Life, People, and Architecture in Ancient Rome

As the saying goes “all roads leads to Rome.” The ancient Roman people had one of the most vibrant societies that lived during that time.  Roadmakers used to show the distance to Rome for thousands of miles. However, not only roads connected the Roman Empire that was made of close to fifty million people. The Roman Empire was connected by the Roman customs Roman laws and Roman Empire military might (Rodgers and Dodge n.p.).

The prospects of analyzing ancient Rome offers an interesting lesson in history. Everything sounds different including the way they dressed up. People in ancient Rome wore a tonic. Just like any other society, Ancient Rome experienced social divisions where the rich controlled the resources while the poor served or worked for the wealthy. There were different groups of people dividing based on their financial situations. Rich and poor people dressed up differently and eat differently as well (Carcopino 106). Their unique history is what makes Rome great.

If Rome was the center of the empire, then the center of Rome was the forum. In this context, the word forum means a meeting place. In Rome, the original forum was an open area that was being used by merchants, for games, plays and races. (Carcopino 204)  As time went by, the forums were converted to sprawling government complexes with buildings, temples, meeting halls, monuments, and theatres. This collection of the plazas and buildings was at the heart of the Roman Empire for business, religion, and government life. The forum gives a good look at what life used to be in the ancient Roman Empire (Wright and Lobeck 660).

In 109 the consul Q. Metellus took Marius with him to Numidia, where war had broken out against King Jugurtha two years before. Marius asked to leave and return to Rome to stand for the consulship of 107 but was contemptuously refused. By promising to bring the war to a rapid conclusion, he gained the backing of businessmen and demagogues critical of aristocratic corruption and incompetence and was duly elected.

As consul he took the novel step of recruiting men who owned no land and instituted other military reforms. These had the unintended effect of making armies potentially more loyal to their generals than to the state. Thanks to good luck and the diplomatic skills of his quaestor Sulla, Marius captured Jugurtha and ended the war, though the question of who really deserved the credit was to be the source of bitter hostility between him and Sulla. Rome now faced another military threat in Gaul from two migratory Germanic tribes, the Cimbri, and Teutones. A disastrous defeat at Arausio in 105, caused in part by aristocratic obstinacy, worked to Marius’ advantage, and he secured a remarkable series of five successive consulships, 104–100. He brought the Cimbric War to a successful conclusion, but to maintain his position was forced into an uneasy alliance with the violent reformers L. Saturninus, tribune in 103 and 100, and C. Glaucia, praetor in 100. He broke with them late in 100 and both were killed in the resulting disturbances. Marius then suffered a decade in eclipse and served without distinction in the Social War in 90. Nevertheless, he hoped for a new command against the aggressively expanding

kingdom of Pontus, ruled by Mithridates VI. But his rival Sulla, who had done well in the Social War, secured both a consulship for 88 and the Mithridatic command. Marius allied himself with another Tribune, P. Sulpicius, and drove Sulla from Rome. Sulpicius then transferred the command to Marius. But Sulla marched on Rome and Marius was forced to withdraw, eventually finding refuge in Africa. When Sulla departed to fight Mithridates, Marius returned to join forces with the rebellious consul of 87, L. Cinna.

They in their turn seized Rome, and the old and embittered Marius carried out a ruthless

The purge of his opponents. He secured the seventh consulship that soothsayers had promised him but died on January 86, less than a month after taking office. One of the principal characteristics that Plutarch discerned in Marius was his self-confidence and consequent readiness to provoke and give offence to the nobility. This marks his behaviour during his tribunate, which might have been deemed inappropriate in one of his inexperience and modest background, while a little later Plutarch again remarks on his self-confidence, despite Marius’ lack of the standard props of wealth and eloquence. Marius’ provocative attitude showed itself again in his unwillingness to kowtow to his superior Metellus in the war against Jugurtha. It thus serves to introduce the first of the personal conflicts which Plutarch uses to shape his narrative. The quarrel with Metellus leads to Marius’ first consulship when he again shows himself ready if not positively eager to offend the nobility. But the Jugurthine War also sowed the seeds of the much more dangerous enmity between Marius and Sulla (Sallust 41), the development of which was at a time delayed by the renewal of the Cimbric War in 107.

Plutarch clearly felt at home with the narration of wars and often devoted inordinate amounts of space to a more or less straightforward narrative of a military campaign (Plutarch n.p.). The reason for this will be considered below. His treatment of the Cimbric War here is an obvious case in point (Plutarch n.p.). But he is always on the look-out for the personal angle. Another rivalry occupies the foreground, which between Marius and his fellow-commander Catulus, particularly at the battle of Vercellae (Plutarch n.p.).  But Sulla’s autobiography is cited as a source for these events, and so the most important relationship between himself and Marius.

