caldrail

Well naturally given he was the 'winner'. But any of the big players, Pompey, Crassus, Antony, etc - who had come out on top would have done similarly. There's no way of knowing if Augustus was actually a better ruler because its not possible to compare them, although we might make a few educated guesses. No, you're wrong. Augustus cemented his own position but Caesar made autocracy acceptable to the masses, and he may have taken Sulla's episode as a precedent. It wasn't Augustus taking Rome and changing it to an empire - Rome was already changing. There was a shift in roman politics which had begun decades earlier. Sulla, rightly or wrongly, had attempted to stem the tide and put Rome back where he felt it should be. He retired voluntarily, which means he meant what he said even if he did prosper as a result. Caesar wanted the top slot. Absolute ambition, with the talent and balls to go for it. Augustus followed in his footsteps to some extent, but then many of the important rivals had gone by that stage. Eventually only Antony was left and his affair with Cleopatra wasn't acceptable to influential men, hence Augustus was able to represent himself as the face of acceptable roman leadership. naturally Augustus exploited that. You say he created the empire. No. The empire created itself once autocracy was in place. Remember that Augustus failed completely to ensure the succession. Rome never did have any constitutional method of determining rulership once the old republic was pushed aside for personal gain. In fact, Augustus was sweet-talking the senate into allowing him to rule. He succeeded, but I notice he was never 100% sure of his footing. This was all new, and Augustus was keen to avoid making the same mistakes as his predecessor. I do not believe Augustus ever intended to create an empire. He wanted to rule, and made sure he did, but his main motivation in trying to ensure a peaceful succession was to prevent the whole roman edifice crumbling into more chaos and anarchy of a civil war.

The senate tried to stop Caesar in his tracks by ordering him to relinquish command of his army. Truth is, Caesar had star quality and was going to rise to the top come what may, or at least die trying. Don't forget, Caesar had achieved a huge popularity with the plebs, and that stood for a great deal in roman politics. The republican institutions were still working - they just weren't enough to contain Caesar. You could argue that these institutions weren't working very well - some people have - but the state was still functioning. Caesar became a powerful political force that the republic simply wasn't able or willing to deal with. It depends on how you see the senates response. Were they too petrified of caesars support? Were they unwilling to break ranks and demand changes against Caesar? Were some senators already choosing which side of the fence to fall on? Although many senators would have condemned Caesar in loud vitriolic speeches, I think many were thinking ahead and playing safe. Thats not a fault of the republic as such, rather the survival instinct of many men who preferred a life of ease and status as opposed to a life sentence. My point is that this situation would have arisen at some point, Caesar or not. There wasn't any need for Caesar anyway, but that wasn't going to stop him. In effect, Caesar rocked the boat to suit himself.

So far we've got some idea of east/west trade, but I'd also like to know how extensive north/south trade was. Scandanavia? Equitorial africa? Does anyone know anything?

I wonder how long it is before someone does an interactive Rome on PC?

Be careful with statues/carvings because they also tend to depict the attic (or 'greek') style helmet that we usually see on tv and film. In reality the romans wore the bowl style with the neck guard and cheek flaps, of which there was some variety in appearance. Now having discredited statues and carvings, my point is that simply because they depict muscled cuirasses doesn't mean the banded armour is leather also - I would argue that isn't the case at all. Officers were paying for individually made leather cuirass as a sign of rank, much the same way officers wore finer quality uniforms in later periods. As for the rank and file, they paid for mass produced metal banded armour through stoppages in pay. The roman state had no choice but to make this provision because since Marius opened the army to any free person, there were many who would not be able to provide their own armour as in times past. Peter Connolly, a recognised expert in roman warfare, has made this point. (Greece and Rome at War)

That's it! Thats the reason for the decline in provincial government which led to an increasing burden on the emperor. Provincial control was being twisted into a sinecure by some, and avoided by others. So, I would guess that local dignitaries took a little of the strain when it pleased them, for their own ends naturally, and especially during the late empire when communities were effectively opting out of roman government.

