In the past we gave you a list of ten myths about the Romans. Today, to complement that list we are giving you ten facts. Roman society existed in one of the most fascinating periods of history. Many of the aspects of Roman life continue on to the present day and we certainly have a lot to thank them for in terms of culture and law and, of course, our calendar. This list looks at ten aspects of Roman life that are particularly interesting and (hopefully) not especially well known.
While it is well known that the Romans worshipped many gods, there was, in fact, an official state god. This god was named Sol Invictus (the unconquered sun) and was created by the emperor Aurelian in 274 AD and continued, overshadowing other cults in importance, until the abolition of paganism under Theodosius I (on February 27, 390). The Romans held a festival on December 25 of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, “the birthday of the unconquered sun.” December 25 was the date after the winter solstice, with the first detectable lengthening of daylight hours. There was also a festival on December 19. Though many Oriental cults were practiced informally among the Roman legions from the mid-second century, only that of Sol Invictus was officially accepted and prescribed for the army. Emperors up to Constantine I portrayed Sol Invictus on their official coinage and Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis — day of the sun, “Sunday” — as the Roman day of rest.
Just like today, Romans lived in a variety of different dwellings depending on class. The rich had villas (our rich have McMansions), and the poor lived in small apartments over shops – just as many city-dwellers do today. Roofs were not allowed to be higher than 17 meters (during the reign of Hadrian) due to the danger of collapse, and most apartments had windows. Water would be brought in from outside and residents would have to go out to public latrines to use the toilet. Because of the danger of fire, the Romans living in these apartments were not allowed to cook – so they would eat out or buy food in from takeaway shops (called thermopolium). It is amazing to see how these aspects of life have barely changed – our homes may look different, but in many ways we are the same as the Romans.
The closest thing Romans had to underwear was a subligaculumIt could come either in the form of a pair of shorts, or in the form of a simple loincloth wrapped around the lower body. It could be worn both by men and women. In particular, it was part of the dress of gladiators, athletes, and of actors on the stage. The subligaculum could be worn under a tunic but men who were standing for public office would sometimes just wear the subligaculum and nothing else. Roman Women also sometimes wore a band of cloth or leather around their upper body. (strophium or mamillare) as can be seen in the picture above.
Education was very important to the Ancient Romans. The rich people in Ancient Rome put a great deal of faith in education. While the poor in Ancient Rome did not receive a formal education, many still learned to read and write. Children from rich families, however, were well schooled and were taught by a private tutor at home or went to what we would recognise as schools. In general, schools as we would recognise them, were for boys only. Also, Roman schools were rarely an individual building but an extension of a shop – separated from the crowd by a mere curtain! Learning in Roman schools was based on fear. Boys were beaten for the slightest offence as a belief existed that a boy would learn correctly and accurately if he feared being caned if he got something wrong. For boys who continued to get things wrong, some schools had a policy of having pupils held down by two slaves while his tutor beat him with a leather whip. [Source]
At the time of the first Christians, St Peter, the first Bishop of Rome (and thus first Pope) was put to death by being crucified upside-down in the Circus of Nero – a large open-air venue used for public events. His body was buried there. A mere 200 years later, the Roman Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity and donated the Circus of Nero to the Church for what is now known as Old St Peter’s Basilica. It took only 30 years to build and survived until 1506 when it was demolished by Pope Julius II in order to make way for the Basilica which stands in its place today and remains the seat of the Papacy. The irony of the fact that the seat of the oldest and largest Christian population in the world stands on the spot where the first attempts were made to destroy the new religion is obvious. Given the temporal power the Church wielded (and still does to a certain degree, though more through influence now), one could say that the Roman Empire is still at the heart of Western society.
A different lifestyle also meant that the eating habits of the Ancient Romans were different to ours today. Breakfast (the Romans called this jentaculum) was taken in the master’s bedroom and usually consisted of a slice of bread or a wheat pancake eaten with dates and honey. Wine was also drunk. Lunch (the Romans called this prandium) was eaten at about 11.00 a.m. and consisted of a light meal of bread, cheese and possibly some meat. In many senses, everything was geared up towards the main meal of the day – cena. This was eaten in the late afternoon or early evening. If the master of the house had no guests, cena might take about one hour. If he did have guests, then this meal might take as long as four hours. A light supper was usually eaten just before the Romans went to bed, consisting of bread and fruit. The Romans were usually not big meat eaters and a lot of their normal meals involved vegetables, herbs and spices together with a wheat meal that looked like porridge. Petronius described a luxurious dinner thus:
“We were invited to take our seats. Immediately, Egyptian slaves came in and poured ice water over our hands. The starters were served. On a large tray stood a donkey made of bronze. On its back were two baskets, one holding green olives, and the other black. On either side were dormice, dipped in honey and rolled in poppy seed. nearby, on a silver grill, piping hot, lay small sausages. As for wine, we were fairly swimming in it.”
