caldrail

What would happen to a contractor who supplied shoddy armor to, say, Sulla? Depends. If Sulla had requested it he would no doubt have selected some arbitrary and unpleasant fate. If his underlings had requested the armour, then I imagine they wouldn't want Sulla knowing about it! Who knows?

Thats not my arguement. He rose to power like any mafia boss, by using people and putting the squeeze on others. Force of arms and tyranny (well, he wasn't an ogre, but then as I've stated before, being nice to everyone won't win you power in Rome) got him there. Seems to me as if it is your argument. It didn't take him forty years to reach the top slot. Therefore it isn't my arguement. No, they rule countries too. Saddam, Gadaffi, Castro, Hitler - Hey, your country got annoyed at all of these at one point or another, and your own media has indeed labelled them gangsters! Lets cut the nonsense. Was Augustus the greatest politician ever? Not even close. He was a very cautious man, without any of the 'who dares wins' risk strategies that often mark successful men (including Julius Caesar). Even his policies in Germania reflect that, with gradual colonisation underway with an almost touchy-feely assimilation. He seems to lack that Roman conquering spirit that we see in people like Julius Caesar or Trajan. Strange for a man who in other ways was competitive. Ok, he fought a number of civil wars and took out the opposition. Lets not forget that at the end, Antony almost gave him the support of the senate by siding with Cleopatra. It was a gift that Octavian pounced on, showing he had a certain amount of wits, but Octavian did not have that support before nor was he going to persuade the senate without such an excuse. Having achieved power, he remains there for some forty years. Now I agree thats an achievement in itself given roman sensibilities, but again it does not mean Octavian was especially gifted. He survived in power, and succeeded in political survival. He did so not by charisma, nor persuasion, nor threat, but by cash. He bought success. He found Rome in brick and left it in marble, and boasted in his will of the magnificence of the games he had staged. Unable to achieve the personal popularity that Caesar could, he resorted to civil bribery and propaganda. As a politician Augustus is somewhat lacklustre. Although he made some adjustments like his military reforms, he isn't remembered for the events and advances of his reign, but the manner he got there, and the length of time he stayed in office. In many ways, he resembles a third world dictator.

Armour is expensive to purchase , requires maintenance and repair after battle damage, and creates noise in movement, and can easily hamper inexperienced troops. It might also be possible that purchased armour is incorrectly constructed in the first place. Any of these could give rise to a legion whose commander decides to put armour aside.

Thats not my arguement. He rose to power like any mafia boss, by using people and putting the squeeze on others. Force of arms and tyranny (well, he wasn't an ogre, but then as I've stated before, being nice to everyone won't win you power in Rome) got him there. Once in power, he needed to keep the senate sweet, and sometimes didn't. Whilst the story portrays him glowing terms - he was a successful ruler after all following years of political turmoil and uncertainty - I cannot see a masterful politician calmly manoevering his way through forty years. Things improved for him, as his carefully contrived image bore fruit, but he wasn't given an easy ride in the senate by any means, and often I suspect couldn't act for fear of tipping the balance and upsetting people just a little too much, something very clear in his mind following the death of Caesar. Seriously, if you put aside the regal politician and see him as a ruthless mafia style ganglord, you're closer to what he was and how he acted.

Shades of Seismosaurus, found in Argentina, which was believed to up to 140ft in length. They hadn't finished excavating the thing when this announcement was made, so perhaps it was a bit optomistic? Or is the report above ill-informed?

