Ray Laurence – Roman Passions

Here's to all the nice people out there who write good books for the long winter months. Ray Laurence's “Roman Passions – A History of Pleasure in Imperial Rome” is precisely one of those readings that require a cup of hot cocoa and soft carols in the background. And a cat purring somewhere on a rag.

I was a bit reluctant with this one, since the title made me believe it would be one of those tabloid-type works, but it's not – quite to the contrary, it's well balanced and carefully documented. Guess the title was just for marketing purposes – and I wonder if it didn't work the other way round – people who actually bought the book were disappointed and found it dry history, while those searching for serious history overlooked it. (I got it as a birthday present. To be sure, I would have bought it anyway, I buy everything Rome-related, even when I suspect it's the biggest junk in the world.)

In “Roman Passions”, Laurence manages to present a coherent vision about Roman aesthetics, and does a great job in selecting the common, as well as the exotic bits that shaped it. It was particularly nice to see how he emphasized the fact that the Romans were a rather puritan bunch, and the scandalous stories of the age were just that – stories. This is an idea I found most often in French historic literature, the English-language school seems to ignore it (or take it for granted, with Brits it's always hard to say).

I was a little surprised that the author chose to ignore the games and theaters – or rather, to include them under the generic chapter of “Violence”, when I've always felt that the amphitheaters, odeons and circuses were a social and cultural space in their own right, creating “internal” rules that skewed the natural order of the Roman society quite a bit. Also surprising is how little Laurence quotes Ovid – I'd say he was the supreme authority on Roman pleasure (of course, I'm biased. I like Ovid.)

The uneasy relation Romans had with their own pleasures is well underlined (guilty of feeling good, long before Christianity made it a standard), but more demographic data would have helped me understand Laurence's point of view easier. At times I wasn't sure whether his statements referred to the mindset of the ruling aristocracy or to the masses of Roman citizens.

So, all in all, a good read when it's dark and snowing outside, and may contain some starting points for more serious research in the coming year. If you're still unsure, you can check out the writer's style and ideas in this blog post: Top 10 Passions of Ancient Rome: Sex, Binge Drinking, and the Culture of Pleasure.

The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part IV

The Voting System

Compared to the rather straightforward – one man, one vote – system of most European states, the first-past-the-post voting system of the United States appears quite complex. No clear majority is needed for the successful candidate, no proportional relationship between the number of seats and the overall vote, and then there's the whole absentee voting thing...

The ancient Roman system was equally confusing. From what we can understand today, each citizen could vote, in theory, but, as the rich were the first to vote, and their opinion had a lot more weight in the final result, the process was stopped when a winner could be named, which was usually way before the poorer citizens got to cast their vote.

Weird as it may be – and in no way the direct democracy the Athenians dreamed of – the system worked for a long time, before it collapsed under the pressure of corruption. And even then, it was formally maintained, and probably quite effectively in place at local level in some cities of the empire.

The Decadence Obsession

The Roman civilization was not decadent, as neither is the US today – at least compared to its Western European cultural counterpart. Quite to the contrary, the Romans were a rather solemn, puritan and somber bunch – and they went down in history for their luxury and decadence because they made such a big fuss about it.

Truth is, there's not a shred of hard evidence that those infamous orgies ever took place. More likely, each meal that consisted of more than bread, cheese, figs and a bit of wine with water was branded as an orgy by the outraged neighbors, because it broke away from the frugal traditions handed down from the ancestors. Ecology and the green current wasn't big at the time, but still, a lot of voices from the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Empire pleaded for a return to a simpler way of life, one closer to nature and to the first roots of mankind.

The Legal System

You know all those lawyer jokes? The Romans invented them. Young politicians made a name for themselves in court, by suing old politicians for the most trivial of reasons, and sometimes for the best reasons, when they knew perfectly well they couldn't win. And they couldn't care less, either way – it was the fame of the trial itself that mattered, not the outcome.

The funny thing about Roman lawyers was that they weren't paid for the job – they were supposed to defend their client out of honest belief they were doing the right thing. As you can imagine, the work was far from pro bono, and the fringe benefits associated with being a successful lawyer were huge.

Go to:
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part I
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part II
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part III

Amymone and Poseidon

Amymone and Poseidon are one of the less known couples of the ancient Greek mythology. Poseidon, god of the sea, earthquakes and horses was, as we all know, happily married to Amphitrite, but, like all gods, had an occasional affair every once in a while.

Amymone was one of the daughters of King Danaos, which meant that she was a Danaid, and also that she had 49 sisters at home. The funny thing about Danaos having 50 daughters is that his twin brother, Aigyptos, had 50 sons. Long story short, Aigyptos wanted his sons to marry their cousins, Danaos didn't, so he took his girls and fled.

Danaos and his daughters found shelter in Argos, where the people had only good intentions, but were in serious trouble, because the entire region was dried up. That severe drought was Poseidon's doing. He and Hera competed for the supremacy over the new city, and Hera won. Poseidon decided to avenge his wounded ego by making the locals die of thirst.

The newcomers tried their best to help, and all the 50 daughters of Danaos went in search of water. Amymone went deep into a forest, hoping to find a spring, but instead, she stumbled upon a satyr, who was instantly charmed by her looks and attempted to rape her. Amymone's cries and shouts attracted the attention of Poseidon, who saved her from the satyr and kept her for himself. Before letting her go, he showed her the location of the springs of Lerna, so the region was saved.

Amymone and Poseidon had a child together (that's generally the whole point of these stories when a god mates with a mortal) named Nauplios, who was the grandfather of one of the Argonauts. Amymone did eventually marry her cousin, specifically the one named Lynceus – and was the only one to do so, as her 49 sisters killed their 49 husbands on the wedding night, but that's a different story. The children Amymone had with Lynceus started a long line of kings, which would culminate with Danae and her famous son, Perseus. Don't you just love how everybody is related to everybody? Just like a soap opera.

Alpheus and Arethusa

Assigning a god to every single object around you seems so much fun, I'm considering doing it for my household items. I'd have two gods for my desktops, a goddess for the laptop and a winged child for the netbook. Oh, and something in the shape of a snail for the cell phone. And then I'd start a war against the gods of the kitchen appliances.

That's how the ancients did it anyway. For instance, on the island of Ortygia, in Sicily, there was a river called Alpheus, which had its own god, and a well called Arethusa, which had its own goddess. The inhabitants noticed that the waters of these two communicated underground, as objects thrown in the river would resurface after a while in the well, so they quickly made up a love story.

As Ovid tells it, Arethusa was a Nereid and a follower of Artemis. One day she was bathing in a river, when the respective river-god, Alpheus, of course, saw her and fell in love. Arethusa ran away, seeking refuge with her goddess. Artemis hid her in a cloud, but Arethusa was sweating so much, she turned into a spring. Artemis decided to help her once more, so she caused the ground to split open, and the waters of the spring flew in the hole, creating a well. But the river-god found an underground passage to his love, and their waters would mix forever.

Another funny thing is how these minor gods end up playing cameo roles in big stories. When Demeter was desperately searching for her kidnapped daughter, Persephone, Arethusa informed her that she had seen Persephone underground, as queen in the realm of the dead. Alpheus is the river re-routed by Hercules to clean up the Augean Stables. He's also the father, or grand-father, of a soldier killed by Aeneas before fleeing from Troy. Big cast, these ancient legends had.  

