CiceroD

I am speaking of the hundreds of years of military success. Even though there would have been gluts and dearths in the market at certain points, Their population could have been sustained. According to Wikipedia "Roman Slave" Romans let their slaves have children in order to make an increase. So It sounds like the Romans could tide themselves over between conquests. And the Romans had a lot of those

While I get the sense that this theory is being dismissed there is at least one way in which the Republic's success brought about its own demise. With its expansion slaves became more numerous and affordable. Isn't it generally accepted that the displaced Proletarii were the seed of political turmoil? Just a thought What do you guys think?

Those early beers I'd imagine would be really rough! They would of had no time to let it mature and therefore it would of been pretty yeasty, It would of been warm and would probably go flat on the inside of ten seconds. But beer was beer Also- Inground silos would be most effective on a farm, for small amounts. The grain dole corn would have to be guarded. and pits in the ground in the middle of nowhere would seem to be inefficient. To distribute it they would have needed grainaries in the city Somehow I cant imagine Quaestors digging pits in the middle of Rome! I know this is all speculation

I have had the fortune to come across "The Ancient City: life in classical Athens and Rome" by Connolly and Dodge. The illustrations and descriptions make this a first rate book. The chapter on Roman domestic architecture had a few holes in it. For example Connolly and Dodge speak about the Impluvium a pool that caught rain water from the roof and drained it into a cistern. There must have been a method to access this for cleaning purposes but the authors do not mention this. Secondly they do not mention the usual location of slave quarters. Were slaves kept behingd the Atrium near the kitchen? was there some sort of slave cellar? perhaps they were crowded into an unused bedroom. Could they have slept out in the atrium? Lastly, they mention the House of the Wooden Partition in Herculaneum. The authors speak about how the preservation of wooden partitions added greatly to the perception of Roman interior space. And yet in their Illustrations they do not show one in its place in a home. How were they used? How was the Atrium divided. Were they adjustible? I'd be thankful for any help I'd also be glad to share my gleanings from this book to anyone

Hoooray!!! I get to wear a toga!

According to Lillian Wilson "The Clothing of the Ancient Romans" the Paludamentum was the cloak of generals On The Arch of Septimus Severus there are depictions of centurions wearing the Paenula While on the Trajan's Column I have pictures of the Sagum and the Sagula (a little Sagum) being worn by members of the calvary. So what did the rank and file man wear?

Uncle!!!! I'll be dragged through Rome in Golden Chains then be executed ad bestius Cicero was a non-military man and so am I

Hmmm, I'd like to get my hands on a copy of one of Claudius's lost histories especially the one on the Etruscans. I'm kind of interested in seeing his literary style. Also I would think we'd know more about the Etruscans. But I would settle for the Sibylline books! (and the burnt ones too if the legend involving the king is true).

I'd Like to quote Livia from the BBC Miniseries I Claudius " When I begin to forget things you can light my funeral pyre and set me on it dead or alive" Oh Dear! the supplies you need to feed your men and build siege engine have been cut off! Such a pity Roman Wargamer that the 2000 men I left in Tripoly have cut off your supply lines to the sea! I guess Im just full of surprises

But still Hypocaust heating would only be for the very rich (I'd imagine). So what filled in for the other 90% of Romans?

Let me say that many times science has been hindered by restrictions of the Church, For example, The official prohibition of anatomical cadavers. The house arrest of Gallileo for his unholy (Earth revolves around the sun) theory. Remember too that previously it was a Mortal sin not to believe in witchcraft. No wonder the people of the Enlightenment were looking to other sources. Personally I respect Gibbon more because he does not take the dogmatic line. Is there anything else we can find to prove Gibbon wrong? beyond his renounciation of Christianity did Julian do anything Tyrannical or Despotic?

Alas no one is entirely objective. But I've never seen any sources saying that Julian continued the previous persecution in the arena. He instead politically opressed them. I'd welcome anyone to prove the old English guy wrong.

The many fortified strongholds present in Medieval Europe would most certainly make a Roman conquest much harder. Walled cities in the Ancient world generally had lower walls than later castles did. They would have to wouldnt they? A city would have a greater circumference and therefore any increase in the height of a wall would be an astronomic increase in price.

precisely this is much like the poor accuracy of the Old Brown Bess musket in the 1700's. Who cares about accuracy when there's a thousand of your boys firing,throwing at the same time.