Marius’ feud with Metellus then plays a vital role in the account of his dealings with

Glaucia and Saturnine (Plutarch n.p.). Plutarch was never happy with the detail of Republican political struggles. He plainly found them difficult to understand – nothing similar existed in his own day. What is more, he surely disapproved since, for him, these rivalries were a recipe for destruction. It was imperative that such rivalries be calmed down to ensure the republic remained stable. When he could not avoid talking about politics, as here, he often chose to fix on a personal motive to the exclusion of all else. So for him, the sole purpose of the alliance was to enable Marius to avenge the insult that Metellus had offered him by implying that he could never hope to reach the consulship (Plutarch n.p.).

Caesar

Julius Caesar was born in to a patrician family and which had originated from Venus (Plutarch n.p.). However, Julius Caesar’s life was in the limelight with stories of daring and ambitious escapades that became the hallmark of the man who many thought was born to be King. In the sixties, he attached himself to both Crassus and Pompey (Plutarch n.p). He was aedile in 65, then in 63 won the remarkable coup of election as Pontifex Maximus, Rome’s chief priest. Such and honor and achievement were a preserve for the senior ex-consuls. In the same year, despite accusations of complicity in the conspiracy of Catiline, he gained the praetorship (Sallust 54).

In that year the women’s festival of the Bona Dea, held at Caesar’s house, was profaned

by P. Clodius, disguised as a woman (Plutarch n.p). Caesar divorced his wife but took no further action. According to Plutarch, Caesar then governed Further Spain in 61, where he famously remarked that he would rather be the first man in an Alpine village than the second man in Rome, and earned a triumph for suppressing a rebellion he had provoked. On his return, he asked the senate for permission to stand in absentia for the consulship of 59, since if he entered the city in time to hand in his nomination, he would have to give up his triumph (Plutarch n.p.). The Senate refused, expecting him to choose the triumph, but Caesar preferred the consulship. He secured the support of Pompey and Crassus, both of whom had their own grudges against the Senate, and was duly elected. He then persuaded them to work together, pointing out that if they did so, they could jointly control Rome.

As consul Caesar passed the measures that Pompey and Crassus wanted and provided for his own future with a five-year command in Gaul and Illyricum (Plutarch n.p.). But the three met with widespread opposition and obloquy, and violence was needed to force their measures through. For much of the year, the Senate was largely ignored and its ability to govern gravely undermined. From 58, Caesar was occupied with the conquest of Gaul and the invasions of Britain, but he kept an eye on politics at Rome, where relations between Pompey and Crassus were always strained. But thanks to Caesar’s efforts at Luca the coalition survived, and as consuls in 55 Pompey and Crassus extended his command in Gaul for a further five years (Plutarch n.p.).

The deaths of Julia who was a daughter to Caesar’s daughter and later became a wife to Pompey in and Crauss in 54 and 53 repsectively was a recipe for confrontation between Caesar and Pompey (Plutarch n.p.). Actually, a war broke out in January 49 when the efforts to recall Caesar became a necessity in Rome. Caesar did not acknowledge the superiority of Pompey and Cicero as was evidenced in Caesar’s surprise invasion of Italy. In fact, Pompey had to flee from Rome to Greece fearing that Caesar would kill him. After gaining control of Spain, Caesar pursued him and was victorious at Pharsalus in 48. Subsequent campaigns against pockets of the opposition took him to Egypt (where he met Cleopatra), Asia Minor (47), North Africa (46) and Spain (45).

He then celebrated a magnificent but unpopular triumph. In 46, he had been appointed a dictator for ten years. In 44, he became a dictator in perpetuity. Of course he wanted to retain sole power but did not have a clear method of how to formulate the same. His proposed expedition against Parthia, to avenge the defeat of Crassus, may have been a way of postponing a decision. Whether or not he wanted the title of King does not really matter: Caesar was killed for what he was, not for anything he might become. His autocracy meant that political life as it was understood by the ruling class, namely competition for power and prestige under the aegis of senatorial government, had ceased to exist, and his spectacular lack of tact towards the Senate as a body and prominent individuals merely rubbed salt into the wounds.

