ࡱ; v  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuwxyz{|}~Root Entry FԚ CompObjbWordDocumentfObjectPoolԢ Ԣ  4@   FMicrosoft Word 6.0 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.6;  Oh+'0 D h   @d (C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\TEMPLATE\NORMAL.DOT,Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 04:02:52 EST Skip Knox Skipܥe3 efbpbppbpbpbpbdddddd ddeIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefTmfQepbe!eeeeeepbpbeeeeeepbepbeepbJclpbpbpbpbeee&eDate: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 04:02:52 EST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: George < > Subject: The Fall of the Republic Dr. Knox said: >Finally, is this the right question to ask? Is the Roman Revolution the story of class struggle? Patricians vs >plebians? Rich vs poor? It seems to me that this shouldn't be the right question. By the 1st century BC there shouldn't have been that much distinction between the plebians and the patricians. They were given the right to intermarry in 445 BC so with roughly 400 years of melting pot policy there shouldn't have been that much distinction between the two. Perhaps the problem had more to do with education. Had the plebians taken a strong interest in government things would surely have turned out different since they drastically outnumbered everyone else.. And without being taught about their government, about the importance of voting (I am assuming that each plebian citizen had the right to vote for the members of the council of Tribes), and rhetoric or persuasive speech, they probably wouldn't have made much difference even if they did find it important to participate. From the last column on pg 103 of Chambers, I get the impression that even the Council of Tribes was rather disinterested until the Gracchus brothers showed up. I read in World Book Encyclopedia that the plebian children were usually educated at home by their parents and household tutors whereas the ruling class kids usually went to school and often times as they got older went to Athens so they could get a real education. It also states that in the 1st century BC there were more than 100 holidays a year. Rome would put on entertainment at government expense. Poorer citizens became so fond of the great spectacles that the poet Juvenal described their only needs in life as "Panem et circenses" or bread and circuses. It also states that wine was one of the main staples in their diet; they even dipped bread in it for breakfast. Just a guess but I'll bet the plebians were consuming more wine than the patricians were and I have to believe anyone that gets smashed at breakfast on a regular basis probably doesn't have or want very much control over their lives anyway as long as they have bread and wine and entertainment. It looks to me like the government made sure the supply was there so perhaps it wasn't the constitution that was to the detriment of the plebs as much as it was the ruling class. ========================== Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 05:54:35 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Jeff <> Subject: Other parts of the world Item Subject: cc:Mail Text I hope this message is not a re-run, the system has rejected me and I am resending . . . OK, I won't push the Gladiator movie thing, but I am willing to try a Chariot ride down Capital Boulevard . . .Seriously, I wanted to share some info about other parts of the planet, during the turn from A.D. to B.C. As I perused Dr. K's messages this a.m., this question seems to apply to other cultures, besides the Romans: "Is the Roman Revolution the story of class struggle? Patricians vs plebians? Rich vs poor?" As crack open the dusty pages of some history books in the recesses of by book shelves-WAIT-since this is a Western Civ., class, "I adore these books and reference them often!" I share the following: According to "The English, A History of Politics and Society to 1760", A discussion percolates about a Roman Conquest of the territory as a casual "here we are" by the Romans: ". . .the Roman legacy in Britain was a negligible one, . . .no . . .account in the . . .development of government and society in the British Isles . . .The Roman legions crossed the channels in 55-54 B.C. and attacked the native Celtic population originally to suit the vanity of Julius Caesar" (I found this odd, as the Chamber text says the was killed in 44 B.C.) " . . .the Roman conquest of Britain was never more than a military action." In a Rand McNally "Atlas of World History" the text illustrates what is happening in the Orient about this time. Since the origins of Hinduism are obscure, the early Vedic religon can be traced to the Aryan people who conquered the Indus Valley in about 1000 B.C. They slowly developed an organized theology in about 500 A.D. During that time, a structure of class and social organiztion is clear. The caste system is a people structure that divides into self contained and sealed groups. "Womb to Tomb" would be a phrase that qualifies membership in these castes. Originally, there were about four castes: Warriors, Priests, Cultivators, and the Shudra(?) (do not know much about Shudra at this writing). Throughout the Aryan expansion, sub-castes developed; facilitated by race divisions. Due to divine responsibilities, the Priests quickly assumed authority. This is another human example of categorizing and organizing a social structure though division by religous power. It seems Romans were divided by the leadership and the values of a Republic. Other juicy historical tidbits can be found the Chinese Han Dynasty, the longest lived of the Chinese Dynasties, reigned from A.D. 25-220. Great canals and roads were developed for military use, and created a cash economy and merchant class, because these could be used for trade routes. Roots of the Home Shopping Network? Further reading on this culture discussed and Emperor Wu, 140-86 B.C. that made portions of land tax payable in grain, to offset a common revolt motivator. The commoners were appeased when this stock-piled grain was distributed during low food supply times. Pretty smart I dare say . . . [Thank you for tuning in to Jeff's "Great Minutes in History". Next week we will see Jeff actually become a Roman dissident and be ostracisized into the Roman Hills for 10 years with nothing but a toga. . .] Warm and Fuzzy Western Civ. Regards! Jeff, ========================== Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 08:43:21 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Will <> Subject: Roman Economy Chambers seems to discount economic influences that might have led to the fall of the Roman empire. Even though it took a century to end the Empire; several economic events seem to have contributed to the fall of Rome. 1. There was a devalutation of Roman currency. Silver, the backbone of the Roman currency was in short supply. Scared their money would soon be worthless, Romans began to hide the little silver that was left. (Without some type of valuable resource - like silver or gold - to back currency, money is worthless. 2. Effects of inflation where increased when emperors began supplying free food and entertainment to the people of Rome. Not only was this an expensive undertaking, it led to unemployement. There was no incentive to work. Small farmers would be better off leaving the hard work of their land and living leisurely off the city of Rome. The Roman economy also lost the revenue from taxes generated from these farms. Dogs and Cats were living together. 