I really don't believe they marched there by their own choice! It is possible that some roman legionary POW's were sold on in the slave trade. Thats a recurrent rumour. The only face to face contact was through chinese merchants travelling to Syria, and that happened once. Given the period, that was an exceptional achievement in my book. The romans, for all their love of luxury and curiosities, were not an expansive culture beyond military conquest. They preferred to bring the world to them via trade. Actually I've just realised that there is a tiny remote possibility of roman sailors going further than Ceylon and ending up shipwrecked very far from Rome. But thats idle speculation.

The leather cuirass was a status indicator. The amount of protection is irrelevant in this case and few generals ever fought alongside their men. Caesar was exceptional in this regard and his willingness to take part in the melee was one of the reasons for the devotion of his men. Most generals were of course in the area, and at some risk too, but usually they relied on groups of bodyguards, or the nearby formations for protection. The concept of a hevily armoured general emerges in the middle ages when any self respecting commander rode headlong into battle without a second thought. Leather cuirasses were expensive, and showed you were wealthy, and therefore marked you out as a commander to show respect of. Throughout history however there are plenty of examples of generals with less protection and arms than the men they lead. Most are not expected to fight after all, but to lead, and an upper class person does not want to be emcumbered with the mass of equipment of the rank and file. Modern day armies take a more realistic view that began in WW1 (with some exceptions, such as the british in colonial america) and so its difficult to see any difference in rank from a distance. But then, today we have better communications and fighting is based on small groups. In former times, an officer would need to be visible to a mass of troops. A rallying point. An important man to follow and defend. Pardon? Since when did roman legionaries pay for ceremonial armour? Thats absolute nonsense. Roman armour was made to a general pattern for conformity and that was of the metallic variety, chainmail, with banded or scale arour during some periods. Leather never saw any widespread use at all for the simple reason it cost too much to make and had to be made to fit. Metal armour was made from a combining several or more different parts and therefore had some measure of adjustment, which made mass production a possibility. Are you seriously suggesting that every legionary was sent down to the local leatherworker and fitted for his armour? The time and cost involved to equip a legion would be massive, never mind wiping out the local cattle herd. Please name your source for roman use of leather armour. The quality of steel was variable, and it all boiled down to cost. High quality steel was available - there's a mention of the spanish sword that was made from a spring steel that retained its shape even after significant bending. For the rank and file, lower quality swords were usual although its notable that soldiers could buy their own during the empire rather than the issue sword they might have been given and paid for at the start. If they had enough cash, I would expect a soldier to pay for a quality weapon. It was a matter of pride and a sensible investment.

Leather armour wasn't widely used by the legions at all. Sorry. It was used for stuff like tents, straps, boots, scabbards, or even ropes and catapult windings. There wasn't any demand for armour, and lets face it, there wasn't any knights in shining leather was there?

Only where such experience is available. Did the celts raid amongst themselves? If so, this would soon provide the necessary experience. Discipline isn't as necessary to travel as a group as you think. For the celts, its offset by peer pressure. These were men who placed great store in personal prowess. Imagine what would happen if Cantgetoutofbedix arrived after the fight had finished? His manhood would be held in contempt. Whereas the romans would try to get out of duties, the majority of celts would see it as fundamentally important to be right in there giving it their best. Of course they'd have the occaisional slacker, but the prevailing attitude was to show what you were made of. Hence it would be important to keep up and arrive with the rest. never mind having to face an angry chieftan when he discovered you'd stopped to smell flowers on the way! Strong personalities tend to be uncompromising types, so I suppose in that sense there's some informal discipline. Take the example of Shaka, the zulu chieftan. That guy was a total tyrant and had his army go through pain and sacrifice, not to mention executions if he didn't like them! Eventually his family had to bump him off. Now I don't think Vercingetorix was that bad, he relied more on positive leadership qualities. People respected him and followed his orders. Thats the clue with the celts. If a man proved he was fearless, able, willing to take the risks to be a success, and could make other people successful, then he was in a position to lead. If he also had ability, like Vercingetorix, then his talent rises to the fore and without any formal training tends to make the right choices. Spartacus had no training in leadership, but he led an army of amateurs on a two year campaign against the best that Rome could throw at him. Like Vercingetorix, he had talent. The celts were overrated as warriors in the first place. They were too civilised and fond of human comforts. Read Julius Caesars account of the conquest of Gaul, there's some interesting clues as to the real nature of celts. The germans on the other hand were much harder edged. Not suprising given their tough enviroment. Generalship is never overrated. One of the most vital abilities is to inspire men to fight for you. Besides the ordinary day to day organisational ability and a sense of strategy that very few people posess. Also remember that generals of this period didn't command from a comfortable chataeu thrity miles away. They were there - and in some cases, right beside their men in the front line. Drills and practice are all very well, but don't overlook the importance of experience. This is why veterans are so well regarded. They've already learned the hard way what war is all about and how to conduct themselves on the field.

