Maty

Indeed, Livia's dad stared life as yet another Appius Claudius Pulcher. Tiberius was doubly a Claudian as Livia's first marriage was back into the line - though to a different branch. I got my reference for Asina is in Val. Max though I'd be surprised if Polybios (and therefore Livy) don't give the story an airing as well. I'll look it up later and let you know. (Am currently dummy in a round of bridge, and as my partner is wrapping things up nicely, I'd better do the same!)

I do ancient history. Teach it, write about it. I won't get rich that way, but it's a reasonable living. And as someone once said - the secret of happiness is to find what you like, and figure out how to get paid for doing it.

One of the places to look for Roman body language is statuary. It's not my field, but I know that you can read a lot about a statue depending on how the person is standing, what he/she is holding or using their hands for. Bas-reliefs, which tend to be more used in depicting everyday life will be particularly useful here. Re thumbs up/down, try this experiment - (mentally) hold a sword in a fencing grip, so that your thumb faces forward and parallel to the blade and then try sheathing it to put it away. See how your thumb turns down? Now imagine someone kneeling holding on to your thigh whom you are going to stab by driving the sword through the base of his bowed neck. (which is how gladiators delivered the coup de grace) and yup, your thumb is up.

I can't help much here, because we are looking at a time when Roman history has just tiptoed over the line from being myth. Appius Claudius Caecus is one of the first Romans we can be reasonably certain existed as he was described in the historical record. Before that we have to take historians like Livy on faith. Consequently, the only mention we have about this family cult of Hercules comes from the story of Ap. Claud himself. In more general terms of this discussion a rather good description of the early Claudians is in the Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974- I think) "Personality and Power: Livy's Depiction of the Appii Claudii in the First Pentad" by Ann Vasaly. All we know of the Potitii is in connection with Ap. Claud going blind, which this story tries to explain. Why he removed management of the cult from the family is unknown, but given that we are talking of Appius Claudius Caecus, spite and malice probably played a part. I can help with Scipio Asina though - first of the line with that name was also Rome's first Admiral during the Carthaginian wars. He took Rome's shiny new fleet (first attempt by Rome to become a sea power) and ran it straight into a Carthaginian ambush. Lost the fleet, lost the crews and was taken prisoner. The Carthaginians who won with hardly a man hurt released him, perhaps in the hope that he'd do it again. Anyway, he got the name 'Asina' for pure bone-headed incompetence, and the feminine ending was, I fear, intended to compound the insult as the Romans believed that ladies made less competent generals, or admirals for that matter. Also, perhaps we should give a mention to Attus Clausus, the very first of Rome's Claudian line, who joined the Republic almost the day it was founded. (Invited in by Valerius Poplicola.) Also don't underestimate the Nerones. It was a Claudius Nero who won the battle of the Metaurus in 207, and so prevented crucial reinforcements from reaching Hannibal. The reason the name became popular in the imperial era was because Livia, wife of Augustus was originally married to Tiberius Claudius Nero, who was the father of the emperor Tiberius. (Livia was also a Claudian by blood incidentally, though adopted into the Livian clan.)

The ultimate boy toy was undoubtedly Antinoos, a beautiful lad whom the emperor Hadrian picked up in Asia Minor, and fell for like a ton of bricks. He eventually drowned at age 18 in the Nile in rather odd circumstances, and the distraught Hadrian founded a city on the spot and made him a god. Way to go! Two other minor comments - if you are that way inclined and you have a boy toy, why not go for it? Especially as it would rather damage your image if it got out that you were not performing. Also, in the Republic, especially the early Republic, this was (barely) tolerated behaviour but not something to particularly flaunt. Secondly, it is interesting that the very hereosexual Pompey was regarded as effeminate in that he showed genuine tenderness toward his various wives - being macho counted for more than the gender of the person you got macho on.

