Category Archives: Uncategorized

Time and Space – 1066 AD, England

Normans vs. Anglo-Saxons

Casus belli: Duke William has been betrayed by King Harold, and must now seize his “rightful” throne

This scene from the Bayeux Tapestry shows William’s men sailing across the English channel and arriving on the shores of Pevensey Bay. The arrival took place on September 28. Normally, local watchmen would be keeping watch over the seas, detecting invaders, if any. Fortunately for the Normans, however, was that members of the “fyrd,” (farmers by trade, though part of Harold’s militia) had abandoned their posts to tend to their harvests, as it was September. Thus, William and his men were able to land relatively easily. Though not spotted by watchmen, the men did not arrive entirely undetected: local landowners witnessed the arrival and their reports reached Harold three days later (Rud 67-68).

The ships on the left of the image are shown traveling across the channel. Evident by the straining sails in the artwork, the wind was at the backs of the Normans. Though perhaps not as glorious as the tapestry depicts, there was almost certainly strong wind on the waters. The English channel is notoriously unpredictable between states of strong wind and silent calm. These same winds also chased away King Harold’s navy from the location. Where the Normans should have met resistance from the navy, they found empty waters, as Harold’s ships were being repaired of damages sustained in tumultuous waters (Rud 66-67).

The ships on the right of the image are used to depict the actual landing of the Normans. The main boat is in the process of being received on the shore: men are lowering the masts and the onboard horses are leaping into the shallow water. The boats furthest right have been emptied and lay decommissioned on the shore (Rud 67). In the entry for the year 1066 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, it reads:

Then came William duke of Normandy into Pevensey… This was then made known to King Harold, and he then gathered a great force, and came to meet him at the estuary of Appledore; and William came against him unawares before his people were assembled. But the king nevertheless strenuously fought against him with those men who would follow him; and there was great slaughter made on either hand. There was slain King Harold and Leofwine the earl… and the Frenchman had possession of the place of carnage, all as God granted them for the people’s sins. (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D – Worcester)

While this entry describes scenes not included in my panel, it confirms that Duke William was able to land in England with some element of surprise. Had the previously mentioned fyrds been attentive to their posts, perhaps William’s arrival would have been met with resistance and therefore changed the course of the invasion.

When using this artwork as a historic source, it is important to take into account the perspective of the creators. Even without knowing who embroidered the linen, one could tell that it tells a story of William gloriously conquering his rightful throne and removing the dishonorable Harold. That alone would reveal bias for William’s actions. The nature of the embroidery itself invites multiple interpretations of the scenes depicted. In fact, the Latin text here and there on the artwork are the only forms of narrative offered (Milbrandt, Bonds 26).

Sources

“Battle of Hastings.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Sept. 2017. Web. 25 Nov. 2018.

Milbrandt, Melody K., and Katrina Bonds. “Instructional Resources: Violence in Art: Raising Authenic Issues for Discussion.” Art Education, vol. 53, no. 1, 2000, pp. 25–32. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193859.

Rud, Mogens. The Bayeux Tapestry and the Battle of Hastings 1066. Christian Ejlers, 2002.

Translated by James Ingram. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Champaign, Ill. : Boulder, Colo. :Project Gutenberg ; NetLibrary, 19901999. Print.

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Color. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1985. Print.

The Tapestry

The Bayeux Tapestry is an embroidered work what follows William the Conqueror’s conquest of England in 1066 AD. William used the Norman army to invade England in order to regain the English throne from Harold. Harold had taken the throne after the former king of England, Edward the Confessor, had died without an heir.

The piece is nearly 70 meters long and consists of nine conjoined strips of linen that have been embroidered with only 10 colors of thread. It may have been longer, but it is speculated that the final scenes have been lost. It was likely commissioned by Bishop Odo, William’s half-brother. The tapestry has a more Anglo-Saxon style of stitching than French, and was probably not made in Bayeux at all. This is supported by Old English characters in the writing on the tapestry (Lewis). The validity of the tapestry as a source for the events of William’s conquest is questionable. Embroidery is not the clearest art form and can be easily misconstrued, the text that appears on the tapestry is limited and often abbreviated. The tapestry also focuses mainly on events in England, leaving out many details of events that took place elsewhere (Lewis).

Panel 65

This panel depicts a violent battle including many dead and broken weapons. It was uncommon to depict the dead in a piece like this. The latin text over this scene reads, “Regis: hic ceciderunt simul Angli et Franci in prelio”, which translates to “Here fell the English and French simultaneously in battle”. This battle scene likely represents what is known as the Malfosse incident (Wilson). The Malfosse incident was a disastrous charge by the Normans through English lines into a trap where many soldiers and horses were killed.  The English were positioned on a hill and faked retreat, tricking the Norman cavalry into charging their horses into concealed spikes (Wilson).

There is debate as to whether the animals depicted in the borders of the tapestry are directly related to the scenes that occur above or below them. Figures in the top border of panel 65 include lions and griffins, these may just be there to take up space or they could represent something symbolic about the scene. The bird that appears in the top border of section 65 is a dove carrying an olive branch, this is often used as an expression of peace (Owen-Crocker), this seems to be quite unrelated to the bloody battle that occurs below it.

 

Resources:

Lewis, Michael J. “Questioning the Archaeological Authority of the Bayeux Tapestry.” Cultural and Social History, vol. 7, no. 4, 2010, pp. 467–484.

Owen-Crocker, Gale R. “Squawk Talk: Commentary by Birds in the Bayeux Tapestry?” Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 34, no. -1, 2005, p. 237.

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry. Christian Ejlers Publishers, 2003.

As an Object:

The Bayeux Tapestry is said to be made up of degreased wool and nine pieces of linen that were treated by alum to ensure the dyes would stay before it was spun (Bloch 494). The other colored parts of the tapestry were dyed thread in addition to the dyed wool. Upon examining the Bayeux Tapestry, some parts of the colored areas wasn’t as faded as the others. This means that some parts of the Bayeux Tapestry weren’t exposed to sunlight as much as the others. It was also discovered with Carbon-14 dating that tapestry borders and central panels were embroidered after the tapestry was hung between the fifteenth and seventeenth century (Bloch 494).

Considering the timeline, it was believed that the tapestry was made between and after the conquest, resistance, or revolt (Bloch 493). Some professors find the Bayeux Tapestry an interesting topic and due to the timeline not having an exact timeline, they created assignments for students to research if the tapestry was made between or after the conquest, resistance, or the revolt (Carter 31).

As Content:

“William Rides To War – Scene 3.” The History of Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry, Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry, 2014, http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/Bayeux25.htm.

“William, mace in hand, gives a speech to encourage his soldiers (William Rides).”

With the description provided, William, Duke of Normandy, would be on the red horse and the mace in hand. This picture is suspected to be William the Great’s army heading into the Battle of Hastings of October 14th, 1066 (Carter, Historians 24). With the new battle in the horizon, William’s army of calvary was terrified of King Harold’s army, not confident in their formation, and recollecting that no Norman’s ever being a King of England (Tanton). Seeing this as a huge weakness, William raised his mace and rallied his men. With the battle cry and in the scene provided, it seems to have helped his men recollect their spirits and rush into war (Tanton).

