Maty

Just to add to those posting about the innocence of the Roman plumbing system. For most of its journey from source to Roman, the water ran through rock tunnels or aqueduct courses lined with waterproofed concrete. (Something the Romans pioneered.) It was stored in deep (lead-free) pools at the beginning and end of the journey through the aqueduct system. Until it hit the pipes it was not exposed to lead at all, and then it was moving too fast for lead to be dissolved into the water at high concentrations. That said, someone once referred me to an article called 'The poisoned pitcher' in which a child psychologist kept a diary to track down behavioral problems which her kids suddenly developed. (Irritability, sleeplessness, anti-social behaviour, lack of concentration). Many of these factors were sharply reduced (the kids were teenagers after all, so they would not disappear) when the family were away from home for any reason. Eventually the problem was tracked down to the lead glaze on a pitcher used for serving orange juice at mealtimes.

Two books for you to consider then, are 'Roman People' by a chap called Kebric, and 'Lives of the Romans' coming out next year from an academic called Joanne Berry in collaboration with yours truly. Just finished Julian the Apostate and a priestess called Metila Acte this week ...

Gladiators, I've always understood, go back to the Etruscans, which means, given that there were always a few Etruscans (at least) in Rome that the practice of gladiatorial combat might have been there from the word go. But where in the ancient sources does the idea that gladiators are Etruscan come from? (the name is Latin) I have seen a lot of modern authors all quoting each other the Etruscan origin, but does anyone know what gives them this idea?

Ptellius Cerialis. 5/10 for ability. 10/10 for style.

I seem to remember that Nero also passed some very sensible legislation to make buildings less inflammable, but in the rush to rebuild Rome a lot of this got ignored. Roman political insults were a major art form, in which one routinely called one's enemies the worst names you could think of. 'Parricide' was one, and another was 'incendiary'. It seems every bad hat Cicero ever had it in for (for example) nursed a secret ambition to turn Rome to ashes. Given that Nero was, um, less than popular, the incendiary label was stuck on him as a matter of course. The only reasons it has particularly stuck were the excesses of the golden house, and that inspired lie about him declaiming to music whilst the city burned. (Which let's face it, whether or not he started the fire, one can easily imagine him doing.)

If you get the chance, head out to an area called EUR. Amidst Mussolini's take on what Rome should look like there's a model of Rome c.300 AD which takes up quite a few square meters, and which has been reproduced in countless books. They also have a cast of Trajan's column laid out in sections so you can actually see what's on the thing. Another trip which people often miss is Hadrian's villa (acres and acres of it). It's in Tivoli just outside the city so give it a morning (at least); you'll have a set of Roman ruins without the crowds. Also look for Diocletian's baths, which are highly impressive and better preserved than Caraculla's. This is opposite the main rail station, (also a good museum over the road). At the station look for a crummy little wall that looks as if its been there forever. It more or less has - it was part of the Roman walls of Servus, from before Rome was a republic, let alone an empire. Finally, for a Roman town in good condition take your family to the beach at Ostia whilst you head a few hundred metres inland and explore Ostia antica.

They are in Rome Total War, but actually they were a different (and less well paid) outfit. That sort of thing in RTW is why I'm now playing Rome Total Realism. I'm not sure how this version handles the Praetorians as I keep losing to the Carthaginians before I get there. However, it's convinced me that I want to be in whatever part of the Roman army that didn't have to face elephants or missile cavalry.

The animals that shared the parricide's sack were meant to embody the different vices that had driven our victim to parricide. Note also that killing fathers specifically was patricide. Parricide, I believe, included bumping off any senior member of the family, but specifically the paterfamilias (who might not be the father). Given the bunch of ghouls on this thread , I'm surprised that the Persian 'boats' have not come up yet. I'd go into detail, but I'm about to have dinner. Specifics in Plutarch's Artaxerxes for those who want to know why that's significant.

As we know the days of the week are all pagan gods/goddesses Monday = moon day Tuesday = Tiuw, god of war Wednesday = Woden Thursday = Thor Friday = Freya, goddess of fertility Saturday = Saturn, god of crops and the underworld Interestingly, when the Italians took this on, they simply switched to the equivalent Roman pagan gods. Lunedi = luna, the moon Martedi = Mars, god of war Mercoledi = Mercury Giovedi = Jupiter, the thunderer Venerdi = Venus Sabato = Saturn and the only one which was changed is Domenica = the Lord's day.

