caldrail

Films took up the salute from older artwork which in turn was inspired by roman statues and motifs. Is it accurate? Probably not, but somewhere there must be a glimpse of what they did. The military must have used some form of recognition for authority.

1 - Find someone who speaks english 2 - Find people who won't rip me off 3 - Find somewhere to stay (should be fun) 4 - Enjoy the sights 5 - Go to the arena - (not because I enjoy death and injury, I just want to know exactly what went on) 6 - Go to a tavern for a primitive burger, warm diluted wine, a bit of gambling, and hopefully a good time without getting beaten up 7 - Observe the military doing military things 8 - Take as many photo's as possible without being crucified for witchcraft or whatever 9 - Get home in one piece 10 - Upset everyone by being a clever clogs 11 - Bore everyone with reminisences 12 - Make an absolute fortune with books and tv. There, that should do it.

Antony and Cleopatra would have married. She had already agreed to it. That meant that Caesarion would have survived and thus provide a strong contender for the future throne. However, the senate were not easily going to accept cleopatra as a co-ruler. It would have heralded an unstable period for Rome. But then it already was wasn't it? The fight would have ebbed and flowed until either the senate, another contender, or the happy couple had prevailed. Speculation over!

Yep, and its absolute codswallop. Spartacus was never in the quarries of Libya (which hollywood believe was situated on mountain tops ). Lentulus Batiatus would have found his trainees from slave markets closer to home I suspect. As to whether he dreamed of a non-slave future I really do suspect he wouldn't have. Slavery was normal for that time. The fact that he'd been enslaved was a consequence of his actions. By becoming a bandit it was likely he would be so when caught if not executed, which shows he wasn't competely murderous as a criminal. Of course he wouldn't have liked it! Slaves were allowed to own slaves in roman law, though I doubt many did. I believe that it was the slaves themselves rather than Spartacus who demanded that they turn back from the Alps to continue their pillaging of Italy. The slaves were made up of various groups from different areas, including Gauls and Germans. It was these that broke off from Spartacus's main group and became a seperate gang led by Crixus, a German (who in the film remains friends with Spartacus till the very end). Crixus and his men were ambushed by the legions and destroyed before Spartacus' rebellion came to an end. It does go to show that Spartacus did not have a firm grip on the bands he was leading and therefore those who disagreed with his policies would brake off and form their own groups like Crixus did. Perhaps if Spartacus had not been persuaded by his men to remain in Italy, the slaves would have reached freedom in Gaul. Then again, Rome would not be likely to forgive or forget their enemies. We'll never know. But I don't think Spartacus had an iron grip on his followers bearing in mind they had no military discipline or organisation. He was a leader who was led by his men.

Yes, Varinia is aked by Crassus where she came from and she replies 'britannia'. She was a bit hesitant - I think Laurence Olivier nearly caught her out with an ad-lib. Kirk Douglas had read Howard Fasts novel about Spartacus and was inspired to make the film, portraying the rebel as a noble prisoner struggling for freedom and honour. Laughtons character is named Gracchus for convenience - it was a suitable roman name and in no way should it be considered a historical character. Laurence Olivier was every bit the roman patrician - a fine piece of acting - but the lack-lustre young caesar jars very badly. Of course the real wife of Spartacus (if indeed she existed) was definitely not british. Before the conquest of britain a slave from that area would have been very rare although I accept that sometimes people did get traded on and roman merchants were working in britain long before Claudius arrived. Nor was Spartacus the square jawed hero of the 1960's film. Far from it, he comes across as a quick witted and charismatic rogue. He was an army deserter, a bandit, a slave, a gladiator, a rebel.... But not noble in any way. It was a measure of his ability that he stayed at large for two years - and only when he chose or was forced to fight a pitched battle did he see defeat. Spartacus, for all his faults, really was a courageous man. Although he broke out of the ludus where he was training as a gladiator, he did so not because he was afraid to die, it was because he refused to fight for someones pleasure. When his defeat came, its recorded that he fought hard in a an attempt to reach Crassus and kill him before he was overwhelmed by legionaries. Possibly thats a romantic addition to the tale, but it does fit his character. His greatest faults were greed and nonconformism. He could not adjust to the discipline of the auxilliaries, nor the discipline of the arena. He was either swayed by his own victories or the demands of his men and turned south when he could have escaped north. He chose to raid and pillage rather than fight to freedom. He chose to head for rebellious Sicily where he could take advantage of the unhappy slaves of that region. He was no longer just a bandit, he was now a rebel seeking a base to operate, perhaps even with a longer view to becoming leader of a small state although there's no evidence he ever sought that. Modern mythology has given Spartacus a place he did not deserve. All hollywood films about Rome are somewhat impressionistic rather than realistic portrayals of ancient times. The paying public doesn't know much about Rome and prefers to see it as the monolithic pit of greed, corruption, and mad despotism that results in a more colourful tale. Something against which the hero can justifiably strive.