King Harold’s army was composed of infantry and filled with archers. With the mobility of riding a horse and disciplined training, William the Great’s army overpowered King Harold’s and he became the first Norman King of England.

On the tapestry, there is a crow on the top right corner pointing to King Harold’s army. I believe this signifies his ill fortune and death. Without William’s speech to his troops, I believed they wouldn’t have won due to having a poor mentality.

https://ka-perseus-images.s3.amazonaws.com/e23ebe2457f1793ca9a67e77626759569679938a.jp(g)

Primary Sources

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Color. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1985. Print.

“William Rides To War – Scene 3.” The History of Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry, Britain’s Bayeux Tapestry, 2014, http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/Bayeux25.htm.

 

Secondary Sources

Bloch, R. Howard. “Speculum.” Speculum, vol. 81, no. 2, 2006, pp. 493–494. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20463736.

Carter, John Marshall. “Doing What Historians Do: Using the Bayeux Tapestry to Discover the Past.” The Clearing House, vol. 70, no. 1, 1996, pp. 24–25. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30189228.

Carter, John Marshall. “Writing Games in the Bayeux Tapestry.” The English Journal, vol. 74, no. 7, 1985, pp. 31–34. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/817592.

The full sentence at the top of this section of the tapestry reads “Hic Ceciderunt Lewine et Gyrd Fratres Haroldi Regis,” or “Here fell Leofwine and Gyrth, brothers of King Harold.” The name Gyrth is spelled with a Nordic D on the tapestry and is therefore thought to have been written by an Anglo-Saxon.

This section depicts the start of a second phase in the battle, where the English infantry led an attack along the entire Norman front. The soldiers in the tapestry can be seen carrying javelins and spears, as well as sticks, stones, and axes. Leofwine, brother of King Harold who died later in the battle, is believed to be depicted near the center of the panel, wielding an axe with his head turned. To the right of Leofwine, an English soldier is stabbed in the face by a Norman cavalryman’s spear. This is believed to be Gyrth. We know that both men were killed on October 14, 1066.

Both Leofwine and Gyrth were earls back in England, Leofwine over Buckinghamshire and Surrey to Essex, and Gyrth over East Anglia and Oxfordshire. Together the brothers controlled almost all of east England, which would have made them fairly important figures at the time, but very little is known about them besides what we can deduce from the tapestry. One of the only sources to mention them by name, William of Malmesbury, says that Gyrth tried to persuade King Harold not to lead the English army against William of Normandy, and offered to do so himself so that his brother could remain in London to lead their people. Harold refused, and he was subsequently killed in the battle along with Gyrth and Leofwine.

When using the Bayeux Tapestry to learn about history, specifically as an account of the Battle of Hastings, one must keep in mind that it was likely made to celebrate the victory of William of Normandy. Accounts of war are told and remembered from the victor’s point of view, and the lack of detailed English records at the time make the Bayeux Tapestry one of the only, and by far the most detailed, source of knowledge about the Battle of Hastings.

Works Cited:

Wilson, David M. The Bayeux Tapestry: The Complete Tapestry in Color. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1985. Print.

“Battle of Hastings.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Sept. 2017. Web. 20 Nov. 2018.

“Gyrth Godwinson.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 7 May. 2018. Web. 20 Nov. 2018.

Gameson, Richard. “The Authority and Interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry.” The Study of the Bayeux Tapestry. Rochester, NY: Boydell, 1997. 89. Print.

The Bayeux Tapestry is thought to have been made in England for William’s half-brother, Odo. Odo happened to be the bishop of the Bayeux -hence the name of the tapestry- and Earl of Kent. Speculators believe that the tapestry was made in Canterbury in a workshop that was associated with St. Augustine’s Abbey (Laynesmith).

The Bayeux Tapestry portrays William the Conqueror and how he took hold of England back in the 1060’s. In my specific piece, it is supposed to portray the death of King Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings. However, there is a lot of debatable matters when it

comes to this scene in the Bayeux Tapestry. Before diving in though, let me explain the difference in the soldiers. Historically, King Harold’s army was almost entirely infantry with the exception of a few archers. The Normans, on the other hand, were about half infantry, a quarter cavalry, and another quarter of archers (Battle of Hastings). Because of this, we can figure out that any of the horses in the tapestry (There is only one, in my case) are part of the Norman cavalry.

Looking at the tapestry, it is hard to determine which figure is King Harold. we can rule out that the person on the horse is not King Harold, because only he Normans had cavalry. So it is really left to two figures in the image; the one directly behind the horse, and the one being trampled by the horse. Because we don’t know in this context, we can look at how King Harold died. According to World Monarchies and Dynasties, Harold had been shot in the eye with an arrow, then mistakenly wandered into enemy lines half blind where he was killed (Middleton 376). Unfortunately, that does not solve any issues, because both figures could describe certain parts of King Harold’s death. In the 1st figure, it looks to be that there is an arrow in the eye of the figure. that perfectly matches up with the story given. However, because this photo is a photo of the replicated tapestry, we should see what other forms of the tapestry have. Bayeux-tapestry.org.uk goes into this, and points out that different replications of the tapestry show different things. For example, the Le Thieuller 1824 copy shows that the figure is holding a dotted line. In the Montaucon 1730 engraving, it just shows that the figure is holding something. It is not indicative of an arrow or a spear, but we don’t know what else it could be. Another thing to point out is that the first written mention of Harold dying by being shot in the eye with an arrow appears 14 years later; written by Baudri in a poem. Some speculators say that there is really no way to know how Harold died, because of the lack of detail in the primary sources. It really comes down to the interpretation of two sources; Carmen, then the Bayeux Tapestry itself (Bradbury 206)

The second figure also seems to match up with the story given by John Middleton. After being shot in the eye, he wandered into enemy lines and was slaughtered. The tapestry is indicative of that, except for the fact that the arrow is missing from the figure’s eye. However, if you look closely at the second figure’s head, you will see that there seems to be missing stitches leading to the second figure’s head. Why were the stitches put there, and why were they removed? These are both critical questions that unfortunately can’t be solved, and further deepen the mystery into figuring out which figure is the real King Harold.

An attempt to try and analyze the location of the title a certain figure also fails, because the title, “Harold Rex Interfectus Est,” stretches above both figures,  “Harold” being closer to the first figure, and “Interfectus est” being closer to the second figure.

In my own speculation, I think that it is very possible that both of the figures could be King Harold. It is somewhat apparent that the -most likely Anglo-Saxon- artist(s) did not know how to divide the different scenes, therefore making it look like the Normans were attacking themselves in some part of the tapestry. I think that this is another one of those situations. If my speculation is true, it shows that Harold was shot in the eye, and then immediately after was killed by the Norman cavalry. This opinion is supported by David Bernstein, who was the first to point out the missing stitch marks leading to the second figure’s head (Bradbury 207).

