caldrail

As I understand it, roman culture dictated that community leaders were also religious leaders. Part of your social role as local headman was to officiate in ceremonies. The post of Pontifex Maximus, high priest of Rome, was therefore a political post without question, and anyone who took that role would therefore have a position of status and influence. Of course Caesar exploited his role as high priest - thats why he he got himself voted in.

There's more to it than that. The early empire had some considerable wealth floating around but this was being gradually distributed and exported as the wealthy paid huge sums for luxuries and entertainment, both for themselves and for political success. Also, the pattern of local government was changing and it moved from short-term career achievements to sinecures given as a result of backhanders. Rome was getting lazy and indifferent after it let its hair down during the Principate. Also, the 'mafia' style family domination of the Principate was giving way to oriental style monarchies. Commodus after all was the 'first man born to the purple'. It is true that the unstable empire of the 3rd century was disastrous and nearly brought the whole edifice crashing down, but Rome survived this period with many older roman traditions and institutions being replaced. In fact, Rome split more than once - The Gallic Empire for instance - although these were usually shortlived. The original question was whether the split could have been avoided. Possibly, but another would have occurred anyway. There were cultural differences between the latin west and the predominantly greek east so the split was fairly natural, and thats why it lasted I believe. The question of wealth rears its head again though. Its no coincidence that the east survived because thats where all the money went. The impoverished west had nothing to support itself apart from increasing taxes etc.

Hadrians Wall was not intended to keep the scots out, although it could if need be, but to control trade. The scots after all weren't under roman control and they had friends south of the border. The wall was necessary to prevent a rebellion. It also generated revenue in tolls and confiscations. Thats why there were so many gates through the wall.

I've trawled through the stuff I have on celts but nowehere do I find any information about camps. I'm starting to think that they only camped when they had to, and relied more on travelling from settlement to settlement. As for camping out, I think you'd better wrap up warm and hope it doesn't rain! I suspect they made do with crude shelters of on sort or another, or purchased tents from traders?

Its worth remembering that accusations of unsavoury affairs were commonplace in roman politics. Public image was everything. An ambitious roman, much like modern americans, must appear as a benign, generous, respectable person. Mudslinging was one method of ensuring he wasn't. Grafitti, taunts, rumours, violence, and chinese whispers were standard tactics by the late republic. In a sense, the fact that these accusations were made shows the envy these men inspired in their peers.

In the 6th century I think it was, there was chap who had been found guilty of plotting against the eastern emperor. Well... The citizens of the town cut out his tongue, removed his ears, gouged out his eyes, cut off his arms and legs, paraded him around the town for a while, then placed him in a boat which they set on fire. I'm not kidding. As to whether he was still alive by the time he was set afloat is difficuly to say.

One point I made earlier somewhere and worth repeating is that swords differed in quality of manufacture. No celtic swordsmith is going to waste time, effort, and good materials on some idiot with only a pair of pigs to pay for it. The real good stuff was reserved for the wealthy clients - the top echelon of celtic warrior. Most of the celtic swords would therefore be of a lesser quality. Not quite mass produced, but getting there.

400 donkey loads a day arrived at camp. I doubt the slaves got fed extra portions either, but I take your point, I'm simply repeating the figures given. Sabotage? Good point. Have a gold star and three house points! The opportunities would have been limited and remember that the overseers were jewish too and thus not so easy to fool, being keen to preserve their privilege. In fact, the wiley jews are mentioned by Josephus a few times as being pulling strokes where-ever they could. One excellent example from the Siege of jerusalem was a young boy, who approached the roman soldiers waiting by the well, obviously desperate for water. The guards, in a moment of warm-heartedness not normally associated with legionaries, allowed him to drink. He then stole a bucket ful from undertheir noses and ran back to his compatriots, along with some very choice language from the soldiers! Its that level of sabotage I would expect. Small opportunistic things done by individuals, not large scale schemes by people who were probably too tired and sore from whipping to care.