He also tended to panic more easily than some, and bore grudges. His major motivation for achieving power wasn't so much to rule or put Rome back together (noble motives? From a roman conquerer?) - It had a lot to do with revenge for Caesars death. Yes he did that, but he wasn't the master he appears to be. I'm not suggesting Octavian wasn't any good, I'm pointing out his deficiencies which his success and subsequent excellent press is blinding us to. I'm not a detractor, far from it, I'm in awe of the young mans willingness to step forward and be recognised. Rather like those modern teenage millionares for instance. Nor do I believe he was a puppet - although there were many who wanted just that - because he managed to break free of that sort of control. However, he did so with support, not by persuasive arguement. You see, its mentioned above that no-one else could bring peace to Rome. Rubbish. There were plenty of players waiting in the wings, but the situation was that Octavian and his peers were the ones in the best position. Once they slugged it out for control, then only Octavian was left. That doesn't exclude the potential of anyone else, and just because the roman historians don't mention someone who never achieved anything is not proof they were useless. If you're in the roman world during political strife, you only raise your head above the parapet when you believe you're in a strong position - which was exactly the case with Octavian. Without Caesar, he may well have been consul once or twice, and not remembered for anything more. This happens with human beings. But for an open door, there are so many talented individuals who never rise to fame. Some might not have the confidence to do so, but such confidence can be taught, as Octavians was. Some might not make the right contacts. Others may not have a face that fits. I do not accept Octavian was the best because his story says something different. Many of the respondents on this thread are seeing him as someone who 'created victory' with his own two hands. had he done so, then yes, his success would have been spectacular. But that just isn't the case with Octavian. He was good, not brilliant, and he had an advantageous situation to begin with.

Britain was on the edge of ice age europe and a stronghold of neanderthals rather than cro-magnons. Now I should make clear that the ice expanded slowly (it didn't appear overnight) and there are periods in the ice ages where although britain is a very harsh place to live, it isn't always buried. Reindeer hunters are possible during those periods, and the as the ice expands the animal population moves further south since there's little chance of surviving on it. We see polar bear remains unearthed in london and oxford, and these beasties must have been among the most northerly of the creatures toughing it out in frigid england (though the remains mentioned might not have been the most northerly of those).

You honestly think they'd find anything? Not that it matters, America and Britain would send in troops anyway to keep the peace between seperatist archivists and hopefully do a deal on vatican oil

In the city of Rome there was the Acta Diurna, a bulletin service that posted details of births, deaths, significant shipments, military victories, and excuses for disasters. This would have been copied by slaves and read to a master the same day. The roman road system was useful for communication since it was built for military and administration purposes, and there were waystations where riders could sleep and exchange horses, much like the american pony express. Sea traffic was another slower method of diseminating information. News effectively travelled between individuals in roman times, followed by rumours in more general circulation. Whether or not this contributed to roman decay is hard to say, since the situation was more or less identical during the roman height. The empre was increasingly insular toward the end with communities deciding to go it alone rather than fork out heavy taxes to Rome. There is therefore a change in attitude towards Rome rather than the means of spreading news, so its the way people interpreted news that perhaps had a more significant effect, but in that case its merely a symptom of the general malaise than a direct cause.

probably, but I guess it would get pulled apart very quickly on these forums! Actually there are people who can define it better than I. Given the differences in emphasis of roman business a general understanding is sufficient surely? Or otherwise you get bogged down in an arguement over definitions. Because the middle ages saw western culture drag itself out of the dark ages and on toward a more sophisicated society that was increasingly properous and wealthy. Farming during the dark ages was very inefficient and unreliable, yet by the end of the medieval period we see farmers becoming wealthy landowners in their own right. No. It opens the possibility of freedom for those who succeed in business. Thats a restricted subset of society and thats always been the case. Those are willing to take financial risks and exploit others often reach a point where they can enjoy their success. For those compelled to work for them, those freedoms are unavailable, and one could argue that they have lost freedom by the necessity to work for others. As for working for the state in communistic societies, that has no freedom whatsoever, since that situation is foisted open society and those who operate freely do so because they are bucking the system, and therefore risk an even greater loss of freedom than those who obey the rules. Further, those in higher echelons of such societies usually rise by manipulating their contacts within the hierarchy, not because their business skills are any good. In roman times we see shades of this (I'm not suggesting the romans were communists!). If you want to advance your interests its all very well getting wealthy on business success, but you would find your freedoms curtailed by the expectations of those senior to you. For instance, a merchant who gets above himself in the eyes of the upper classes isn't going to get certain lucrative contracts. Those will go to merchants who know their place. Advancement in roman society is very much a case of influence with influential people, and this impinges on the roman business world.

But this doesn't make any sense either. Plebeians and senators were not mutually exclusive groups. In fact, most senators WERE plebeians. What do you think a plebeian is? Senators always came from the aristocracy with the exception of Cicero. Plebeians were of the lower class, the mob. When the mob was angry, havoc struck. Senators came from those who were wealthy. The aristocracy is a mis-applied term because membership of the senate was on the basis of how much cash you had, not who your father was, although I accept that people being people a senators son got preferential consideration, itself something very roman. Whether or not the origin of a family was plebian is immaterial. What mattered was which social class you belonged to. You were either senatorial or not. Notice how much scorn is poured on Octavian for his families humble origins. I really do not believe that a roman senator regarded himself as a pleb.

