ASCLEPIADES

Sardis?

Salve! With rare exceptions, historical films tend to depict better the actual filming culture and epoch than the purportedly filmed culture and epoch. Kubrick's "Spartacus" tell us much more about the US of the fifties and sixties than about the Late Roman Republic. That's what makes it such a classical film.

Salve! There's an even easier rational explanation for the multiple unrelated building of pyramids or pyramid-like structures; it is the most stable of your possible geometrical designs, because the bulk of the mass is closer to the ground and consequently there is less weight pushing down from above. If you simply get stone over stone or sand over sand, you will always end with a pyramidal structure, even if you are an ant or a termite.

Salve! Discovered by the famous Mary Leakey, the Laetoli footprints are the oldest known from humans to this day (at least 3.6 million years old). They were formed by two or three upright-walking hominids, probably Australopithecus afarensis. and preserved by a chance combination of events -- a volcanic eruption, a rainstorm, and another ashfall.

Felicem natalem dies, S! Sorry for being late. BTW, your birthdate is the dies Idus Sextilis. Cheers!

Salve! I think this article pinpoints some additional risky exposures to lead toxicity on the Eastern side of the Roman World, namely mummy preparation, pigment handling (maybe including cosmetics) and also its trade (presumably by sea), even when the actual metal source was on the Western half. Thus, this is a welcome and unexpected contribution to another thread.

Salve! "There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life." Karl Popper "To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Roy P. Basler "History consists of a series of accumulated imaginative inventions." Fran

Salve, I! Ruins of Hippos next to the Genesaret "Sea". The same city (Hippus) on Judea map.

Salve, DN! I assume we are talking about the fiction at the Graves/Pullman Universe and not about historical evidence per se. The sixth episode of the series, "some justice", states clearly (via Martina) the participation of little Caligula on the killing of Germanicus, his own father. Needless to say, all of this happened long before the Capri experience. This is eventually confirmed by the adult Caligula himself on the ninth episode "Jupiter, by Jove!" Remember, all of this is fiction. For a historical discussion, try UNRV.

Salve! X-traordinary claims require X-traordinary proofs. The quid is not the estimation of the statistical chance for life existence outside the Earth (anyway, we simply don't have enough information. It's like estimating the chance for the existence of a doppelganger of any of us anywhere; the only

Salve! This coin depicts the return by the Parthians to Augustus of one of the standards lost by Crassus' legions. The Legion is identified by a number ten ("X"), ie a Tenth Legion.

This is a very good question that had troubled scholars for decades. I can only give you a short answer now and here, but it will probably require more commentary. Finley made the quite cleaver remark that the slave-owners of XVIIth Century Haiti, a tiny colony which produced more than 25% of the income of Le Roi Soleil, would have been surprised by the XXth Century economist assertion that they should have been loosing money. Slave trade has been one of the main forces of Capitalism development and as such, its abolition had commonly required the use of plenty of force. Immediately before the Civil War in the US, less than 25% of the population of the Confederate states were slaves; but that was enough reason for fighting four years with more than half a million casualties. In modern terms, your addressed question is something like asking: "Is the drug trade profitable at all?". At Augustean Rome, MT Varro was very well aware of the hidden costs of slaves and gave his own advice about when to use slaves or freemen in specific situations: (Rerum Rusticarum Book I, Chapter XVII, sec. 73-74): "The freemen who cultivate the land do so either on their own account, as do many poor people with the aid of their own children, or for wages, as when the heaviest farm operations, like the vintage and the harvest, are accomplished with the aid of hired freemen: ...With respect to the use of freemen in agriculture, my own opinion is that it is more profitable to use hired hands than one's own slaves in cultivating unhealthy lands, and, even where the country is salubrious, they are to be preferred for the heaviest kind of farm work, such as harvesting and storing grapes and corn." Having said that, slave trade was, like any other trade, ruled by the old market laws of supply and demand. The huge supply at the end of the Republican era made slave labour extremely cheap and profitable, and was surely one of the main mechanisms for the success of the Empire. As far as I know, a mixture of low supply and high demand is probably the best and more parsimonious explanation for the end of massive chattel slavery at the Late Empire and its substitution by coloni/serf labour.

