Skarr

Ursus, I had a simliar problem too, especially while writing my book, which is set in 120 BC. It was a real struggle to keep it "real" and I don't know if I succeeded or failed. Some liked it, others hated it. I guess you can't please everyone, that's something you learn quickly once you put your work up there to be judged.

Alexander did face an overwhelming number of Persians and ultimately prevailed.. However, a few things to consider... Many of the nobles supporting the Persian King Darius were dissatisfied and saw Alexander as an alternative... There were too many candidates amongst themselves to replace him and any one of them could plunge the entire region into chaos because of the intense rivalry among the various chieftains.. Alexander's primary tactic was to go after the bodyguard surrounding the Persian King, the famous "Immortals". Ultimately, Alexander was given a tacit nod by the Persians, who watched as he chased their men and as a "neutral" king of kings, he was eminently more acceptable than one of their own. Darius's own men killed him - a satisfaction that was denied Alexander, who chased the king and found his dead body. Chop the head and there is no fight - that was the ancient way. Once Darius was dead, Alexander could claim victory and assume leadership over the entire region as the 'king of kings'. As long as the various nobles retained their respective properties and could manage their own fiefdoms, I don't think many of them cared whether it was Darius or Alexander on the throne. In fact, Alexander was eminently preferable as Darius was planning a number of things they didn't like. Well, this is based on my own theory, based on some reading of the war and also a translation of a tablet that was found. Most accounts of Alexander are by the Greeks and I don't think there is an unbiased version. Details of the critical battle are also sketchy. There is no doubt that Alexander was a good fighter and probably quite charismatic. However, in terms of sheer strategy, the different kinds of terrain, the siege equipment that were designed and put together on the spot, including ingenious fortifications, etc. etc. - too numerous to enumerate, the clear winner, by a mile is none other than - Gaius Julius Caesar.

Link to University of Chicago - article on dogs in Ancient Rome The above link has an interesting article with further links to explore...

Good article, Ursus. One thing I would like to add is also the Roman concept of consulting the gods before any event, many of which, of course, related to the family and also mundane happenings. The Romans looked for signs, ordinary signs that occur everyday in nature and used this as a means of determining whether a particular action should be undertaken on a given day or not. For example, if a son was leaving the domus on a long journey, the paterfamilias, who was like the priest / king of the household, would consult an augurer, who would look for particular signs - either in the sacrificial remains of an animal (the famous Etruscan haruspicy) or something simpler. I don't think the Romans were practical in this matter and relied on a simple Yes or No answer. If the liver looked healthy and was not discolored, the signs were good [ Yes ]; if pale and covered with spots - not good [ No]. As Ursus points out, religion was a personal affair, as much as it was a state affair and some of the duties of the original priest / kings devolved on the paterfamilias, who ruled their households with absolute power and authority, something that could not be questioned by even the senate. Wives, sons, slaves, livestock, etc. etc. - they all belonged to the paterfamilias. Although a father could put his own son to death, this was rarely done, except in extreme cases - like cowardice. I think Scaurus exercised this right over his son for running away in battle. I'm not sure whether he personally killed him though - if anyone knows the exact circumstances, please post.

I would like to participate too ... However, my choices would be somewhat limited (having read most of the books) to either "The Critical History ..." or the book on religion.

Switching to a non-religious viewpoint, the scientists have been telling us that the Earth may be heating up by one degree... While that seems pretty insignificant, there are some scientists who claim that even one degree may be enough to melt the polar ice, which is already shrinking, according to some studies. Well, I don't whom to believe but I do realize that the Earth's capacity for severe abuse by a creature called man is probably causing Mother Nature to react, possibly in violent waves - storms, tsunamis, whatever ... Or, it could be just part of some natural cycle over millenia that comes to fruitition and we all just happen to be in the middle of it. Either way, I think the Earth's capacity to survive is vastly underestimated and life will thrive here, irrespective of what homo sapiens does. There is abundant life in the oceans and even if humankind continues to self-destruct as a species by continually consuming resources that cannot be replaced easily, life will go on for thousands of years and humankind will continue to evolve, adapt and survive. There are close to 5 billion on Earth and even if we had 10 natural calamities, it is unlikely that every single human will perish. Thousands, if not millions will still survive and learn to adapt. We hope the survivors will learn from the experience and be more humble in the face of Nature. All of us have only one Planet and colonization of Mars and other possible worlds is in the very distant future, not any time soon.