All empires collapse eventually. Rome expanded by absorbing or conquering established nation states with existing infrastructures. Expansion slowed to crawl when Rome encountered the wilderness, something it hadn't really tackled until it reached Germania. Originally they began to colonise but the Varian disaster changed their policy. The wilderness was not for them. It was only for military gain that Rome expanded into britain, dacia, and the middle east. There was less to gain by that time, since Rome was well established and personal ambition of the generals was turning inward. It has been said that the worst enemy of Rome was Rome itself. Now I agree with that absolutely. By the time we reach the pax romanus Rome was no longer the dynamic civilisation it had been, it was moving on momentum and this would ebb away. There is no way in my view that Rome would have survived as a post-principate republic. Having set the precedent for despotic rule the old standards had been eroded. There wasn't the will to make Rome greater than it already was. I'll go further. Without strong individual leadership Rome would have fragmented faster than it did. It was the weakening of the senate that saw the arrival of the emperors, and although some opportunities did arise the senate never regained its former vigour. Roman democracy had failed in favour of autocratic strength. Rome was looking inward more and more and this would have occurred anyway regardless of which political system it adopted or had foisted upon it. The old wealth of Roman conquest was being squandered and increasing administration costs were paid by ever higher taxes. Legionary service was becoming a necessary evil rather than a proud calling. Foreigners were increasingly rising to high position. Whether Rome was a republic or empire it made little difference. The internal and external pressures were the same. Now if Marcus Aurelius really had rebuilt the republic with 'steadfastly loyal Maximus' as its guardian, how long could that have continued? Until said Maximus was too old or too weak to influence it. Then the rebellions would have begun and another king/dictator/emperor would have assumed power, at least over part of the former neo-republic. Other parts would have split away and much the same way as diocletians legacy, civil wars would have reduced the former empire to ruin. I say the New-SPQR was doomed. It would have lasted a few decades at most, and its demise would have brought Rome to its knees far quicker than history did.

The loyalty of generals was always questionable. Time and again they rebelled or their men proclaimed them emperor. It was simply a question of whether they stood to gain from serving the senate and Rome or pursued their own agenda at greater risk. Caesar understood this - and he crossed the Rubicon not simply to better himself but also because he was in danger of being rendered helpless by his rivals. He had no choice. Other generals had every choice. If Rome was seen as weakened and ripe for a military coup sooner or later someone would be tempted. The men would quickly support a popular commander rather than a distant and feeble ruler.

Aha! Here's something I turned up by the poet Martial... Hmmm.... At first this suggests that Mr T has had his house insured and was paid handsomely in compensation. However it seems more likely that he sold the land on which the property stood and made a killing. perhaps he bought a decrepit property at a knock-down price, rented it for a while, then burned it and sold the land for profit? After all, insurers are never going to be generous in our age or theirs. That amount of profit suggests it wasn't insurance, just another shadey deal.

Possibly, but remember that all societies allow a certain amount of 'cross-dressing'. Granted that certain moslem countries find that unpalatable but the difference in our society is that the former barriers have been disassembled. A man or woman can now expect to perform any role in society on an equal basis. Is that a good idea? Actually no, I don't think it is, but I don't want to view women as lesser beings. Whilst I accept your arguement about Livia I have to point out that she was in a privileged position.

