Apartment Living in Ancient Rome

When you consider Ancient Rome (as I’m sure you often do) it is a wondrous thing to see their system of architecture and bulding dating back to the age of the “Early Empire” from ca. 27 BC to 192 AD. I choose this time when talking about “apartment living” inside Rome because this was the era of perhaps the thickest concentration of people within the city, itself – and I think anyone who has lived in an apartment will appreciate the Roman take on urban dwellings.

In Rome, during the age of the Early Empire, you would have seen things like the the “arch” and the “vault” and the “basilicas” being used in architecture. Actually you would have seen this much earlier in Rome, but let’s stick with the Empire… knowledge of these structures allowed the Romans to construct massive works that would connect the people of the city with each other. The sheer workings of the “aquaducts” during this time was impressive – nearly fifty miles of clean water ran beneath the city of Rome and millions of gallons of water ran through the city every day. Amazing, too, were the public baths – these were the spas of the day, let me tell you, and hot, steaming water was coupled in the same square with cool, sparkling water for leisure and refreshment, and (ahem) bathing.

The temples during this time were astounding, too, and the Augustus’ “Pantheon” was gorgeous with its columns, the arch, and a towering dome that stretched into the sky. This was rebuilt many times due to the constant fires inside Rome. You also had the “Colosseum” (of course!) which was perhaps one of the greatest structures in the ancient world. This was the arena for the gladiators and it also served as a vast stage for things like battles, plays, and mass executions of war prisoners.

The apartments, then, were just as massive as these public constructs… if not as adequately built. Because of the sheer number of people crowding the city the apartment buildings tended to be built upward, with many floors, and they became tottering structures against the Roman skyline. Unlike today’s world, where you might aspire to live on an upper floor, in Rome you were facing the possibility of several hundred steps to reach your abode, and if fire broke out below (as it often did) you had little chance of escape. The bottom floors, too, had the only running water. Roman tenants were forced to carry water up long, fragile flights of stairs, and this meant little bathing and perhaps no real removal of waste. Indeed, the “dumpings” were often dumped out a window and left to collect on the streets below. No glass as yet covered the windows; instead, the Romans would use cloth or leather or even wooden shutters. This tended to close out natural light and locked in the smoke (and fire) from cooking… which was done on an open stove. An apartment might have a bed, and this is where people would sit, sleep, and eat. Chairs were more like stools, and blankets or pillows made up the rest of the furnishings. A family of four or five was usual for a small apartment room.

If you couldn’t be found at the baths or the colosseum (or working) you were usually found inside your apartment – it was not safe to walk the streets during the night, as they were not lit, and many Romans would retire to bed as soon as the sun went down. The massive city would come to a very quiet halt during the wee hours, and people would live by the dim fire of lamps inside their homes. They slept in the bed or on the wooden floor, and it was not unusual to have a small gathering of animals inside the apartment, either. So much for the TV, the Playstation, the gas range, the fridge, the laundry or the shower, right ??

The threat of fire was constant in Rome. In 64 AD perhaps the most famous fire engulfed the city; it is not true that Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned – in fact, he was responsible for organizing mass relief efforts with royal money as he ordered shelters and food and supplies for the Roman people. Rome burned uncontrollably for almost six days and merchant and living districts were razed to the ground.

It is interesting that a response to such danger was to simply build the apartment buildings higher and higher… I don’t think this is surprising, really, given the constant reconstruction of the Pantheon and other great buildings in the Empire. The Romans were expert builders, of course, and there were always more and more people eager to fill the apartments. Just like in modern times, yes? (SMILE)

A Gentleman's Duel

You see this guy on the $10 Bill and you might wonder (asI’m sure you do) just who he was and what made him tick and what happened in 1804 to cause him to become engaged in a late afternoon gunman’s duel that would cause his death… yes? Shot through the liver by a gun in the hands of Aaron Burr… right? You’re telling me you don’t have a lot of $10 bills these days? I understand. Believe me, I do. But let’s take a look at an interesting duel, anyway.

