This question was asked by the world chess champion Garry Kasparov. And I came to the conclusion that not everything is in order with the dates in ancient history: here and there insoluble contradictions arose. An objective analysis of an unprejudiced stone-on-stone researcher does not leave the official history to which we are accustomed. Simple logic proves that, most likely, no ancient period in the development of mankind existed. There is no real evidence for this - only myths and dubious "documents", the primary sources of which are unknown.
It is interesting to study the rate of reproduction of the human race. For example, in England from the 15th to the 20th century, the population grows from 4 to 62 million. That is a 15-fold increase in population in 500 years. In France, from the 17th to the 20th century, starting from the reign of Louis XIV, there is an increase in the population from 20 million to about 60 million. And this despite the fact that France participated in terrible wars: only the Napoleonic ones claimed about 3 million lives.
This begs the question: what was the population in these provinces during the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 4th-5th centuries? The fertile Gallic provinces of the vast empire were densely populated. If the eastern and western parts together numbered about 20 million people (the minimum estimate), then simple logic suggests that the barbarian hordes that swept the empire should also have been in the millions.
So, if we try to use an inverse geometric progression in calculations, we get an irrational result. It turns out that the reproduction of people at some stage stopped altogether, or even “negative growth” began somewhere.
Attempts at a logical explanation, such as that hygiene was insufficient, or references to epidemics, are not convincing. According to historical documents, there was no real improvement in sanitary and hygienic conditions in the life of the population of Western Europe from the 5th to the 18th century. In addition, since the 15th century, wars with the use of firearms have begun, claiming many more lives.
It is even more interesting to compare the population of the ancient world during the times of Pericles (V century BC) and Emperor Trajan (II century AD). If we take the number of inhabitants in large cities and the number of armies as the basis of calculations, then we will face insane rates of demographic growth. Of course, Greece under the auspices of Athens is not comparable to the world empire with its center in Rome, but the proportions are still not respected. Judge for yourself, 15 thousand free Athenian citizens - and half a million Rome and Alexandria. On the one hand, the one and a half thousandth rearguard of the united army of the Greek city-states, which included 300 famous Spartans, remains to cover the retreat of the main forces in the war, where the existence of the Hellenes was at stake. On the other hand, 26 legions (!) were maintained by Rome in peacetime and were recruited without the introduction of compulsory military service. This is more than the Russian Empire was able to put up in 1812 to repel Napoleonic aggression.
Another mystery. Let's look at the size of a person. We see pictures and descriptions of ancient Greek athletes. These are physically well-developed people, of large build. And then we see the armor of medieval knights, which fit only 15-year-old boys of the 20th century. Against the backdrop of ideas about ancient powerful athleticism, this is very strange. It turns out a certain sinusoid in the development of the muscles of the human body. Why did this change happen all of a sudden?
The further - the more oddities. In the verifiable part of the story, we find the absolutely incredible human desire for discovery. Literally every ten years something happens, something is discovered. Continuous development. No "falling asleep for centuries" is not observed. At the same time, in traditional ancient history, we find that a person seemed to be immersed in a centuries-old hibernation. There were flourishing ancient empires that froze at some point and did not develop further. Why?
It is also incomprehensible that the pace of technical and cultural progress in the ancient world absolutely does not fit into the framework of human abilities for practical improvement.
For example, Rome adopts everything from Greece, but nothing happens in the field of music. Although supposedly emperors, to know in every way encourage the development of the arts. But everything froze at one level, rather primitive. Note - no! It is not clear how such a refined society could do without a system for recording sounds. As a result, no musical monuments have come down to us.
Further, an even more mysterious paradox: the amazing inability of ancient Rome to improve the types of weapons and combat tactics. The empire wages regular wars of conquest - but the Romans never managed to forge steel and fought with short swords from low-grade iron. Ask historians how did the ancient sculptor Phidias process marble? An iron chisel will not give such a filigree result - hardened steel tools are needed. But, according to the official chronology, coal was first mined in England in the 11th century. Charcoal does not give a white-hot temperature, coal is needed. If there is no white heat, then there is no steel.
According to ancient sources, the Roman cavalry did not have a harness! There were reins, but stirrups appear only in the 8th century AD. – and here same emerges chivalry. Meanwhile, the ancient Romans fought with the Eastern peoples, famous masters of horsemanship. Crossbows and bows did not appear in Ancient Rome either. At the same time, many heroes of ancient Greek myths are excellent archers.
Progress in the invention of new types of weapons begins only in the XIV-XV centuries. And since then it hasn't stopped. And before that, for many centuries, for some reason, nothing happens.
It seems strange that the Roman Empire became famous for its extensive network of roads and communications, but there were no geographical maps. Even more puzzling is that the ancient documents keep complete silence about the banking system and commodity credit in ancient Rome. Meanwhile, trade in the empire - especially on the scale that we are told - needs the appearance of credit institutions. It is interesting that, according to the official historical version, the banking system will appear in the Middle Ages in Italy: in Genoa, in Florence, in Milan.
Another mystery of the ancient world. We know a lot about the scientists of Ancient Greece - Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Archimedes, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Euclid went through in detail. But from about the 1st century BC, a collapse occurs. No more scientists! The development of science has completely stopped! It is strange that with the abundance of complex architectural structures, there was no good system of counting in Rome. The one that was is not suitable for serious calculations. Try to divide large numbers into a column or calculate the volume of a complex geometric figure. But the Romans made some calculations. And quite complex. And what counting system did the famous ancient Greek scientists Archimedes, Euclid, Ptolemy use? And why did the pragmatic Romans, who adopted all the best from the Greeks, ignore mathematics? Or the Greeks did not have such a system. But then how did they think? The Arabic medieval account appeared more than ten centuries after the creation of the fundamental works of the ancient Greek founders of mathematics and physics. It turns out an absolutely incredible time gap!
Nothing is heard in the ancient world about chemical research. There were no chemists or alchemists. Why did alchemists appear only in the Middle Ages? Let's add a few words about anatomy and medicine. The works of Hippocrates have not come down to us, and this is strange, because the emperors and kings needed medicine. For some reason, the poems of Homer in the dark era of the Middle Ages survived much better than priceless treatises on the healing of the human body.
The inquisitive thought of the ancient genius for ten centuries could not come up with anything that would surpass the achievements of the Europeans, who had a maximum of 300 years of Renaissance progress behind them! What's the matter?
There is a version that medieval authors simply invented the whole "ancient history" in the XV-XVI centuries. They took the everyday environment of their era and projected it into the past - onto Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. The life of the "ancient world" created by the imagination improved due to the fact that "the ancients had more of everything." But, of course, no innovations were invented either in weapons, or in science, or in everyday life, or in culture. No one was embarrassed by the fact that the XV-XVI centuries in official history were at the same level of development as the Roman Empire at the time of its highest power.
The daily life of the Roman Empire is described in some detail. But let's look at the home environment. Forks, knives, chairs, functional utensils - these household items are not. But feasts were thrown all over the world! I immediately recall that even in the 16th century, the European nobility continued to eat with their hands and slurp loudly!
