Why Did The Romans Build So Many Fora?

[WotWotius]

I have been given a college project on why the romans built so many fora and i was wondering if i could add anything to what i have done...

 

 

 

 

During the time of the Roman republic, before Roman imperialism was installed, Rome was by no means glamorous; though her empire was vast, Rome did not even compare to the other great cities of the known world despite being the wealthiest. For example, Athens was a city paved in marble and Alexandria embodied all the riches of Egypt. Rome, on the other hand was a muddy, unattractive, cattle town that had been burned and pillaged due to civil wars between Rome

[Favonius Cornelius]

I think that there is an extra dimention to the Roman facination of the forum concept that you maybe have missed. While you are completly right in the utility and the show-off features of these forums, the forum was also a fundamental part of the Roman city life. Romans were far more social creatures I think than many other peoples, and their socialization took on a city aspect of course. Think of the Roman domus and villas. Even these smaller structures had a 'forum' of their own, the atrium, with the adjoining rooms which could be construed to be as residential and commertial districts. Romans needed a place to congregate, because without it they were not Romans. It ties into the roots of the Republican political system where communication was a must for the function of the state, and the concept did not die even by Trajan's time.

Edited November 13, 2005 by Favonius Cornelius

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I merely believe that each emperor just made their own fora out of complete egotism. If you believed that you were a god and a good leader, what better way than to make your own forum decorated majestically with the plunders of conquests and war. Some emperors used their own forum, but many others didn't. Hadrian for example was barely in Rome at all, so I doubt he spent much time there. I suppose government institutions were still active in the fora the whole time, but the topic is about the emperors.

Offnote, I think your clincher seems too simply stated. You should try including deification of the emperors.

[roman wargamer]

In conclusion to the question, there are many reasons why the Romans built so many fora.

In the early days of the empire, fora were built for utility as Rome at this point needed more shops for its ever-growing population (e.g. the Roman Forum). However, in the later days of the empire, when Rome

[WotWotius]

cheers for the advice.

 

I was wondering if you'd like to help me with my next project?

 

The question is 'Why did Caesar's invasions of 55BC & 54BC fail when Claudius/Aulus Plautius' succeeded?

[phil25]

cheers for the advice.

 

I was wondering if you'd like to help me with my next project?

 

The question is 'Why did Caesar's invasions of 55BC & 54BC fail when Claudius/Aulus Plautius' succeeded?

 

First: on the FORA.

 

I assume you mean the imperial fora in Rome itself?

 

If you have been there, the answers tend to be obvious and do not (unduly) in my opinion, include egotism.

 

The Forum Romanum, dating from the earliest days of the city's existence, became cluttered with monuments and famous buildings. It was, frankly, too small for purpose. It was also damaged in the late Roman period, when the Curia hostilia (the old Senate House) and the Basilica Porcia were destroyed by fire.

 

Caesar radically restructured that end of the Forum Romanum, repositioning the Curia and its adjacent records office, the Comitium and re-orienting the Rostra (Speakers' platform). In that context, the Forum Julii is an extension of the Forum Romanum, beyond and to the back of the new Senate House. It held, as its focus (as each new Forum did) a temple - in this case dedicated to Venus, his reputed ancestress.

 

Caesar's successor, Augustis built a forum behind the Basilica Aemilia centred on a temple - this time dedicated to Mars the Avenger. It provided more public buildings (especially as additional law courts), and the decorations and sculpture were a propaganda exercise for the new regime - with schemes of statues on either hand, This was widely copied - the Basilica Eumachia in Pompeii seems to use the same artistic sceme. Generals setting off on campigns were supposed to start from here.

 

Nero must have changed much of the town planning in the neighbourhood when he built his Golden House, but he does not seem to have built another Forum. This was left to his eventual successor Vespasian, who built a Forum of Peace. Given its position, this may have been part of his redesign of the Golden House as public (rather than private) space. One of the wings of the temple included the marble map of Rome. The forum area, appears to have been maintained as gardens rather than an open space.

 

Vespasian's son, Domitian, began a "Forum" eventually named after his successor, Nerva - sometimes called thre Forum Transitorium. It is actually a formal entrance to the Forum Romanum from the Subura, making an impressive, pillared (and narrow) space from a road. It always reminds me of the Sebastion at Aphrodisias.

 

Trajan added a new huge Forum named after him following his Dacian campaigns. Engineering skills and archietecture had moved on since Caesar's day, and the new Basilica Ulpia (named after Trajan's family name, must have dwarfed its older companion next door. Again I suspect this was now required for the business of an enlarged city and empire. Beside Trajan's forum are his more down-to-earth and wonderful markets - highly practical and useful.

 

Hope this gives an insight into my take on the imperial fora of rome.

 

On Caesar and Britain - I don't think Caesar ever intended to stay, while Claudius did. But it is possible that britain was regarded as "conquered2 and continued to pay tribute to Rome, for some years after Caesar's departure. So it is not impossible that caesar's vision of the relationship was different to what we sometimes think.

 

Phil

[WotWotius]

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

[Andrew Dalby]

However, the most important reason as to why Claudius

[Ursus]

I'm sure this is right. But also, those 97 years had (as Romans such as Tacitus saw) prepared the Britons, not to be invaded exactly, but to be part of Roman 'consumer society' ... As the Gauls had earlier, they had come to want some aspects of Romanitas. Do you think that's true?

 

And, to get back via 'consumer society' to the fora, why do we build so many shopping malls/hypermarkets? Why do we spend so much time in them? And what will future historians (should any survive) think about that?

 

From what I've read of the Celtic aristocracy, ostentation and conspicuous consumption were pretty much their defining traits in terms of social status. But of course it just wasn't for show; they redistributed some of the wealth to their retainers, who were then indebted to the aristocrats.

 

The Romans had similar practices. Conservatives in the early-mid Republic may have found ostentation to be degrading, but the noveau rich of the empire held no such qualms. They took the client-patron basis of Roman society to its logical conclusions.

 

Should we malign the availability of goods and services, which some people pejoratively term

[Favonius Cornelius]

Should we malign the availability of goods and services, which some people pejoratively term