In 1800 the US of A was having a rather heated Election. History sometimes views this as a sort of minor “revolution” in American politics, and I think this is probably true. It was a time of division and splintering as Americans decided on what the country might become – Republicans appealed to the “farmers” in the South and West while the Federalists won over the “merchants” and “manufacturers” in the North. One group wanted the country to remain agricultural and supply Europe with food, the other wanted a broad industrial base. This is over-simplistic, but to see the broader background you have to see these two factions and understand that they were bitter, bitter opponents.

The Election of 1800 came down to Thomas Jefferson (Republican) and Aaron Burr (Federalist). The two men would tie for votes in the Electoral College and the election was thrown into the House of Represntatives. It would seem they decided (perhaps) on the lesser of two evils and support was given to Jefferson to become the president. It is interesting that Alexander Hamilton was a key figure in this process: he believed Jefferson to be a “gentleman” whereas Burr was a dangerous, uninhibited, and even vile opponent. Hamilton campaigned hard against him. And
Aaron Burr would not forget or forgive this… nope, not at all.

Burr was a schemer, that is certain. He was Jefferson’s vice-president (a practice of the time) but in 1804 was dropped from Jefferson’s second presidential ticket. I say Burr was a schemer only because I really don’t like him; you will see why in a moment. For now, Burr was trying to get elected governor of New York. This was an important state in the Northeast, particularly when this region (New England) was talking about actually seceding from the Union. (It’s interesting that this is a common theme in American History – people believed in their right to secede).

Anyway, Hamilton launched an impressive smear-campaign against the vile and dangerous Aaron Burr. It ended up costing Burr the governership. At a public dinner Hamilton went further and actually chastised the “uneducated” and “base” politician. He called him all sort of unpolite names, lashed into him, and embarrassed him in front of everyone. Poor Aaron. He didn’t like this, not one bit. Furious, and perhaps with spittle on his lips, he challenged Hamilton to a duel. And how cool is that? A real gentleman’s gunfight, with black longcoats and manners and everything!

The two met, late afternoon, on July 11, 1804. They took several paces across a dusty street, backs to each other, and upon turning, Hamilton’s first shot missed his opponent. Aaron Burr’s shot was not a miss, nope, not at all. It was a direct hit to Hamilton’s side and the bullet would slice through the man’s liver, causing massive bleeding and internal damage. It would take Hamilton a horrible thirty six hours to die from the wound.

Burr, meanwhile, fled from the Northeast; he was charged with murder and the authorities were after him. It gets kind of dicey here, with Burr retreating to the South, and stirring up ideas of a secession there, where it is rumored he was trying to seize territory in Louisiana. But he WAS busy, certainly, for three years; it is possible he was trying to forment rebellion in the South and West. He was arrested in Spanish Florida in 1807 and returned to Jefferson’s custody. On trial for murder (and now, treason), Aaron Burr was acquitted, in what was akin to a political circus on the scale of our own modern-day O.J. trial. Jefferson (and his Republicans) wanted Burr to hang; the Federalists wanted him set free. Poor Alexander Hamilton, resigned to his future fate on $10 bills, wanted to take another shot at his foe. In the end, Burr was set free and it was “suggested” he leave the country. He retired to England, and then France, and in 1836 would die from a bullet-wound to the heart. Oh! Not really. He had a massive stroke and died from complications.

.