The absence of ancient inscriptions with dates is also confusing. On the walls of numerous cathedrals, palaces, churches, only tablets with dates hang in the chronological system adopted today. You are told that this cathedral is 500 years old, but the tablet was nailed only in the 19th or 20th century. No old dates. Even hand-scribbled. In Western Europe, you will not find a single truly old building, on the walls of which there would be an inscription authentic to the announced year of completion of construction.
Nevertheless, humanity unconditionally believes in the current panorama of world history. We are accustomed to consider ourselves part of an infinitely ancient historical process in which Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese emperors, Greek philosophers and Roman gladiators nestle comfortably. This world is formed from children's books, school textbooks, masterpieces of world literature, is reflected in films, commercials, Internet sites. A world in which everything is put on the shelves and every question has an answer. Most people prefer to get acquainted with the past in cinemas or in front of the TV screen. For them, Hollywood versions of significant historical events become reality.
But in fact, we have all the signs of a chronic centuries-old falsification of facts. On the basis of ancient Greek myths, scientists constructed seven centuries of the history of Ancient Greece. I had questions for a long time, but I did not dare to ask them aloud until I read Anatoly Fomenko's book Empire in 1996. That was the first time I questioned the entire official chronology. Much, mathematically calculated and predicted by Fomenko, is confirmed in reality.
One of the reasons why we do not know much of what happened in history, even in the not so distant past, is the laws that were introduced into the legal systems of the states of antiquity and began to operate from a certain moment. Such, for example, as the law on the condemnation of memory.The law on the condemnation of memory (Latin damnatio memoriae - literally “curse of memory”) is a law that existed in Ancient Rome and the Roman Empire, which prescribed “condemnation of the memory of an enemy of the state” after his death by destroying any mention of him.
Resolutions under this law were issued by the criminal court of the Senate. According to this law, it was prescribed to destroy any mention of the convict throughout the territory of the Roman possessions: inscriptions in documents and structures were removed, statues, portraits, bas-reliefs, gravestone inscriptions, mention in chronicles were destroyed, coins with the image and name of the convict were withdrawn from circulation and melted down; in addition, state events created by him or on his initiative were liquidated.
Emperors, members of the imperial family, as well as high dignitaries from senators and horsemen were punished under this law; in some cases, members of the convict's family could also be destroyed, as happened when applying domatio memoriae to the temporary worker Seyan.
This law was not always carried out absolutely in time with respect to the convicts: everything depended on the preferences of the ruling ruler after this; thus, the condemned emperor Nero was deified under the emperor Vitellius, and the condemned emperor Commodus was deified under the emperor Septimius Severus. Domitian is the only Roman emperor whose domnatio memoriae has not been officially contested.
Although this law ordered the destruction of all images of convicts, sometimes their images were preserved in some private collections and in provincial cities remote from Rome.
Damnatio memoriae is a later name for this law; in Roman sources it is referred to as memoria damnata or abolio memoriae.
Interestingly, throughout the history of Rome, the “Law of Condemnation of Memory” has not been repealed even once. Perhaps each of the rulers hoped that in the future this law would not apply to him.
Notable people punished:
Avidius Cassius, commander of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, usurper
Agrippina the Younger, mother of Emperor Nero
Domitian, emperor (81 - 96 AD)
Caligula, emperor (37 - 41 AD)
Commodus, emperor (180 - 192 AD)
Lucius Elius Sejanus, statesman and military leader, commander of the Praetorian Guard, consul 31 AD, temporary worker under the emperor Tiberius
Messalina, third wife of Emperor Claudius
Nero, emperor (54 - 68 AD)
Elagabalus, emperor (218 - 222 AD)
Julia Soemiya, mother of Emperor Elagabalus
Despite all efforts to enforce this law, portraits of many of the condemned persons were found, for example, several images of Nero and Caligula and a significant number of portraits of the emperor Commodus, including a monumental bust 1.18 m high, were still preserved. But of course, a significant part was lost irretrievably.
Crossed letters Chi and Rho).
Encyclopedic YouTube
-
1 / 5
It is based on forms of government, which, in turn, reflected the socio-political situation: from royal rule at the beginning of history to empire-dominance at its end.
Tsarist period and republic
During the royal period, Rome was a small state, which occupied only part of the territory of Latium - the area inhabited by the tribe of the Latins. During the period of the Early Republic, Rome greatly expanded its territory through numerous wars. After the Pyrrhic War, Rome began to reign supreme over the Apennine Peninsula, although the vertical system of control of subordinate territories had not yet developed at that time. After the conquest of Italy, Rome became a prominent player in the Mediterranean, which soon brought it into conflict with Carthage, a major state founded by the Phoenicians in northern Africa. In a series of three Punic wars, the Carthaginian state was completely defeated, and the city itself was destroyed. At this time, Rome also began to expand to the East, subjugating Illyria, Greece and then Asia Minor, Syria and Judea.
The Roman Empire
In the 1st century BC e. Rome was shaken by a series of civil wars, as a result of which the ultimate winner, Octavian Augustus, formed the foundations of the principate system and founded the Julio-Claudian dynasty, which, however, did not last a century. The heyday of the Roman Empire fell on a relatively calm time of the 2nd century, but already the 3rd century was filled with a struggle for power and, as a result, political instability, and the foreign policy situation of the empire was complicated. The establishment of a system of dominance by Diocletian stabilized the situation for some time with the help of the concentration of power in the hands of the emperor and his bureaucratic apparatus. In the 4th century, under the blows of the Huns, the division of the empire into two parts was finalized, and Christianity became the state religion of the entire empire. In the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire became the object of active resettlement of Germanic tribes, which finally undermined the unity of the state. The overthrow of the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Romulus August, by the German leader Odoacer on September 4, 476 is considered the traditional date for the fall of the Roman Empire.
The magistrates could submit a bill (rogatio) to the senate, where it was debated. The Senate originally had 100 members, during most of the history of the Republic there were about 300 members, Sulla doubled the number of members, later their numbers varied. A seat in the Senate was obtained after passing ordinary magistracies, but the censors had the right to conduct a lustration of the Senate with the possibility of excluding individual senators. The Senate met on calendars, nones and ides of each month, as well as on any day in the event of an emergency convocation of the senate. At the same time, there were some restrictions on the convocation of the Senate and comitia in the event that the appointed day was declared unfavorable for one or another "sign".
Dictators, who were elected on special occasions and for no more than 6 months, had extraordinary powers and, unlike ordinary magistrates, lack of accountability. With the exception of the dictator's emergency magistracy, all positions in Rome were collegiate.
Society
Laws
As for the Romans, for them the task of war was not just to defeat the enemy or establish peace; the war was only concluded to their satisfaction when former enemies became "friends" or allies (socii) of Rome. The goal of Rome was not the subjugation of the whole world to the power and imperium (dominion - lat.) of Rome, but the extension of the Roman system of alliances to all countries of the earth. The Roman idea was expressed by Virgil, and it was not just a fantasy of the poet. The Roman people themselves, the populus Romanus, owed their existence to such a war-born partnership, namely, an alliance between patricians and plebeians, the end of the internal strife between which was put by the famous Leges XII Tabularum. But even this document of their history, consecrated by antiquity, the Romans did not consider inspired by God; they preferred to believe that Rome had sent a commission to Greece to study the systems of law there. Thus the Roman Republic, itself based on law - an indefinite alliance between patricians and plebeians - used the instrument of the leges mainly to treat and administer the provinces and communities that belonged to the Roman system of unions, in other words, to the ever-expanding group of Roman socii that formed the societas. Romana.