For those keen to try some home-cooked Roman food, here is a recipe for dormice: Stuff the dormice with minced pork or the meat of other dormice chopped up with herbs, pepper and pine nuts. Sew up the dormice and cook in a small oven. [Source] Before you jump up and down about the idea of eating mouse-like rodents, you should know that they are still a popular food in Slovenia. Pictured above is an edible dormouse and a Slovenian stew made from them.
Not only did the Romans use guard dogs to guard their houses, they also used “beware of the dog” signs. Petronius in his Satyricon mentions them: “There on the left as one entered…was a huge dog with a chain round its neck. It was painted on the wall and over it, in big capitals, was written: Beware of the Dog.” One wonders whether we will one day discover a sign for chariots which says “infantia in carrus” (my appalling translation of “baby on board”.) Pictured above is an authentic “beware of dog” (cave canem) mosaic from Pompeii.
The Romans were a very clean people, taking regular communal baths. They had two main supplies of water – high quality water for drinking and lower quality water for bathing. In 600 BC, the King of Rome, Tarquinius Priscus, decided to have a sewer system built under the city. It was created mainly by semi-forced laborers. The system, which outflowed into the Tiber river, was so effective that it remains in use today (though it is now connected to the modern sewerage system). It continues to be the main sewer for the famous amphitheater. It was so successful in fact, that it was imitated throughout the Roman Empire.
Pecunia non olet means “money does not smell”. This phrase was coined as a result of the urine tax levied by the Roman emperors Nero and Vespasian in the 1st century upon the collection of urine. The lower classes of Roman society urinated into pots which were emptied into cesspools. The liquid was then collected from public latrines, where it served as the valuable raw material for a number of chemical processes: it was used in tanning, and also by launderers as a source of ammonia to clean and whiten woollen togas. There are even isolated reports of it being used as a teeth whitener (supposedly originating in what is now Spain). When Vespasian’s son, Titus, complained about the disgusting nature of the tax, his father showed him a gold coin and uttered the famous quote. This phrase is still used today to show that the value of money is not tainted by its origins. Vespasian’s name still attaches to public urinals in France (vespasiennes), Italy (vespasiani), and Romania (vespasiene).
Gaius Valerius Catullus (ca. 84 BC – ca. 54 BC) was a Roman poet of the 1st century BC. His surviving works are still read widely, and continue to influence poetry and other forms of art. Now the Romans were extremely fond of poetry, humor, and obscenity. In fact, so obsessed were they with obscenity that the Latin language contains many very specific sexual terms. For example, cinaede is the term used to describe a person who is being anally penetrated and pedacabo is the the term for the person doing the penetrating. The verb irrumare means “to insert one’s penis into another person’s mouth for suckling”. So how does this relate to Catullus? It turns out that he wrote one of the most obscene pieces of poetry ever. It was considered so bad that a full English translation did not exist until the 20th century. Here is the translation:
I’m gonna fuck you guys up the ass and shove my cock down your throats,
yes, you, Aurelius–you fucking cocksucker–and you too, Furius, you faggot!
Just because my verses are tender doesn’t mean
that I’ve gone all soft. Sure, a poet should focus
on writing poetry and not on sex; but does that
mean they can’t write about sex? If a poem is
in good taste, well-written and erotic,
it can give massive boners to hairy old men,
not just to horny teenagers. You think I’m a sissy
just because I write about thousands of kisses?
I’m gonna fuck you guys up the ass and shove my cock down your throats!
It definitely sounds nicer in the Latin!
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. Some or all text is derived from Wikipedia.
Terrific race, the Romans! Terrific
@ronsantohof (18):
Brought peace?
Easy boys, nothing wrong with Slovenia
I'm guessing he's from Croatia. They are like that:/
Of course, rodents does not = rats.
Can we please stop this useless debate now before it turns to insults?
wow that poem in number 1 is hilarious.
@GTT(62) In my country you have the cane rat it grows to between 1.2 and 2.5 ft. long with a weight of appx. 6 kg.
The Family name is Thryonomyidae, that will feed a family of 4 easly.
Please excuse typo errors, Ive been busy rubbing my stills pot bellie for a while and sampling the goods before bottling.
MORE Catholic “history” from JFrater. I really like you and all, but COME ON.
The oldest Christian population is in Rome? Really? It’s not in the Middle East, where… who was that guy??? OH YEAH, JESUS lived???
Ridiculous.
@n3ph (26):
Oh my…that entire bit about the Adobe products made me chuckle a bit. I do quite agree, as an American, that we are generally very ignorant of other cultures. However we can’t much help it, we’ve got all these different cultures that mix in with other ones here it all gets so distorted. Unfortunately instead of looking into the cultures we seem to be under the impression that the distorted culture is the actual culture. That’s where our ignorance lies. Sorry guys, get butt hurt if you want, but it’s the truth.
