+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ancient Civ Talk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Common errors about Antiquity (/showthread.php?tid=14976)
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - jpvdgiessen - 05-15-2009
Quote:Thanks all, for the input. I have made a start with my little book, which will be written in Dutch. Still, several pieces are available in English: go here.
For those who can't read Dutch, this is a good opportunity. I read a first concept of the book and I think this will be one of the best of Jona's writings.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Tiberius Clodius Corvinus - 05-16-2009
Quote:Thanks all, for the input. I have made a start with my little book, which will be written in Dutch. Still, several pieces are available in English: go here.Too bad, there'll be no English version. At least no full one. But I definetly like that you wrote on Livius.org
However, one thing bothers me ... you describe it as misconception, that the Romans tried to conquer Germania up to the Elbe.
Hm, AFAIK we have no positive confirmation that they indeed wanted to, but neither the opposite. I actually got the idea - among other sources - from Livius that the campaign in AD 6 against Marbod would have resulted in the annexion of the territory in question. :?
So what makes you so sure, the Romans did not aim for the Elbe?
Would be great, if you or someone else could dissipate my doubts.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 05-16-2009
Quote:I think that the fact that (a) rivers were rarely seen as frontiers until Claudius started to create the limes system and (b) German archaeologists have never found any indication for Roman presence east of the Weser, can be seen as evidence that Rome only tried to conquer the valleys of the Main and Lippe. They did, of course, on three occasions reconnoitre the Elbe area. Another factor is that, as we can deduce from the map of Agrippa, an Elbe frontier was considered to be impractically long.Jona Lendering:3ajolre6 Wrote:However, one thing bothers me ... you describe it as misconception, that the Romans tried to conquer Germania up to the Elbe.
Hm, AFAIK we have no positive confirmation that they indeed wanted to, but neither the opposite.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Paullus Scipio - 05-16-2009
.....and yet, there are clues the Romans wished to add the lands of Germania up to the Elbe and even beyond, to the Empire - Drusus having reached the Elbe was apparently only turned back by superstition and bad dreams, and the proposed campaign of Tiberius against Maroboduus, larger even than Caesar's campaigns that conquered Gaul, and not surpassed until Trajan's war against Dacia...... ( aborted due to revolt in Illyria).
Rome was still aggressively expansionist until Tiberius became Emperor and had a change of heart in 17 AD.....
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 05-16-2009
Quote:Rome was still aggressively expansionist until Tiberius became Emperor and had a change of heart in 17 AD.....Actually, Tiberius already preferred diplomacy against the Germans in 8 BC, when he terminated Drusus' campaigns. The Teutoburg Forest disaster was for him nothing but an incentive to return to the diplomatic approach, which indeed secured a constant flow of tribute without investments in new fortifications and towns. Nor was it necessary to occupy the Main and Lippe valleys; originally this had been necessary to feed the legions along the Rhine, but now that Gallia Belgica had become romanized, there was sufficient food available.
I think the basic error is a positivist fallacy: because we have sources about the Teutoburg Forest disaster, we believe it is important. But the Claudian army reforms were more important.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Paullus Scipio - 05-16-2009
Quote:Paullus Scipio:3uiuvhzy Wrote:Rome was still aggressively expansionist until Tiberius became Emperor and had a change of heart in 17 AD.....Actually, Tiberius already preferred diplomacy against the Germans in 8 BC, when he terminated Drusus' campaigns. The Teutoburg Forest disaster was for him nothing but an incentive to return to the diplomatic approach, which indeed secured a constant flow of tribute without investments in new fortifications and towns. Nor was it necessary to occupy the Main and Lippe valleys; originally this had been necessary to feed the legions along the Rhine, but now that Gallia Belgica had become romanized, there was sufficient food available.
I think the basic error is a positivist fallacy: because we have sources about the Teutoburg Forest disaster, we believe it is important. But the Claudian army reforms were more important.