Technically, it's the first 'recorded' Monotheism. It is very difficult to argue over which was the 'first recorded' Monotheism. For example, the ancient Vedic culture that existed in India postulated the existence of only one God, one Supreme Being, with various manifestations, thousands of manifestations, with each of them being worshipped separately as if they were separate from the ONE. However, if you read deeper, you will see that they really talk about all of these gods as emanating from one, a single one, which every god is already a part of. In any case, this is a religious discussion and there are little facts existing today that would enable us to positively identify which or what religion came up with the concept first. There is also a lot of misunderstanding regarding the various religions, as a lot of them are subject to interpretation, dogma and offer only clues of what people really believed in, as opposed to absolute truths that are self evident to everyone who reads them. The earliest god worshipped by the human race must have been one - The Sun. Humans first began religion by offering prayers to the sun, with most of them being directed at the sun's continued appearance at the dawn of each day. In those times, time would have been marked differently and the pace of existence revolved around the doings of each day and if the sun was say, obscured by dark clouds for days, it would have worried many of the primitive humans, who depended on its light for sustenance or survival. An eclipse must have been traumatic for many societies, who would not probably know at the time that it was a passing phenomenon. The stories or myths carried on from ancient times revolved around demons who swallowed the sun whole before regurgitating the "Lord" due to the penance or prayers offered by His creatures on Earth, sparing them from possible catastrophe.

I also voted for Hastings, as modern Britain would not exist today if it were not for the all powerful influence the Normans exerted over every aspect of their lives.

Speaking of caligae, most modern men would find this extremely difficult, as our feet are too "soft". Most of the Roman soldiers would have already had hard, callused soles on their feet, as the skin toughens and grows an additional layer of its own, which you might find today among the more native tribes that still exist - maybe in some parts of Africa and Asia. Caligae would have been extremely comfortable for these folks, inured as they are to all kinds of rough terrain. The standard issue caligae had layers of rough, thick leather, providing a good cushion and were hob nailed, to provide that extra leverage and grip that the soldiers needed, as they really needed to dig into the ground to maintain their line. Re-enactments in the modern era are never close to the harsh physical realities that must have existed at the time, especially food. For the average soldier, the daily diet was monotonous, dreary and something that they just stuffed in their bodies to survive. This, combined with their extraordinary physical exertions, must have made them incredibly tough, with wiry bodies and lean muscles, something which you just don't see today, except maybe in champion atheletes or other sports which demand that level of physical activity. Ray Stevenson, despite his size, bulk and strength, would not have lasted very long in the actual legion and would have called it quits after merely an hour's march at normal pace.

Phil, Didn't I say "ancestor" in my post? This is her great great great...etc. grandmother, the first Boudicca in her line.. Cheers ..

The French graphic novel "Vae Victis" covers the story of one of her ancestors, as she battles Caesar and his legions by allying herself with various Gallic tribes. It is a tremendously exciting story, told in 15 volumes and is definitely worth reading for some ideas on how you can cover this, albeit at an earlier time. The drawback - you need to know at least a little French, as English translations are not available at this time. BTW, I think this series would make an excellent movie, with the right script. Caesar plays a prominent role throughout, which is in itself a plus, as he is such a charismatic figure and audiences would love to see the great man in his prime, in his victorious campaigns in Gaul. Most Hollywood films have centered on Caesar's later years, prior to his assassination. I would definitely love to see a movie about the young Caesar, from early youth to his triumphs in Gaul and would end the movie with a footnote that he was later assassinated, as that has been covered so many times. A sort of epilogue in the last ten minutes of the film, just before the credits roll.

Chewing on willow (bark or leaves) may have been a method as well, since it was advocated by Hippocrates in the 5th Century BC. Later, Galen also echoed the same sentiment about willow, which contains a type of acid that is similar to that found in modern aspirin. The Egyptians also mention about myrtle trees and a preparation made from the drying of their leaves, which is also used to treat pain. In ancient Rome, both Greek and Egyptian physicians were in much demand and a Roman nobleman would probably consult several physicians, a second or third opinion if you will, as well as resorting to less scientific methods such as offerings to the gods, haruspicy and so on.

