WotWotius

You could say that as Rome progressed from Republic to Empire, her military was eventually perfected resulting in an unbeatable army; this in turn would mean that it was the army rather than individuals which was the source of victory.

sorry i was getting confused with the IX Hispana in Linclon. Oh and when i mentioned the XIV Gemina i was including auxillaries and the remains of the XX Valeria Victricences (spelling?) who's numbers had been greatly reduced by Boudica's forces.

I personally believe that one of the greatest battles within the Roman empire was the battle of Wattling Street, 61AD whereby Suetonius Paulinus and the XI Gemina (numbering a tiny 20,000) successfully routed an army of 200,000 Britons fighting under Boudica (killing 80,000 acourding to Tacitus). I say that it was such a great victory for a variety of reasons. For Instance, the site chosen by Suetonius was very good one indeed as it was a bottleneck backed by a cliff surrounded by a forrest. This would mean that the enemy would not only have no room to outmanover the Romans, but that narrow entrance would have also left them vunerable to missile fire. Once engaged with the Britons, the Romans where able to encircle them with their cavalry, hamstring their horses, and cut the Britons to pieces. However, the main reason the Britons lost so badly was not because of the terrain, but was due to their sheer stupidity; this is because the Britons were so certain of victory they brought their wives and children along to watch, with their families they also brought carts for the children to stand on to get a better view. And where did the Britons put them!?...around the entrance of the bottleneck!!! And as a result, the Britons were seemingly trapped when the tide of battle turned against them.

Did you know that Roman slingshots have been found with the words AVE written on them...so they were basically saying 'ave it' to the enemy. Aren't the Romans funny.

I thought the program was great, but does anyone else think that he was scraping the bottom of the barrel for analogies between Rome and the E.U. I mean they are two completly different concepts: Rome had centeralised rule whereas the EU is made up of many countries (often disagreeing); the EU covers all of Europe whereas the Roman Empire only covered half of the continent... Anyway do you see what i mean?

I think i've found enough reasons for Claudius' success... The Claudian invasion of 43AD was much more successful than that of Caesar in 55BC & 54BC; this was mainly due to the fact that the Claudian invasion was better planned and more thought had gone into it. For instance, Claudius appointed many experienced generals (such as Aulus Plautus, Flavius Vespasian, Galba etc.) to head the invasion, whereas Caesar relied on his own initiative to bring victory. Furthermore, unlike Caesar, Claudius

When i first saw galdiator I thought it was a good film but it didn't get me interested in Rome. What did that was studying Ancient History at A-level. Oh and isn't Russel Crow great; he has so many quotable lines. I even made a song about gladiator which i'll submit if you want... 'ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED'

Gaul was hardly a prosperous region, so the gallic economy would have eventually collapsed. Futhermore, in Aurelian's time the Gallic empeors were experiencing the same problems (e.g. constant assasination) which the Western emperors faced; showing that Gaul and her empire lacked a strong centeral government.

In terms of contemporary sources there are many opinions on Augutus. For example, Horace, Virgil and Velleius Paterculus all believed (or wrote) that Augustus restored the Repuiblic.* However, the hirstorian Tacitus depicts Augustus as an evil tyrant. Dio on the other hand admits he was a good emperor, but does not portray him as the restor of the republic. *Having said this, these were people (particually Virgil) who were on Augustus' pay roll so their opinions were bound to favourable.

