CiceroD

I dont understand how could the Roman associate one star with two deities. How could the one star be both Venus and the God Lucifer?

Thank you Caldrail, And skimming through Book one of Tacitus' Histories It seems that both Otho and Vitellius actively canvassed for the soldiers' support, but Verginius Rufus was offered the post of Emperor (which he refused). I read from another source that Galba was hesitant and reluctant and the purple was offered to him. Was this usual then? How about later wars of successon?

I seem to hear that there was plenty of overlap between Traditional Saturnalia, The winter solstice celebrations of Sol Invictus, and Christmas. As a method to keep a measure of continuity, but for different reasons of course. Do we have any records of Early Christmas and its festivities?

Again and again, in the history of the Roman Empire, legions have declared their favorites as emperors. This, of course, sparked the Civil Wars and regime changes typical in this period. But the sources that I have do not illuminate the mechanics of the process. For example, 1. Were these usurpers usually legionary legates? provincial governers? 2. Did the process begin from the top down? (an officer sensing the general discontent calls on the army and encites their rebellion) 3. Did the process begin from the bottom up? (the soldiers demonstrate their discontent and their pick for the purple goes along for the ride) 4. If the claimant was a legate how does he win over the other local legionary legates? (who I assume are his professional rivals) I would think that there had to be some measures taken to assure their loyalty. Are there any good sources on this?

Simply for my own edification, Wasn't this dole system done away with by the Byzantines? I remember some quote about "If one shall not work then neither shall he eat". How did Constantinople manage to pull this off? or was there no dole in the provinces?

We have a good deal of evidence that slaves were trained (especially greek ones) as secretaries. Others were trained as cooks, hair dressers, special name-rememberers (nomenclatores) etc. Arent these all high skill jobs? Im not saying that there weren't any free workers, but if the rich had to pay people to pamper them there would have been far fewer on the Dole. Economies are viewed by experts as proceeding in stages (Agricultural-Industrial- Services). On the face of it no there is nothing wrong with agriculture except that it is less profitable. Putting too much capital in land would be bad for an "Urbanizing" Civilization

But didn't the decay begin much earlier? From what I recall from Gibbon, didn't Majorian have to legislate against people using public buildings as quarries? or am I mistaken?

My oft quoted "The Ancient City" by Connolly and Dodge states "It is impossible to differentiate between Roman beds and couches. Virtually the same piece of furniture appears to have been used for both dining and sleeping." I assume they do not mean triclinium couches considering that they were vastly different (being ramped upward toward the central table). Therefore my theory is that the romans utilized couches in the greek fashion day to day (the rich ones I mean) and their triclinia were reserved for dinner parties. do we have any sources that dispute this?

True.. Like most cultures of the time they saw the stages of a woman's life as Maiden and Matron

Wait I think I know this one! Did it perchance have a dirty medieval riddle comparing onions to male genitalia? Thats a good arguement! Long distance travel was a minority interest in times past for sure, but what I tried to get across was that long distance travel did not suffer too much from the turmoil in england, which was patchy rather than consistent. Thank you Caldrail I can certainly agree that long distance trading most certainly went on. Traders, pilgrims, and minstrels wouldve all travelled long distances regularly. Medieval England was probably just like the Pennsylvania Renaissance Fair! Complete with Turkey Legges, "Lord of the Rings" merchandise, Wenches, and Captain Jack Sparrow look-alikes

Yes Roman boys had a coming-of-age at an age which the paterfamilias saw fit but usually in mid to late teens. Apparently the boy would dedicate his childhood clothes at the lararium. Then he would put on his toga virilis (toga of manhood) and would go with his family to be registered as a citizen.

According to Anthony Everitt's Augustus Antyllus and Caesarion were killed because their parents had them perform their coming of age ceremonies. This made them adults and ergo carnifex fodder. One however sees a completely different outcome with the official "children" Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene, and Ptolemy. To these Augustus shows mercy he puts them up with Octavia. The boys dissappear (though Everitt attributes this to their unimportance) and Cleopatra Selene is married to the King of Mauretania. It shows that one's child may escape your death sentence even in the Roman World. In the book version of I Claudius there is a reference to executing a boy in his toga virilis (which Graves translates as "Manly Gown" haha)as a mock coming-of-age ceremony. This was done after "A Civil War Precedent" does anyone understand the Reference?

I cant believe that "Port" has an Anglo-Saxon origin when it so closely mirrors the Latin Portus. Now, whether or not it came to Modern English via Anglo-Saxon the original meaning of "door" and therefore "Harbor" (as seen by the "Portus" built by Claudius and Trajan outside of Rome) would still be clear. Numbers without comparison do not impress me Caldrail. Show me the numbers of city dwellers from the zenith of the (Urbanized) Empire and then we will talk. Additionally from where did you obtain this number of 10%? Is it from studies of a particular country or region? As far as objects from distant places it doesn't mean that people actually traveled the whole way. Trade is a natural human activity that will go on whatever the circumstances but the volume of such trade is another matter. Didn't cavemen trade flint across long distances? Didn't Native Americans trade dentalia shells across much of North America without cities or professional traders? I'll find data to cite these two points Yes they wanted cash and the way to get cash in those days was to have land. Please someone else jump in. If I'm wrong let me honestly be wrong, and see that I'm the minority opinion.

Im not saying that the Rhine couldn't be crossed, its just that the Augustus's policy changed after Teutoberg. The assertion that their was no value in conquering Germany begs the question. Was Gaul any more fertile? Did it have more mineral wealth? Think of all the lands Augustus could give to his legionaries to retire on had Varus carried on with his province building and the Empire went to the Elbe or the Oder. To say that Rome was simply disinterested turns historical convention on its head.