I was under the Impression that Hypocausts were only used in baths. It sounds like the amount of fuel to heat even a normal sized Roman House round the clock would be astronomical. I assumed that ancient homes were heated using braziers in different rooms much in the same way that traditional Japanese homes were. Remember the Hearth wasnt the center of the home. In fact the Kitchen was generally for the servants. At the center of Roman Houses was the Atrium which had a whole in the roof!. Not exactly heat conserving. And in insulae they wouldnt have any other option (no kitchen)

Julian certainly saw dangers to the classical world inherent in Christianity. But other than his policies against the faith, Julian's character is set out very nicely by Gibbon in Decline and Fall "The Virtues of Trajan appear more steady and natural, and the philosophy of Marcus (I assume Aurelius) is more simple and consistent. Yet Julian sustained adversity with firmness and prosperity with moderation. After an Interval of one hundred and fifty years from the death of Alexander Severus The Romans beheld an Emperor who made no distinction between his duties and his pleasures, who laboured to relieve the stress and revive the spirits of his subjects, and who endeavored always to connect authority with merit and happiness with virtue." Sounds like the kind of Emperor that I'd want! Gibbon maintains that Julian did not persecute in the same way that previous Emperors had. THat at that point there was no mass murders commited. Now I dont believe as a Roman Historians one should "Always let your Gibbon be your Guide." But this falls in line with his Philosophic bent

The Romans certainly believed that the might of Rome would never fall. Yet many Americans believe the same thing. I personally hope that the inevitable decline of The U.S. is less end of Roman Empire and more the end of the British empire. (I know Its like comparing apples and oranges) How do you guys think its gonna end?

Im saying that Roman Forts were far more cost-effective structures then medieval castles. Around the time of Augustus, Forts reflected the confidence of Legions that they would quickly be relieved by reinforcements. It was only later (Think Hadrian's Wall) that the Romans hunkered down relying on masonry to guard the frontiers. I dont believe that the Romans had Trebuchets did they? (At least Ive never heard of one) They relyed instead on siege towers. (I thought) Huh this is useless Roman Wargamer neither of us would ever concede that we lose! all the same I'm inside Krak des Chevaliers You cant get me Its a castle with two concentric walls on the top of a 650 meter cliff in the burning Syrian desert! enjoy!

You are assuming spittle that Caesar has been viewed throughout history as bad. I, personally don't know he might really have been. But if thats true then why were German Emperors known as Kaisar why did the Russians have czars (both titles a direct derivitive of Caesar) and why is Brutus in the lowest pit of Hell in Dante's Inferno?

I dont think I could support an oligarchy just because Im not an aristocrat. maybe its just American programming, but the patricians of the late Republic seemed to be ambivilant to the public good. That said, mob rule is a very bad thing indeed! P.S. if an extreme popularis is a Dictator, isnt an extreme optimatis a Kleptocrat?

Hypothetically would a Roman Army's internal cohesion be able to beat heavily armored knights? would the superior fortifications of castles confound legionary siegecraft? (to be perfectly clear I'm assuming proffessional Augustan era legions against a Western European High Middle Ages pre-gunpowder army) Fellow nerds chime in!

Your link is forbidden on my server Ursus.

We all know that it was Octavian's Magic name that allowed him to install himself as princeps. His connection to Julius comforted the mob. Later emperors did the same (if only symbolically). This though was not enough to keep the people quiet. I was always taught that the institution of bread and circuses ended the struggle of the orders. Apparently though the corn dole was instituted by Clodius Pulcher before the end of the Republic! Circuses and gladiatorial games too had a long pre-Imperial legacy (I realize there were many more ludii in the later Empire than the Republic). My question therefore is is the basic structure of bread and circuses were already in place, why wasn't there nearly so much plebian strife under the Emperors? (especially the bad ones) was it the traditional vision of the distracted masses? as C.S. Forester put it, the lower class lack of logic. if so why did they put up with their wretched state? Was it simply that emperors controlled the appointment of Generals and Governors? (Therefore no one would be able to mount a rebellion) If so why wasn't there a Plebian/Patrician divide in later Imperial civil wars? Was it the institution of the Praetorians? Did having a crack squad right outside Rome quash plebian spirit? what do you guys think

Didn't Coptic Christians carry out a wholesale slaughter of Egyptian pagan priests? Wasn't that why no one could read hieroglyphs until the rosetta stone? Segestan you have to remember that the Christians of the era were in a slugmatch with the established world! It was a world that they saw as unholy. Therefore they had no time for philosophers (who they believed were being led astray by Satan) and their assertions that the world was round

While there were Greek colonies in sothern Italy, hence Magna Graecia, they would have much less to give to Rome without a Hellenistic wolrd behind them. sure Greece would still exist. But Greek wouldn't be the lingua franca of the ancient world but Egypt and Asia Minor would still be under the control of Persepolis.