This is another one of my college essays and i wondering what you people thought of it. Oh and this essay took me bloody ages, so don't be too cruel! Octavain's rise to power and the 1st and 2nd settlements. Out of all the emperors Rome has seen, Augustus is probably the most famous and influential. Although the he was not the strongest of men (in fact he nearly died of illness on many occasions), he was however a very brave, mentally headstrong person who possessed a commodity so rare in rulers: grace. Though most historians would agree that Augustus was an able ruler of Rome and her Empire, there are still many wildly differing opinions on whether he was the ‘restorer of the republic’, or a cunning but power-hungry oppressor of ‘the sound old ways’. For example, the historian Dio Cassius wrote that Augustus had ‘…given the people a monarchical government …’ (Dio Cassius’ Roman history LII), though he believed this was for the better. However, the contemporary historian Velleius Paterculus believes that Augustus was without fault (almost god like) and naively believed that the old republic was functioning just as it had always been. Augustus may have shared this view, but certainly he highlighted this in his autobiography, the Res Gestae. Born on 23 September 63 BC in Rome, Augustus was originally named Gaius Octiavius (Octavian); upon the death of his father in 59 BC, Octavian was taken into the care of his great uncle the conquering hero and future dictator of Rome (‘Dictator Perpetuo’), Julius Caesar. At age 16 Octavian took part in Caesar’s triumphs whereby he received his first toga (a right of passage into manhood). At this point Caesar was beginning to see great potential in the boy and was even considering making him his heir. A year later Octavian served in Caesar’s Spanish legion: despite the odds being against him, he showed immense courage on this campaign and as a result, he was officially made Caesar’s rightful heir… however, Augustus was not aware of this until Caesar’s assassination in 44BC. Though the majority of Rome’s senate was involved in Julius Caesar’s murder, traditionally the ringleaders of the plot are seen to be the senators Brutus and Cassius, who killed Caesar to restore the old ways of the Roman Republic (Res Pulica): ironically the assassination initiated the final stage of its collapse. I say this because upon hearing the news of his adopted father’s death, Octavian began his campaign of revenge. When Octavian arrived in Rome in late 44 BC Octavian latched himself with the worldly renowned orator Cicero, who provided Octavian with Legions to attack Caesar’s best friend and successor, Mark Antony who was currently laying siege to Decimus Brutus (one of Caesar’s assassins) at the town of Mutina. However, after using the legions for their intended purpose, he used them to attack and kill Decimus Brutus once inside Mutina. During the battle the two reigning consuls, Hirtius, and Pansa were both killed under suspicious circumstances. Could Octavian have engineered their deaths in order to free the position of Consul? The way he acted immediately after their deaths definitely supports this view. In August 43 BC Octavian marched on Rome, and the threat of his legions granted him his first consulship, despite being drastically under the age limit. Three months thereafter he met with Antony and Lepidus at Bologna and constituted themselves (officially by decree of a powerless senate) Triumvirs, joint rulers of the Republic. The Triumvirs then went about appointing their shares of the empire. It was at this point that Cicero realised he had created monster with too much power completely bent on revenge, famously referring to him as a ‘three headed monster’. Cicero was eventually killed in the prescription (along with many other citizens of Rome) that followed. Others that fell to the sword of the Triumvirate included Brutus and Cassius who fell during the battle of Philippi in 43BC. Though Octavian had an agreement with Marc Antony, their relationship was by no means a calm one; many events occurred which put them at odds. For example, Marc Antony’s wife, Fulvia made war against Octavian over territory: she was eventually beaten during the Siege of Peruga. Though Octavian forgave Antony for this, he was not prepared to forgive him for divorcing his new wife Octavia, who was Octavian’s sister. And if that was not already a big enough insult, Marc Antony then went to live with his Egyptian mistress the queen of Egypt, Cleopatra. War was imminent between the two, however Octavian needed the senate’s support for the war; so he read out in public Antony's will, which had quite illegally came into his possession. In the will it stated that large amounts of Roman land were to go into Egyptian possession and Antony would be buried in Egypt if he were to die. The senate saw this as a very un-Roman and insulting act and immediately declared war. In 31 BC Marc Antony and Octavian’s forces engaged in the naval battle of Actium. The aftermath of this conflict resulted in a dead Cleopatra, a dead Mark Antony and an exceedingly wealthy all-powerful Octavian. Octavian’s victory meant that he was the unchallenged ruler of the Roman world. However, Octavian realised that his adopted father had once been in this position and he had not forgotten how he met a bloody death because of it. Something needed to be done in order to keep in power: enter the ‘First Settlement’ On the eve that his sixth consecutive consulship expired, Octavian presented the senate with ‘…a faithful account of the military and financial state of the empire…’ (Suetonius, Life of Augustus) and to their surprise resigned. Naturally the senate begged him to stay in by offering him new powers. Unsurprisingly Octavian ‘grudgingly’ accepted. Historians still argue whether Octavian really wanted to finish his political career or had planned this event since the battle of Actium; I personally believed he planned the whole ceremony (which was later to be dubbed ‘The First Settlement) So what exactly did Octavian receive from this deal? Firstly his consecutive Consulships continued (which were renewed each year) though he had to rule with a different colleague each year; this meant that he would be all-powerful but the Cursus Honorum (Roman career structure of the upper classes) would still be in practice as Patricians would have a chance to become consuls. Octavian also received Censorial powers meaning that he could legally remove senators and demote/promote people’s class. Furthermore, he could call a census of Rome’s populace. However, Octavian refused the job title so he would not receive Caesar’s fate. A third aspect of the First Settlement was that he gained Proconsular Imperium, which basically means he was able to move armies around in his personal provinces: Egypt, Cyprus, Spain, Gaul and Syria for ten years. This also meant that he would be in control of two-thirds of the Roman army. When the settlement was decided Octavian had the title of Augustus thrust upon him, meaning one to be revered, though Octavian preferred to be addressed with title of ‘Princeps’ meaning first citizen. After the First Settlement, Augustus seemed invincible. However, the settlement was by no means watertight. Augustus realised there were problems with the deal. For example, in 24 BC the governor of Macedonia Marcus Primus went to war against the neighbouring kingdom of Thrace without the senate’s permission. As this province was outside Augustus’ control, Augustus could not legally do anything to stop him: the event was a real eye-opener for Augustus and it made realise that further steps were to be done to ensure his power. In the same year there was also an attempt on Augustus’ life by two senators who were angry that Augustus was taking a consulship every year: Augustus needed to ensure better personal popularity. On top of all this Augustus was seriously ill and 24 BC he nearly died. This brush with death appeared to have been a further decisive moment in his life. For when he recovered, he set about once more to change the Roman constitution. He did this by going through the same ceremony that he had done in 27 BC, however this time the deal that he struck with the senate was called the ‘Second Settlement’ (23 BC). In the ‘Second Settlement’ Augustus gave up the consulship and instead was awarded tribunician powers (tribunicia potestas) for life by the senate. Tribunician powers gave him the right to call the senate to meetings, to propose legislation in the popular assembly, and to veto any enactments. As plebeian classes traditionally held this position, the post made him seem like one of the people. Because he was unable to control all the Roman provinces, Augustus scraped the idea of Proconsular Imperium and traded it in for Imperium Maius. This meant that he had control of all frontier provinces (e.g. Germania) until it became romanised, at this point Augustus hand over the province to a governor. By doing this it would ensure that the majority of Roman troops would remain in ‘his’ provinces. Imperium Maius also meant that Augustus could intervene in any province at any time. There are two sources in particular that discuss the political situation of 27-23 BC. The first is Augustus’ autobiography the Res Gestae (‘Things I have Achieved’), the second being Tacitus’ Annals. The Res Gestae primary use was propaganda; in it all the great events of his life are either stressed or exaggerated. However the events in his life that would put a blot to his name (e.g. massacring all the citizens of Perugia) as this would not put Augustus in a positive light. So everyone under his rule would be aware of his biography, Augustus had many copies of the document published and had them spread all over his empire; though the biggest copy would outside his mausoleum.

