My research focuses on Rome during third and second centuries BC; it was during this period that Rome achieved hegemony over the Mediterranean during intensive and seemingly constant warfare.
My book is Soldiers and Silver: Mobilizing Resources in the Age of Roman Conquest (University of Texas Press, 2020). Here is the publisherβs blurb:
By the middle of the second century BCE, after nearly one hundred years of warfare, Rome had exerted its control over the entire Mediterranean world, forcing the other great powers of the regionβCarthage, Macedonia, Egypt, and the Seleucid empireβto submit militarily and financially. But how, despite its relative poverty and its frequent numerical disadvantage in decisive battles, did Rome prevail?
Michael J. Taylor explains this surprising outcome by examining the role that manpower and finances played, providing a comparative study that quantifies the military mobilizations and tax revenues for all five powers. Though Rome was the poorest state, it enjoyed the largest military mobilization, drawing from a pool of citizens, colonists, and allies, while its wealthiest adversaries failed to translate revenues into large or successful armies. Taylor concludes that state-level extraction strategies were decisive in the warfare of the period, as states with high conscription and low taxation raised larger, more successful armies than those that primarily sought to maximize taxation. Comprehensive and detailed, Soldiers and Silver offers a new and sophisticated perspective on the political dynamics and economies of these ancient Mediterranean empires.
My other research deals with various aspects of Roman military history, including visual representations of Roman victories, Roman military equipment, the social and political status of Republican-era centurions, and Roman infantry tactics.
Please, ask me anything!
N.B.: I am on dad duty until the after dinner---my answers will start rolling in around 7:00 PM EST--tune back then!
Update: It is 11:30 PM and my toddler gets up in six hours, so I am going to call it a day. I've enjoyed all of the thoughtful questions!
Bill: We're having an emergency pod tonight to talk about this Julius Caesar thing with Ryen Russillo. It's 9pm Pacific time on the Ides of March. Ryen were you as shocked as I was to see Caesar's mini-dynasty just end out of nowhere? I mean five years in and it looked like he was going to give Russell's Celtics a run for their money and then all of sudden it ended faster than Shawn Livingston's knee ligaments.
Ryen: I mean I was on one hand but on the other hand I'm not. My sources in the senate were saying for months it was just a matter of time before something went down. Really if you're a student of history you know that those with absolute power do not last very long.
Bill: Yeah like when the Celtics made Rick Pitino both head coach and head of basketball operations. You think someone would have figured out by now that it's a bad idea.
Ryen: Exactly. I was thinking more like Philip II of Macedon but that's a good analogy as well.
Bill: So let's get into the whole Brutus thing. Did he really need to stab Caesar 23 times and have 60 people involved? Seems like you want to just put your best five guys down there at crunch time.
Ryen: I guess you can't argue with the results. Back before we had replay, they might have stabbed him 10 times and called it a day. We wouldn't have had to spend all that time making sure he's really dead.
Bill: Brutus is a little like Haliburton in some ways. Solid, not going to be a dictator himself but makes sure to get everyone involved.
Ryen: The thing I want to know is -- did the soothsayer know about this ahead of time? I mean telling Caesar "Beware the Ides of March" is good and all but that could mean a lot of different things.
Bill: It's like me and my daughter. I told her she was going to score three goals on Saturday and she did. It could have been a pro-a-motion but it could have also been the adrenaline from driving 107 mph without a seatbelt and drinking four cups of coffee.
Ryen: So where do we go from here? I mean Mark Anthony seems solid but I don't know if I can trust him with the whole Cleopatra thing.
Bill: Yeah it's kind of like if Lebron's career ended when he was with the Cavs. Sure he was a dictator and not at the level of Alexander the Great but the offense needed to flow through him for it to work. It's just not the same with Matthew Dellavedova handling the ball. What about that guy Octogonian? Seems like he knows how to run a republic and has the same agent as Julius Caesar. A little fris
... keep reading on reddit β‘
The past few years has shown increasing internal political and social instability in the United States. Furthermore, the foundational institutions and principles of the United States is on a clear down swing, with significant amounts of people in positions of power in the government themselves causing severe dissension.
