caldrail

A big difference indeed, and also a big difference between rural and urban communities I suspect. Well someone has to say and I guess it has to be me... We're ignoring sex. They did do it you know! Prostitution was readily available in Rome and very cheap too. Prostitutes painted their adverts on walls offering special services for a few copper coins. It wasn't unknown for men of status to have alcoves built into the wall in the alleyway behind their house which they could rent to ladies of the night, whilst the older less attractive women desperate for customers might ply their trade in the tombs out of town which was free. Of course we know that deliveries in Rome were made at night after the ruling of Julius Caesar. So mule skinners and wagon drivers were winding their way through the maze of pitch black streets. They must have needed lantern bearers surely? Party goers weren't likely to stay too long into the night, and if sensible a handful of slaves accompanied the tipsy gentleman to his home. If not, then possibly a mugging at knifepoint or even a murder might take place. Did taverns stay open all night? I don't recall any law mentioning drinking hours. Taverns were common - a place to drink and socialise - or perhaps seal that deal behind someones back. I can also imagine a poor family having a sing song in those winter evenings to entertain themselves and their livestock.

Remember that the development of roman arms and armour isn't the result of science or a central think tank - it was the sum total of local experience and experiment. When one legion made a success of a small change it was likely to spread to other legions.

Having read my reply I've realised just how similar my views are to Robert Graves. Well I won't apologise for that because he read the same sources as me. What I would like to point out though are some pertinent reasons why the 'I Claudius' view is wrong. Robert Graves puts Claudius as the reluctant hero of his tale, a man with genuine humanity and a sympathetic character for the reader. In reality Claudius wasn't so nice. He would sometimes arrange private torture sessions where he could study the faces of the victims. A sadist? Sort of. Remember its likely that Claudius had been bullied when he was younger, and his mother had spared no affection for him. His accession to power wasn't so clear cut as the BBC serial suggests. After the death of Caligula, enough senators were willing to proclaim Claudius an enemy of the state. The principate was hunky-dory under Augustus, but Tiberius? Too many senators had suffered under Sejanus or saw their friends lost. Caligula came to power with many senatorial hopes but all they got was an immature youth with a nasty sense of humour. These men wanted a republic again, to return to time when they wielded power amongst themselves. Had the praetorians not supported Claudius (they had no choice - it was the lower paid regular army or the corn dole otherwise) he would have been executed. Also it must be said that despite his intelligent rule Claudius made some gaffes. He lacked finesse and wisdom. Indeed, he was desperate for credibility that he sent the legions to Britain. It was also why he was at the head of the legions during the last moments of the campaign, pretending that his presence had made the difference. I also sense that Claudius had a problem with his personal gravitas. People didn't seem to jump when he said frog. I think that many people saw Claudius as a meal ticket. Sejanus had already used him to bring his own family closer to royal status. Caligula had used him as a butt for his humour but also because as consul he was no impediment to Caligulas whim. Messalina (his third wife) became contemptuous of him and later married a younger man as a prelude to deposing Claudius. Aggripina the Younger used him shamelessly to get Nero onto the throne and thus rule Rome herself through him. Therefore it wasn't just his physical imperfections that Rome villified. It was his lack of majesty, his lack of steadfastness, and the lack of justification for him sitting on the throne in the first place.

Yep - I agree. An outstretched arm is a simple human gesture of acknowledgement. Not quite a salute in military terms though.

What about gladiatorial combat? The christians were beginning to act against this in the 4th century. Without the need for fighters a whole market for slaves goes out of business.

You know what? I'm willing to bet that roman expletives weren't too different from ours.

These ceremonies took place quickly, it wouldn't take much organising. So these fetials were a sort of religious herald? I notice that warfare in the earlier periods was therefore ritualised to some extent. Not really suprising I suppose - we see the same behaviour in other cultures too. What is more revealing is that these rituals are dispensed with in later periods because its more convenient and efficient to forget all that messing around and simply get on with it (as opposed to.. say... samurai culture which saw increasing ritual with decreasing frequency of war) It therefore appears to me that war was becoming less of a glorious calling and more of a bloody business to be dealt with.