What a great summary. It really helped me seeing as I know very little about the eygptian world, but have always wanted to. Are you going to do more summaries of other civilizations? Oh and BTW Its seems high unlikly that Napoleon's men shot off the Spinx's nose on account of there being no cannonball holes on its body. So Boney's men must have been one hell of a shot if they did! Napoleon Bonaparte certainly committed many crimes, but desecrating the Great Sphinx is not one of them.

Come on, tell us where you teach. I'm curious to know because I have just applied for a degree in Ancient History and Archaeology, and was wondering whether you teach at any of the places I have applied for.

How about a film about the life of Aurelian? His reign would be perfect for a film. I mean he in just five years he crushed two rival usurper kindoms and united the empire. His only repayment was his murder... Here's what a pitch for the film could sound like: -(spoken in a very deep voise) At a time when Rome was at its darkest moment, her empire crumbling at its sides, her emperors being desposed of at ever moment, it seemed like no-one would help the once mighty empire...enter Aurelian, the 'restor of the world'. wouldn't it be great to see the war against Zenoba on the silver screen.

hi wowotius, sure, just write a review from a roman book you already read, and/or write an interesting well researched article or just hang out a while at the forum and contribute with lots of meaningfull posts, and one day you might be a Patricians and eligibable for the Book Giveaway... cheers viggen So who is in charge of promotion?

how come nobody has mentioned Domitian? Possiably the weirdest emperor of them all. I would like to meet him just to see his slave/advisor with grotesquely small head. Also it would be amazing to watch all the speciacles he put on (Domitian was the first emperor to really use the colesseum)

any chance i could get in on the reviewing? i could do with some more books.

Does Sparticus' revolt count as a civil war?

So what emperor would you have like to lived under?

couldn't consuls be granted consular imperium, whereby they had the right to move armies around italy?

I have recently written an essay for a college project on Greco-Roman writtings about the Celts. As this vaguely relates to this forum i have submitted it. From the Celt thread... Celt Essay

