Germanicus

I would be a radical Popularis too Clodius.

Thanks PP!

Thanks all, will have to go back to Pliny the Elder. Now that you mention it, I do remember something about Marcus, maybe that was the real reason behind his Parthian campaign - the spoils included 50 talents of raw opium !

Briefly, Roman architecture sprung up wherever the empire went. I suppose architecture helped remind the vanquished of who was in charge, and what they were capable of technologicaly. Until roman invasion, those barbarian nations invaded would probably never have seen buildings constructed entirely of stone, nor buildings on such a scale. I would say that architecture was part of the process of Romanisation of provinces already conquered, but you can't really say that it "built" the empire. It helped to stabalise an Empire already in exsistance through military might.

For the earlier wars I would say that the money would have come from the Senate treasury, and would have been handed to the person (in most cases consul) who had been given command in the campaign, so that he could then go about arranging the logistics of the campaign, levying troops, organising supplies and equipment. I believe the General didn't do all that in person however, but had a subordinate Tribune who was specifically charged with overseeing logistics. But can't remember what this position was called. This setup didn't change during the republic, although generals started paying bonuses and monies from their own purse to the troops, to get loyalty directly for themselves, above and beyond SPQR. Senators with command could propose bills in the senate for more money and more troops if the initial amount ended up being insufficient, they would also have to do this if the campaign took longer than expected, and they required more time or an extension of their imperium. Later, Imperial campaigns I am less sure of - As the Emperor had permenant imperium. I suspect the Dacian campaign would still have had senate backing even though that backing was less important than before.

Can someone point me in the right direction on this ? Am I correct in assuming that alchohol was the drug mostly used for both medicinal purposes and recreational ones ? What about Opium ? One would think the Romans may have come into contact with it, and marijuana through the Parthian campaigns. I'm interested to know if they used these in medicine or for recreation, if at all ?

Thanks Skenderbeg - that was a great picture of it too !

Romes initial conquests seem almost forced upon her. By this I mean that the "idea" for invasion of the Italian allies like the Etruscans was as a result of the latins being in conflict with them already, it was "Invade or be invaded" There was a similar situation with Carthage, Romes hand finaly being forced by Hannibal. I am unsure on the reasons or basis for invading Macedonia and the Greek states, but later invasions like Gaul seem to stem directly from individuals desire for new clients, money, income and power. Germania was considered I believe because of the earlier Germanic invasions which had been turned back/defeated by Marius and Sulla. To Romans the Germans were seen as a constant threat, hordes of gigantic barbarians that could sweep through Italia at any time. Caesars official reason for Gallic invasion was that he was helping Gallic allied tribes repel other tribes not aligned with Rome, so when invasions were sanctioned by the senate, it was usually for a reason, but not always one based in fact, as I belive Caesars real motivation was money, power and popularity.

Caesar was certainly not happy with being accused of homosexual liaisons. There was an instance during his Gallic triumph where his soldiers sang a song that alluded to his rumoured afair with Nicomedes of Bythnia, he wasn't happy and had the centurions put an end to it. I think attitudes must have actually grown increasingly tolerant of bisexuality once individual Emeperors like Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius made a point of embracing all things Greek, for Hadrian this included Antonius' role as his passive lover. I believe the latin "fellator" referred to the person playing the passive riole in a homosexual oral encounter and was considered a gross insult. As you say Ursus - much better if a Roman to be the receiver in that situation !

Like most elements of Roman society, I think military service would have been relatively easy to get out of if you were rich. Pay the right office holder enough and you'd drop off the rolls. As for the pleb soldiers used after Marius, no idea how they would get out of it aside from running away (resulting ultimately in their deaths for cowardice) or suicide to save face, or perhaps another way would have been to sell yourself into slavery ? Slaves couldn't be in the legions could they ? You might have a crap life, but at least you wouldn't be in the Legions (maybe just the arena ).

Does anyone know if there were variations on the Testudo ? By that I mean - were the soldiers ever able to go into the formation, but with their pilum pointing outward either between or above their sheilds ? In that way they may have been able to withstand the first shock of a cavalry charge, locked together with the horses charging onto their outward pointing spears ? I suppose the formation wouldn't hold though for the same reason as skenderbeg mentions - a horse falling prone on one mans sheild would wreck the whole thing.

psyco class.....cool

Thanks for that correction P. Clodius - what were they ? 18th, 19th and ?

Arminius was my favourite, probably just because he's the one I know most about. Wiping out two legions in one ambush - that he himself set up. Winning the trust of Varus, so much so that dumb Varus was willing to lead his legions in a massive line 5 abreast through hadly pacified Germanian forest. I would have fallen on my sword too !