Blast. Randalls right. I ate a Baconator for dinner and am eating a hungry-man tv dinner for lunch. Not exactly evolved cuisine in comparison.
@FAT*****Y (71):
Okay dumbass, before you start shooting off your mouth read into what you are saying. Yes Jesus and Christianity had its BASIS with Jesus in the middle east, however organized Catholicism BEGAN in Rome. Did you never learn of the persecution of the early Christians in Rome growing up? >_>
JFrater, You are the list master! I love these lists, thanks for the effort.
regarding #4:
i remember reading somewhere that the term “Cave Canem” has been misinterpreted throughout the years…that it does indeed mean “Beware of Dog”, but not to warm people of a protection or guard dog, but rather, a smaller dog kept in the house.
the reasoning, as i recall, was that it made little sense to warn a potential thief that their was a guard dog on the property, since the element of surprise would be lost. it is more likely the signs meant to be “aware” of the lady of the house’s small, beloved pet and to not step on it or let it run away from the premises.
i know that in my town, if your dog bites someone, even if they are trespassing on your property or breaking into your home, and you do not have a beware of dog sign placed at least in 2 conspicuous places around your home, then you are liable for any injuries the criminal receives. i know of a person who had to pay for a crook’s medical bills because her akita mauled a burglar. the scumbag broke in thru the back patio, where there was no “Beware of Dog” signs…even though she had 2 signs, one in the front window of the house, and another on the front gate!!! judge said since she had a known “aggressive breed” she should have a warning sign at each entrance & exit of her home…
Romans are awesome.
@quicki(77)You just the he man ?
What upset you today.
Read the instructions on your pill bottle before commenting.
about number 6
it’s said he was crucified upside down out of reverence for jesus, but there is very little to confirm this, and considering he was executed during the persecution of the christians, it is unlikely that his executioners would have granted him any requests.
That Beware of the Dog mosaic. I`ve seen everything now! But the Romans were Evil. They persecuted Christians, and went all around the known world, murdering and looting. Mosaics exist, of Christians tied to posts, and lions biting their faces off, and being savaged by leopards, they treated us like dirt, for 400 years. Any wonder that dictators and tyrants have admired Rome? Ivan the Terrible, (Tsar, means Caesar) Kaiser Bill, (Kaiser means Caesar) Benito Mussolini wanted to create “A Third Rome,” Hitler, got “Heil Hitler,” from “Hail Caesar,” The Romans great? Yeah right.
@David (81): LOL the romans are nothing compared to the Mongolians
renegade01 wrote:
_________
Okay dumbass, before you start shooting off your mouth read into what you are saying. Yes Jesus and Christianity had its BASIS with Jesus in the middle east, however organized Catholicism BEGAN in Rome. Did you never learn of the persecution of the early Christians in Rome growing up? >_>
_________
First of all, very mature.
Second, maybe you should learn a little about history before you correct others. Christianity started off in the Jewish temple, orthodox Jews rejected it, Christianity spread throughout the Middle East and to the Mediterranean part of Europe. It was called the catholic church, but that was because the word “catholic” means “universal”. The church in Rome claimed primacy and had the fact that they were in Rome as the leverage they needed to impose their importance on other churches. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church was born.
@David (81):
Christians weren’t fed to lions. And the Swastica was used by the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Europeans and quite a few other people before Hitler got a hold of it….does that make them all bad. Flawed logic i’m afraid mate.
@archiealt (84):
I love proving you wrong, *****.
In fact, while there’s no DIRECT evidence that any Christians were fed to LIONS, it’s almost certain that it DID happen—and certainly Christians WERE executed, on occasion, by animal attack.
I quote my favorite, handy authority, Cecil Adams:
The story has its suspicious aspects, I guess. According to the historian Tacitus, Christians during Nero’s time (at least) were mainly torn apart by dogs, crucified, or burned alive — no mention of lions. The Romans did throw people to lions on occasion, and Tertullian, writing later, remarks that the Romans were always ready to exclaim “Away with the Christians to the lion!” whenever times got tough. However, Tertullian doesn’t claim he witnessed any martyrdoms-by-lion personally, and anyway he was a Christian himself. Fact is, while the Romans evidently fed Christians to animals, and people to lions, we have no source stating directly that they specifically fed Christians to lions. So theoretically it’s possible the whole Christians-lions thing was a Christian ploy for sympathy.
But probably not. The Romans did a big business in mass slaughter by and of animals, showing great enterprise in arranging dramatic forms of killing, so if they didn’t throw any Christians to the lions, it was likely an oversight. While record keeping at the time wasn’t the best, and many early Christian texts have their implausible moments, here’s what we can say with reasonable certainty:
1. During the early Christian era, the Romans executed some prisoners using animals, sentencing them ad bestias, “to the beasts.” The beasts in question included dogs, bears, boars, and lions.