In that period there was definitely a fashion for the 'body beautiful'. Claudius certainly wasn't. Nor was he of noble stature. That was galling to many senators who would consider themselves above him. Its also true his behaviour wasn't quite as refined or sophisticated as expected. He was something of an embarrasing bore, given to excrutiating unfunny jokes at socially awkward moments. Had he not been born into the royal family, Claudius would never have been a success in public life. Lets face it, the only reason Claudius made consul was because Caligula wanted to make a fool of him and upset the upstart senators. We love him because we sense his ordinary vulnerability, his intelligence, and some sympathy for a terrified man pulled from behind a curtain by rampaging praetorians and thrust into center-stage against his will. I am aware of the theory he plotted to rule. Possibly, but I don't think events were unfolding at his desire. More likely he would have been terrified of being discovered too early if indeed he was plotting. I really don't think he was. In one sense he's a clown. He stutters, limps, makes social goofs, and embarrases everyone. On the other, he's an able ruler with a weakness for clever women. The leader of the known world was led by his nose.

Can you think of any examples where a previously hard-fighting group of veterans suddenly got lazy simply because they ate better? I'm skeptical. I would say this sort of thing occurred after major sieges. The soldiers have plundered the site, they've gotten considerably wealthier, and blow it quickly on good living. Unless the commander gets a grip quickly, his men are likely to wander off and enjoy themselves. Mind you I accept your point as I can't think of any roman example but then discipline was always a strong point of the legions despite the corruption that went with it. It must also be said that the commanders didn't want fat lazy soldiers and in all likeliehood made sure they worked off a few pounds (unless they spent some of course!)

I bow respectfully to Phil25's accumulated knowledge of roman history, with whom I do sometimes agree.

Why anything you like. Did it have human-like hooves or were they simply mis-shaped and gave a slight impression of toes? Did the witnesses tell porkies to sound clever down at the tavern? Did Suetonius believe that tale or did he make it all up? We don't know. But omens were very important to romans and even if it wasn't true he needed an omen to suggest that Caesar was destined for an unusual life (perhaps 'riding on the backs of others'?) Naughty boy Suetonius. But I forgive you because it made a good read. Which was why he wrote it in the first place.

Trainee singers would spend time lying on their backs with lead weights on their chest. This would improve breathing and allow better sustain. Apparently. Probably true though.

The early church encouraged equality but I sense a lot of hypocrisy. Churchmen kept slaves without any guilt whatsoever. Slaves were a sign of status. To free slaves showed generosity and wealth and that meant having slaves in the first place. Slavery was a roman institution although christianity did dilute this somewhat.

Midwife? Courtesan? Gladiator? Entertainer? Plenty of female slave occupations. Then- as in later times- some women would have posed as men to pursue a more interesting life. Or earbash your father and get yourself married off to someone worthwhile. Life was often short and women did end up running business's after a spousal death. Or earbash your husband and get him to let you do something interesting. Women were active behind the scenes in politics, and I recall one woman was allowed to drill the troops by her husband.

As I recall,the last western emperor was a young lad with little real power (Romulus Augustulus). He was a figurehead for allintents and purposes, and dumped when it wasn't convenient any more.

Roman youths were educated in a regime that encouraged initiative and risk. Young men were supposed to aim for excellence in war, sport, and politics. Octavian already had the correct mindset at an early age - It was expected that he should strive to be the best (although many of his rivals would choose to reach so far but not go for gold as it were). When the opportunity arose he went for it. I agree though that its difficult to sense when that fateful decision was taken. Roman youths must have matured sooner than we do - they had no choice - and perhaps young octavian watched his elders assume power, wealth,and no doubt decided that he too would do so one day. Once Octavian was part of the circle of influential men his course was clear- and I personally think Caesar had much to do with Octavians career move.

Maybe its just me,but isn't it more likely that marble was used in ancient rome because it looks good and has the right properties? Is that not the reason we still use it today? Because it conveys wealth and good taste?

