he had plenty. But Roman government was about litigation and debate. Now. Go ahead and impress me. You can do that by finding actual examples of veto. There must be some if he obstructed governmental business in favour of his own. If you don't accept the principles, then back your argument with evidence. A few theories in a book that agree with you won't cut it. Actual incidents please.

Augustus did NOT become a tribune at all. It was illegal for him to do so. He was granted the right to retain tribunician power and these powers were regularly renewed. I notice people who see Augustus (or any other Princeps) as all-powerful point at his power of veto immediately. Remember that Augustus could not realistically veto everything. Why would he? What's the point of reforming republican government over the course of a lifetime just to prevent it from working? Why would Augustus claim to have created the best possible Roman government if he had no intention of allowing it to function? It's nonsensical. Novosedoff - Whilst I'm not really going to argue about your view of corruption in high places, such behaviour, even in the ruthlessly greedy Roman Empire, was not universal. Why would the Romans write about corruption in the sense they do if the sort of corruption you point at was an ordinary part of life? Everyone would know it went on and it was pointless making an anecdote about it. Please realise that corruption in elections was the primary reason for public unrest and also the major motivation for Roman rulers to intervene.

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.

Friends, family, associates, and anyone who planned a return on the deal. Romans had a bad habit of using people they knew as 'credit cards', and for that matter, earning interest from anyone who needed money.

What we have then is Dio moaning about Rome's leadership. Whilst it is true that using Imperator set a precedent, that does not imply the title was hereditary especially since we don't see it used by children of the ruling individual unless they happened to follow into power - which was not in itself hereditary, because that would violate Republican themes. Augustus did not inherit the title from Caesar. He adopted it himself and was subsequently acclaimed by the soldiers another twenty times.

Imperator was not a political post but an honour conferred by troops to a successful victor. It did become part of the default name adopted by future Roman leaders (and Dio tells us it was their favourite - the Romans loved military glory) because Augustus set the precedent. Note that although Augustus used Imperator as part of his name to underline his entitlement to superior military command, it was received as an honour twenty one times during his lifetime beginning in 43BC. It was certainly not hereditary, especially since legions developed a bad habit of asserting their political voice by declaring military commanders as their choice as imperial leader. Likewise his tribunicial power. He did not ever take the title of Tribune - as a senator it was illegal for him to do so, but his right to tribunicial power was given by the Senate and the actual privilege renewed annually.

I stopped at question 1. There was only one Dictator Perpetuo and he was never a hereditary Imperator. Or have missed the point of this quiz?

I have seen a comparison with the Samurai longbow which comes out favourably for the Japanese overall. In fact, the Japanese bow has to be held off centre to prevent strain on the wrist and improve accuracy.

Oh wow. A few bad apples. Hardly enough to condemn is it? Anyway, I thought this thread was about Roman corruption?

I might suggest other reasons - A lack of initiative from the assigned army leader, or that the soldiers were in no mood to fight (that sort of thing happened in the late empire), or the lack of pay had caused men to wander off seeking civilian jobs, or that the Roman Empire had not actually realised how large the threat was, or that they expected a response from elsewhere for whatever reason.

But if anyone found out I was talking about it there might have to be retrial involving a new jury. I might be facing charges like Aiding and Abetting, Conspiracy, Perverting the Course of Justice, or Contempt of Court, especially since as a juror I had made an oath that I was a suitable person to sit in judgement of the accused. The British system is sometimes a little clunky, but it works, because professional honour polices it as much as the system itself. Don't judge Britain by the standards of countries you're familiar with. Does that sound a little grand? Well, the Romans thought much the same about their system of law for all its faults apparent to the modern age. Rome considered itself the centre of civilisation and it was law above all else that confirmed it in their minds, not the size of their empire or how tough their soldiers were. Their tolerance of dealing were substantially higher than today it must be said. But then there's an anecdote about a young man of good family. A prostitute preferred charges of Rape against him. Since she was a professional sex worker the Roman magistrate threw out the charge on principle - what did she expect? But, the young man in a drunken rage had broken down her front door to get to her and that was deemed unacceptable, so he was punished. Money made no difference in that case.

There are both legal and moral restrictions on discussing cases outside of court. As a juror, I was not allowed to discuss it either. Also, the issue of hiring more expensive legal representation is about market forces, not corruption. Romans didn't use our system..

You have a very biased vision of British culture. I've served on juries. There is no corruption. I was not approached or offered a bribe. We don't work like that - it's very illegal. In fact a barrister tried to tell me off in court once because he though I wasn't paying attention. But regarding Marc Antony - of course he didn't plunder Egypt, his girlfriend was still that countries queen.

Romans had less moral objections about using money to further their interests. It is interesting that Roman culture had the limitation on commercial dealing s for the wealthier end of society but they simply used associates with less social restriction to do that for them. Money was after all the traditional marker for the social status you could claim. It wasn't about bloodline as one fella on another site tried to convince me of. There was more social mobility than that. And then there's the anecdote of a patrician who gave sumptuous dinners to please and impress his peers, so much s that he bankrupted himself and committed suicide. There's abundant evidence of booty as a military goal, mentioned a lot and with matter-of-fact attitude, such things were just normal practice since soldiers expected to loot and pillage as a reward for risking their lives, and that never changed. An obvious case of bribery is when an important Roman stages games. A hugely expensive investment but a way of gaining public support for your next career move. It could go disastrously wrong though. Not just deciding the fate of a gladiator to avoid compensation payments against the wishes of a crowd, but as at Fedinae in 27, when some guy had a temporary amphitheatre set up (not an uncommon practice), made of wood, which collapsed killing 20,000 spectators and injuring more. That's one career that went the same way. Provincial jobs, especially senatorial governors like propraetors and proconsuls, were a lucrative source of income. They weren't there to rule as some assume, but to represent Rome, and as Romans they found ways of extracting wealth. Some were worse than others. Quintilius Publius Varus is especially mentioned for leaving Syria very much the poorer. But then Augustus taxed the Germans without official annexation or provincialisation. Having used the royal coffers of Egypt to pay his way, he was short of cash to fund his heavy expenditure on things like supporting the military, government, and civic beautification with his own funds. It's harder to focus on what we would call everyday corruption because it was usually too low scale to get mentioned by the Roman sources, too ordinary an everyday deal. But Tacitus does give away in connection of the Pannonian Mutiny that bribery of military centurions was so commonplace that lists of official bribe levels were issued in camp. Then we have tax farmers of the republican era who paid taxes for an area themselves then had the people compensate him for the deal, at a respectful markup of course. OR the recruiters of the late empire, bribed by settlements to go away, when they would hire cheaper foreigners instead and keep the change. Everybody was at it.

Keep it in context mate. All Roman elites were after money, that was how their society worked. And republican refers to res publica, "for the people". He had after all kept his promise to protect the Republic even after he had risen to sole prominence. Yes, the Empire had changed. So what? The Romans changed things whenever it suited them. Now back to Sonic. If you're looking for a meaty subject, a study of how Rome expanded its culture would be useful. There are lots of subtleties and aspects that the popular image doesn't recognise.

How about... the little known campaigns of Rome? Like the expeditions to Kush or what is now Yemen. There's some great stories to be told.

I used to get that sort of response on Historum. Won't work mate. If you want facts, here's one. You hardly gave any. Your answers devolved to opinion, and if you don't believe that, then re-read the thread.