2. Christians were executed by the boatload during that time, often in cruel and unusual ways, with animals regularly playing a role. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote letters en route to execution in Rome predicting he’d be thrown to the beasts. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was threatened with being thrown to the beasts but as it turned out was finished off by the sword. Possibly no one saw more animal action than the Christian priest Saturus — reportedly he was first tied to a boar (which turned on its handler instead), then exposed to a bear (it proved too cowardly to attack him), and finally killed by a leopard. Speaking of Nero’s persecutions, Tacitus adds the detail that the emperor had Christians dressed in the skins of animals before throwing them to the dogs, possibly to help overcome any performance anxiety on the dogs’ part.
3. Animals weren’t used just for execution in ancient Rome; animal combat, usually ending in the animals’ demise, was unfailingly popular. Sometimes armed men fought beasts; sometimes the beasts were made to fight one another. Such games, originally held for religious purposes, became ever more lavish and were staged in amphitheaters across the empire. One well-loved event was the venatio, or hunt, often conducted amid elaborately constructed scenery, including real trees, rocky hills, artificial lakes, and the like.
4. Roman executions typically were considered a form of public spectacle. When coinciding with a game day, they usually took place during the midday break between the morning animal hunts and the afternoon gladiator matches. A favored method was exposing an unarmed criminal to lions or bears. Since it’s pretty clear that Christians were at times sentenced to death by beast (see 1 and 2 above), one may surmise that some of them met their end via lion in front of a Colosseum crowd, but we have no sure knowledge of this. The entertainment value of executions was apparently low due to their sheer number — many people found them boring, either leaving for lunch or sticking around and writing letters to friends about the tedium.
5. You have to think the killing of animals might have eventually gotten dull as well — it’s estimated that 9,000 beasts were slain during the inaugural games of the Colosseum alone (possibly an exaggeration; another source says 3,500 during 26 events). Over time more exotic animals were introduced to hold the crowd’s interest: lions and panthers turned up in 186 BC, bears and elephants in 169 BC, hippos and crocodiles in 58 BC. Pompey brought rhinos to Rome; Caesar wowed ‘em with giraffes. The ever-growing number and variety of animals required put a considerable burden on the supply chain. In his Natural History Pliny the Elder tells us lions were originally hard to catch (the idea was to chase them into covered pits), but later it was discovered they could be subdued by throwing a cloak over their heads. Elephants were captured and tamed by beatings and starvation. A major source of animals was the Roman army, which had a special rank (venator immunis) for those in charge of animal procurement.
A sorry business for sure, but Roman animal sports did at least provide an answer to one perennial question: Which is tougher, a bull or a rhino? Answer: Never bet against a rhino, which according to the writer Martial had no problem getting its horn under a bull and flipping it like a flapjack.
— Cecil Adams
@archiealt (84):
Oh, and while we’re at it… I see no mention in David’s rant about Swastikas.
@FAT*****Y (83):
I would like to point out that I said ORGANIZED Christianity. Christianity itself before then was just a name and it, for the most part, was all individual worship. Even under the first version of Catholicism. Mass, the papacy, and all those other goodies, that are the true staples of Catholicism, didn’t come about until it started in Rome.
As for “very mature”, this is the internet. Who needs maturity? I like to compensate for my small penis in big life by pretending I have a big one online. What’s so wrong with that?
I live in Canada and I’ve eaten beaver (insert pun here), they’re rodents. I didn’t much care for it, you can tell it’s a wild animal. Oh, I also ate part of a mouse on a dare when I was five. You want a good way to get sick? Eat a field mouse.
@jelliot (80):
To be precise, the story is that when condemned to die by crucifixion, Peter stated that he wasn’t worthy to die in the same manner as the savior and master. So, in *mockery* of Peter (and by extension, Christ) the Romans accommodated him by crucifying him upside down. *That* is believable.
However, you’re correct—to my knowledge there’s no PROOF that this is exactly how Peter died.
*real life
Man I hate typos…x_x;
@ Randall
I’m italian (so, sorry for my horrible english), I’ve got my “Laurea” in Etruscology and, for sure, there’s enough for a couple of great lists!!!
But I like romans too! Maybe your ancestors are from “Magna Grecia”, the southern part of Italy colonized by Greeks?
Wow, Randall attacks with force at anyone who dares to oppose him.
But he has some very good points.
@Randall (85): Randall, you’re my hero. When I grow up, I want to be just like you. In fact, I’ve been practicing. Yesterday I yelled at a little girl for getting her ABC’s wrong. Then I told her her pigtails were ugly.
Randall trolls idiots and doesn’t afraid of anything.
and they’re off!
L’economa domestica:
“I’m italian (so, sorry for my horrible english),”
Your English is excellent. Better than many native English speakers on this site, trust me.
