Germanicus

The patent/copywrite thing is an interesting point, something I'd never considered before. I wonder what the attitude was, or if indeed there was an "attitude" to writers that copied word for word from earlier ones ? I also edited the topic, feel free to continue discussion of anything that may/may not have impeded technological advancement.

mmm...I suppose something to do with wanting to appear as mother of her country ? Cornelia mother of the Gracchiesque ?

Constantine converted to Christianity, and issued an edict banning Gladiatorial contests in 325AD. He did not however, enforce it. Gladiatorial contests continued for at least another 92 years until an incident at the games in 404AD involving a protesting monk being torn to death by a gladiatorial crowd, after which Honorius enforced the ban. I believe Cato is probably correct in that Constantine was certainly enthusiastic about the games prior to his conversion - why else would he mint coins like this one for sale on eBay ? I must admit to not knowing much about what went on over on the eastern side of things - Rameses - as Cato requested, could you advise the source that advises no gladiatorial fights in the east - even before Christianity ? Now - back to Roman Slaves

Ahhhh, it's all falling into place. I suppose for the purposes of the Imperial cult they needed plenty of ageless, recognizable god like statues too.

Do you think the relatively low social status of artisans, craftsmen and trade proffessionals under the Empire also served to limit technological advances ?

Seems to me you've got some good separate thread topic there Legionnaire.

What do you make of those which came after Augustus, that do seem veristic ? Like Nero, Tiberius to an extent.....perhaps not Claudius, but the Flavian Emperors certainly. Your theory does fit with the sculptures of Julius Caesar after his death, mostly showing an equally virile, muscular, imperious man...with a full head of hair. Some of them even bear a striking resemblance to Octavian. (The one on the cover of my civil wars penguin classic for example)

I was relying on the above and below to an extent. I think this whole thread is fanciful. Gaius you are presupposing a whole host of factors, as in fact am I. Which army has better morale ? When my larger force and your smaller one clashes - how do you know how my battle line is formed ? How do we know how your second (as I understand it your force is divided into two, not three) force will react to seeing your first taking heavy casualties ? Do my men like me more than yours like you ? If I did take the hill, and you surround me - won't your forces be very spread out ? Where as I can punch through your thin line etc etc. It's all conjecture - I am now bowing out of this thread, largely because I find it as annoying as so many other "what if" threads, which go nowhere and end up going round in circles - as this is beginning to. Armchair generals are just that. But please - have fun.

Can you explain this for me ?

I wouldn't have even begun to move my force until your already divided one was separated by at least 200 yards. Needless to say, I'd attack you as soon as either force made a move to meet up with the other. The hill was never my objective - attacking half your force was.

That, Cato - is an excellent point !

The link below shows a HBO Rome DVD of the first episode only....weird. 1st Episode

If I were a Samnite general and I saw you dividing your forces, I'd hasten to one hill with my entire force immediately.

He almost certainly does - But his point is not that the Romans "should" have done anything - I think it's mostly that Romans and those they termed Barbarians, were not so different or more backward in many ways. But as we have no great Celtic or Germanic Iron age authors to read - we only know what the Romans told us, which I believe is a fair point.

That's interesting sullafelix, kind of importing skills rather than developing their own. The book in question is called Romans and Barbarians, by Derek Williams. The introduction is a long "levelling" of the playing field - where Williams not only discusses lack of agricultural advancement, but also a lack in areas like mathematics (lack of a zero) physics (strong is stable forms but weak in dynamics) chemistry(no notion of theoretical chemistry) and he reserves particular scorn for Roman metallurgy. I don't really know what I think of it yet as I only read the intro last night...mmm

Why do you think Roman agriculture techniques advanced so little in so many hundred years of Empire ? Got another theory ? The Aurthor mentions that the Gauls invented a corn harvester - the Romans didn't even know the wheelbarrow. (Although he doesn't footnote his source on this, which is annoying)

In some recent reading, the author wrote that he believed that technological advancement in terms of agriculture particularly, upon which the Roman economy was largely based, was stunted in Ancient Rome due to slavery. His basic premise was that with a surplus of free labour, the Romans had no impetus to find labour saving devices or techniques. What do you think ?

I don't know, but suspect it would have been the word for Hemp - "cannabinum" ?

Around 70AD Dioscorides speaks of the Romans using Cannabis seed or it's derivatives as a medical treatment. In 170AD Galen, Physician to Marcus Aurelius, Verus, Commodus and Septimus Severus discusses the psycho active properties of Cannabis seed cakes.

No, not a silly question - I'm curious too. He always looks the same age in the statues I've seen. But I've seen Julius Caesar statues of widely varying ages.

Wasn't Marcus Aurelius an opium addict ?

So the Republican System as it was, always had the potential to produce just such a circimstance in your view ? I think this goes back to that earlier thread you started on Reforms that could have saved the Republic. I feel that yes, the period of the Triumvirate did bring to the fore some major problems, that had not been encountered in such a manner before, along with underlying issues that had been ignored for a long time. I also think that there was something essentially floored about a system that was open to such abuse. I feel that the Triumvirate was a symptom of this floored system.

The Triumvirate produced instability....and the Republic produced the Triumvirate no ?

What did you mean by "almost went out of service" ? Out of use ? No longer maintained ?