sonic

Patricians get a private forum called the Senate where they can advise the powers that be. They are also eligible for free book giveaways. Long term activity and good character are the main traits, but we also like to see that our Patricians are scholarly and well-written, because we do like book reviews in exchange for the free books. So if you want to write an article or review on a Romanophile topic, e-mail it to Viggen. Just don't write anything on Harry Potter or I will commit ritual suicide. Oh the temptation ......!! Thanks for the advice - I'll get on to it straight away! Thanks for suggesting Aetius and Stilicho Decimus. I've got to admit that Aetius is very tempting, as my 'expertise' lies more towards the later period. Oh dear, the decision just gets harder and harder!!

You could always write a much shorter work for UNRV on whatever topic you chose. Could give you some free publicity. It also helps for promotion to Patrician status, and there are certain benefits involved along those lines. Really? Tell me more - I'm all ears!! Oh, and I like Harry Potter as well - it's a good laugh. Mind you, I'll not be going to conventions or queuing at midnight to get the new one etc. etc!!

I agree that Sejanus is interesting, but I don't think he has enough of a military background or career to warrant his inclusion. My desire to write about military commanders is not simply personal, it is also in keeping with the desires of the publishers. Maybe, once I've made my name - like Goldsworthy etc - I can write what I personally want. Until then, I am at the mercy of the publishers! Then again, writing about something you love is not exactly that hard!!

Great ideas, keep them coming - I wouldn't mind being kept busy for the next 20 years, as writing books is much better than teaching (my profession before I stopped working to look after my son - now a two-year-old ankle-biter) and may help to keep me in food!! Don't forget that the book has to sell, so keep in mind that a minor general in a forgotten war would not be commercially viable and would be rejected by the publishers! I've got to admit that a friend recently suggested a book on Scipio Africanus, which would be a real possibility, but I don't want to dive in before considering other options!! What about Epaminondas? Or is that too Greek-oriented for you? Agrippa, Corbulo, Drusus, Sulla, Lucullus, ....... Oh dear, I'm going to have to make a decision. I hate making decisions!! Thanks for all of these ideas: any more, or would you second the ones already proposed??

I was recently commissioned to write a book and am hoping to finish it in the next couple of months. Once it is finished, I'll - obviously! - be wanting to write another one. I am aiming to specialise in writing 'military' biographies (ie biographies of military men in the ancient world). However, I am unsure of who to write about next and was wondering if you lot had any ideas? Who would you like to see a biography on?? I'm not interested in writing yet another book about Julius C., Alexander t. G., etc, as these have all been well covered already. What I'm thinking of is an individual who may be slightly less well known but whose story could still run to between 70,- and 90,000 words. (So somebody who is only mentioned twice in Tacitus would be no good!!) It need not necessarily be Roman, just somebody who was living prior to the reconquests of Justinian, as that is where my knowledge becomes fragmentary at best! Any ideas folks, or do I have to use my own mind?? (Trust me - that is not a good idea!!)

Do you mean read and finished, or currently reading? Currently, I am reading Procopius' 'History of the Wars', which is good except for the large number of sieges and endless repetitions of the same name - I never realised that so many important figures in the history of Justinian's reign were called John (Ioannes)!! I have just finished reading 'Thud' by Terry Pratchett. I would recommend all of his 'Discworld' series to anyone. Although based in a 'fantasy' world, you soon forget about that because his characters, even the non-human ones - are so, well, Human!! It's so easy to identify them and link them to people you know or have met . Brilliant.

When I was at school I was always taught that the Roman Empire was the greatest Empire ever, and that the people that lived within it were lucky to be a part of such a glorious enterprise. People from Africa and Syria would be able to go to the northern limits of Hadrian's Wall in England and still hold a conversation with the inhabitants in Latin and vice-versa. Slowly, with increased research, I am coming to the conclusion that the idea that the Roman Empire was one social 'whole' was, at best, simplistic and, at worst, completely unjustified. So, given that - for example - during the 'Third-Century Crisis' the provinces of the West and the East revolted from central control, are we right to see the Roman Empire as one, single, unified whole, or was it rather a collection of separate regions with distinct identities living under the Empire simply for convenience? Or was it something in between? As I can't quite make my mind up, I thought that maybe some of you could help me sort this out?