The social structure of Roman society
At the initial stage of development, Roman society consisted of two main classes - patricians and plebeians. According to the most common version of the origin of these two main classes, the patricians are the indigenous inhabitants of Rome, and the plebeians are the alien population, which, however, had civil rights. Patricians were united first in 100, and then in 300 genera. Initially, plebeians were forbidden to marry patricians, which ensured the isolation of the patrician class. In addition to these two estates, in Rome there were also clients of the patricians (in this case, the patrician acted in relation to the client as a patron) and slaves.
Over time, the social structure as a whole became noticeably more complex. Horsemen appeared - persons not always of noble origin, but engaged in trading operations (trade was considered an unworthy occupation of the patricians) and concentrating significant wealth in their hands. Among the patricians, the most noble families stood out, and some of the genera gradually faded away. Approximately in the III century. BC e. the patriciate merges with the equites into the nobility.
At the age of 17-18, the young man had to leave the teachings and do military service.
The Romans also made sure that women were educated in connection with the role they had in the family: the organizer of family life and the educator of children at an early age. There were schools where girls studied with boys. And it was considered honorable if they said about a girl that she was an educated girl. In the Roman state, already in the 1st century AD, they began to train slaves, as slaves and freedmen began to play an increasingly prominent role in the economy of the state. Slaves became managers in the estates and were engaged in trade, were placed overseers of other slaves. Literate slaves were attracted to the bureaucracy of the state, many slaves were teachers and even architects.
A literate slave was worth more than an illiterate one, since he could be used for skilled work. Educated slaves were called the main value of the Roman rich man Mark Licinius Crassus.
Former slaves, freedmen, gradually began to make up a significant stratum in Rome. They sought to take the place of an employee, manager in the state apparatus, engage in commercial activities, usury. Their advantage over the Romans began to manifest itself, which consisted in the fact that they did not shy away from any work, considered themselves disadvantaged and showed perseverance in the struggle for their place under the sun. In the end, they were able to achieve legal equality, to push the Romans out of government.
Army
For almost the entire time of its existence, the Roman army was, as practice proved, the most advanced among the other states of the Ancient World, having gone from the people's militia to professional regular infantry and cavalry with many auxiliary units and allied formations. At the same time, the main fighting force has always been the infantry (in the era of the Punic Wars, the Marine Corps, which proved to be excellent, actually appeared). The main advantages of the Roman army were mobility, flexibility and tactical training, which allowed it to operate in various terrain and in harsh weather conditions.
With a strategic threat to Rome or Italy, or a sufficiently serious military danger ( tumultus) all work stopped, production stopped and everyone who could simply carry weapons was recruited into the army - residents of this category were called tumultuarii (subitarii), and the army - tumultuarius (subitarius) exercitus. Since the usual recruitment procedure took longer, the commander-in-chief of this army, the magistrate, took out special banners from the Capitol: red, indicating recruitment into the infantry, and green, into the cavalry, after which he traditionally announced: “Qui respublicam salvam vult, me sequatur” (“Who wants save the republic, let him follow me"). The military oath was also pronounced not individually, but together.
Reward system
Rome looked at the lands of the provinces he had conquered as his family estates (praedia populi Romani), and almost all classes of the Roman population sought to derive their own benefit from this: the nobility - ruling the provinces, horsemen - doing farming in them, ordinary citizens - serving in the legions and enriched by spoils of war. Only the metropolitan proletariat, free from military service, did not participate in the general division; however, the state guaranteed to all its loyal subjects the sale of grain imported from the provinces at a lower price. This provision did not apply only to slaves and foreigners. It also did not apply to freemen.
culture
Politics, war, agriculture, the development of law (civil and sacred) and historiography were recognized as deeds worthy of a Roman, especially from the nobility. On this basis, the early culture of Rome took shape. Foreign influences, primarily Greek, penetrating through the Greek cities of the south of modern Italy, and then directly from Greece and Asia Minor, were perceived only insofar as they did not contradict the Roman value system or were processed in accordance with it. In turn, Roman culture at the time of its heyday had a huge impact on neighboring peoples and on the subsequent development of Europe.
The early Roman worldview was characterized by the feeling of being a free citizen with a sense of belonging to a civil community and the priority of state interests over personal ones, combined with conservatism, which consisted in following the mores and customs of ancestors. In - centuries. BC e. there was a departure from these attitudes and individualism intensified, the individual began to be opposed to the state, even some traditional ideals were rethought. As a result, in the era of emperors, a new formula for managing Roman society was born - bread and spectacles should be in abundance. Well, a certain decline in morals among the crowd of townspeople was always perceived by despotic rulers with a certain degree of favor.
Language
Latin, the appearance of which is attributed to the middle of the III millennium BC. e. constituted the Italic branch of the Indo-European family of languages. In the course of the historical development of ancient Italy, the Latin language supplanted the other Italic languages and eventually took over the dominant position in the western Mediterranean. At the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. Latin was spoken by the population of a small region of Latium (lat. Latium), located in the west of the middle part of the Apennine Peninsula, along the lower reaches of the Tiber. The tribe that inhabited Latium was called the Latins (lat. Latini), its language is Latin. The city of Rome became the center of this region, after which the Italian tribes united around it began to call themselves the Romans (lat. Romans).
There are several stages in the development of Latin:
- Archaic Latin.
- Classical Latin.
- Postclassical Latin.
- Late Latin.
Religion
Ancient Roman mythology is close in many aspects to Greek, up to the direct borrowing of individual myths. However, in the religious practice of the Romans, animistic superstitions associated with the veneration of spirits also played a large role: genii, penates, lares, lemurs and manes. Also in ancient Rome there were numerous colleges of priests.
Although religion played a significant role in traditional ancient Roman society, by the 2nd century BC. e. a significant part of the Roman elite was already indifferent to religion. In the 1st century BC. e. Roman philosophers (primarily Titus Lucretius Carus and Mark Tullius Cicero) largely revised or questioned many of the traditional religious positions.
Art, music, literature
Cloth
manners
Same-sex relationships in ancient Roman society cannot be characterized in terms of modern Western culture. In Latin, there are no words for concepts corresponding to today's concepts of heterosexuality or homosexuality. Any sexual relationship was characterized by bipolarity - an active, dominant, "male" role on the one hand and a passive, submissive, "female" role - on the other.
Kitchen
The social evolution of Roman society was first studied by the German scientist G. B. Niebuhr. Ancient Roman way of life and life were based on developed family law and religious rites.
To make the best use of daylight, the Romans usually got up very early, often around four o'clock in the morning, and after breakfast, began to engage in public affairs. Like the Greeks, the Romans ate 3 times a day. Early in the morning - the first breakfast, around noon - the second, in the late afternoon - lunch.
In the first centuries of the existence of Rome, the inhabitants of Italy ate mostly thick, hard-boiled porridge made from spelt, millet, barley or bean flour, but already at the dawn of Roman history, not only porridge was cooked in the household, but also bread cakes were baked. Culinary art began to develop in the 3rd century. BC e. and under the empire reached unprecedented heights.
