The short answer is "Gravity and skilful use of siphons." We'll get to this in more detail when we hit Architecture and Engineering in March.

Was there ever a flowering of culture (i.e. art, literature, etc.) over a certain period of time in Rome?

Most people would say that the high point of Roman culture in that sense came between 100 BC and 100 AD when we see writers like Cicero, Catullus, Virgil, Horace, Ovid (and Livy!), major architectural projects, and some pretty good painting. Within that period, the reign of the first emperor, Augustus, is often identified as the climax of cultural achievement.

I am having problems ... keeping the names of all the consuls straight in Livy. Would it be possible to make out a list of the consuls?

It would, but we're reasonable people and we're not going to ask you in an exam "Who was consul in 486 BC???". Life is too short. Instead, I'd concentrate on major figures in the narrative, consuls or not: Brutus, Coriolanus, Appius Claudius, Menenius Agrippa ...

It's worth knowing, though, that the discipline of prosopography (= the study of who held what office when) is a major tool for Roman historians. One of the great American works of classical scholarship in this century is T.R.S. Broughton's 3-volume classic _The Magistrates of the Roman Republic_, which is essentially a list of, well, the magistrates of the Roman republic, categorized by year and office. It makes it possible to reconstruct the careers of individual politicians in the late republic as they move up the ladder, and thus get a handle on shifting political alliances, etc.

When Rome conquered a warring tribe in battle, upon what basis were citizens of the conquered state enslaved or assimilated into Roman society?

This is a fairly complicated one. Some conquered communities in Italy gained citizenship (of these, some were allowed to vote in the comitia tributa, some not). Other communities had a kind of reciprocal joint citizenship with Rome. More distant Italian areas were classed as 'allies' (socii)--which really means 'subjects'; all these were eventually granted citizenship, though only after the bitterly fought "Social War" (91-87 BC).

Elsewhere, inhabitants of cities taken by siege or assault were normally enslaved. Cities that surrendered voluntarily came under Roman control, and local elites were often co-opted by being made Roman citizens.

What do we actually know, in terms of accuracy, about the days surrounding Caesar's assassination? Who was involved, did Brutus really deliver the first blow? Overall, how much has been made up regarding these events?

Our information, mostly from the biographies of Caesar by Plutarch and Suetonius, is probably pretty accurate, though there are different versions on minor points (last words, who dealt the first blow etc.). We certainly know more about it than we do about the Kennedy assassination.

How did the Romans deal with corruption within the government?

Well, I guess it depends what you call corruption ... In the Republic the upper classes generally turned a blind eye to extortion and exploitation when it was committed by their colleagues. A Roman governor went off to a province expecting to get rich by exploiting the provincials and that was tacitly accepted. Really egregious cases (like the 1st c. BC governor of Sicily, C. Verres) got prosecuted, but the penalties had no deterrent effects, and many of the accused got off by bribing the jury. Under the empire there was an attempt to crack down, but the constant stream of increasingly shrill ordinances emanating from the central administration suggests that it remained a problem throughout our period.

How did a dictatorship change back into a system with consuls? Was the dictator then thrown out by the people, or did they just step down?

It's important not to be misled by the term "dictator" which has a somewhat different meaning now. A Roman dictator was a regular magistrate, nominated by another office-holder, usually a consul (who was authorized to do so by the senate) and he normally served for a six-month term--or less, if he was appointed e.g. just to hold elections.

How were Romans motivated by jealousy, deemed "inferiority", etc.? e.g. with other empires, kingdoms?

I'm not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll take a stab at it. The Romans, like most peoples, felt both pride and insecurity in their national heritage. Pride because they were a great military power and (in their own view) a practical, energetic, honest and straightforward people. Insecurity because in areas such as literature, art, and philosophy their accomplishments were less impressive than those of some other cultures, in particular the Greeks (similarly with the Etruscans and religion). Consequently, Romans felt a mix of contempt and respect for other cultures--a fruitful mix in some sense, since the contempt encouraged their military ambitions while the respect motivated them to preserve what was best about e.g. Greek culture.