Here's the interesting part--if you look at academic descriptions of Whitsun, you'd never hear your interpretations. Exactly. Recorded documents, and history, are biased by the viewpoint that the writer wishes to project. Which has always been exactly my point. To imply a great deal of cynicism to religion simply because our surviving sources do should not blind us to the fact that we do not know how the average peasant worshipped. I agree - grudgingly - with many of the points you raise, but would argue that we unfortunately will never know for sure. However, the fact that you did not understand what was going on surely adds a little weight to my point of view, since it is possible that the people of Rome knew more about their religion? Yet I am intrigued by one point. Yes, I am from the North of England, like yourself, but my mother was a Mormon (a faith which she no longer adheres to), so I have no idea of what you are talking about with your story of the old Whitsun celebrations!! Going around peoples' houses and collecting money for wearing new clothes?? You were lucky! I only had my sister's cast offs. I wasn't given money, but a jail sentence for wearing women's clothing!!

What you taught schoolchildren is simplistic and misleading. Sometimes, you CAN apply "our" mores and morals to the ancients because we inherited those mores and morals from the ancients. Sometimes, you can't--because we've either innovated new norms or inherited other norms that came after the ancients. To know the difference, you could have taught them, one must study intellectual and social history. It's really too bad that you had a perfect opportunity to introduce children to the idea that our modern behavior and ideas owe their existence to the ancients, and instead you expressed the same gutter relativism they hear everywhere. Do not criticise my teaching ability - you do not have the right, since you were neither there, nor have you had experience of teaching underpriviliged English children about the realities of history. I always pointed out that we are the direct inheritors of ancient social and religious values, but the children themselves have little connection to these values and are not interested in them. Until you have taught such children, pllease keep your opinions to yourself!! However, on a lighter note.... Yes I am, thanks for that. It's a sign of old age when you can't remember anything!! The worst thing I have found about all forums on the internet is that when, like me, you have to type in a very limited timespan (due to a two-year-old anklebiter getting at you!) you can often overstate or misread by mistake and then have your words thrown back in your face. Of course I think that the majority of the ancient world saw a religious festival, whether or not accompanied by an animal sacrifice, as fulfilling both religious and social functions: even today most religions treat their rites with due respect, but then have a real good time afterwards!! If I ever gave the impression otherwise, I apologise. However, I still believe that a larger proportion of the population was more religious than you think. Wasn't there a theory that the rise of Christianity was due to a disillusion with the old gods caused by the benefits never seeming to go to the peasants? Therefore, when Christianity came along, with its offer of suffering in this world but bliss in the next, the poorer classes saw this as 'their' religion? I would suggest that maybe their willingness to adopt a different religion stemmed from a desire to believe in gods, but a belief that the traditional Roman pantheon were just not on their side?

Doc, I think you've mistaken my intent and read the post literally rather than as I intended - which is my fault. When I wrote that, 'Everyone knows that the Greeks were almost wholly composed of men who were philosophers who studied at Athens. We have their writings. We also know that they had the ability to build the odd temple and the like. But as for the world of engineering, they didn't have a clue; otherwise, they would have written about it. Except that I remember reading somewhere that a lump of corroded metal had been found on a Greek shipwreck, and when it was x-rayed it turned out to be a ..........?' I was being ironic. The lump of metal I was referring top was a - can't remember the word! - model of the planets that was geared and allowed the planets to revolve around the world at the correct speeds. Until it was found, we had no idea that the Greeks had ever built anything like that. I was using this as proof that, just because we have no written record, the Greeks actually appear to have been excellent engineers and we cannot rely simply on the written evidence. I was using this example to emphasise my position with regard to religion. We have very few examples of what the ancients thought about religion, mainly because the vast majority went unheard. When at University I was asked by someone who had just watched a dramatisation of a Jane Austin novel on the TV whether anybody actually worked at the time, or if they all lived in big houses and wrote books and letters. At first I couldn't believe the question, but on reflection this reflects our ignorance of the distant past. Just because Jane Austin assumed that her readers were all of the same class and upbringing as her doesn't mean that the whole of society thought like she did or lived in the same manner. The same holds true for ancient authors. To a great degree I agree with you, yet the thread began by asking whether or not the institution of animal sacrifice was a serious affair or was an axcuse just to have a 'barby'. If looked at in that perspective, am I right in saying that actually it would not have been seen in public as just an excuse to eat meat, but possibly by a minority in private, with the rest of the population either believing or not daring to comment about their scepticism? If so, what proprtion of society would think of the excerice as just a barbecue and how many would see it as a valid religious ceremony? Sonic PS. I still think that more people believed in the Gods than we do, mainly because the ancient societies we are discussing are from the West! PPS Thanks for the support Kosmo!

