caldrail

As I understand it, the concept of 'state religion' is a bit misleading. In pagan times the state did not rely on religion as such other thasn it organised communal festivals. Worship was very much an informal personal affair, where the worshipper goes to the temple to ask for divine favour in the same manner he went to his local patrician to ask for mundane favours. The presence of christianity was as a series of seperate cults led by individual and unattached bishops until Conbstantine attempted unification for his own purposes. Thereafter, christianity had a higher level of prestige and ivolvement. Marcellinus wrote about the "roads filled with galloping bishops" as they got their act together and capitalised (I use the word in all senses) on their new found influence. However, even then, christianity was not absolute in terms of authority and would not be until the folly of the 12th century. Mithraism was competing for influence and both religions complained the other was using their ideas.

Ostia was attacked once in force by Cilician pirates, and as a result, the Romans sent a force that defeated them. The attack caused considerable panic at the time and many Roman ships had been burned. The port was left to decline after the 5th century and within four hundred years had been pretty well abandoned completely aside from materials appropriation. As for the Cilician pirates being the "first true pirates", I hardly think so. The earliest mentions I've found of piracy in the Mediterranean go back to the 14th century BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_British_Army It seems to me that 'equirement' is the key here. Formations acquire battalions according to necessity, advantage, or budget. The naming of them is simply expedient.

The problem with Roman remains is that they're essentially static and anonymous, even when in sight. Fascinating to me but for many in this high octane electronic media world, a crashing bore by nature of the concept. People like to be entertained (how Roman!!!) thus unless there's regular activity to enthrall the masses, they see a few stone ridges as little more than a manicured building site.

Early christian zealousy had a hard time with financial affairs - witness the story of Jesus overturning the tables of the moneylenders - but that was a judaean based story, whose people were often very hard nosed about religion among other things. The Romans were more diffident in the lare empire and I hardly think the issue of moneylending vanished overnight. It is of course true that Romans lending large sums made huge interest charges as a matter opf course, but note also that the sources also talk about debt quite a lot. Romans habitually spent money they didn't have and some got into legal trouble, or in the case of one serial diner, committed suicide because he could no longer impress his friends with sumptuous evenings. Caesar took advantage of Gaul and used his campaigns to gain booty to pay off the debts he accrued in financing his political career. Augustus would later strip the royal coffers of Egypt to pay for his resettlement of veterans, and his desperate need for dosh to pay for 'marble', bread, and circuses led him to a military disaster. Dio even refers to individuals 'being made a slave of' because of debt. He doesn't mean actual enslavement - he means that the man in debt was in the creditors pocket. Some even allowed themselves to be enslaved to pay off debts, such as volunteer gladiators. Note also that under the definition of Nexum (bond slave), the debtor could hand over his son as surety, a practice abolished in the 4th century BC - but one that probably continued informally for a good time longer, especially as Cicero mentions it.

Given the huge sums of money we see frequently mentioned in the sources, this makes an interesting question. As it happens I don't know for certain. At some point a lot of coins or something equally valuable has to pass from one owner to another, so slaves with chests of cash probably weren't that rare (suitably guarded with gladiators or other such burly no-nonsense loyal srvants). In fact, there's every reason to believe that the Romans conducted such business in the sort of manner a gangster would today. Transactons would have to be arranged so that the money could be safely transferred. The Romans had banks of a sort. Moneylenders and similar financiers existed, though this was an informal process. They never really did much else as Romans preferred to get down and dirty with their own dealing, however unseemly this was for wealthy people in public. In fact, I do get hints that Roman banking became more regulated because of christianity, as christians frowned on ursury and the Roman habit of charging outrageus interest.

So an academic in Australia has indulged in a spot of pom-bashing? Nothing new. But then Australia still has to catch up, and Britain remains a world leader in many spheres with innovation a major part of British success in engineering around the world. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to run for a bus....