The science
Roman science inherited a number of Greek studies, but in contrast to them (especially in the field of mathematics and mechanics) it was mainly applied in nature. For this reason, it was the Roman numeration and the Julian calendar that received worldwide distribution. At the same time, its characteristic feature was the presentation of scientific issues in a literary and entertaining form. Jurisprudence and agricultural sciences reached a special flowering, a large number of works were devoted to architecture and urban planning and military equipment. The largest representatives of natural science were encyclopedic scientists Gaius Pliny Secundus the Elder, Mark Terence Varro and Lucius Annaeus Seneca.
Ancient Roman philosophy developed mainly in the wake of Greek philosophy, with which it was largely associated. Stoicism has received the greatest distribution in philosophy.
Remarkable progress was made by Roman science in the field of medicine. Among the prominent physicians of Ancient Rome, one can note: Dioscorides - a pharmacologist and one of the founders of botany, Soranus of Ephesus - an obstetrician and pediatrician, Claudius Galen - a talented anatomist who revealed the functions of nerves and the brain.
Written in the Roman era, encyclopedic treatises remained the most important source of scientific knowledge during most of the Middle Ages.
Legacy of Ancient Rome
Roman culture, with its developed ideas about the expediency of things and actions, about a person’s duty to himself and the state, about the importance of law and justice in society, complemented ancient Greek culture with its desire to know the world, a developed sense of proportion, beauty, harmony, and a pronounced game element. . Antique culture, as a combination of these two cultures, became the basis of European civilization.
The cultural heritage of Ancient Rome can be traced in scientific terminology, architecture, and literature. Latin has long been the language of international communication for all educated people in Europe. Until now, it is used in scientific terminology. On the basis of the Latin language, Romance languages arose in the former Roman possessions, which are spoken by the peoples of a large part of Europe. Among the most outstanding achievements of the Romans is the Roman law they created, which played a huge role in the further development of legal thought. It was in the Roman possessions that Christianity arose, and then became the state religion - a religion that united all European peoples and greatly influenced the history of mankind.
Historiography
Interest in the study of Roman history arose, in addition to the writings of Machiavelli, also during the Enlightenment in France.
The first major work was the work of Edward Gibbon "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", covering the period from the end of the II century until the fall of a fragment of the empire - Byzantium in 1453. Like Montesquieu, Gibbon valued the virtue of Roman citizens, however, the decomposition of the empire along it began already under Commodus, and Christianity became a catalyst for the collapse of the empire, undermining its foundations from the inside.
Niebuhr became the founder of the critical direction and wrote the work "Roman History", where it was brought to the First Punic War. Niebuhr made an attempt to establish how the Roman tradition arose. In his opinion, the Romans, like other peoples, had a historical epic, preserved mainly in noble families. Niebuhr paid some attention to ethnogenesis, viewed from the angle of the formation of the Roman community.
In the Napoleonic era, the work of V. Durui “History of the Romans” appeared, emphasizing the then popular Caesarian period.
A new historiographic milestone was opened by the work of Theodor Mommsen, one of the first major researchers of the Roman heritage. An important role was played by his voluminous work "Roman History", as well as "Roman Public Law" and "Collection of Latin Inscriptions" ("Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum").
Later came the work of another specialist, G. Ferrero - "The Greatness and Fall of Rome." The work of I. M. Grevs “Essays on the history of Roman land ownership, mainly in the era of the Empire” was published, where, for example, information appeared about the economy of Pomponius Attica, one of the largest landowners at the end of the Republic, and Horace was considered an example of an average estate of the August era.
On the eve of the course of lectures of the same name, Maxim Belkin, Associate Professor of the Department of the History of Ancient Greece and Rome, Faculty of History, St. Petersburg State University, spoke about the daily life of ancient Rome
What are the features of social relations in ancient Rome in its heyday?
First, it must be remembered that the ancient Roman civilization was a slave-owning one. And social relations depended on the relationship of slaves and slave owners. Of course, there were difficult relationships within the free team. Know and the poor, making contact, also influenced the development of civilization. But this was not determined to a large extent by antagonistic confrontation.
In addition, we must remember that the very concept of "Roman" united completely different ethnic groups. Rome not only subjugated all the peoples that inhabited the Mediterranean, but managed to involve them in its culture and history. And gradually many Gauls, Germans and Greeks began to perceive themselves as Romans. A person in Palestine and a person in Gaul is a citizen of the Roman Empire, if, of course, he received the rights of citizenship.
It was easy to learn Latin. In addition, the Romans in all areas of their empire pursued a roughly similar policy related to the development of Roman law, and economic features, and value, mental moments. We see population migration. Roman citizens begin to live in Africa, and Africans - on the contrary, in the Danube region. Those who resisted assimilation experienced difficulty in integrating. For example, the Jews who tried to preserve their identity within this common "cauldron".
Life in various areas of Ancient Rome was unified?
Every region, every small town sought to repeat Rome as far as possible. Each city had its own amphitheater, circus - the love for gladiator fights was extremely great. In addition, there was a general fascination with baths or baths. In every small town there were dozens of baths. On the other side, the rhythm of life in Rome and in a small city was different. Rome, as a city, often attracted loafers in large numbers who tried to make a living from the handouts of the rich and the state. In small towns there was a completely different, hardworking life. Of course, there were differences between the western part of the Roman Empire (Gallia, Iberia) and the eastern.
In the east, much has been preserved from the Greco-Macedonian civilization. First, the spread of the Greek language. Even if an illiterate Gaul knew Latin, then in the east this might not have happened. Imperial decrees were duplicated in Greek. It also remained the main language for philosophy, oratory.
Meetings in the Senate could only take place during daylight hours.
You say that the population in the east of the empire did not perceive the language. Does this mean that the central government imposed Latin on him?
Undoubtedly. But most of the population of the empire still perceived the language. The same Gauls resisted Rome for ten years, but after the conquest they easily passed Romanization, because a significant part of the population was immediately involved in economic processes. But in the East for a long time there was a special community, which were close to the traditions of Eastern cultures. This was not the barbarian world of Europe, but the world of high culture.
What are the similarities between Rome as a city and modern megacities?
It was a big, ever-noisy metropolitan city. There are a lot of people busy and hurrying somewhere, many state institutions, the entire imperial administration. Even greater than now, the concentration of population per square kilometer.
Was there a class division in Rome?
Certainly. The richest lived in the center and in the hills, where the air was cleaner. And there were areas of the poor, built up with multi-storey buildings.
Were they dangerous for a casual wanderer?
Certainly. In general, the whole of Rome - especially at night - was a certain danger. The emperors themselves loved to have fun with nightly adventures, robberies. The same Nero, putting on a wig, broke into taverns and inns, arranged brawls, robbed - and then sold the loot, until one day he was severely beaten because he molested the wife of one senator. After that, he began to walk not alone.
What happened to the senator?
For the time being, they forgave, and then, remembering everything, they executed.
Emperors bought land from private owners and built forums
Was Rome as dirty as textbooks say?
On the one hand, of course, in areas with multi-storey buildings, often all sewage was simply thrown out into the street. On the other hand, Rome consumed large amounts of water. People themselves used water whenever possible. A daily trip to the terma was considered the norm. There were a large number of public restrooms. Garbage was taken out at night. During the day, the passage of wagons was generally prohibited, except for those that participate in priestly processions or construction work. They had their own police, they had their own firefighters. There was sewerage - citywide, not in every house. As best they could, they tried to maintain both personal and city cleanliness.