Artemis and Aktaion

I was browsing Ovid's Metamorphoses the other day, looking for a reference, and I stumbled upon the story of Artemis and Aktaion. In case you don't remember what this was about, I'll save you the trouble: Aktaion was the hunter who accidentally saw Artemis when she was bathing; the goddess was so angry she turned him into a stag, and Aktaion was torn to pieces by his own hunting dogs.

(No, I didn't find the reference I was initially looking for in the Metamorphoses. Which is why you're reading this instead of the smart post I planned for today, based on the reference I didn't find.)

So, Ovid has the following description of Aktaion being torn to pieces by his dogs:

“Melampus and Ichnobates first gave tongue, wise Ichnobates Cnosius swift as the wind the rest came rushing on: Dorceus, Pamphagos, Oribasos, fierce Nebrophonos, sturdy Theron, moody Laelaps, Pterelas unsurpassed for speed, Agre for scent, bold Hylaeus lately wounded by a boar, Nape a slender bitch sired by a wolf, Poemenis with two pups, gaunt Harpyia Sicyonius, and Ladon, once a guardian of her flock; Dromas, Canache, Tigris, Sticte, Alce, dark-coated Asbolos, Leucon with snowy hair, Lycisce and his nimble brother Cyprius, huge stalwart Lacon, Aello, never tired; Thoos, his dark forehead crowned with a white star, Melaneus; rough-coated Harpalos; a couple of hounds born of a Cretan sire and Spartan dam, Labros and Argiodus; Hylactor, noisy bitch; and many more too long to tell. The pack, hot in pursuit, sped on over fells and crags, by walls of rock, on daunting trails or none he fled where often he’d followed in pursuit, fled his own folk, for shame! He longed to shout ‘I am Actaeon, look, I am your master!’ Words failed his will; their baying filled the sky. Melanchaetes bit first, a wound deep in his haunch; next Theridamas; Oresitrophus fastened on his shoulder. ”

Um... What? Ovid is generally quite good at selecting a juicy detail from the pages of dreary Greek myths, but clearly this was not his day. That's 36 named dogs.

Who cares about all these murderous Blitzen, Comet and Cupid of the ancient Greeks?

Well, apparently, the Romans did. About the same time as Ovid, another author, named Gaius Julius Hyginus wrote his Fabulae, and included the same story about Artemis and Aktaion. Now, this Hyginus is generally much, much more boring than Ovid, so I was already prepared for something worse... and guess what, it was worse:

“As a stag, then, he was mangled by his own hounds. Their names were (these are all male): Melampus, Ichnobates, Echnobas, Pamphagos, Dorceus, Oribasus, Nebrophonus, Laelap, Theron, Pterelas, Hylaeus, Nape, Ladon, Poemenis, Therodanapis, Aura, Lacon, Harpyia, Aello, Dromas, Thous Canache, Cyprius, Sticcte, Labros, Arcas, Agriodus, Tigris, Hylactor, Alce, Harpalus, Lycisca, Melaneus, Lachne, Leucon. Likewise there who devoured him - females: Melanchaetes, Agre, Theridamas, Oreistrophos. Other authors give these names too: Acamas, Syrus, Leon, Stilbon, Agrius, Charops, Aethon, Corus, Boreas, Draco, Eudromus, Dromius, Zephyrus, Lampus, Haemon, Cyllopodes, Harpalicus, Machimus, Ichneus, Melampus, Ocydromus, Borax, Ocythous, Pachylus, Obrimus; and females: Argo, Arethusa, Urania, Theriope, Dinomache, Dioxippe, Echione, Gorgo, Cyllo, Harpyia, Lynceste, Leaena, Lacaena, Ocyptete, Ocydrome, Oxyrhoe, Orias, Sagnos, Theriphone, Volatos, Chediaetros.”

That's 39 participants, plus 46 witnesses who might have been accessories to murder. Or not. You can count them if you want, I'm done with this story.

So, we don't know exactly what was the second of Ovid's terrible crimes, which led to his life-long exile in Tomis. We don't know whether Tacitus' name was Publius or Gaius. Not a single line survived from Agrippina's memoirs. But there you have it, 100 dogs went hunting. Makes you wonder what the little green aliens will find from our civilization 2,000 years from now. I'm betting on Blitzen, Comet and Cupid. No, not their Cupid. Ours.

Oh, and in case you missed the end of the story: the dogs were so devastated after tearing their owner to pieces, that Chiron the centaur made a life-like statue of Aktaion for them, which the dogs happily adopted as their master. So, if the reindeer ever eat Santa... never mind. Dumb story to begin with.   

What are the Ancient Gods Doing These Days?

Since nobody's worshiping them, and considering they are immortal and probably bored to death by now, I guess the ancient gods have to come up with new methods to keep themselves entertained. The winged Nike is deep into the production of sports shoes, the vengeful Eris got herself a droid, and Nero is burning CDs (well, Nero didn't make it as a god, but is related to so many, I guess he managed to sneak in using the backdoor after all).

So I was wondering what the twelve major gods of Greece and Rome are doing, besides the obvious (taking care of their respective planets, days of the week, months of the year, guest-starring in television series and Marvel comics and so on).

Apollo is by far the most successful with his space exploration program. Though it's a bit weird to have a Moon-landing initiative named after the sun-god. Why didn't they call it Artemis, after the Moon goddess? Misogynists.

Ares/Mars has a chocolate bar. And a company that produces the chocolate bar. Good enough, until the next world war comes along.

Athena/Minerva has the CERN antimatter research project. Quite adequate, for the goddess of wisdom and craft, but only if it proves really, really successful and makes a huge impact. Otherwise, Athena is massively under-rated these days. Misogynists.

Artemis/Diana... not doing much, to be honest, especially since hunting was banned in one of her main territories. There is a famous brothel in Berlin named Artemis. Weird for the virgin goddess, but times are hard, even gods take on whatever jobs are available.

Hephaestus/Vulcan made it big in showbiz, with the Vulcans of Star Trek. They're everywhere! Guess that was his comeback, after bearing the insult of having a hypothetical planet named after him (in the 19^th century, the planet Vulcan was supposed to be hiding between the Sun and Mercury). A hypothetical plant for a major deity! Awful.

Hermes/Mercury has a chemical element. Who would've pictured the mischievous god of thieves in a laboratory?

Hades/Pluto has lost his planet, but can still show off his famous Disney character. Yeah, it's a dog, side kick to a mouse, but way more famous than any other cartoon character named after a god. And cheerful, too, for someone who lives in hell.

Hestia/Vesta had some fun when her Greek name was used as the informal name of Himalia, one of the moons of Jupiter. Wait. Moons have informal names? Are we supposed to call them Mrs. Moon?

Poseidon/Neptune is really enthusiastic about the evolution of music and launched is own record label to promote new talents. I suspect it has something to do with his wife having dreamed of a singing career since she was just a young Nereid.

Demeter/Ceres is experimenting with some breweries and juice-production companies, but none of them had any success yet.

Zeus/Jupiter and Hera/Juno took a sabbatical millennium to explore other galaxies and reconnect with each other, before it's too late to save their relationship.