Nice link. The article talks about African countries, especially Sahel countries, all of them extremely poor. One of them (Niger) is currently the last on the United Nations Development Fund index of human development (ie, the poorest country in the world) (Here). Contrary to the US, in those countries $40 is a little fortune. Here is another related link of amodern anti-slavery movement. Their work is extremely important for the prevention and control of human abuse and trafficking, especially sexual trade affecting children and women, frequently disguised as pseudo-cultural local manifestations. Maybe you remember in the US a more conventional non-sexual episode of working abuse over some Mexican illegal deaf-mute immigrants in 1997 (Here). The labour of these groups merits more diffusion and international support. But we must remember that these nowadays criminal activities are classified as slavery using a very broad sociological definition; most of them wouldn't be considered as such by the much more stringent ancient Roman law. In fact, in Ancient Rome their condition would be closer to the supposedly free coloni ("serfs" in medieval slang).

Sorry, my mistake. Apparently there were some notorious exceptions, like T. Labienus. It's interesting that even if he brought some 3,700 soldiers with him to the republican side, they were mainly Gallic and German cavalry Anyway, there is some evidence of considerable desertion from both sides, depending on the ostensible odds (ie, from Caesar after Dyrrhachium and to Caesar after Pharsalus). Presumably, oaths were required from each side.

Felicem diem natalem, WW!

If the Sacramentum thesis is right, it doesn't matter if the chief was Caesar, Sulla or any other general; the soldiers simply had to obey at risk of their lives. Apparently, the strength of this oath took precedence over any other allegiance, even to the Senate itself. Until anyone of us gets evidence that overrules such statements, we have to accept them. If that

Someone should have told that to Scipio in Zama or Paulus in Pydna. Why? The Roman Republic conquered the Mediterranean world long before the Marian reforms; the logistical and communication problems that you mentioned were clearly solved in some other way.

Salve. These are the introductory words of Dr Simon Corcoran to his course about Slavery in the Classical World at University College London: "Slavery is a feature common to most ancient societies, being in general a normal, unexceptional and unchallenged institution. In the modern world, however, it is regarded as contravening the most basic concepts of human rights, and attempts continue to be made to eliminate it, where it survives, and to address its legacy, even where it has been abolished". Your observation about the relationship of prevalence and acceptance of slavery is relevant; the main problem I see with your working theory is that other societies with few slaves had apparently also a high acceptance. Within the Empire, Egypt would be an example. It's striking for me that even those who wrote on the moral issues of slavery, such as Plutarch, Cicero and Seneca, did not claim that the institution should be abolished. Instead, they merely commented on the proper way to treat slaves. You could say the same about diverse religions, and not only Christianity; mithraism, stoicism and the cult of Isis were also examples.

Salve, WW! Ephesus?

If you check out, my point has always been that slaves were human treated in many ways as animals; that's where the analogy works and what I find interesting. If they were treated as animals because they were effectively animals, it would hardly had any interest (at least for me). If I gave you that idea , you would have been right to worried about my intelligence level. Believe me, that's a stunning misrepresentation. I never said the freed slaves in Rome were few; I said they were minority (against the majority of Roman slaves who died unfree). What that frequency of freed slaves demonstrates is that the Romans had a lot of slaves to begin with, whatever they thought about them. And once again, that manumissions were good business; more clients for each patronus, more Salonius for each Cato. That is one of the reasons why the Roman goverment had to regulate manumissions. I'm certainly amazed if you ever think I'm trying to whitewash slavery. And yes, you are getting now to the real point; slavery is morally reprehensible for us, not for the Romans (or BTW, for any other people of their time). Even rebel slaves from the Servile Wars were fighting to freed themselves, not to abolish slavery. Even them accepted slavery as a fact of life. This is certainly a huge difference between them and us that requires a good explanation. Any ideas? Being slave legal status such a complex matter, Romans were not the only peculiar people about handling of slaves and freedmen; vg, any of the hundreds of Hellenic polis had its own peculiarities evolving through the centuries. For example, Cleisthenes incorporated some freedmen to the citizen body even from the VIth Century BC.(this was probably full citizenship). A cpuple of Roman peculiarities: Augustus expressly prohibited freedmen from office-holding with his lex Malacitana. Even worse, while freedmen were allowed to vote just like other Roman citizens, they were almost always confined to the urban tribes and they were not eligible for equestrian rank no matter how wealthy they might be. This effectively, though not explicitly, prevented them from holding political office. I expect to not have avoided your point. Some of your original quotes are "Weep for Corinth if you'd like, but praise Mummius that the remaining glory of Greece was saved." and "...their success--expulsion of the Romans--would have removed Greece from Roman protection, and left it (at best) vulnerable to invasion from the very same enemies that Greece had always faced (including other Greeks!). " And let's see my distorted view: "It's like saying that the destruction of the second city of Hellas was a little price for the joy of being ruled by Rome." Certainly, the original statements spoke loudly. I think it was germane to this discussion as another example of what I called "unbeatable optimism"; I think you almost always try to see first (if not exclusively) the bright moral side of any Roman Republic's action, even when we talk about slavery or polis anihilation. It's not like if I thought that you have to made an appology for that. It's simply your opinion. It's certainly not mine, and I also expect not to be required to apologize for that. BTW, I don't think it's useful for the analysis of social phenomena to make any kind of moral qualifications about them.. Maybe. Well, let's try to live up to the expectations..