This is something I have needed to follow up for a while. Is there in fact a connection between the noble Vitelli of the early republic and Vitellius? (Cf Brutus and the Tarquinian conspiracy) I think Plutarch refers to the family as being descended from a river nymph, but this could be a Roman joke making fun of Vitellius' famous corpulence. Suetonius says that the emperor may or may not have been of ancient lineage, and mentions that they lived on the Vitellan way off the Janiculum, which suggests that they had been about for a bit.

A goodly part of the problem was that the Principate was not a regular office within the Roman constitution. By and large you became a Roman emperor ad hoc, and hoped the title stuck. Every Roman emperor had a nervous moment or two at succession for this reason. This lack of established criteria meant that any member of the old noble families (and this applied also to plebeians such as the Gracchi) were potential rivals for the purple. As a result, people like Nero spent a lot of time bumping them off. (And even then he was succeeded by a noble of ancient lineage called Sulpicius Galba). Also, replacement rates in Rome were negative. The city was so unhealthy that it needed constant replenishment from outside. Patricians tended to live in the city. As a result, some like the Horatii don't even make it to the mid-republic. Bear in mind that a Roman woman needed on average six children to keep the replacement rate stable, and you can see how even a minor point (such as a paranoid emperor) can tip a family into extinction.

I think I even have that - try either La rete stradale romana fra Brescia, Bergamo e Milano. Vecchie e nuove prospettive (Coradazzi, 1974). or if it was not there, its the even more chunky Strade romane: Percorsi e infrastrutture: Rome, Bretschneider 1993 (Gigli Quilici) sicuramente, nell Italiano, invece ... in my Bibliography suggestions I have also Ray Laurence, ,The Roads of Roman Italy Routledge 1999 E. Ruoff-V

Okay - I found my notes. (The joy of being organized!) Here's how I reached my conclusion. The original 50,000 mile figure seems to have come from an old but still highly authoritative treatise by a bloke called Bergier, which he got by adding the length of the 372 major highways which existed at the time of Diocletian. These are the Consular and Praetorian roads - roads long enough to cross local administrative boundaries and therefore fall under the purveiw of the imperial administration. The interstate motorways, if you will. My figure includes the viae communales - those roads built by local government and provincial governors. The A and B roads if you prefer. This was based on a figure from an archaeological journal which studied the provincial road networks (in North Italy, I think) and concluded that there were slightly over three miles of viae communales (servicing the local region) for every mile of road which transected it. This figure does not include all Viae Vicinales, which were sometimes private roads, but linking roads, and roads leading to civitates, but not roads to oppidae (small towns). Note also that this figure does include viae privatae if they were maintained at private expense as a public service. On reflection, 'highways' might be wrong. Any suggestions for a road which is more than a back road, but not necessarily a consular or praetorian road? 'Paved road', 'all weather road?'

I think I had better join in the hunt. If I've given the Romans three times too many miles of road, this will be both infuriating and embarrassing. I'll get back to my notes to find what the dickens is going on. Glad that you are enjoying the rest of the book - fortunately many of the general public think so too. It's going for a reprint, and the if this is an error (and why do I get a horrible sinking feeling as I write that?), we can get it sorted out in the next edition.

Gallic infantry (very) irregular. Cool spiky hair style, incredibly cheap uniform, lots of quaffing and wenching, and I get to go home if my first charge don't work.

Good points. Generally, yes. But when we have a situation where a practice is very common - if not universal - then it it is up to those wishing to claim an exception for a particular time or society to make their case. This is why I suggested some means by which this could be done. However, my main reason for returning to this topic was to share a particular paryrus I've just come across in the course of working on something else. It's dated 17 June 1 BC, and is from Egypt (which makes it something of a special case) Hilarion to Alis his sister, fondest greetings, and to my dear Berous and Apollonarion. Know that we are still even now in Alexandria. Do not worry if I remain in Alexandria when all the others get back. I beg and beseech of you to take care of the little child, and as soon as we receive wages I will send them to you. If-and may all go well!-you have the child, if it is a male, let it live; if it is a female, expose it. You told Aphrodisias, 'Do not forget me.' How can I forget you? So I'm begging you not to worry. Oxyrhynchus papyrus 744. G The 29th year of Caesar, Pauni 23.

drat! duplicate post. sorry

My whinge about Caesar is not that he was killed, but that he was not killed soon enough. The issue is not simply one related to ancient history. There are those who believe that Caesar's story shows that it is right that a corrupt and failing democracy should be replaced by an efficient and functional military dictatorship. Problem is, even if you start with Caesar, you end with Caligula.