Fun Facts with Ancient Wine

1. The oldest bottle of wine ever found dates from 325 AD, and was dug up in 1867, near the town of Speyer, in Germany. The site of the discovery is a vineyard to this day. The content is still identifiable, though a large part of the bottle is taken up by what appears to be olive oil (a common method used by the Romans to seal up their wine).

2. Sweet wines were clearly the most popular in ancient Greece as well as in Rome, partly because of their staying power and partly because sweets were very rare and very expensive at the time

3. From ancient Greece, we know that the best wines were considered those from Hios, Thassos and Lesvos, while the region of Samos was ranked among the worst wine producers. In Rome, we can be even more specific: the best wine was the one from the year 121 BC, known as the Opimian (after the man who was consul during that year, who thus earned his place in history). A century later, reserves of that special wine were still available, although it was already spoiled; however, it was mixed with newer wines to increase their nobility.

4. If a Roman citizen caught his wife drinking wine, he had the right to kill her.

5. Horace wrote: “No poem was ever written by a drinker of water”. The most beautiful thing anybody could have said about wine.

6. Romans preferred aged wine, and, while preservatives and perfectly sealed containers did not exist yet, they considered that the best of wines had to be between 10 and 25 years old.

7. At the peak moment of wine consumption in Rome, it was estimated that the quantity traded was enough for every man, woman and child to drink half a liter of wine per day. (Remember that stuff I said earlier about women being killed if they drank wine? Yeah, that was no longer in fashion.)

8. A single amphora of good Roman wine, produced in Italy, could fetch abroad the same price as a slave.

9. Columella was a guy who lived in the 1^st century AD and wrote a lot about the production of wine. He had the weird habit of writing in hexameter verse (seriously, who writes a technical paper in verse?) and describes in great detail the weirder habit of boiling the grape juice in a lead vessel to produce wine. The lead would add a bit of sweetness to the wine (while increasing its toxicity level, but that was secondary).

10. Volumes have been written about the Greek and Roman habit of mixing wine with water. Well, they mixed pretty much anything in, from salt water to honey and from lavender to rose petals. It has been speculated that the alcoholic content was higher in ancient wine, though the details we have about their production method don't seem to support this theory. Maybe it was just their well designed hangover protection method.  

The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part III

Formalized Religion

Rome had a relatively tolerant religious setting, as long as whatever you worshiped at home didn't interfere with the official proceedings. Romans weren't exactly the deep spiritual type, but, if one of their precious ceremonies was disrupted even by a minor event (let's say, the official in charge made a mistake in reciting the text), everything had to be started all over again.

The military oath taken each year by the soldiers also had a religious form, irrespective of what the soldier actually believed in. A worshiper of Mithra, Mars or Glykon would take the same oath – very much like the oath taken on the Bible in courts to tell the truth and nothing by the truth – and Romans were completely puzzled when Christians suddenly had a problem with this formal arrangement.

Technology, rather than Philosophy

Technological advances are vital in dominating the world. Let the Greeks deal with frivolous subjects, like philosophy and theology; it's cement and catapults we need for now. It's quite obvious that the US rules the world from the technological point of view, either by direct contributions or by quick adoption of the developments made elsewhere.

The Senate

No point to make here, really, just thought it was worth mentioning. Plus, the whole classicist look of the Washington Capitol makes it really tempting to reference ancient history, though, as far as I know, the source of inspiration for the Washington building can be found in Paris, not in Rome.

Entertainment and Propaganda

The right mixture of entertainment and propaganda has eluded most governments in history. It's difficult to draw the line between being persuasive and being ridiculous, but usually the results are worth taking a shot.

We've seen Bugs Bunny and Betty Boop join in the efforts to support American troops in World War II. Romans employed a wide range of gods and mythical creatures, with the same effect.

The Family Issue

Both ancient Rome and the US share a common trend of viewing the family as the most important thing in a person's life, yet both allow a significant degree of freedom in personal choices, including the divorce. In Rome, as wealth increased and the lifestyle changed accordingly, divorces and families without natural children became more frequent, sparking outcries about the need to return to traditional values. They even passed laws to encourage families to have more children. Needless to say, the laws didn't help much, but society wasn't destroyed by the new, flexible family model either.

Go to:
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part I
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part II
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part IV

Computer Games set in Ancient Rome

I'm a geek, I have a special interest for Ancient Rome and I play computer games. Go figure. So here are my favorites, in several categories.

Sim/City-building:



The ever-popular Caesar series (1 through 4) by Vivendi Universal, where you become a provincial governor within the empire and fulfill several missions, build your cities, from roads up, defend it against barbarians and deal with plagues, fires and other nuisances.
All in all, a nice game, though in the 4th part of the series I found the graphics too demanding (they're nice, but not that nice to justify the technical requirements) and the gameplay too easy. In the first part, I got stuck for weeks trying to pass a level, with the fourth, I was done completely before the week was over. Or maybe my geekiness level increased drastically in the meantime.


Strategy:




If you're into strategy games, Rome: Total War by Sega is simply the best. It's a combination of real time and turn based strategy; the real time battles are in 3D, with a great engine and beautiful graphics, that allow the display of hundreds of characters at the same time. The outcome of each battle greatly depends on your ability to maneuver your troops, which is quite unique, as far as I could find, and adds to the realism (we all know the winner of ancient battles wasn't always the one with the biggest army).

Instead of being just one character, you are the head of one of three major Roman families, each with unique features, and, as such, you can control all male members of your family, adopt new ones, issue orders for the commanders of your army and so on. Enjoyable, challenging, and not annoying at all from the historic point of view – give this game a try if you have the chance.


Dash/Time management:

Yes, I've played my fair share of dash games. I know, lame.

Roads of Rome from Realore Studios is one such fine example; you are the brave warrior Victorius who has to build the Roman road network system before marrying a certain Julia. Granted, not the smartest game in town, and doesn't make even the vaguest attempt at historical accuracy, but fun, if you have an hour to kill.


Match 3:

Oh, talk about time killers, dash games don't even begin to compare to their match 3 counterparts. This could cost you a few sleepless nights, as you're just trying to gather a few hundred more resources to pass to the next level. Cradle of Rome (1 and 2) was one of the big hits in its category, and for the good reason: extremely simple gameplay (hey, it's match 3. It' easier than Solitaire), nice graphics, amusing minigames, just everything you might expect.


Hidden object:

I wish I knew of a better Roman-themed game in this category, but I don't... so until I find something better, here it is: Romance of Rome, also from Realore Studios. Good game, as far as hidden objects games go these days, but, from my point of view, disappointing graphics. I was expecting something more... Roman.

There. Go play.

Pierre Grimal

French authors stink. Especially brilliant French authors who manage not to get themselves translated into any other language. Like Pierre Grimal. I've just finished his “Tacitus”, and it's absolutely perfect, same as his “Roman Civilization”. His books are well balanced, don't get drowned in details, like most biographies tend to, these days, and, for me, at least, they contain the exact right amount of new information versus things I already knew, so they don't overload my tired brain, but are still interesting and stimulating.

And he has a ton of other books and articles, which seem great by the title, especially knowing that I like his work already, but they're available only in French – beautiful language, by the way, but I'd rather take a champagne enema than read history books in French.