This kind of attitude is not at all uncommon; it corresponds to the way the British feel about the French, and the way Americans feel about Europeans in general. If you're attempting to define your own culture, it's helpful to have another culture to define it against, and this was the role that Greece (in particular) played in Rome.

Did the non-aristocratic people ever rebel because they did not have much of a say in government? Did that ever upset them? How did the aristocrats keep them under control? How did they keep the newly conquered people under control? Did these new people fight when given citizenship? If so, why and how did the Romans make them do it?

Actual rebellions don't seem to be attested. The closest they came were the secessions of the Plebeians, and the occasional riot. Their lack of power clearly upset them to some degree, and provided an opportunity for ambitious tribunes to stir things up from time to time. In general, the aristocrats seem to have known when it was time to give a little, with the object of keeping the masses not quite unhappy enough to revolt. (The force of convention and tradition would have helped in this regard).

Newly conquered people were kept under control in various ways--in the early stages, by maintaining a garrison in the province. Sometimes retired soldiers were settled within conquered territory to help keep the natives in hand. The Romans were also very skilled at manipulating local elites, so that the newly-conquered masses were ruled by the upper class that had always ruled them ... and that now owed its loyalty to Rome.

Areas incorporated into the Roman sphere of control frequently provided units to the Roman army (auxilia). The Romans were careful not to let this get out of hand, and there never seems to have been a real problem with discipline or insubordination (auxiliary troops liked plunder too).

Quid ages?

Nihil.

Could freedmen hold political offices or become patricians?

No, at least not major offices, nor were they eligible to serve in the army. They were, however, eligible to hold minor offices (town council etc.) and to serve as priests in minor cults.

What stages must a person go through to become a consul?

The normal career would involve some military service as a junior officer. On returning to Rome at the age of about 30, you would run successively for quaestor (resulting in senatorial status), praetor and ultimately consul.

Can the consul do things without the senate's advice?

In theory, yes, and clearly when campaigning with the army it would have been impractical to consult the senate on every decision. Within the city, however, consuls normally showed a good deal of deference to the senate (Jones & Sidwell are good on this; pp. 119-120).

What was the reason for the high tensions between the plebs and patricians as mentioned by Livy Book 2?

Ask Livy himself (pp. 129ff.)

In the rare case that Plebs and Patricians did intermarry, what was their status and the status of their children?

Children normally follow the status of the father. Intermarriage was probably increasingly common in the later republic as the distinction between patrician and plebeian became less important.

Was there any particular event which caused/motivated the Plebeians to demand more involvement in the political system?

Well, Livy cites some specific causes (pp. 129ff.). Whether those are historically accurate is hard to say. Individual reforms will have been prompted by particular situations in many cases, but the underlying cause was probably just the Plebeians' (and particularly the wealthier Plebeians') sense of being discriminated against.

Once a person became a consul could he be re-elected the next year, or could somebody only be consul once in a lifetime?

In theory re-election was possible, and seems to have been not uncommon in the early Republic. In the late Republic there weren't enough offices to go round, so consuls were pretty much restricted to one term.

Was Livy a prominent, well-known figure in Roman society during his lifetime?

Not of the first rank, as far as we can tell. He was a provincial from Patavinum (modern Pavia) in Northern Italy, and never held any office that we know of. On the other hand, his history seems to have been popular (there's a story that one man came all the way across the Mediterranean just to see Livy), and he had at least some contact with the imperial family, notably the future emperor Claudius.

Did the common people have as much power as in our nation, or less?

I suppose it depends on how much power you think common people have in our nation (and of course on what we mean by 'common people' in an American context). I think most observers would agree that individual members of the Roman underclass had fewer rights than their American counterparts. But there were occasions when they were able to collectively exercise quite a lot of power.

