caldrail

yes, this sort of thing is becoming clearer as I read about christian development. The early cults were sometimes militant but the lack of tolerance because of reputation by romans meant things were kept quiet. Also, later christians didn't want to record their faith as being responsible for militancy or acts thereof, so there's bound to a certain amount of religious license in christian history. The balance of power between church and government became an issue after Constantine when the faith was organised, if not completely unified. This movement in my opinion peeks later at the beginning of the First Crusade. Julian of course despised christianity and I wonder if it was partly the need to share power or populairty with them that led him to act against it.

The exact same statistical arguement applies to the larger legionary encampment and therefore you have argued that they couldn't do that either - but we know they did - it really is just a question of scale. Remember that we're not talking about a permanent fort capable of withstanding a siege. The surrounding ditch is just as useful for drainage as protection and the palisade not especially impressive. The whole point is that these camps were overnight accomodation only. Besides the obvious advantages of a more secure nights sleep and psychological intrusion into enemy territory, the other reason why this camps were built at the end of a days march was to keep the men busy.

Meat? If there was any. Barley was considered an animal feed by soldiers hence a suitable diet for gladiators. To be fair I have to point out that this is a very unlikely scenario. Both the lanista and the games editor had financial reasons to reduce the death count. The lanista had to buy a replacement, train him, feed him, equip him, and his loss meant no further profit from an experienced man. The games editor on the other hand had to pay a higher compensatory rent price if th gladiator died. Although the crowd were keen to see blood spilled, the organisers therefore were not. There was no moral compulsion to avoid death and injury. Far from it. Roman society was more violent than today and it was an accepted part of life. We read learned romans criticising the games, the contestants, and the crowd, but actually this had less to do with human decency than a disdain for what was considered a lower class entertainment, not really fit for wealthy people even though plenty of them cheered the fighters on. Modern statistics show a grim prospect to anyone embarking on this career. First, you must survive the training process. Although much of this was done with heavy blunt practice weapons there was adequate scope for injury. Those of you who've seen the kirk douglas 'Spartacus' film might remember a rotating post with two bars that alternately sweep at the head and ankles. This is authentic. Training was a very strenuous regimen. In fact, studies reveal that one in three trainees did not complete training due to death or injury. The next big obstacle was the first professional bout, the first time you enter the arena for real. Your opponent is no longer going to pull his punches! Again, statistics suggest that one in three gladiators died in their first fight. Experience is a great teacher and until a gladiator has accumulated this he's at risk of making rash decisions and fatal mistakes. Overall, a gladiator might expect a one in nine chance of meeting a sticky end during combat. Its not clear how many were killed during a frantic fight or were condemned to death after being unable to continue. The average life expectancy of a gladiator is reckoned on four years. This is based on the number of fights survived before death. Therefore, the majority of gladiators would die before their term of service was finished. Without doubt, entering the ring was a risk business and it really does say something about the macho, violent, greedy, and glory seeking mindset of romans from all walks of life. Dead gladiators were buried seperately from everyday folk. This was because of their 'infamy', or lowly status. Even the very successful famous gladiators were treated this way.

Much smaller and more basic, but generally of a similar format in layout. A simple ditch and palisade surrounding the camp and none too large, but enough for a modicum of prtection.

You can easily interpret the Book of Revelations in this way. It reads like an inflammatory article designed as propaganda against Rome, much like islamic tirades against america today. It also means that there were extremists trying to persuade their peers to take up the cause, and as always happens with extreme politics, they weren't able to inspire the majority to take action.

Metal is much easier to work into armour than leather. Whilst you might not have needed a blacksmith with leather armour, you would have needed other tradesmen. Metal is far easier to repair. A damaged leather cuirass remains damaged.