I had to do an essay for college on greco-roman writings on the celts. and here it is... How useful are the Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life and events in Iron Age Britain?History is by no means set in stone. Though we can piece together much of the past’s events through the use of archaeology and interpretation of historical documents, we can never be truly sure of what really happened. I believe that this can definitely apply to Iron Age Britain; I say this for a variety of reasons. For instance, archaeological evidence can only inform us about the basic details of Celtic life—e.g. distribution of communities, appearance of houses and farming activities. As this is apparent, the only other source of information is contemporary literature. Though the Celtic inhabitants of Britain (Britons) were an illiterate civilization; most Celts recorded information by memory rather than by use of script. So the only other source of contemporary literature would be from nearby Greco-Roman societies. However, there are many flaws in these sources. In this essay I aim to question the validity of Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life in Iron Age Britain. I will begin by looking at one of the earliest accounts of the British people from around 300BC. At this point in time, ideas about Britain were very vague and as Britain was outside the Sea of Ocean (the assumed border of the known world) it was often portrayed as a fantasyland where mythological beasts and gods roamed. At this time only a handful of people had explored Britain, namely the explorer Pythias of Massilia, who recorded his fantastic adventures around the North Sea in a book; though there is now no surviving copy of this written text. However, over the years ideas about Britain began to become more realistic. This could be due to possible trade links between the Britons and the Greeks: Greek pottery dating from 220BC was found in the South West of England. But these Greco-Roman sources were to become clearer in the years 55-54BC upon the two invasions of the ambitious Roman general & politician, Giaus Julius Caesar. Even though Caesar’s invasion was an unsuccessful one, he stayed on the island long enough to write (in his book, The Gallic War) an accurate ethnographical account of the customs, appearance and military tactics of the indigenous Britons. For instance, he mentions that ‘All Britons dye themselves with woad, which produces a blue colour and as a result their appearance in battle is all the more daunting. They wear their hair long and shave all their bodies with the exception of their heads and upper lips…’ As well as writing about the appearance of the Britons Caesar enlightens us with a description of their traditions and values: ‘They have a taboo against eating hare, chicken and goose…Wives are shared between groups of up to twelve men, especially between brothers and between fathers and sons.’ However, these descriptions may have been exaggerated; Caesar had many reasons for doing this. For example, when Caesar wrote his book he wanted it to sell. So in order to make ‘The Gallic War’ a bestseller back in Rome this would mean that he would have to leave out the mundane elements of Celtic life (e.g. agricultural activities) and would have to emphasize the weird and wonderful (e.g. the sharing of women). Furthermore Caesar was always trying to out do his rivals; the hero of the east, Pompey and the vanquisher of Spartacus, Crassus. Therefore to increase his reputation as a general and add to his presidge, Caesar would have depicted the British Celts as a formidable enemy. Another fault in Caesar’s writing was that he had a tendency to make sweeping generalisations about the natives of Britain. For instance, he stereotypes the ‘…people in the interior…’ as being more barbarous than the people of the South; this is odd because Caesar never really ventured as far as the British interior. However, despite these inaccuracies and exaggerations I personally believe that Caesar’s portrays an accurate description of Celtic Britain. I say this because unlike the contemporary writers before him (with the exception of Pythias), he was the only one of them to actually set foot on British soil. Also Archaeology (e.g. excavations of British Hill forts) can support Caesar’s descriptions of Celtic society. After Julius Caesar’s invasion of Britain, many other contemporary writers began to produce similar descriptions of the indigenous population of Britain. A good example of one of these writers was the Geographer Strabo (who was writing around the late BC-early AD period). In his works about Britain he provides us with an ethnographical description of the Britons. He writes a variety of information on their appearance: ‘…the men (of Britain) are taller than the Gauls, not so blond, and of looser build’. There customs: ‘Their customs are in some respects like those of the Celts (Gauls), in other respects simpler and more barbaric…’ And their political life: ‘…they are ruled by chieftains. Another one of these writers was the Historian Diodorus Siculus, who like Strabo heavily based his depictions of the Britons on Julius Caesar’s writing. As these two writers borrowed so heavily from Caesar’s work, I personally believe that they do not actually provide us with any new information on the life of the British Celts; they merely just re-hash previous knowledge. Since this is apparent their writings possess the same faults that Caesar’s