The Dictionary of Classical Mythology
is the only one – as far as I could find – that was translated into English, which is all very nice, except that there are about a billion great dictionaries and books on mythology. But the niche seems pretty empty on other topics covered by Grimal, such as Agrippina's memoirs, the art of gardening, Roman villas, and a bunch of studies on Seneca, Horace, Cicero, Scipio, Virgil and so many more. In French. Gah.   

The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part II

The Melting Pot

I know it's no longer fashionable to refer to the United States as a melting pot, but the politically correct term of multiculturalism doesn't strike me as describing the process accurately.

It's actually been long discussed by the historians that a culture is stronger when it has more ethnic components, with bigger differences among them.

In Rome, the association of various cultures was eased by their tendency to consider that the same gods were worshiped all over the world under different names, leading to associations such as Venus – Aphrodite – Isis or Jupiter – Zeus – Serapis.

Cultural Complex

Both Rome and the United States owe a lot to other civilizations, from the cultural point of view. It has been said that there is no actual Roman civilization or culture, just the Greek one, popularized for the masses. For the Americans, the fact that they share the same language with the British doesn't help shake off the complex, either.

The Romans never managed to get over this completely. When the mad Nero wanted to make it big as an artist, he sought recognition in Greek towns, not at home. Even when the empire reached its height, the Greeks, now under Roman domination, still looked down on their conquerors, from a cultural point of view.

Language

If you're going to dominate the world, it might help to turn your own mother tongue into lingua franca. American English made it by combining different channels – the Internet, probably the biggest factor of success, turning English into the primary business language and the entertainment industry, especially pop music. Various terms that denominate technological discoveries, business and stock market practices and showbiz words are borrowed by other languages all the time.

The Roman Empire didn't have the Internet, but had the next best thing – a written culture. Let's put it this way: Rome had a written culture at a time when the rest of the world was still relying on oral traditions, in the same way America had an electronic culture when the rest of the world was still relying on pen and paper. The entire empire was fundamentally bilingual, the two languages used being Koine Greek and Latin. Latin made it big after becoming the official language of the Catholic Church and its alphabet was adopted in many European territories.

The Balance of Trade

One of the causes that led to the fall of the Roman Empire was its own unsustainable economy. Scholars argue that Rome kept importing very expensive merchandise, such as spices and fragrances, from the Far East, and had nothing to export, thus consistently decreasing its gold and silver reserves. Its inflation problem started pretty much when Rome became an empire, it was already visible in Nero's time – mostly because that was also the moment when Rome's territorial expansion slowed down until it stopped completely. Sometimes at a slow rate, sometimes in leaps, the inflation continued to undermine Rome's economy, despite various attempts to control it made by several emperors.

The United States is also facing a huge trade deficit today. It's inevitable, the more prosper a country is, the more it turns itself into a consumer, rather than a producer.

Home Defense

You see, Rome never invaded anybody else. I don't know what they taught you in school, but really, all they were doing was protecting their own city. This meant expanding the borders a bit. And when those borders were threatened, they had to be expanded a bit more. And so on, until the whole world was conquered and there were no more threats.

Just because it was an expansionist empire (which the US is not, territorially, at least), Rome didn't accept wars for the sole purpose of conquering new territories. Generals who wanted to start a conflict (which they always did, for their own personal profit) had to present home some very solid grounds, such as “a tribe of 300 members armed with big wooden bats were threatening to invade us and were planning on taking over Rome, so we had to invade them first”. Going to war in a territory at the other end of the world in search of mass destruction weapons which might, or might not, be used on your own home territory at some point in a hypothetical future would have made perfect sense for the Romans.

Go to:
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part I
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part III
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part IV

Lectio difficilior

Lectio difficilior potior is fancy way of saying “let's make things as complicated as possible”.

It's a principle used by people who spend their lives trying to patch up and decipher manuscripts, and it basically means that, when there are several versions of the same text, the version that's more complicated and unusual is the right one.

It makes sense, when you think about it. When information gets transmitted from one to another (in this case, copied by people from different generations, with various degrees of knowledge and understanding of the language), somebody on the line may over-simplify because he doesn't understand any better.

Here's how in works in practice. In Tacitus, there's a passage saying “this is the best of luck's gifts, when the Empire is pressed by its destiny”. Some of the scribes who copied the manuscript later couldn't figure out whose destiny it was and why it was pressuring the empire, so they changed it into “when the Empire is about to be doomed”. This makes sense looking at the issue retrospectively, when they already knew the empire was doomed; from Tacitus' point of view, it surely wasn't the case, but it helped cement his reputation of being a pessimist (which he was anyway). Most scholars now agree that the initial reading is the correct one, and the “Empire pressed by its destiny” was a common expression (it can be found in other authors as well) that we just don't know how to interpret today.

Now, do you google words and names sometimes, when in doubt, to find out which is the correct spelling? I know I do. Well, guess what. The spelling with the highest number of occurrences is not necessarily the correct one. It might just be that the one that got simplified and spread as such.

(Yes, I know, I was supposed to do the continuation of Rome vs. USA today. Sorry, I've been awfully busy, I'm trying to watch all classic Betty Boop cartoons in one day, so tomorrow. If I finish with Betty Boop today, that is.)  

The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part I

I firmly believe that history doesn't repeat itself. There are certain constants, because the human nature is fairly constant, and various coincidences, but no cycles or patterns. Therefore, the list below is just a collection of constants and coincidences, mixed together with a few things that were inherited naturally by contemporary civilizations from the ancients. I am perfectly aware that the things I list here can be found in many other countries, I just compared the Roman Empire to the United States for the fun of it.

The Founding Legend

Aeneas left behind the burning city of Troy, faced a bunch of maritime problems and found his way to Italy, where he founded a little village, and, more importantly, brought his family to safety. Romulus and Remus, legendary founders of Rome, would be born into this family. This was Rome's way of claiming direct heritage from a great, but decaying civilization.

Same as Mayflower left the once great British Empire to sail for new horizons. Survivors reached a relative safety, but that was the price to be paid for freedom (in a similar way, had he stayed in Troy, Aeneas would have been either killed or turned into a slave by the conquerors).

Throw some girls in the mix (Dido and Pocahontas, I'd say I just made Virgil twist in his grave), a bunch of not so cooperative locals, who see the light eventually (the Sabines and the native American Indians) and add more semi-mythical characters to your liking. (Start with Davy Crocket. He was cool.)

Of course, the Mayflower is real. Probably so was Aeneas in the beginning. America is slowly turning its origins into mythology: the Thanksgiving celebration, the larger than life founding fathers, the Western movies, the emphasis on a rather minor, anecdotal incident like the Boston tea party – these sketch out images destined to stir emotions, not to transmit facts. Well, granted, every country needs a decent founding legend. America is just creating its own as we speak.

The Army

Size matters. The biggest army in the world also means the biggest military budget, both Rome and Washington would discover, but hey, that's life. Having citizens rise up in arms to defend their homeland is good, but a professional army is even better.

There was another neat little trick the Romans discovered, and Americans are following, or re-discovering, today: having the biggest army doesn't mean it's a good idea to use it. Sure, it may seem like a huge waste to maintain it just for the show, but it's actually more expensive to put it to use in conflict. Conflicts, however, can be avoided if your opponent knows yours is much bigger than his. Army, I mean.