Was Rome the First Capitalistic society? I haven't the faintest idea, but Rome certainly was capitalistic. It was the most developed capitalist society of the ancient world and made a virtue of that way of life. How much and in what ways was capitalism in Rome limited if it was? Caveat Emptor. Since the buyer must beware, then contracting is a sort of inxurance policy that you get what you pay for, since you're able to sue in a roman court for failure to uphold the contract. Since the romans were suing each other at the drop of a hat, clearly there were plenty of tricksters around and possibly not too many laws to prevent such abuses? Was capitalism in Rome a channel for talent (encouraging it with status, monetary rewards, incentives, survival, etc.) much as artist's (and the sciences') Patrons like the Medici were later? It was, with the priviso that men of quality and standing didn't dirty their hands with grubby business deals. Of course they did, and used agents or slaves to do the work. For middle class romans business success was essential to their future prospects, as without wealth they couldn't rise (or raise their kids) to the senate. For lower class romans, success meant getting fed. Slaves sometimes ran businesses on behalf of their masters and I suspect this sort of position was something the would go to great lengths to be successful at. The alternative? Hard labour or worse? Could the talent needed in all fields to accomplish the needs of Rome have been distributed without the freedom of the marketplace? (thus was it a free market system?) Romans were hardly socialist. Their society functioned on patronage, the ancestor of fuedalism, where one man agrees to serve another in return for support and preferential treatment. Distibution of talent was n't even close to their thinking. Far from it, it was better to have good men in your service. Is the Free Market the founding force for actual freedom? The leader in "free" market services is the (trader) contractor (including the "general contractor" and the "subcontractor") No, since not everyone has the capital or talent to create business, therefore some people must necessarily work for others and so relinquish some of their freedoms in order to survive. Wouldn't contractors have then enjoyed more freedom than the bureaucratic types of the Empire? Perhaps, but since they generally wanted to part of the roman system and do well out of it, they conformed and behaved pretty much s bureaucratic types. There must have been maverick individuals however but I wonder how much actual freedom they had, since 'In Rome, Do As The Romans'. In other words, if you don't fit in you get squeezed out. And: (seemingly unconnected) Is the trading "instinct" the seminal value of freedom's rise in Greece? There's been a tv series about ancient greece that discussed the rise of democracy. I would say trading has little to do with it. 1. MONEY CHASES TALENT ( my own phrase used to "mentor" young would be contractors) This leads to, and translates into the First Value for a Contractor's survival: Yes, although this should be modified to MONEY CHASES PERCEIVED TALENT AND THOSE WHO FIT IN YOUR POCKET. 2. The first value of the successful contractor is to recognize talent. Without that skilled (talented) help no contractor can long succeed against competition, and therefore without which cannot survive. Without "LIVING" that value there is no sustained survival for a Contractor or even a Sub-Contractor; it is their life-blood. Don't forget patronage. It wasn't a totally free market. If a certain supplier of garum can do odd jobs for you, then you buy his wares, even if there are more talented sellers around, especially if those more talented sellers can part you from your purse all the easier. 3. Contractors not only find talent, they distribute talent into the free market-place. I don't think they searched for talent in such a way. Talent was useful but skilled men weren't going to share those skills easily. Therefore a few talented men and a lot of slaves doing what they're told become the norm. 4. Talent brings new ideas and techniques, those too are spread into the marketplace of skills, tools, and methods available The roman marketplace was nowhere near so forward looking. New ideas and techniques tended to be localised and retained by the inventor in order that he can corner the market. There was no porfit in sharing skills. 5. Some were considered greedy, ruthless, opportunists, and are even so today. These seem to be the skills that work to drive (many if not most) contractors to accomplish their goals. (the virtue of selfishness?) Yes. Some indiviuals in human societies, not just romans, are of a mindset to exploit others. 6. We hear a lot about Contractors in ancient Rome; Even tax collecting was "let" out to contractors. (Why? ~~ a partial answer: though some would say tax collecting is not a talent; they perhaps should try collecting money from citizens and strangers, organize the resulting collections, and see how far short they fall in their endeavor, if bereft of talent.) Romans liked their leisure time, and if you were given an onerous boring duty, why not pay some other scmuck to do the legwork? 7. What was the effect of slavery vis-

