caldrail

But they do! Our modern world is more conducive to investment in dumb ideas. The romans were more concerned with investing in surefire traditional markets - something they understood and that carried minimal risk. A sensible attitude in a competitive and insecure world.

Agreed. The amount of graffiti on display indictates that it was expected for people see it and read it. What also comes across is how much effort had been been put into neatness and appearance. Not the ambiguous logo's that litter our walls today. These were often professional readable jobs that the owners of property appear to tolerate.

This was a point I raised earlier in the thread, Caldrail, when I asked about the consumer (although this was in relation to the Caracalla bust). I often wonder if there was mass-production of cheap copies of important portraits and statues for the man-in-the-street to buy, to display in his vestibule to impress his friends and show his loyalty to the government. Or was art purely for the wealthy? We know that Agrippa took some measures to put great works of art on display for the common man to see. Did this foster a love of art among the populace? The reason I brought this up was because I find it difficult to associate love of art with the roman masses. My own personal view is that they may have obtained cruder works not as artwork per se, but as a symbol of loyalty or respect? A 'keep up with the joneses' sort of attitude? Lets be honest, the roman poor had a hard time keeping a roof over their heads never mind mounting an exhibition. Of course there were plenty of traders or lesser knights who would have liked to spice up their dwelling and give themselves an air of some prosperity. A small piece might have done the trick - I couldn't see them having a new mosaic laid unless they really did have some dosh to spare! Talking of mosaics, I notice that patterns came ready prepared on sheets of paper. Just lay it place and wash the paper off. I also notice that in at least one british mosaic the pattern is poorly laid and the circular motif actually goes out of bounds! I bet the owner wasn't too chuffed when he noticed that.... They weren't cheap to lay however, and I can't think of any modest dwelling that has one. Mosiacs to my mind are not accurate representations of their subject. They are somewhat stylised - but they also contain a lot of visual clues for us these days. In the case of mosaics I have to say artistic license was expected, not just tolerated.

Tiberuius is enigmatic - a reserved character who seems to resent power thrust upon him. Is that simply Robert Graves writing? I see Tiberius as a guy with some deep seated quirks. I'm not sure how far they went but he definitely exhibited misanthropic behaviour - he just didn't like people. Hence his long holiday in Capri and trusting government to his associates. As for his 'dirty old man' label, I can't say. I was informed that roman pornography has been found at the site of his villa but that doesn't mean it was his. As a solitary old guy living apart from the world in semi-retirement, rumours are almost bound to spring up. Is there any parallel between him and howard hughes, in that tiberius became a bit flakey? Hmmm... Not sure, but the stories of his anti-social behaviour are usually those during his long absence from Rome. He did rely heavily on Thrasyllus, his astrologer, and in this respect 'I Caesar' and the histories are in agreement.

The late republican army was a dangerous weakness politically. The soldiers were loyal to their general, not the state. This encouraged ambition in generals leading to civil wars. The senate was unable to restrict the generals when it came to the test. Now although the roman public did not want monarchies, a populist leader like caesar could and did use popularity to justify a permanent dictatorship. Augustus did the same thing by another name.

Officially cannablism was repugnant to the romans in the same way we view it - its a symbol of primitiveness besides any ethical concerns. The story of Hannibal crossing the alps contains a tale where a carthaginian general tells hannibal that to stave off hunger they must teach their men to eat human flesh and enjoy it, an offer which hannibal quickly refuses. Off hand I can't think of any occaision where romans met a cannabalistic culture although some of those german tribes might have for religious purposes - I'm only guessing about that. On an individual level then its always possible that a ancient serial killer indulged (such behaviour is not an invention of the modern world) and the tale of an innkeeper selling human flesh instead of pork has some basis in reality. A 13th century innkeeper at Colbourne, John Jarvis (?), was executed for murdering at least 60 travellers by means of a hinged bed into a cauldron of boiling water. Up until then he'd managed to dispose of the evidence and sell their property.