Republicans, spared by his much-vaunted clemency, were outraged. His own supporters were also unhappy. The expectations were that the republicans would benefit if he acted like Sulla by eliminating the competition, end the crisis, and finally retire from politics. His retention of power meant that for his followers the rewards of victory had lost their lustre. Hence, the conspirators who assassinated him on the Ides of March 44 comprised former enemies and former friends in roughly equal numbers. They seem to have believed that with Caesar dead the republic would somehow be revived as if by magic. But his henchman Mark Antony was eager to take his place, his veterans and the common people were angered by his murder, and the Republicans were weak and indecisive. Soon another aspirant to power appeared on the scene, Caesar’s posthumously adopted great-nephew, the young Octavian, whose final victory over Antony at last put an end to the protracted death throes of the republic.

In the early chapters of the Caesar (the beginning of which is presumed lost) Plutarch is

on the alert for presages of future greatness. He also highlights the links, positive and negative, between Caesar and the great men of the previous generation, Marius, and Sulla.

The link with Marius is prominent in the account of Caesar’s aedileship, which also introduces another important theme, Caesar’s popularity. Another negative relationship, the feud between Caesar and Catullus, links Caesar’s election as Pontifex Maximus and his role in the Catilinarian disturbances.

But Caesar’s praetorship of 62 is barely mentioned. Plutarch jumps instead to the Bona

Dea affair, with a lengthy narrative of Clodius’ sacrilege. Events then move rapidly: the governorship in Spain (as a peg for the famous anecdote), the refusal of the triumph and the formation of the coalition with Pompey and Crassus. Caesar’s first consulship was a momentous year in the tale of the republic’s decline, but Plutarch uses it only as a springboard for another attack on Clodius, whose election to the tribunate for 58 is accorded ample space.

There follows a very long narrative of the Gallic War, punctuated by references to the meeting with Pompey at Luca and the death of Julia. Plutarch notes Caesar’s popularity with his men, and there are anecdotes of his performance as a general, mostly illustrative of his daring and lack of caution. Then comes the last and greatest in the series of conflicts between powerful men that tore the Republic apart; the confrontation between Caesar and Pompey. Pompey’s vanity and capacity for self-delusion contributed much to the outcome. But to Plutarch, it seemed that the result, whoever won, must be a monarchy. He had the benefit of hindsight, but even at the time, many had felt that Crassus’ death must lead sooner or later to contest for sole supremacy between the two surviving dynasts.

The keynotes for the story of Caesar’s invasion of Italy, the war and to some extent the

dictatorship itself are his daring and swiftness of action. Plutarch draws a sharp contrast between Caesar, dynamically active and in sole control, and Pompey, indecisive and under constant pressure from others. He shows some grasp of strategic considerations, for example, the consequences of Caesar’s lack of ships, and again points up the risks Caesar took in crossing the Adriatic. His account of the fateful battle of Pharsalus is long but concentrates more on the circumstances that led to its being fought than on the actual fighting. The Alexandrian campaign serves to introduce, with some admiration, the Egyptian queen Cleopatra, who was to figure much more prominently in the Antony; it also continues the theme of Caesar’s readiness to take risks. Speed and danger feature yet again in the African and Spanish wars. Caesar’s dictatorship interweaves some themes. His reluctance to take precautions for his own security is carried over from his conduct in the field. The exaggerated honours heaped upon him, and his arrogant treatment of the Senate offset any good impression caused by his clemency, and even that could arouse more resentment than gratitude. Plutarch sees clearly the significance of the perpetual dictatorship, which made him king in all but name (np). For those who found Caesar’s rule intolerable, there was now no constitutional remedy: assassination was the only solution.

Roman Architecture

According to Rodgers and Dodge architecture was an important part of the Rome daily life (n.p.). In this book, they present pictures and text on the architectural designs that were popular in the ancient Rome. The ancient Rome architecture was influenced by the Corinthians and Greeks (Rodgers and Dodge n.p.). The Romans incorporated the borrowed designs with their own innovation thus designing beautiful large public and private buildings. Some of the earliest architectural designs included the Gothic Revival and Italianate. Many of religious, commercial, and institutional buildings built between eighteen and nineteenth centuries borrowed the mention architectural styles. Such buildings were a common feature in South Australia. These styles were prevalent in most public, commercial, institutional, and religious buildings throughout South Australia, and particularly in Adelaide. The following discussion focuses on architectural designs as well as examples of the same in early and colonial Australia.

The Gothic Revival architecture dates back to eighteen century. From a historical point of view, the architecture originated from medieval England. The designs became a common sight in public buildings as the masses grew a taste for romantic and picturesque art. Unlike the Italianate, Gothic Revival architecture manifested self in Carpenter Gothic that saw houses, churches, and social institutions binge built in wood frames. From the mid-1800s until 1940s, many church buildings were designed using the Gothic Revival architecture. However, the same was related to European ecclesiastical architecture and later spread to South Australia especially in Adelaide.

