The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of June 26th - July 2nd, we are reading chapter 12 and Epilogue of SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard.

The twelfth week's reading assignment is:

WEEK TWELVE - June 26th - July 2nd -> 12. Rome Outside Rome and Epilogue: The First Roman Millennium (475-536)

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off April 17th.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Vicki Cline will be moderating this selection.

Welcome,

~Vicki

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Mary Beard

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Also, the citation thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Introduction Thread:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

Here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author may have used in his research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc. with proper citations or other books either non-fiction or historical fiction that relate to the subject matter of the book itself. No self-promotion, please.

Here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - Spoiler Thread

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Link:

by Mary Beard

Everyone, for the week of July 3rd – July 9th, we are reading Chapter 12 and the Epilogue.

The twelfth week's reading assignment is:

WEEK TWELVE - -> 12. Rome Outside Rome and Epilogue: The First Roman Millennium (475-536)

Chapter Overview and Summary:

12. Rome Outside Rome and Epilogue: The First Roman Millennium


Roman town of Calleva Atrebatum (currently Silchester, England)

Chapter 12 deals with the interactions of Rome with Greece and the East and with its northern and Western barbarian possessions. The Epilogue looks at the difference between the Empire before and after Caracalla.

Baths of Caracalla

Discussion Topics:

1. Did provincial culture (i.e. pre-Roman conquest) have much effect on life in Rome and Italy?

2. While Greek culture had an effect on Rome as far back as Polybius (and earlier), did it get out to the provinces?

3. If Marcus Aurelius had had a better successor than Commodus, might the chaos have been put off many years, or was the effect of the plague too great?

2. From the reading I have done, beyond SPQR, it would depend of the population. In Palestine, greek culture didn't get beyond the wealthy and even then, they had to be careful not to go to far with it as the native Jewish culture was somewhat hostile to greek culture. In other areas it took hold a bit better.

3. I think if someone better suited to the job besides Commodus, the chaos might have been lessened. In the end though, the plague killed too many.

I keep wondering about language. Obviously Latin put down roots in Gaul and the Spanish peninsula, but I'm pretty sure the only Latin influences in English came with the Normans via French. Although I guess both Latin and Greek were used in the church, but may not have crossed over to the general population.

Greek tended to be the common language in the eastern areas, while Latin was more in the western areas. Don't forget that in England, the Anglo saxons invaded and pushed the Celts to the edges after Rome left the British Isles. Most of the Germanic peoples were never a part of the Roman Empire. They were the barbarian hordes! LOL.

Did provincial culture have an effect on life in Rome and Italy? As with any proverbial melting pot, it comes with the baggage. Initially it may have just been through the military, but as time went on the more the Romans picked up from other cultures. Be it a calendar from the Alexandrians during the time of J. Caesar or architectural feats in a Greek style (Trajan's bridge on the Danube for instance) a couple hundred years later, the Romans could pick the best of any culture to incorporate into itself. Inversely, another good question is: How many of the provinces actually incorporated Roman culture into them and how many were able to resist it and why?

Did Greek culture have a big impact on the provinces? Oh yes, absolutely. Realistically, just about any previously Macedonian and later the successor states (Antigonid, Seleucid, Atallid, Ptolemaic) territory was inherently heavily influenced by the Greeks. During Roman rule, all of these Eastern provinces still spoke Greek as a primary language (along with local languages) and the sheer number of cities established under Greek direction is immense (Alexandria, for instance). This, of course, is more thanks to Alexander than to the Romans, but the Roman adaptability to foreign culture (like the adoption of foreign gods into their own pantheon) sure helped perpetuate it.

In regards to the last discussion question, please define the chaos in which you're referring. The plague itself was not enough to bring Rome to its destruction. Commodus brought the hurt onto the empire, but in reality the empire had really reached its furthest limits during Trajan's rule and Hadrian's rule defined the period for which Rome was always henceforth on the defensive.

Taylor, regarding what I meant by chaos, I was thinking of the way emperors were picked (or picked themselves) after Caracalla.

Wikipedia has a nice list of emperors, with pictures at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

If that's the case, the process by which emperors were selected and declared by the troops wasn't actually new. The most notable of which was the civil war fiasco of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian which ultimately resulted in several revolts from the provinces to include the Civilis and Jewish revolts. Which, of course, would fall into the category of the chaos you're describing, except that it happened way prior to Caracalla. Granted, even though it happened prior to, an attempted usurper would only make their attempt every few decades and thus far less common.

Although, one of the biggest ironies about using the armies to grab power made the armies weak. This, in turn, made Rome weak. Their lack of ability to exercise control promoted the concessions Eastern-European Danubian provinces, concessions of Easter provinces, and following the fall of the Parthian kingdom, the fall of the Mesopotamian provinces to the Persians.

Comparatively to my previous comment on Commodus, it really wasn't his fault that this became typical the method of succession. The constant grabs and competitions for power using the troops changed the priorities of the statesmen. It was no longer about the glory of Rome; it was then about their 10 minutes of fame as the head of state.