No sorry I don't, but Im fascinated that such memoirs would exist from someone of that profession. If you find them, please let us know. Not always true, it depended on demand, and how much money a lanista could earn by renting out his top men. Of course, they were valuable assets and not easily replaced, hence the reluctance of lanistas to risk them overly. The two or three fights a year applied to contract volunteer gladiators. Those condemned ad ludus stood a similar chance of surviving their sentence, usually five to seven years just like volunteers, but those condemned ad gladius - their task was to die for the crowd. Barley and beans. Its not a wonderful meal and modern research shows there's a variety of responses from those who have to eat it, but it did tend to fatten gladiators and help build muscle. Desirable for strength and also protection against minor sword cuts. Meat was indeed reserved for special occaisions, which was the pre-fight feast the night before, a condemned mans last meal in many cases. The meal was provided by the lanista as a mark of respect and often a chance for ordinary people to meet these men and for some women it meant a risque dalliance. This is another example of roman ambivalence, because the audience did not want to see an unfair fight. They wanted thrills and spills. If the fight had lasted as long as Russel Crowes efforts in the film 'Gladiator' I think the event promoter would staining his sublagaria No, not true. The whole point of a munera is to spill blood. The funeral rites demanded that blood is spilled to honour the dead. Now because the average mourner doesn't want to be a murderer, it was felt better to have slaves fight each other, at least that way they'd have a sporting chance. We also see etruscan rites (from which roman games evolved) where a man with a hood over his head must fight an angry dog with a club. Even at mundane displays, at some point, a man must die to satisfy the crowd. later of course the funeral and religious side of things gave way to public entertainment. Nonetheless, it is true that a wounded gladiator that survived the fight would receive the best medical care available. For a woman of good birth to seek the company of a gladiator is something considered scandalous - and that was part of the attraction. There is a story written in roman times of a wealthy daughter who runs away with a gladiator despite his facial injuries, forever throwing away her life of ease and luxury to be with this man of violence she has fallen in love with. Its the only example of a tragic romance that I've heard of in roman times. It has been speculated that Commodus was the son of a gladiator. he certainly bore little resemblance to his father Marcus Aurelius and his mother, the somewhat loosely moraled Faustina, was rumoured to visit ludii. Volunteer gladiators were slaves just like those condemned, except that they could retain their wives and families and would be allowed out of the ludus for rest and relaxation. It was well known that men of noble birth volunteered, either because they wanted stardom or because they were desperate for cash. Augustus made rulings to restrict the number of gentlemen entering the arena. For gladiators bought as slaves the ludus was little more than a prison. Indeed, it was a vigorous life. Studies of gladiatorial skeletons show heavy muscular development and signs that they lived barefoot. I should mention that the way a particular ludus was run depended on the character of the lanista. Lentilus Batiatus might have been a hard tasker but its likely he was also careless, hence the escape of Spartacus even after the plot was discovered. It depends. The morning event began with practice bouts with thr rudis, the wooden sword. This was designed to wet the appetite of the audience and allow them to place bets on the perceived skill of their favourites. Some fights were to the first blood, and the first obvious wound would have the referee stop the fight and announce the winner. Some fights were sine miisione, or 'without remission'. In those fights one man had to die, and no call for mercy to the crowd was heeded. Augustus banned those but I believe they returned later. usually a prize gladiator was given a lesser opponent for the reasons of survival and continued profit, but remember that this person was famous and in demand. Many of them died, so survival was never a sure thing. Those who had been freed by the editor or the emperor, or those who had bought their freedom from their winnings, sometimes returned to the arena later. Either because they couldn't make a life for themselves outside, or because they simply preferred the life they had left behind. behind the scenes were the financial deals done with lanistas. Mostly these were to increase the spectacle, to increase the blood spilled, and the lanista was getting some compensation for risking his best men. I wouldn't be suprised if on rare occaisions a lanista allowed a good man to be killed if sufficiently renumerated - it was only business.

Well lets be a little precise about this. The legions, praetorians, and the senate didn't usually act as a group any more than the roman mob. It always devolved to individual initiative from their leaders rather than popular uprisings. In the case of the legions, we don't the army revolting as a whole. Instead, the charisma and popularity of a single commander has reached the point where the soldiers dissatisfaction with the current emperor has resulted in them persuading or demanding that officer accepts the throne on their behalf. This is done away from Rome regardless of how anybody else feels. It is a mutiny by any other name, one in which the legions commander decides to lead his men both to satisfy his soldiers demands and to further his own career. If the remaining legions were pulled in a short civil war would result. The interesting thing is how often legions did not prevent these uprisings. Its as if the commanders of the legions decided that it was safer to sit on the fence and see who won. Otherwise it portrays the average emperor as a very poor general. With the praetorians, we see a group of privileged men who nonetheless are still typically greedy. Their closeness to the ruling caste bred a certain contempt I think, as they were witness to all the shenanigans that went on. The praetorians seem on the one hand to ignore public mood but I don't think they did. They were very mindful that without the emperor their cushy number was at risk. That said, a praetorian revolt was still usually the work of a handful of individuals, not the praetorians as a whole. The reasons were usually personal, not political. Caligulas murder for instance, after Cassius Chaerea had become angered at the insults andmickey taking aimed at him. Or when caracalla was marching east on campaign, he was murdered by a single officer while he went to the toilet by the road. The assassin was chased by praetorian horsemen and killed with spears. The point is that one person acted, the others retaliated. The senate was always a breeding ground for ambition. Whereas in the past there was always public office and the consulship to strive for, in the empire the top job was reserved. The senate only acted together for mutual interest, usually survival, and the case of ordering an officer to bump off Didius Julianus is an example. When a coup detat was in the air, it would again be the work of a handful of men, again working on personal motives rather than political. Senators who acted without regard to popularity often came off worse - again the case of Didius Julianus comes to mind. The situation in the roman crisis of the 3rd century is that popularity was becoming less important, and individual motive the entire point in securing the throne. There wasn't time to gain popularity, because if the individual didn't act quickly, the current emperor would become popular and that would make the murderous coup far more risky. So - always in the background is the consideration of public mood in one way or another. Without it, your survival after a coup was very much at risk.