Do you mean Gladius? They were extremely efficient, a gladius in the hands of a trained Legionary was more than likely the most deadly sword in history. The gladius was originally from Spain, or at least, something similar was developed in Spain and in typical Roman fashion, the Legions adapted it for their own use. The gladius was developed from swords used by their spanish enemies. The original 'spanish sword', the gladius hispaniensis, had a leaf-shaped blade with a seriously long point. It was then developed into a straight sided blade, then the 'pompeii' pattern with a shorter point. Originally the use of the gladius was very strictly in a thrusting motion. Later, during the principate, we find the gladius is being swung about just as much as thrusted. The sword was decreasing in length and swordplay more complex, both a result of changes in style due to elongated peacetime and because of the influence of gladiatorial doctores who sometimes got themselves hired to train soldiers. Was it the most deadly blade in history? Not even close. It was a good weapon. What made it so effective was the way it had been used by the soldiers. The shortening of the blade required a higher standard of swordplay however and this was one of the reasons that it was dropped very quickly in the 3rd century ad in favour of the longer cavalry spatha. The most deadly blade is without doubt the japanese katana. Versatile, light, equally usable in thrust or cut, frighteningly sharp, and considerably better made. There simply hasn't been anything better.

I really do have to emphasise the nature of roman ambition. Roman youths of good families were brought up to believe that it was there station in life to achieve. Think about the american college system and how it prepared young people for success - not just with education, but with standards of behaviour and attitude toward the world. So it was with Rome. Octavian was no different in that respect. He was however in a better starting position and perhaps more talented than many of his rivals. Also the patronage of roman culture played its part, as successful men would want proteges in their pockets - it increased the strength of their faction at grass roots albeit with some risk of treachery later. But then, the young man concerned would be well aware that his opportunities to progress depended on the old man who guided his efforts.

I think you have to be aware of what the symbol is. In this case Claudius was 'allowed' to chuck spears at a sea-beast both for the religious symbolism and also to emphasise Claudius's manliness. Yes, he too is a bold and skilled hunter.... yeah ok. As far as you argue about the symbolism of spear throwing I do agree. It changes nothing else. After all, Claudius had some friends and if a person of lower station presented the beast for killing, then surely Claudius would smile on him?

The world viking means to go raiding. To go a-viking. The seamanship and travel lust of the nordic bunch hadn't developed during the roman period although there may have been some tenuous trading contact - the vikings would have heard of this massive empire to the south. If it had, the late roman inhabitants of britain would have recorded them. They didn't. They were wholly concerned with saxon intrusions and I therefore wonder if the vikings inherited saxon naval know-how? If I remember right the varangian guard of the byzantines were vikings?

Yes, well, this is what the men might have thought. But it would be interesting to know what the women might have thought. If we just assume that what the men thought is the only thing that mattered, aren't we being a bit sexist? No not sexist, just pointing out that the roman world was male dominated and women were supposed to fulfill certain roles in society. It isn't unusual - we see the same attitudes today. Our modern western equality is unusual in human sociology. However, I do think - I have said it - that roman woman were able to extend themselves beyond their restrictions given certain circumstances. Many would have had no choice but to conform and many were perfectly happy to do so. Others would have chosen to strive against restraint. British culture used to be like that and I would be interested to know just how far roman women suceeded in obtaining equality.

All the variations in roman armour fall into that category. We see their equipment as more or less uniform - it wasn't. There's a huge variety in the shape and style of roman helmets for instance, although it is possible to trace the development to some extent. Equipment was originally provided by the men themselves and later with offical assistance. The centralised fabricae that produced such things to order as a government facility came toward the end of the west - one more reason to raise taxes up a bit more. When a senior roman decided or was ordered to raise a legion he had to obtain equipment locally. There was bound to be variety. In actual fact I haven't seen anything resembling a dress standard for roman soldiers although I do accept they followed a general form. That isn't to say there wasn't one, I just don't know of any.