During its heyday in Rome there were up to a thousand public baths and bath complexes - imperial baths, which could accommodate 5-6 thousand people at the same time. It was not just the need for washing, but even the norm of life and communication. Something similar has been preserved to this day, as an element of maintaining a certain microclimate in the team.
There is the Library of Alexandria. Was there something similar in Rome?
We can definitely say that the entire urban population was literate. In the countryside, literacy was lower, but during its heyday, the Roman Empire was an urban civilization. Of course, there are no exact statistics, but it can be assumed that almost half of the population lived in cities. And that half was completely literate. Excavations in Pompeii have shown that even slaves and gladiators were literate - they could, for example, scrawl their name, leave a message to a friend on the wall. Those who were trained in schools often read a lot. There were public and private libraries. Poetry spread especially well.
Were they sold somewhere?
Certainly. True, poets and writers often lamented that it was difficult not only to acquire wealth with their work, but sometimes it was not enough to live on. And so the books, of course, were rewritten and published. Letters were also very popular. Private correspondence is a separate important genre. The Romans believed that writing was not personal. The same letters of Cicero or Pliny the Younger have come down to us only because they were published - sometimes even during their lifetime. Letters were always read aloud. The Romans generally read aloud a lot or just mumbled something to themselves.
Frivolous Roman entertainment came to an end with the advent of Christianity
The day of the metropolis is now - from 7.00 to midnight - but how was the working day regulated in Rome?
From sunrise to sunset. So the working day went on for both the common man and the senator. All official life ended at sunset. If, for example, the session of the Senate, the court, the people's assembly had not ended by that moment, then the decision could be canceled.
Although, as a rule, all cases ended much earlier. The last 5 - 6 hours were allotted for eating - such a lunch, turning into dinner - a peaceful conversation, visiting a bath.
What was the fall of Rome?
The concept of decline and decay of morals is rather relative. The Romans, already at the end of the republic, lamented the decline of morals. A hundred years later, they admired what manners were at the end of the republic. At the same time, of course, the famous phrase, which has already lost its author, that “Rome was ruined by symposiums” is true: all these endless reclining, feasts. Rejection of the productive life. From Rome it was clear that business life was dying down. The provinces were aiming for something more progressive. There were more pure morals, there was higher business activity. Already by the 3rd century it was clear that Rome was simply consuming, that the center, as a link, was no longer needed. Then separate parts of the empire began to think about greater independence.
Excavations of the city of Pompeii (pictured) made it possible to learn about the high level of literacy of the urban population of the empire
It turns out such a variant of the slogan "Enough to feed Moscow", only in the Roman version?
Yes. Throughout its history, Rome has gone through several stages of the imperial path. That is, at first it was a colonial empire - such as, for example, Britain or France by the beginning of the 20th century. Then Rome turned into a territorial empire: such was Russia or Astvro-Hungary at the beginning of the 20th century - when many outskirts began to develop more efficiently and better than the center itself. For the time being, a political center was needed - as long as there was a strong emperor. As soon as power in the center weakened, the empire fell apart into different parts.
How life in Rome during the decline of the empire was different from what it was in II - III centuries?
The end of the empire is already the time of Christianity. Gradually banned gladiator fights, pagan holidays, sacrifices. Depending on how quickly the population was introduced to Christianity, interest in brothels, which were very developed in Rome in the 1st - 2nd centuries, decreased.
Moreover, there is a reduction in the population - primarily urban. This is due to barbarization, the migration of peoples who were alien to Roman civilization - first of all, the Goths, Franks, Burgundians, Saxons. In the 4th-5th centuries they carried the life and customs of their society. The urban population was thinning out, the cities themselves were constantly being plundered. And by the 4th century AD, two-thirds - and perhaps five-sixths - of the population of the empire lived in the countryside under the auspices of some rich man who keeps his guard, builds a castle, takes everything produced for himself and protects his population. In many ways, the fall of Rome is the fall of urban culture. In the east, it lasted longer. And the west has turned into a rural area.
The usual entertainment of the Romans in their heyday (in the picture - the theater of that time) ended when Christianity became the state religion
What were the features of the life of a city dweller at the time of the end of the empire?
They are connected, first of all, with Christian culture. There was a rejection of many entertainment. The ancient man did not spend much time in the temple, but under Christianity, people began to spend a significant part of their time in prayer. Religion filled in what was inherent in the Romans of the 1st - 2nd centuries. The city was in decline. Cities have become dirtier, water has stopped flowing into them, bans on livestock and vegetable gardens in urban areas have been lifted.
What did a Roman street look like during its heyday and decline?
Crowded road. Constantly bustling people. On this street you can meet anyone: slaves, patricians, tourists. By the end of the empire, this street became deserted. Clothes are changing. The Romans of the 1st - 2nd centuries shaved their beards and wore short haircuts. Since the 3rd century, a beard, long hair, and dark clothes have come into fashion. Tunics and togas are a thing of the past. Trousers appear, unusual for the Romans. Mimic representations disappear on the streets, street games - dice, grandmas - the church fought with them. They were also banned in pagan Rome - but then no one paid attention to this. In Christian Rome, these prohibitions were preached.
What was early Rome like? Small and cozy town?
It was small but uncomfortable. Emperor Augustus said that he took "Brick Rome". In fact, it was still made of wood. Small, crooked streets. Much less water, rich mansions, a lot of dirt. Little order.
Republican Rome by the 1st century was already a large (200,000 people), but uncomfortable city. That is why the Romans often, visiting other cities, admired them and returned with horror to their native city, which in no way resembles the "ruler of the world." And only the emperors - especially the very first ones - made it a luxurious marble city.
Ancient Rome was robbed so often that the townspeople ran out of it in the 3rd century (in the picture - the ruins of a Roman temple in the 18th century)
Now, after all, there is also a lot of talk about the restructuring of cities, the arrangement of public spaces. How did the emperors remake Rome?
You see, there is another important connection between antiquity and modernity. The emperors radically rebuilt the city. Numerous fires made it possible. It is known that Nero was going to completely rebuild Rome, but did not have time to do it. The fire of 64 destroyed three quarters of the territory of the year.
Emperors bought plots of land - and it was then expensive - from private owners and built forums, temples, baths, theaters there. Or, for example, they took advantage of accidents - like fires and floods - and built new structures from marble that was then available. Even then, the architecture began to look more like Greek, with numerous porticos and columns. More free space appeared in the city center - imperial and public gardens were created. They were destroyed and transferred to the outskirts of the cemetery in the city center. In one of the famous cemeteries, a garden was made for the Maecenas - a supporter of Augustus. Sometimes emperors tore down hills to build squares. The height of Trajan's column just corresponded to the size of the hill he dug up.
In general, it turns out that the modern metropolis is very similar to Rome. How do you think?
Certainly. There are even entire films made on the subject. In Rome, there were no cars and public transport.
Feasts and symposiums led to the fact that Rome stopped producing anything
Was there a negative attitude towards visitors then?
Definitely hard to say. The term "Roman" meant too many different nationalities. But, for example, for a long time the word "Greek" was abusive, contemptuous. People from the East were despised: Syrians, Jews. For a long time Jews were not distinguished from Christians. Syrians were considered mystics, astrologers, magicians.