My comment Phil. I do agree however that an 'image' is also required from the artist. Caracalla we've all pointed at. Caligula was apparently sensitive about his hair thinning and I'm not suprised in the slightest that his bust shows full hair - the artist wasn't stupid! Interesting to note the painted statue - I hadn't realised they did that. I knew they painted tombstones but a statue? Whilst I doubt every bust was lovingly hand-painted too it does show that colour was very important in roman eyes. There's another aspect to this that comes to mind. I remember a visit to the cirencester museum (corinium) a couple of years ago. What struck me about the artifacts on display was the dual nature of them. Most were functional and crude. Mass produced in all likelihood. Some however were of a much finer quality and quite impressive in their elegant simplicity. Hand made for discerning customers I'd expect. Does this apply to roman art? Is there evidence of 'wealthy' and 'poor' artwork?

The Roman senate probably would have been able to solve the problem of money if they had the chance. But since it was controlled by the Emporers the senate couldn't really controll where the money went. Also the Emperors spent a lot of money on personal pleasures. No I don't believe they could. The demand for public entertainment would have remained the same without emperors to hog all the glory, or possibly become even worse due to political manoevers. For instance the ever-increasing cost of importing ever-rarer animals for the arena was not going to get better. Prosperity under the imperial period was going to happen due to the earlier conquests etc, so the demand for luxury goods wasn't going to change. Now I agree that the emperors spent heavily on themselves. But then, wouldn't the senators do likewise? They may not have spent so much individually but given the occaisional increase in their numbers wouldn't the same problems emerge? When a group of peers struggle for dominance wealt and status go together. Spending huge sums is a surefire way of demonstrating how little money means to you when you have so much of it. After all, didn't one wealthy roman commit suicide after blowing his wad on huge banquets?

Greeks as ordinary people are despised by romans. Even to call somewhat a greek is a term of disrespect. They are seen as crude and untrustworthy people. A very odd attitude when so much of roman culture is derived from Greece.

I note with interest the bust of caracalla. As to whether its a good likeness I can't say, but the fierce expression is important. I think caracalla wanted to be seen as fierce, it suited his demeanour. He was a soldiers man after all, not some ponsy politician Also, I agree that the portraits do show their subjects with some realism. The artwork isn't perfect however and so far I haven't seen a painting that convinces me of total accuracy. Were the great masters of the renaissance more accurate? They too used some artisitc license and I think the roman portraits would be done to flatter their subjects (alive or dead) for either the subject or their family/friends. So far I find roman art as suggestive. Its rendered as close as it needs to be, in order that you recognise the subject. So unlike a modern feature film, trajans column doesn't need to be 100% accurate to convey the story. Busts on the other hand seem to have accuracy demanded of them. It seems to be a concept of recognition and respect that goes beyond painted art. Marble has a permancy about it that painted works can't emulate - is a permanent record of someone therefore not the real reason for accurate art in roman eyes?

There would indeed be a tendency to turn into the formation. All the more reason to maintain speed and turn away before that occurred. This is probably why the scythed chariot didn't receive wider use. Ordinary chariots were skirmishing vehicles - they didn't come into contact with the enemy, merely rode past so the passenger could fire arrows or lob spears before disappearing in a cloud of dust and turning around for another pass. very hells angels, but that was the mentality of chariot warfare.

No, I don't. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the external pressures on Rome would remain the same. Also the internal economic drain would have remained the same. Rome grew in power on the back of military conquest, but it was only a matter of time before Rome ceased expanding. It was getting too large to control, a problem the late emperors were well aware of. As long as the loot from the conquered nations filled roman coffers everything was economically ok. However Rome was a heavy spender. Its entertainment industry consumed a huge amount of money, and trading in foreign luxuries (which would have occurred anyway) drained money abroad. Tens of millions of sestercii went to India for instance. Once the money began to run out, the increased costs of an expanding bureaucracy would bring the whole edifce to its knees exactly the same way as the empire. The same thing happened to spain. On the back of its american expeditions it grew wealthy and powerful, only to slide back when the gold ran out.

Megalithic sites extend over a significant portion of western europe. There is a spectacular site in france with row upon row of stone columns. Silvery Hill? You mean Silbury Hill surely? That monument is the same as an egyptian pyramid or a mayan temple to some degree. Its an artificial mountain. An expression of size and power. Many christian sites are built on pagan ones. The new owners were keen to suggest that the area was under new management.

I think there were hanging gardens. The ancients were very specific about the seven wonders of the ancient world and we know most of them were very real. As to what form these gardens took I can't say, but they were there without a doubt.