3. Slavery also played a part. There was no need to pay workers (which would expand the economy) when slave labor was available. The large plantations that resulted from the use of these slaves also generated unfair competition with the smaller farmers (aiding to the abandonment of their farmland). With the high inflation, high unemployment, low economy and low morale and responsibility of the Roman citizens, the empire became weak to the constant threat of invasion. ========================== Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 10:26:29 GMT+7 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "JASON " Organization: Boise State University Subject: The Role of Religion in Roman Gov't I was struck by something on page 93 of our text which says that Roman senators ". . . provided the moral leadership that saw the state through a military crisis." What were the foundations of these morals? Religion? Philosophy? Didn't this cause conflict among non-believers and those from different "schools of thought?" ========================== Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:21:00 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Scott <> Subject: Rome Economy It would be hard(maybe even stupid) to argue with any of Skip's conclusions on the failure of the Republic, but there is a point that Will's posting brought to mind about the changes on the farms and what happened to those displaced men. Will writes: <3. Slavery also played a part. There was no need to pay workers (which would Sender: HY101 From: John<> Subject: Re: The Fall of the Republic George Writes >Just a guess but I'll bet the plebians were consuming more wine than the >patricians were and I have to believe anyone that gets smashed at breakfast on a >regular basis probably doesn't have or want very much control over their lives >anyway as long as they have bread and wine and entertainment. It looks to me >like the government made sure the supply was there so perhaps it wasn't the >constitution that was to the detriment of the plebs as much as it was the ruling >class. > I used to think it was strange that entire countries seemed to be on a drunk all the time until I learned a little more about their cultures. There are a number of explanations that made some of my old ideas seem pretty contemptuos. Wine was drank by many cultures and stil are for a variety of reasons, a very important one was, and is, water quality. The old addage of "don't drink the water" isn't just for Montezuma in Mexico. I first began drinking "bottled water" when I was in the Navy. and I was in Naples Italy, in 1984. While their wines are noted for taste, the alchohol content was not a large concern to them.(They did not set out to really put an umph in their product). Second their culture is raised on drinking wine at ,every meal, every day, very small quantities, not in mass quatities. Third, their cultures greatly disapprove of intoxication, I was never shunned more by people in Europe than when I had been drinking to excess, otherwise they were very friendly. The wine and bread is a very, very, old "meal". They did not have saran wrap to keep the bread form growing stale or any other preservative, so they would let the bread get hard and then soften it with wine when they ate it. I have yet to find the baker that can come close to making the most wondeful bread I ate in the little deli's on the streets of Italy and Spain and drank fabulous wines. I have a frugal gourmet cookbook that has a recipe thats close though! John \|/ (O O) ==========================oO0==(_)==0Oo=============================== ============================ ========================== Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:38:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Irene < > Subject: Greek/Roman Alphabet One thing that I thought was interesting in my reading this week, was that the Romans adopted their alphabet from the Greeks (book reading p.91, second column,). I thought that Greek alphabets and Roman alphabets were totally different. Maybe I'm just thinking of their numeral system. Yet if they adopted their alphabet, why didn't they adopt the Greeks numeral system. Did the Romans have a well established numeral system before the Greeks and the Etruscans? ========================== Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:49:10 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: Succession of Emperors After Augustus One thing strikes me as very strange, and that is how Tiberius managed = to succeed Augustus as Emperor. First, Augustus did not like Tiberius and had a low opinion of his = political abilities (The First Caesars p. 12). And yet, among his own = advice to Tiberius in his Will was to rely only on men of tried ability = and not play favorites (The First Caesars p. 13). But isn't that = exactly what Augustus had done in choosing Tiberious to succeed him? He = certainly hadn't chosen Tiberius on the basis of his ruling abilities or = skills. Second, Tiberius was a stepson, not even a blood relative (this pattern = is repeated later). Perhaps the fact that Augustus was the adopted son = of Julius Caesar resulted in the non-emphasis on blood relations. I would think that Augustus, having ruled so wisely, would have made an = even wiser, more calculated, decision regarding his own successor. = Surely he must have realized that putting the wrong person into a = position of that much power could do great harm to the Empire! Since he = was the first Emperor, and there were no laws regarding succession, = couldn't he have chosen someone more qualified for the position, or even = asked the Senate (so highly respected by him) to assist in the = selection? This seems to have been a major mistake on Augustus' part. ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 09:39:03 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike < > Subject: Re: Succession of Emperors After Augustus Teresa wrote: At 07:49 P 2/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >One thing strikes me as very strange, and that is how Tiberius managed to succeed Augustus as Emperor. > >First, Augustus did not like Tiberius and had a low opinion of his political abilities (The First Caesars p. 12). And yet, aong his own advice to Tiberius in his Will was to rely only on men of tried ability and not play favorites (The First Caesars p. 13). But isn't that exactly what Augustus had done in choosing Tiberious to succeed him? He certainly hadn't chosen Tiberius on the basis of his ruling abilities or skills. > >Second, Tiberius was a stepson, not even a blood relative (this pattern is repeated later). Perhaps the fact that Augustus was the adopted son of Julius Caesar resulted in the non-emphasis on blood relations. > Octavian was said to be quite conservative and to exhibit traditional Roman values. I believe that because of these values, he choose his stepson to be his succssor. His wife Livia knew how he felt about such matters and persuaded him to adopt Tiberius.(Chambers p.118) Also, according to the lectures (The End of Republican Rome p.36) When Antony snubbed Octavia, Octavian's sister and Antony's wife, for Cleopatra, that Octavian felt that Antony had gone too far and instead of comproising as he had done in other situations, he went to war. Even though he had his reservations about Tiberius, he was his son, adopted or not, and he would be the next emperor. Mike ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 09:56:49 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Re: Religion in Roman Gov't Will wrote: At 10:46 A 2/16/96 -0700, you wrote: >Its a good point about the role religion might have played in the fall >of the Roman empire. Looks like Christianity came along at the >perfect time. Would Christianity have spread so quickly and draw so >any people had it come earlier to Rome? > > In the Chambers text (p. 113) "Augustus assued the office of Pontifex Maxmius, or high priest, and made attempts to revive the old Roman religion, probably as a device to promote political stability." I wonder if the emperor's who followed Augustus would have felt the same way, if Christianity would have been concidered a greater political threat. There was much violence against Christians already, would there have been a stronger tendency to promote genecide? Would there have been Christianity? Mike ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 10:20:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: The First Triumvirate >Ite Subject: cc:ail Text > The First Triumvirate - consisting of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar - > agreed to for a coalition to force the Senate to obey the. > > Neither Chambers (textbook) or the on-line lectures state the amount > of time Pompey ruled Spain or Crassus ruled Syria (p.21 Lecture - The > End of Republic Rome) and yet it specifies that Caesar had Gaul for > another five years. Why only five years? The Triumvirate was in > control and could have demanded any amount of time. Is there a > political strategy here that I'm not seeing? The five years was the ter of the agreeent between the three en. Presumably, they felt five years was about as long as they could trust their interests would coincide. Crassus is in Syria until he is killed by the Parthians. That puts an end to most careers! Pompey has his turf until he's killed by the Egyptians in 48. So, technically, he survived the full length of the arrangement. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 10:25:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Proof of citizenship Scott said, >How do these people prove their Roman citizen status? Did they have "green > cards", tatoos, weekly postings ... Anyone have read anything about this? > Nope, I don't have anything specific. The father of a household would be the one to vouch for who was in the faily and who was not, and membership in Rome was really by family more than by individual. Still, if I were to claim this or that person was or was not in my family, who would gainsay me? Could a person appeal at law? Could someone else claim I was *not* truly a citizen? When Paul claimed he was a Roman citizen (in the Bible), how could he have proven that? Dunno. I'll leave this post open and see what I can find. Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 12:35:09 EST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Chad" < > Subject: Roman practice of throwing gifts to the crowd In doing some outside reading, I ran across an interesting article on the Roman practice of _sparcio_. Sparcio was the practice of "bestowing public donatives by thowing things among the multitude to be scrambled for in scenes of wild disorder . . ." Sparcio was practiced as a New Years' rite as well as at weddings and funerals. (I wonder if our practice of throwing rice at weddings and confetti at parades is related to this?) A variety of items were thrown to the crowds at different times, including coins, balls, figurines, figs, dates nuts, grain, beans, etc. It symbolized "abundance of everything good" and the giver of the sparcio represented Janus, the mythical first king and father of the race. "During the Republic, for example, a magistrate giving grain on a lavish scale could be charged with trying to play king to the people . . . . Cicero has only praise for a system whcih enables great men to win all but regal acclaim, yet he is quite aware how ill the usage suits a republican order and insists that public liberality is a royal, not a private, virtue." I thought this was interesting both in how it relates to the later Roman practice of providing free food and entertainment and also as a cultural practice. All information and quotes are fro "Sparsiones" in THE ANCIENT STATE by Hugh Nibley. ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 10:43:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Roman Economy Will S. said, >1. There was a devalutation of Roman currency. Silver, the backbone of the >Roman currency was in short supply. Scared their money would soon be >worthless, Romans began to hide the little silver that was left. (Without some >type of valuable resource - like silver or gold - to back currency, >money is worthless. Um, well, you see, ah, that is, are we in trouble here? The US went off the gold standard in the 1930s, and off the silver standard in the 1960s. Whereupon we immediately devalued our currency (quarters *used* to be real silver). Our money does not represent any real bullion anywhere. It's all make-believe. Being a historian tends to reveal disconcerting information like this. Have a happy day! ;-) > >2. Effects of inflation where increased when emperors began supplying >free food >and entertainment to the people of Rome. Not only was this an >expensive undertaking, >it led to uneployement. There was no incentive to work. Small >farmers would be >better off leaving the hard work of their land and living leisurely off >the city of Rome. >The Roman econoy also lost the revenue fro taxes generated from these farms. >Dogs and Cats were living together. Quoting Bill Murray does *not* win extra points, though it does make the instructor smile. Here's an exaple of why chronology is so important in our trade. Looking at the facts, you'll find that free bread was first offered in the days of Gaius Gracchus, and that free entertainment was equally old. Since the Roman Empire lasted another 500 years or so, it's hard to blame that one. Will's subsequent sentences illustrate the dangers of deductive reasoning. While what he claims *sounds* reasonable -- why work when I can live free in Rome? -- historians immediately ask: where's your evidence? I know there's none in the lectures or the textbook. Sometimes all you can do is make deductions, because the records are mute. Very well. At least consider contrary logic. In this case: Why should I leave my farm, which provides for me and my family, which has been in my family for generations and which will provide a place for my descendants to live, to go live in the slums of Rome where my children will be exposed to the worst elements, and our security from day to day will be determined by gangs and rats? Living on welfare has never been the greatest of choices. > >3. Slavery also played a part. There was no need to pay workers (which would >expand the econoy) when slave labor was available. The large plantations >that resulted fro the use of these slaves also generated unfair >copetition with >the saller farers (aiding to the abandonent of their farland). There is nothing in economic theory that says the mere paying of workers will expand an economy. We were paying workers right and left when our economy nose-dived in the 1890s and again in the 1930s. The point about the latifundia (large plantations) is well-made and correct. However, check your dates again. This development dates from the late Republic, not the late Empire. General rule: when you find yourself setting forth an argument, cause and effect, and you see that there are no dates in your writing, an alarm bell should go off in your head. Dates are not important in and of themselves, it's just that when we ignore the we fall too easily into an array of traps. Cause and effect is tricky business, especially in really large trends and events such as the fall of the Empire. Was weak currency (which began in the 3rd century AD) a *cause* of further troubles, or did the political disorder in Rome lead to devaluations of currency? Or were both syptoms of something deeper? Sometimes, and the currency devaluation is an example, it can be both cause and effect, both profound and trivial. A Roman emperor devalues the coinage as a quick way to pay for a war and avoid having to raise taxes. His aims are short-term, but the effects persist long after he's gone. Perhaps a stronger emperor would not have had to devalue the coinage at all, leaving the economy in better shape. But the fact remains that the devaluation happened, and the economy was weakened, and later generations had to deal with that as one cause of their own troubles. So, I too would disagree with Chambers. The economy was a significant factor. This is pretty obvious: with anything as big as the fall of the Roman Empire, *everything* is going to figure into it. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:02:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: The Fall of the Republic George E. said, >It seems to me that this shouldn't be the right question. By the 1st century BC >there shouldn't have been that much distinction between the plebians and the >patricians. They were given the right to intermarry in 445 BC so with roughly >400 years of melting pot policy there shouldn't have been that much distinction >between the two. You're right, being patrician or pleb wasn't a burning political issue any more. Nevertheless, and there's nothing in our readings that would have told you this, it was still an important distinction socially. Just because the law said the two could intermarry, in fact intermarriage was uncommon. Aristocrats don't willingly mix with the common herd. One powerful motivating force behind Gaius Marius was the fact that he was from a family only recently noble, and he was never accepted by the old guard of patricians. >governent expense. Poorer citizens became so fond of the great spectacles that >the poet Juvenal described their only needs in life as "Pane et circenses" or >bread and circuses. It also states that wine was one of the main staples in >their diet; they even dipped bread in it for breakfast. Juvenal wasn't just a poet, he was a satirist and he was deeply contemptuous of the rabble. We have to be cautious in accepting any portrait of the plebs that he paints. Also, everyone drank wine, regardless of social class. Some were drunkards, most were not. I don't know of any evidence to indicate things were worse at Rome than at any other period. That said, the plebs were indeed out of the loop in politics in the late Republic, or at least they were not participating the way their forebears had envisioned. The main forum for the plebs to make their will felt was the Tribunician Assembly. This reaches a peak in the late 100s, but with the rise of the great generals (Marius and later), that voice was drowned out just as the Senate's was. In the days of Caesar and Pompey, the plebs were merely pawns, bought and sold by the great men. George was on the right track here. But not only the plebs failed. The patricians failed, the entire system failed. Even though Caesar and others took the old titles and filled the old offices, in fact they operated completely outside the Roman constitution, and the forces that had shaped that constitution -- patricians, plebians, allies, etc. -- were all subordinated to their ambitions and their armies. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:16:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Education Jade C. said, > One of the things mentioned in the reading was how Cornelia, >Scipio's widow, was "a woman of high education" (Chabner, p. 100). What in >ancient Rome was considered high education and how was it obtained? In a >culture where women had there place, why or how was she to achieve such a >distinction? Did she only become highly educated as a result of being >married to Scipio? If so, were all wives of such persons entitled to such an >education? This raises the even bigger question of education itself. Were >there "teachers" around who educated these people? Was education compulsory >or was it all on a who can afford how uch basis? And what constituted being >highly educated during that tie. They certainly weren't responsible for >understanding germ theory or kinetic molecular theory. George E. answered some of this. "High education" increasingly came to mean being educated in Greece, or at least by Greeks. Higher education meant the ability to read, write and speak Greek, familiarity with Greek literature, and a knowledge of Greek history. A woman could receive such an education because the family could afford it and thought she was worth it. Rome had its fair share of doting parents and brilliant, prized children. Or, the parents might simply have wished to have their marriable daughter seem attractive. But don't overlook the fact that these women had minds of their own and could *ask* to continue their education, simply because they wanted to. Yes there were teachers. There were schools, with teachers on staff (private, not public), and there were tutors, for the wealthy. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:19:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: The Meditations of Marcus A. Antoninus Linda T made some good observations on the good emperor, though she did confuse him with the Marcus Antoninus who hung out with Julius Caesar. Our emperor lived in the 100s AD and is counted among the Five Good Emperors. His _Meditations_ was read all through the Middle Ages and is a classic statement of stoic philosophy. It's also a wonderful statement by a man deep in politics and the world of the virtues of contemplation and solitary reflection. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 11:25:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Fall of the Republic Mike said, > The ilitary is the Republic, but the Republic failed because of the >military. This ay be too general, but it sees to be the situation. It would be going too far to say themilitary was the Republic. I obviously disagree with the statement that Chambers makes, that the Republic was primarily a military machine. If one accepts Chambers, the immediate question arises, what was Rome doing during periods of peace? Even so, one can argue that themilitary was not in Roman politics for most of the Republic. That is, Roman general were not interfering in the Senate, were not turning all of Rome to their own agenda. That's the hallmark of the last days of the Republic. And that's what I was referring to in my lecture. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 15:03:50 EST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Chad" <> Subject: "moral decay" contributed to fall of Republic As I read various sources, it appears that aong other factors, the decline in loyalty to the state and in personal ethics and discipline was an important factor in the decay and fall of the Roman Republic. It appears that the Senate leadership was increasingly weak and self-serving, leaving a power vacuum to be filled by the first ambitious general to come to power. Even the schools were permissive and lax. This is illustrated by the following passage about the Roman educational system int he first century BC: "The system was originally designed for upper-class youths, brought up by slaves who spoiled the rotten, traditionally permitted to indulge in properly directed political rioting and midnight depredations against the lower classes and their leaders. . . . 'Nature itself suggests desires to youth,' wrote Cicero, 'and if they injure no one else's life, whatever they do is endurable and pardonable . . . only a crank would deny youth their amours with courtesans.' Philostratus blasts the Romans for their scrupulous attention to harbors and roads while 'neither you nor your laws show the slightest interest in the children of your cities, or in the young people or women.'" THE ANCIENT STATE, High Nibley, pp. 292-293 To me, the final resort to violence as a means of achieving political ends followed by the rise of politcal gangs and near anarchy sees to be the logical result of the gradual loss of personal discipline and ethical conduct that accopanied Rome's later years of power and wealth. ========================== Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 19:28:39 EST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Chad" <> Subject: Cicero The more I read, the more I see Cicero cited as a source, so I decided to find out a little more about him. In addition to the section devoted to him in Chambers, p. 106, I found that: "more writings of Cicero than of any other Latin author have survived. In hundreds of letters to friends, including nearly all the famous people of his day, he presented an intiate picture of Roman life. Also revealed is the many-sided character of the man statesman, collector of books and paintings, country squire, and devoted father. His speeches made Cicero famous as perhaps the most eloquent orator and masterful stylist of the Latin language." He was executed at Mark Antony's orders because of his earlier opposition to Antony. Compton s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1994 Another quote from THE COMPARISON OF DEOSTHENES AND CICERO by Plutarch, translated by John Dryden gives a little more insight into Cicero's personality: "Cicero's love of mockery often ran him into scurrility; and in his love of laughing away serious arguments in judicial cases by jests and facetious remarks, with a view to the advantage of his clients, he paid too little regard to what was decent: saying, for example, in his defence of Caelius, that he had done no absurd thing in such plenty and affluence to indulge himself in pleasures, it being a kind of madness not to enjoy the things we possess, especially since the most eminent philosophers have asserted pleasures to be the chiefest