The Knights Templar was a religious military order like others in the medieval world. It all stems from Pope Urban II, who received a letter in 1097 from Emperor Alexius of Byzantium asking for some military help against the turks who had invaded section s of the eastern empire and occupied jerusalem. It is interesting that the turks did not persecute christians at this time, but having a christian site occupied by saracens of a heathen faith was too much. The pope held a meeting and declared it was less sinful to kill a non-christian. That sparked off the first crusade, and its astonishing just how powerful the christian hold over peoples hearts and minds was at that time. Sure, a lot of men went east for more earthly reasons (to grab land and cash) but entire villages in europe downed tools, packed a few belongings, and went off to do their duty in the holy lands. Now that soldiers were allowed to kill for christ, it was simply a matter of doing that as service to christ for those of a more spiritual nature, thus the military orders came into being. Apart from the religious duties required, these men were effectively operating as modern private military providers do today, offering security services. Inevitably they got rich, and that was the problem. The rumours of conspiracies and secret agendas through the masons are tripe more or less. It was all about money from the start, and it was money that finished them.

The senate wouldn't have thought so. I doubt Nero saw either senate or plebs as superior in any way apart from how entertainment they could afford to give him.

Our ideas of elite military status are afflicted with the americanesque rambo mentality, the 'special forces', the 'mercenary' as a gun totin' hard man. That has nothing to do with the thread, and is nothing more than an insult to Yankee, British, and other lads who break their horns for their countries objects. On the contrary. Our perception of military affairs has changed since roman times. As for insults, its nothing of the sort. The 'mercenary' genre is big business now, and despite the neutrality laws of the US, mercenary culture has a fertile ground there, with plenty of media interest and entrepeneurs running schools for this sort of activity. Although there are still idiots and psycho's signing up to adverts in Soldier of Fortune, there are also professional businesses who organise military support. Witness Blackwater, whose staff are getting a reputation for being trigger happy in Iraq. I'm not talking about the armed services of our nation states and therefore no slight on their activities is made. Far from it. I think the armed services of both britain and the US are much maligned for sensationalist news. Sure, they make errors of judgement or act heavily at times. Course they do. They're not policemen, they're soldiers. They are men trained to commit violence in the interests of their nation, and they do pretty much what they're taught to do. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, please have a look outside your own front door before you criticise me for pointing out changes in military culture since 0AD. As for having nothing to do with the thread, the question asked was about the elite status of roman soldiers. The concept of elite status has changed since then. I see no reason why this should be viewed as an insult, especially since I happen to be one of the few people on the internet that doesn't slag off the US military.

Somebody find Aurelian. Those colonials are getting a bit uppity and its high time we conquered them back. Jeez, they sell a few coke bottles and they think the worlds their oyster....

No, she didn't at first, but I understand she relented later. He wasn't able to attend a battle for illness if I remember right. Nonetheless, I can't believe that Caesar never gave gave a few hints and tips in passing at the very least. Its an interesting situation, because Julius Caesar is known to have 'seduced a great many ladies of quality' and therefore may have seduced Atia at least once, raising the possibility that Octavian was Caesars bastard offspring.

Assuming the technical details are correct, I can see why it isn't considered a battlefield asset. Chariots are useful by virtue of their speed. They allow men to rush in close and deliver missiles quickly, or to intimidate and confuse formations by riding up close and sweeping past. A four wheeled chariot? How does it steer? War chariots are invariably single axled for manoeverablity. Intersting pic, but as an aside, shouldn't the Sumerians have a swarthier skin tone?

