caldrail

According to roman historians ten of the fourteen districts were devastated. Thats five sevenths. Rome was a tinderbox of wooden framed buildings closely packed together so a firestorm of that size isn't so unexpected. The problem is, there are reports that people actually fed the fire. Suetonius mentions that people were seen carrying firebrands and claiming their masters had ordered them to do it. One theory suggests that christian activists did indeed torch rome in an ancient terrrorist outrage. The case is unproven but intriguing, and there is some circumstantial evidence that seems to point in that direction. More likely is the desire for landlords to cash in on buildings that were falling down anyway. A lot of those apartment blocks were jerry-built and vermin infested, so claiming insurance payment or selling off the land for a quick profit might have been a motive. On the other hand, its known that Pompey became rich by buying land after buildings had burned down at cut prices - so was an entrepeneur at work here?

So the lixae were undesirable camp followers, opportunists and thieves who also supplied soldiers with items for renumeration. I can see why they were sometimes banned.

I'm a little frustrated because I can't find the original reference that I remember reading. For that reason I apologise to Augusta until such time as I can prove my case. As regards the legions, I don't think caligula cared one jot about them. There were mere soldiers for crying out loud. However, we do see his disrespect of individuals in the case of watchwords, which was a source of mickey-taking for him. In fact, this behaviour probably cost him his life because Cassius Chaerea did not take kindly to being called effeminate given his proud war record. I think caligula wasn't concerned with political gain over his name, rather that people should jolly well recognise his superiority.

Munera are the gladiatorial games which evolved from funeral rites in the two hundred years before the empire. Ludii are the training schools for contestants, and although I don't know which was the first, I believe Julius Caesar set one up? In the original human sacrifices, it was considered a good thing to honour the dead with the spilling of blood. Thats a typical funeral rite for meditteranean cultures. Now because no-one wanted to be a murderer, the answer was to get two social undesirables to fight each other to death. Later, some people wanted wanted their deceased relative to get a more impressive send-off, so perhaps two pairs. Three? Then people began celebrating their deaths much later, usually when they were running for public office and in order to impress, staged bigger and more varied rites. Sooner or later the funeral rite wasn't necessary, and these events were staged purely to impress. Before the empire displays were often ad hoc, set up in forums or other public spaces. Indeed they did make amphitheatres of wood. Famously one shoddy effort collapsed during Tiberius's reign at Fidenae with thousands of casualties, the promoter finding himself exiled for cutting costs. There is a story about a convertible arena made of wood. Usually one half was used as an ordinary theatre then when an arena was required, the other half was wheeled around. There's some dispute as to whether this building ever existed. There were alternatives but remember the roman public enjoyed these games. They were exciting in much the same way as a top-level boxing match, or perhaps more so, given the mortal drama of it. The increasing number of days devoted to games was simply to keep people happy. An unknown citizen once called out to caligula 'How about a days games, Caesar?', to which Caligula duly obliged. Also bear in mind the second purpose of games was to impress evryone with the promoters status and generosity. Titus for instance was remembered as a great ruler because his inaugral games at the colosseum were a success. Regarding the sexual aspect of gladiatorial combat, this is part of human psychology. Females do tend to respond to a strong warrior type, both as protector and provider, so a display of violence and the glory attached was almost certain to give the participants sex appeal. It did. Wealthy women were sometimes prone to having affairs with gladiators despite their lowly status in society, and even the wife of the emperor Marcus Aurelius was rumoured to do so. In rome a typical woman of means might have lots of free time and no career aspirations. The excitement of dating a bold warrior illicitly was substantial. It might be noted also that at such displays the women were seated right up at the back, furthest away. There's an element of frustration here I think because society is almost keeping them at arms length from these men, hence the curiosity value of getting close. I would like to add a footnote about women gladiators as sex-objects. Now whilst some men may have considered scantily clad females hacking each other to death as something titillating or amusing, I sense a disquiet about women fighters too. These women were rarer than male fighters (obviously) and in all likeliehood their lanista was more protective. A pregnant gladiatrix cannot be hired out for profit. Men are more predatory sexually and easier targets exist. It probably occurred on very rare occaisions but I doubt most men found it appealing to bed a woman scarred in combat who was quite capable of seperating them from their testicles without blinking. It would certainly make me think twice!