At the suggestion of the Augusta, lets have a discussion of roman art. In particular I'd like to read other peoples impressions of whether roman artists acurrately portrayed people or to what extent they used imagination. Ancient artwork is often flowery as a rule with little realism, but then we see things like trajans column that hint at how things really were. In particular, how real are those preserved frescoes at pompeii? Does that depict real life or a victorian-style erotic ideal? The floor is yours...

Regarding showmanship, yes, but to a limited degree. Remember these men were professional fighters who had either been forced by court, circumstance, or ambition to take to the arena. They had suffered strenuous training. Death was a very likely outcome of this path. It was far more likely that a gladiator would die in his first professional bout than at any other time. So, although these men either chose or had no choice but to accept the risks, they were proud of the entertainment they gave the crowd. The crowd cheered them when they did well. For a short time, they were heroes in public. We also note that gladiators formed strong friendships amongst themselves even when they knew one day they must fight each other to the death. Remember too that most fights were governed with strict rules enforced by referees. (Free-for-alls were usually large scale slaughters designed both to re-enact a historical event and to rid rome of hundreds of prisoners of war they couldn't sell) My conclusion is that gladiatorial combat involved a lot of pomp and ceremony. The gladiators could be viewed training for the event. They could be seen partying the night before. Dressed in their finery they march to the arena through the admiring crowd. But what about the arena? Two men enter. Their names are announced and I would expect them to acknowledge the crowds response much as the same way a modern fighter might. No roman referee is going to let a gladiator run riot - his behaviour must fall within acceptable parameters. He is a slave after all no matter how famous. Worse still, an armed slave, trained to use his weapon to deadly effect. On the other hand, this is entertainment, something the referee understands. So he might allow a little pre-match hype if the games editor requires it. Once the fight begins however the action is very serious. These men are using real weapons and to lose invites a possible death. There would be no horseplay at all. Faking the fight is something that probably went on, particularly in the provinces. However, we do know that in the colosseum (and probably at other venues too ) 'dead' gladiators would have their throats cut to ensure they were really dead.

I think that's what the problem would be with scythed chariots- once you hit the mass of men, you are litterally stopped. It would be like biking head-on into corn stalks. (Don't do that btw, it hurts.) The Brits moreover used chariots as mobile archers, and carried the important leaders. Quick question: what constitutes a 'chariot'? The Romans used 'ox-led chariots' against Pyrrhus' elephants. I could only imagine them being little more than carts carrying velites and spike collars on the oxen. I wonder if you misunderstood what I meant. No chariot crew is going to charge a formation head-on - Thats suicide. You ride up close enough for your scythes to rip into the enemy line then pull away before you lose too much speed. Its a hit-and-run tactic. As you quite rightly say, if the chariot stops then the chariot crew are horribly vulnerable. I wouldn't care to drive one into combat myself.

The 'deliberate policy' wasn't so much putting useless men in charge (thats ridiculous) but the result of patronage, where the senators put their protege's in positions of authority wherever the opportunity arises, in this case at the head of the army. Unfortunately most of these men didn't live up to expectation. Remember that by putting a man in charge and seeing him come home in triumph, you have gained from being the one who placed him in charge in the first place.

Republican sentiments seem to be flavoured with an attitude that a man must serve Rome. To serve well invites reward. Now this is an ideal that the competitive nature of roman society found attractive, especially when Romans discovered the reward of military conquest. It also occurs in civilian life. Romans of good families are noticeably educated and guided toward a career in politics. It was expected that they worked toward becoming successful as opposed to being simply desirable for those of ambitious nature. Notice how often romans of poor ability strived to get into the fast lane even when common sense dictated they stay on the grass verge. Bear in mind that many of the avenues for success we enjoy were not considered desirable by republican romans. We might become business leaders or media celebrities, both of which would be frowned upon by your peers back then. Money and status were everything - politics provided an arena to achieve them. Was this a good system for government? Well... it certainly worked for centuries didn't it? But it did require strong government. When the senate weakened then we see the system stagnating and open to opportunism, which in turn allowed the development of oriental style monarchies.