Here's where the propaganda comes in. The legionaries were presented as the ultimate fighting machines. Foreign rulers were invited to visit Rome's military camps and be amazed by their perfect organization and discipline. Parades were held regularly, and the veterans got so much respect, even the emperor would rise to meet them. Guess the company that owned the copyright for the G.I. Julius action figure made it big.

The Youth and Beauty Cult

Here's the thing: the classical European civilizations, Greek and Roman, had a real admiration for the perfection of the human body. This is why they made all those statues of naked people. Then, the perspective shifted. Christian Europe considered beauty a temptation, a sign of vanity and associated it with sin. Nakedness was out anyway – that's why they smashed the genitalia off the statues of naked people (seriously, why didn't they just put some clothes on them?) The beauty cult made a timid comeback only in the 19^th century, but finally achieved its full potential after the television kicked in.

Romans were ambivalent towards youth. On one hand, they had strict rules that prevented young people from taking more responsibility than they could handle and from embarking themselves in adventurous enterprises. On the other hand, they enjoyed nothing more than watching those rules smashed to pieces.

In theory, you had to be at least 40 to get the highest positions in the state (and given the shorter life expectancy of the time, that was old). In practice, Romans cheered with great enthusiasm every time they got themselves a very young emperor. The result? Well, just like today. Children and adolescents who grow up in the spotlight cave in to the media pressure and end up in a hotel toilet, with a syringe in their vein. The young emperors I mentioned, that Romans loved so much in the beginning? Caligula, Nero, Commodus.

One more thing. This obsession with beauty had its consequences in politics, then just like today. Politicians of the time went to great lengths to present themselves as good-looking, with a nice wife on their arm and a set of perfect children. Fortunately for them, statues and portraits minted on coins didn't add ten pounds. This was never again in issue in the world's politics until television came into play.

The Infrastructure Issue

A big territory poses big issues. If you have a rebellion on your hands at your empire's borders, you don't want to wait six months to find out about it. The Romans are still famous for their impressive, and impeccable, roads – some of which are still in use in Europe today. The Roman postal system was the fastest Europe would know until the 19^th century.

Likewise, America is famous for its system of roads and obsession with cars. And for its railroad system, which conquered the West. And for its electronic infrastructure, which turned the Internet into an English-language business before the rest of the world caught on. Networks. Where would empires be without them?

The Citizenship Issue

Romans had a very simple way of dividing humans: first, women and slaves aside. For the rest, there were just two categories: citizens and barbarians. Actually, there was a state of limbo, barbarians within the empire, but that was transient, they would either become citizens in due time, or stay barbarians, riot and be duly put to death.

A bunch of civil wars started, not because the rebels wanted the break free from Rome, but because they wanted to get in – meaning, to obtain the citizenship. Greencard, anyone?

Being a Roman citizen was... you know those movies, where, in the middle of an international conflict, the character suddenly starts weaving around his US passport like a magical shield, and yelling “I'm an American citizen”? Yeah, that's just how being a Roman citizen was.

Rome had its own 9/11 moment when a king named Mithridates of Pontus had a sudden fit and decided to throw the Romans out, but killing all the Roman citizens on his territory. Some say that 80,000 men, women and children were put to death. Rome was stunned. There was a general outcry that the Senate had to do something to protect the citizens living abroad, but they were so shocked, that the reaction was not nearly as tough as you would have expected. In fact, Mithridates survived a long time after his genocide – sure, he lost his territories almost immediately, but remained an important power player in the area. This could have something to do with the fact that Rome was torn apart by internal, political conflicts at the time – at such as strong opponent from outside made good grounds for political campaigns. Several generals claimed glorious and definitive victories over Mithridates – usually, just in time to serve them in the next electoral campaign. As I said in the beginning, any similarities to what's going on today are just coincidental.

To be continued...

(Currently I have about 20 points written down, so I estimate there will be four or five parts for this. Bear with me until I'm done.) 


Go to: 
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part II
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part III
The Roman Empire versus the United States – Part IV

Things Ancient Europe did not have

Besides the obvious – anything powered by electricity, gas, steam and so on – what do I need to pack before traveling to ancient Rome? This is like trying to think backwards, so I'll just scribble whatever I can come up with for now, and maybe I'll update the list later.

Coffee. Now, this is bad. How could they possibly live without coffee? Was anybody ever awake in those times? Coffee comes from Ethiopia, so, technically, the Romans could have been in contact with it, but there's no evidence that anybody drunk coffee until the 17^th century. Weird people.

But wait, it gets worse – there's no sugar. Fair enough, if there's no coffee, what would you need sugar for? This made honey extremely expensive at the time, and various (toxic) alternative sweeteners were used, such as lead. I'm going to guess it was a bit more toxic than today's artificial sweeteners.

And, yes, it's getting even worse. Since cocoa originates from South America, there's no chocolate, either. I'm not so sure I want to go to ancient Rome anymore.

Let's see, what else originates from the Americas:

• turkeys (I won't miss them)
• tomatoes – this is strange, I can't picture any Mediterranean cooking without tomatoes. And those Romans, they thought they owned the Mediterranean sea.
• potatoes and corn – commonsensical, but this means no chips!
• pineapples
• tobacco – there was a wealth of articles at some point all over the Internet claiming that ancient Egyptians were smoking. Weed, maybe, but certainly not tobacco.
• a bunch of berries (blueberries, cranberries, huckleberries, farkleberries – ok, I'm just listing them for the fun of it, I'm pretty sure Europe had enough varieties of berries to over-compensate this shortage).
• a bunch of nuts, including peanuts, pecan and cashew nuts
• vanilla. Wait, what? No chocolate and no vanilla? What on earth were those people using to make ice cream?! (Bet you were going to say no ice cream either. Well, this is not entirely true. Emperor Nero had his crew mix snow and fruit juice for him, so that's sort of ice cream, we can't be too picky now.)

Ok, this is already very, very bad. What else is there that ancient Romans didn't have? Pills. Sure, they used all sorts of medicinal plants, but no pills... it's just odd. No syringes, either – so maybe doctors weren't as scary back then as they are today. I think they also had fewer illnesses, given that the life expectancy was shorter, probably many diseases associated with old age didn't exist, or existed only in a handful of people and could thus be ignored. Since mental illnesses were not considered treatable we can scratch those off the list, and there was a study suggesting that cancer didn't exist either, but I wouldn't go that far.

Forks. Romans ate with their hands, so no silver cutlery at the dinner. They had instruments shaped like today's forks, used to assist when carving meat. They also had spoons, in case you were wondering. And ladles.

Toothpaste, deodorant, soap and detergents. There is a reference somewhere about a mixture used by Spanish tribes to clean their teeth (which included urine, if I remember well), but no account of anything similar to toothpaste in Rome. Artificial detergents were not known, of course; soap didn't seem to be very popular in the Empire, though there are mentions that it was used in Germania and Gaul.

Ancient Romans obviously didn't have paper, and they managed the writing part well without it, but think of the implications... no toilet paper, no paper napkins, no cardboard boxes and no paper clips! What did they do during long, boring office meetings if they couldn't build paper clip figurines?