good. So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "my friends, what an amusing consul we have." http://the-tech.it.edu/Classics/Plutarch/d_cicero.body.htl ========================== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 14:56:16 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Re: Cicero At 07:28 P 2/17/96 EST, you wrote: >The more I read, the more I see Cicero cited as a source, so I decided to find >out a little ore about him. > He was >executed at ark Antony's orders because of his earlier opposition to Antony. >Copton s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1994 > > http://the-tech.it.edu/Classics/Plutarch/d_cicero.body.html > I read from http://the-tech.it.edu/Classics/Plutarch/antony.su.html that Cicero had Antony's stepfather put to death for his part in the Catiline conspiracy. It also states "This probably, was the first ground and occasion of that mortal grudge that Antony bore Cicero." Was the reason that Cicero hated Caesar and Antony due to their families involvment in this Catiline conspiracy? Antony's other was related to the Caesar family and so there is a tie there. Was there some other reason? Mike ========================== Date: on, 19 Feb 1996 00:26:03 GT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: Fall of the Republic Linda T. writes: >I believe the struggle was over the question of power for deciding what was >best for Rome...who was the better ruler and what was the best kind of rule. > The destruction cae about as a result of inconsistency through changes in >power, division in loyalties, changes in style of rule and changes in the >rules theselves. Linda, I agree with you on this point. I too think that the fall of the Roman Republic was due to these things. I also feel that the leaders did what was not only right in their eyes for the Republic but what was the best strategy for themselves. For instance, Octavian took Caesar's name out of not only loyalty for his great, dead adopted father, but also since Caesar made a big name for himself he felt that this could help him gain power. Since Octavian was adopted, he did not fit into the paternistic ideals of lineage to the ruling seat. And yet, the Senate chose him to fight Antony. I thought that this was very interesting! Cindy ========================== Date: on, 19 Feb 1996 00:55:34 GT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: Education Jane writes: One of the things mentioned in the reading was how Cornelia, >Scipio's widow, was "a woman of high education" (Chabner, p. 100). What in >ancient Rome was considered high education and how was it obtained? In a >culture where women had there place, why or how was she to achieve such a >distinction? Did she only becoe highly educated as a result of being >arried to Scipio? If so, were all wives of such persons entitled to such an >education? I would like to address Jane's questions to the best of my ability. Maybe the Roman educational system was similar to the modern Mexican system. There, boys are the ones who are taught the most at school, while women are taught at home. If a child is well-off, he may go as far as the U.S. ninth grade in abilities. If not, he is taught things like working the fields. As far as I know, the Mexican econoy does not support an educational system. The wealthy do. The girls of Mexico go to school as far as the sixth grade. This is why they almost always see to be behind when their failies iigrate to the United States. Maybe the sae policies applied in the ancient Roman civilization. These are just my thoughts on the subject. I liked your questions. Cindy ========================== Date: on, 19 Feb 1996 01:09:17 GT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy<> Subject: Re: Rome Skip writes: >The Romans were less insular. While they were chary of citizenship for >foreigners, and believed deeply that the very best sort of human was one >born in Rome, nevertheless, they showed great tolerance for local cultures >as they expanded and conquered. They allowed local peoples to keep their >gods, their customs, and even their governments, so long as they obeyed >Roman law and paid their taxes. This is a cosmopolitan attitude rarely found >among the Greeks. Was this because they wanted to assimilate as many peoples into their cultures as possible? Or maybe they did this so that there would be no friction between the different cultures and the Romans? From what you're saying on how the "local peoples were ok as long as they obeyed the Roman law and paid their taxes" it doesn't seem to me that they were very free. Cindy ^^A rose by any other name...^^ ========================== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 18:47:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: The Fall of the Republic One other point to add to John's direct experiences regarding the drinking of wine: uch of the wine drunk was ixed with water and did not have a high alcohol content. So having a cup or two at idday and another cup or two, or even three or four, was not enough to lead to drunkenness. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:29:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Reports Soe of you are asking about the report assignents and are chiding e for not having copleted that part of the syllabus. Apologies all around. I would try to plead a busy schedule but I don't think holds uch water with you folks! Anyway, driven by guilt, I have finished the description and it's available on the Web. It's in the course syllabus, under reports. The direct URL is http://www.idbsu.edu/courses/hy101/adin/reports.htl If you have any questions, ask the directly to e. If I hear a coon thee, I'll post a coent back to the class. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@micron.net ========================== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:51:00 ST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Succession of Emperors After Augustus Teresa's observation about Augustus is an astute one, and ike's reply is one the oney. Let e add a couple other points. Tiberius was no slouch and no loser. He was arguably the bestmilitary commander of his day and Augustus reposed great faith in his abilities in that direction. He was less confident of Tiberius' skills as a politician. The second point is that Augustus *did* consider other candidates. They kept dying. By the end of Augustus' life, Tiberius was about the only one left standing who was both competent and within the family. There was another, after all. There was Claudius. But Claudius was regarded by everyone as an idiot and no one dreamed of making him emperor. The key, though, as both Mike and Teresa have noted, is that Augustus evidently never considered the possibility of anyone outside the family succeeding him. This is demonstrated by the fact that when Augustus' first choice, his nephew Marcellus, died, and he turned to his old friend and war-comrade Agrippa, he had Agrippa marry his daughter Julia. It was only after Agrippa and his two sons had died that Augustus finally agreed to adopt Tiberius as his own son (2 AD). This illustrates as well as anything the personal nature of the Roman Emperor. This was no public office, no regular part of the constitution of a state, but rather it was the invention of one man who felt the best protection was to keep it within his own family. The Republic had let a Leviathan into its midst and had no way of getting rid of it. It was almost a hundred years before anyone dared to become emperor without having to be related to the house of Julius. Tiberius' succession, to answer Teresa on this point, was smooth largely because everyone wanted it to be smooth. Augustus had publicly associated Tiberius with himself during his last two years, openly relied on him, and everyone knew Tiberius was picked to succeed. The army, which admired him, immediately recognized his succession. His own son, Drusus, read Augustus' will to the Senate. There was no hint of resistance. Who would want a return to the wars of the Republic? And besides, all could console themselves by knowing that Augustus himself had proclaimed the Restoration of the Republic. It is astonishing to realize that the Roman Empire, which carries such mythic weight even today, was in fact the invention of one man, who was just making it up as he went along! Countless writers have investigated why the Roman Empire fell. The really fascinating question to me is: how did it ever manage to last beyond the first generation? It's a complicated question, but I hope you've been able to identify a few of the factors. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net ========================== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 19:59:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: The Role of Religion in Roman Gov't Jason wrote, >I was struck by something on page 93 of our text which says that Roman senators >". . . provided the moral leadership that saw the state through a military >crisis." What were the foundations of these morals? Religion? Philosophy? >Didn't this cause conflict among non-believers and those from different >"schools of thought?" The foundations of the morals came from the Roman family and its associated values (strong paternalism, not unlike the role of the Senate in the state) and from the Roman religion. It did not cause conflict among non-believers because there weren't any. But, yes, other schools of thought did cause dissension and conflict. There were groups who held different values. So long as Romans came in contact only with the peoples of the western Mediterranean, they encountered no religious or philosophical systems to challenge their own. Once they began conquering the East, however, this comfortable situation changed. Certain Greek philosophies and especially certain eastern mystical cults presented strong challenges to the Roman way and attracted their share of Roman adherents. There were those in the late Republic who were ready to blame all the ills of the day on the pernicious influence of the Greeks (and other decadent easterners). There was nothing wrong with the Roman system, they said, but only corruption from outside forces. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net ========================== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 20:00:04 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Re: Fall of the Republic For instance, Octavian took Caesar's name out of not only >loyalty for his great, dead adopted father, but also since Caesar made a big >name for himself he felt that this could help him gain power. Since Octavian >was adopted, he did not fit into the paternistic ideals of lineage to the >ruling seat. And yet, the Senate chose him to fight Antony. I thought that >this was very interesting! > >Cindy > Did not Cicero choose Octavian to fight Antony, because he felt that he could control Octavian? In the Chambers text (pg. 111) it states "Cicero, the chief supporter of the old constitution, naively wrote of Octavian after their first meeting, "The young man is completely devoted to me." Octavian soon proved that he had plans of his own. Mike ========================== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 20:04:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Religion in Roman Gov't Will said, >Its a good point about the role religion might have played in the fall >of the Roman empire. Looks like Christianity came along at the >perfect time. Would Christianity have spread so quickly and draw so >many people had it come earlier to Rome? Don't confuse the Empire with the Republic! There were Christians already in Rome when Paul arrived there in the 50s AD, so one can hardly blame the Christians for the fall of the Republic. And since Christianity was in the capitol from the very early days, it's a bit hard to blame the religion for the fall of the Empire, some four centuries later. ============================== Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net ========================== Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:08:27 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Nancy <> Subject: Re: Proof of citizenship Comments: To: skip@MMicron.net In-Reply-To: One way that you could prove your citizenship was that you would be on record to pay taxes ("Ancient Rome" by Robert Payne). Nancy ========================== Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 12:11:30 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Nancy <> Subject: Re: Succession of Emperors After Augustus Comments: To: skip@MMicron.net >It is astonishing to realize that the Roman Empire, which carries >such mythic weight even today, was in fact the invention of one man, >who was just making it up as he went along! Countless writers have >investigated why the Roman Empire fell. The really fascinating >question to me is: how did it ever manage to last beyond the first >generation? It's a complicated question, but I hope you've been able >to identify a few of the factors. In "ANCIENT ROME" by Robert Payne (p.183), he states, "Though Augustus himself has been estimated to have either built or rebuilt over one hundred public buildings, his interests did not lie in the direction of devising a new city plan. He did, however, reorganize the city's management in a manner that again revealed his administrative mastery. He divided the sprawling metropolis into fourteen *regiones*, or wards, and over two hundred fifty precincts. To maintain public order he set up a police force of three cohorts of a thousand men each, reporting to the city prefect. To guard against fires, Rome's greatest daily hazard, he established a corps of seven cohorts of professional firemen, or *vigiles*, who also had the power to make arrests. To maintain its public buildings, to safeguard its water supply, and to oversee the maintenance of the roads, he appointed separate boards of commissioners known as *curatores*. The architect, Vitruvius..."goes on to remark that the emperor had embarked on a program of general welfare, the establishment of public order, and the provision of public buildings intended for practical use." (p.184) Augustus showed the Romans that he cared for their well-being by organizing the police force, firemen, and boards to focus on the upkeep and safety of public buildings, the water supply and public roads. This would promote loyalty with anyone as it does in our society today. We are always more apt to support a leader that does good for the general public than for one that only tries to help the rich, or some other pocket of society. Perhaps this played a part in the longevity of the Roman Empire. Nancy ========================== Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 12:23:33 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Nancy <> Subject: Roman Women Item Subject: cc:Mail Text There was some curiosity about Roman women so thought I would share this with you from "ANCIENT ROME" by Robert Payne pp.127-128: "Though the Romans were philhellenes in their acquisition of ideas and tastes, they still adhered to many of their own. Not all the influence of Athens altered, for instance, the position of Roman women -- particularly the Roman matron of the upper classes, proud, dignified, often a participant in her husband's public affairs, and free from the seclusion that had shut in the Athenian wife. She was the object of high matrimonial alliances between clans; she accompanied her husband to banquets and often made her voice heard in politics. Cicero's wife Terentia, a particularly gifted woman, appears to have been highly skilled at handling her husband's property and accounts. The high role of the Roman leader's lady--one to become even more important amid the strategic marriages and divorces of Caesar and thereafter--stood in contract to the low role of the courtesan, one very different from the part played by the gifted *hetaira* in Athenian Greece. Liaisons outside of marriage were at best furtive; and as for the prostitute, there was no talk of obliging temple hostesses such as those at Corinth. Prostitutes took out licenses at the aediles' office and thereupon donned their distinctive dress and boldly dyed their hair to denote their calling." Another interesting fact I found in this particular resource was the the Romans were fanatic gamblers. The ladies were also heavy betters. Nancy ========================== Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 15:12:54 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: Re: Roman Women Nancy posted the following: "Though the Romans were philhellenes in their acquisition of ideas and tastes, they still adhered to many of their own. Not all the influence of Athens altered, for instance, the position of Roman women -- particularly the Roman matron of the upper classes, proud, dignified, often a participant in her husband's public affairs, and free from the seclusion that had shut in the Athenian wife. She was the object of high matrimonial alliances between clans; she accompanied her husband to banquets and often made her voice heard in politics. Cicero's wife Terentia, a particularly gifted woman, appears to have been highly skilled at handling her husband's property and accounts. My source, Sarah B. Pomeroy, in "Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity" had the following to say about Roman women: ". . . wealthy aristocratic women who played high politics and presided over literary salons were nevertheless expected to be able to spin and weave as though they were living in the days when Rome was young. These social myths set up a tension between the ideal and the real Roman matron, and were responsible for the praise awarded a woman like Cornelia, . . ." Also in the same text it is stated that Augustus legislated a way for women to free themselves from formal male supervision by having given birth to three children (a freeborn woman) or four children (a freedwoman) -- it was deemed that women who had these many children were considered wise and capable enough to manage their own affairs! Now that's justice! ========================== Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 15:16:28 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa <> Subject: Comp: problems downloading I have changed the formatting in my Exchange program (it was posting in MIME format and is no longer). I never was attempting to attach files and have always used Exchange to compose my messages. I hope this formatting change will solve the problems with AOL users. If not, please send me a message and I'll investigate further. Thanks! ========================== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 06:48:17 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike <> Subject: Caesar While reading Antony by Plutarch, I noticed this relation between our lectures and this writing. In the last sentenance it says that Caesar had them (the tribunes) deposed for removing the crown from his statue. Apparently Caesar was not concerned about how this action would be taken by the people of Rome. According to this writing, the people were more than happy that he did not accept the crown. Would this not make Caesar look like a hypocite? Did he depose of them in a way that did not look like retribution? The End of Republican Rome - Page 27 of 39 >Conspiracy > >The last straw came in February 44, when he was made dictator for life. >Would Caesar become king? At a public event, Marc Antony offered him a golden >crown -- the mark of a king -- but he refused it. Some say the gesture was >genuine, but others suspected it was but another instance of Caesarian >politics, a carefully orchestrated event between he and Antony to reassure >the mob that Caesar would not be king. >From Antony by Plutarch (http://the-tech.mit.edu/Classics/Plutarch/antony.sum.html) > And the fairest pretext for that conspiracy was furnished, without > his meaning it, by Antony himself. The Romans were celebrating their > festival, called the Lupercalia, when Caesar, in his triumphal habit, > and seated above the rostra in the market-place, was a spectator of > the sports. The custom is, that many young noblemen and of the > magistracy, anointed with oil and having straps of hide in their > hands, run about and strike, in sport, at every one they meet. Antony > was running with the rest; but, omitting the old ceremony, twining a > garland of bay round a diadem, he ran up to the rostra, and, being > lifted up by his companions, would have put it upon the head of > Caesar, as if by that ceremony he was declared king. Caesar seemingly > refused, and drew aside to avoid it, and was applauded by the people > with great shouts. Again Antony pressed it, and again he declined its > acceptance. And so the dispute between them went on for some time, > Antony's solicitations receiving but little encouragement from the > shouts of a few friends, and Caesar's refusal being accompanied with > the general applause of the people; a curious thing enough, that they > should submit with patience to the fact, and yet at the same time > dread the name as the destruction of their liberty. Caesar, very much > discomposed at what had passed got up from his seat, and, laying bare > his neck, said he was ready to receive a stroke, if any one of them >> desired to give it. The crown was at last put on one of his statues, << >> but was taken down by some of the tribunes, who were followed home by << >> the people with shouts of applause. Caesar, however, resented it, and << >> deposed them. << ========================== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 14:05:36 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Linda T." <> Subject: Re: Succession of Emperors after Augustus Skip wrote referring to the Roman Empire I believe that the key to the ability of the Roman Empire s survival lies in the period of the 5 good emperors. (Nerva 96-98, Trajan 98-117, Hadrian 117-138, Pius 138-161 and Aurelius 161-180). When Nerva began the process of choosing his successor by adopting the most capable, he instituted a time of perhaps the wisest and noblest line of rulers the world has ever known . (Compton s Reference Collection) Trajan was a great conquering emperor (Compton s) and away on campaigns most of the time but made sure that Rome s government was carefully guided. During his rule, several administrative reforms were also made. (Encarta) Hadrian consolidated and improved the Empire s organization and fortified it s frontiers . (Compton s) He was responsible for documenting fair and humane laws (Hadrian s Laws) for the purpose of improving conditions for the soldiers and slaves. (Chambers 120) Marcus Aurelius was a champion for the poor for whom he founded schools, orphanages and alleviated the burden of taxes. He also tried to humanize the criminal laws and the treatment of slaves by their masters . (Encarta) With the exception of Nerva, the emperors ruled for between 19 and 21 years each. It was when Marcus Aurelius abandoned the principle of adoption and passed the throne to his worthless son, Commodus , (Chambers 120) that the empire began it s decline. Between 180-284, 27 men were made emperors (Compton s) These rulers were well educated, versed in many areas, intelligent and compassionate. I believe it was the quality and the ability of these rulers along with the longevity of their rule, that guaranteed success of the empire in the beginning. ========================== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:37:20 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Linda T." <> Subject: The Annals of Imperial Rome The Annals of Imperial Rome (assigned reading), provides an interesting story about the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, during the reign of the emperor Nero. It offers a very graphic description of the destruction and of the lives lost. Many people even committed suicide because they were so distraught over the loss of property or loved ones. The lecture states that The event would show the best and worst in Nero . The Annals of Imperial Rome offers evidence in several forms. Following the fire he did provide food and shelter to the homeless. He also rebuilt a more efficiently designed city. The problem was that Nero was suspected of causing the fire that destroyed nearly 2/3 s of the city so that this more efficient city could be built. According to Encarta, the case has been virtually proven that this was not so. (Correct?) Anyway, in order to remove the blame from himself he set blame to the Christians. His was the first persecution of Christians. While he was carrying on