“I’ve got my “Laurea” in Etruscology”
One of mine was in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean.
“and, for sure, there’s enough for a couple of great lists!!!”
They’re fascinating people. It’s a shame we don’t know more about them.
“But I like romans too! Maybe your ancestors are from “Magna Grecia”, the southern part of Italy colonized by Greeks?”
Well in fact, partly, yes. One of my great-great grandfathers (or is it great-great-great–I can’t recall just now) was from Calabria.
Fat*****y,
You’re fat and *****y.
But Peter did not travel to Rome to be persecuted and executed for the power of a Roman church. He already had primacy as “first among equals”.
. . . And you’re right, Christ started the Church in the Middle East.
By the way, where is the place that the picture with number 9 came from?
I read ‘wheat meal’ as a ‘meat wheel’ it sounds far more interesting…
@archiealt (96):
Thanks for the well-wishes, you pathetic prick.
“Hows the kids? Still upset that their daddy is a tool”
Again, that’s all you got. You’re repetitive, stupid, unimaginative and a waste of space. I may be a loudmouth, but when I talk loud, I’m accurate and spouting correct information. You, on the other hand, are a loudmouth who’s wrong more than half the time. If I were you, I’d be ashamed.
Moreover, the only thing you can come up with is to continually refer to me as a “tool.” It’s therefore painfully obvious that you haven’t the wit or imagination to come up with anything else.
The thing is loser, you’re only making *yourself* look like a gigantic douche, here, by constantly bringing up my kids. It’s in disgustingly bad taste, unfunny, and makes you look desperate. Don’t believe me? Ask around. I guarantee you that you don’t have a whole heap of fans here.
“Although I am thankful for your little lesson, it may surprise you to know that I tend not to base my knowledge of history on what random lonely men on the internet tell me.”
And what DO you base your “knowledge” on then? It’d be interesting to know, as evidence suggests that you possess very little of it, whatever its source.
Naturally, given our animosity, I don’t expect you to take my word on your errors here. Now as it happens, I was trained in this *****. I have a degree in it. (Ancient History). I taught it. Again, I don’t expect that to impress you; I merely offer it up as a bit of information. But at any rate, you’ve missed the point, which isn’t surprising in itself. It would take you only a moment’s cruise of authoritative sources on the ‘net, or, if you like, in a handy and appropriate section of your local library, to verify that you were wrong. Don’t believe me? Go have a look.
Nevertheless, as is typical of you, you shot your mouth off anyway. Your claim that no Christians were “thrown to the lions” was, at best, an iffy supposition and at worst just dead wrong. One wonders on what you based your apparent belief, so confident were you that you could make any definitive statements. I think, as I say, that you were just shooting your *****ing mouth off. And as usual with people who do that, you were in error.
Which brings us to the cause of the animosity between us—because as much as people may not like my style, I am rarely, if ever, in error on this site because I do not open my mouth unless I have FACTS and KNOWLEDGE to back me up. Moreover, I take on little *****ers like you who really ARE just here to show off and act big on the internet—because it’s likely you aren’t capable of garnering any attention in real life.
See, the thing is, *****, that you’re projecting on to ME what YOU actually are—a little self-important bastard who probably can’t get any recognition in real life, so he comes on the internet to try and act big. Proof of this being that you readily show up here and spout off with little or no factual or intellectual support for half the stuff you talk about. You clearly just want to be heard, and noticed, and feel like you have it over some people.
I’ve been a regular contributor to this site for years now. I don’t claim to have a “following,” but you can bet your ass that for every one person like you who dislikes me here, there are ten who at least appreciate the knowledge I toss around here, because it’s always on the mark, truthful, and supported by evidence. In short, I know what I’m talking about, and on the occasions when I don’t–rare as they may be—I keep my mouth shut.
You, on the other hand, are just some *****-ant who wants to have his say regardless of whether he has a leg to stand on or not. And like many such people, you figure, probably, that if you just SAY something, most people will buy it. And voila, you feel affirmed.
And what has galled you, I’m sure, from the beginning, is that I don’t let you get away with it. I don’t let others get away with it either, and that too *****es you off. Good.
“Don’t get me wrong, our friend Cecil may well be correct, but I think i’ll wait for a more reliable source before making a decision on this one.”
Try looking them up, instead of waiting for authority to come along.
Ilike it, but so long…
Oh brother…
Randall, chill, man!
Risking an aneurysm, a heart attack, or a scarred psyche isn’t worth it. It’s just a casual list site. All your negative energy reverberates around the board, all for nothing productive. Nobody remembers yesterday’s spat. Nobody’s really persuaded one way or the other over anything important anyway. Tomorrow’s pattern will be the same as today’s. And tomorrow’s tomorrow’s pattern. In the end you only damage yourself. And nobody remembers why. Or cares.