None of us are experts Sebastianus, thats the beauty of the forum. I often try to think of another individual who has echoed down through the ages as much as Caesar. Alexander certainly, then Caesar, but is it purely romanticism that prevents me from adding Napoleon to the list ? I don't think so. We have Caesars commentaries, and many other accounts of his exploits both political and military that lend weight to his legend. Along with the point that you make - that so many other rulers have been called by his name, none other seemed sufficient at the time I guess..........uh oh, I seem to have come down with a case of Divius Julius I suppose this is the topic to do it in ??

She was undoubtedly a very astute person. it was simply a timing issue that the man she ultimately had to deal with was Octavian - who recognised her for what she was - extreemly intelligent, and therefore dangerous.

Roman ideas, and consequentially Greek ideas were also spread through the provinces by the Legions - and by settlement of veterans in newly pacified lands. Legionaries gaurding the Rhine and Danube for example, often had wives and consequentially children in the neighbouring populations, and most major Military bases had surrounding settlements poulated by these families. This intermixing/marriages would have surely had some influence. The roads and infrastructure certainly would have helped spread roman and greek views/ways of seeing the world, and many Roman ideas were then carried beyond the fall of Rome itself by the Roman Catholic Church who preserved their language. It is interesting just how much you can tell about a culture from the language.

It's a very hard "what if" to answer. There are so many variables. I think Sparticus' question is more like - If there was an AMICABLE Rome-Carthage pact - that was workable - what would the outcome have been in terms of expansion, trade and Governance ? Most of Sparticus speculation involved expanded borders and conquest. I agree that it sounds illogical, but then an agreement for military co-operation between Germany and Japan would have sounded pretty unlikely considering their totally differnt cultures, and yet - it happened.

As the paterfamilias had the right of life or death over his entire family - how could woman have any real rights ? I think it was a PP said, women had influence throught their husbands and sons for the most part, with minimal protection from the state from major abuses. That being said there were elements of religeon that gave certain women power - the Vestal virgins and the festival of bona dea, that men other than the Pontifex Maximus really had no power over.

Did the velites throw pilum as their long range attack or some other kind of spear ? Regarding the celts - I agree with you, they were highly sophisticated in a lot of ways. I think the RTW representation is probably as accurate as they could make it. Particulary the British, who I believe did actually fight naked and were heavily tattooed.

Silentium, Yes, if I had been born in Iraq I would probably not be writing this. But I think for those who live in the west, it is hard to justify not taking responsibility for ones own circumstances. "Luck" is something intangible, that is not supernatural in my opinion, merely a random convergence of events that happen to bring about an outcome. What is considered ":good luck" for the lottery winner, is "bad luck" for the other entrants. But this is really getting into mathematics, rather than Roman belief in spirits...sorry

Now that Spartacus is an interesting question ! I believe that people who had psycological problems were generally cared for by the Romans, who learnt all they knew from the Greeks. A lot of doctors in Rome were actually Greek. The treatments depending on the symtoms I guess were things like changing diet, exercise, and use of sedatives. I think in terms of reaction to violence though (how old were boys enlisted into the legions ?) that the more the exposure the less effect it would have on the soldier mentally, other than to deaden his senses to it. This would probably have insulated battle hardened legionaries. When initially exposed when young, particularly after they started using the plebecite to build armies, I think the boys may have already seen a bit of melee and bloodshed. Was there a legal age for entry into the arena to see the games ? Another thing that I believe plays a large part in producing shock and trauma in modern soldiers is the noise involved in present day warfare. What was the noise on a Roman battlefield like I wonder. Yelling, screaming, the clash of shields and arrows/pilum on shields, horns and trumpets ? I don't think it would have been so loud as to burst an eardrum, unlike artillery firing all around you or explosives going off and machine gun fire.

I don't know a lot about the Carthagenian empire Zeke. So Carthage had quite good relations with Macedonia and Greece ? Do you know if they were involved at all in concert with the Romans over Syracuse ? Do you think Roman culture would have influenced Carthageian culture to much of an extent if the two had signed some sort of military treaty - to co-operate ? Would it have been a melding of the two ? The Romans were pretty extensive traders too. More trading between provinces in the end though I suppose, rather than foreign nations ?

Sure thing pp. noted. Germanicus

Hi Dogmatix, never heard that before, can't imagine the scared, superstitious roman seamen crossing all that ocean. Sounds like a hoax to me.