joyfulpuck

Roman West-Empire fall on 476 AD. Perhaps you can make better to consult some medieval texts. In any case, it's not so difficult to find something about what Romans ate during the Empire in aristocratical banquets: you can find Apicius De re coquinaria (IV century AD). You can find this text in Bibliotheca Augustana site. Aristocratical banquets were founded on roasted meat and fish. Poor people could not eat these rich foods. They ate olus, that is salade, and puls, that is something like cr

In republican times, were the aediles that payed for water supply during their year of magitrate. In Augustus time and at Rome, water was appalted to Agrippa until he died, in 13 a.C. Agrippa was a private and paying for all the aqueduct (he had personally built at his expence) and for all the water that it carried was an honour reserved to him. Then, it was appalted to aerarium. There was even a lex Quinctia de aquaeductibus (9 a.C.) that fixed some triumviri aquarii which took care of idric services and had at their dependence a staff of apparitores and servi publici . But not all the expenses were on charge of aerarium. When in Rome, water poured in some pools, named as lacus. This lacus were at payment. Out of Rome, many services, like roads and cursus publicus (postal service) were appalted to private well-to-do inhabitants whose property had something to do with the service (for example, if their property was long the road they had to take care of that stretch of road). But they were not alone. They was supervised by some curatores and praefecti appointed from senatus. So the cura aquaria cura viaria and cura vehicularia was payed in a mix form: part from local magistrates, part from aerarium, part from privates. This is probably the context in which we can include the Venafrum inscription. Finally, we must say that all these men that payed for aqueducts, roads and post, were well-to-do men and often considered an honour to sustain imperial services, because it was very useful to enhance their position, not only at Rome. At Rome, private roman citizens (not all Roman inhabitants, we must remember) payed for mantaining lacus, but the pools were probably normally open and so every one could take water, also poor one. Even if these pools were not so much in number as sometimes is believed, and often rich ones stealed water from the acqueduct directly in their private homes. Something more you can read surely in C. Bruun, The water supply of ancient Rome. A Study of imperial administration. Helsinki 1991

Really? A citizen couldn't import goods from non-citizens? Then how did Rome trade with her neighbors? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post, but I thought there was only one restriction on trade -- senators couldn't engage in sea trade (legally). Maty is right. Was forbidden to commerce with strangers with Roman laws. It could be possible with normal (and private) negotiation. But in that case ius didn't grant for injustice.

If I have well understood your observances, Segestan says it was very dangerous for nobilitas to leave Italian interest to take their role in traditional politics such a way, and so was not possible that men like Caesar and Pompey were not aware of that. M. Porcio Cato says that there were no tidings between nobiles like Caesar and Pompey and that Italians and no legislation was passed through for them. I find very relevant this statements, but I'll try the same to debate, without any claim for last word. I'll answer first to Cato. What we intend for Italians, naturally has a modify after Social War in 90 a.C. After this war, all Italians are officially Roman citizens, so should have participation of ius Quiritium. But, in spite of that, this participation is not decisively accepted, and a new censiment is not proclamed until five years after the cease of the war and with a fundamental difficulty: where will be inserted the new citizens? In every 35 tribus or in two (only 2 for all Italy contra 35 only for ager Romanus!!) new one? This matter is of basic importance for municipal well-to-do class and on this matter, after the war, fires the first civil war between the faction of municipalis homo novus C. Marius and the one of the optimate L. Silla. Before the war, Marius and Silla were friends, only now they are on opposite sides and the object of their rivalry are the interests of new citizens (and their respective clients). When Silla is fighting against Mithridates, finally C. Marius, not without violence, takes power at Rome with the aid of L. Cornelius Cinna and in that occasion, in 86 a.C. , makes finally a censiment, inserting all the citizens in the 35 tribus. But, because of the rivolutionary moment, he can inscribe "only" 463.000 individuals. Bear mind that the last censiment, before the war, was in 115 a.c., so 30 years before, and counted 394.000, so in 30 years, and including for the first time "all Italy" in the censiment, took only 69.000 people more. There was been the Social War with his deaths, I admit. But consider also that in 70 a.C., so only 15 yars later the Marius censiment, censors could count "all Italy" in 900,000 people. Roman citizens increased 437.000 in only 15 years! So we can expect that more italian people was counted only on 70 a.C., 20 years after the social war was finished and their claim for citizenship was welcomed. But even now there were some Italians that were left behind this assimilation progress: they were the Transpadani. Gallia Togata was affranchised by Pompeus Strabo , father of Pompeus, with Latin citizenship after the Social War, but then Silla opposed to their citizenship and, in 81 a.C., fixed Italy boundaries only to river Rubico, just near Ariminium. They were very displeased about that, because they were now latins since eight years and between them there were many latin and roman colonies. The area was been well romanised since last III sec. a.C. and now was reducted as a normal provincia. Sources are very clear about the causa Transpadanorum and the appeal of Caesar and Crassus about their affranchisement. Transpadani were very rich and sustained openly Caesar (nephew and sustainer at Rome of the memory of his uncle C.Marius) with money in his electoral campaigns, as you can see in Plutarch (Caes. 20, 3 and 21, 3) even if they were not citizens. And here I come to answer something to Segestan. Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, for not talking about Cicero, were certainly aware that what they were doing was revolutionary and out of mos maiorum boundaries. They were also conscious that all this integration politic was dangerous for traditional institutions, because now only leges and not mos could succeed to govern this new people, that were citizens, even rich, but not patricii. They weren't boni! So these new leges should be imposed by force and with loyalty of arms. Nontheless, after Social War, integration was a matter of fact. When he came back to Rome and became dictator, Silla tried to limit access to politics to municipal class, not taking new census and only admitted in senate those new families, even from the plebs, even from municipia, that were loyal to his own person. Personal loyalty seemed to Silla the only way to preserve romanity from being corrupted: many of this new aristocratics members were been also his own soldiers and officials. But again, he could not stop new citizen enrollment and claiming for the future, neither could forbid to aristocratic factions to use new sustainers for new purposes. My question is therefore: could this state of things, if I could accept it, be a good cause for trouble roman constitution?