Just don’t want your soul to shrivel up and dry out. Like a mummified ram testicle left out in the desert sun. The longer they dry out, the harder it is to reconstitute them, if they can even be reconstituted.
Positive. Be positive!
@undaunted warrior (70): I´m confused, was that for real or an attempt at sarcasm?
@GTT (105): Google image “cane rat”….They look like an excellent source of protein for a family of four.
I always loved reading about ancient history and also reading ppl like randal expand the topics wider… also its kinda hot seeing a guy write well and with ease put an ass in its place
cheers 
I’m reading this in my school library and I almost suffocated trying to to laugh at the poem in #1. *snort*
@deeeziner (106): I´m not arguing about the cane rat (you really should look up CHIGUIRE though), I was referring to this:
Please excuse typo errors, Ive been busy rubbing my stills pot bellie for a while and sampling the goods before bottling.
Still dont understand what that´s supposed to mean…
HA. #1 = first ever diss
The composer Carl Orff, best known – to some only known – for the choral extravaganza Carmina Burana, also wrote a work called Carmina Catulli – “The songs of Catullus”. That is as much as I know about it. The wikipedia article doesn’t give a lot of information.
The perfectly respectable Renaissance composer da Palestrina wrote a set of motets on some of the racier texts of the Song of Songs from the bible. Without a translation, no-one would have any idea of what the meaning was. The English translation we were given was rather coy. My Latin was (just) good enough to figure out the real meaning.
A shred of evidence that Peter ever actually went to Rome would help the Roman Catholics’ case enormously. Even then, there’s the clear account in Acts 15 of all the apostles (Peter included) deferring to James of Jerusalem, who wasn’t even an apostle.
And check Acts 11:26 – the first group known as Christians was at Antioch. The Syriac Orthodox Church still exists.
So many christians, so few lions.
@Randall (103):
But…you are a tool Randall. It’s such an apt word to describe you. You’re not an idiot, you’re clearly well schooled in some things. You’re not a *****er, *****ers tend to be guys who start fights for no reason on nights out. You’re just a tool, a bit of a loser. A weapon. The type of guy who gets of on being the ‘coolguy’ on an internet site. Just a bit of a…I dunno…a tool.
And again Randall, in not trying to be funny when I say this, i’m being deadly serious. I honestly wouldn’t care if you were some spotty teenager who got bullied in real life so had to come to the safe haven of the internet to be ‘cool’. But you’re not. YOUR A *****ING ADULT. You shouldn’t be coming on the internet to act like johnny big bollocks and get your kicks from having a go at random internet strangers who are some twenty years younger than yourself.
I know Randall, you’ve heard it all before and i’m just repeating what countless other ‘*****-ants’ have said and you don’t care in the slightest. I know it’s completely ridiculous of me to think that anything I say to you will change the opinion you have of yourself in any way whatsoever. Or for that matter, make any difference to anything that ever has been or ever will be. But right now my friend, my leg couldn’t be more broken if it wanted to be. I’ve had to spend the majority of my time recently, living my life through my Sony Vaio. And honestly mate, there have been times when taking out my frustration on you, the classic internet *****, or arguing about religion, has been the highlight of my day. Sad but true.
On to other things Randall,
‘You, on the other hand, are just some *****-ant who wants to have his say regardless of whether he has a leg to stand on or not. And like many such people, you figure, probably, that if you just SAY something, most people will buy it. And voila, you feel affirmed.
And what has galled you, I’m sure, from the beginning, is that I don’t let you get away with it. I don’t let others get away with it either, and that too *****es you off. Good.’
Don’t let me get away with it? what? I think this is the first time you’ve ever corrected anything i’ve ever said. Despite what you like to believe I don’t spend my time shouting out every thought that comes in to my head.
I only ever usually have these arguments with you because you’ve gone off on one of your little rants and i’ve said something like….’Be quiet Randall, you’re a prick and despite what you think your opinion doesn’t mean anything, it’s the *****ing internet’ …..you, obviously, respond and then comes the classic slagging match which you seem to have with at least one person on every single *****ing list.
Again, maybe you should be in a place where, as an adult, you don’t feel the need to have these ridiculous arguments with nameless people on the internet.
Archiealt: Zing! Thats one of the better “vs Randall” replies I’ve seen! Except that you were right, there was no humor in it. Just straight up, cold-hearted, mean. I’m pretty sure Randall can take it. Although, wouldn’t it be kind of sad if you actually made him go away? Like wouldn’t it be just a little disappointing to not see three pages of combined expletives and intellectualism in reply? Haha, thankfully for those of us who enjoy his hateful novellas there’s no way he’ll back down.
All I know is I’m gonna go do something happy. Its getting heavy in here!