There are at least three reasons that led to moving away from neoclassicism to Gothic Revival. Firstly, the Romantic Revolution was a major factor since it brought an increased interest in literacy works as seen in gothic tales and romantic narration of the medieval times. It is during this period that authors like Sir Walter Scott and Walpole crafted stories based on Gothic tales that were nostalgic. In fact, artistic impressions of the Gothic Revival included the depictions of medieval castles and their ruins in landscape paintings.

Secondly, writings made by architectural theorists who initiated church reforms played a part in moving from neoclassicism to gothic Revival. Such writings were instrumental in ensuring that Gothic architecture derived a liturgical importance during that period. Thirdly, the writings of John Rushkin were a phenomenon during that period and had a great of influence on people, religion, politics, and architecture. John Rushkin’s works like Stones of Venice and the Seven Lamps of Architecture were influential to religion and the society’s morals and values..

For many years now, the Gothic Revival has remained relevant through eighteenth to nineteenth century. However, the Gothic Revival had to overcome challenges of the late nineteenth century in Europe. Nonetheless, the Gothic Revival styles continued to be a major influence in South Australia’s construction of buildings such as schools and churches. However, modern styles in early twentieth century, the introduction of new construction materials and functionalism of architectural designs did Gothic Revival start disappearing in Australia.

During the Picturesque and Romantic Movement, a reaction wave new architecture was witnessed in England. The inclusion of the Italianate Architecture style was different from the previous rigid formalism of the 19^th century. Most of the architectural designs in England started to feature rambling farmhouses. Similarly, the same style was common in Italy’s mansions and farmhouses where unique square towers and informal designs were used (Carcopino 66). The architectural designs in Italy had unique shapes and were common in rural environments. The architectures decision to use irregular shapes was consisted with the Romantic Movement of the nineteenth and twentieth century. The architectural designs in Italy became popular and by the 1830s, the same had spread to Victorian Australian. In this context, the Italianate became a phenomenon since architects had a lot of freedom and did not have to follow traditional and rigid architect styles.

Andrew Jackson wrote various books that made both the Gothic and Italianate architectural styles popular. In his works, Andrew Jackson makes various allegations of how the Italianate was popular and suitable for country estates and substantial homes. In a typical country estate or countryside house, it is common to find a square tower with a bracketed cornice at the top.  Also, the houses features an irregular massing, and a T or L shaped floor. With time, some of the styles in Italianate like square towers vanished but not the bracketed cornice. Italianate buildings which are normally commercial building and row-houses have maintained the use of a cornice at the top and the front façade while others have them under the overhanging eaves (Fitton & Brown 367).

The Italianate was more popular compared to styles such as Gothic Style, In fact. The Italianate was prevalent and survived for a longer time than the Gothic Revival. The adaptability of the Italianate made it a dominant architectural style from 1855 to 1880. In this context, the styles continued to be a constant feature in urban and rural structures especially those of learning institutions and churches. In Adelaide, Australia, the style was a common theme in major streets from the mid-to-late nineteenth century. The same street theme was replicated in other Victorian cities and towns.

Adelaide in South Australia is home to the most classical architectural style buildings. In addition, many of these buildings were built in the early colonial and Victorian era of 147 through 1889. The buildings of these era and especially governmental, learning, and public infrastructures bore characteristics of classical architectural styles. For example, the magistrate court which was built between 1847-1850 is a typical classical architectural design by the renowned architect known as Richard Lambeth. Some of these buildings are found in King William style are the Victorian Square and North Terrace. Other buldings in the same street are commercial, governmental, and others educational. Most of these buildings are managed and funded by the government to retain their origin form and style. The original plan according to Colonel Light was to make Adelaide and especially the Victoria Square a major city in Australia.

 

Works Cited

Brown, AD Fitton. “After Cannae.” Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte(1959): 365-371. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434625

Carcopino, J. Daily Life in Ancient Rome The People And The City At The Height, 1958 Connecticut: Yale. Print.

Plutarch, R. W. The Fall of the Roman Republic: Six Live: Marius, Sulla, Crassus, Pompey, Ceasar and Cicero. 1958, London: Penguin Group. Print.

Rodgers, N., & Dodge, H. Life in ancient Rome: People and places : an illustrated reference to the art, architecture, religion, society and culture of the Roman world with over 450 pictures, maps and artworks, 2006. London: Hermes House. Print.

Sallust, G. Catiline’s war, the Jugurthine war, histories, 2007. London: Penguin Group. Print.

Wright, K and Lobeck A. K. “Man and Time in Ancient Rome: Notes on a Recent Publication.” Geographical Review 31.4 (1941): 659-662. http://doi.org/10.2307/210506