No plastic – ok, this is again something very obvious, but take a moment to think... can you imagine a world where nothing around you is made of plastic? No polyester, nylon, velcro or vinyl – guess no glam rock for the ancients.

I'd have to pack six pairs of eyeglasses, to include all possible changes in my prescription for the next years, though I have some doubts about this. They used magnifying glasses (they were called reading stones), how hard is it for anybody to figure out a way to attach them to a ribbon and tie them to the head?

No clocks, watches or pendulums – but I don't think this counts as a shortcoming. It would be nice to live your entire life without being pressured by the passing seconds.

Liquors and spirits. Ancient Greeks figured out how to get distilled water, and they stopped there. Figures, conceit wine drinkers. Alcohol was distilled for the first time in the 12^th century, and fractional distillation appeared a century later. You know, I just figured out how I'm going to support myself while living in ancient Rome. I always thought I didn't have any skills marketable in an age where there's no electricity, but I lived all my life around home-made distillery devices, I can build one in ancient Rome. I know they were partial to wine, but it's a big empire, I'm sure I'll find a market. And no special taxes on alcohol either – this definitely has potential.  

More Dragons and Sphinxes in the Mix

I am a sucker for historical fiction, and not just for those set in ancient Rome, as you might think from this blog. Ok, ancient Rome comes first, but I read just about any age, and watch the occasional Hollywood blockbuster when it comes out.

My expectations when it comes to movies are relatively low: I want beautiful actors, armies, uniforms, horses, if appropriate, and I'm always grateful when they don't make the actors speak some obscure dialects (we all know ancients and aliens don't speak English. It doesn't add authenticity, it just makes it totally boring.)

With books, though, there's a different story. If a book is marketed as “serious” historical fiction, I expect it to be accurate in the tiny details, and coherent in the big picture. If a very small inaccurate detail sneaks in – let's say, Vespasian throws a dinner party and the main dish consists of peacocks, flamingos and turkeys – I'm going to rant about it for days.

Now, of course I understand what fiction is, I'm not stupid, on my good days. It makes perfect sense what Thornton Wilder did with Clodia in The Ides of March, he needed a strong female character, and, since there was none, Clodia was just as good as anybody else. What I don't understand is the type of historical fiction written by Conn Iggulden, for instance, where events are mixed up in all possible ways just to produce some flat cartoonish characters. I read one of his Emperor series a while ago, drove me nuts, I picked up another yesterday and... never thought I'd say this, but I'm not going to finish it. I'd rather read... hm... I need something nice to read after this.

What happened to all the good historical fantasy books? There was a trend a while ago, with some decent reads – most of them based on Celtic legends, but Rome was also starting to emerge as a cool place for wizards and witches – but it seems it went out of style before it took off.

Here's the deal: I want to read a nice, relaxing book, with dragons and sphinxes and legionaries in it. And a baby phoenix. Yeah, that should be cute. A baby phoenix that is kidnapped by a ruthless merchant, who wants to sell it to the game organizers in Rome. But his ship is attacked by a mob of sirens and tritons (yes, the trip has to be by ship, phoenixes only live in Egypt, duh), and the baby phoenix manages to escape from the shipwreck, but needs to find a way to return home. Oh, and we need a wizard now. I'm guessing... Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius, a mix between Tacitus and Harry Potter. There, now that's a plot line which makes the historical truth irrelevant. Why doesn't anybody write any good stuff anymore?  

Don't Mess with the Hangover God

Once upon a time, there was a king named Lycurgus of Thrace (not to be confused with Lycurgus of Sparta, Athens, Arcadia or Nemea – those are completely different Lycurguses). This Lycurgus thought his people spent too much time partying and not enough time fighting or plowing or doing other ancienty stuff, so he enforced his own version of the prohibition.

This posed a bit of a religious issue: since a major god, Dionysus, was in charge of drinking, his cult had to be banned as well. Not cool, and Dionysus was not happy. He made Lycurgus go mad (apt punishment, I could never understand how people who don't drink manage to stay sane), mistake his own son for a trunk of vines and kill him while trying to destroy all vineyards in the country. People of Thrace were fed up with the prohibition thing anyway, so they had Lycurgus dismembered by wild horses.

Bacchus - Statue from the Baths of Faustina, in Miletus.

In the 1st century BC, the tribes of Getae and Dacians were united under the centralized rule of a man named Burebista. He employed the help of a wizard-priest from Egypt, Decaeneus, who also had a personal vengeance against vineyards. Figures. Egyptians adopted wine at some point in their history, but, deep in the their hearts, they remained beer people. According to Strabo, Burebista and Decaeneus managed to convince people to cut down vines and stop drinking wine voluntarily (probably some weird Egyptian mind-controlling techniques were used there). A few years later, they were assassinated by political opponents; the state dissolved, and the Getae were happily drunk once more.


In the 1st century AD, Domitian ruled Rome with an iron fist. Pissed because the entire Italian peninsula depended heavily on grain imports, he ordered all vines to be uprooted from the provinces, and banned the plantation of new ones. The measure was never actually enforced, partly because it was massively unpopular and caused protests everywhere, partly because Domitian suddenly remembered what happened to other rulers, and didn't want to upset the god of drinking, now called Bacchus. Too late – Domitian was killed, his memory banned by the Roman Senate, and he went down in history as one of the worst emperors.

Ok, I understand that Dionysus / Bacchus kills those who disrespect him. What I don't get is why he punishes the rest of us with hangovers.

Ancient Roman Women – Claudia Octavia

So let's move on to the second special request generated by the overview of ancient Roman women - Claudia Octavia, daughter of emperor Claudius and wife of emperor Nero.

This is quite a fairytale, about a girl whose mother dies and is replaced by an evil stepmother, but our heroine faces all difficulties with bravery, and she eventually marries a prince. Then the prince chops her head off. End of story. Ok, our Octavia is anything but a heroine. I mean, even after we got used to the passiveness of Cinderella and Snow-white, Claudia Octavia still deserves a monument named after her, for being the most passive victim of all times.

She just didn't have any chances, with a family like hers. Claudius took everybody by surprise (including himself) by becoming emperor in 41 AD. He already had a daughter, named Claudia Antonia (and here we go), with his second wife, Aelia Paetina, but, as all Romans, desperately needed a male heir, so he married Valeria Messalina, who was also accidentally his second cousin. And yes, it's THE Messalina, the ultimate image of debauchery and promiscuity.

The happy couple had two children – Claudia Octavia and Britannicus – until Messalina decided to re-marry but forgot to inform her royal husband first, and was therefore put to death. Since all his marriages turned out so well, Claudius decided to try his luck one more time, with his first cousin, Agrippina, who already had a son, Nero, about the same age as Octavia and Britannicus (just a bit older than Britannicus, but those few extra months would prove crucial for the power transfer).

Messalina and her two children. Image CC via Wikipedia. 

So, let's review what we have so far: Octavia was the daughter of a man considered both mentally and physically challenged and of a woman who was just about to go down in history as the biggest prostitute of all times. She witnessed her mother being put to death, and then got Agrippina as stepmother, already famed for her intrigues and blood thirst.