Despite the pitfalls in using the Bayeux Tapestry as a 100% accurate source for the Battle of Hastings, it does give us some insightful cues on what the Battle of Hastings was like, even if it is not completely accurate. An example would be the bottom part of the tapestry in the scene, “Harold Rex Interfectus Est.”

Here we can see people stripping the valuables off of the dead soldiers and peddling their newfound loot for money. While there seems to be no other source that mentions this happening after the battle of Hastings, it seems likely that it did happen.

There are some problems when it comes to using the Bayeux Tapestry as a source though. There was an absolute bias of the art itself. The embroidery was made with the idea of showing the victory of William the Conqueror and his army, and was probably made for Bishop Odo, who was William’s half brother. Also, because of the lack of worded description on what the artist was trying to convey, it is mostly up to the artist to interpret what actually happened during the Norman conquest. That is disadvantageous because of people’s variance of views and opinions.

As mentioned before, the embroidery doesn’t offer us 100% accuracy of exactly what happened, or at least we can not assume that. However, it does bring a resourceful and interesting perspective of what did happen. We may never know which figure was supposed to be King Harold.

 

Sources:

Middleton, John. World Monarchies and Dynasties. Routledge. 2015. pp. 375-376. EBSCOhost. Accessed 11/15/2018. https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?nobk=y&vid=2&sid=87f8a57e-8a79-45a4-a864-feb5286a

“the Death of Harold.” Accessed 11/15/2018. http://www.bayeux-tapestry.org.uk/deathofharold.htm

Bradbury, Jim. The Battle of Hastings. Sutton Publishing. 1998. pp. 206-207.

Lawson, M.K. “Observations upon a Scene in the Bayeux Tapestry, the Battle of Hastings and the Military System of the Late Anglo-Saxon State.” James Campbell. 2000. DRM_PETER. “Observations upon a Scene in the Bayeux Tapestry, the Battle of Hastings and the Military System of the Late Anglo-Saxon State.” De Re Militari. 10/02/2017. Accessed 11/16/2018. https://deremilitari.org/2017/10/observations-upon-a-scene-in-the-bayeux-tapestry-the-battle-of-hastings-and-the-military-system-of-the-late-anglo-saxon-state/

“Bayeux Tapestry.” Wikipedia. Accessed 11/22/2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry

Laynesmith, J. L. “A Canterbury Tale.” History Today, vol. 62, no. 10, Oct. 2012, pp. 42–48. EBSCOhost, hal.weber.edu/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.hal.weber.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=82392810&site=ehost-live.

 

 

 

 

The Arthur Myth:

Isaac, Son of Abrahm

Legends typically form through either a kernel of truth or just a made up story. It is very possible that King Arthur may have been based on a true person, but as time passed and as oral traditions of the story became deformed, the true historical person was credited with feats and quests that he simply did not do, which would make the main character of the story an entirely different person. In this case, a made up one.

Legends start like this. We have an event that is worth retelling. As we retell it, we forget the things that didn’t mean much to us, but glorify the story where the character did something amazing. Running a story through such a filter like this over and over again via oral tradition is bound to get yourself a legend. One that seems to be unrealistic.

This explanation seems likely as this sort of pattern is found to be true among human nature; Remember the fun stuff, forget the boring stuff.

It is also very possible that the story is a political or religious anecdote. Some have made similarities between the story of King Arthur and the Bible, claiming that King Arthur was similar to Joshua. Another claim suggests that the legendary 12 battles that King Arthur fought in was not so much historical, but had more of a biblical and symbolic meaning pointing to the 12 tribes of Israel. As for the political standpoint, there have been sources that cite that English Rulers like Henry VIII and Queen Victoria used the story of King Arthur for political purposes, suggesting that the story was skewed for the purpose for whatever the ruler so pleased. For example, although he didn’t skew the story, Edward III of England tried to make his own Knights of the Round Table, called the Order of the Garter. On the flip side, the legend of King Arthur could have been used as a template for how English Rulers were supposed to behave (maybe leading the rulers to skew the story to lower the standards.)

 

While the accuracy of this information is up for debate, some suggest that the legend may have been a scare tactic and to portray the Britons as a more war efficient society than they really were. Not to mention the sense of pride that it brought to the Britons. King Arthur served as a mascot just as much as the Utes are to the University of Utah or the Lancers to Layton High School.
It’s interesting to note that all of the more known legends come after the fall of a civilization. For example, the Iliad after the fall of Troy, the Legend of Romulus and Remus, after the fall of Greece, and of course, the legend of King Arthur after the descent of Rome. It could be speculated that legends are made by merely a consolidation of a time where things were better.

 

 

mediocrelegionnaire:

The Pendragons

• Arthur or Uther were not on the list of Pendragons detailed by Laurence Gardner, so that means if Arthur was a Pendragon, he had a different name.

Brychan (430-500):

• We don’t know very much about him, but it seems very unlikely he was Arthur
• According to a legend, he had 35 children, and when one of his daughters, Gwladys, was abducted, he persued the culprit in a fit of rage. Arthur, Cei, and Bedwyr were needed to stop the bloodshed.
  • Arthur was added later to this legend, which proves that there isn’t a legend where Bychand and Arthur are the same person.
• Bychan did have a son named Arthen (460-530) (he was the first “Arthnamed” child of a Pendragon) but he entered the church.

 

Dyfnwal Hen (455-525):

• He was a great and powerful warrior from the North
• He had a pattern of battles that was similar to those on Nennius’s List
  • If true, would place the Badon near Linlighgow
    • The site does not indicate it’s old enough to be Badon
    • There were so many conflicts along the area it’s too hard to tell
• Not in all the genealogies, but when he is referenced it’s always as “the son of Mar, grandson of Ceneu and great-grandson of Coel” which is why we date him around the 480s.
• His name sometimes appeared as “Athrwys”
  • The root Athro means “master” or “teacher”

 

Riothamus:

• Most of the stories he’s in were written 80 years after he died in by a Byzantine historian called Jordanes
• Some historians argue that he is the same person as Ambrosius Aurelianus
• King of Briton and/or Armorica (we’re not sure!)
• Riothamus fits some of the Arthur criteria
  • Crossed into Gaul twice (helped a Roman emperor and subdued a civil war)
  • His actions in Gaul casually resemble Arthur’s campaign
  • Betrayed by advisor/ ally
  • Carried off/ fled to Avalon (or maybe passed through a place that was called Avallon)
• The name means something along the lines of “High King”, “Freest”, “Most Kingly”, or “Kingliest” depending on which scholars you want to go with
• What we know for sure:
  • Was “King of the Britons”
    • Could mean Briton Briton or Armorica (nearby colony)
  • Alive in the ballpark of 470
  • Fought against the Goths and was alligned with the Romans and was defeated
  • Received a letter from Sidonius Apollinaris, who was asking for his help and judgement
    • The letter survived
• However the timeline doesn’t really match up to Arthur