I know that of necessity, comments here tend to brief and hence over simplified, but I don't think Tiberius "preferred" Diplomacy in 8 BC, rather in all his campaigns Tiberius skilfully blended the 'carrot' of diplomacy with the 'stick' of military action - in 8 BC it was a massive invasion that forced the reluctant tribes to negotiate. Nor can it be said that Tiberius 'terminated' Drusus' campaign. Drusus' unfortunate death occurred whilst the army was withdrawing to it's winter bases, as occurred every 'season'. Tiberius came to return his adoptive brother's body to Rome and oversee his funeral. Next season Augustus sent him straight back to continue the subjection of western Germany, which he did in the next few years by mostly military means rather than diplomacy ( though he was evidently proud of his diplomatic achievements too, if Tacitus' reports of his comments to his nephew Germanicus have any truth). Thus the "aggressive expansionist policy" of Rome continued. Nor is this my view alone - see for example "German Policy of Augustus" C.M. Wells, 1972, Clarendon press.
Tiberius hammered the Germans (if we can call them that -they certainly didn't, seeing themselves as tribes) mercilessly, culminating in a massive campaign in 4 BC. Ten years later Augustus sent Varus to continue the process of pacifying and 'civilising' western Germany, while military attention turned to south - eastern Germany and the confederation centred in Bohemia and led by Maroboduus. Tiberius was meant to lead a massive force, bigger than any army Julius Caesar commanded in Gaul, to conquer eastern Germany too - a continuation of Augustus' "aggressive expansionist" policy in 6 AD. Only a massive revolt in Pannonia and Illyria diverted the mission, but it was sufficient to frighten Maroboduus, who would become a "friend of Rome" and refuse to join Arminius' revolt.
Also, it is evident, I think, from the emphasis given it in our several sources,that the 'Clades Variana' was seen by contemporaries as important, a 'watershed', not just by modern historians. Tacitus even goes so far as to call Arminius the 'liberator' of Germany. Certainly after it, in his will, Augustus had changed his mind, and advised his successors not to expand beyond existing borders. Tiberius was mindful of this, but not before unleashing Germanicus on aggressive campaigns over several seasons to avenge Varus and supplicate 'Mars Ultor' ( Mars the Avenger).
What you say is true, however, in a general sense. It is all too easy to treat as overly important some event, because it is referred to in our patchy ancient sources, while ignoring some larger more important event simply because we have no information about it.
Claudius' Army reforms can be considered a case in point,though it should be remembered that the Roman army constantly evolved, and that like 'Marius' reforms' too much can be made of them and it too can become victim to a 'positivist fallacy'. For example due to our sources being universally hostile to Caligula, and more positive about Claudius, it was believed that various forts and installations on the lower Rhine had been built by Claudius for 'his' invasion of Britain in 43AD. Archaeology has now revealed they were built earlier, under Caligula and that in all likelihood, Claudius simply 'took over' an invasion plan that was well advanced until Caligula's assassination intervened. This example, I think, illustrates both your points about 'positive fallacies' and over-reliance on patchy and biased sources......
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - D B Campbell - 05-17-2009
Just thought of another one, Jona -- I don't think anyone has mentioned the old chestnut about how the UK (= English) railway gauge is based on the wheel spacing of Roman wagons.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 05-17-2009
Quote:Just thought of another one, Jona -- I don't think anyone has mentioned the old chestnut about how the UK (= English) railway gauge is based on the wheel spacing of Roman wagons.Brilliant. Nice for the English edition (if there will be one).
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Narukami - 06-02-2009
Jona,
Yesterday Michael Moore, writing about GM and how the did themselves in, wrote the following:
History will record this blunder in the same way it now writes about the French building the Maginot Line or how the Romans cluelessly poisoned their own water system with lethal lead in its pipes.
I do not remember seeing this one on your list, and perhaps I'm wrong and this is not a common error about antiquity, however I thought it was now accepted wisdom that the Romans knew lead was poisonous and for that reason did not make wide spread use it in their plumbing.
Please correct me if I am mistaken about this. Clearly, if indeed this is a common error about the Romans it is certainly one of the most widespread.
Thanks.
:wink:
Narukami
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 06-02-2009
Yes, it's on the longlist; maybe it will get the shortlist too.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Narukami - 06-02-2009
Thanks Jona, good to know.
And speaking of Lead & Water...