Did the Roman people know of the numerous stories explaining the foundation of Rome? And did they believe all of them to be true?

I think most people probably had a generalized awareness of them, though not necessarily of all the different versions or in great detail. Think of American awareness of the founding fathers. There are elements of that historical myth that we all recognize: Washington, Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere's ride, "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes" etc. Other elements are less generally familiar (Elbridge Gerry, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, Aaron Burr, the Articles of Confederation ...). As far as truth goes, I think most people probably accorded the stories at least a kind of conditional belief. In some cases they were prepared to be sceptical or cynical about details (as Livy himself is at a few points), but without doubting that there was such a person as Romulus or Numa.

Could a Plebeian move up to the status of a patrician? If so, how?

The only way to change status would be by being adopted into a patrician family. That was probably fairly rare. Interestingly there's one well-known example of a move in the opposite direction; in the first c. BC, the patrician P. Clodius had himself adopted into a plebeian family so that he could be elected tribune.

The fall of Rome itself fell in the 400s AD, but is the Eastern Empire that remained still considered part of the Roman Empire? If so, wouldn't it be true to say that Romans ruled for about 2,000 years?

We conventionally designate the eastern empire as the "Byzantine" empire after about 500 AD. But the eastern emperors certainly thought of themselves as Romans, and in that sense it would indeed be true that Romans ruled (somewhere) for about 2,000 years.

What specific rights, if any, did the Roman plebs possess as individuals?

As Roman citizens, plebeians possess a certain number of rights (and also responsibilities). After 367/6 all voting citizens are eligible to stand for magistracies (though in practice, of course, only the elite did). In the late republic and empire they're eligible for free grain distributions. Any citizen condemned to death by a magistrate has the right to appeal to the people. Citizens are also liable for military service and for special war taxes.

Why must Livy write such long books? What did we do on Tuesday?

I don't know the answer to the first one, except to say that the book divisions in Livy are probably based partly on the average length of a papyrus scroll and partly on a desire to produce a unified artistic unit (e.g. the end of book 1 coincides with the end of the monarchy).

On Tuesday we finished up with early Roman foundation legends and rapidly surveyed Roman expansion into Southern Italy (the war with Pyrrhus), and the Punic Wars.

How was Livy able to garnish all of the early names from history and tie them into some story of apparent great importance?

Some of the work may already have been done for him by the 2nd and 1st century BC historians who were his sources. The 'invention' of early Roman history, in other words, was probably a process of gradual accretion rather than a one-time from-scratch process. Livy & his predecessors probably had a (fairly reliable) list of magistrates, and a (how reliable we don't know) list of significant events (wars, plagues, portents ...). The details got built up by a combination of logical deduction ("how did tribunes come into being? Well, the people must have seceded, as they did later ...") and imaginative reconstruction ("Now, if I were the senate, what would I do in this situation ...?").

How did King interact w/ magistrates, senate, etc.?

The senate presumably arose as a kind of royal council, giving advice to the king when asked, and retained that consultative function under the republic. The major republican magistrates (consul etc.) were introduced only after the end of the monarchy (and replace it), so the king wouldn't have interacted with them.

In Roman government, is there anything such as House of Representatives? If there is, how is it similar or different from our own?

Not formally. The closest equivalent is probably the tribunes--officials elected (ostensibly, at least) to protect the interests of the people. But of course there are major differences: tribunes don't vote on legislation (though they can veto it--a role reserved for the President in our system), and they don't represent specific districts (they're elected 'at large', so to speak).

In Livy I noted that after just about any significant event, a temple was built and consecrated. How many temples were there in Rome and why so many?

Hundreds, if not thousands. Why so many? The simplest answer, I suppose, is that there were many temples because there were many gods. In addition, Rome was a large city and needed multiple places to worship (just as Renaissance and modern Rome, with its multitude of churches, does). Another answer would be that endowing a temple was seen as a proper function of the state and of important individuals--an appropriate outlet into which a percentage of the plunder and profits of empire was channelled.