Roman slaves were considered as animals, ruled as animals, traded as animals, treated as animals (OK, sometimes worse), studied as animals and even defended by animal defenders (vg, Plutarch). That said, the analogy does break down. Unlike modern domestic animals, the vast majority of Roman slaves never enjoyed any legal right. Ergo, the delights of the slavery experience of millions during centuries were rewarded when the minority of survivors was freed for becoming exploited as half-free coloni and urban clients in the vast majority of cases (Chrysogonus and Pallas were clearly the exception, not the rule). BTW, the Romans were far from being the sole manumitters of Antiquity; the peculiarity was that the Romans had several well-attested legal restrictions for freedmen. I must admit your optimism is unbeatable. It's like saying that the destruction of the second city of Hellas was a little price for the joy of being ruled by Rome. Oh, wait... you have said that.

Salve, CO! I guess it was Britannicus. Well, actually, it was both of them that she charged with the delivery of the message. Not that it mattered, as her spinal cord was severed very quickly thereafter by a very swiftly applied gladius! OK - which actor connects 'I, Claudius' and 'Hallo, Hallo' (probably more one for the Brits - unless our cousins have seen the latter comedy series). This should occupy you all for a little while. Salve, Lady A! I guess it was Guy Siner. Cheers & have fun.

True, but the soldiers, the real target of that oath, followed and supported Sulla enthusiastically, they even stimulated him. Quoting MPC once more (well, in fact it's Plutarch) they stoned to death the military tribunes sent by the Senate under Marius' influence.

Salve, CO! I guess it was Britannicus.

Quoting MPC: "Legally, the sacrumentum, or military oath, was sworn to the presiding commander, to whom the soldier vowed to obey, to execute the orders of his officers, and not to desert (Polyb. 6.21.2). Oaths to the republic itself--which might have saved Rome from Caesar's designs--were typically required of foreign nations and allies, but such an oath was never required of soldiers. Thus, Caesar had only to command his men to cross the Rubicon, and they had no choice in the matter." and admitting that what there is said about Caesar can also be applied to other Roman Generals (ie, Sulla), this oath was a clear restriction of consular and constitutional authority. I understand that the length of this oath was radically extended by the "Marian" reforms. Now, the Lex Gabina (67 BC), Lex Manilia (66 BC) and Lex Vatinia (59 BC) couldn't have had any effect over the first march of a Roman Army against Rome by Sulla at 88 BC, almost two decades after the "Marian" reforms. MPC also mentioned the enthusiastic support given to Sulla by his soldiers, ie when they stoned the tribunes send by the Senate under Marius' influence; I think it's evident that Sulla would have not been able to attack Rome without such support. I also think that no Roman general in the pre-marian era even tried to march over Rome, at least from the time of the Punic wars. My obvious question is: Do you think the "Marian" reforms (or any other reform from the late II and/or early I Centuries BC) had anything to do with the feasibility of Roman commanders like Sulla to convince their soldiers to do the unthinkable and attack Rome?