The Council of Nicaea was the first attempt to create a consistent christian message. That there were others doesn't suprise me - I did state that the attempts did not work. The relationshipm of the Trinity, the primary subject at Nicaea, was not agrrd until the Council of Constantinople in 360 for instance. However, the significance of Nicaea is that Constantine presided over it and used the meeting to try and unite Christianity, not for spiritual reasons, but to use a common religion to bolster his fragile empire. The unification prcess was not going to be so simple of course and required more councils to resolve debates (which again never fully succeeded)

That's because of the Council of Nicaea, designed to create a consistent and universal form of christianity (in which it failed, though considerable censorship took place, which is where the purity comes from. All sources considered non-conformal were rejected and anyone using them thereafter was considered a heretic)

The 'Tree Of Knowledge' is an allegorical description of everything that could be known, including that stuff God didn't want us to know.. Since by definition humanity has lived outside of Eden since Adam and his missus were expelled for behaviour unbecoming, you can hardly claim the world we know is alien to us. In fact, christianity has always had a difficult relationship with science simply because it's a religion that relies on ignorance, with priests supplying the wisdom to their congregations rather than society revealing all. After all, the story of the 'Tower of Babel' confirms this, as God inserts an obstacle to human progress by forcing them to speak in lots of languages instead of one, a clear recognition that communication spreads ideas, and ideas were not a good thing as far as the fixed messages of christianity were concerned. The initiative to translate the Bible into english so that every common man could read it not only threatened the social influence of the priesthoods, it sparked wars on religious differences, and encouraged colonial ventures to the new world to escape the restrictions of religious argument at home. Of course it has to underlined that the 'stuff God didn't want us to know' is never decided by God - it's always human beings who decide that. These principles are further confused by the history of christianity in that we have to accept our current version is neither conformal nor the same as ancient texts, which were subject to censorship and rwrites. Indeed, the attempts to create a universal christian faith went hand in hand with censoprship, as valid ancient texts were either approved or discarded, and in any case, no version of the Bible contains a consistent account. The 'apple' story is merely there to illustrate an aspect of undesirable female behaviour and a warning to restrain it.

Interesting. You don't hear much about the picts and even though they were technically iron age, it's unsual to discover they actually built anything, which is probably unfair but then maybe it's time they got a little more publicity.

You seriously believe that? The 'state' did not officially support christianity until Constantine made it his favoured religion, and then the whole point was civil order, not riots. Prior to that christianity was in no sense a single coherent movement, unsupported by the state, and more often than not exploited as a wealth creation scheme by unscrupulous self-proclaimed bishops. Lynch mobs are by their nature social impulses, not structures, so therefore your premis seems a bit unlikely to the least.

Odd. The symptoms sound exactly like epilepsy to me.I've seen people go through those experiences. Mini strokes... The difficulty I have here is that strokes cause damage. Other than losing his har, I don't read anything in the accounts of Caesars life that suggest he was on any sort of downward health spiral

Augustus only had one child, the wayward Julia. Tiberius was the son of his wife Livia by her previous marriages. Since Augustus had no male heir he did what Romans traditionally did, and adopted male heirs. Adoption was a frequent part of Roman society because life was often short, and for some, a means of progressing in society. No, it doesn't, it means what it says. Augustus did not want the same accusations of kingship that Julius Caesar had to contend with and officially rejected that path. He found an alternative. That said, as I have repeated before, his 'rule' was not absolute, constitutional, or in fact empowered by the state. He merely kept a lot of armed men under his influence and demanded that people observe his social status. The traditional Roman government remained in place and did not recognise Augustus as a king, merely his status as First Citizen and the 'guidance' he provided (albeit grudging in many cases). There are no modern parallels to this arrangement that I know of. No modern country would tolerate a general from a noble family telling their government what to do. They had plenty. The rules enabled Augustus to dominate politics in the manner described.

A new monarchy? No, he didn't, though clearly he had something like that in mind. The Caesrs of Rome were not technically Rome's rulers, they were simply VIP's with enough status, popularity, wealth, and military clout to dominate Roman politics under the client patron system. What Augustus created was a rival system of government (the Senate was still in business albeit a lot less forward) based on influence and military command, something Dio discusses. Remember that Cassius Dio says that Augustus was 'as good as a monarch', which implies he was not one. Augustus family members did not achieve power by any official selection process either. There was no such system of succession in Roman law, it was simply a matter of popularity and dominance. No-one for instance seriously thought Claudius would rule, and indeed, the Senate assumed they were running the empire when Caligula was assassinated. In the event, the Praetorian Guard insisted that Claudius be installed whether the Senate liked it or not. The title of monarch was never considered. Since a monarch has some right to rule established by society, consider the ease with which Caesars changed - and that the Romans only admitted a son had inherited his fathrs throne for the first time when Commodus came to power - the first Caesar 'born to the purple'.