Thanks, Andrew. That was excellent and I do like some of the choices you have set out there. Looks like you know the city pretty well and I like the route which takes them outside of Rome's walls. This gives an opportunity to write a scene where some slaves think they are being taken away from the city, causing them a great deal of panic, as some of them have family inside of Rome. At the emporium, the slaves, who all belong to a prominent family which is now ruined, are being resold to various slave merchants at an auction. As these are all household slaves, skilled in the care of noble persons, they will be much sought after by the elite families in Rome, not only for their skills but also the gossip / knowledge they have on their former owners. The city in those times must have looked vastly different from the built up city during the times of Trajan, especially the Palatine hill, which had huge palaces instead of individual houses.

Crassus made his fortune off the backs of the poor, by becoming Rome's biggest landlord. Many of the fires were started by his own team and then put out by his fire brigade. He was unscrupulous and I think, possibly despised by Caesar, who would never stoop to such lowly methods of amassing wealth. However, both Pompey and Caesar needed Crassus for his money, especially Caesar, due to his huge debts. You are right about Crassus's leadership in the field. He was not much of a general and his men paid for it dearly in his disastrous Parthian campaign. His death was horrible, as he was tortured by the Parthian general and died swallowing molten gold, according to one account I read.

I think the final outcome for the defeated gladiator (death or life) depended on how well the fight was fought and whether it was a spirited fight, without any display of cowardice by the one vanquished. Gladiators were valuable to their owners, who invested a lot of time and money in them and if they fought well in the arena but were yet defeated, I think it would be highly unlikely that they would be killed, unless the wounds were so debilitating that a death by way of mercy killing would be the most appropriate. The editore (during the Republic, later the Emperor) was the only one who decided his fate, although Hollywood likes to think it was the crowd, showing a dramatic thumbs up or down. The gladiator was often granted missio, which meant that he would be allowed to live and possibly fight again in all but the most extreme of cases, for cowardice or for a very poor showing in the arena - no skills or talent displayed. In that case, the gladiator would be worthless to the owner and he would not be angry at the editore for not granting missio. As in everything, economic considerations played a large part in their decision, particularly the future worth of the defeated gladiator. Most of my observations are with reference to the Republic. In later periods, it may have been well different as many of the Emperors were quite blood thirsty and possibly killed off many a good fighter.

Thanks, Clodius and Andrew. Andrew, I think you summed this up pretty nicely. The emporium is located south, a little beyond the Circus Maximus. Maybe you're right, there may not be an alternative route but I just wanted to make sure with a map that sets out the streets clearly around that time. I don't think a proper map exists from that period and perhaps, if you come across one, please let me know.

I'm working on a project set in the Republic - around 150 BC. One of my characters needs to go from the mons Palatinus to the Forum, then to the Subura and finally to one of the emporiums along the Tiber, close to the Circus Maximus. I have him taking the Clivus Palatinus to the via Sacra and then to the Argiletum, which led to the Subura. After stopping at a tavern on the Clivus Suburanus, he has a final errand, to deliver some slaves at an emporium on the Tiber. My question is - which streets would he take to reach this, without retracing his way back to the Forum ? Anyone who is familiar with the topography at the time, please post. I have been poring over maps but they are all from later periods.

Last week, the HBO CEO announced that the 10 episodes planned for Season 2 (under production in Rome right now) will be aired in Jan 2007 and will be the last season, as it is too "expensive" and some other reasons, notably that they are filming in a "foreign country". Anyway, let's hope that Season 2 exceeds Season 1 and while I would like the series to continue, it's going to be wishful thinking as HBO doesn't seem too committed to this project. I think that if "Rome" had the following of the "Sopranos", we would see five seasons, possibly more, as there's enough history. Just the period from Tiberius to Nero can provide more than enough material. Of course, this would also be incredibly expensive, as the imperial sets would have to be grander, more lavish than the Republican ones, where you can get away with stark, grimy sets.

I found a great print on Julius Caesar that I'm planning to acquire. Caesar is standing with his army before the Rubicon, wondering if he should cross it. I think the artist has captured this scene really well. Check it out on my site !

Txs, Viggen. Yes, I'm familiar with this project and you're right, it's really fascinating work, as you have only a few clues to go by and have to extrapolate the rest.