One of the interesting things about the Parthenon is that despite appearances there is hardly a straight line in the entire building. Most of the optical tricks are to make the building seem bigger. The columns lean slightly inward, and narrow at the top so as to appear higher than they are. They are also spaced slightly closer at the corners to mimic the effect of greater foreshortening through distance. I'm not sure it was a propaganda thing though. The theory I'm taken with is that by making the building seem even more massive than it was (for example by putting eight columns on the front instead of the traditional six for a Doric temple), the structural reinforcement seems more delicate and the building more graceful as a result. I also like the idea of an unsettling subliminal disharmony which you mention. Given that one can make a case that the Parthenon is possibly the most beautiful temple ever built (especially when you consider the setting), I'd say that Greek architects knew pretty much what they were doing. Admittedly they may not have the names for the psychology that was being applied, but you can do a lot by building on empirical evidence of what works.

Thanks for the figures here Cato - I'm doing some work on Delphi at the moment, and was looking for something like this. As far as we know the Pythia received only a mild to moderate dose. Firstly, the chamber took time to have its potency restored after each use, and secondly, more potent gusts spilled out of the chamber (as Plutarch records) Also, the Pythia was red-faced and breathless after each session (rather than non compos mentis), though the general theory was that possession by Apollo tends to have that sort of effect. It's also interesting that when the oracle deteriorated and finally stopped working, the priests at Delphi admitted it, and did not try to run some form of charade.

Many if not most people, speak to their god/gods. The process is called 'prayer'. In the ancient world, the Gods certainly talked back. However, ancient gods were patrons of the entire community, and much less interested in the individual than the average modern deity. Therefore, their messages tended to be 'broadcast' by way of things like portents, and significant lightning bolts, which average citizens were obliged to report to the priestly authorities, who decided if this was indeed a divine message, and if so, a) which god was involved, and what he was hinting at. If an individual or community had a direct question for the Gods, then it was off to the appropriate oracle for a consultation. Contrary to an earlier post ('the Pythia of Delphi ... would drool and go into a frenzy and mutter gibberish' ) The Pythia answered questions in a clear, calm voice. She actually sat in an underground chamber curtained off from the questioner, so if she did decide to do any drooling this was up to her, and did not affect the visitor's oracular experience in any way. Modern theory is that the mountain on which Delphi is situated had an underground spring, and the interaction of water on the rocks there allowed the chamber to fill with sweet-smelling hydrocarbon fumes. These, according to modern researchers produce an illusion of immense mental clarity. Nor would the ancients have disagreed with any of this - Plutarch (who was a priest of Delphi) says pretty much the same thing. Only he believed that the clarity thus induced allowed the voice of the god to be heard. There are many other instances in the ancient histories of of the Gods dropping in for a chat with mortals, from when an early Julian claimed to have met Romulus after his death and transformation into the god Quirinus to when Athena appeared in a dream to several people in Ephesus, and breathlessly announced that she had been busily wrecking the siege engines of Mithridates at Cyzicus (which were indeed destroyed in a storm that night.) How much of this strikes you as credible depends on your own set of beliefs. However, I note that a piece of toast which spontaneously generated an image of the Virgin Mary recently sold for a good price on eBay.

Latin I can more or less understand, depending on who wrote it, but to some degree that's part of my job. It's Greek that I need to wrap a wet towel around my head before I start. Translating bits of Thucydides, as I've had to recently, is advanced mental torture ...

Two other social effects - not necessarily of Cannae but of the entire second Punic war. One was the extensive devastation of the economic base of south Italy, which took generations to recover, and considerably increased the creation of Latifundia and urbanization of the dispossessed. The other is more controversial, and points out that the Roman invasion of Greece was akin to a massive slave raid, and the tens of thousands of Greeks shipped to Italy would have compensated (albeit a generation later) for much of the lost manpower. The immediate aftermath of Cannae, as I recall, was that the Romans became more Roman. The surviving consul (whom Roman historians regard as the culpable general) was not criticized, but thanked for not despairing of the Republic and returning to Rome. Young Scipio Africanus made all his colleagues swear to continue the good fight, and the survivors of Cannae - who had not done anything wrong apart from not getting killed - were sent to rot in disgrace in Sicily. A more long-term effect was that the Romans, who were very poor at forgiving and forgetting, came to the conclusion that 'Carthago delenda est' which they duly did in the third punic war. Oh, and on the Carthaginian side, his victory stopped Hannibal getting any help from Carthage, as the city decided that their general was evidently doing well enough without it.