did. Furthermore, these writers never visited Britain, nor did they have any direct links with the island. But having said this, they were writing at a time when Britain was opening up to trade diplomatic links with Rome (it is mentioned in Emperor Augustus’ Res Gestae that two British Kings paid homage to him), so the writers at this time may have had know more about Celtic Britain then I have given them credit for. In 44AD Britain faced another Roman invasion, this time under Emperor Claudius. Unlike Caesar’s invasion, the 44AD conquest was incredibly successful and Britain soon became a Roman province. So with most of Britain in the hands of Rome, knowledge of the island should have increased. The early book (that survives) which informs us about the Britons after Claudius’ invasion is Tacitus’ ‘Agricola’, written around 100AD. In this book Tacitus informs us about the life of his father-in-law and successful governor of Britain Gnaeus Julius Agricola. Though Agricola is the main focus of attention, Tacitus writes a small section on the inhabitants of Britain, though he mainly concentrates on the way in which the Britons fight. He mentions details such as the fact that they use ‘…battle chariots…’ which archaeology has proved to be correct. Tacitus also mentions that their armies are unorganised and divided, and ‘…do not plan joint operations…’ with other tribes. The works of Tacitus seem to be correct as he was able to use his father-in-law as a primary source. However, even though Tacitus was able to ask Agricola about the Celtic way of life, there are many errors in his work. For instance, Tacitus was a very proud man and never liked to admit he was wrong. So when he did not know a certain fact, he had a tendency to invent falsehoods. Furthermore, in some parts of ‘Agricola’, Tacitus contradicts a lot of what Caesar wrote in ‘The Gallic War’. For example, Tacitus writes that ‘…some tribes fight in chariots. The nobleman is the diver; his retainers do the fighting…’ Caesar on the other hand states that it was actually the nobleman who did the fighting, and as Caesar had actually been to Britain, I personally believe that he was correct. One of the only other sources that give an account of the Celts in Britain was written around 300AD by Dio Cassius. However this account seems to be incredibly inaccurate. This is because he depicts the Britons as simple barbarians who ‘…live off bark and roots’ and ‘…live in tents…’ whereas at this point in time Britain had been a Roman province for almost 250 years and most Celts were living a very Roman way of life. But how was Dio Cassius supposed to know…he never went to Britain! Although these contemporary sources paint a fairly accurate picture of Celtic Britain, they only tell us half the story. This is because all the surviving sources about Celtic Britain were written by Greco-Romans, not the Britons themselves. As we only get an idea about the Celtic life style though Greco-Roman writers, their accounts have to be taken with a pinch of salt. This is due to the fact that most Greco-Roman held particular prejudices against their Celtic neighbours. For instance, the philosopher and naturalist Aristotle once stated that man is a ‘Political animal’ in other words it was in mans nature to live in towns and cities. As this was a popular view and it was so ingrained in Greco-Roman writers, many of them just dismissed the Britons as sub-human barbarians just because of the fact that they did not live in pertinent towns. However, no all writers viewed the Celts as mindless barbarians. Some writers had a slight admiration of the Celtic lifestyle. For example, the Greek philosopher Posidonius once declared that ‘Barbarism was mans’ natural state’, which basically means that living simple lives away from the corruptions of the big cities is a very admirable way to live. But the vast majority of the Greco-Romans believed that the Britons were barbarous. So the fact that the Greco-Roman writers were judging the British Celts by the standards of their own culture is a reason why these sources are not completely trustworthy. Other than cultural reasons we cannot completely trust the sources just because of the style in which they are written. This is mainly because not a single Greco-Roman book that souly focuses on Britain survives. Most of are information about Iron age Britain comes from books where the country is mentioned in passing. And the vast majority of surviving texts on Celtic Britain were mainly about political and military history (the actions of King, Queens and armies) rather than social history (the action of ordinary people), so we cannot extract the full truth about the Celtic lifestyle from these sources. As well as this the writers also had a predisposition to exaggerate and make generalisations about the Celts, particularly if they want to sell their book. They often only just emphasised the violent and bizarre aspects (e.g. human sacrifice) of the Britons, as this was the stuff that sold books. So though their books were highly entertaining, they were not completely reliable. Finally archaeology has proved many of the sources wrong. For example, Pomponius Mela (an obscure source) mentions that the Britons used scythed chariots in battle. This was thought to be true until recent excavations proved that this was not so. In conclusion to the question, I believe that though these sources depict a fairly accurate picture of Iron Age Britain, they also possess many faults and inaccuracies.