 

Hopology Enthusiast:

Ambrosius Aurelianus

• Ambrosius is one of the only people that is identified by name him the sermon De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae and the only person named from the 5th century
  • This document is the oldest extant British document about the Arthurian period,
• Ambrosius was supposedly of noble birth and was also a most likely a Christian as the document says that he won all of his battles with God’s help
  • The document specifically states that he wore the purple which could mean a couple different things not just royalty
    • Purple can denote the purple worn by roman emperors and other aristocrats
    • Purple can also be in reference to the purple worn by Roman Military Tribunes
    • The purple may also represent blood referring to martyrdom
• He is said to have fought of an invasion of saxons around the time that Arthur would have
• This character’s life seems to match up with aspects of arthur’s supposed life
  • He was suppodley of noble birth
  • He was supposedly on a quest to reclaim his rightful place as king
  • He was born in troubled times and gathered a force to fight off a force of saxons invaders
• Although a few of his life details successfully match with Arthur’s he his specifically mentioned as Arthur’s uncle and the father of Uther Pendragon
  • While this could be a drifting of names, this could also explain the similarities that he had to Arthur
    • As Arthur’s uncle he would be of royal blood
    • He could have helped fight of the saxons
    • He could have helped the real Arthur reclaim his place as king.

Owain Danwyn

• Prince of Rhos in Gwynedd, Wales, in the 5th century.
• Very little is known about his actual life
• Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman proposed a theory that he was the basis for Arthur
  • This theory was based on how they interpreted the British power structure of the 5th century
    • The name Arthur is in reference to Owain’s honorific title and means bear
• This is a very unpopular theory and has been disputed by many scholars

 

codexromana99:

Æthelstan

• Born in the late 800s, so if he is “Arthur” than elements of AEthelstan’s life were added in later. Arthur supposedly lived around the 400 or 500s.
• He succeeded his brother as the King of Wessex, centralized government and maintained control over productions.
• His victory over the last Viking kingdom of York made him the first Anglo-Saxon King of England, later was known as King of all of Britain
• He wanted to be seen as supreme ruler of all of Britain but not everyone liked him
• He collected lots of relics and there are many manuscripts about him, more than any other king of this time. If there were no historical records he would likely be as famous as King Arthur. He married some of his sisters off to other european leaders to support his throne and was not selfish. He respected others if they respected him, and was always ready to support his many nieces and nephews.
• Sources say he was “king arthur material” but he never married or had any kids. He did have a great influence over England and was considered the “English Charlemagne”, though he remains widely unheard of today.

 

Sources:

Fanning, Steven. “Speculum.” Speculum, vol. 79, no. 2, 2004, pp. 502–504. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20462924.

https://www.history.com/news/was-king-arthur-a-real-person

Bonnet, James. “How the Great Myths and Legends Were Created.” Writers Store. https://www.writersstore.com/how-the-great-myths-and-legends-were-created/

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

“Æthelstan, The First King of England (c.893-939)” Roots of Excalibur https://wjartuso.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/aethelstan-the-first-king-of-england-c-893-939/

Bilyeau, Nancy. “The Secrets of a Saxon King”. English Historical Fiction Authors. https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2011/12/secrets-of-dark-ages-king.html

Phillips, Graham. “The Lost Tomb of King Arthur.” The Lost Tomb of King Arthur 4, www.grahamphillips.net/arthur_tomb/arthur_tomb4.html.

“Owain Danwyn.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Mar. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owain_Danwyn.

“History.” King Arthur – The Legend, www.caerleon.net/history/arthur/page2.htm.

Russell, J. C. “Arthur and the Romano-Celtic Frontier.” Modern Philology, vol. 48, no. 3, 1951, pp. 145–153. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/435384.

Hopkins, Annette B. “Ritson’s Life of King Arthur.” PMLA, vol. 43, no. 1, 1928, pp. 251–287. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/457699.

Ashley, Mike. A Brief History of King Arthur. Little, Brown Book Group, 2013. Digital File.

Wikipedia contributors. “Riothamus.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 14 Oct. 2018. Web. 5 Nov. 2018.

Wikipedia contributors. “Historicity of King Arthur.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 12 Oct. 2018. Web. 5 Nov. 2018.

Lydwien Charlotte. “Riothamus”. 2010. http://www.lydwien.nl/kingarthur/riothamus.htm

 

Jacob- People and training of gladiators

Gladiator Schools:

While there were many gladiator schools, by far the biggest and most important ones were the ones located right there in Rome. The first, Ludus Magnus, was the biggest; holding about 2,000 gladiators. Then there is Ludus Dacicus, east of the colosseum, used to train Dacian prisoners of the Dacian wars. Third is the Ludus Gallicus; the smallest of the gladiator school and more dedicated to training more heavily armoured classes. Lastly, the Ludus Matutinus; this school was more for beast hunters and not so much for gladiators fighting each other. The word matutinus means “of the morning” where these sorts of shows would be performed.  The schools had their training ground in the middle, with their barracks and other supporting structures -such as a mess hall and a kitchen- surrounding the periphery of the training ground.

Where the Gladiators came from:

While there are many sources that suggest many different things about where the gladiators came from, there is a trend within the sources. The majority of the gladiators were criminals or slaves, but there were a few exceptions. There are accounts of volunteers who became gladiators professionally.

Employment of the gladiator schools:

The owners: Just like most corporate businesses today, the owners don’t do much except for accumulate money.

The Lanistae: The Lanistae can be assimilated to the managers of the ludus. What is interesting about the Lanistae, is that there seemed to have been a stigma with the lanistae and they were looked down upon; they were on the same ground as pimps and even the gladiators of that time.  (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 133 )

Medici: The medici were the doctors of the Ludus. They insured that the gladiators’ health was kept up to par. They may have been slaves or prisoners, but the gladiators competing was a source of income for the owner of the ludus. Included with the medical care that the gladiators received, they also had access to decent food to keep their energy up. One account mentions that the gladiators ate barley water mixed with beans.. (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 126 )

Magistri: The magistri were the gladiators’ trainers. Most of the magistri was composed from retired gladiators, mostly because after retirement from gladiating, they did not have good prospects, so they trained newer gladiators. While the magistri were the official trainers, many of the gladiators helped each other out. The more experienced ones were in charge of training the newer gladiators, despite the fact that they may have to fight each other in the ring.