I'm not so sure that people in an area knew so much each other. Perhaps this could be easier in province towns, but for Rome, specially imperial one, we have prove of the contrary. There is a very instresting study by David Noy, Foreigners at Rome, London 2002, where you can find that much population at Rome was due to immigration. The epigraphic evidence prove that population turnover was very high and from everywhere in the empire. This turnover his well known also for the well-to-do-class and senators. Eveniences about corn distribution testify that in Rome were as one milion inhabitants, as well as a normal modern metropolis. So if we do not know each other every our neighbours so was probably for Romans. Here I'd like to point a problem that could occur about practices and opportunities on certifying identities. In Tabula Heracleensis (Caesar's age - see M.H. Crawford, Roman Statutes vol. I London 1996) we also have track that tenants were responsible about identity and professio of inhabitants of insulae in their possess. Infact, new inhabitants often resided in rent house. But renting in Roman world was a job more for slaves and liberti than for tenants. The tenant asked for every insula, that is every habitation building as a whole unity, a fixed sum to his libertus/conductor. The conductor should know all inhabitants, but he was not directly interested about their origin, but only about the payment of rents, that probably were collected from other slaves. In a single apartment of an imperial insula lived from 12 to 20 persons. The simpler way to payment was that, each six months, the conductor slave went to collect from every cenaculum the sum convened. Was up to the inhabitants to collect that sum from the single residents. If the sum was not collected, one of the 12 to 20 inhabitants (that one who was interpelled from the conductor slave) run the risk to be questioned from the conductor and then from the tenant. So was all inhabitant interest, before that of conductor, to have the sum every six months form his living companions. But this mean that was no need for the tenant or conductor to know every inhabitant of his house. Finally, in an epistle of Pliny the Young (10,29) we can read about some slaves being levied in the army as volounteers, for a simple error of the militar tribune about their identity. We know nothing about their being recognized, but surely they could furnish false identity when they was recruited (they lied not only on their status of slaves, but also sholud give false names, because slave names were easily recognizable). On this theme, is very intresting J.F. Gardner, Proofs of Satus in the Roman World, published in BICS 1986

This theme is a very instresting and difficult one. Surely points 1) 2) and 3) of M. Porcius Cato ipothesis are very reliable. Nonetheless I'd like to suggest another point of view. There was a slender contradiction in the way Romans constructed their Legacy with other Italian communities. On one side, the single Italian towns were autonomous: they had a local senate, they could make local laws and grant local property and commerce. They had their own levy, and the roman army was, for tho thirds, made of Latins and Italians. But, on the other side, these autonomous states could not decide extern policy, could not decide to employ their autonomous commerce out of the roman rule, could not conduct their autonomous wars. The municipal

Thank you nephele! It's a very beautiful name, and I'd ever like been a Britannus. So, Ave Domina, Aelio Matutio te salutat. Hemmm...only a little problem: how can I do for insert this new name in my profile? I'll search on the site if i find the answer.

Oh, I forgot: I'm male.

Eeelanum Mtoatanas Here is my first and last name scrambled. Can you try to take out some Roman name for me?

Proving citizenship is not so simple. Even if you have a diploma (which seems you can't before Augustus, or at least is not attested) who can demonstrate that you are the right owner of it? About St. Paul, it is perhaps possible the governor had only some doubt about his citizenship, and so sent him to Rome. At Rome probably there were all lists, so they could prove Paul citizenship. I think we should imagine that administration problems are configured more differently for Romans rather than for our modern and occidental offices. Roman administration is concerned the most part with registering roman property because this is important for taxes and for regulating access on public affairs. Equites, senators, patricii and all the well-to-do class are normally well known through urban milieu and so other signs of mark were probably not so often requested. For all the others, is not necessary for administration to grant any right, but it's up to individuals to take advantage of their "privilegia", if they have possiblity to do so. Administration is interested only about recording what is important for the public order, is not there for granting rights. Perhaps, a general view like that I suggest, gives more count of our sources about Roman administration. I'm however very intrested to this theme, and I surely want not to cast the last word on it.