I'll post these in the Glossary as well. Links about the Antonine Plague of 165 -180 CE.

http://modernnotion.com/antonine-plag...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin...

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/da...

Taylor, I'm not sure what you mean about the armies being weakened by picking emperors. Maybe because one set of legions would fight against another set?

Yes, exactly. By backing their local hero or statesman to be the emperor, they had to do the dirty work in making it happen. The legions were constantly on the move being used for either civil war or at the fringes of the empire (sometimes out of malice for helping a usurper try to claim the throne as was the case with Constantine and the 2nd Parthian legion). The changes in gear and personnel breakdown were generally for the worse.

For example, Vegetius, in trying to explain to Valentinian II the military state of affairs claimed that the legions had been granted permission to no longer wear the long-standing heavy armor and helmets. Vacancies in personnel strength were no longer filled. "[The men] had found duty hard, arms heavy, rewards uncertain, discipline severe." Also, once Roman citizenship was blurred in 212 (back to Caracalla here), the distinction between legion and auxiliary was reduced. Vagetius claimed that men would opt into auxiliary units saying, "the service is less laborious and they expect more speedy payment ". The Military Institutions of the Romans

The military was Rome's means of exerting its will. The armies became soft and so too did the state. Granted, during the same time period the Romans had adopted the use of cataphracts and in so doing improved the cavalry, but the infantry had always served as the backbone of the Roman legion. This wasn't necessarily helpful in holding the territories that were Roman provinces (primarily European and Middle Eastern) as having a cavalry heavy military was a much bigger logistical challenge. Notably the Sarmatians with a military that revolved around their heavily armored mounted troops had a rough time dealing with Roman territory and the Mongolian empire a thousand years later was stopped cold roughly at what had many centuries earlier been the Roman Eastern borders.

Brief notes about Sarmatians, a Scythian tribe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
Wikipedia on Mongol Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_...
Note the Western border of the Mongolian Empire map here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_...

ByFlavius Vegetius Renatus

I read back over my previous comment and realized I was unclear as to why the Mongolians that revolved mostly around a large cavalry had a hard time in the Middle East and Europe. This was, of course being due to those logistical challenges of finding enough pastureland to sustain tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of horses.

ByPeter Edbury
ByJohn Man

Very interesting comments, Taylor. I hadn't thought about the effects of universal citizenship on the military.

I liked Beard's comments on the paired Greek/Roman biographies by Plutarch. I've read some of the Roman ones, but now I'll have to go back and check out some pairs, along with his comparisons of them.

Are you saying that universal citizenship declared by Caracalla led to the decentralizing and deterioration of the Roman military? Thanks

Next week we'll be talking about the book as a whole. Please post your reviews and any other final thoughts about the subject. Here's the link -

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Marianne wrote: "Are you saying that universal citizenship declared by Caracalla led to the decentralizing and deterioration of the Roman military? Thanks"

I was hoping Taylor would reply, but I'll give it a shot. Since citizenship was no longer a prize, there was no need to strive for it. I don't know about decentralizing, but if there wasn't competition for the most important spots in the legion, the overall quality would certainly deteriorate.

The end of the book seems to point to Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Some years ago, here at the History Book Club we read and discussed the book. If you're interested, here's a link to the thread about the introduction and chapter 1. Bentley included a lot of background material.

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

This is included in the Roman Empire topic, which is a collection of the many books about Rome we've had discussions on, both fiction and non-fiction. Check it out.

by Edward Gibbon

Marianne wrote: "Are you saying that universal citizenship declared by Caracalla led to the decentralizing and deterioration of the Roman military? Thanks"

Hey Marrianne. Sorry for the late reply; I had not been on the forums in a couple days.

No, I am not pointing to Caracalla as a singular reign for which the deterioration started to occur. Throughout Roman history, only citizens were allowed to be legionaries. Conversely, only non-Roman citizens could be auxiliaries.

The auxiliaries were units of special purpose. Slingers, archers, non-equestrian cavalry all fell into this category. Legions, on the other hand, were prestigious heavy infantry units (depending on your role as a hastati, principe, or velate which are varying levels of experience on the battle lines). In describing the strict levels of training, Josephus says, "Every soldier is exercised every day which is why they bear the fatigue of battles so easily."The Jewish War Every centurion carried a stick for which they were able to, at their discretion, they could beat their underlings for even minor transgressions. The Annals of Imperial Rome Major crimes, of course, like falling asleep on duty, stealing, lying, or if minor crimes were committed more than once were punishable by death. The Histories of Polybius If the whole unit was responsible for a crime such as running from the battlefield, they could be subjected to decimation (all men drew lots in groups of 10 where 9 of the ten were forced to kill the unlucky one for a total reduction in force by 10%).