Members might find this of interest from the PBS Nova web site (I came across this just today):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempire ... ring2.html
NOVA: What do we know about the local water distribution system?
AICHER: We know that the water came into the city on a gravity system in the open air, like a stream. When it got to the city, it changed into a closed system. It did that by going into a large tank or water tower, called a castellum, typically placed at a high spot in the city.
From the tanks, water would be transported through an underground system of pipes beneath the street. Water could be delivered up again to a height equal to the water level in the tank. It generally went to public fountains, baths or drinking basins, since only the very wealthy had their own private delivery pipes.
We don't know much about the system of piping itself, at least in Rome. We do know that most of the pipes were made of lead in that city. This varied, however, depending on the locale. In Germany, for instance, where there was a lot of wood, pipes were made out of wood. Elsewhere they might be terra-cotta.
NOVA: Did they have no sense, then, for the dangers of lead?
AICHER: Actually, they did. At least Vitruvius did. He makes his point by saying, "Hey, look at the people who make these lead pipes!" Apparently, these workers weren't in the best of health.
NOVA: What do you think of the theory that the Roman Empire collapsed because the Romans suffered from lead poisoning?
AICHER: Not much. The Romans did use lead in their pipes. However, two things about the Roman water supply mitigated the unhealthy effects of lead. The first is that the water in the Roman aqueducts rarely stopped running. They had shut-off valves, but they didn't use them much. The water was meant to move. It would flow into a fountain or a basin. Overflow would pour into the gutter and then flush the city.
Today, if you have lead pipes, they tell you to let the water run for awhile before you drink it. That prevents water from sitting in the lead pipes and becoming contaminated. That flushing out happened naturally in the Roman system.
Secondly, a lot of the water, especially in Rome, was hard water. It had lots of minerals in it that would coat their pipes. We often use filtration systems to take some of the minerals out. The Romans didn't have that, so these minerals would encrust and coat the inside of the pipe. That layer of minerals served as a buffer. In fact, the aqueduct channels would gradually accumulate these deposits. Periodically, they would have to chip out all the encrustations.
:wink:
Narukami
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Jona Lendering - 06-03-2009
Thirdly, of the about 80,000,000 people in the Roman empire, perhaps 15% lived in the cities. The others were peasants, living in villages without aqueducts.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - D B Campbell - 06-03-2009
Quote:(1) ... the water in the Roman aqueducts rarely stopped running. ... That prevents water from sitting in the lead pipes and becoming contaminated. ... (2) ... a lot of the water, especially in Rome, had lots of minerals in it that would coat their pipes. ... That layer of minerals served as a buffer.Thanks for posting, David. I'd heard the second of these explanations, but I'd never considered the first one. (And of course, as Jona said, only a small proportion were served by lead piping, anyway.)
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Epictetus - 06-03-2009
Quote:I thought it was now accepted wisdom that the Romans knew lead was poisonous and for that reason did not make wide spread use it in their plumbing.
Vitruvius seems to have known it was dangerous and specifically recommends against it.
Quote: water from clay pipes is much more wholesome than that which is conducted through lead pipes, because lead is found to be harmful for the reason that white lead is derived from it, and this is said to be hurtful to the human system. Hence, if what is produced from it is harmful, no doubt the thing itself is not wholesome.
This we can exemplify from plumbers, since in them the natural colour of the body is replaced by a deep pallor. For when lead is smelted in casting, the fumes from it settle upon their members, and day after day burn out and take away all the virtues of the blood from their limbs. Hence, water ought by no means to be conducted in lead pipes, if we want to have it wholesome.
Vitruvius, VI.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Justin of the New Yorkii - 06-04-2009
Mr Lendering, I'd like to hear more about your statement on the Battle of Gaugamela, which you say is erroneously referred to as "a big battle."
I read the article you have on Livius.org, and found it very informative, and you provide solid evidence suggesting that the battle was no contest and Darius' men were all to eager to flee.
But wasn't it still a "big battle" in terms of the number of men who were present on the battlefield? Or if not, how many Persian soldiers do you think were present that day?
From what I understand, it seems reasonable to say that Gaugamela wasn't a "fiercely contested battle," but it still seems to have been "big."