With disease/nutrition/[can't read], how does it seem Romans lived so long?

Average life expectancy was significantly lower than it is now, but averages can be deceptive. In the case of the ancient world, figures are skewed by a very high rate of infant mortality. If you made it to age 5, the chances of your living to 50 were probably not much worse than they are now--at least for men (many women died in childbirth, so their average was probably somewhat lower).

If Rome had no "police force" did they have any sort of rampant crime? How did they handle small-time crime? Senate?

There was certainly a lot of crime in Rome itself (plus bandits and pirates outside), even leaving aside organized political violence in the late republic. Under the empire, semi-organized fire-brigades (the vigiles) may have played some minimal role in crime prevention. Otherwise, you were pretty much on your own. This seems very odd to us; crime prevention is taken as one of the basic tasks of government. But in fact, organized police forces are a surprisingly late invention (London, for example, didn't have one until the early 19th century).

How did the Romans select where one was to be exiled to?

It varied at different periods. If you were a defendant in the Republic who chose to go into exile rather than risk a verdict (like the corrupt Sicilian governor Verres, prosecuted by Cicero) you had to stay a specified distance from Rome, but the location was pretty much up to you. Under the empire, there was a less strict version (again, you get to choose the place), and a stricter one where the emperor sent you someplace suitably nasty, as in the case of the poet Ovid (exiled to Tomi on the Black Sea) or members of the imperial family who misbehaved (exiled to small rocky islands).

Did the lower class have any say in gov't/politics at the start of the republic?

'Lower class' is a somewhat amorphous term, but the answer is probably 'not very much'.

How were the Romans so physically dominant > conquests?

Presumably they spent more time waging war and had a better-trained and more effective army. This goes back to the point I made in lecture today--Rome as a state based on war in a way that most other contemporary states were not.

What is the population size of Rome, in the actual city? Also, how large is the army?

Both varied at different periods. In the early empire the city population is estimated at about a million (roughly the size of Indianapolis, IN). That was larger than any city until quite recently, but (to take two examples) only 1/9 the size of New York, and only 1/20 the size of modern day Mexico City.

The size of the army is more controversial. Estimates under the empire range from 300,000 up to about a million.

In reading Livy, how are we supposed to keep all of the battles and names in order?

I wouldn't even try. What you need to do is identify significant items, in particular episodes involving real narrative (as opposed to "the following year the Volscians revolted for the sixth time and the consul T. Somebodyorotherus marched out and whomped them near the town of Thisorthat").

You keep using the term antiquity. Are there specific years for this? Does it apply only to the Romans?

It is a fuzzy term, isn't it? I use it as a shorthand equivalent for "Greco-Roman civilization from about 1000 BC to about 500 AD."

Why was the Sidwell-Jones text chosen as opposed to anything else?

Well, it's up-to-date, accurate, reasonably well-written and contains good clear explanations of fairly complex issues (like the Roman constitution). It's also pretty well-indexed and illustrated (black-and-white, but color would push the price up still higher). The British origin of its authors results in a few minor annoyances (like the "corn" issue, or occasional comparisons to British political institutions that don't mean anything to us). But in general because I think it's a pretty good book. I'm not wedded to it, however, and I'm certainly open to further comments, positive or negative.

When a plebeian was voted/elected(?) into office was he still considered a plebeian, or did his status change to patrician?

Nope, he was still a plebeian.

In the readings I get the impression that Livy talks about cavalry during war, but I remember you saying they didn't fight on horse. Does he mean something else by cavalry?