Thats not the impression I got. The name reminded him of his troubled childhood and what I tried to explain earlier was that caligula clearly had something of a chip on his shoulder regarding status. If caligula had any regard for the legions I would accept your point, but he treated them with the same arrogant mischief as everyone else. Did he not order them up and down a beach collecting sea-shells instead of actually invading britain? Try Lives of the Caesars by suteonius, I think he refers to the naming problem. I'll have to wade through tacitus again to find anything!

No. But the mans friends may have helped if they could. Also the burial clubs acted as charitable institutions so although compensation is unobtainable, perhaps a charity payment might be forthcoming. It was not a sure thing. An honourable death requires that witnesses saw him die in act of courage. Otherwise its an unfortunate turn of events. Soldiers in war become very callous regarding death and injury. Neither. It was more honourable to win.

Dumb luck? I think not. Octavian was an ambitious and ruthless young man, clearly inspired by his adoptive relative Julius Caesar and clever enough to learn from caesars mistakes. Hiding his power? Well octavian did not adopt the title of an autocrat. What he did was proclaim that he was the first citizen, the most important of many, which eased the minds of the senate who may have feared another dictator or even worse a monarch. Remember that political power at the end of the republic was vastly increased by the exercise of military clout. By being able to call upon armed forces, aided by Marcus Agrippa, he has a powerful bargaining chip and a means to eliminate his rivals. Military success is always a plus point in roman minds and his part in the civil war did him no harm. Of course, as augustus he relied on his popularity to maintain his status and conducted a careful balancing act between rule by decree and as an apparent servant of the people. At various stages he tests the water to ensure his popularity is still there, and at others appears a little nervous that his power might be declining.

I disagree. My experience in the music industry taught me that a cold audience isn't conducive to original material. Give them something they understand and like and they'll applaud - after all, didn't emperors do just that with games and chariot races? Broad topics can work just fine if you don't dwell on them. For your average listener someone going on about 3rd century coinage (for instance) isn't going to change their perception except for the worst. Play to the crowd I say. And whilst I'm thumping my tub, I agree, there isn't any need to pass on stereotypes. Why not focus the lecture on why these sterotypes are wrong? If the audience is of a learned variety then by all means be specific and explain a subject they may not be aware of.

Well if it were me stood there.... I think I'd start with SPQR in large letters and explaining its significance. What it meant, why it was important 2000 years ago, where it came from. That way the empire is seen in context. Then I'd stress the extent of the empire in geographical terms. How one man controlled this vast swathe of land from one city. Some anecdotes about the excesses that some emperors were prone to. A bit about the economical strengths of rome to follow. How the earlier success against carthage had enabled the empire to treat the mediterranean as a roman lake, mentioning the transport of grain from egypt, metals from britain, the animal trade, luxury goods from India and beyond. Then I'd describe how they held it all together by the exercise of brute force, with legions, and displays of violence. Finally, I would draw parallels between their age and ours and ask - Are we so different?