Years ago, I remember reading a play by the great Albert Camus on Caligula. It was quite entertaining and portrays him swinging between megalomania and despair (often suicidal). I thought it was a pretty intelligent reading into the myth that surrounded Caligula's 'madness'. While some thought it might have been part of a carefully calculated act on his part, maybe a simulated madness, he was certainly a disturbed individual, with many insecurities, particularly around his own mortality. I think he was also obsessed with his own power vis a vis the gods and toyed with the idea of his own divinity. It is difficult to contemplate the absolute extent of his power that he wielded and he was grossly unprepared for the responsibilities such power entails. In earlier times, men had to serve at least ten military campaigns to be eligible for even the junior magisterial offices like quaestor, or aedile, with minimum age restrictions. With no real world experience in dealing with men or affairs of the state, Caligula was severely handicapped and probably reacted in a child like fashion with disastrous consequences. It could have been sheer frustration as well, as he had no understanding of how to deal with the experienced senators and the only real weapon he had was to terrorize them and abuse them, which is the reaction of an angry child, when confronted with persons superior in knowledge and intelligence.

Thanks, Moonlapse. Appreciate it. What I was really looking for was a map showing the street names and the routes around the Forum, Capitoline hill, Subura, Circus Maximus and Aventine leading to the Tiber. Specifically, I'm looking for the ancient roads that led from the Palatine Hill to the Forum and from the Forum to the Subura and from there to the emporiums alongside the Tiber. If anyone knows of a link which has the blow up of this section, with the ancient names, please post (Republic - from 150 BC to 44 BC)

The Roman practice of exposing children was certainly a right but I think it was not as widely practised as people would have us believe. Many of the "exposed" were certainly rescued or adopted by others, especially by those desirous of children or wishing to adopt one. There was, of course, a bias towards girls, due to the financial implications, as most families were required to provide a dowry if they wanted a good match for the girl. Deformed children were also often exposed, as well those children that were born out of wedlock, while the husband was away on long military campaigns lasting several years at a time. With regard to the Christian views on this, I think we have a split in the early Church between those who strictly followed the tenets of Judaism, which was always against any form of abortion or infanticide to those who leaned towards the Aristotlean view. The Greek philosopher believed that the fetus became 'animated' or imbued with the spirit of a human soul only later in its development and that abortion before that period, ranging from 40 days to 90 days, was acceptable. It was believed that the fetus was originally possessed by a vegetable soul, then animal and then, finally human. After this point, when the human soul possessed the fetus, abortion would be a crime and tantamount to murder.

On the subject of salt, it is well known that salt was a precious commodity in ancient times and Greek coastal cities even used this to trade for slaves with those cities in the interior. After all, salt had many uses, apart from lending mere flavor to food and making it more palatable. In the ancient world, salt was used for bleaching, cleaning of fabric and also in the degreasing, dehairing and softening of leather. It also had its uses for medicinal purposes, including religious purposes as people made offerings of salt at temples. For a certain period of time, the Roman soldiers were partly paid in salt and the Romans also collected a toll from people wishing to use the saltworks that were set up by Numa's grandson on both sides of the Tiber, near Ostia. Rome had enormous wealth, especially from its expanding conquest throughout Italy in the early years of the Republic, with the subjugation of the Etruscans, the Samnites and the Greek cities in the south. Later, as they expanded into Sardinia, Sicily and eventually, Spain, North Africa, Carthage, Greece and Macedonia, the spoils of war helped the censors dole out huge contracts for erecting various grand buildings, temples, monuments and other public works throughout the city. Carthage alone provided 3,200 talents of silver and Rome's subsequent defeat of Antiochus III brought another 15,000 talents. This, plus the taxes they continued to collect from all the cities in Italy and eventually, throughout the Mediterranean, brought tremendous wealth, not only to Rome but also the generals, senators and merchants who stole as much as they could, as corruption in the later Republic became common. The city of Corinth alone yielded untold riches for some of Rome's elite, especially the merchants and other nobles who backed Lucius Mummius's sack of the city. The thousands of slaves also enriched various senators, who acquired huge tracts of public land and bought other pieces of land from impoverished soliders (read farmers drafted to fight Rome's wars for twenty years and finding barren land). As the cities became more crowded and overpopulated, with the poor becoming poorer, the aristocratic class of senators and rich knights (merchants), grew enormously wealthy. It is a familiar tale, leading to the eventual collapse of the Republic after Caesar's assassination.

Moonlapse, I was looking for a good map of the ancient city of Rome (during the Republic, not the expanded city during the Imperial age) and was wondering if you had an electronic copy somewhere or know of a good link where one is available. I need this for a research project I'm working on and while I do have detailed maps of the city (street by street), this is from 300 AD and I'm looking for something much earlier.