amazing atrocities towards people belonging to this mystery, provinces were ruined, temples destroyed and stupid military decisions were made. The Annals describes an instance where a naval fleet was destroyed because Nero made them sail on a fixed day with no allowance for "the dangers of the sea". ========================== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:50:00 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Scott <> Subject: Thoughts on Teresa's Succession of Emperors after Augustus I too agree with Teresa that Augustus broke one of his three rules when he selected Tiberius. In defense of Augustus, the circumstances leading to the selection were very odd. There were several mysterious deaths of possible heirs (lecture.) Also, his last wife, Livia, persuaded him into adopting her son(Chamber's). Makes me wonder if she was behind the mysterious deaths to allow her son to become Emperor (based on nothing more than extrapolating facts from different sources on my part;^). The Senate had an opportunity to change Augustus's choice, but by recognizing Tiberius they confirmed the principle of dynastic succession (Chamber's pg 118.) The question of succession was a large flaw in Augustus's plan and was responsible for the string of horrible leaders that followed. This was a key contributor in the fall of the Empire. Teresa writes: Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Succession of Emperors After Augustus Nancy, quoting Payne, says, -snip- > reporting to the city prefect. To guard against fires, Rome's > greatest daily hazard, he established a corps of seven cohorts of > professional firemen, or *vigiles*, who also had the power to make > arrests. To maintain its public buildings, to safeguard its water Yes, that is indeed where we get the word "vigilante" from. For that matter, the word "posse" means "to be able" or "to have the power" to do something. Just a little Latin for y'all, partner. = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Talk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:55:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Roman Women Teresa T. said, >Also in the same text it is stated that Augustus legislated a way for women >to free themselves from formal male supervision by having given birth to >three children (a freeborn woman) or four children (a freedwoman) -- it was >deemed that women who had these many children were considered wise and >capable enough to manage their own affairs! Now that's justice! Augustus was trying to promote a high birth rate among the Romans, and especially among the elite. The civil wars had decimated the nobility and the citizenry in general, and he sought to increase their numbers in a variety of ways. This was one of them. = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Talk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 22:03:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Teresa's Succession of Emperors after Augustus Scott said, >There were several mysterious deaths of possible heirs (lecture.) Also, his > last wife, Livia, persuaded him into adopting her son(Chamber's). Makes me > wonder if she was behind the mysterious deaths to allow her son to become > Emperor (based on nothing more than extrapolating facts from different sources > on my part;^). This is as good a place as any for me to plug one of the best historical dramas ever done: I, Claudius. This was a mini-series done for PBS in the 1970s for Masterpiece Theatre. The acting and production were brilliant and makes for wonderful viewing. It's based on two books by Robert Graves, and covers the Empire from the later years of Augustus down to the end of the reign of Claudius. It's a 13-part series, one-hour each, and can be found at some video rental stores. It is, far and away, the best soap opera ever done. The family maneuverings, love affairs, dirty deeds done in the dark, foul murders and wild characters just keep coming one after the other. It's lurid and fascinating and well worth the time invested. And, apropos of Scott's comment, it most definitely pins the rap on Livia! = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Talk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 22:18:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: The Empire We've only a couple of days left before the exam. You may consider this either a summary or an invitation to comment. The Roman Empire fell more than once. The first time was in 69 AD, the Year of the Four Emperors. The Augustan constitution was based around the control of the imperium by a particular family; the crisis that followed after Nero established that anyone could become Emperor, provided only that they controlled the army. But the empire was still much as Augustus had left it. The Five Good Emperors developed a system that might have worked, but the strains under Commodus undid their work. You can either place the second fall of Rome with the so-called Crisis of the Third Century, which traditionally is dated from 238-275. This was a real fall. The Empire was in shambles by the 270s, and what Diocletian and Constantine put together was significantly different from what Augustus invented. To my mind, it was Augustus' Roman Empire that fell in the 3rd century, and it was Diocletian's empire that fell in the 5th century. Just some general observations, trying to move us toward the 5th century and away from the Republic. After all, in two weeks we'll be meeting Charlemagne! = Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net Talk softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword ========================== dSummaryInformation( Knox@w @@w @Microsoft Word 6.01u,X$^_JD1{Z[E - |  K 9 /;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;- & R ~ #;<gQ*t S'p~X./rM/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-M'(sC%WX6!hxy%Qg"`aD/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;--d e ?!P!!!!#"@"A"B"]""""" #R#S###;$$$$$%:%R%m%n%% &Y&_&`&m&& '/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;- 'L'M'T'U'''2(D((((()v))*d****+e+++ ,6,b,,,,,,(-u-z--.f...../\////;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-/50001e111>2223e333G4m4s4445$5?5k555556D6667B77777"8N8z888889/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-92939x99 :P:::::9;;;;<V<<<+=v======>H>t>>>>>>$?o????@d@@@=A?AA/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-AABBB]BBBk/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;->kjkkkkklXlllFmXmYmmmjˁFւb8҄ӄJKf/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;->?ن(xƇCD5։"n`-HťIfgL1͏/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-͏?ܐ%uő WDߓ/HԔ,C\]ЕEnpqL.z/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-ŘG]2~ɚۚܚ+xś]B]^d՝34ABϞdS/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-8ԡ"h!KwУѣޣߣ'qPI%&FaDE/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-ۨ'b٩ک LxêĪ S?st.Z[vͭ.fg߮&p /;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;- Sװ`;Ͳ:˳_ʴ˴^?׶%&mRٸڸ۸&STo/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-ǹ)_`m XQM*uƾǾ[˿CD_#$_G/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-GQ4`$llK~Am()/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-).ZqX!h @A&'Bp^1/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-1} S$p[.yD=Vtu lBbuv/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;- Q,vw X)U X7c0e/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-)+tX#$mN&qL,u T6%=X23/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-3 mQ U8?$p X-Yu;</;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-<DH*wO-YqTno TO%o/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-!lJST-.yQ&23o D | }    - v    Y Z      /;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-   8 d      ! " o  N"i*EqLMYZB X/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-X-.z Q2d9RSc  P4=>kl/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;/;-  =p/;/;/;/;/;/;/;K @ Normal ]a c"A@"Default Paragraph Font$                              ! " # $9 Xg;! )2V97AGNV]g5ox~HɗSSvt2uq dMKI-EGM - H J I KI-D-8.KHQ+O F!-"# M '/9AcIQY)b>kAu}͏ G)13< X& Skip KnoxC:\COURSES\HY101\FEBC.TXT@ ITimes New Roman Symbol &Arial,Bookman Old Style"hFF"Q+Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 04:02:52 EST Skip Knox Skip Knoxࡱ; v