Now let's watch things going from bad to worse. As all girls of her standing, Octavia got engaged very young to a guy named Silanus, as her father was looking for political alliances. When the situation changed, the engagement between Octavia and Silanus was dissolved, pushing Silanus to commit suicide on the same day that Claudius married Agrippina. Spectacular.

Claudius

A new marriage was arranged for Octavia, this time to Nero. Of course, they were technically siblings, so Octavia was probably adopted into a different family – how much worse could a new family be, anyway?

Let's fast forward a bit among the next pile of corpses: Claudius died, possibly poisoned by Agrippina, Britannicus died, possibly poisoned by Agrippina and / or Nero, Agrippina died, on Nero's orders. We can reasonably assume that Octavia suffered from the loss of her father and brother, but it would be her stepmother's death that had the biggest impact on her life. Agrippina managed to keep Nero relatively under control for a while, and she insisted on him staying married to Octavia, to justify his claim to the imperial position. From the paternal side, Nero's family was not particularly illustrious, so the marriage to a Julio-Claudian was imperative.

But, with Agrippina out of the way, Nero could do what he pleased, and historians of the time are more than happy to report that he hated being intimate with Octavia. (That's Rome for you, no privacy for the famous, even in the bedroom. Feels so familiar, somehow.) There have also been allegations that Nero tried to strangle Octavia on several occasions – though he strikes me as mad, but not the kind of mad that would get violent on a personal level.

When one of Nero's mistresses, Poppaea Sabina, got pregnant, he finally decided to divorce Octavia, claiming she was sterile, and married Poppaea a couple of weeks later. The divorce caused a general outcry of sympathy, so Nero tried to hide Octavia from the public, by having her exiled to an island under an accusation of adultery. So... his mistress was already pregnant with his child, but Octavia was the one charged with adultery. The Romans thought so too, so the manifestations of sympathy for Octavia increased, and people demanded to have her back, thus forcing Nero's hand to use the ultimate solution: he had her killed. There was a pathetic attempt to make it look like a suicide, by opening her veins in a hot bath, but it was kind of hard to buy the suicide version, considering that Octavia's head was subsequently cut off and sent to Rome, as a gift for Poppaea.

If it's any consolation, Poppaea herself also had a gruesome death, a few years later. Then Nero reconsidered his alliance with the descendents of Claudius and tried to marry Octavia's sister, Claudia Antonia. She refused, and was also killed. Typical Julio-Claudian style: marry the emperor, get killed, don't marry the emperor, get killed.

Tacitus plays up the anti-neronian propaganda by describing Octavia as an “aristocratic and virtuous wife” - as if anyone needed more incentives to feel sorry for her. And there's that awful tragedy called “Octavia Praetexta”, which survived to this day, mostly because people believed it was written by Seneca. Seneca himself has a lot of sins to burden his memory, but this is not one of them.

Oh, and, while trying to do some research online about Octavia, I found very little useful information, of course, but my trusted search engine threw this back at me: “Claudia Octavia is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Claudia Octavia and others you may know”. Maybe I should check my Facebook account more often.

Ancient Roman Women - Octavia Minor

What do you know, I got a special request to write more about Octavia after yesterday's post. She would have gracefully accepted the attention she got, I'm sure, so today is her spot in the light.

Octavia was the sister of a guy named Gaius Octavius Thurinus, who'd became known later as Emperor Augustus. She's called Octavia Minor because there was another older half-sister, also named Octavia, of course (the Romans had that annoying habit – the result being that nobody could tell sisters apart; even ancient authors, like Plutarch, mix up the two, so we don't really need to know any more stuff about Octavia Maior).

When she was about 15, Octavia married a man of consular rank named Gaius Claudius Marcellus, who's of relatively little consequence to this story, but they had three children together – two daughters named, of course, Claudia Marcella, and a son - Marcus Claudius Marcellus. Yes, they were stunningly creative when it came to names. But this is about to grow even more confusing, so bear with me a while.

Julius Caesar had little reason to like Octavia's husband, who took the wrong side in the political debates of the troubled 1^st century BC, so at some point he tried to get Octavia to divorce and marry Pompey in order to forge an alliance (Pompey was married to Caesar's daughter before – this is so much better than any desperate housewives plot). Anyway, Pompey declined the offer – probably because he didn't want a new alliance with Caesar rather than because of Octavia herself, who was said to be a real beauty, and already had a reputation of being a good and faithful wife (read: she was fertile and refrained from having children with anybody besides her husband).

Octavia Minor - Don't you think she looks a little like Lorelei Gilmore? 

So Octavia continued to live besides her inconsequential husband until his death (of natural causes, big surprise). In the meantime, both Pompey and Caesar were also dead, and the big names battling it out on the Roman power scene were Marcus Antonius and Octavian, Octavia's brother – so she drew the short straw again in the lottery of political alliances.

As luck would have it, Antonius' wife, Fulvia, died about the same time as Octavia's husband, so Octavian arranged a quick marriage between his arch enemy and his sister. It caused quite a fuss at the time – Octavia was supposed to be in mourning, and apparently pregnant with her previous husband, so a Senate decree was needed to allow the ceremony to proceed. The propaganda machine was put at good use to present it as a marriage that would guarantee Rome's safety and peace for the next thousand years – a little something that depended on Octavia's ability to bear a male child with her new husband. She was about 30 at the time – which means old, but she sure tried her best. The couple only had two daughters together, named, of course, Antonia and Antonia. To keep herself occupied, Octavia also took in and raised the son Antonius had from his previous marriage (or his sons, assuming he had two – this is a bit blurred, but there are so many children already, who's counting?)

Then things got messy. Antonius left to fight against Parthia, and he fought so hard, he had three children with Cleopatra, the Egyptian Queen, creating a neverending supply of plots for Victorian playwrights and Hollywood screenplayers. (Antonius, by the way, didn't look anything like Charlton Heston or Marlon Brando. He was fat like a pig and had a neck like an obelisk.)

Octavia kept playing her part as a victim-wife. She gathered troops and money for her husband's campaign (not that he was actually taking part in any battles), but, when she tried to visit, Antonius instructed her not to set foot in Egypt. He did, however, accept the troops and money she brought him. Later he divorced her – by mail, by all means. Didn't even have the decency to come to Rome and tell her in person.

Marcus Antonius - What's with the hair anyway?

Octavia was probably messed up by the public scandal her life had turned into, but her brother Octavian found a window of opportunity, and he stepped up the propaganda, constantly playing Octavia, the good Roman wife, against the image of the exotic and lavish mistress, Cleopatra. All in all, this allowed Octavian to fight his war against Antonius and to present it to the general public as a war on Egypt, instead of the civil war it actually was.

So, Octavian won at Actium, effectively establishing his undisputed rule over the entire Roman territory, Antonius and Cleopatra both committed suicide, leaving three more children unattended – Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene and Ptolemy Philadelphus (don't assume they got more creative with names in Egypt, all of them had a long tradition going back at least 13 generations. For now, however, they are a convenient break from all the octavias and antonias).

Yay, more children. Octavia took them all in. This means she had at least nine, isn't that lovely. Actually, it's not lovely, but it's weird. Antonius had divorced Octavia before he died, and Roman women did not retain any rights over their own children after a divorce, let alone the children the husband might have had from a different woman. This was clearly Octavian's intervention, to enhance his sister's image and turn her into a saint. Well, he succeeded.