Somewhere near the start of Tacitus' Histories, I think, we get what purports to be a long whinge from a common- and highly mutinous - legionary. It gives a good view of a soldier's life on the gorund - or at least what Tacitus imagined it to be, and he did research things quite well. (For instance when describing Vesuvius he wrote to survivors to ask their experiences). Bear in mind most soldiers spent little time actually fighting. In any army, the real enemies are the NCOs and the quartermaster, with the enemy a sort of background factor, like the weather. I don't think you are going to get an actual description of battle experience of the kind you are looking for, because even these days, people who have been 'at the sharp end' tend to keep discussions of these matters among themselves. As they say - you had to be there to understand it. I can add that in my experience of a hot firefight, there is an awful lot to do in a very short time, and it's quite important to do it right. You are too busy concentrating to feel much emotion till afterward. I'd imagine that any legionary in battle who stopped to 'live the moment' probably wouldn't. However, look at Caesar's description of the final attempt to break out of Alesia, and, with a bit of imagination you get a pretty clear idea of what it might be like.

Those who have not seen this might find it interesting ... apparently the Romans used a kind of glue to attach decorations to their helmets. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/12/14/r...w19-502-ak-0000 So those bits I glued on Roman helmets back when I made models were more historically accurate than I thought!

This is undoubtedly so. But how many of these immigrants claimed citizenship is another issue, though of course the question becomes moot after Caracalla when everyone was a citizen. However, in (for example) the very substantial Greek and Jewish communities in Rome, it is very probable that most people knew who was a citizen and who was not. Bear in mind that citizenship determined whom you could trade with and whom you could marry, so it was not just a status thing. In fact, generally the name itself was a dead giveaway, as those made citizens adopted the family name of their sponsor, and this gave another route of inquiry.

There's an interesting case when a Greek was accused of falsely assuming Roman citizenship under Claudius. The emperor had him face the prosecution in a Greek Chiton, and defend himself in a toga. Bear in mind that in the Roman world people were not particularly mobile, and most people in an area knew each other and made inquiries about strangers. Even Rome itself was more of a mosaic of tightly-knit neighbourhoods than a human antheap. As a result, it was usually straightforward to check on someone's status if there was a doubt - a query to the man's home town would usually be enough.

You might want to look at this book The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Thomas Spencer Jerome Lectures) (Paperback) by Paul Zanker and this one as well Antonia Augusta: Portrait of a Great Roman Lady by Nikos Kokkinos and finally this one Julius Caesar and His Public Image (Aspects of Greek and Roman life) by Zwi Yavetz Between them they cover pretty much all the ground you need.

Another way of doing this is to go with the general opinion of the Romans themselves, with the caveat that the historians that we get these opinions from were hardly neutral observers Marcus Aurelius - No recorded major objections to either character or governance Caracalla - Generally regarded as a vicious, fratricidal individual, but a reasonable emperor, at least on the military side Trajan - generally regarded as as good as it gets Hadrian - The Romans liked him a lot less than posterity. Seen as vindictive, having strange sexual inclinations, and being too clever by half Commodus - Generally considered a human disaster area, and the worst emperor since Nero Vespasian - earthy, full of common sense, tight-fisted. Overall, a positive report Titus - very positive, but it is acknowledged that his bad side (if any) did not have time to show Diocletian, Constantine, Claudius, Augustus - all highly controversial and good or bad depending which Romans you asked. Augustus was seen as brilliant, but finished his adoptive father's job of destroying Republican liberty.

As far as I know - and others will correct me if I am wrong - in Roman law, if a couple are married, any children of the wife are assumed to be of that union. This even applies if the father happened to have been off governing a province on the other side of the Mediterranean fro the past two years. However, the father has the option of rejecting the child for any reason whatsoever, whether he believes it is his or not. This decision would usually be taken after consultation with a family consilium (council). If this happens the outlook for the child is usually bleak. With an unmarried mother, a marriage would probably be hastily arranged, or failing that a 'holiday' to a distant relative. In any case, the decision as to what became of the child depended on the man in whose potestas (power) the woman was. Note that the children of women slaves were automatically slaves. In most other cases this would depend on the status of the father, though things get tricky if the woman is a foreigner (peregrina). If you can, look for a book called The Institutes of Gaius. It's a legal text that goes into this sort of thing with immense detail and relish.