First of all, lets realise violence is endemic to human beings and always will be. We are basically social animals and therefore ritualised violence is part of normal herd behaviour. Its not unusual. However, nature hasn't given humans much in the way of weaponry, so being clever little buggers, we invented blades and clubs to give us artificial famgs, claws, and powerful limbs that we lack in real life. Modern technology of course goes a whole lot further, hence the aerial bombing you mention. But consider this.... Wars are not won by being nice. If you lose, your nation could be enslaved or dismatled. Therefore, howver cruel, callous, or even despicable it seems, you must defeat your enemy by whatever means seem the most expedient. During WWII, aerial bombing was seen as an essential way of reducing enemy production and morale. Because the bombing was inaccurate the only way to ensure victory was drop bombs indiscriminately. A terrible thing to be sure, I cannot disagree. But these were raids mounted on a large scale involving hundreds of aircraft over enemy territory. It isn't possible to compare that with the actions of a handful of conspirators although one must bear in mind such actions as the destruction of the US embassy in Beirut or 9/11. In these cases, the individuals are acting on their own cognizance. They do not represent the nations they claim to fight for. The purpose of their actions is to make a token strike against an enemy they see as invincible, to ensure their cause is seen as having credibility, and to frighten governments and populations into giving in to their demands over the prospect of further action. The article in question brings up the point that human behaviour is actually no different then as it is now, a point I've made very often. Sure we live in different times and our world and cultures have changed, but underlying this are the same situations, emotions, and responses that we have now. Terrorism is a word that now has a vague definition. Some people use the phrase whenever violence is used. As for terrorism being the tactics of the past, doesn't that depend on whether you were on the winning side? I sympathise with your viewpoint but really you need to step back and see why people behave like this in the first place. The moral issue is a relative one. Sad thing is we won't change nor renounce violence no matter how many of us sneer at it. I really do think you need to be more realistic about the world about you, because its the same world we read about in history books.

Interesting read caldrail sounds like you know your stuff on Masada. I never head about the ramp's stone piers before, are they still there too? The stone piers were put in to stop the earth ramp from collapsing under the weight of men, engines, and workings. Not that the romans were too bothered about the lives of their jewish slaves, it was simply because they wanted workers, not corpses. As far as I'm aware, the stone piers will still be in place under all that dirt. It was quite a difficult project however despite the ten thousand slaves available. The defenders made life difficult and thats the reason why ballistae were sited there to keep their heads down. It should also be realised that using a ramp like that meant that the romans could only attack at one point and that the enemy knew they were coming. Thats one of the reasons why the defenders created a secondary wall of stone and timber behind the outer one.

My original comment in the ex-caesar thread wasn't intended to emphasise any un-hetero relationship between Caesar and Octavian. I was merely pointing out that Caesar took Octavian under his wing in preference to his two other great-nephews, Pedeius and Penarius, both of whom got a share of his inheritance. In fact, Caesar asked Atia (octavians mum) for permission to take the young lad to war against Cato support in North Africa. She refused that time, saying he was too young, but she agreed later although at the time Octavian was ill. My point was therefore to underline how close Caesar and Octavian were in that these accusations were being made in the first place. Its an oddity because Caesar was a true blue aristocrat from a landed family, whereas Octavians ancestors had far more humble origins. It was also a normal practice by wealthy men to keep children as pets. No sex involved (although humans beings being what they are I dare sometimes paedophilia reared its ugly head) and when the child started getting hairy and becoming an embarrasement rather than an amusing diversion, the child would be passed on. In the case of Caesar and Octavian that obviously isn't the case because the relative ages, but it does illustrate the tactile relationships that people had in former times that would raise eyebrows in our more suspicious age.

Its difficult to see that occurring. The senate has been purged and its members replaced with more compliant members. Those still in the senate have the memory of Sulla fresh in their minds. If Caesar is murdered and Octavian soon afterward, thats two powerful personalities out of the running. Antony had every intention of running for the top slot. He's something of a maverick character but he certainly had something going for him. When he was camped at Ephesus we read that he has thirty legions with him. Thirty? Thats what, one hundred and fifty thousand men or more, plus camp followers and any mercenaries he picked up on the way, not to mention a huge fleet harboured along the coast? He really was the front runner. I've already said this, but getting involved with Cleopatra was disastrous. It ruined his credibility. Although he may have foisted himself and his egyptian wife on Rome, I forsee a violent end to it very soon. Eventually a stronger person would calm things down, but we would remember the period as the increasingly bitter end of the Republic.

Found this article that may be of interest. http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/a...rs/3038546.html

There is one anomaly I'd like to draw attention to. Didius Julianus offered a huge sum of 25,000 sestercii to the praetorians in return for the throne, but wasn't part of the problem that he never actually paid it? Also it must be said that the behaviour of the praetorians during the reign of pertinax were below expectation. Their disatisfaction resulted from Pertinax's efforts to curb what they regarded as perks. Full marks to Pertinax for bravely facing off the mob that got into the palace - they were let in by their comrades on duty rather than actually storming the place.

I don't think the romans saw the degree of theft in the same way we do. How could they? Most things stolen from people were of low value anyway. The poor would most often steal from the poor. I think the circumstances of the case were more important than the value of the purloined items. Was the thief actually entitled to the item and refused it? Was there violence involved? A stabbing? Did the man steal from his master, or from his social betters? These were considerations more important than monetary value.