@archiealt (110): But…you are a tool Randall. It’s such an apt word to describe you.
archiealt, as a regular reader of this site, I have one plea for you – STFU.
I, for one, am tired of reading your juvenile and meaningless insults to Randall. There are many off us who have the utmost respect for him because of his wealth of knowledge that he is willing to share with us and because he never posts about a subject unless/until he is sure of the facts. He also has a sharp wit that is devilishly funny. You will never win an argument with Randall, so just give it up and spare us your infantile ranting.
@GTT (107): Oh.
You know im not being sarcastic wheni say ive ALWAYS wanted to know what the British definition of *****er was. Ive heard it on movies alot but not sure if its really offensive or not so bad.
@archiealt (111):
Okay folks, we’re going to finish this, because I’m sick to death of this *****, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. And I’m about to join friends at a sort of cocktail party in a half hour, so since I’ve time to kill, I’ll take advantage of it to wrap this up. But also, this list is about a topic dear to me (not the Romans, but the history of classical civilization in general) and I don’t want it getting diverted into this nonsense.
We’ll ignore your first paragraph, archie. You just keep repeating yourself. You’re of the opinion that I am a “tool.” Okay, whoop dee do. I couldn’t care less what your opinion of me is, and I’ve said that already, so no need to repeat MYself. It’s amusing that you maintain that I am a “loser” and “lonely” and all this other bull*****… amusing because I’ve got a happy life with great, intelligent, snarky kids I’m very proud of, great friends, a pretty happy professional life, etc. etc.—all that *****. That you don’t believe me is not my problem. I know the truth, and you don’t. You don’t know me at all. All you “know” is the “person” you keep talking to here, which ain’t really “me.”
But see, most people here “get” that. Most people here take me on this site for what I am—part of the background, part of the entertainment. And I provide that because it’s an “info-tainment” site, and it’s a fun diversion for some people to be one of the contributors to such sites and in some small measure educate people along the way. But, then, again–you don’t see things this way. To that all I can say is, “whatever.”
“And again Randall, in not trying to be funny when I say this, i’m being deadly serious.”
Well then you’ve just made yourself all the more absurd. And actually, NOT to be funny… that in itself has made it obvious that if there’s a “tool,” here, it’s YOU. Because only a tool would take this ***** SO seriously that they would think they can actually lecture someone on the internet the way you do, in some attempt to… well, that’s what I can’t figure out. What IS your intent? Trying to “shame” me into changing or going away? Neither’s going to happen. Stop wasting your time and energy. Embarrass me? Ha. Good luck with that. I mean, what is it? Do you HONESTLY think you have something to “teach” ME? How old are you? WHO are you? I guarantee I’ve lived ten times the life you have, and I don’t even have to know the answers to those questions to be sure of that fact. It’s evident in your attitude and the way you talk; you’re clueless and humorless.
“YOUR A *****ING ADULT. You shouldn’t be coming on the internet to act like johnny big bollocks and get your kicks from having a go at random internet strangers who are some twenty years younger than yourself.”
Why do you care? Why does it bother you so? Why do you feel it’s incumbent upon YOU to correct me—or whatever the hell it is? Don’t YOU have better things to do?
That’s the bottom line here. Oh no, wait… there’s really TWO bottom lines. Let’s talk about the other one first. The first one is, I’ve seen you lurking around this site on various threads, and on nearly every occasion I’ve happened to notice you, you’ve been shooting off your *****ing mouth in one way or another, either making direct factual errors or just filling the air with your ill-informed opinions. Much of the time I’ve let it go because someone else was dealing with you, or because even though you were talking like a prick, I was NOT on the opposing side of the argument you were involved in, so I didn’t see the point in muddying up the waters. Nevertheless, you’ve struck me as a self-important little ***** who is more interested in his own opinions than in being *right,* or accurate.
But of course, the other thing you’ve done here is attack me, unbidden and unprovoked—as I recall, more than once. And one has to ask—why? Because anyone who knows the circumstances of those attacks knows that you went immediately for the personal—you didn’t take on my statements, or the information I presented, or even my opinions. You took on ME personally. You went right to attacking not my arguments or thoughts, but attacking me for just being here. And you’re still doing it. You honestly seem to feel you have some right to attack the *personality* of a human being you don’t even know.
As you say, it’s the internet. Let it go. My purpose here isn’t to attack PEOPLE, it’s to attack the stupid ***** they SAY/WRITE. And, not just to attack, of course, but to offer information and to entertain. I just happen not to like it when people go around, be it on the internet or in real life, acting like they know things which they clearly do NOT know, and trying to thus intimidate others. I have a strong sense that YOU are one of those kinds of people, from the things I’ve witnessed.