Nope, he means the same thing, and certain Roman institutions (the "Knights" or the "Master of Horse") do clearly imply a cavalry force. I was talking about the absence of stirrups as a reason cavalry wasn't a central element of ancient warfare (with emphasis on 'central'). The Romans did use cavalry for reconnaissance, to harass the enemy, and to charge and break up a mass of foot soldiers. What you don't see are the sort of massed cavalry battles you find in later warfare, where people can hack and shove each other around without falling off their horses immediately. (Excellent question).

Why do some of the Roman statues have no arms?

Marble is comparatively fragile (as types of stone go), and thinner, extended portions like arms are the most likely to break off.

What does the term "BCE" refer to? When did this come into play, and is there a counter term for AD?

BCE (Before Common Era) is to BC (Before Christ) as CE (Common Era) is to AD (Anno Domini, "the year of our Lord"). So 753 BCE is the same as 753 BC and 79 CE is the same as 79 AD.

The use of BCE & CE, while growing increasingly common among academics, is a typical example of mealy-mouthed political correctness. Certain academics feel 'uncomfortable' dating things from the supposed birth of Christ because they feel it's potentially offensive to non-Christians. So instead, they continue to date things from the supposed birth of Christ, but pretend they aren't—by introducing a new, pointless and potentially confusing abbreviation. (It seems to me, in fact, that the truly offensive designation is "Common Era". 'Common' to whom? Certainly not to users of the Muslim, Judaic or Chinese calendars).

What distinguished each of the magistracies etc.? the fasces etc?

Magistrates with imperium have lictors to accompany them (see below); they also wear purple-bordered togas.

How was the "client-king" relationship defined? How did Rome control these rulers, and how did such relationships come about?

The term is a modern one and describes a nominally independent ruler who owes loyalty to Rome. Client-kingdoms were normally areas that would have been expensive, difficult, or just a pain for Rome to formally conquer, but were useful to have in friendly hands (in most cases, border states). The control was usually more implicit than overt, and was masked in much diplomatic ritual. The relationship was useful to Rome, but also beneficial to the king in question, who could rely on Roman military power if there were any threat to his throne. The phenomenon is not dissimilar to all the 'friendly dictators' the US supported during the Cold War.

What is the significance of the lictors?

See next question.

Who were the 'lictors'? Plebeians? Hired thugs? And why did they never seem to enter into the political conflicts per se? How were they paid? Also, when one consul exercised the military imperium, did the other consul get a second set of lictors when he was in the city?

The lictors (the ceremonial bodyguards and retinue of magistrates) were probably not very high up the social scale, and would certainly not have been political players themselves. They would have been paid by the state, and were professionals, with a guild of their own. All magistrates with imperium have a set of lictors (the more important the magistrate, the more lictors); there seem to have been differences in protocol depending on which consul held seniority at a given point.

If Roman citizens were not allowed to have any stable source of income if they wanted to be a magistrate, from where did they get money?

Well, they were allowed (and in fact required) to have very substantial amounts of money invested in land and derived income from agricultural property. Income derived from trade and money-lending was frowned on socially and didn't count toward the minimum qualification for the senate (but some senators engaged in it all the same).

Are we going to study any revolutionary warfare techniques used by the Romans?

A little bit when we get to architecture and engineering. If we had one more lecture I'd probably use it on the army, but that topic got edged out.

Did Romans ever visit Ireland or Scandinavia? If no, why?

The occasional trader may have made it up that far. In general it was probably thought to be too cold and not worth conquering.

Are the "tribunes" reminiscent of the checks & balances system of our 3 branches in the way they "were created 'to counter the imperium of the consuls'"--gaining the right to intervene to bring help to any individual who was oppressed unreasonably by a magistrate using his imperium"? Did this remain part of Roman gov'nt throughout later history?

To the first question, yes, I think that's a fair comparison. To the second, no, not really. Even in the Republic the optimates generally managed to get at least one tribune on their side, giving them the ability to stalemate action by hostile tribunes. Under the empire, the emperor himself assumed tribunician power--which more or less defeats the point of the whole thing.