Many of the norms previously taken for granted will be questioned. For example, now that there is precedence, any time something like an incumbent president loses or even any real close election, there will be allegations of fraud and wrongdoing as expedient concessions become less common. At some point, these allegations may/will succeed. Or if a president gets elected, but Congress is in control of the opposing party. Some state legislators have already proposed eliminating the popular vote of the presidency in their state. Every tight election will have an undercurrent of risk that it will be declared fraudulent and thrown out. This of course, was an almost unthinkable worry 8 years ago, and at some point the undercurrent will become real.
All this leads me to believe the US is essentially experiencing the same decline the Roman Republic and other similar states have experienced in the past. The US may still exist in the future in name, but if it does, it will not have the same principles and political structures as it did in the past, similar to the Roman Republic to Roman Empire. This demise may happen quickly like the Weimar Republic, but more realistically may happen slowly over many years/decades like Rome as various standards and institutions get eroded. I am not saying US' deterioration is 100% analogous to the Roman Republic, since obvious much differs. But to borrow Mark Twain, history is currently rhyming.
I hope this is not the case and I am being pessimistic. CMV
Edit: To clarify, my analogy is referring to the beginning of the decline of the Roman Republic starting maybe around 135 BCish. Not the actual civil war era of Caesar significantly later.
Edit 2: Some commented wanting more specific examples of parallels between the Roman Republic and the US. Now, I am not an in-depth expert on Roman History, so please CMV and correct me if I got anything wrong.
Instead of obviously subverting the Roman Republic, the things the Roman politicians did were often technically 'by the books' up until the end, but they just violated unwritten norms and weakened Republic institutions. For example, Tiberius Gracchus. During Tiberusβ
... keep reading on reddit β‘
https://preview.redd.it/7bt1igvvaws61.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=aecc832dc7ed8608229072063fb30b60f29485c6
If you have anything you can inform us about wedding attire during the Republican period, I'd love to hear it, for instance, how the attire might differentiate with class. Patrician, non patrician noble, equite, pleb.
Thanks in advance
What exactly did it take for a Roman citizen to get rich around the turn of the millennium? I've heard that Crassus bought burning houses and also owned a lot of silver mines, is that accurate? Was he able to buy houses simply by verbal agreement, or is there a paper trail for real estate deals? In general, what did day to day life consist of, for a Roman involved in business? And what kind of sources are available?
I've read in other threads in this subreddit that Crassus was not as rich as some people (such as Plutarch) claimed he was. However, I'm still impressed by how rich he was able to become without inheriting a huge amount or being very militarily successful. I'd like to learn more about how exactly he, and similar wealthy citizens, managed to do it.
I want to know who you think was the greatest general of the Roman Republic apart from Caesar, because I think we all know he'd completely dominate this poll. If your choice is not on the poll, feel free to leave it in the comments.
While I, like many people find the History of Rome fascinating and its glory, whether on the battlefield or its architecture. I'm more interested in its legal system. I feel like it's an underrated topic when it came to Rome.
How did the court system function during the Roman Republic? Are there documented examples of cases that occurred during the Republic, if it's documented at all?
Is there any book talking about different styles or something? What about gauls and germanic tribes?
i mean both science in general or natural science (including mathematics) to be more specific.
it seems that all major powers and/or great nations that lasted for a large amount of time advanced science in some way. the greeks, chinese, hindus, muslims, europeans, and americans all advanced scientific understanding in some major way but i cant recall anything for the romans
I just finished reading I, Claudius and Claudius the god. It presents Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius as mere citizens who wanted to step down but kept ruling to ensure stability. Was the role of emperor seen as a temporary emergency measure, similar to the role of dictator during the republic?