Training of the Gladiators:

The gladiators were separated in different ways. The first way they were separated was by social standing. The volunteers, or the professionals, were separated from the slaves and criminals and ended up getting better treatment. The slaves and criminals though, even though it wasn’t as bad as regular prison -they had to be healthy for fighting- it wasn’t up to par to the professionals. They were also separated based off of their fighting style, and each fighting style had their own trainer. It wasn’t unusual for the gladiators to befriend their fellow adversaries, because the friends usually were the ones that made their gravestone.(Coleman)  Another point of segregation, usually the professionals went by their own name; while the slaves tended to have stage names that they used. One example is “Secundus” or “Lucky” (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 129)

In the arena:

Despite popular belief, there were actual rules when it came to gladiating; and it even included umpires. It wasn’t just kill your enemy, because you didn’t always have to. The gladiators were trained to fight with skill and accuracy; not necessarily to kill the enemy, but to disarm him or somehow disable him. (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 139)Remember, this is a show, even if it does seem like a battlefield. From there, it was decided by the crowd whether the defeated would die or be spared.

Among many things, one of the things that was harsh about the gladiating world is that you could have trained with someone, and even befriended him/her, only to be pitted against them in the arena.  (Talbert, Slootjes, Brice. 137)

Special gladiator schools were created in Rome. Capua was one of them. Agents scoured the empire looking for gladiators to recruit, as their turnover time was very short.

 

History of the Games – Garrett

The games have roots in both religious funeral rites and practices created by the people located in modern day Italy. The Etruscans of Northern Italy held gladiator battles and chariot races as sacrifices to the gods. The Romans picked up the practice later and continued to hold the games about 10-12 times a year (Pierre). It was believed in Rome that when people died their souls would travel in human blood to the afterlife. Because this was a popular belief, they would kill slaves or prisoners of war at important funerals. At Julius Brutus’s funeral in 264 BC his family had 3 pairs of slaves fight each other to the death (ushitory.org). Other wealthy families followed this example and began having these fights as well to prove their wealth. People passing by would come watch these fights as well and someone eventually had the idea to put out chairs and charge people to come watch the fight. The funeral of P. Licinius Crassus 120 gladiators fought and his funeral took place over 3 days and ended with a massive banquet in his honor (Thomassen). This practice eventually changed from its religious routes to more of a political event to win the favor of the mob.

The games were originally created and funded to show one’s wealth at a funeral and ensure safe passage into the afterlife. This quickly changed once they realised that they could win the hearts of the poor and desolate masses by putting on these massive spectacles for free. Once the aristocrats realized that the games would slowly increase in size to become massive, almost unbelievable spectacles of bloodsport.

As with most entertainment industries the most important thing is to be bigger and better than your competition so each times gladiator games were put on they had to be better than the last. The first advancement in scope came when aristocrats began constructing wooden arenas filled with sand. Previously they had fought either out in the open or in a roped off area. With the sand there to absorb the blood that was spilled the games could be held more often and for longer periods of time. This increase in frequency and duration then allowed gladiators to become a big business. Gambling on the outcome of gladiatorial games became a massive industry with gladiators creating troupes or familia, with managers that would decide where and when they would fight. Schools that recruited slaves, criminals, and prisoners of war in order to teach them combat techniques. Some elite romans even owned their own troupes of gladiators. formed. This growth, backed by the most elite in Rome, lead to the games becoming massive spectacles lasting months at a time at the creation of dedicated arenas rather than improvised grounds.

But private citizens owning sometimes hundreds of well trained warriors was something that could not be ignored by the state. When the Roman Republic fell the Roman empire and the Senate assumed complete control over all gladiators. They also gave Roman courts the ability to sentence criminals to participate in the games. With the ever increase in popularity, amphitheatres made of stone were built to house the games. The first of these arenas was called the Amphitheater of Statilius Taurus and was built in 29 BC with the most famous of these, the Roman Colosseum being built in 80AD (Thomassen).

The history of using animals in the arena also have roots in funerals as well, with wealthy people would stock up native creatures to parade around in honor of the dead. They would teach these animals tricks as well as kill them in staged hunts called venationes. Wild animals first came into the games when elephants captured during the first punic war were taken the games in 252 B.C (ushitory.org). This really expanded however with the wealth figures of Pompey, Crassus, and Julius Caesar bringing in animals from Africa such as crocodiles, hippopotami, tigers, lions ,leopards, and more. Trajan’s games is famous for being the largest show ever put on. It lasted form 79-81 A.D and was held to celebrate his victory over the Dacians (ushitory.org). The games lasted 120-123 days and consisted of over 9,000 gladiators and about 11,000 animals (ushitory.org).These animal hunts were so popular that many Roman Emperors actually fought in these gladiatorial animal hunts in order to earn the honor that was afforded to to the coliseums greatest champions. Emperor Commodus is the biggest example of this as he is said to have participated in over 700 gladiatorial fights (Pierre).

Eventually the attitude towards the games shifted dramatically. The rise of Christianity lead to a feeling of the games being wrong. Eventually the Emperor Honorius ended the Gladiatorial games after an Egyptian monk named Telemachus was killed after he plead to end the games. Honorius decreed the end of the games officially in 399 AD ushitory.org). Although the gladiator games were abolished at this time the last known gladiator fight in the city of Rome took place on January 1 404 AD ushitory.org). A bloodsport spectacle that once once brought emperors and nobles the people’s favor was now doing the opposite, and so it disappeared into history.

 

Emma- Colosseum 

Originally called the Flavian Amphitheater, the Colosseum could hold between 50,000 and 80,000 people, probably averaging to about 65,000 spectators per event. It was used for about 500 years, and it is estimated that over 400,000 people died there. Construction began in 70 AD and it was finished in 10 years, followed by a 100 day streak of daily events to celebrate the emperor, the city, and the arena. Unlike other amphitheatres carved out of hillsides, the Colosseum is a freestanding concrete and stone structure. The land it was built on was originally a lake, so drains were built to clear the area, and the arena itself would have needed to have extensive architecture planning done before construction. Since its days of fame, the Colosseum has been used for several things, including a Christian shrine, a quarry, and a source for building materials. It was also partially destroyed by an earthquake in the 1300s. There were over 250 arenas built in this time, but this was the largest of them.

There were 76 entrance gates labeled with roman numerals, much how modern stadiums are set up. Spectators were packed in like sardines, and though some scholars guess that the people were sat according to their rank, more than likely everyone just packed in as tight as they could. The Colosseum was renovated a few times, and underground tunnels, sun and rain shades, and other amenities were installed. Some evidence of latrines and even water fountains has been found. Eventually canvas shades mounted on masts that extended from top of the arena were installed, which could be rolled out to protect spectators from the hot sun and sometimes rain. The floor of the arena was covered in sand to help absorb the spilt blood of combatants. The arena was used for the famous gladiator battles but also for chariot racing, naval battles, public executions, and even plays. There is no physical evidence that the naval battles happened, but there are a few ancient records that report the Colosseum being flooded and used to recreate famous battles at sea. Underground, there were tunnels, cages for animals, holding areas for upcoming gladiators, and machinery like trap doors. This underground area was probably not present during the supposed naval recreations.

Overall, the Colosseum was a hugely successful and impressive work of art that displays Rome’s power and position at the time. It was planned out carefully, and funds were controlled to ensure the best and fastest construction. Even over a thousand years past its last use, the Colosseum is still a huge attraction today, even if you now have to pay for tickets, and has been named one of the 7 Wonders of the World.