In short, the legions were very strict and their very nature was to build a disciplined force whose sole purpose was the dealing of quick death for the enemy. When Caracalla came around, those that had the cahones to still serve would willingly opt into auxiliary units. After all, the tactics and gear of the legions were changing for the worse in the 4th and 5th centuries and the pay was no longer proportional to the danger they were put in. Take this last statement about pay during Caracalla's time with a grain of salt due to the pay increases during his reign; but immediately following Macrinus' accession (who followed Caracalla), he made some changes to the Caracalla pay increases which ultimately led to 1) his own death by his buddies and 2) the legion not being a feasible means by which one would want to serve - too much danger and not enough pay. Roman History, Volume IX: Books 71-80

Anyway, the key here is that it isn't the extension of citizenship that led directly to the destruction of Rome's military, just an unfortunate by-product. There was more than just reduced manpower that drove the empire apart and I left some examples above in my previous post.

by Flavius Josephus
By Tacitus
ByPolybius
ByCassius Dio

Thanks for that extensive explanation of what was going on in the legions, Taylor. I get the impression you have read a great deal in this area of history.

To quote Vegetius again, "Si vis pacem, para bellum". If you desire peace, prepare for war. I believe to have an objective idea of history as a whole, war is a significant part of how any state has ever been run - whether it be seeking combat or avoiding it. This is doubly so for any nation or empire whose existence is due to their warfighting capabilities (which, honestly is most) and this includes Rome.

For example, the scholar emperor Marcus Aurelius is known for being an even handed, fair, and wise leader. He's credited with being the last great emperor of imperial Rome. Yet, he spent his entire life at war and his physical location was rarely away from the war camps. To know the state without the status of one's enemies or the state of the war is only half the truth.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."The Art of War The context of my quotes in this case is that by knowing what was going on with the military, you get a better idea of why the state was doing the things it was and vice versa. To be honest, I felt like that's where a lot of history books fall short. SPQR included, they gloss over key events that at the time were very pivotal. Without those key events, a lot of the context is lost and without a frame of reference, one loses sight of which events are legitimately important.

Granted, I know that the narrative of SPQR is about Senatus Populusque Romanus (the senate and the people), but I honestly don't believe that SPQR is actually a good starting place for an overall history of the empire.

BySun Tzu

On a side note, did anyone read my question in my original post? Equally thought provoking to the effect of culture on these ancient worlds is: How many of the provinces actually incorporated Roman culture into them and how many were able to resist it and why?

First thing that came to my mind when you posted the original question was how incompatible the Jews were with the Romans. Not because the Romans adopted any of their counterpart's culture, but because the Jews couldn't/wouldn't.

I vaguely recall reading a very interesting line in one of my more recent books (I don't remember if it was SPQR or not) about how the Romans associated adopted deities in their pantheon by location. But, because the Jewish God was all encompassing and the lone deity in their belief system, it was a stumbling block in how to incorporate it into their pantheon. That, of course, points also back to the original question in that the Roman pantheon consisted of deities of other cultures.

As far as I know, Rome was willing to cut some slack to the Jewish people as their culture and deity was older. The wealthy jews and the expatriate were a bit more adopting of greek/roman culture than the poor classes were. If you want to read a good book on these issues then I recommend this one:

by Scott Korb

Thank you, Vicki and Taylor. Taylor, your description of the structure of the Roman Army is fascinating.

Did men who qualified for the legions have any other career choices? Or, were the benefits of serving including retirement benefits make this the best career choice?

I appreciate in advance your taking the time to answer these questions. But, I understand if you have moved on to other things and don't get to it...so many books; so little time.

Michele, I haven't read that particular book. But if the name of it suggests the timeframe, I suspicion it's really the pre-boiling point of an already tense arrangement. That said, some things just didn't compute for the compatibility of the Romans and Jews. For example, following Pompey rolling through the Middle East, he absolutely couldn't resist the temptation of taking a peek into the holy of holies. This, of course, being a huge slap to the face to the entire Jewish religion. That's not to say there weren't periods of peace or the adoption of language, but they took great issue with integration of culture (as is one of the tenets of Jewish and later Christian faith). I just figure the necessity of the destruction of Jerusalem and Masada kind of speak for themselves.

And to Vicki, one would willingly opt into the Roman legions. Each legion was recruited from specific regions of the empire (I-IV reserved for consul specific legions, V-X from Spain, XI-XIII from Gaul, and XIV+ from the Eastern provinces). The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire Whether it was by choice, I believe was dependent on timeframe. If it was, I would rather think it is incumbent upon the individual to weigh risk vs. reward. Many of the "extracurricular" jobs were served by the legionaries themselves such as the camp armor/weapon smith. That said, the auxiliaries, especially during the early Roman years, were not so lucky. As you would know from this book, one of the only defining points of being a part of the Roman sphere of influence was that they had to provide a certain number of troops. If they didn't have a standing military that met the expectation (standing armies were relatively uncommon), they had to come up with the numbers to accommodate the boss man (Rome).

ByLawrence Keppie