1) I wrote: To suggest that the Romans may have sacrificed bulls in order to have a barbecue is to miss the point entirely. There is a very simple explanation. The ancients were not stupid, and, once the animal had been sacrificed and the god had taken what they wanted, the remainder could be eaten. After all, why live in a world where people waste food? 2) I wrote: No doubt there were some arrogant individuals who did not want to believe some aspects of religious life Why are people who refuse to believe in religion intelligent? If you believe in the Gods of Rome, or the God of the monotheistic Christians, Muslims and Jews, does that make you less intelligent? I refer you here to what I had to try and teach the children at school; you can't look back and apply our mores and morals to the ancients. We will probably never know whether people actually believed in the Gods, but to assume that intelligent people didn't is simply wrong. Are you suggesting that you are intelligent and don't believe in the Roman Gods, therefore any ancient who has your beliefs is also intelligent? 3) I wrote: I will accept - under pressure - that there will have been sceptics, agnostics and even atheists in the days of the Roman empire. Yet they were a negligible minority that were absorbed by the believing masses. But your desire for 'accuracy' is flawed by single the nature of your evidence. The fact that a minority of philosophical writers questioned both whether the Gods existed, and their nature if they did, does not alter the idea that there were many ordinary people and slaves who would believe in the Gods. Or did the lares and penates (have I remembered that correctly?) fulfil a purely decorative function? (I can now see an ancient designer saying to his customer, 'But darling, you must have a Lares - they're so in at the moment!') The only reason why we don't know about the beliefs of the 'normal' people is because they didn't write stuff down and if they did it hasn't survived. (Alright, that's two - I never said I could count!) Or is it because they weren't intelligent (like me, apparently!) and couldn't write? However, the contention that the intelligent non-believers used religion to manipulate the believers and the political process also shows that all of your evidence is gained from reading the writings of people at the top ie the minority. What about the rest? 4) I wrote:Please people, accept that religious beliefs in the past were a lot stronger and more widely held than they are today. They didn't have 'science' telling them about thunder, or floods, or earthquakes, so how else could they explain them? But again we are talking of generations of 'intellectuals', who had the income to afford to attend such schools. And the question still remains of how many, underneath their scepticism, went home and prayed to the gods for help, or for specific events to occur? These people may have had a wider audience over the centuries, yet their influence over us is simply because the 'intellectual' individuals of later centuries believed that they were worth keeping, for whatever reason. We do not have - and never will have - an unbiased, accurate knowledge of the depth of belief of the ancient world. To assume that that world was full of sceptics due to the reports from ancient sources is misleading. It is arguing from negative evidence ie the writers we have did not really believe, therefore the world was full of sceptics and the ritual of sacrifice was simply an excuse for a barby! Ok, so my argument that the ancients needed a god to explain the unknown may have been a bit simplistic. I didn't say I was perfect, did I? Everyone knows that the Greeks were almost wholly composed of men who were philosophers who studied at Athens. We have their writings. We also know that they had the ability to build the odd temple and the like. But as for the world of engineering, they didn't have a clue; otherwise, they would have written about it. Except that I remember reading somewhere that a lump of corroded metal had been found on a Greek shipwreck, and when it was x-rayed it turned out to be a ..........? Don't assume that we now everything important because if it was important it was written about. The Greeks liked to talk about their Gods and many even acknowledged that they were simply a bunch of overgrown children who could not be placated by sacrificing a sheep. The sacrifice was simply one aspect of a complex ritual, the rest of which we tend to ignore. Unfortunately, I've run out of time to type any more, but I think that some of the comments by Pantagathus, Nephele, Kosmo and Docoflove deserve serious consideration, since they are looking at aspects of ritual sacrifice from the level of the people doing the actual sacrifice, rather than an intellectual elite that may (notice the highlight!) have thought of themselves as above such 'demeaning' things. (Probably not right word, but time's running out!). Finally, to the Doc: it's almost impossible to prove that people are not religious. Even the most sceptical can tend to revert to saying their prayers in a crisis. And as for the statement that 'it's an arrogant position to assume that humanity practiced and professed religious beliefs any differently in any other civilization, at the very least', I cannot agree. Religion is a completely different 'animal' to everyone who practices it, and depth of belief can range widely from absolute conviction to total atheism. Also, you are saying that 'things today are as they have always been'. Why can't they have been different? Has nothing changed in the last two thousand years? No, I am not arrogant, I simply try to ensure that I don't base my statements on (arrogant?) assumptions that in religion nothing much has changed since the dawn of civilisation. My personal belief is that modern science has done much to undermine religion by eroding the need for belief in order to explain the world around us. In order for that belief to be sustained, I also have to believe that it is probable that belief in the ancient world was greater than it is now. If belief has not wavered, why have 'born again' Christians emerged? Surely, there would be no need for the rebirth? Darn it, Time's run out. But as Arnie once said, "I'll be back......!" (If anyone's still speaking to me!!)