 

“Munera” The Games– Alaina

Before the games could begin, advertising had to be done to inform spectators of date, venue, editor, fighters, scheduled executions, and added perks for those in attendance; which may include information on food, drink, shade awnings, and on some occasions, “door prizes”. More detailed programs could be obtained the day of, and provided additional information about the matchups and fighting styles of the gladiators. The night before the event a banquet would be held as a sort of “last meal”. It was a chance for the gladiators to sort out their affairs as well as bring more publicity to the event.

The munera would begin with something similar to an “opening ceremonies”. A pompa, or procession, would enter the arena and led by lictors (who represented the power of the magistrate editor over life and death), and were then followed by trumpet fanfare, images of the gods (who were brought to “watch” the spectacle), a scribe, and men carrying in the palm branches to be awarded to winners. The magistrate editor would then enter with the weapons and armour to be used, and the gladiators entered last.

The exact order of the munera would differ among individual events, but would generally open with sham fights, which were fought with wooden or dummy weapons as a sort of warm-up. The munus could also be opened with animal spectacles, such as the ones Seneca praised involving trainers and handlers putting their heads in lions’ mouths or getting elephants to perform tricks like kneeling and walking on ropes. He also recalled wild animals fighting each other and people; with events in single combat being fought by bestiarii (beast-fighters), and groups of hunters demonstrating their skill in venationes, or “beast hunts”.

The next stage was called the ludi meridiani, which featured a wide range of possible content. It often featured the execution of noxii (condemned prisoners), which was sometimes done through fatal re-enactments of Greek or Roman myths. The audience, as well as the gladiators were not as enthralled with these events as they denied the noxii the dignity associated with a fair fight. Comedy fights, which had the potential to be lethal, would be performed in this stage of the munus as well.

By far the most popular event were the scheduled fights between gladiators. These were also the most expensive events, owing to the need for highly trained fighters who possessed both the skill in combat and showmanship needed to create a successful show. There were four main classes of gladiators: the Samnite (named for the warriors the Romans had defeated early on in the Republic) were the most heavily armored. They carried a sword or lance, a large shield, and wore armour on his sword arm and opposing leg. The second class were the Thracian gladiators, who carried a short curved sword called a sica and a small shield for deflecting blows.The Myrmillo gladiator (sometimes called “the fisherman”) was armed in a Gallic style and was easily idenfied by the crest in the shape of a fish on his helmet. The last class, the Retiarius, wore only a padded shoulder piece for armour and carried a heavy net and a trident.

In terms of the actual combat, retired gladiators often served as “referees”, and music was played during the match to enhance the experience. The match was over when a gladiator defeated his opponent, which was done when his opponent surrendered by raising a finger or was killed. The victor was awarded a palm branch, but a laurel crown and additional money from the audience could be awarded for an outstanding performance, and emancipation granted to those who fought an especially spectacular performance.

If a gladiator surrendered, it was up to the editor to determine whether he lived or not; a decision that was usually made based on the audience’s collective decision, and was marked by the infamous thumbs up or down gesture. In the later years of the munera, the audience favored missio (not killing the gladiator) for various reasons, some being the shortage of gladiators or the rise of Christianity and decrease in bloodthirst.

In the unfortunate event a gladiator was denied missio, he was killed by his opponent, usually by a well-placed blow to the neck, but that was only if he had already earned the right to a quick death, that is. If he died honorably (without begging for mercy or crying out), he would be removed to the morgue in a dignified manner, stripped of his armour, and his throat would be cut to ensure he was in fact dead. However, if he did not die with honor, his corpse would be subjected to a more humilating fate, which involved area officials dressed as Dis Pater, the god of the underworld, and Mercury who would beat the body with a mallet and “test” for signs of life with some sort of “heated wand”, respectively. The body would then be dragged out of the area and would be denied proper funeral rites and memorial; effectively condemning his manes (shade) to wander as a restless lemur forever.

 

Sources:

Cagniart, Pierre. “The Philosopher and the Gladiator.” The Classical World, vol. 93, no. 6, 2000, pp. 607–618. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4352467.

Cartwright, Mark. “Roman Gladiator”. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 3 May 2018. https://www.ancient.eu/gladiator/. Web. Accessed 22 October 2018.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Gladiator”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 16 March 2018. https://www.britannica.com/sports/gladiator. Web. Accessed 22 October 2018.

Wikipedia contributors. “Gladiator.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2 Oct. 2018. Web. 22 Oct. 2018.

Cartwright, Mark. “Roman Gladiator.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. 2018. https://www.ancient.eu/gladiator/

“Capua.” Livius.org. 2018. www.livius.org/articles/place/capua/

Talbert, Richard. Slootjes, Danielle. Brice, Lee. “Aspects of Ancient Institutions and Geography: Studies in HOnor of Richard J.A. Talbert” Impact of Empire: Roman Empire, C. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476. Volume 19. EBSCOhost. 2015. https://web-b-ebscohost-com.hal.weber.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=27e32f3d-1548-4eea-85f8-3907f258fc29%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=e025xna&AN=919102

The Ludus Originating

“About Rome.” BB Roma. 2012. http://www.bb-roma.com/en/blog/about-rome/ludus-magnus-the-gym-of-the-roman-gladiators.html

Coleman, Kathleen. “Gladiators: Heroes of the Roman Amphitheatre.” BBC- Ancient History in Depth: Gladiators. 2012. https://courseweb.hopkinsschools.org/pluginfile.php/130911/mod_resource/content/0/World_Studies/Gladiators.pdf

“Ludus Dacicus.” Wikipedia.

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

“Rome, Ludus Magnus.” Livius. http://www.livius.org/articles/place/rome/rome-photos/rome-ludus-magnus/?

“Gladiator Schools in Rome” http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/gladiators/gladiator-schools-in-rome.htm

ushistory.org. Ancient Civilizations Online Textbook. Gladiators, Chariots, and the Roman Games. Web. 21 10 2018 Accessed.

Thomassen, Lasse. “‘Gladiator,” Violence, and the Founding of a Republic.” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 42, no. 1, 2009, pp. 145–148. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20452389.

Pierre Cagniart. “The Philosopher and the Gladiator.” The Classical World, vol. 93, no. 6, 2000, pp. 607–618. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4352467.

Jackson, Ralph. “The Chester Gladiator Rediscovered.” Britannia, vol. 14, 1983, pp. 87–95. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/526342.

BOWER, BRUCE. “Roman Gladiator School Digitally Rebuilt.” Science News, vol. 185, no. 8, 2014, pp. 14–14. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24366006.

History.com Editors. “Colosseum .” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/colosseum.

“Top Attractions.” Rome by CIVITATIS, www.rome.net/colosseum.

Hopkins, Keith. “History – The Colosseum: Emblem of Rome.” BBC, BBC, 22 Mar. 2011, www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/colosseum_01.shtml.