Human behaviour revolves around a group, a family, a tribe. We are after all social animals. Most of us soon find a staus quo that we're happy with. Where large changes occur, then key individuals rise to the fore, either because they are natural leaders or simply because there isn't anyone else to do the job. They are if you like the alpha members of the herd. Perhaps there's more to this. Brute force and ignorance can still achieve success but it requires a certain amount of talent, intelligence, cunning, courage - and yes, even luck - to be a great success. Necessity is an important reason why these changes happen. The other reason is personal gain. If a man stands to be rewarded for taking a risk, he is more likely to take the plunge is he not?

True, but remember that north africa had a better climate two thousand years ago (still arid, just a little less so). It wasn't for nothing that north africa was the most heavily urbanised area of the roman empire.

To my mind a scythed chariot has only one effective application - to travel along the side of an enemy formation and take out the nearest rank(s). This requires that momentum is maintained - not entirely unfeasible with at least two horses galloping, but what strikes me is vulnerability of this technique. Is that why these vehicles never achieved widespread use?

I notice that the ambivalent nature of roman society extends to slavery. On the one hand, they are 'talking tools', although as Seneca points out, they are often required to remain silent or risk a beating. Yet at other times, they are trusted companions who might even be allowed to run a business on their masters behalf. Not only were slaves bought and sold, they were also rented. For those unable to maintain enough slaves permanently this must have been useful - though the contract I read shows that the slave was required to work all hours to all intents and purposes. The renter certainly expected his monies worth. If your master desired something more personal, you would have no choice but to submit without complaint. I do notice the ambivalence also extends to obedience. Slaves were everywhere, in all walks of life, and at times their closeness must have bred contempt. The romans had a law that condemned all slaves in a household to death if one of them kills their master. Was that effective as a deterrent? Usually yes, but I notice such deaths occurred. In one case the remaining slaves were let off - a sign of humane behaviour? Or lack of will in applying the law? Or perhaps as a safeguard against arousing neighbouring slaves to revolt? The senate once debated the motion that all slaves should have some identifier, clothing or badge. This was defeated because as one senator pointed out, they would realsie just how many of them there were! Now that suggests to me a certain level of insecurity with the slaves in their midst.

That wasn't what I meant. I'm well aware of the complexity of slavery in roman times, and I hope you realise that I was using a single example rather than an entire treatise. Some romans did treat their slaves as cattle - your namesake was known for his lack of concern for their sensibilities. There's an enormous range of possibilities for slaves under roman rule. An industrial or rural slave isn't likely to be well-treated and usually got worked to death in poor conditions. Urban slaves did better, and some cases found very cosy existenses. Take the case of Pallas. Now there's a guy who sells himself in slavery and winds up becoming minister of finance under Claudius. For most though their lives weren't going to be much fun. Lets say a soldier requires a slave. For him the cost of purchase and keep is considerable, so the quality of the slave might not be what he desires - he must choose carefully. Later on his relationship with the slave might develop into something more casual and open simply because the two live so closely. On the other hand, an emperor may have four or five hundred slaves. For him they're simply... there. He isn't the least concerned with who they are or what they might think, they all have duties and they'd better perform them well or else. Someone else takes care of them. PS - I'm reading posts on this forum a lot these days but thanks for the tip about Plautus, I'll certainly read it if I come across anything

If Tiberius genuinely wanted debate he wouldn't have mattered, beause the senate didn't. They were happy with augustus by and large, and I suspect thought Tiberius would also prove a good ruler having had the blessing of augustus himself albeit reluctantly. Things probably wouldn't have changed much, because if Tiberius persisted then he would have thrown the succession to the wolves - and we know what happens to a group of ambitious romans with a free seat of power on offer. No, I don't think he did. I doubt augustus was looking ahead further than who followed him, and we do note that the romans never really settled on a formal method of succession. As far as I can see augustus wanted to ensure that his choice of man rose to power after him. Tiberius was not his first choice but there again circumstance intervened and in any case the choice needed to be acceptable to the senate to prevent another power struggle. Once again it was another balancing act by augustus. Hmmm.... I wouldn't say so. Pacified, content with a successful princeps, but not institutionalised. There were still men among them waiting in the wings to assume power if the opportunity arose. Remember they declared war on Claudius, and made Nero a public enemy. What I will agree to is the point of view that the senate were no longer in the driving seat. Like a multitude of back-seat drivers they were quite insistent on things sometimes, and their power reflected the strength of whoever was ruling. Later on we see an institutionalised senate but certainly not before the julio-claudians had run their course. {edit PP... just fixed your quote tags}