caldrail

Perhaps some of us are falling into the modern mode of thinking that sexuality equality is the norm - it certainly wasn't in Rome. By tradition women were either the property of fathers, husbands, or masters. We would find the ideal roman woman as horibbly mousy and downtrodden. But roman women weren't always ideal were they? Like us, they varied in character and ambition. Some women became influential, others ran businesses when society said they shouldn't. Julia was a party girl. She liked the night-life, enjoyed a dalliance, and I see her as something of an incorrigible flirt. Eventually her fun lifestyle reached the desk of her father. Now Augustus wasn't squeaky clean by any means, and since he'd lectured all and sundry on roman standards and morality, it would paint him as a hypocrite to let his daughter party the night away and sleep around a bit. Worse still, she had done this with some important people in Rome. The embarrasement must have been acute. Julia was the first daughter of the principate - this wild party behaviour wasn't going to pass unnoticed. If she can't behave, then she's off to some island until she does. Contrary to the post above, as I said earlier Julia did eventually return from exile. She was was allowed back provided she lived discreetly, and as far as I'm aware, she did so. Lesson learned there I think, though as always with the romans the lesson was a cruel one. The lucky ones were the male partners of Julia. Quite frankly it wouldn't suprise me to read of Augustus having the lot of them thrown to the lions. He didn't. He had more sense than to create enemies from these mens families.

To begin with the romans relied on auxillary cavalry, who were basically foreign horsemen trained in roman tactics etc. These men fought as light cavalry. From Constantius onwards, clibinarii were introduced to emulate the persian cataphracts. These were indeed heavy cavalry and remained in use to the end of the west and beyond. Heavy cavalry were never used by the early roman army, and they never really had much cavalry at all. A legion after Marius contained 120 horsemen for scouting and courier duties. They certainly weren't equipped or trained for head-on cavalry charges.

No thought process? Domus is latin for house. nero's original home on the Palatine wasn't badly damaged from the fire, but having seen the empty space left he just couldn't resist the temptation to use it for himself. Rome of course was always a very crowded place, and I think even the palaces were crammed in. With all this space available, a private park was now possible inside the city boundary. This kind of aggrandisement happens all the time when people become powerful and wealthy. Not everyone falls prey but the temptation is always there. Its an instinctual need to advertise your own status to other people in terms of property.

No-one actually knows, and don't believe anyone who says they do. Traditionally the thumbs down meant death, and this is something Gerome included in his painting, reinforced by early silent hollywood epics. Some historians believe the opposite is true. Possibly, but to me that seems an odd and artificial gesture. There are other variations, for instance one where the thumb is hidden inside the fist to suggest a sheathed blade. I take a more natural view - in that the roman audience would have 'stabbed' with the thumb to demand death. What would have meant life? A raised thumb? A hidden thumb?

I wouldn't have said so. Nero wanted a big house. Bigger than everyone elses - but then he was Nero wasn't he? Didn't he deserve such a dwelling? Only then could he 'live like a human being'. The Domus Aurea was a gross exercise in vanity and it certainly never won him any friends.

Where does it say this? I know a majority of the army was light troops, but the backbone of the army, the fighting core was the field armies, which was heavy infantry. The frontier troops were designed to stall, delay, interupt major pushes into Roman lands, but they were never expected to actually defeat or repulse the threat. The Field Armies were designed for this, they were lower in number compared to the Frontier Troops but the Field Armies was the heany infantry used to engage, defeat and repluse the threats Rome faced in the Late Empire. Cavalry was more important now true, but it was almost always recruited from barbarian groups. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, since I cannot see at all how heavy infantry was being slowly shunned by Rome after Constantine. His reforms officialized what had been going on in the army since the early 3rd century, smaller, more flexible units instead of the larger legions of the High Empire, but the core, the more highly paid, better equipped and better respected units of this new army was the Comitatenses and the Palatini which were the Heavy Infantry. The evidence from archaeology suggests a sudden downturn in the quality of equipment from around the civil wars of Constantine. Gone are the lorica segmentata, replaced with chain or sometimes scalemail (which has a serious flaw inherent in its design). Helmets are no longer roman, but more barbarian in style. The pilum has gone, replaced with a series of spear-like weapons. Gone too is the gladius, replaced by the longer cavalry spatha. Training was therefore in decline, and with the ability of troops to continue the old style tactics. Vegetius himself moans that troops of his day were not up to the old standards, although I must say they did try. Roman soldiers in the late army were less disciplined too - and I sense a certain reluctance of that army to actually meet the enemy in battle. Recruitment was a thorny issue. No longer was the roman army a respected career and people generally did what they could to avoid military service, by hiding, finding excuses, or cutting off a thumb. The later emperors of course made rulings that one excuse after another was no longer valid and you had to serve anyway. Press gangs roamed around finding able-bodied men that could be...erm... volunteered for service. I do accept that heavy infantry technically still existed, but it simply wasn't the equal of the legions of the golden age. Their attitude, equipment, and training weren't even close.