In fact, Octavian's initial plan played out well on the long term: the heirs of Antonius were effectively neutralized and became part of the imperial family, thus killing any serious opposition for the following Julio-Claudian rulers.

The results of the obsessive inbreeding in the imperial family were funny. Emperor Caligula sentenced to death people who celebrated the battle of Actium (because they were celebrating the defeat of his famous great-grandfather, Marcus Antonius) and also those he didn't celebrate the battle of Actium (because they weren't celebrating the victory of his famous great-grandfather, Octavian Augustus). Also, our Octavia was, at the same time, the maternal and paternal great-grandmother of Emperor Nero. No surprise they all turned out nutters.

Now, Octavia had a bunch of children, so her brother, now officially the big cheese in Rome, decided to adopt one, Marcellus, as his heir (remember Marcellus? Yeah, he was in the first litter, it's difficult to keep track). Marcellus died young, as it generally happened to the heirs to the imperial throne, so in the end, Octavia's daughters would have to take the political path that ran in the family and live up to the expectations. Both Antonias would become surprisingly powerful players on the Roman scene, apparently inheriting their mother's fierce loyalty and their father's appetite for power and blood thirst.

When Octavia died, she received public funerals and her brother built several monuments in her memory (including the Porticus Octaviae, which still stands today, and which should not be confused with Porticus Octavia, which was... never mind. He built stuff named after her.) However, he refused some of the honors the Senate tried to vote for Octavia – probably thought enough was enough, after all, she was just a woman. Still, Octavia was one of the first Roman women to have her image minted on a coin – but was in good company, since two of Antonius' other wives, Fulvia and Cleopatra, had their own coins too. The numismatic evidence now helps us establish beyond reasonable doubt that Octavia was the most beautiful of the three, and that Antonius was an ass.

The Roles of Women in Ancient Rome

Yay, girl stuff!

Here's the deal with the roles of ancient Roman women: everybody's writing about them, trying to make the most of very limited resources, but the actual factual data is very limited. The history of Rome covers a huge timeline and a giant territory, but, since there are so few accounts of ancient Roman women, it's very tempting to take whatever bits and pieces of information survived and to force them together into creating a coherent image.

You cannot compare the situation of women in 200 BC with that of women in 200 AD, same as you cannot compare the life of a woman in Alexandria to that of a woman in Britannia. To add even more complications, most portraits we have from ancient literature are not of real women, but idealized images used to enforce the writer's point of view.

So, that being said, I'll do what everybody else is doing, create a very general image, and maybe get into the juicier details later.

Family Roles – Daughter, Mother and Wife

The place of a good Roman woman was at home (I'd say in the kitchen, but few houses had kitchens), or out in the open, but still promoting the values and the name of the family.

It probably wasn't a lot of fun in the beginning. Daughters literary belonged to their father until they were married, and then the authority was transferred to their husbands. If the husband died or divorced, the woman would return to her father. As the republic turned into an empire, growing richer and more tolerant, things changed, the way Romans liked to change things: officially everything remained the same, in reality everything was different. We know for instance about a law allowing daughters to inherit their mother's fortune, which means some women managed to acquire financial independence, and let's face it, financial independence means independence, period.

As for the family roles, accounts vary. In some, women were regarded as mere vessels for procreation. There is a story of a philosopher who thought it perfectly natural to “lend” his wife to his friend, because she was fertile and his friend couldn't have children with his previous wives, and then take her back once she fulfilled her mission. I think I've stated my opinion of Roman philosophers repeatedly on this blog.

Public Roles – Benefactors, Priestesses and Politicians

There were few public roles available for women in ancient Rome – the most famous, of course, being that of Vestals – the celebrated virgin priestesses. It wasn't as bad as it sounds, they got some of the best theater seats, and the contract was for a pre-determined duration; after a while, the Vestals were free to leave and get married. Most of them chose to stay even after their term expired (probably for the complimentary theater tickets).

In Pompeii we learn of a woman called Eumachia, who was a priestess of Venus and certainly belonged to the ruling elite. She commissioned and paid for several buildings, helped during the reconstruction effort that followed an earthquake, and the town rewarded her with a statue, so must have been a relatively prominent figure.

Those were the good public roles for women – the bad ones were those of politicians (well, not much has changed since). Romans hated women politicians. Agrippina's biggest crime is not that of having her husband poisoned, but that of attempting to greet ambassadors together with her son, Nero. Agrippina was a formidable character, but she ended up on the losers' side, so we don't hear many good things about her. Few women managed to get powerful and successful enough to force the Romans to bite their tongue and swallow their pride; most notable among them was Livia, Augustus' wife (it surely paid off to marry the founder of the empire, but also to live about ten times longer than the average life expectancy of the age).

Shady Roles – Witches, Enchantresses and Prostitutes

It's the extremes that draw the attention, so the roles we know most about today are either those in the spotlight or those from the gutters. Pompeii preserved a wealth of inscriptions detailing the prices of the local prostitutes, while the famous poisoner Locusta has a prominent spot among the women serial killers of antiquity.

Regarding the prostitutes, it's unclear how many were slaves and how many free women who chose this path (don't be too quick to judge them, the career options were limited, a dirty one is better than none at all).

Women of the Imperial Family

Being born or getting married into the imperial family was surely the quickest way to get noticed for the women in ancient Rome. Like dying your hair blonde and pretending to be a singer today. Trying to understand Roman women by looking at the imperial family is exactly like trying to understand today's society by looking at Paris Hilton.

Professional Victims

There was one certain way to get your fifteen minutes of fame – become a professional victim. Commit suicide together with your husband, raise children born by your husband's mistress, get yourself killed for something that wasn't your fault or your problem to begin with – and earn the immortal praise of the famous writers.

Octavia seemed to be the name of choice for professional victims in the first century, like Octavian's sister, married to Marcus Antonius for political reasons, then used by the augustan propaganda as an antithetic image for Antonius' mistress, Cleopatra. Another Octavia was the daughter of emperor Claudius, married to Nero (who was also her stepbrother, but those are just details) and then killed by the same – enough to turn her into the main character of a play attributed to Seneca (Seneca is obviously not the author, but that's a different matter).

Read more details about:

• Octavia Minor

Foreign Rulers

If Roman women are presented as stereotypes in the literature of the age, then the foreign rulers are downright caricatures. Cleopatra of Egypt, Zenobia of Palmyra and Boudica of Britannia – images that fascinated the conservative Roman elite, in the same way that the legend of the amazons fascinated the Greeks – weird and scary things, outside the natural order. What we can do now is dust them off, try to figure out fact from fiction, and maybe shed a bit more light on the ancient Romans' concepts.

Regular Women

So, where does all this leave regular women, the millions who belonged to the middle classes and had a normal life? Pretty much nowhere. We can tell what they were wearing, eating and using for make-up, but not what they were doing or thinking.

There is enough data to figure out they were not locked in the house, like the Greek women, enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, were actively involved in the life of their cities; evidence from Pompeii shows that some could read and write and others were regular businesswomen, but there's no way of telling if these were exceptions or the rule. It's like being stuck in a huge warehouse full of colorful trinkets, in perfect darkness, and you can only light a match every half an hour to catch a glimpse of what's around you.