Session 1 - Introducing ancient Rome
It's not easy to sum up why and how Rome came into being as a powerful political entity. It certainly wasn't predictable or inevitable, if you consider the geopolitical map of 400 BC. Groups like the Phoenicians and Greeks occupied much more territory and were far richer.
If you focus in on the situation in the peninsula of Italy, the future success of the Rome becomes even harder to explain. See the tiny red splodge on the map to the right? That's Latium, the territory of 'the Latins', who were as you can see were one of a number of small groups who were completely overshadowed by the Etruscans and the Oscans.
It's easy to find information that lists how and when the Romans took over territories. For example, see this rather old webpage: http://www.cleo.net.uk/resources/displayframe.php?src=209/consultants_resources%2Fhistory%2Fcleoromans%2F
But no source that I've come across sufficiently explains why the Romans were effective conquerors - exactly what was it about the Roman way of organising that paved the way for the success to come.
Putting some thought to this, and in my own language, I can only suggest that it was the Roman centralisation of authority in the city of Rome itself that made the difference. Etruscans, Greeks and Phoenicians didn't create a single territory, but instead were loose affiliations of semi-competing, occasionally-cooperating city-states. In contrast, we don't talk about the Latins - we talk about the Romans. Everything focused back onto the Roman capital. A single identity driving a single purpose. Maybe that gave the Romans the cutting edge as conquerors.
Here's a useful summary of the Roman conquest of Britain: http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romanbritain/a/timeromanbrit.htm
If you focus in on the situation in the peninsula of Italy, the future success of the Rome becomes even harder to explain. See the tiny red splodge on the map to the right? That's Latium, the territory of 'the Latins', who were as you can see were one of a number of small groups who were completely overshadowed by the Etruscans and the Oscans.
It's easy to find information that lists how and when the Romans took over territories. For example, see this rather old webpage: http://www.cleo.net.uk/resources/displayframe.php?src=209/consultants_resources%2Fhistory%2Fcleoromans%2F
But no source that I've come across sufficiently explains why the Romans were effective conquerors - exactly what was it about the Roman way of organising that paved the way for the success to come.
Putting some thought to this, and in my own language, I can only suggest that it was the Roman centralisation of authority in the city of Rome itself that made the difference. Etruscans, Greeks and Phoenicians didn't create a single territory, but instead were loose affiliations of semi-competing, occasionally-cooperating city-states. In contrast, we don't talk about the Latins - we talk about the Romans. Everything focused back onto the Roman capital. A single identity driving a single purpose. Maybe that gave the Romans the cutting edge as conquerors.
Here's a useful summary of the Roman conquest of Britain: http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romanbritain/a/timeromanbrit.htm
On the right you can see Sarah Duffy, who discovered the Roman altar in the photo - the first such find made in over 150 years in Manchester.
You can see the real thing in Manchester Museum.
A good discussion of how Manchester's archaeology was rediscovered in the 20th century can be found on Mike Nevell's blog: http://archaeologyuos.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/the-making-of-post-war-manchester/
A huge amount of local archaeology was destroyed as our industries bloomed. Makes you think what might have been.
We looked at the altars on display in Manchester Museum, including the altar that Sarah uncovered, pictured above. This gave us a link to looking at the inscriptions and general layout of a typical Roman altar, and a bit of Roman text-speak. In this case, the abbreviation we focused on was VSLM, found on many altars. Or if you feeling exceptionally grateful to the gods, VSLLM.
'Votum Solvit Libens Merito" = 'fulflled his vow freely (or willingly), as it should (be done)"
Adding in an extra 'L' - short for the word 'laetus' - adds 'happily' or 'joyfully' to the inscription.
You can see the real thing in Manchester Museum.
A good discussion of how Manchester's archaeology was rediscovered in the 20th century can be found on Mike Nevell's blog: http://archaeologyuos.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/the-making-of-post-war-manchester/
A huge amount of local archaeology was destroyed as our industries bloomed. Makes you think what might have been.
We looked at the altars on display in Manchester Museum, including the altar that Sarah uncovered, pictured above. This gave us a link to looking at the inscriptions and general layout of a typical Roman altar, and a bit of Roman text-speak. In this case, the abbreviation we focused on was VSLM, found on many altars. Or if you feeling exceptionally grateful to the gods, VSLLM.
'Votum Solvit Libens Merito" = 'fulflled his vow freely (or willingly), as it should (be done)"
Adding in an extra 'L' - short for the word 'laetus' - adds 'happily' or 'joyfully' to the inscription.