The Misunderstood Guillotine

It is summer in Paris, and the year is 1793. A throng of people twists and turns through narrow streets as shouts of happiness and shouts of glee echo against buildings that are lit by a June afternoon’s bright sunshine. There is a palpable beat of anticipation. There is a tremor of excitement as the people are carrying pikes, pots, sticks, and drums. The smell of meat roasting on open spits mixes with a more immediate and pungent smell of sweat… this is a carnival of death and the gathering men, women and children are vying for the best view, the best seats, and the quickest way toward the merchants selling ale and bread before the main attraction begins. There is a glint of sun catching the guillotine’s blade; it is a crescent blade, and sharp, and is already stained red from the previous day’s festivities. Hundreds of pairs of eyes are drawn toward the guillotine, raised atop its own platform… here is the “Razor,” the “Madam Scythe,” and below, being marched toward their death, a group of white-clad prisoners who are also squinting against the bright sun.
This is an Era in French History that included the French Revolution and Robespierre’s own “Reign of Terror” – I think it’s interesting to look at the instrument of this terror, the Guillotine, and try to understand what its original purpose was meant to be. Of course, it is a pretty cool little contraption that chopped off a person’s head whenever someone else thought this should have to happen, you know, but it was originally designed with a more humanitarian slant (sorry) in mind.
Before the invention of the guillotine, political prisoners (and thieves and brigands and such) were being put to death in a variety of painful ways. A man could be drowned, strangled, hanged, put to the wheel (too ghastly to even go into) or burned at the stake. The method of decaptitation involved an executioner with what was sometimes a dull sword or a dull axe, and it was necessary to repeatedly “chop” at a person’s neck. This often resulted in suffocation from a crushed windpipe or the loss of blood… it was also made worse if a person flinched or moved just before the strike fell.
Influenced by the “Enlightenment,” in which a man’s ability to “Reason” an “Rationalize” gave rise to new methods in Science and Philosophy -– it would be a French physician who set out to eliminate cruel and inhumane forms of punishment. Antoine Louis (primarily) would develop an easel-like structure which would allow victims to lie on their stomachs, face-down, while above them a crescent-shaped blade was being moved upward by a series of pulleys. The blade would fall quickly, severing a person’s head, and within 10 seconds they could be pronounced dead. Oh, wait. I forgot that a basket was nearby to catch the fallen (um, decapitated) head. This was important. And, in an Enlightened effort, this new tool was tested on animals, more animals, humans, and then more humans.
The guillotine was opposed by many intellectuals of the time who feared the growing power of the state; interestingly, Robespierre was himself an opponent to the tool. Others, like the artist Marat, (you know him, he was murdered in his bathtub) approved of the state’s right to use the threat of death against its enemies. I guess Robespierre, architect of the “Reign of Terror,” came to agree with him – between the summers of 1793 and 1794, the guillotine was dispatching nearly a hundred people every day.
What is interesting is that the guillotine was intended to become a humane tool used for executions. It was certainly a more humane method than dropping a rock-bound person in water or burning them at a stake, don’t you think? Unfortunately, the guillotine, in war-torn France, became a grim machine that symbolized all that the repressive and violent revolution had become. During Robespierre’s “Reign of Terror” as many as fifty thousand people would lose their lives to the constantly falling blade. That included King Louis XIV and his (perhaps) dim-witted wife, Marie Antoinette. The nobility, however, constituted only a slim fraction of those who were killed. It was more likely that the blade would find a member of the new “burgeoise,” or a worker, or a half-starved peasant… possibly those same people who found themselves in the early summer crowds.

Dining with the Peasants

Okay, so imagine you are a person living in medieval England around the year 1100.
You are a peasant, working a manor-field, and your back is hurting from constantly spading strips of hard-packed earth. You can see the manor-house in the distance, and you see the sun falling over towers and catapults made from stone. You’ve been working since the first slivers of pink sun broke the horizon this morning… now it is past mid-day and you’re starting to wonder what you will have for dinner. Already the smell of meat turning on a spit has wafted through the air. Your stomach churns.

In 1100, unfortunately, you were living on the edges of starvation. You could expect to reach your thirtieth birthday if you were fortunate; having survived many bleak, harsh winters you were adept at scavenging for things like nuts, berries, roots, herbs, nettles, and wild grasses. You probably also realized the importance of bark from the forest trees… this could be ground into a fine powder and mixed with your meager supplies of flour. Sometimes you would make a cake from this bark-flour and it would be warmed over a bed of hot rocks.