Theodora and Justinian may have ordered the slaughter of the mob in the Nika riots, but it was the army that carried out the killing. The bread and circuses may have begun in the era of the Republic, but their breadth, scope and duration could only really be afforded by the Emperors. As long as the Emperors kept the mob happy, they didn't much care about other things. By the way FLC, what do you mean by 'tricked'? J and T may have attempted to limit the power of the green and blue factions, but I am unsure what you mean by this. Am I being a bit dense?

You're welcome LW, obviously I hadn't thought about it that way either until now. I guess a lot of us are so disconnected with the simple realities of agri-pastoral life to factor in such simple, plausible explainations. Maybe we are, but more of us are disconnected with the realities of religion than they realise. To suggest that the Romans may have sacrificed bulls in order to have a barbecue is to miss the point entirely. Yes, they were sacrificing a living animal in order to gain a response from a particular deity, but I would believe that for the overwhelmingly vast majority the main aspect was the religious ritual involved. It is too easy in these sceptical times to read into the writings of the ancients our own scepticism and disbelief. Yet only a few hundred years ago - and still in some places in the United States of America and other countries - to doubt the existence of God was unthinkable heresy. No doubt there were some arrogant individuals who did not want to believe some aspects of religious life - for example the man (sorry, working from a very bad memory here!) who wanted to set sail with his fleet and was told that the omens were bad. Hearing that the sacred chickens refused to drink, he had them thrown into the sea, saying 'they can have a good drink now' (or something like that!). His consequent disastrous loss was blamed on his impiety. I used to be a teacher, and the hardest thing about teaching history was to get children to realise that the way they thought and believed was not the way that everybody has ever thought and believed. I will accept - under pressure - that there will have been sceptics, agnostics and even atheists in the days of the Roman empire. Yet they were a negligible minority that were absorbed by the believing masses. As a final footnote, I dislike people who say that the Incas/Aztecs were bloodthirsty barbarians who ripped the living hearts out of their victims: don't forget that they believed that if the sacrifice wasn't performed, the sun would fail to rise. Given the option, I don't think any of them at the time would have said, 'forget the sacrifice - let's see what happens!' Please people, accept that religious beliefs in the past were a lot stronger and more widely held than they are today. They didn't have 'science' telling them about thunder, or floods, or earthquakes, so how else could they explain them??

From what I can remember, the Etruscan language is completely different to that of the other 'Italians'. The fact that it is so different has led many experts to believe that the Etruscans were the original inhabitants of Italy, and that the other 'Italians' migrated in from the north, bypassing the Etruscan heartland and setting up their own societies. At the height of their power, the Etruscan city-states were a Thalassocracy controlling the Tyrhennian Sea, having an early alliance with the Carthaginians. They also conquered the lands all across the north of Italy, and one of their cities gave its name to the Adriatic. If I can remeber where I got all of the information from, I'll post the reference.

Ooooh, now that is bad.......