It depends. A popular charismatic leader could inspire his men through sheer force of will if need be. Someone less talented would have to promise rewards. The roman army was known for discipline but the truth is it wasn't always so obedient. Leadership really was an important factor. So was satisfying the greed of the soldiers. Roman patronage was part and parcel of legionary life. The soldiers were in a very real sense clients of the commander, who acted as a patron in many ways. Its also true that the soldiers could demand their general lead them into battle. It wasn't unknown for soldiers to complain about the lack of campaigning which I find extraordinary, given the natural tendency of soldiers to want an easy life. However, when you consider the potential for back-breaking fatigues to keep them busy, perhaps it was self-interest!

The decimation in question was very rarely used and apart from the loss of life involved, it causes deep emotional response in those who have to beat their comrades to death. A general needs the loyalty of his army. Its all very well giving them the most shameful punishment possible but these men must also go into battle for him. Also a general wouldn't normally pay compensation - that was down to charitable payments that a burial club might make if the soldier was a member. Death and injury are an accepted risk of roman service in return for which they can expect pay, perks, donatives, land grants, retirement lump sum, citizenship, and hopefully plenty of booty during a successful campaign.

It isn't half as bad as the Minnesota Vikings. It seems the roman penchant for 'interesting history' is just as prevalent today as then. I do think the romans had a hard time with the Silures, which was as much to do with their mountainous home as the gritty violence they received. I also think that the descendants of silurians who remain more or less in place do have certain tendencies bred into them. As for the Welsh Rugby Team, most of them haven't heard of the romans never mind the silures. Regarding the vikings, there's also an interesting theory that some of them travelled down the american coast south of the equator. Not impossible, just somewhat hard to believe without evidence. Except for that persistent rumour of long departed bearded white men the spanish conquistadors came across.

I would say much worse than that. Remember the romans were of a macho disposition typical of a violent conquest state, revelling in virile manhood. The reason there were so many men of a - less manly disposition shall we say? - is because some of them couldn't live up to the ideal, or perhaps they sought individualism in this direction. Its always the most prominent politicians that attract this sort of comment and its deliberately demeaning.

Can I stress that Augustus did not create a monarchy, nor do I believe he intended to as we understand it. People like Caesar and Octavian were acting like mafia crimelords. On the face of it, respectable and benign. Beneath the surface, ice cold and ruthless. Octavian was no different - except that he was a wiser politican than Caesar. He was setting up a family dominance after winning a turf war. His family, not others. That was the mindset of roman patronage. Augustus was a master of maintaining his benign image. Remember that this was the same person who took out his rivals both on the field of battle, by a purge afterward, and was due to give Cleopatra the same fate as vercingetorix. A good emperor but boy oh boy he could be nasty when he wanted. Remember what happened to that guy in egypt who was trying to build popular support? In modern terms, he had his feet in concrete and was pushed off the quay.

Yes, because its relevant. Caesars motivations in the development of Octavians career need to be understood because that way we understand Octavian too. It may have been merely a slander against Caesar - but in fact it was a slander against Octavian too. Another name on the proscription?

I've heard of a trade mission returning from scandanavia 'laden with amber' during the principate.

Well I'm no expert, but the impression I get from archaeology is tht the fashion persisted as long as 'pure roman' culture was in the area. Once barbarian tastes rise to the fore, buildings become smaller and less grand. The same might be said for colour schemes. Colour was very important to roman tastes but other cultures were far less concerned with such things.

Antony clearly had intentions of taking up the gauntlet from Caesars demise. He blew it by bedding Cleopatra. After that, he could only have risen to power in Rome as an oriental tyle king regardless of any title he made for himself and that was unacceptable to romans. Had he attempted it, Rome would have rioted and Antony ousted by someone else. Cleopatra had spoken to Octavian after Antony's suicide hpoing to walk away. She saw quite clearly that Octavian was going to use her for political capital, and probably have her executed quietly when she wasn't useful any more. That sort of thing was going to happen to her anyway. By involving herself in roman politics, she had placed herself at risk. Livia would have pushed Tiberius toward domination. Unfortunately, I don't think Tiberius would have been a success. He was never popular and his demise would have happened in perhaps two or three years. Without Augustus's seal of approval, he never stood any chance of winning roman hearts. Cicero is a possibility but I find it difficult to see him as a success. He was already living on past glory and his own popularity was waning. My own thoughts is that a scenario similar to the AD69 Year of Four Emperors was going to happen. People pushing their way to the front, stumbling and groping for stability and popular acclaim, only to be ousted in plots and coups. Rome was exhausted by civil war and unless another charismatic figure came out of obscurity, Rome was set to fragment into petty nations.