You were happily resistant to things like dirty water, tainted meat, molded bread, the cold, the heat, and (for the while, until 1348) fleas and rats. You lived close to the land, even if it was not yours, and aside from the “sport-hunting” of the nobility in the forests… you came to poach in those same wilds in order to preserve your very own existence.

If you were able to get meat it was usually in the form of rabbit or deer. (The word “venison” comes from the Latin root “venor” which means to hunt) You might choose to roast the rabbit or deer meat over a large spit; you might also choose to make a pie from the innards of the deer. Unlike your future generations of descendants, you were used to eating extremely lean meat. There was no real fat to be had, and you might count yourself lucky not to have a high cholesterol count.

Sometimes you might get a chicken… but poultry was reserved as a luxury food for the nobles, so you would have to take care in your poaching habits. The nobles were able to make a watery chicken broth and chicken soup from their stock. And you could smell it, sometimes, when you were working in the manor-fields. Probably best to turn to the teeming forests and look for things like pigeons and other game birds.

Bread was your mainstay, as long as there was enough grain to be harvested. And you also had a staple food with your pigs, as long as they remained fed on the grains you could give them.

You might also catch a fish now and then, and things like eels, pikes, minnows and lampreys were common. These were more like slimy snakes with the raw taste of oil and water, but you might find a way to eat them when mixed with your flour cakes.

You might also find a very able way of complimenting foods when you considered the common drinks known as “Mead” and “Ale.” If you preferred Mead (and who doesn’t) you were taking in very sweet mixture of fermented honey and water. Mead was also made with things like clove, ginger, and various fruits or berries that could be found. If you preferred Ale, you were drinking a beverage that was safer, even, than water. Grains could be mixed with water and soaked for days to make the brew, and like Mead, mixtures of herbs could be added. Because of the natural fermentation processes, these mixtures tended to have a powerful alcoholic punch.

The nobles may have had wine, but you preferred your Mead and Ale with your buffet of rabbit roast, deer pie, eel, and flour cakes. Wine was kept in rotting wooden barrels, anyway, and the thick, almost meal-like consistency was not the way to wash down your dinner. Not after you’d spent the whole day toiling in the manor-fields, right?

The Death of William's Sons

My friend LK said he was left feeling “flat” after the Athens post; I said that it was only a quickie, and that he should enjoy those, but he shook his head in utter disagreement.
We can take a look at couple of William the Conqueror’s sons, how’s that? They had good times.
And most excellent deaths… oh, yes.