Popularity as a ruler was a very important thing, although not all emperors worried about it as much as others. Augustus worried about his popularity almost to the point of paranoia, whereas caligula seems indifferent and at times contemptuous. Thing is, if you're not popular, then a plot by rival senators to oust you is far more likely to succeed. Take poor old Didius Julianus. He bought the throne from the praetorians and was absolutely loathed by the public despite every effort he made to become popular. The senate in fact ordered an officer to kill him to ensure the arrival of Septimius Severus would not result in a purge. Didius had no public support hence no-one worried whether he died or not. Elagabulus similarly met a sticky end because the bloke was a complete embarrasement and in any case, what use was he? His mum held all the strings. Without public support, he never stood a chance. Now a better example might be Titus. When he came to power he was viewed as a disreputable character, and most romans expected another nero. To his credit, Titus reinvented his image and made great strides to be known as a good ruler. His inaugral games at the colosseum swung it for him. After that triumph of public entertainment, he was remembered as the great ruler he had wanted to be.

As I said, such breastplates were worn as decorative 'status' objects. It is interesting about gladiatorial depictions on tv and film that consistently show this sort of armour protection. As far as I'm aware, the only gladiators that had any torso protection were secutors and that only covered the top half. It was a metal guard too.

No, we know that smaller units than legions built marching forts. I think you might be confusing those with the more impressive legionary forts which were built for long term occupation. Small stone forts often housed cohorts too, not the legion as a whole. Even watch towers were occupied for periods longer than a day.

in time of war...NO!, they must return at base camp before night fall, even if on a mission. in time of peace... they travel by village to village within a day march, the settlement will be their safety haven or protection against surprise attack. yes! a legiones cohortia is the modern day equivalent of military battalion, so it is almost a self contained unit that everything it needs is almost their for the war and mission. Hung by your own petard! There is a difference between the permanent or semi-permanent legionary fort, and a marching fort built by a unit en-route. The cohort is linked by organisation to its parent legion, and although it may conduct missions or postings as a seperate unit, it does not become entirely autonomous. As for marching, cohorts did not rely on travelling from settlement to settlement. They couldn't. The roman army often operated in regions where suitable settlements were not available. Thats the rationale for the marching camp. At the end of the days march, the cohort must encamp and make some effort to protect themselves with a ditch and palisade. This was standard roman practice. It gave the men some measure of security, and its notable that one military punishment required that guilty soldiers sleep outside the camp. It also had a psychological advantage in that it planted a roman flag inside hostile territory, saying to all observers that the romans are here and they're staying. Even if the camp was for one night, the statement was made. Every week, a unit was expected to conduct a route march and that involved an overnight camp made in this way. The legion as a whole wouldn't have done this because they needed to perform a whole range of local duties, so individual cohorts would therefore conduct these marches and encampments as a matter of course. It does bring up the question of how legions or their cohorts did this in desert regions where wood was not freely available, and settlements almost non-existent. There are plenty of stone roman castles left in isolated parts of north africa, so was the situation similar to hadrians wall, where units are posted along a chain of fortifications?

Given that the republic was becoming unable to contain individual initiative, then after the civil wars it was almost certain that someone would rise to become dictator/emperor/monarch - whatever title you want to call it. Autocratic rule was unpopular with senior romans. It meant they couldn't share in power for one thing. So unless the individual rising to the fore was powerful enough and popular enough, then the civil wars would have continued, or some very bloody intrigue at the very least. For that reason, I agree that the republic was doomed by its own failure, and sooner or later autocratic rule was going to replace the roman oligarchy. As later history shows, a lesser man simply led to another power struggle and continued instability.