And how long do you think this would have lasted? How can a constitution work if the main power of the state(army) is in the hands of one man? Look at what happened with Diocletian: So long as he was there to guide his caesars and augustuses then the system worked, once he stepped out of the limelight all hell broke loose. Whatever measure Augustus made would have surely been temporary, unless he wanted to distribute power to other bodies, thereby creating a balance. But by doing that he would be jepardizing his own position. In the end, Augustus had little to no power in the course of the Roman empire, no matter what he could have enacted. Like Sulla, all his work could have gone to the shredder by the next powermonger. Yes, but in theory the rule of the principate was temporary too. Augustus clearly hoped it would continue because he favoured autocratic rule. The possibility that his work might be overturned is the reason why he worked hard on maintaining his benign public image. In fact, powermongers were at work right from the start in typical roman fashion. Roman politics had become very tubulent. As with any long-term autocratic rule, there are bound to be usurpers who wanted the power for themselves. This is one reason why Augustus worked so hard at balancing his own instinct for decree and the public need for consultation and consent. Roman republican government functioned on three principles... 1 - Power is given by consent 2 - Power is shared 3- Power is temporary These guiding principles were, I think, behind the success of republican Rome as a state. Roman democracy, albeit limited to the wealthy, ensured that roman politicians could aspire to leadership without domination and therefore Rome would not suffer another monarchy. Sometimes strong leadership in times of crisis bcomes a reality, hence the position of Dictator, where one man is given sole power for a limited period. Even this was by the consent of the same people who determined who ruled as Consul. These republican institutions remained unchanged during the Principate. Octavian pushed his way to the front and was able to dominate the senate enough to become Princeps, or First Citizen. By doing so, he was saying that he was in charge yet of no greater status than any senator. It was important to avoid the stain of monarchy. Antony fell by the wayside on this point, having associated himself with an egyptian queen. Julius Caesar had claimed that "I am not King, but Caesar". Unfortunately, having become Dictator for life, he was in fact a monarch by any other name. Suetonius for instance lists him as the first emperor and thats something I agree with. Caesar was murdered on this principle. He was too powerful, too grandiose, and his power prevented anyone else from achieving political ambition. Octavian was under Caesars wing from the start. Now as to whether Caesar demanded sexual favours from Octavian we can't say, but he did expect something from the lad, and one wonders if Caesar was already grooming him for success. We see this in dominant personalities. They choose their successors and develop their character carefully. As an aspiring autocrat, Octavian was in a position to learn from the mistakes of his mentor. To achieve power in Rome, he eliminated the opposition, both by military action and by proscription afterward. Once in power, there was a danger he could be seen as a tyrant, which would be an excuse for hotheads to plot against him. Octavian wisely chose to name himself Princeps and allow the senate some self-respect. This was Octavians balancing act. From that point forwards, he was playing a popularity game. The fact that the Principate was settled in 23BC is not the major breakthrough it appears. It was not outlining the hereditary succession of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, merely rubber-stamping Octavians position as overlord of the Republic. That agreement could have been overturned in a second. The moment that Octavian, now Augustus, brought up the suggestion of who was to follow him he was at risk of claims of kingship. Its a very important point that he did not attempt to make hereditary succession as a legal standard. True, he wanted his own children to follow him. To some extent Augustus was the proud father, hoping his children would become great citizens worthy of remembrance. It was also true that his children were people he knew well and could mould from birth to follow in his footsteps. I don't believe Augustus meant that Rome should be a monarchy as such, merely that his family should dominate roman politics to ensure a peaceful progression of power. This is entirely within roman character since family connection had been an important factor in political careers since the republic began. There was no compunction to elevate the senior child or make any provision for the selection. It was a popularity contest where a father brought his chosen successor to the public for approval. The fact he wanted Germanicus as a future princeps is not hugely significant - it underlines the desire for political stability, family success, and typically an underlying need for good order. Once Augustus had been a succesful popular ruler, it was very likely that his descendants would be viewed favourably. Again this was in the nature of roman charcter. But despite this - there was no reason why anyone not of Augustus's family couldn't become princeps, or emperor, because Augustus never attempted to make any ruling to prevent it and therefore assure his descendants would be rulers. Even with the somewhat murderous continuity of the Juilo-Claudians, the various plots and rebellions showed that Augustus's descendants were still judged on popularity as much as bloodline.