But notice the difference–I don’t waste my time with that part of this *****. In real life, for all I know, you might be a pretty nice person. But you take ***** too *****ing seriously. And you don’t even see it. You honestly think you can call a grown man on the internet a “loser” and a “tool” because you think have some corner on the notion of proper behavior that he doesn’t have. Ludicrous. To each his own, but I suggest you knock it off, because all you’re doing here is making an embarrassing spectacle of yourself with that *****. When this computer goes off, I don’t think of you or anyone else here, except a couple people that I actually know in real life, albeit still distantly. When I’m “here,” I’m just interested in correcting errors, offering info, and trying to have some fun and add to Jamie’s site. If Jamie ever decides I’m a detriment, he can tell me and I’ll move on. But over the years I’ve heard from piles of people here who love the stuff I write and are anxious to hear what I have to add to a discussion. I have to confess I take a little pride in that–it’s the teacher in me. And the ham in me likes to know that I’ve amused and entertained people too.
But people like you—well at least on this site, you act like a humorless dick. You’re either saying ***** you shouldn’t, trying to sound like you know what you’re talking about—or you’re running your mouth off with this kind of BS about me. Well, I’m to blame too—I’ve gone after you for it, and wasted my own time. But as I say, I can’t stand people who act the way you sometimes have here.
But for me it always comes down to the truth, facts, and knowledge. I COULD have corrected you nicely today–you WERE wrong. But again, it’s that you have the gall to just stick out these opinions of yours as “fact” when they are actually unsupported and, at bottom, wrong. I freely admit–people who do that ***** annoy me.
But back to the other point. As we know, you took it upon yourself to attack me elsewhere. Personal attacks. And you continue with it. And I think a lot of people here would agree with me I say that that’s kind of over the deep end. Now I don’t give a *****… or, well… obviously I do a tiny bit, or I wouldn’t bother to answer you—but then, see, I think not answering just gives people like you license to keep it up. Some people, you know if you just walk away and don’t dignify them with a response… eh, they might pop up from time to time to take a shot at you, but for the most part they’ll go away and they’re not worth it. But you clearly weren’t going to go away or drop it. Other people here have noticed that you seemed to relish getting almost brutal about it. Now, again, I don’t care. You’re not affecting me, changing me, shaming me, or making me go away. But then too, there’s no reason why I should have to take that *****.
AND no reason why anyone here should let you get away with passing off your statements as factual when they’re not.
“Again, maybe you should be in a place where, as an adult, you don’t feel the need to have these ridiculous arguments with nameless people on the internet.”
None of your business, and it’s not your lot in life to instruct other people on what to do with their time or how to live their lives. You don’t like it? Ignore me and shut the ***** up.
the eating habits of the Ancient Romans were different to ours today.
Breakfast (the Romans called this jentaculum) was taken in the master’s bedroom…Wine was also drunk….
Petronius described a luxurious dinner thus:…As for wine, we were fairly swimming in it…
…so…how are they different from us today?
oh! maybe they didn’t have alcohol for lunch?
Hey Randall…
TL, DR
@astraya (109): The Syriac Orthodox Church was part of the Catholic Church before they split away after the Council of Chalcedon in 451. They returned again in more modern history (as the Syriac Catholic Church in 1781) but there are still members of the break-away Orthodox group. The syriacs accepted the primacy of Peter – they went to the council of Chalcedon when summoned by Pope Leo.
As for evidence of Peter being in Rome, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” The idea that Peter was not in Rome did not even exist until modern times – prior to that the words of the Church fathers were considered sufficient evidence – there is no reason to presume that they were all mistaken. Letters to and from the early Popes also show that all the early Christian Bishops accepted the authority of the Bishop of Rome – even in Antioch.
@Big Deal (119): Not sure why you felt the need to announce to the world that you have the attention span of a gnat.
jesus, you guys both seem like *****s for taking up all the space and having us filter through all this high school debate team *****.
get a room.
I blame Archiealt for making Randall go on another rant. I mean, Randall’s all getting along with everyone untill, bam!, here you are calling him a tool just because he corrected you for a mistake. I mean, he could’ve been nicer about it, but you’ve already fought with him before, and once you’re on Randall’s bad side you’re stuck untill you prove yourself worthy. Which is nearly impossible. And it will go on for…at least 1 day. Maybe.
I think the Romans invented the underwear for women in olympics but great list and more facts on races
And more facts on thing-e-mabobs please.
Catullus, one of my faves, wrote a poem about Lesbia having cheated on him, in which he describes this affair with the verb “glubit.” You can’t find that word in most Latin dictionaries, because the only known instance of it is in this poem. It means the motion that a woodwright makes when he straddles a log and shaves wood off with a wood plane.
Now imagine Lesbia doing that *****ually to another man. Catullus really nailed that description with one word!
About item 2–”Vespasian’s name still attaches to public urinals in France (vespasiennes), Italy (vespasiani), and Romania (vespasiene).”
Money may not smell—but I’m keeping my nose away from the seat of a Vespa.