Except Suetonius didn't claim to be an eyewitness to the horse. We don't know where he got his information, do we? Yet another reason why it's important to check your sources--it's unchecked sources that really should be discounted (it's the source of urban legends). Right. And that's why I had 'eyewitness' in quotes. Quite often he is taken literally as are the other "primary" sources. Surely, he had access to material that is unavailable to us and therefore his/their insight is invaluable but, they all had an agenda which in my book equates to a couple of levels above hogwash. Trouble is we often read too much into what Suetonius wrote. The charger is mentioned as an interesting aside that illustrates Caesars unusual and superior character/aura/destiny. The romans were a superstitious lot and such a tale was an important factor in developing his story. For us, with more rational hindsight, it appears a couple of levels above hogwash. It probably was. He had a horse and let no-one else ride it. Witnesses tell that to others who ask why, and they are told hogwash to explain it. I mean, they wouldn't want to appear stupid would they? Mind you, there does seem to be an element of envy and emulation in Caesar when Alexander enters into the tale.Was he consiously or unconciously attempting to be Julius Caesar the Great? In a way, he succeeded.

The opposite is also a problem. Soldiers who sit eating lavish meals soon get lazy and reluctant to risk all for glory. I agree - The reasons for roman ferocity were harsh regimes, hard work, hard discipline, and ambitious well-spoken leaders.

Or was this simply because they'd bought the things in the first place? After all, it was theirs and not the states.

Did the romans buy house insurance? Not the common man certainly, but were such financial deals done with landlords? Some sources hint that they did, yet I read elsewhere that only goods shipped across the mediterranean were on a limited guarantee. During the Great Fire of Rome, servants were observed setting fire to buildings and promting the blaze to a conflagration. Was that opportunist profiteering? Does anyone have a definitive answer?

[\quote]Hellenistic palace design (in particular the palace quarter of Alexandria where there was a royal compound), a mixture of public, private and mixed elements which draw individuals into ever greater intimacy and thus honour (this draws on modern scholarship in the study of internal spacial relationships in Pompeiian domestic architecture)[\quote] Thats architecture. If you to discuss the relative aesthetic and practical qualities of the Domus Aurea why not? But thats not ideology is it? [\quote]new ideas of monarchical rule - Gaius and Domitian salso eem to have played with absolutist symbolism (but not JUST as extravagance)[\quote] Nothing new whatsoever. Of all the people who achieve a level of power as these men did then you 're bound to find a few who get carried away. Nero was no exception. His mother was dead, Rufo, Burrus, and Seneca desperately trying to distance themselves from this once insecure young man who now becomes a serious danger to them, and a new crowd of sycophants who are isolating Nero from reality. Further, his expanded ego now identifies with Apollo due to his artisitc aspirations and whilst it may not be megalomania, it does come into the realm of self-delusion. The crowds who witness Nero performing applaud however bad he was - and whilst the impression we get is someone of mediocre talent, he receives first prize without question. People feign death or pregnancy to leave his performances early. He takes to the chariot in races, something normally performed by slaves. He falls off twice, doesn't finish, and still takes the podium to receive first place. He takes to a rock'n'roll party lifestyle even to the extent of publicly play-acting as a woman. This is the way a personality cult develops. Absolutist symbolism? No. Thats an invented term. It was ego, delusion, and poor judgement. Neither Gaius or Domitian were playing at being top of the tree - they were. [\quote] A new concept of Rome as imperial "capital"[\quote] Huh? It already was. There was nothing new about Rome being capital, and simply because Nero wanted it renamed 'Neropolis' is another example of his uncontrolled ego and there are plenty examples of this kind of self-aggrandisment in the ancient world where power was usually absolute. [\quote]But I see no purpose in continuing this discussion with you, frankly, given your tone[\quote] Well thats up to you. But this post was about the ideology of the Golden House and so far there's almost nothing you've written that discusses it.

Wood was more available 2000 years ago.

Just to add my two cents worth, the problem was not so much the celtic sword but the poor technique of the men wielding them. The celtic fighting style was aggressive and brash but depended on individual prowess. After all, a fast, confident, aggressive man will quickly assume the upperhand in any fight between individuals. The romans countered this with their discipline and training, besides the afore-mentioned swordplay.