Personally I see Sejanus as a symptom of something more general in Tiberius's nature. He was only too keen to put aside the day to day stuff and clearly hadn't realised Sejanus had ambitions of his own. By that stage, Tiberius's disaffection with public life had reached the point where he was only too glad to have a trusted advisor take on the strain. Notice that Tiberius did not resume public life after Sejanus was revealed as a usurper, with all the lessons learned therefrom, but continued to live in semi-retirement.

I understand your point. The parallel is there although the situation in Rome was slightly different in that ancient 'terrorists' wouldn't have the training or sophistication that we see today. As for 'terrorist' incidents, its impossible to say. We're talking about handfuls of aggrieved individuals who act without modern organisation. Given that Rome may have suffered up to a hundred fires a day, of which two or three might be considered serious who's to say how many were started by pyromaniacs? Of the knifeings that went on after dark, were they all thieves or were some political murders? If so, the number of these incidents are small. people of this nature don't act with wild abandon. They usually plot and plan, seeking mutual support until their increasing confidence and brashness results in activity, after which they would tend to lie low in order to escape suspicion. What they wouldn't do in the lack of modern anonymous communications is boast about it publicly. However, there are claims that evidence of propaganda leaflets dating from this era exist. I haven't seen any.

I haven't found much aside from the reports of Tacitus and an archaeologist named Andrea Carandinas, who's been digging in Rome for 20 years. Only four districts were left untouched, and three were completely flattened. The inference is that many of the public buildings were indeed burned, but it would help if I knew which area they were in. The center of Rome, around the palatine, was ruined so if the buildings you metion were there, they too suffered from the fire.

Practice fencing might have been commonplace. A fathers duty may well have extended to teaching his son how to wield a weapon. I remember seeing a saxon sword at Swindon Museum and being struck by the small size of the handle. Then it ocurred to me that this weapon belonged to a youth, possibly following his father on raids to earn experience and manhood. The fact that it was left on the field north of Barbury Castle suggests he never learned quickly enough. I don't believe there was any formal training for fighting amongst these people. They weren't that organised. Then again, they were warrior societies and everyone around a child used these weapons as a matter of course. They grew up with them and observed at close hand how they were used. As youths there may well have been much aggressive contest amongst each other, jostling for position like young men do. So, instead of training, they accumulated experience and received occaisional tips or instruction from their seniors.

Nice pic, but I should stress that this particular helmet was worn by someone important. Common soldiery wore helmets with less decoration or fancy face guards at this time.

Rural slave labour was known to be cruel and backbreaking. I doubt the rich farmers worked as hard as the slaves did.