Nikola Simonovski. “Ancient Romans Flooded the Colosseum to Re-Create Famous Naval Battles for Thousands to See.” The Vintage News, 13 Mar. 2018, www.thevintagenews.com/2018/03/13/colosseum-naval-battles-2/.

 

 

Hadrian: Buildings, Public Works, and Administration

 

Hadrian’s rule of Rome is best characterized by his numerous buildings and similar establishments. It is important to recognize the effects Hadrian’s works had on Rome’s legacy and reputation as well as the effects on his citizens’ lives.

Hadrian

Looking retrospectively upon his actions, Hadrian was deeply invested in improving the living quality of Rome for its citizens. Two minor but effective ways of accomplishing this were by sanctioning and reducing wheeled traffic in the city and by serving harsher punishments to those caught burying dead bodies within city limits (Boatwright 26). These steps would contribute to a cleaner and more appreciated city. A more direct service to his citizens was Hadrian’s increase of Rome’s borders to include land that was previously uninhabitable due to flooding. Through the creation of a dike, the land was made safe and habitable, and became a significant area for housing (Boatwright 24). Another benefit to Roman citizens was the creation of jobs for tens of thousands. Large numbers of workers were needed for Hadrian’s projects; skilled and unskilled workers alike were needed (Boatwright 20). Examples of these projects are the development of shrines, temples, baths, and theatres (Boatwright 7).

Map of Rome

Each of these things contributed to a greater Roman identity for citizens. Between the swell of new buildings and public works as well as the active presence and power of the Roman senate and other princeps, citizens of Rome saw their city as a beacon of strength and unstoppable improvement (Boatwright 7). A greater Roman identity would have benefited the republic in that citizens would be more supportive of their officials and proud of their community. Hadrian was well aware of these effects. In fact, many of Hadrian’s buildings arguably serve two purposes: their literal purpose and their perceived statement of status or power. For example, the purpose of the Pantheon has been debated, but it can be agreed that aside from just being a structure of religious importance, it is a uniquely Roman accomplishment. It was an emblem of Roman identity and potential (Joost-Gaugier 21).

Another point of interest is Hadrian’s buildings themselves. Hadrian, famously enamored with the culture, drew much of his inspiration from the Greeks. This can be seen in his classically Greek yet Roman reinventions of architecture (Somers). The majority of the most well known ancient Roman buildings were built under Hadrian’s reign, such as the Pantheon, the Temple of Venus and Roma, and the Mausoleum (Boatwright 5). Unlike the buildings commissioned by Trajan before him, Hadrian’s buildings lacked lavish decorations and detailing. Rather, these buildings compensated with their sheer size and scale (Boatwright 21). A contributing factor to this feat was the development of efficient and reliable concrete, which opened the doors to buildings previously impossible (Wikipedia).

 

The Roman Pantheon

These buildings also serve as important cooperations between the senate and the emperor. As the senate was chiefly responsible for religious matters, the creation of religious buildings required agreement between the two powers. In fact, most of the identified buildings from Hadrian’s time are religious, which paints the relationships between Hadrian and Rome’s senate in a positive light (Boatwright 29).

 

Works Cited

Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987.

“Concrete.” Wikipedia. Last modified October 16, 2018.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete.

“Hadrian.” Wikipedia. Last modified October 17, 2018. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian. Joost-Gaugier, Christiane L.

“The Iconography of Sacred Space: A Suggested Reading of the Meaning of the Roman Pantheon.” Artibus Et Historiae, Last modified January 1, 1998. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1483585?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=legacy&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch?prq=hadrian&Query=legacy&wc=on&fc=off&swp=on&so=rel&acc=on&hp=25&refreqid=search:ada5f9323d46fb65d5a9b5bf47913833&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.

Mark, Joshua J. “Hadrian.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified October 21, 2018. https://www.ancient.eu/hadrian/.

Granger. “Roman Empire: Map Of Rome by Granger.” Fine Art America. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://fineartamerica.com/featured/roman-empire-map-of-rome-granger.html.

Somers. “Hadrian’s Villa A Roman Masterpiece.” Washington.edu, Last modified October 4, 2004. https://depts.washington.edu/hrome/Authors/somers/Nososureyets/pub_zbarticle_view_printable.html.

“The Roman Pantheon.” The Roman Pantheon – Crystalinks. Accessed October 21, 2018. http://www.crystalinks.com/romepantheon.html.

 

aganippe

 

Hadrian’s Public Works

Hadrian had an interest in architecture even before he became emperor. Unlike Trajan before him, Hadrian was unable to create a military legacy, and left an impact on Roman history through public works instead. Hadrian used his public improvement projects in Rome and throughout the empire to unite his people, giving them a sense of common identity.

The Pantheon is Hadrian’s most well-known architectural achievement. It is considered by many to be the pinnacle of Roman construction ability, largely due to the use of concrete in its design. The Pantheon’s 43.3-meter-wide dome remains the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world even today. The original Pantheon was built by Marcus Agrippa after 27 BC but was burned down around AD 80. Hadrian completely rebuilt it into the building we know today. Cultural impacts of the Pantheon and its revolutionary architecture can be seen across the world, from the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople to the Basilica of St. Peter in 15^th century Rome, which was partly designed by Michelangelo after close study of the Pantheon.

Through his extensive building and public works projects, Hadrian was able to secure his legacy as emperor, as well as strengthening the empire for his successors. In order to ensure a smooth transition of power after his death, Hadrian built himself a tomb in the center of Rome modeled after that of Augustus’s mausoleum nearby. This action was seen as a bold political statement, highlighting Hadrian’s desire to establish a dynasty.

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Hadrian–Life and Legacy.” British Museum. 2017. Accessed October 20, 2018. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/leaders_and_rulers/hadrian/life_and_legacy.aspx.

“The Pantheon.” Honors Program in Rome. September 8, 2004. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://depts.washington.edu/hrome/Authors/asc1/ThePantheon/pub_zbarticle_view_printable.html.

Gill, N. S. “The Roman Emperor Hadrian.” ThoughtCo. August 14, 2018. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www.thoughtco.com/hadrian-roman-emperor-118894.

artemisia189

 

Religion in the time of Hadrian

The emperor Hadrian seems to have had a rather eclectic view of spirituality.  He favored the traditions of Hellenism, with a flair for Egyptian mythology, and a sprinkling of other religions of the day.  He constructed temples to the Greek and Roman gods, deified Antinous by comparing him to Osiris, and curbed anti-Christian sentiments by instructing governors to investigate claims against Christians and punish those who made false accusations.

Hadrian himself is difficult to classify into just one religion.  (Walton, 165) He had at least a passing knowledge of most of the sects and cults of his time, and it would stand to reason that he had a particular fascination for eastern religions, given his time spent in that region.