I didn't say he won by luck alone, I said that luck was part of it. You're arguing an extreme - I'm presenting a more general case. Nor was he utterly lacking in military ability. He won five or six civil wars for heavens sake. What I'm saying is that was wasn't the sparkling genius on the battlefield that Caesar was (Who was?) and you have to accept that he learned his trade both from the tutelage of Caesar (who tried to persuade his mum Aetia to let him go to war) and from bitter experience. He developed as a military commander (and relied on Agrippa) whereas Antony, his greatest rival, seems to remain no more skilled by the time of Actium, or even duller and distracted (for obvious reasons?) There we must be careful. Octavian behaved much like a mafia boss, as indeed so did his rivals, that was how romans of the time did business if they wanted to get ahead. There is that story that he sacrificed 300 victims who defied him. Now whilst I believe he was willing to cut people down (he did hire assassins to take out Antony), the overall trend in Octavians story doesn't really portray him as particularly religious, and I suspect the sacrifical side of the story is possibly anti-augustus muck-raking by his contemporary critics, who certainly lived on in the senate after he came to power.

Nero remains a controversial figure, and whilst I have to agree he was a loathsome character, he had style. Now its true he regarded himself as an artist and identified himself with Apollo, but then he was carried away with his own importance and lets face it, many people around were perfectly content to let him behave this way. nero enjoyed his power, but he wasn't maliciously cruel to the plebs as some emperors were to be. In fact, the plebs cheered him on by and large. In later times there was a slave who claimed to be Nero (and had a passing resemblance to him). It was very nearly a popular rising.

No, he removed his rivals from the senate. Thats not reinforcement. It may well be he did this for a partially noble purpose (he did retire voluntarily bless him) but he certainly made sure he profited from it, and made sure his cronies did too. Ok, but the generals competed to destroy each other rather than simply control territory. So? If you want troops to follow what amounts to open rebellion you want them behind you yes? So you legitamise your cause - and tell them anything that makes them believe their cause is just. Thats typical of rebel leaders. The senate continued after Sulla on momentum, tradition. The problem with such 'croney-ism' is that it always weakens a governing body, since older traditions of public service evaporate in the face of selfishness and no shortage of greed since the example has been set, and if so-and-so can get away with it why can't I? In that respect, Sulla effectively reduced to the senate to a gathering of wealth seekers and such bodies are prone to domination by powerful and ambitious personalities. The corpse was not truly buried. The republic didn't actually end, it simply had an imperial dynasty dominate it. And one should not be fooled into thinking the senate was the lapdog of the emperors. Senators very often made life difficult for emperors, there were always senators who wanted their job, and more than one emperor was declared an enemy of the state.

Exactly, he was an outsider who showed the 'leading romans' how to do it! Absolute rubbish. Octavian was groomed for success by Julius Caesar. Without his uncle, Octavian would have been another also ran in roman politics. Doors were opened for Octavian right from the start. That was NOT down to Octavians skill as a politician, since he was not particularly skilled at that stage, and for a long time even after coming to power his hold on the senate was a little dodgy. Why do you think his daughter julia got banished? Because she misbehaved? So did other peoples daughters. The problem was that she was lapping up the attention of influnetial men with pillow talk. The senate knew what augustus was doing before he he told anyone, and that meant he couldn't operate as freely as he would prefer. He didn't show leading romans how to do it, they showed him. Holding your cards close to your chest is something completely different to what I described. Sorry, your arguement is based on misunderstanding. And no, simply keeping silent doesn't mean you're any good as a politician - it simply means you know something someone else wants to. That's right, he created his 'victory'. I fall over laughing. Octavian was not the same class of general as Julius Caesar. Nor can anyone 'create' a victory on the battlefield. Its a contest of violence and tactics, and whilst you can load the dice in your favour, I notice that Octavian retreated in a big hurry at least once. Antony made insults to him because of it. Oh good grief. He didn't invent this committee out of thin air. These people needed a someone as a figurehead. He didn't weld this lot togther, he was chosen by them (now I know you're going to say that proves your point - no, it doesn't, not everyone in charge is holding the reins as you should well know). Remember Cicero's comment? Use him then push him aside? Octavians greatest victory was survival, not controlling the empire. Does that make him a great politician? Nope. There are many ways to survive in a political bearpit and some of those are far from honourable. I'm sorry, but you've swallowed the pro-augustus propaganda issued two thousand years ago. All those regal statues don't impress me, I'm more concerned with what he actually did. What he actually did was struggle for a long time.