It was mentioned either by suetonius or tacitus. For romans I agree - calling himself gaius wasn't a problem. But then its recorded he never liked the name - I wonder if he associated it with childhood discipline? I seem to recall that he's referred to as Emperor Gaius frequently but its only hearing that name within earshot that annoyed him, so then I'd say that he regarded that as a breach of ettiquette. He was Caesar of Rome, and expected his onlookers to address at such. According to the same source, caligula was used during his lifetime. It was after all his nickname as applied by troops on the german border when he was a child mascot. They called him caligula ('little boots') with some humour. In all probability it amused senators to hear him called that as much as soldiers, and people being what they are, nicknames tend to stick. As for dripping with the traditional picture of a madman, of course it does. He's been presented as such since his reign. However, caligula seems to have had something of a troubled childhood. I've said this before, but the impression I get is that his parents were not overly loving, possibly too busy to care for him, and he got more attention from the soldiers. Later of course he was a young man with some behavioural faults and I would say deeply annoyed at being addressed by his childhood nickname. He certainly looked at the senate with some disdain (the story of Incitatus) and as for the rest of Rome, did he not say that if Rome had but one neck he would hack it off? Well maybe he did or he didn't actually say that, but that anecdote was recorded to illustrate caligula's contempt. Oh yes, I've just remembered, didn't he execute a foreign ruler for wearing a purple cloak?

True. Mind you, being a woman she probably borrowed it.....

Tiberius seems to have a sociopathic side to his character. Whilst he did his duty earlier I wonder if he felt his efforts were not sufficiently rewarded? After all, he only became emperor because everyone in front of him died off. Also, having to follow Augustus on stage must have been a daunting prospect, and I think tiberius felt something like the son of the boss that he always had to fill the shoes of. In any event, he grew tired of the cut and thrust of roman life. He just didn't like people and this tendency increased with age.

Not officially, although I wonder if the burial clubs might help them? A generous officer might help a soldier he deems worthy, or perhaps his mates would club together and assist.

I know pretty much how river vessels were laid out, but does anyone know anything about sea-going vessels suitable for trading across the med? The reason I ask is I've come across text that suggests these vessels were rowed across when carrying animals, but I'm not so sure. The logisitics of it are a little hard on animals and crew. Roman sailors may not have been the greatest but then surely they had some savvy about loading those big crates aboard when dealing with masted vessels with rigging? Anybody know?

Rome was always an urban civilisation. The large slave-estates of the late republic/early empire had more or less put the small farmer out of business. I wonder how many country estates were given over to holiday homes as opposed working farms? Given how vital agriculture was I suspect the degradation of farming during the late empire was due to many factors. Young men are being drafted forcibly into the army, the stability and safety enjoyed by their forebears is becoming a thing of the past, the possibility of raids or foragers of either side, the loss of markets (?), never mind any enviromental issues.

Agreed. Archaeology works best when items found are left in context, not simply hauled out of the ground. If you find something, what lies beside it? Is there a building on the site? Skeletal remains? Ancient debris or refuse? All things build up a little story of what was going on all those years ago. A metal detector, for all its usefulness, simply tells you something is there and the natural temptation is to pull it out of the ground and walk away to register your success in some way. Actually its a fail when you think about it.

There are cultural differences too. The german fashion for a sideways topknot (hairstyle that is) for instance, or perhaps the style of clothing, weaponry etc. What about tattoos or warpaint? Housing styles?

Not necessarily. The problems in the west would have been the same in a united empire, although I accept they may have been better able to cope militarily or economically. The problem is that the united empire was becoming ungovernable by one man (which is why it split in the first place) so the united empire would have found it harder to cope on a political level, and the empire would have lost territory under pressure anyway in my view.

Yes its noticable that the collection of artifacts in my area is of low quality, local greyware for instance, or the remains of iron tools or bucket fittings. However, a crushed silver bowl was recovered from one villa site, and a wine strainer from okus ridge. Someone had obviously imported some of that red pottery as their sunday best.

Doesn't this depend on how you define civilisation? At what point to you cease being a barbaric tribesman and become a civilised man? For me, reading and writing must be considered an important step but then primitive societies sometimes evolve ways to record ideas even in an unsophisticated fashion. Or is it urban living that defines it? At what point does a village of mud huts progress to a civilised town?