The reason for Germany-Across-The-Rhine remaining free was the difficulty of defending any would-be province there. In fact the size of the Rhine itself is often overlooked. It is a MAJOR river. According to wikipedia it has double both the length and discharge of the Susquehanna near where I live and that is the longest and most voluminous river on the U.S. East Coast. The Rhine was such a great natural defence that after the Teutoberg Wald upset, it was only natural in the post Republican "Every General wants a Triumph" era to stop on its banks.

I apologise to the forum for not using a more specific or literary source but my History: the Definitive Visual Guide (published by DK 2007) is what I have to cite at the moment. 1) Yes the Lord and Lady were veryinterested in coins but the vast majority of people i.e. serfs had almost no coin. Pg 191 in the above mentioned source states: "In return for protection and the right to work their lands, peasants worked for the lord of the manor for an agreed number of days per year, as well as giving him a share of their produce." This and the existence of Tithe Barns illustrate how the society existed around bartering. In fact doesn't this work "tax" remind anyone of the Inca system? It was a system without currency. Produce was handed over to storehouses and commoners enlisted to work for their ruler in fact it differed from the Medieval system mostly in the scale of integration, Church, and the use of the ayllu as a political unit That is what I am arguing Yes the Great Famine and the Black Death had tremendous effects no one is disputing that. But the time period I am focusing on is the Dark Ages Proper (if there is such a thing) 500 to 1000 CE The existence of Roman Buildings around Europe doesn't speak at all to the scale of the cities or their use as trade centers. Yes there were the Crusades but as far as that being fought for Gold, It was less important to them then Land. Piety was also important factor Pg. 200 The huge popular response to his [The Pope's] appeal, although unexpected, was the product of a number of factors including the growth of a fervant lay piety over the preceeding centuries, and the need of a land-hungry warrior class to find an outlet for their martial energies. The 100 Year's War was (in the mind of the English Royaly) within their country as they continued to lay claim to Normandy. As far as these mercenaries, I am willing to bet that they were far fewer those who never got farther than three days travel from where they were born. (I dont think many of the Proletarii on the Dole traveled either but all I'm stating is that there were far less "bourgeosie" traders in the Dark Ages). What are these Free Companies Caldrail? Are you refering to military companies or commercial ones?

An underlying idea behind feudalism is that it existed to provide in a world that was mostly without coin. The manor was nearly a self sustaining unit. Whereas many young patricians went from province to province (either to check on estates or cursus honoram required military service). Every source Ive ever read, says that cities during the Dark ages languished. And without markets AKA cities (or cities few and far between) trade is going to be limited perhaps to provide luxuries to the lord and lady (Until the British-Flemish wool trade and the Hanseatic league). Even then, I very much doubt that peasants had anything from as far away as Egypt. The Roman poor had grain from there regularly. Your right however Caldrail that no one really cowered in their houses. The majority of people were bound to their land for generations. Going very far was simply a lot less necessary. What I am getting at is that Europe did become more insular in the Dark Ages. This is of course with the exception of the Church Officials and the limited number of long distance traders.

I can think of a Historic precedent for this. Easter Islanders ran out of trees they adapted to a life without wood. But they were limited and their society suffered. Had they simply stopped building Big stone statues... Likewise Moonlapse we can adapt and live (in a fashion) and you make a valid point that it will cause a negative impact on our society NOW. but to prevent negative effects we'd have to predict what will happen. And you yourself stated that "we dont know enough to predict"?

How many of these were traditional? I mean it is established that public festivals and games multiplied as great men provided panem et circensis to quiet the mob. So how many of these were in place during the Republic?

I have volunteered for sailing on a tall ship; A ship that had multiple sails and lines for controlling them. Most Roman ships only had one or two square sails. So in the typical Roman Quinquireme or Liburnian what was the need for actual seamanship? Were the navy men of the day simply dumb boat rowers? (Besides navigators and officers of course) or did they have to practice boarding or other skills?

This is precisely what my author puts forward caldrail "If Germania had not thrown off the roman yoke" My author, by the way, was Lewis H. Lapham. His essay was "Furor Teutonicus: The Teutoburg Forest, AD 9" and it appeared in What If? Edited by Robert Cowley But the central idea of his essay was that the various chieftains that divided up the western provinces, did not really have a good idea of what an Empire was. They understood that "Caesar" and "Emperor" was a rank above a king, but not the intricacies of government. This was especially so in Germany which was never a province. Therefore when the "Holy Roman Empire" was formed they could not emulate the Roman Empire as they wanted. although the culture clash concept caldrail posted seems very plausible.

I have read one author (let me try to find the book) who contends that the The Holy Roman Empire would have been much more like its eponymous predecessor (and the Dark Ages completely different) had the Germania not thrown off the Roman yoke at the Teutoburg Wald. He maintained that if the Germans understood what an empire was all about we may have found a politically united Europe. personally i think that it is a stretch, but does anyone else feel he has a valid point?

I have read one author (let me try to find the book) who contends that the The Holy Roman Empire would have been much more like its eponymous predecessor (and the Dark Ages completely different) had the Germania not thrown off the Roman yoke at the Teutoburg Wald. He maintained that if the Germans understood what an empire was all about we may have found a politically united Europe. personally i think that it is a stretch, but does anyone else feel he has a valid point?

This still doesn't answer me as to whether maniples were square or broader than thick

Currently Im splitting my time between Adrian Goldworthy's Roman Warfare and Nathanial Philbrick's Sea of Glory. The first is pretty classic legionary fare. The latter is an interesting history of the little-known 1839 U.S. Exploring Expedition. Its also a fascinating look at the psycology of its members. I'd recommend either