In the Era following the conquest of Saxon-England by the Normans you had the reign of William I – we know him as William the Conqueror – from 1027 to 1087 AD.
Richard I would have been king, but died young.
William II became king of England in 1087.
Henry I became king of England in 1100.
It is an interesting time in the study of History because you’ve got the transition of England into one of the strongest of the new “kingdoms” in Europe, and also the very strong personality of William I, himself. You begin to see changes in English law, in politics, and the centralization of a king’s authority over distant shires and regions. You also see an intense period of the building of fortifications and institutions as William the Conqueror attempted to cement, with bricks and stone, his absolute control. He is an interesting character, of course, and maybe later I’ll post about his heroics in the Battle of Hastings or his “Domesday Book” – but for this post (LK!) I want to tell you about his immediate sons, and their almost immediate deaths.
Richard I was William the Conqueror’s second son. It is possible that his older brother, Robert II, was responsible for his death. There is scant history here, but young Richard was killed in a hunting accident in 1081. He was hunting a deer, he was attacked by a deer, he was mauled by a deer… little is known of what actually happened to him while he was in the “King’s Forest,” but I can tell you that he went in alive, and came out dead. Signs posted might have said “You aren’t in Sherwood Forest anymore” but I’m not sure that Richard could read them, anyway.
William II, also known as “William Rufus,” was William the Conqueror’s third son.
He was chosen over his older brother, Robert II, who had warred with his father and was under suspicion for the unusual death of Richard. As King, William II was unpopular with the people, and he displayed an extremely violent temper. He was aggressive, quick to fight, and eager to war – he was ruthless in his battles against his brother, just as he was ruthless with any of his own nobles who would not bow down to him. It is also suggested that he was gay… I believe this is true, but it’s not terribly important. More interesting are the circumstances surrounding his death. Like Richard, William II was an avid Huntsman. He, too, went into the “King’s Forest” (hunting grounds stocked exclusively for the nobles) and was soon separated from his hunting party. He was found dead, days later, with an arrow in his chest. It is possible that he was shot by his companion that day… but given the fact that everyone in his hunting party was an excellent marksman, it is probably not true that William’s death was an accident. I have a hunch that it was his younger brother, Henry, who plotted this out. We’ll talk about him next.
Henry I would become King TWO DAYS after William’s death. In a twist, Henry was also known as “The Lion of Justice.” He was perhaps more able to be a “King” of England, and he formed a Charter of Liberties whereby kings, themselves, were subject to laws. He also appointed the first officials in the shires, known as “Shire-riffs,” or “Sheriffs.” His own son would have followed him to the throne, but in a family plagued with strange tragedies, young “William III” drowned in the English Channel. It would be left to Henry’s daughter, “Matilda,” to carry on after her father’s death… and in 1135 he would die from eating too much fish. Well, okay, it wasn’t because he ate too many fish; it was because the fish he DID consume had been poisoned. No trek to the woods for this King. Nope. Instead, Henry the Lion of Justice was poisoned (most probably by his own daughter) and England would be plunged into a war of succession pitting Matilda (grand-daughter of William I) against Stephen of Blois (the grandson of William I).
In the years following the death of William the Conqueror’s sons England would find itself embroiled in the “Nineteen Years War” and a bitter struggle between Matilda and Stephen. Both would have each other imprisoned, and both would escape in dramatic fashion. This Era after the death of William’s sons was traumatic, and it is often referred to as the “Nineteen Year Winter” in early English History. With the death of Stephen’s own son “Eustace” in 1153, Matilda’s son “Henry” would become the next king.

An Athens Quickie

Here is a quickie on Athens, to compliment the quickie on Sparta – I think we’re having fun, right? Even if Gyros are almost five dollars now?
Athens was a mirror opposite of Sparta. I would say they were character foils, but Athens was given to a frequency of warring with her neighbors, often times playing the role of aggressor… and because I like the guys from Sparta better, well, I will just say Athens was a mirror opposite
During the “Classical Era” (500BC to 325BC), Athens was a fertile ground for public life, public culture, and an emerging group of thinkers who would forever change Western History. Just take a look at these guys and you will sense what I mean when I say that this Era was a seed-bomb for future centuries. Oh yeah. You reap what you sew.
You’ve got Sophocles, Aeschylus, and Aristophenes.
You’ve got Herodotus and Thucydides.
You’ve got Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
You know these guys. If the Spartans were rock-stars in leather, these guys were the rockin’ thinkers in sandals and white-draped togas.
Sophocles is famous for his Greek Tragedy – he was writing the “Oedipus” plays around 430 BC, and by this time, already, a tradition of dramatic plays was being performed for audiences of thousands. Aristophanes, a contemporary, was writing political plays that, disguised as comedy, satirized well-known men inside the city of Athens.
Herodotus wrote about the History of the wars between the Greeks and the Persians, and his contemporary, Thucydides, wrote a detailed account of the Peloponnesian Wars between Athens and Sparta. He is one of my personal favorites.
Socrates is well-known, if not from Bill & Ted, then at least from his own trial, where he was found guilty of corrupting Athens’ youth. Before he calmly swallowed hemlock he gave us his famous ideal, “Knowledge is virtue.” He is also known for constantly professing his ignorance when saying “I know… that I do not know.”
His student was Plato, and Plato was one of the most important philosophers we have ever known. Plato gave us a Theory of Forms, and he is famous for his “Apology” and “Dialogues.” Unlike his mentor, Plato was fond of censorship and believed only a small group of people might benefit from his teachings.
His own student, Aristotle, is THE most important philosopher… that’s my opinion, of course, but I’m a student of History, you see, so I’m not supposed to make judgements like that. Just trust me that Aristotle was the most important and it will be fine. Aristotle was also a teacher, and he wrote many hundreds of “Treaties” dealing with things like politics, ethics, poetry, botany, physics, metaphysics, astronomy, rhetoric, logic, and philosophy.
I think it’s amazing that we find these great thinkers together in the same time and place.
Athens was gold when compared to its mirror-mate, Sparta. It was a gold mine for thoughts and ideals and was also the very heart of what we understand a “democracy” to be. Life in the “Polis” inside Athens was a remarkably free and dynamic one. And Athens gives us our first glimpses of what a popular form of government might look like. Compared to militaristic Sparta, yeah, I’m giving Athens some gold stars. You remember this when you discover “Oedipus” or “Antigone” sometime. Or when you watch Bill & Ted.