Much depended on whether you were a Roman citizen or not. If you are, then you find yourself included in some special society. If not, then you are on your own.
How were social elevators developed? Was it possible to turn from a simple citizen into an official?
To become an official, of course, one needed citizenship. But in terms of poverty and wealth, everything was much simpler. In general, Roman society was characterized by rapid mobility. It was easier for a former slave to get rich, to break into people. After all, having received freedom, he automatically received citizenship, often he already had a large fortune. To some extent, the freedman's position was a bit detrimental. On the other hand, a former slave could easily enter the civil service - except that the upper levels of a bureaucratic career were closed to him. But many former slaves became much richer than free people.
What were the media then?
From the end of the republic, there were so-called "Official Gazettes". They were oral, but from the time of the first emperors, a tablet with brief official information was posted in the center of Rome. There was practically no other flow of information. There were rumors, rumors. The simplest Romans generally knew little about what was happening at other ends of the empire.
Today, there is a lot of shouting about the total decline in morals and the violation of family values. And indeed - the stars of the porn industry are no longer persona non grata, but lead auto races, pedophile scandals with frequency have already overshadowed financial scandals. But those who exclaim - "where the world is heading!", do not even suspect what a chaste society we actually live in.
Here in the days of antiquity, the world still fell into tartarara. What was the norm for the ancient Greeks and Romans would shock us. So, an excursion into the times of ancient customs.
I came, I saw, I had
To understand the psychology of the people of that time, you need to familiarize yourself with their myths.
For the Greeks and Romans wrote their gods from themselves, so the behavior of the celestials is the embodiment of the innermost desires of mere mortals. Greek myths are not recommended for children under the age of sixteen to read. There is so much sex, gore, and violence that XXX-level porn films seem like an innocent transmission of “Good night, kids!”. Take Zeus (among the Romans - Jupiter), the ruler of the sky, thunder, lightning, in charge of the whole world. This sexy terrorist cheats on his wife Hera left and right and is guided by one thing: to fertilize everything that moves. For the sake of this, he is ready to become at least a carcass, at least a stuffed animal. He loves women and men equally: in the guise of a snake he seduces Demeter and Persephone, in the skin of a bull - Europe, under the guise of a swan - Leda, pretending to be an eagle - the beautiful young man Ganymede, in the guise of an ant - Eurymedus, as a dove - Phthia, in a fiery guise - Aegina, as a satyr - Antiope, under the guise of a cloud - Io, in the guise of a hedgehog ... no, it seems that there was no hedgehog. But even the underground bunker, where Danae was hidden from this maniac, is not an obstacle for him. Zeus turns into golden rain, seeps through the ceiling and enters her womb. Well, what do you want? The guy has a bad heredity: dad is a god-eater. His father Kronos swallowed his children so that they would not be overthrown, and Zeus was not digested just because the wise mother slipped her husband a stone wrapped in diapers instead of a newborn. However, Zeus' dad threw out worse things. Since his own father Uranus mistreated mother Earth, Kronos once ambushed his parents' bedchamber and, at the very moment of his father's orgasm, waved a sickle in the balls, revealing his dearest thing. He threw the reproductive organ of his father into the sea, thanks to which the beautiful Aphrodite was born.
Yes, I will disappoint the beautiful ladies, who are sure that the goddess of love appeared from the sea foam, tender and fragrant, like the German remedy Badusan. Everything is much more brutal. Here is what the researcher of ancient culture Hans Licht writes about this: “In the oldest source (Hesiod, Theogony), the following is unambiguously stated: “For a long time, a member was worn on the sea, and white foam emanating from an immortal member whipped around it, and in it Aphrodite was born. That is, the genital organ, cut off at the time of sexual intercourse, was full of semen, which is now erupted outward, giving birth to Aphrodite, into the sea and together with the sea. There is no hint of sea foam here.” Now imagine for a moment that for the people of the ancient world, all this is by no means a fairy tale. This is a story as real as the Tatar-Mongol yoke is for us. The ancient Greeks did not doubt the exploits of Hercules and were equal to the gods in everything - from deeds to sex.
No sex minorities
The first thing that would strike us in ancient society is the absence of a firm sexual orientation. The Greeks and Romans were not divided into heterosexuals, homosexuals or bisexuals - they were all-sexual. Even to bestiality (from ritual to everyday), they were quite tolerant, because their sexually preoccupied gods did not shy away from it either. This can be confirmed by the myths about Leda and the swan, the Minotaur, Triton, insatiable goat-legged satyrs, centaurs and ugly cynocephals - people with dog heads. All this is an echo of the sexual contacts of the ancients with representatives of other biological species. For the ancient pagans, sex was not a sin under any circumstances. On the contrary, it is a priceless gift from the gods. It was they who made man sexually omnivorous, and in Plato's famous dialogue "Symposia" it is said how it was. Zeus, when creating a person, immediately relied on three sexes: a man, a woman, and a husband-woman (androgyne). He divided each sex in half - that's why those who came from the original man are looking for their soul mate in the form of men, who came from the original woman - they prefer women. And only from the androgynes did men who love women, and women who love men, lead their race. So love for one's gender is natural and pleasing to God in Hellas and Ancient Rome. They didn’t even have special words corresponding to our “gay” or “lesbian”. But the personal name Pedophile was. And the ancient Greeks did not see anything reprehensible in it (as in the phenomenon itself).
Platonic love
The ancient Greeks would hardly have appreciated the common modern joke that “a pedophile differs from a teacher in that the former truly loves children”. Pedophilia and pederasty were the most important part of the intellectual, spiritual and physical development of a young man. Method of education, sanctioned by the state. Upon reaching the age of twelve, every Greek teenager was to acquire a senior mentor who would show him all kinds of courtesies, give gifts, admire his beauty and instruct in all male virtues, acting as a guardian, adviser, friend, coach and sexual partner. The younger in such pairs was called "ait" - the listener, and the elder - "eyspnel", the inspirer. And it was considered a violation of duty for a man not to attract a young man to himself, and for a young man it was a shame not to be honored with such friendship.
By the way, those who consider the expression “Platonic love” to be synonymous with love without physical contact will be curious to know that according to Plato, the highest manifestation of love is a harmonious fusion of the spiritual principle and the physical bodies of the mentor and student. "Platonic love" is homosexual love. The Greeks considered homosexual love to be more sublime and deeper than the relaxing and pampering of men love for women. The world of ancient Hellas is a man's world. The woman in it is a lower being, unable to satisfy the intellectual needs of men. It is suitable only for childbearing and carnal pleasures. While high thoughts are open to young men, that is why high relationships are possible only with them. A beautiful young man is always preferable to a Greek to a beautiful woman. No wonder Plato writes in Protagoras: “The youthful color of a twelve-year-old boy makes me happy, but a boy of thirteen is preferable. The one who is fourteen is an even sweeter flower of Eros, and even more charming is the one who has just turned fifteen.