The rise of freedmen as a professional 'middle class' began with Claudius and this offset the civic democracy to some extent. I have to be honest though, this isn't something I know much about.

One thing to be aware of is that roman historians were storytellers first and historians second. If they wanted to emphasise a particular point its not unusual for them to twist or invent an anecdote to fit. For the romans history is sometimes seen as a dry dull subject just as is today, so the roman historian wants to have his work read and therefore injects some measure of entertainment or interesting prose. On the other hand, its also possible they're relating verbal tales ad verbatim which were embellished by someone else.

yes, but notice the greed and corruption endemic to legionary life. The soldiers expect reward for their trouble, or there is likely to be some. Roman soldiers were expected to be obedient but that was an ideal. In many cases they weren't. They were not loyal to Rome. They were loyal to their commander, and therefore if the commander lost respect or was unable to inspire his men, he was in for a hard time. This cuts both ways so if a commander was especially loved and respected by his men, they might well begin to think that he would be a better emperor than so and so back in Rome, and then the legion mutinies as a whole. The roman social hierarchy is indeed part of the roman armies discipline but the it isn't simply a matter of obedience or punishment. A commander was expected to be a leader who inspires his men to victory. The emphasis on this was much greater than todays pep-talks by officers but even these can produce results. Notice that the class structure is still part and parcel of modern army life for good reason, even if many officers are actually from the same class as the rankers. The officers are educated and trained to fulfill their role as social superiors, as gentlemen. Roman armies have their own social structure after Marius rather than they wealth orientated structure of the early days which reflected the society they came from and their place in it.

Uh oh. Looks like I'm going to have to stay up all night getting Baldrick to help me fnish off my roller coaster of an essay in four hundred sizzling chapters....

I would say it was possible they trained as a group when powerful personalities rise to the fore, but training in formation? Celts fought individually, formations were alien to them. Not true. In fact, given the celts weren't worried about formations, it is indeed possible to cover distance as a group much quicker. Think about it. On the one hand you have a roman cohort marching four wide in good order and in step to the orders of a centurion wielding a pace stick. On the other hand, a mob of celtish warriors who can run quite happily in unco-ordinated fashion for some distance. Who gets there first? All it requires is a leader with enough personality to cajole his men onward. Celts weren't worried about efficiency. They were out for personal honour and glory as warriors besides any motivation supplied by their leaders. Discipline amongst vercingetorix's men is illusory. They were not an organised army in any way. In fact, it was down to Vercingetorix's personality that they were able to function as anything resembling a coherent army. Humans have a herd instinct which comes into play, but it requires strong leadership, without which a celtic army (much like any other) would fragment into smaller groups with more popular figures taking the initiative. I do see your point, but perhaps you're thinking of neatly ordered ranks of chariots moving together. Not so. British chariots were used individually, not en masse, although they grouped for mutual effect. Each would make a pass at the enemy but the whole point of chariot fighting is not to confront the enemy directly (fatal!) but to harass and wear down an enemy unit. The brits were using a sort of 'hells angels' approach to warfare on wheels, sweeping past and intimidating their foe with bold abandon. Agreed.