Thats a new one on me. Where did you read that?

Thats about all most people know - much of the information about them has been lost. Including claudius's history of the estruscans I think. They also provided the origin of roman funeral rites / gladiatorial combat. We know they sometimes set a man with a sack over his head against an angry dog. Roman urban planning also has its roots in etruscan culture.

Women were only supposed to know enough to converse and applaud their fathers/guardians/husbands opinions. A know-all woman was not desirable. In any event, she was likely to learn from the men around her. Of course this general rule has exceptions. Elagabulus's mother ruled rome behind the scenes while he... erm... did other things.... did she not? She must have acquired some knowledge and experience to allow her to deal with roman government and military leaders. Was she the only one? I think not. However she was in a position of wealth and power and therefore would have found it easier to obtain this education. Women of a lower station would have struggled unless she bought an educated slave with enough sense to employ him usefully.

I've seen some authors hint at it, but not in any primary source. I'd love to know because it would make landlords motives much clearer.

You might be on a loser here. The populations under roman rule had access to travel that was very rare for ancient cultures. A spaniard, a syrian, and an arab ruled Rome, a merchant from Palmyra married a british freedwoman, and a cohort of nubians stood guard on hadrians wall, just for a few instances. Without a systematic study of roman remains it would be difficult to see any clear overview of the roman empires demography.

Interesting whats being said about octavians military ability. He was a leader of his own faction rather than a general and employed skillful soldiers somewhat better than some generals might. But isn't it true that the greatest leaders are not just orators or generals, but successful managers too. There are many historical fugures that rose to prominence and fell by the wayside because their management skills did not match their ambition.

The mock naval battle at the Fucine lake was an attempt to please the public. Most emperors played to the crowd to some extent, and since claudius was clearly unable to cavort about pretending to be a gladiator then he did the next best thing. Typically for claudius, it was almost a farce.

Many teachers held their lessons in the street because renting a property as a school was too expensive. And they were often fearsome characters too - many a child was whacked for improper behaviour or stupid replies.

I don't think Claudius was an oustanding administrator at all. He did ok - nothing to be ashamed of - but he did get pelted by stale crusts by an angry mob as I recall. So it wasn't just the great and good who thought badly of him but his not-so-adoring public too. It was a shame because Claudius had friends in high and low places. He was after all a personable gent by all accounts even if some people weren't too keen to be seen with him. As for the use of freedmen I can see why he did that. They were loyal to him, and claudius was very aware that a plot could have him removed - and killed - at any time. He was nearly bumped off by the senate remember. He also seems to have been somewhat insecure as emperor. No prizes for guessing why!

Very true, But the loyalty these legions had for there commanders and for each other was absolute. To my mind its because they had ONLY been commanded (and paid) by the same Dux. I know im not citing any sources but this is a hypothetical situation. suppose a good deal of the centuries in Caesar's army HAD served with Pompey and Liked him. I am no expert, but I would think that getting his legions to attack other Roman legions. Men they had previously fought with. Officers they had previously served under. Wouldnt the US verses THEM political factor have been reduced? Personally, I think it would have MUCH harder to cross the Rubicon under those circumstances. yes Caesar would have been popular but would he have been popular enough? Would he have had the fanatic loyalty that made Pharsalus a success and brought Octavian to center stage? Would this have forced Caesar to play ball with the senate? I think so, but I dont know. Again I know I am not an expert and this is entirely hypothetical. But am I making any sense? am I making any valid points? More importantly, what are the holes in this theory? The roman army was not a single institution. There was no roman army in that sense. They had a number of legions - seperate armies if you will. Each commander had his quota of men under his charge and he was responsible for their conduct and performance. The legions were motivated by the leadership skills of their officers but also because victories meant the men could carry away booty. Succesful completion of their 25 years would mean honourable retirement plus their pension and even a plot of land. The men had every reason to follow their commander into battle. However, the commanders had no reason to be loyal to Rome other than it was hand in hand with their personal ambition.