the fiddle was probably more likly to have been a lyre

i'll think you'll find that the reason Greeks were mainly used as domestic slaves was not because they shared the same skin colour as the Romans but because there were thought to be intellectually superior to slaves from 'barborous' nations. Changing the subject a bit, I recently found out that Rome seemed to have the same problem with immagrantion that the Western world has today. The satirist juvenal complains about he is unable to find a jobs due to the amount of Greeks stealing employment. He also complains about the vast amount of foreignors (sp) walking the streets of Rome. However, these complaints are not based on skin colour; they focous on all non Romans.

The Romans were firm believers in the saying 'mens sana in corpore sano' (healthy body, healthy mind). This outlook was probably influenced by the teaching of the Greeks. In other words the Romans believed that phyically fit people were also mentally fit and that phyically disabled people must metally disabled as well. This belief was very apparent in the life of Emperor Claudius. Before his accession as emperor, Claudius, though incredibly intelligent (writing vast amounts of history and was also a speaker the of the Eutruscan lanuage) was though to be a fool just because of his disablities. Suetonius tells us that the emperor Augustus did not allow him to watch games in the Circus because his 'foolishness' would embarrass the imperial family; the emperor Caligula often kept him around to so he could be at the butt of practical jokes, treating almost like a court jester. The only reason he became emperor was because the Pratorian guard made him.

I'd liked to believe that....