The sixteenth year is the age of the gods, and wishing for seventeen years is not my lot, but Zeus's ... " Stratoy echoes him: "Neither the luxury of hair, nor curly curls attract me, if they are not produced by nature, but by the zeal of art. No, I love the thick dirt on the boy, who is fresh from the palestra, and the gentle sheen of his body, moistened with fresh olive oil. Love without embellishment is sweet to me, and artificial beauty is the work of female Cyprida. No one could convince the ancient Greek of the educational benefits of pederasty, because it was from the pederasts, in their opinion, that the best defenders of the fatherland grew up. After all, a man in love with his partner did not run away from the enemy, but fought fiercely for his beloved until the very end. And this is true. The elite Sacred Squad, formed in Thebes, consisting of 150 love couples, heroically showed itself on the battlefields and completely died in the battle of Chaeronea. Finally, everyone in Hellas knew that homosexuality is good for health. The famous Hippocrates was two hands for homosexual relationships, because "for adult men they bring youth and health, and masculinity and other positive qualities of an adult man through his seed are transmitted to adolescents." True, there were limitations. Homosexuality is the lot of free citizens, slaves had no right to have sex with free-born boys. Male prostitution was also not welcomed - it was believed that a person selling his own body for money would easily renounce the general interests of the state. Rome, having adopted sexual customs from the Hellenes, was also very loyal to homosexuality. Edward Gibbon, an 18th-century English historian, speaking of the first fifteen emperors, states that "Claudius was the only one whose taste in love affairs was completely natural." All the rest cohabited with boys. Moreover, the emperor Hadrian, passionately in love with the teenage Greek Antinous, after he drowned, officially deified him and erected statues of him throughout the empire.
The law is harsh
Nevertheless, neither the ancient Greeks nor the ancient Romans can be called adepts of free love. They had strict rules about sexual behavior.
A Roman citizen could indulge in any sexual fun with women, men and teenagers. But - subject to two conditions. First: in an intimate relationship with a partner, he should always dominate. Be active, not passive. A passive role in anal sex was considered a disgrace, since the citizen becomes "effeminate" and, having lost his virtus (courage, valor), turns out to be useless in civil and military terms. In the army, passive homosexuality was considered a crime; a soldier convicted of it was simply beaten with sticks. In civilian life, those who liked to play a passive role were contemptuously called “kineds” or “patikus”, lowering their legal status below the plinth. Like prostitutes, gladiators and actors, passive homosexuals did not have the right to vote in elections, nor could they represent themselves in court. The second rule: the subject of a citizen's sexual desire must be at a lower social level than he is. This was dictated by purely economic reasons: so that the appearance of an illegitimate son of the same rank would not jeopardize the hereditary rights of legitimate offspring. If both rules were observed, no one would ever reproach a Roman for his sexual addictions.
Kama Sutra for Slaves
The sexual life of married couples in ancient Rome was quite insipid. Although in the Roman house they openly talk about sex, hiding nothing from the younger generation. Often the wife and husband, having retired to the bedroom, do not even pull the canopy over the bed. Everyone can see the act of intercourse between the owner and the mistress - up to the domestic servant, who continues to calmly clean up the house. However, a number of restrictions were imposed on the relationship between husband and wife in bed. It would never occur to a wife to ask her husband to give her oral sex. Nor would her husband have asked for it. Oral sex between equals was taboo in ancient Rome. I will say more - for this they were deprived of citizenship. A free Roman could enjoy, but not deliver it. It was considered shameful and indecent. But this taboo did not apply to slaves, freedmen and non-citizens. And therefore, an ancient Roman citizen, like an ancient Roman citizen, could get their own by resorting to the services of lower ranks. They could call a slave or a slave, go for inaccessible caresses to the nearest brothel, but they could not get them from their legal spouse.
As archaeologist and historian Alberto Angela writes in his excellent book A Day in Ancient Rome, “The Romans were just obsessed with their mouths. For them, the mouth is something noble, almost sacred. It is a social instrument because people speak, address each other, exchange information, make speeches, and therefore, it must be pure and undefiled. In the Senate, the mouth generally becomes a political tool. Therefore (...) to accuse a senator of having had oral sex, to call him a Fellator, is to inflict a grave insult on him. It was tantamount to a charge of treason for having defiled a mouth that had such an important function in the service of society." In this vein, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, which almost cost the US president his chair, looks curious. A man endowed with serious power allowed himself to be satisfied orally by his subordinate. Was in his right. If Clinton had lived in ancient times, he would not have had to apologize to his wife or pay lawyers. But Lewinsky would not have turned into a celebrity and a millionaire, but would have been on the same level as slaves and prostitutes. The doors of decent houses would close before her forever...
Handmade
Christian theologians and priests have for centuries frightened masturbators with a madhouse and a cemetery, claiming that masturbation leads to dementia, blindness, stomach cramps, diarrhea, consumption and epilepsy. And the Greeks saw masturbation as an outlet. Masturbation reduced, in their opinion, the number of rapes, the number of illegitimate children and suicides about unrequited love, so it's a useful thing. They loved to depict such scenes on vases, and their language had an amazing number of words to reflect this concept, including the poetic “sing a wedding song with your hand” and “fight Aphrodite with your hand.” By the way, the Greeks preferred to use the left hand for this purpose (closer to heart). And don't be afraid to do it in public. In particular, a prominent representative of the philosophical school of the Cynics, Diogenes of Sinop (the one who lived in a barrel, or rather, in a pithos - a hefty earthen vessel for grain). Calling on fellow citizens in the square to be content with little and renounce passions in order to taste the serene joy of being, he often lifted up his tunic and began to masturbate, accompanying the action with a wise maxim: “Oh, if I could just as easily, rubbing my stomach, get rid of hunger and need” . Women in this area did not lag behind men. In the bedroom of every Greek woman there were devices called baubons or olisbs. These dildos were made everywhere, but the best were considered self-satisfiers from the city of Miletus, from where they were exported throughout the Oikoumene. Women were proud of them and often exchanged among themselves. So, in the sixth mimiyamba Geronda, entitled "Two friends, or a confidential conversation", the girl Metro complains that her friend Corrito had a wonderful olisbe, but she, not having time to use it, handed it over to her friend Evbula, and she gave it to someone else , which is a pity - after all, Metro would really like to get this instrument, since it was made by a skilled craftsman.
Loyalty is a relative concept
According to Euripides, the Greeks were the first of the ancient peoples to observe the principle of monogamy, believing that bringing many wives into the house was a barbaric custom and unworthy of a noble Greek. But at the same time, adultery in antiquity applied only to women. The betrayal of a wife was severely condemned, and the husband had every right to kill her lover, and sometimes herself. Society turned a blind eye to her husband's betrayal and the presence of many concubines.
As Hans Licht writes, “Greek public opinion was unaware of the arguments by which one could condemn a man who is tired of the eternal monotony of married life and seeks rest in the arms of an intelligent and charming courtesan or who knows how to brighten up the daily routine with a conversation with a pretty young man.” And it is impossible not to admit that in this the Greeks were more moral than we are, since they recognized that a man had a penchant for polygamy and acted not secretly, but openly.
Therefore, the poets praised the ideal of an understanding woman who did not interfere with her husband's love affairs. For example, the Greek had every right to even fall with friends in the company of girls to his home - in this case, the wife was supposed to show modesty, retire to the women's part of the house and patiently wait for the end of the feast. In Sparta, treason was actually welcomed. This small and warlike state was vitally interested in increasing the number of warriors strong in body and spirit. Moreover, older Spartan husbands could delegate their marital duties to younger men they chose, since each of them equally disposed of both his own children and strangers.