I take it you didn't make any denarii on the side then

The civil war of Constantine changed the roman army forever. After him, the old style heavy infantry was in decline, replaced by lighter troops. Seriously, the emphasis in the late roman army was for skirmishers rather than testudo formations. This was no different for their allies. Cavalry did retain a heavy element (cataphracts/clibanarii) and therefore a foretaste of medieval times. Actually thats it isn't it? The late roman army was already migrating toward a federalised medieval style army of light troops and heavy cavalry. Didn't quite get there of course, but the men who took over western empire completed the process by the time the dark age had finished.

Games were held in the provinces well beyond this. The prohibition by Constantine (under pressure from christian campaigners against bloodshed) in 325AD was not fully enforced, and the games fell into decline within Rome certainly. Out on the frontiers, at least in some places, it continued for much longer. I've already come across a reference to gladiators in Burgundy in the early 700's AD. Not a widespread activity anymore, and possibly not continuous to that time either.

Yes, I was generalising somewhat. The late roman army (non-foederate) trained its men differently from the golden-age legions. Gone was the day of close packed heavy infantry. Light infantry were far more prevalent, as were cavalry. It was a smaller mobile army better suited for ambuscades and policing (border patrol dare I say it) than the head-on battle mentality of old. Such a light army is often more difficult to control because they become used to using initiative, and therefore want to do their own thing. Its ironic isn't it? Initiative makes an army flexible but deaf.

You might be trying to find meaning in something merely decorative. Although Nero was an astonishing personality, I doubt he was an architect and decorator. True, he no doubt had a say on the buildings apperance, but some other nameless engineer was called upon to unveil the scale model or blueprints hoping to satisfy Caesar as to its magnificence. Nero possibly said that he wanted such and such a room decorated like this, or like that, but these decisions reflect his personality and taste, not his ideology.

Strictly speaking Rome was defeated more than once. Rome was sacked in the 4th century BC was it not? Again in 410AD. Hannibal could have done it if only he'd had the foresight to capitalise on his victories and move in quicker. If you want to get serious about this, then Sulla, Julius Caesar, Vespasian, Severus Septimus - All marched on Rome in civil war. What kept Rome from disaster more often than not was its huge reserve of manpower. The sheer size of the territory it ruled meant that the recruitment pool was potentially massive at any time. Just ask Hannibal...

Its an educated guess, but I've come to the conclusion that burial clubs did most of this if it happened at all. Officers would probably only concern themselves with especially courageous men, veterans, or senior personnel. Burial clubs existed to ensure the dead soldier was interred and the cost of this came out of their pay.

With any organised army, both ancient and moern, latrine duty gives a centurion yet another task to keep soldiers busy. It also has the advantage of being unpleasant and therefore something of a punishment. It also provided centurions with another way of extracting cash from their men. Officers of course were suitably impressed with the cleanliness of the men. Permanent barracks would usually have normal toilet facilities where-ever possible so latrine duty was nothing more than mopping up and scrubbing down. In marching forts or barracks without running water it really was a matter of getting your feet dirty and digging the stuff out to be disposed of elsewhere. I wonder if a few soldiers made some denarii on the side selling it for fertiliser?

Reading 'An Empire Divided' by John Moorehouse I've come across a reference to the usage of gladiators by the Burgundian king in the early 8th century to see off the 'romans'. How interesting...

Traditional roman tactics were based on the deployment of heavy infantry, of a more flexible format than the older phalanx. The huns preferred a mobile strategy using horsemen to good advantage. Of course the later roman armies were using much more cavalry than before, but the huns were using horses that could be astonishingly hardy and quick. Bad leadership had something to do with it, but it was also the reluctant nature of the late roman soldiery that didn't help. Becoming a soldier of Rome was no longer seen as a desired career. Also remember that although discipline was fierce in the legions - it had to be. Roman soldiers didn't obey without question. Mutinies were frequent and even Julius Caesar nearly lost control of his men once. A roman leader didn't just order his men to battle - he had to inspire and cajole them too. This pprobably got worse in the later roman armies although the question of cash wasn't so important (I think). The increasing use of barbarian units may not have helped either. I wonder if this made the command structure worse too? The Huns had already got the measure of them in any case. The Huns were aggressive, tough, and simply not afraid of Romes reputation.

No. But then we never asked him to write those screenplays. Nor did anyone ask Suetonius to write his biographies. He simply wanted to record their lives and entertain his readers. Thats quite an industry today isn't it? However, its also true that Suetonius wasn't punished for writing them. That either means he got it right or that it was politically correct. Difficult to tell which.