By coincidence I happened to spot a Roman style DVD cover while browsing my local DVD store (Okay, I was buying the last Hobbit film...I admit it). Fall of an Empire atracted my attention even further when I read the blkurb on the back, as it seemed to have nothing to do with gladiators, Jesus, or Commodus. Essentially the evil Maxientus kidnaps a girl and Constantine rides to the rescue. All very dramatic stuff but possibly naff... Oh well. Won't know unless I watch it.... In fact the film is nothing like the description. The focus is not on ancient derring do but a study of the life of Katherine of Alexandria, based on a woman who may or may not have been real, a woman whose stance against pagan imposition led her to a very stressful life. The film has some serious actors in it. Joss Ackland, Edward Fox, and Peter O'Toole among them. The sound quality is excellent and the music very moody. Imagery is a mix of typical Hollywood Rome, obervant late empire fashion, and some Conan the Barbarian. The acting, despite the pople involved, is a bit naff though. The film is very slow, serious in intent, and I confess I fell asleep halfway though it. Sorry Katherine. I promise I'll try again.

I need to study up on the English Civil War? The one that occurred between 1642 and 1651? The one that saw a transition between Charles I, Cromwells regime, and Charles II? Henry 8th lived from 1491 to 1542, which is a century earlier and neither Henry nor the later civil war had any implications for colonial America, serious or otherwise. As for the concept of Indian Land, it must be pointed out that the majority of native americans had no concept of land ownership since it was merely a wilderness in which they lived, and in any event, some tribves legally sold land under agreement to the settlers. The sort of confrontational greed that spurred later Indian Wars was a product of valuable rsources rather than land as well. Rubbish. The colonies were not sources of manpower. Far from it, since from the 1600's slaves were imported to provide it. They were sources of profit and taxation, but religious arguments in Europe had nothing to do with colonial resentment at remote government which inspired political revolt in the colonies, of which two thids of colonists either opposed or were disinterested in. Rubbish. He had nothing to do with it. The British Empire was a later development, post English Civil War.Byt the way, I must confess to an error. It was 1846 when Britain ceded interests by treaty in the Oregon Territory, which then comprised the modern Oregon, Washington State, British Columbia, and was expected until then of becoming a seperate republic from the Untied States.

Erm... What? Clearly you're not reading the same history books as the rest of us. The antics of henry 8th were aimed at satisifying a number of monarchial conditions, not least the surety of a male heir, and not even the Pope and the Catholic Church were going to stop him. Quite why that wrecked the British Empire is a bit strange though... It's not until the 1750's that Britain starts accumulating an empire, mostly at the expense of the French. And as for the Americas, didn't you rebel against British rule in our colonies? Canada didn't. The later 1812 war finished off the last British interests in your country with regard to the Oregon Territory. The loss of the colonies wass simply a function of trans-Atlantic distance and poor colonial administration (and arguably, second best military strategy and action), but then, many of the colonists in British held territories were not British nationals anyway. In fact, Henry 8th's seperation of the churches set Britain on a course for independent greatness, which the Isles had to fight hard for, and it was the huge conflicts of the twentieth century that rduced the British Empire in many colnial eyes, espeically after commonwealth troops returned as war veterans with renewed vigour and confidence, not to mention a Great Britain that was econimically knackered. Regarding Roman marriages, this was a somewhat amorphous subject for the Romans despite tradition (parts of which still survive in the modern west today). On the one hand, there were traditional forms to be observed. On the other, a man's prerogative to exercise his virility. The morality of married couples, and thus the rules that enforced it, eroded from the late Republic and christian writers in the later empire sermonised against such immorality, especially compared to the barbarians who were much strictter in cultural expectations by then.

No, the wiki page is inconsistent. It later lists four marriages. He had children by Cleopatra but never married her (they both committed suicide before the ceremony was conducted) Regarding Lupercal... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupercal Roman priests were not ordained devotees in the christian sense, but men appointed religious office in the same manner as political roles. I would be careful of using the phrase 'state cults', as this implies a formal relationship that was not the case. The Roman cults were far less formal and not actually controlled by the state, other than by those who achieved offices, as religous worship in Roman times was not the organised communal affair that christianity espoused. True, there were communal festivals (and quite a lot of them) which required organising (hence the need for religious management besides any opportunity for influence), but the relationship of worshippers to deities was the same client/patron system, where worshippers visited the 'atrium' of the god they wished favour from - in actuality the shrine or temple - and attempted to conduct business with the deity remotely via prayer and sacrifice.