In Rome, the laws of Augustus provided for strict punishment for adultery, for adultery with another's wife, but men were not punished for concubinage, for having sex with a concubine. And, of course, every man of the ancient world had every right to visit brothels. After all, communication with a prostitute was not considered treason at all.
Night butterflies
Neither Ancient Greece nor Ancient Rome knew the lack of brothels and prostitutes. The ancient world looked at corrupt love without prejudice. It is necessary, useful, profitable. Moreover, it is very beneficial for the state budget.
Brothels in Greece were under the supervision of city officials, and the owners of brothels were required to pay an annual tax to the state. The Romans treated visiting brothels in much the same way as we do visiting public latrines. He walked, pressed, went in, went out. At the same time, the wife could easily wait for her husband in the tavern opposite and even ask him not to hurry. It seems wild to us. For the Romans - completely normal. After all, they did not see adultery in this. A husband became an adulterer only when he had sex with his equal. And the rest - how to relieve yourself, how to brush your teeth. Therefore, a Roman matron could easily, bored, gnaw a peach in her room, while in the next room her husband, with wild cries, frolicked with might and main with a slave or a slave. And she was not at all shocked that in the evening he went with his friends to blow off steam at the nearest brothel. The brothels (they were called lupanaria) in the Eternal City were like dirt, and they all worked on the principle of an assembly line, which Henry Ford himself would envy. To speed up customer service and automate the process of providing sex services, the owners of lupanariums have even introduced special tokens - spintrias. They were made of bronze, less often of bone, and resembled coins. On one side it depicted sexual intercourse, on the other there was a number. The position depicted on the spintria corresponded to the service rendered by the prostitute for this token, and the number - either the price or the number of the booth. There is no consensus among historians on this matter. However, the price was ridiculous. On average - 2 asses, like a glass of cheap wine. Child prostitution was also widespread. Entire farms of laborers and sex workers flourished in Rome, the owners of which bought child slaves and raised orphaned children for prostitution. Their sexual use was permitted by law, for which taxes were regularly paid to the treasury. Moreover, the rape of a pimp of a slave or a slave was not punishable.
In Rome, the laws of August provided for severe penalties for adultery, but every man in the ancient world had every right to visit brothels. after all, communication with a prostitute was not considered treason at all.
Size matters...
The image of the phallus on the streets of ancient cities was almost more common than today the word of three letters on the fence. The phallus was idolized. He was worshipped. The Greeks placed in front of temples and houses square columns with a male head and an erect sexual organ, which, in their opinion, guarded roads, borders and gates. The Romans preferred huge stone members, which were installed in squares, streets, in front of houses and taverns. They were cut down on the walls of porticos, on pavements, hung over children's cradles, bakers' ovens, they were an integral part of the landscape of gardens, fields and orchards. Bronze phalluses (and often whole bunches of them) with bells inside were hung from the ceiling of the dwelling or at the entrance. They were called "tintinnabulas" and rang when they were touched. And everyone who passed by touched them, because otherwise he risked losing his luck and health. And all because the people of antiquity believed that an erect penis is a terrible force. He was for them a symbol of prosperity, prosperity, abundance, fertility and fertility. A symbol of victory, wealth and success in business. In addition, the phallus, as a source of seed and life, was attributed the magical ability to drive away troubles, misfortunes and scare away evil spirits. And if a Christian, faced with something terrible and unknown, today exclaims “the power of the Cross is with us!”, Then the ancient Roman would have invoked phallic power for the same purpose. Therefore, the first thing that an ancient Roman boy received as a gift from his parents was a rattle in the form of a penis and a fascinum - a stone, bronze or bone image of the phallus, which he wore around his neck like an amulet, sometimes adding to it, for reliability, also the image of a fig, fig - an ancient symbol of sexual intercourse. And in life, the ancient Romans, like the Greeks, preferred a member of a modest size. They considered a large manhood to be impractical, unaesthetic and even comical. What is easy to see by glancing at the ancient statues. Dangling between their legs is by no means an XXL miracle, but a device that requires tweezers and a magnifying glass to study. Almost child size. The ancients believed that size is not the main thing. The main thing is the love heat and the ability to fertilize. And they believed that for this, the shorter the device, the better. Aristotle wrote that a short penis has a lot of advantages: it looks more beautiful, the seed has to travel a shorter distance, and therefore it reaches its goal more accurately. Logics! The theater was an exception. In the Eternal City, performances of acrobatic sex began to be in demand - a kind of analogue of modern film porn. The actors on the stage tried to impress the audience with their incredible poses, which put the Kama Sutra to shame, and the audience tried to see everything in detail. Therefore, in these shows (shown in between classic comedies and tragedies), actors with huge penises were appreciated. After all, they could be seen even from the distant rows. Ancient people were reverent about penis hygiene. They regularly washed it, anointed it with oil, and before performing physical exercises they subjected it to infibulation, namely: they pulled the foreskin over the head and tied it with a ribbon so that, God forbid, it would not be damaged. So the antique fitness room looked much funnier than modern ones: a crowd of naked men - and each member with a bow.
Beautiful Ass Goddess
If we talk about the canon of female beauty, then the tastes of the ancient Greeks and Romans were close to the tastes of today's Caucasians. They appreciated curvy blondes. And in order to be competitive with the fair-haired German slaves, women invented many ingenious recipes. Wigs, citric acid, onion peel, milk and even lime were used. And since light, shiny skin, according to men, testified not only to aristocracy, but also to passion, women tried not to sunbathe and washed themselves with goat and donkey milk.
However, to be considered a sex bomb, more was required. A low forehead, a straight nose and large bulging eyes were needed, and the distance between the eyes should have been at least the size of one eye, and the mouth should have been one and a half times the size of the eye. In addition, wide hips, powerful thighs, a chest that fits into a man's palm or a little more, and a slightly overhanging bulging belly were needed. These forms were considered perfect, as they served as a guarantee of fertility. Great attention was paid to the buttocks. The Greeks generally had a clear fad about this. They idolized Aphrodite Callipyga - Aphrodite Beautiful-assed, built a special temple for her and regularly held competitions in her honor to identify the best callipyga of Hellas. These beauty contests of female asses were incredibly popular in all Greek policies, the sirloin excited Greek men clearly more than women's breasts. By the way, the familiar symbol of a heart pierced by an arrow comes from Ancient Greece. But it has nothing to do with the anatomical heart. This is a stylized part of the female ass, and the arrow piercing it is one of the oldest phallic symbols. Draw your own conclusions ... The second Greco-Roman fad in the field of sexual and aesthetic preferences was hairy vegetation. They could not stand it, they considered it a terribly unaesthetic sign of barbarism. And everywhere - and on the legs, and under the armpits, and in the genital area. Their ideal was a woman with a clean-shaven bosom, and the men did not care at all about the torment with which this was achieved. And here women can only sympathize. Thus, the comedian Plato speaks of “myrtle bushes plucked by hand,” and according to Aristophanes, women often used a lit lamp or hot ashes for this purpose. Beauty requires sacrifice. At least in this we are united with the ancient world.
Dmitry Lychkovsky