In AD64 the city of Rome suffered a fire that destroyed or damaged ten out of fourteen districts, more than three and half square miles of devastation. The fire began in a shop beside the Circus Maximus and quickly spread along the length of that stadium. Driven by the dry wind of the hot summer it then travelled down the Triumphal Way and began burning homes of the aristocracy on the Palatine hill. From there it destroyed the forum, the temple of vesta, and spread into the wood and brick slums of the subura, home to hundreds of thousands of poor people. The fire was intense. Experiments at the Building Research Establishment at Watford on replica roman rooms suggest that with typical furniture and construction a room could be destroyed utterly within thirty minutes reaching temperatures of six hundred degrees. In fact, archaeological evidence has turned up shattered bronze statue bases that suffered temperatures up to a thousand degrees. The radiant heat was literally causing houses to spontaneously combust. Even the traventine stone was melting. The fire lasted six days, then mysteriously re-ignited at the estate of Tigellenius, Nero's close advisor, and burned for another three days before it finally went out. Given Nero's enthusiasm for recreating Rome it was suspected that he was behind it, thus giving rise to the legend that he 'fiddled while Rome burned'. In fact he hadn't. Nero was at Antium partying with friends thrity five miles away when the fire started. Some aristocrats suspected he had burned their houses on purpose, since politics was decided in their atriums as much as the senate floor. However, its also true that Nero's own palace, the Domus Transitoria, was also hit by the fire. Although the city had seven thousand firemen, none had tackled the fire and its reported that 'menacing gangs' prevented attempts to do so. People were observed torching buildings whilst openly claiming they were obeying orders to do so. On the one hand, the claims that Nero had started the fire as a land clearance scheme seem to have crecedence, but it also seems unlikely he would burn his own palace and that home of his close advisor. Unfortunately, despite Nero's relief efforts and his building safety legislation brought in afterward, his new Domus Aurea was such a statement of power that claims against him were difficult to avoid. Conventional wisdom holds that Nero became aware of the increasing criticism and blamed the unpopular christian sect as being responsible. They were perfect as scapegoats. Rumours of vampirism, necrophagy, and denial of the imperial cult put them beyond the pale. The persecution of christians that followed was the first, and was so cruel that many romans began to have sympathy for them. Its because of these burnings and crucifixions that Nero is popularly known as an anti-christ. The fire took place on the evening of July 19th, the same date as a major fire more than four hundred years earlier. There was also an egyptian prophecy known at the time throughout the eastern mediterranean that a great city would fall when the dog star Sirius rose. In AD64, Sirius rose on July 19th. Christians, many of whom were disaffected jews, had no legal recourse to vent their complaints so were prone to apocalyptic prophecy as a way to express their anger. Although christianity is now seen as a passive peaceful faith, back then it was not. The violent fundamentalism we now expect of islam was present in christianity then, and within a few years of the Fire, a revolt in Judaea took place led primarily by religious zealots. The christian activist theory relies on these points. July 19th would have been seen as the perfect date to bring retribution to decadent Rome. Indeed, these sentiments are expressed in the Book of Revelations ascribed to St John thirty years after, although its unlikely he actually wrote them himself. If the Seven Headed Whore of Babylon was in fact the Seven Hills of Rome as the theory requires, then the description makes quite clear that hatred of Rome and its domination of the world was keenly felt by contemporary christians, who were exorting others to wreak revenge on the city in exactly the same way that modern moslems do against america today. If the Activist Theory is correct then why has this not been translated into modern acceptance? The most obvious reason is sanitisation of christian history. As Rome turned away from pagan beliefs the bishops of Rome would not want their compliant flocks to see a religion tainted by the anti-roman zealotry of their predecessors. Of course this is difficult to prove. There is a hint of conspiracy theory about this. The dates may be mere coincidence, and the Book of Revelations is possibly only the result of a nightmarish vision of someone high on mushrooms. Nonetheless, the parallels to our modern world are there and the Activist Theory, if proven, would mean that Nero did not pick on the christians as scapegoats, but exacted revenge executions on the cult that attempted to destroy his empire at its heart.

So what is this circumstantial evidence? I'll look it up. Report to follow. For myself I have doubts because Rome suffered fires regularly and there was another great fire during Titus's reign wasn't there? Regarding house insurance I opened a thread on this forum on that subject earlier. DOH! I meant Crassus....

Neither. It was more honourable to win. Except for Cato! Actually Caesar's late triumph over romans was badly viewed by many. So, at least for his time it was not a glorious thing to gain victory in civil wars. A civil war is bound to arouse strong feelings. Partly this was inspired by caesars success and talent, both of which were considerable. Julius caesar remained popular with the plebs so it was people amongst the senatorial class who quite literally wanted to stick daggers in his back.

Yet there has been a british sword of this period unearthed which display advanced construction techniques, the metal blade having been folded in a herring bone pattern for strength as much as appearance rather than simply hammered out.

No emperor handed out donatives because he thought the men deserved it. These payments were to buy their loyalty, not reward it. Caligula reportedly said "Let them hate me as long as they fear me", which isn't the statement of someone who worries unduly about popularity. Caligula was not an accomplished politician in any way. He was too self centred for that. having been given power over the empire, he regarded himself as a god and expected everyone else to recognise that. Not insanity I should point out, just the result of an over-inflated ego. Caligula seems to suffer from the behavioural problems that we might associate with child-stars today. He grew up in the public eye, probably forever being told how to behave yet being feted by the public. Once freed by his accession his immature (and utterly malignant) mischief rises to the surface unrestrained by lesser mortals. Caligula was actually popular amongst the roman public. He was cheered on by the plebs. It was the senate or those who dealt with him personally who became disenchanted with his ways. I draw your attention to the embassy of Philo that visited Caligula with complaints on behalf of the jews. Clearly Philo expected he might be executed for his trouble, yet Caligula gives them the run-around to deflate their arguement and then dismisses them as misguided. Truth is he never took them seriously to begin with.

I can't help thinking that one of the underlying reasons for the roman decline is provincial administration. Why did one emperor happily control an empire in the principate but found it impossible two centuries later? One answer among many is that provincial governemnt was becoming lazy, negligent, and in many cases passed decisions up the pyramid. Or was provincial government too risky?