Spartacus was obviously a man with divided aims. Wanting to leave Italy but being forced to stay by the 'revolt' of Crixus et al, he must have realised that the game was up: there was no chance of him beating the whole of the Roman army, even if it was thrown against him piecemeal. Therefore, his continued fighting in Italy was the only option. I doubt that he could have surrendered and negotiated a peace settlement with the Romans given the nature of his revolt. Nor do I think that he was a communist attempting to abolish slavery. Writers like Marx have always been ready to interpret history in a way to reinforce their own views. Finally, don't forget that the abolition of slavery still isn't finished: there are pockets of it in large areas of the world. And to those who would still like to see Spartacus as a revolutionary bent on repealing slavery, don't forget that George Washington, the man who signed the 'Declaration of Independence' in which 'All men are declared Equal', continued to own slaves, and that slavery in The United States of America continued until Lincoln. The paradox of Washington declaring all men free except his slaves is rarely recognised, possibly because of our need for 'Heroes'. Both Spartacus and Washington have been seen as Heroes, yet their actions and motives have only ever been assessed when they are being used to reinforce a writer's point of view. My proposal is that they were human and responding mainly to what could and could not be achieved. Spartacus' revolt was always doomed, since he could not beat the entire army of Rome. (I've just re-read this and am not sure that it makes sense!! Oh Well ......)

A fairly easy one. Initially, I wouldn't read any modern authorities, since they all too often argue with each other! If you are writing a novel, I'd stick to the ancient sources, the best of which is 'The Rise of the Roman Empire' (Penguin Classics) by Polybius, F. W. Walbank, and Ian Scott-Kilvert (Paperback - Feb 28, 1980) which is available on Amazon etc, usually for only a few pounds/dollars. Secondly, get hold of 'The History of Rome from Its Foundation, Books XXI-XXX: The War with Hannibal' (Penguin Classics) by Titus Livius Livy and Aubrey De Selincourt (Paperback - Jul 30, 1965), again usually cheap and easy to get hold of. If you are wanting real detail, the above are also available in the 'Loeb Classical Library' series. Although far more expensive, they do give a lot more detail, including the Latin from which they are translated: if you have the need, you can even try translating it yourself!! For other material, try 'The Punic Wars' by Adrian Goldsworthy (Paperback - May 28, 2002), which will give you a good idea of the background as well as a bibliography for extra reading. Good luck with the Book!!

A good place to start is by reading 'The Beginnings of Rome, 753-264 B.C.' (Routledge History of the Ancient World) by Tim Cornell. If I remember correctly - which is hard, as university was such a long time ago! - Rome started as a series of settlements on the hills. They either coalesced by themselves or were united by an Etruscan ruler, as the Etruscans dominated the area at the time. It is interesting to note that the early Kings tended to have Etruscan names, and that the last of them, Tarquinius Superbus, asked the Etruscan king Lars Porsenna for aid. It is now generally accepted that Lars beat the Romans, and that 'Horatius at the Bridge' was a later invention to hide the defeat. Unfortunately for him, Lars was beaten by the Latins shortly afterwards. As for whether Romulus and Remus actually existed, we will never know, although it is possible that some of the stories surrounding them began with real-life individuals. A similar thing happened to Alfred the Great in England, where we now have to accept that he never tried his hand at cooking! The 'Founding' of Rome in 753 BC is a later story, and, as most historians now accept, neither Varro or Livy are the most accurate of storytellers. Don't forget that it was many centuries after the events that he wrote his histories. However, those historians who point to the earlier villages on the hills and state that Rome was not founded in 753, but in the tenth century are missing one salient point. They were distinct, separate settlements. Therefore, I would propose that the story indicates that the villages became a political unity at some time in the eighth century BC., probably under Etruscan influence. If anybody out there has a different viewpoint, get typing!!

What about Aurelian for the title of best? Or Majorian as one who could have been the best if he had not been assassinated? Or Nerva, the emperor before Trajan who realised what needed to be done to stabilise the Empire? For the worst, Julius Nepos in the 5th century, as he became emperor and made Orestes Patrician, only to be kicked out by Orestes! Or Honorius, who ordered the arrest and execution of Stilicho, only for Stilicho's followers to join Alaric? The problem here is that this is dependent upon which period you prefer, either Early, Middle or Late Imperial, which therefore limits the number of emperors you despise or adore, the rest being merely names. The exceptions, such as Caligula and Nero, have been vilified so much in the past that their reputation is greatly exaggerated, and only recently has work been done to look at their reigns in an objective manner. The whole subject needs a clearly defined framework, but how that could be made to work I am not sure. And no, I am not volunteering to devise a framework!!