Chainmail might be labour intensive to make but remember we're taliking about roman times. Labour is cheap. In fact, chainmail is relatively easy to make if you don't mind spending the time linking it all together. Modern recreations are made by their owners without difficulty. I stand by what i said about leather. It simply wasn't cost effective. Give the legions some credit for commonsense. They used metal because it was considered a better alternative than the great and good as a status indicator. Its no good bleating on about how easy it is to make cuirbolli. If you make a mistake with leather, you've blown it. With metal, heat it up and rework it. If leather is battle damaged, what can you do? With metal, you heat it up and rework it. If leather armour cracks (and it can) throw it away. If metal cracks, well.. I suppose you could heat it up and rework it. Metal rusts I agree but any soldier who allowed his armour to get to that state is seriously going to regret it because the centurion would be down on him like a ton of bricks, and in any case he'd only have to pay for a replacement. No self-respecting soldier would allow his protection to go without a modicum of care. How many troops of any nation or period wore leather armour as standard? Think about it, because hardly anyone did, and if they chose to do so it was only the lack of a credible alternative. Metal every time. Just ask the romans.

I think I mentioned it somewhere else on this forum but a yoghurt made from curdled milk (I don't remember the latin name) was available but that was more likely to be a rural dish?

It is true that roman discipline was extraordinary, ruthless, and very harsh. We have that story of the centurion nicknamed 'Give Me Another' because he kept breaking vine staff on unfortunate soldiers. He also got himself killed because of it! Which brings me to an important point. Despite this fierce discipline the rank and file soldiers were not known for obedience. There are plenty of stories in which I see senior roman commanders pleading and persuading their men to back to their duties. The discipline produced some very hardened soldiers who simply weren't afraid of anyone and in some cases that included their officers. This is why I think that roman leadership was so important. Without strong leaders the legions simply didn't function effectively.

That underlines my view that a leather cuirass is a status indicator rather than functional armour. Interesting point about chainmail though. It must have been labour intensive to link together although the component rings weren't exactly difficult to make. Then again, I suppose there were always slaves you put on the job, and I would hazard a guess that since demand was there armourers both military and civil made copious quantities of it for instant sale?

Jim Beam? Jack Daniels? Have the romans no answer to these foreign witches brew? Caldrail is indeed to take part in festivities and sadly my gladiatrix will not. Phew. See you on the Friday.

Leather armour isn't as easy to make as you think. It takes longer than metal by a long shot and believe me it involves a very unpleasant tanning process. It might take weeks to produce a decent cuirass. Metal on the other hand can be worked in hours which was why it was preferable. It is true that the romans used leather tents. Why not, is was reasonably durable and much more weatherproof than canvas. However, the leather sections adjacent to the ground tend to rot according to modern research and needed replacement on a regular basis. It was much quicker to tan a hide and sew it into a tent than to go to all the effort of curing the stuff in hot wax. Don't be conned by all the nonsense from role-playing games. Leather armour isn't as cost effective as believed. Besides, why else was iron so important to the romans? True, they needed swords, but armour required more metal ore by far. If leather armour was so much better, cheaper, and easier to make, then why on earth didn't they use it as standard? Answer - Because it wasn't.