Climate change is not being put forward as the cause of Rome's demise, rather as a contributory factor. You can argue how deeply the effect was felt - I might even agree - but lets remember that civilisation at the time rome was very dependent on agricultural production, itself vulnerable to enviromental factors. Without food, the urban population of the city of rome, a million at its height, could not maintain its prosperity. The intensification of agriculture partly results from demographic changes in the late empire as rural estates become almost independent. Also, the burdgeoning population was as much the result of immigration both hostile and passive as it was from successful farming. Farms do not become huge successes for no reason. If the food surplus is too large, prices fall, unsold produce rots, and farms actually go out of business. This to me means that any increase in rural production is the result of increased demand. No its not rubbish. Barbarization in the republic was done to a formula. A barbarian could join the regular legions as an individual, or en masse as auxillaries under roman command. Either way, training was done to roman pattern and the troops conducted themselves accordingly. They became romanised as part of the army. In the late empire, this process collapses. Because of the demand for soldiers and the lack of enthusiasm of potential recruits, the late empire found it necessary to include barbarian formations under their own command. The romanisation of earlier periods was being set aside by necessity. Yes I can see your point. But then one of the reasons for the empires split was because government had become too difficult for one man. It was if you like a failure of local government that forced decisions up the chain until the emperor became overwhelmed. Having split, and despite any internal arguements, both halves were linked by common political and cultural history which is a strong factor in the way two nations do business with each other. After all, britain and france ought to linked given we share royal families but we've been arguing since the 14th century!

Olympic games are a modern phenomenon and bear a passing resemblance to the contests held in antiquity. The are of course greek in origin, and for that reason were usually scorned by romans, particularly since contestants were supposed to compete naked (another example of roman ambivalence). Nero bucked the trend by staging such contests, but were they ever really popular? Only amongst cities with greek tendencies or perhaps those that had been banned from staging spectacles, such as Pompeii after the riot with Nucerians. The fact that cities staged events after a ban is of no suprise to me at all. It was public entertainment and any such diversion in otherwise hum-drum lives was welcome. Gladitorial fights continued into the 6th century in places despite christian objections and rulings to that effect.

Considering the visits to museums featuring roman artifacts such as Swindon, Cirencester etc, one thing I notice is a definite disparity in quality. Most of the artifacts aren't particularly well made and therefore for common purchase I would say. However, a certain percentage are of much higher quality and without doubt intended for customers who appreciate the finer things in life and can afford them. I wonder if these finer objects were made to order or simply put on display until a wealthy person decided it would look good on the mantlepiece?

Originally animals were caught purely to parade them in fron of an urban audience who might never have seen these beasts for real. Of course, having got them and transported them to the arena, what can you do with them afterward? Many of these animals are large and potentially dangerous. So inevitably it was decided to stage a hunt to entertain the audience and rid the owners of their problem in one fell swoop. This quickly became an expected norm, hence the demand for animals. To begin with, animals were gathered locally simply because it was easier. later, the hunters must have gone further to find them, or since the novelty value was important then agents sent to provinces to secure exotic beasts there. In any event, the available animals are getting further and further afield, until the empire is to all intents and purposes dependent on spending large amounts of cash for 'foreign' animals. Another reason for economic and arena decline toward the end (not the only one of course!) PS - I referred earlier to chimps tea parties. That was a mistake on my part because I don't think the romans came across any chimpanzees. Ape tea parties would be more accurate, and especially funny for roman audiences given the antics of their betters!

The british were a truculent lot weren't they? I think the romans put some effort into maintining peace here and only the raw resources made that worthwhile. This was also the reason that senators or equestrians weren't rising from this region - they weren't sufficiently romanised to acceptable? The irish were probably only nuisance value, whilst the picts were more of a handful. After all, one of the reasons for hadrians wall was to control trade across the border. That way rebellions sponsored by pictish support were forestalled. As for the 5th century I'm not aware of any decline in mineral extraction. The only reason therefore that britain is cast adrift is purely to concentrate on home defence given the increasing difficulty and costs of supporting the military.