The need for death in the arena is based on the funeral rites of the Etruscans, the origin of gladitorial combat, in which blood is shed to honour the dead. At some point in the games, someone has to cop it. Eventually it was expanded from the original one-on-one (or hooded man vs angry dog) to make the funeral more impressive. It became entertaining. Eventually it included mock battles fought to the death between hundreds of combatants at any one time. Although many fights were bloodless (or the competitors acquitted themselves honourably to the crowd), the audience would demand the death of a gladiator who failed to impress. As time wore on this sense of power over a mans fate meant that the crowd would demand more deaths - it became more and more bloody. Christianity did take some of this bloodlust away, but only to a point. In 392ad a monk rushed into the arena demanding the fight be stopped. An impatient gladiator ran him through with a sword there and then, the last recorded death of a christian in the arena. The bloodletting had peaked and now faded, persisting in the provinces for some time. Animals were becoming rare and expensive to obtain, people less thrilled by men hacking each other to death. The roman character was changing and the games faded with it.

Suprisingly many people do regard the roman legions as invincible waves of sword wielding robots. That was what the Rome wanted - a reputation that would make them hesitant about armed defiance. It amazes me that this reputation survives even today. Their main weaknesses were corruption, political control, and bad leadership. Other than that, the legions were an extraordinary army in their heyday.

A lot of us get into roman history by reading Suetonius. Its usually the first stop after watching Hollywoods version of history. Suetonius gives us a warts and all tale of the first twelve caesars, and he deliberately includes Julius Caesar for reasons I agree with, because the man became a permanent dictator therefore no different from an emperor. He describes their faults, their virtues, their lives, and anything else that illustrates the kind of person he wants to describe. Lets be clear about this. Suetonius was a roman. He lived in Rome, amongst romans, going about his business as a roman would. When we read his accounts, we see events second-hand through the eyes of someone who lived in that era. He cannot be discounted. Now Suetonius got his information from eye witnesses. Some of these people may not have clearly understood what was happening, or twisted the event to suit their purpose, or simply lied that they were ever there to see it. So although Suetonius may not be 100% accurate, his work has a basis in truth. It is true you need to be wary about his conclusions. That can be said for any journalist, and there are plenty of wierd and wonderful tales, theories, and speculations today that defy belief. But we do believe them don't we? For instance Von Daniken writes a book about a half-baked theory of alien visitation and spawns a whole new literary genre. Are we any different from the romans? Not really. We come from the same bloodlines, we have the same reactions, thoughts, desires, sins, and virtues. Their culture was different of course. They were much crueller than us for one thing, but then so were so many cultures of that time. It wasn't unusual. Yet in Suetonius we see a common thread - he compares the behaviour of these men with the everyday expectations of Rome. If you read more closely, there is a fantastic parallel with our modern age. I for one will continue to read him with fascination. I don't believe everything happened quite the way he depicts it, yet there's a compelling truth hidden away within his writings.

Stonehenge is just one of a huge network of sites sacred to the neolithic europeans. I doubt myceneans had anything to do with it, nor does egypt deserve any credit. I live not far from Avebury. I can assure you there's no heiroglyphics there whatsoever

Did Augustus think of himself as an emperor? No I don't think he did. I think you misunderstood me. The word emperor denotes a dynastic ruler in the oriental fashion. It isn't the same as the the word 'imperator' which you mention above. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think that we need to understand that the word 'emperor' meant something a little different than it does today. Augustus was ruthless? Oh yes... A 19 year old youth does not set out to rule the roman world preaching peace and love. Augustus mellowed a little as he grew older, albeit a bit more crotchety, and deep down I don't think he was ever fully secure. As for the wardrobe, it goes without saying that he wore toga's on offical business. Wasn't he keen on getting senators to do the same? Off duty, he kept things down to earth. And that included his diet too. I understand he wasn't eating 'rich imperial titbits'

yes I agree people wrote to one another, but I'm actually thinking specifically about officers writing to a dead soldiers family after the battle. Did they do this, or was it left to the dead man's mates to let his family know?

i'm writing a paper comparing rome in it's final years to our (U.S.) current place. you know, "are we on the same road?" kind of thing. anyways, i've been able to make some good points, the need to gain territory, forming a republic, idolizing athletes, terrorism, lack of interest in politics... but i was hoping for a little more. any ideas? There are some suprising parallels between the modern US and Rome. This is basically for two reasons. The first is that america based its constitution on a roman-style model. That was a deliberate move by the men who won the War of Independence - They would have read the classics and regarded Rome (despite a few soiled edges) as a perfect example of an organised state, something to which they aspired. The second is human nature. The romans and the americans are both cultures from the same species. Sure it isn't quite the same, but human behaviour is relatively similar and we see this in the terms you mentioned in your original question. Its no coincidence.