Hadrian desired to rebuild many cities that had been destroyed in previous conflicts, including Jerusalem.  This, however, enraged the Jewish populace — who believed that it was an insult for anyone other than their people to rebuild their holy city and temple, and ended in the Bar Kokhba revolt. (Rénan, 501)  This bloody conflict put down further Jewish uprisings.  (Goodman, 182)

The Hellenistic religions during Hadrian flourished.  New temples to the gods were erected, and nothing controversial happened between people of those beliefs. (Religious Activities, Wiki)

Christians, who practiced their religion quietly so as not to provoke enemy persecution, benefitted from Hadrian’s policies.  Hadrian allowed their religious practices so long as Christians did not object to paying homage to the many Roman gods.  Only if they broke other laws were Christians punished. (Religious Activities, Wiki)  Hadrian had knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, and would have built a temple to him if not for the admonishment of the oracle at the time, who warned that if he built that temple, the other temples would fall into disuse and it would be the end of those other religions. (Rénan, 508)

The death of his boy-lover Antinous began a new cult that was spread by Hadrian far beyond the Nile, where Antinous likely drowned.  Hadrian deified the young man, and he became known as Osiris-Antinous.  A city was established near the place of this death, called Antinopolis, which also served as a place that connected the Egyptian culture with Greco-Roman culture.  (Antinous, Wiki)

These religions would have translated from the population as a whole into the military ranks.  Though, for many soldiers, the Hellenistic cults would have been the most popular, given their high favor by emperor Hadrian.  There would have likely been a small group of Christians and other religions among the soldiers as well.

In conclusion, Hadrian’s rule was largely peaceful, with many benefits to the various religious groups — with the notable exception of the Jews, whose uprising was perhaps the most violent event in Hadrian’s reign.

 

Sources Cited:

Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews.” Past & Present, no. 182 (2004): 3-29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600803.

Rénan, Ernest. “The Emperor Hadrian and Christianity.” The North American Review 127, no. 265 (1878): 492-508. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25100698.

Walton, Francis R. “Religious Thought in the Age of Hadrian.” Numen 4, no. 3 (1957): 165-70. doi:10.2307/3269342.

“Antinous.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinous

“Hadrian: Religious Activities.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian#Religious_activities

iamcamalot

 

The Law Under Hadrian

When Hadrian became emperor, he sought to organize the government more efficiently. During his reign he sought to codify roman law. In other words, he wanted the law written down and set in stone with little room for personal interpretation. He made his legal advisors into a permanent office. The central government became very strong and often helped the upper classes more than the lower. Punishments for higher classed citizens were much more forgiving than those for the lower class. He encouraged political figures to behave well and dress nicely.

While emperor he implemented the Praetor’s Edict or Perpetual Edict. A praetor “was the magistrate charged with the administration of justice” (Touri). They made sure the law was being upheld and made sure proper legal action was taking place. At the beginning of each year, praetors would publish their edict and all legal procedures listed within. As the year continued, changes and additions may happen. When legal action needed to take place, they could refer to the edict to determine what the outcome should be. If they were ever presented a case they hadn’t dealt with in the past, they could work the case out and add to the edict.

The Perpetual Edict would be very beneficial in many ways. It prevented the law from being left to interpretation. Rather than every single legal issue needing to be brought before the emperor or praetor, smaller issues could be dealt with by referring to the edict. If anybody attempted to find a way around the law, the edict could adapt to cover their offenses.

With most praetors, their edict would rarely change from year to year (Johnston). The idea of the perpetual edict was not new to Hadrian’s time, though he was the first emperor to make it official. There are also very few sources that reference the perpetual edict and it is difficult to find exact dates for when they were published. When referring to Hadrian’s perpetual edict, there is uncertainty and vagueness associated. It is possible that modern ideas have influenced what has been said about the government of ancient Rome and it is even possible the edict didn’t exist until after Hadrian’s time.

 

 

Sources:

Watson, Alan. “The Development of the Praetor’s Edict.” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 60, 1970, pp. 105–119. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/299417.

Dr Kaius Tuori (2006) Hadrian’s Perpetual Edict: Ancient Sources and Modern Ideals in the Making of a Historical Tradition, The Journal of Legal History, 27:3, 219-237, DOI: 10.1080/01440360601041076

Johnston, David. Roman Law in Context. Cambridge University Press, 1999. EBSCOhost, hal.weber.edu/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.hal.weber.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e025xna&AN=54486&site=ehost-live.

 

wingedhussar420

 

The Military under Hadrian

What made the legions (and auxilia and such) so appealing compared to other professions?

 

Significant Non-Military Occupations:

• Construction
• Mining
• Farming
• Trade
• Government Positions

 

Benefits of the Legions (and Auxilia and such):

• Legion:
  • A well established and secure pension at the end of service (worth about 14 years of income).
    • A lesser pension is given if you are misso causaria (this depends on your length of service.
  • Opportunities to travel, meet new people, and receive training in some professional skills (and lots of training in construction and ditch digging).
  • Potential for loot if you are actually involved in and survive a successful campaign.
  • More if you’re a centurion or higher officer, including potential advancement, though your fancier garb will put you in greater danger in the event of an actual battle.
• Auxilia and such:
  • Potential to become a Roman citizen after service.
  • A pension, though a lesser one when compared to that of a Legionnaire.
  • In the navy, a slave can serve and potentially be freed
  • Again, travel and receive professional experience

 

Pros and Cons of Other Occupations:

• Construction: much of the work you might like to do is already done by the legions. A traveling army needs roads, so if no such convenience exists it must be built. However, in the empire proper this is a valid occupation, if you can do the work for less than a slave.
• Mining, Quarrying, etc.: Genuinely a valid career path, though like construction it’s hard to be more affordable than slave labor. As Hadrian downsized the empire and largely ceased conquesting however, competition with slave labor went down as slaves became less plentiful and more expensive.
• Farming: To put it simply, land is expensive. Also, there are many parts of the world that are more agriculturally productive than Rome (much of southern Asia, for example). As a result, foreign imports tend to be less expensive for many products than their domestically produced equivalents.
• Trade: This is, again, a decent alternative. Assuming you live somewhere along a major trade route or on the coastline, you will likely be able to make a decent living. However, like modern entrepreneurship, getting into the business and getting established is as hard as ever.
• Government/Public Service Positions: There are obviously a lot of these in the world’s greatest empire. However, there are a few major hurdles to overcome. Among other things, you need some sort of patron to obtain a good position. Also…public service really isn’t an alternative to military service, as most civil offices are reached only after service as an officer in the Roman Army (a position which one also requires a patron to obtain).
• In general, all of these alternatives have the advantage of significantly lower chances of being cut to pieces, shot, trampled, or otherwise brutally killed. And, with the exception of construction, you will also spend less time digging trenches than the average legionary by a significant amount.

 

Works Cited:

Rodgers, Nigel (2006). Roman Empire. Dodge, Hazel. London: Lorenz Books.

 

“Ancient Rome.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome#Economy (21 October, 2018).

Matyszak, Philip. Legionary: The Roman Soldier’s (Unofficial) Manual. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 2009.

caltrop101