Hence the weasel word 'tend' in my posting. I've heard the Finley example brought up before in a seminar on oral tradition, and the response was (something like) 'extrapolating from the particular to the general is a dangerous exercise - even if we mean a particular [German] general!' A good book on the topic of ancient 'oral memory' is Rosalind Thomas's Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (CUP)

Welcome Caroline - I've only been here a few days myself, and I hope you'll have as much fun as I'm having. Already spending an unhealthy amount of time here. Is there a UNRV addicts forum? Thanks for the kind words about 5 denarii a Day. I must say, I've never had a book that I enjoyed writing so much. I'm glad you found it an enjoyable read too. Maty

This thread has its counterparts in a number of academic debates. There's two schools - the hyper-criticals, who are exemplified by Wiseman (cf Clio's cosmetics) who believe that nothing of Rome can be known until the 240s BC, as the rest is a hopeless collection of myths. Then there's the Fidentists, (myself among them) who agree with Carandini that the foundation legend, though heavily embroidered and with mythopaedic elements added, is essentially correct. The fidentist argument is In the ancient world, cities were always autocthonous (i.e. they were always there) or they were foundations. Italy was not empty at the time of Rome's foundation (Veii was less than 20 miles away) so anything growing organically would get squashed as soon as it became a potential threat. That's why the first act of the founders was to build a wall. (Especially as the new city sat across an ancient trade route - the Via Salaria) Organic cities grow from houses to hamlets to villages to towns within nation-states. There is no record of this type of growth in a world of city-states such as archaic Italy. The rite of the ver sacra shows that foundations were happening at this period. Archeology has not managed to disprove the foundation legend. If anything, it shows the dating to be accurate. Illiterate societies such as early Rome tend to have strong, and essentially reliable oral traditions, which would have retained core facts about the foundation. (Note that even in the historical period the Romans were practicing rites which they themselves admitted were frankly incomprehensible - a sign of a people who didn't change things much. A comet corresponding approximately with the death of Romulus (the sidus Romulus) was reported by the Chinese, who are considered more reliable than the 'Romans' at this time. On a different topic, The Tarquins of Rome are meant to have come from Corinth via Tarquinia in Etruria. There is nothing particularly incredible about that either.

H'mm I'll stand corrected on this. Plutarch is specific about the number - 78 escapees. The word for the place where they got their culinary arsenal is harder to translate - the most accurate would be 'cooking shop', but maybe some language specialists can have a go. It's the Life of Crassus 8. Given the number of spits in even a standard Roman kitchen, I'd reckon on picking up a dozen at least in a street eatery. Add about the same in cleavers and carving knives, and you probably have enough to get out of town with. (They found the rest of their kit outside town whilst heading for the hills)

A minor, and possibly irrelevant point is that when Spartacus & co came rampaging out of their gladiator school, the first bit of Italy which they pillaged was a local takeaway where they equipped themselves with carving knives, cleavers, and enough assorted cutlery to fight their way out of town. Either the presence of such a nearby takeway was a fortunate co-incidence, or more probably (as the archaeological evidence suggests) local eateries were even more common than similar establishments today.

I don't think that the Romans were very comfortable with exposure. However, at times the choice was between killing one child or the whole family starving. (I still remember meeting an old Zulu in South Africa whose mother had named him 'Sofazonke' -Now we are all going to die - in rather the same spirit.) If exposure is rather shameful, and taken for granted, then it is not going to get a lot of mention in the sources - which are a lot more plentiful for the empire than the republic. After all, lack of evidence for something is not the same as saying that something did not happen, especially if there is not a lot of evidence to go around. We know that exposure was practiced by ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Chinese. I'm not going to go as far as to say it was the norm in the ancient world, but given the condition of ancient medicine, by far the safest way of disposing of an unwanted child was after the birth. And sadly, then as now, not all children were wanted. Therefore, the onus would be on those who would argue that exposure was not practiced. For example any cases of infanticide in the republic where parents were prosecuted for killing their babies by exposing them.