A Spartan Quickie

(I promised something more on Texas, and I posted it last Friday, but after re-reading it I thought the *Struggle for Texas* deserved more than a one-blog posting. Perhaps even more than ten postings -- so with apologies to my man Santa Anna, I retracted my Friday post)

We can always talk about the Greeks – they’re a bunch of fun. We remember them from early World Civ class, don’t we ? And the Greek-Fest ? (Amy, where’s the Loukoumades?) So, take a moment to consider Sparta in 650 BC. If you were unlucky, you were one of the thousands of unfree laborers taken forcefully from Messenia. These were the “Helots” with whom Sparta warred constantly. These poor people (the Helots, that is) were forced into a harsh slavery that provided them with only a threadbare, minimum quality of life. If you were lucky, you were born Greek *AND* you survived a quick inspection at birth. This was an overall Greek practice, but was particularly employed by the Spartans. If a newborn was deemed unfit (no hair on the head, extra toes, extra fingers, or even a birthmark) it would be abandoned to the hillsides. This, effectively, meant that an infant would be sacrificed to the wolves. (Good luck to me, I was born a “blue” baby in ’71 sometime) But – Sparta. Here was a militaristic state, rugged and disciplined, and given to the ideals of harsh training, harsh loyalty, extreme toughness, and a grit-determined strength. Children were given only a glimpse of their childhood – at age 7, boys were taken from their families and sent to live with a “herd” of other boys ranging through age 18. This would be their new life (for the rest of their life) in a professional military state.
Spartan training was intense, and young boys were expected to develop a tolerance to extreme pain. Broken bones were mended, swords were wielded, military drills continued, and soon these children were being sent into the forests of Messenia to make their own way… indeed, they were abandoned, in small groups, and left for months at a time. Here they made their way by hunting, foraging, raiding, stealing, and sometimes murdering any of the “Helots” they might come into contact with. (Yeah, this was even before the “Lord of the Flies” !!)
Spartan boys were also given to older men who “sponsored” them – homosexuality was not an uncommon reality for the Greeks. It is not surpsising that Spartan society was so open with this; it seemed to be a part of their outlook on the state, itself. Spartans, after all, viewed themselves as “true Greeks” and it is not surprising that a theme of “die for Sparta!” would allow for a group of herded young men to seek solace in one another. (I’m being careful here, you know I am)
Anway, these young Spartan soldiers were permitted to become full members of the military at age 20. They could marry at age 30, and were expected to serve Sparta (ahem) from the ages of 20 through 60. There was an intensive two-year training period from age 18-20, but little is known of this. If a young man was lucky enough to survive, he could expect to be pressed into the military immediately.
I'll post later about Athens, the home of art, literature, drama, and philosophy, but for now I want to sit back and think of the movie *300* and the scantily-clad Spartan warriors in those leather skirts. Oh, yeah. And, of course, I will remember their historical importance. It's not just the skin, you know!! Spartans were the rockstars in Ancient Greece.