the Sicarii did want to wipe out Rome, because i think they believed that only descdents from david could rule judea. They killed other jews because they believed they were collarbarating with Rome or they didn't support armed rebellion against Rome. They believed that their god was going to descend from heaven and destroy the Roman legions. But all they accomplished was turning Rome more vicious in response to the jewish revolts, and they actually did alot more damage than any good for judea. The jewish sicarii were extremists with religious and patriotic motivations. Their homeland had been taken over by Rome after all. The thing is, we tend to think of these people as a coherent group but they weren't. They were divided amongst themselves just as much as modern islamic groups. There really is a parallel with today although circumstance is different. Its also worth stating that whilst many of the common people may have shared their sentiments they weren't prepared to act in the same manner. For them it was life as usual wherever possible, despite the roman presence. There is some speculation that early christians were also harbouring extremists. It was a young personality cult with an axe to grind - Rome had crucified its spiritual leader. Blaming the jews for this act came later during the hard line early medieval period. Romans weren't keen on these christians in their midst. There were rumours of drinking blood, cannabalism, and it was known that they only worshipped that one god of theirs and refused similar honours to the emperor. Some romans may have been curious (hence a trickle of recruits in the early days), but most wouldn't want to associate with them. The christians for their part must have felt this keenly. Their faith had effectively cut them off from polite society. Most would have accepted that as something unavoidable, and in any case they would have kept it quiet to prevent any ill-feeling. Some however, a small minority, may well have resented this attitude toward them. Unless the theory that these groups burned Rome in ad64 is correct, then it clear they never acted to the same extent as the jews given their smaller numbers. In any case, later christian leaders wanted their predecessors remembered as heroes and martyrs, bravely dying for their faith. If there were any violent or criminal acts in the name of christianity, it was brushed under the carpet.

A great deal is made of the roman sewage system but I don't think it was anything like as effective as some people think. In any case, I only know of a sewage system in the City of Rome, nowhere else. Particularly in poor quarters, people would throw crap out of the window just as any other time and place. We humans are mucky devils! Take a look at pompeii. These days the streets are sun bleached and quite clean, but notice the stepping stones across the street. During its occupancy the road was probably messy and stank like something awful. That would be typical of a town at that level of civic development. Waste pits have been found, and this would be a way of disposing of bulk waste that the street couldn't clear by rain and decay. The river tiber is known to have carried away a lot of waste too, including bodies of the masses slain in the arena. Like third world nations today, each town by a river might use it for all manner of purposes without too much concern of what was going on upstream. In each habitation there would be a locally acceptable place or method to dispose of rubbish.

Pardon? Caesar was not a man to pass on a chance of being the man in charge. He was a born autocrat. Would he settle for a years consulship? Well... no... he didn't did he? Even when a consul the joke was that it was the year of the consulship of Caesar and Caesar. The other guy never stood a chance By becoming dictator for ten years he set a new precedent, and by becoming dictator for life had set aside one of the most important taboo's of Rome, that no man would be king. You can argue about the title, but effectively thats what Caesar had become. He didn't destroy the republic, but he did create the precedent for empire.

This is a good point - but I think by that time, he had quite simply 'had enough'. I also think we do need to bear in mind that Tiberius was not exactly Augustus' first choice as successor - he was at least the 5th - even if we don't count Marcellus as a serious candidate in Augustus' mind at the time. And for him to listen in the Senate to the opening words of Augustus' will, where he bemoaned fate for robbing him of Gaius and Lucius, and offered Tiberius as the only option left - well, this would hardly fill the man with confidence in himself. You see, I am not so sure that Tiberius was actually born with his dreary personality; Augustus is not blameless in all this. But I also realise that I always judge Tiberius with a modern eye - which is most unscholarly and unhistorical (if there is such a word). I am quick to censure others for doing this with other historical persons It is just that, to me, Tiberius' personality seems to thrum with a very modern resonance. I know that Ursus, for one, has no patience with him, as he cannot understand why a member of the ruling class was reluctant to take on the mantle of government - and Ursus indeed has a good point, and is seeing Tiberius within the context of his own times. But I always think this a harsh judgment on a man who was introspective by nature - sympathy that would NOT have been extended to him in Roman times, to be sure. He is a real enigma and a very complex man, but all the more fascinating because of it. We're actually very close on this, because I do think, as I've mentioned before, that Tiberius resented being the 'last' to be considered for emperor and then only due to circumstance. I also think that Tiberius felt he had done his duty for Rome earlier in life and perhaps felt used and unrewarded for his efforts compared to more popular figures. Augustus never felt very well disposed toward Tiberius did he? If not, then thats something Tiberius was aware of. At the end of the day, Tiberius shows a distinct disenchantment with running with the crowd as he had in his early days, which would have resulted from a lack of personal popularity.