While you are at it, have a look at labour trouble down at t'mint. I seem to recall a strike by the moneyers that got quite violent.

That's the thing about this period that makes it so fascinating. We have enough facts to go by, but not enough to spoil a good argument. Everyone on this board has, consciously or unconsciously tried to get into the heads of the Romans, to work out what makes them tick and to understand their view of the universe. And when you think you are getting there, you find something that makes you change your views again. However you imagine Rome and the Romans to have been, rest assured that you are to some degree wrong. That said, there are times, even in translation and across two thousand years, when you read something, and it speaks to you so directly that you realize we and the Romans also have a lot in common.

It is certain that this was not a common practice. Roman religion was usually fastidious about the spilling of human blood. Even when the Romans sacrificed the occasional Greek or Gaul they did it by burying them alive. The nearest I can find to Vorenus' behavious is in Catiline, where the conspirators swear an oath of secrecy sealed by drinking a mixture of wine and human blood. Using human blood in religion, and the accusation of drinking it was a charge used against Christians - an understandable misconception if you happen to have just dropped in on a Christian mass. Note also that the practice of smashing champagne against a ship's bows on launching was originally red wine, which was originally blood, but that's Vikings and Saxons for you.

In a way you could say that Augustus lived in the original palace, in that the word 'palace' indirectly derives from 'Palatine'. Originally, the Palatine on the side facing the Sacra Via, was the best address in Rome. Over time the hill became more and more taken over by religious and imperial buildings, until only the emperors lived there. But even when these were not at home, a large number of bureaucrats (nicknamed 'palatini') were there. Incidentally, to correct an earlier posting, Trajan did not actually level a hill (the Quirinal, and a bit of the Esquiline, which are parts of the same ridge), he had the side of the hill dug away and terraced for his market.

One of the things to consider was the sheer number of aristocratic Romans who got the chop during the Unpleasantness of the 70s and 80s. Once Marius got back to Rome he conducted a purge which included everyone whom he didn't particularly like. This meant the only Roman aristocrats left in Rome by the time he had finished were pro-Marians, and they got the chop when Sulla came back and ran his own purge. This led firstly to a lot of traumatized Romans in the last generation of the Roman republic who as children had seen close relatives with their heads on pikes in the forum under Marius/Sulla (which explains some of their irrationality at the start of the civil wars). And secondly the purges led to a lot of Romans who did not occupy their family's habitual top spots in government on account of being dead and not breeding, which made life a lot easier for people such as Pompey, Cicero and Caesar.

Something else to bear in mind is that for the Romans one of the greatest tributes to a father was that his son should be worthy of him, or even greater. Therefore, honouring your father Roman-style means living your life in such a way as to do him honour. If every time you consider doing something you ask yourself 'would this make my father proud?' your actions will help to determine the construction of the greatest memorial a Romanophile father could ask for - yourself.

This is something of a hot potato among Roman demographers. I've seen quotes for a population of Rome as high as 4 million. No-one really knows the exact figure, and almost certainly not the Romans of the time. For instance it seems highly improbable that slaves were counted in a systematic way, and then as today, some resident foreigners will have actively resisted being counted. It seems very likely that the Romans tolerated far higher population densities than we do today, so you could cram a lot of people into the residental areas available. This was necessary as 2/3 of central Rome was taken up by monumental, religious and public space as well as the houses of the wealthy, so this left mainly the Esquiline and Transtiburina as residential areas for the majority. I estimate 200 AD at the time of peak development, though it is highly probable that by then the population had dropped sharply due to the plague that followed the eastern campaigns of Verus. So I'd guess that Rome hit a million in AD 150 - or even more, depending on what you count as 'Rome'.

drat - let's try again. See below