So what? Thats typical of a young man from a well connected family, and I'm sure the senate approved of his efforts to deliver a speech. Octavian isn't the only young man who won his 'political manhood' by stepping in front of senators. Almost a rite of passage if you will. His family connections were half the battle there. Politics wasn't the only reason. Remember too that at that stage Octavian wasn't doing all of this by himself. He was being groomed by others, and progressed with their patronage. Hmmm... (taps finger on desk).... No. An able politican certainly, but there were better ones. Octavian looked decidely shakey in his early career compared to some other leading romans. In fact, I think Octavian showed considerable courage in his attempts to get ahead because if you read the story, he seems at times hesitant or unsure of himself. Lets also remember he was not guaranteed of victory. He was nearly killed at Perugia when a bunch of gladiators sallied forth from the besieged city and went after him. Politics? Hardly, he had a lucky escape. There is this rosey eyed vision of Augustus as the benign ruler. Good grief, thats exactly what he wanted everyone to think of him. Master politicain? There were occaisions when he stomped out of the senate with his tail between his legs, the senators taunting him with shouts of "Are you going to let us make a decision Caesar?". Look at his panic when Varus got ambushed. Where was the calm master politician then?

Long sightedness is not a faculty posessed by politicans. They adopt policies that will see them popular, or succesful, or personally well off when they finally get the push. Whether or not we all become extinct in a few generations rarely has any real bearing on politics. None. Our enviroment remains roughly as dangerous as it has always been, although it does mean that our survival as a species must be finite. Yes it could, though not perhaps in a useful capacity. However, I guess you mean can the species go on? Well... assuming we actually can do something to find new enviroments in which to survive then possibly, but in the very long term there's absolutely no guarantee of survival whatsoever. A meteor was observed falling over the Saudi desert in the late 19th century. A british explorer, who happened to be searching for lost civilisations in the area, made a study of the crater (I think it was around 50 to 100 feet across). The site was revisited in the 90's and has almost vanished. The earth has a measure of protection because of the atmosphere. Most impacts are very snmall. There was a recorded instance of a small rock (about the size of a large marble) that hit a house in small town america and ricocheted through the flimsy wooden construction. Not completely. The crater off the coast of mexico (the biggie that dropped on T Rex) has been located for instance. Ok, it was a huge crater with ripple formations around it, but that ones 65 million years old. There are craters known as astrons, the really really really big impacts, that can still be traced after billions of years. There's also a region in australia which seems to have been a target for meteor impacts (don't know why) and some of those craters are miles across. It probably makes little difference. Our perspective is very small. We live only three score years and ten and can only perceive the world in our locality, thus our experience of the world is necessarily limited. The modern media has raised our global awareness but we don't fully experience the images on TV as real. Also, this question assumes that by spreading into space we make ourselves somehow safer. Why? Because we can colonise other worlds? Fact is, we're vulnerable little creatures and the enviroment out there is none too friendly. Our new nests on other planets will very likely be vulnerable too. Humanity likes to be optimistic about such things - thats probably a good thing - but our expansion is not going to be easy if achievable at all. The engineering to send people to another world with a view to a permanent home is colossal, and our resources here on earth are finite. There's only so much raw materials we can use before our modern technological civilisation crumbles away and we all go back to surviving in the wild (and many of us won't survive that change). We are products of the ecosystem on earth. We like to think we can rise above that - that we're not animals, that we're somehow more superior, but at the end of the day we are still the same nasty animal we always were. That unfortunate inheritance also means that human behaviour will exist in our brave new worlds, and even if we do get our act together, discover some means of travel that doesn't take hundreds of generations, we aren't likely to be living in peace and harmony because with new territory comes competition. Also, given the difficulty of communication, its likely that one colony will advance far ahead of another and that produces all sorts of problems as a study of history shows. Socialism is all very well if a powerful government foists it on you, but many humans would soon adopt an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude, and there will always be those who resort to violence to grab the resources they need. Insurance policy? - There isn't one. Its a question of survival and nature has always dictated that the fittest should survive. Nature also dictates that a species who cannot adapt to new enviroments will become extinct. We are an increasingly specialised animal, and such creatures are always more and more dependent on the enviroment that suited them. Frankly, we'll be lucky if we get much further than we have today.

Not necessarily true. The garrisons were there to offset an external military threat but that does not mean the threat was permanent. However, it is true the men were already in arms before they were sent there.