Beware of experts! Everyone I know, especially those who claim to speak Latin 'correctly', pronounce the name 'Cicero' as 'Sissero' when, according to their own rules, it should be 'Kickero'! I also had an argument with a lecturer when I pronounced the word 'Velites' as 'Vee-lights'. The lecturer said 'Vell- it- es', to which I replied shouldn't it be 'Well-it-es(s)'? Although I was right, in hindsiight I believe that it's not a good idea to wind-up your lecturer!!

Oh how my heart bleeds! My wishlist includes two volumes of The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire; A.D.527-641 by J.R. Martindale, each of which comes in at about

Although Hannbal used African elephants, it should be made clear that these were the much smaller African bush elephants, not the massive elephants that we know of today. Somewhere there is a coin showing one of these elephants with a rider on its back, and they are only about half way in size between a horse and one of the African elephants of today. If only I could find the picture it would really help .....

I actually like the book. The military history part is excellent, but to suggest that 'The Catiline conspiracy bored me to death' is to miss the point. Many other biographers tend to focus upon the exciting aspects of historical figures' lives, such as Caesar's Gallic campaign, or the reign of emperors like Caligula. Yet these books are not biographies. A biography tells us as much as is known about these people, whether or not the individual finds it boring. In fact, many political historians will be fascinated by the machinations inherent in the Catiline Conspiracy. It is fair to say that you found a section to be dull, as it did not corrspond to your personal interests, but to say that it 'bored you to death' may be seen as portraying a narrowness of interest that may not, in fact, be true. On the other hand, the difficulty with writing biographies on 'lesser known figures' is usually that they are not well documented or well known. When a publisher commissions a book, they want at least 60-70,000 words. Would a biographer of Sejanus be able to write so much without resorting to phrases such as 'it may be that', or 'we do not know for certain, but ...'? Possibly not. But then we come to the other problem. If, as a writer, you want to make a living writing a book on Sejanus, it probably would not pay enough. And which publisher would print it? Most wish to make a profit, and, sorry to say, many such 'minority' interest figures will remain unknown except to a very few. As a consequence, publishers tend to stick to the big names that they know will sell, hence the number of books on Caesar and Hannibal, and the complete dearth on Corbulo or even Marius. Finally, let me make something clear. I agree that the Catiline Conspiracy is a little dull, in that I am not really interested in the political life of Rome, only in the actions of a few, such as Caesar, Pompey etc. This probably makes me a very shallow person! I don't care. Some biographies of 'lesser known' figures, such as Romulus Augustulus, are now being produced and I am very grateful for it. However, I would love to see a biography of Claudius II Gothicus, yet I know that this is unlikely to happen as not enough is known about him to make a full length book. I wish that a publisher would have the nerve to publish a book containing a few small, potted biographies of people such as Sejanus and Claudius II in one volume, so making the book the required size and fulfilling my desires to be a pedantic anorak. Alas, it will probably never happen. It would not sell enough copies to be financially viable. Until then, we can only dream and hope that at some time in the future ......

The other thing to remember is that most of the knowledge etc that came from the classical world did not come via Constantinople, but was derived from the intellectual culture of Moorish Spain. In Spain, Arab (that is to say, Muslim), Christian and Jewish scholars translated texts into many languages, especially Greek and Arabic into Latin so that the educated people of Europe could read it too. Our debt to the Moors in Spain is probably at least equal to our debt to the Byzantines. Yet I am speaking as a man of Western Europe. No doubt from the perspective of areas nearer to Constantinople the fall was a disaster and set back development for centuries as the Ottomans found their own imperial system was enough for their needs without adopting what they found in south eastern Europe. However, I am typing off the top of my head (ie as I think, with no planning etc) so this may be all a load of fetid dingoes kidneys!! PS 'America' was discovered by i) the Native Americans and ii) the Vikings. Also, Christopher Columbus already knew there was something there. His 'discovery' is still slightly over-rated!