That's because your view of a priest is defined by modern christian convention. The role for Romans was less formal , even temporary, but with as much social importance. Also bear in mind the very close connection between religion and warfare which had been the case since Rome's earliest history. For a man with patrician status the roles of military commander or priest were part of his potential responsibilities. Clearly however by giving Antony the post in the College of Augurs, Caesar was looking to appoint a right hand man whilst he continued as Pontifex Maximus. Regarding his marriages, Cicero mentions Antony's first wife, Fadia, the daughter of a freedman. Cicero was very critical, almost abusive, toward Antony and no doubt pounced on this bit of info. Cicero is also the only source for that but in fairness I haven't studied the Phillipics in detail. However, I don't know that it formally removed him from senatorial qualification. Being named a traitor by the Senate in 31BC when the Second Triumivrate collapsed definitely would.

No, there wasn't, although such behaviour risked official censure by armed force.

Makes sense, but I do note a lack of commentary in the sources concerning such civil disorder or any hardships encountered by chritstians beyond rumour. In fact the sources tend to ignore christianity as just another minor cult (but then the Roman historians weren't likely to be at the head of lynch mob either).

Not sure what you mean, because Caear did not have his own cult as such. Caesar had become Pontifex Maximus which made him head of the Roman religion, whilst Antony was given a lesser office to do with interpretuing the will of the gods. Antony had four wives as far as I know, none of whom appear to have disqualified him for senatorial status - indeed, the only woman who would have disqualified him by virtue of assuming monarchial status was Cleopatra. Although she eventually agreed to marriage, they both committed suicide before this was done. Marc Antony was viwed as a potential tyrant after the death of Caesar due his manoeverings, whereas Octavian supported the Senatorial faction, although Octavian was also in trouble over land confiscatiobns.

Wasting away the power of the Senate? I don't think so. It is true that the Senate tends to be seconbdary in the sources after Augustus, but then it would. The Caesars are celebrity rulers and much more newsworthy. The majority of senators were not especially forward and many prefeered a quiet life. Nonetheless, the Senate was holding the reins briefly after CValigula was assassinated. Only the Praetorian Guard imaintained the rule of the Julio-Claudians by threat of violence. Again, the Senate declared Nero an enemy of the state, effectively deposing him. The common themes of Augustus as a ruler are far more aligned toward modern conceptions of office that ignore the peculiarities of the Roman social system. I don't argue for a moment that Augustus was out to rule - his own wife knew him as a control freak - but the balance between official power and social control is not what people normally assume. Cassius Dio is in no doubt. He declares that Augustus was as good as a monarch - but that description does infer thsat he wasn't in actuality, nor could Augustus afford to be. I also agree he wanted a dynasty - that again satisifies Roman sensibilities, since the wealthy elite liked nothing more than 'chips off the old block', but in that he was thwarted. The Romans themselves acknowledged that Augustus riuled as Imperator, or military commander, having assumed ownership of the legions as a whole, and this woul;d remain the primary source of eligibility to rule - it did not come from the state nor the people, but would always remain opportunism and popularity.

There was no formal framework to the Principate. The traditional Roman government still existed, the Senate, which still flexed its muscles, albeit with some circumspection for obvious reasons. What Augustus did was establish rule by domination and military support. He excused this by extending the client/patron social system to place him above all else - which was why he was calling himself 'First Citizen'. This did of course set a sort of acceptable precedent that others followed after him, and notice how impatient the politicians of Rome got with most of the Julio-Claudians. Nothing in Roman law said how a new ruler was to be chosen, or what qualified him. There was nothing in Roman society that actually maintained a Roman Caesar was necessary to run Rome. For those studying Roman history there are plenty of descriptions of 'Roman emperors', or 'Roman monarchs', but this is simply categorisation by the modern world using frames of reference that are ahistorical in regard to Roman society. We livve in a world where we usually read about rulers officially accepted by the state, or the people themselves. In the case of the Roman Caesars, Augustus created a precedent for using the legions as an excuse for political power - and indeed, Cassius Dio says as much.