Swords & Knives (also: spies and jam)

[bunn]

1) People in Britain didn't usually get buried with their stuff in the fourth century, so we don't know how common it was to carry a knife
2) But we think possibly there might be more knives found in comparison to other tools in Britain in the C4th.
3) There are very few swords, but that's OK because iron things don't survive well in Britain
4) Anyway, swords were dead high status things and almost nobody had one.
5) therefore everyone was re-arming like mad, only with knives because swords were so hard to make.

Is it me, or does that not entirely make sense?  If iron things don't survive well, how come there are all these knives (if there are loads of knives, which seems unclear).   And if swords don't survive well, how do we know almost nobody had one? And how big does a knife have to be before you can call it a sword anyway?  OK, big souper dooper pattern welded watchercullums are probably hard to make, but at what point during the process of taking some iron and giving it a pointy end does it become 'a sword'...? 

While I'm at it, why do people assume that making horseshoes, by comparison to swords, would be dead easy?  I would have thought making shoes for animals that all have different feet and gaits and are liable to get expensively and dangerously injured if you get it wrong would actually be quite hard.  And I speak as one who tried to make her greyhound wear rubber boots, with a striking lack of success. :-D


Skipping back a couple of centuries, I am intrigued by Hadrian's Frumentarii secret service, but wish to put a cherry on the top.  Would it be ridiculous to invent a Senatorial secret service working in parallel and sometimes at cross purposes with the Imperial one? 

In other news, I am unconvinced by rhubarb jam. It doesn't seem to be very... jammy. It is more like a pie filling in a pot.

Comments

[thecatsamuel.livejournal.com]

Cassius Dio goes on into Hadrian's principate (Greek, later) and the Historia Augusta (garbage, but fun).

The bit that's worrying me (and I am your neurotic reader writing a chapter of my PhD on emp and senate here) is that Hadrian is, himself a senator. He always presents himself as working with the senate, albeit with special imperial privileges such as calling meetings and speaking first. He would be advised by a council of senators outside formal meetings. So he simply would not permit a group of senators to "set up" their own group or network even if they were not seditious. Emperors generally were very suspicious of faction and discouraged groups forming that were perceived as a threat - there is legislation and edicts on this.

In an earlier period, you did get lots of delation (informers) but that's not a feature of "good" emps as they won't allow malicious prosecutions.

Palace bureaucracy is the preserve of slaves and imperial freedmen but that is complimentary to senatorial bureaucracy. Mommsen's theory of "dyarchy" (power split between senate and emp) is now totally outdated. Most simply put, the emperor keeps control through his personal authority but his position is still that of a senator among senators.

So any organisation such as you have in mind would have to be completely sub rosa and involvement would expose them to the risk of a treason trial with penalties of loss of property, execution, loss of family name, damned to the memory. It would be very high stakes for them.

Ok I will stop boring on but I hope that is useful for creating something convincing. It's more entertaining than thinking about senatorial processes!

[bunn.livejournal.com]

That's very helpful, thanks. I think I need to decide what exactly I want this group to do.

If I decide to get them involved in the death of Antinous, which is one idea I was vaguely playing with, then they fit the 'prepared to take the risk of treason' model so I can put them in. But that might be overcomplicating matters. I *think* I've thought of a different approach to create the internal conflict I was looking for. It means extending the role of the imperial covert stuff a bit but probably not inventing quite so riskily...

[thecatsamuel.livejournal.com]

Rather belatedly - have you read Pliny's letters? He is a senator slightly earlier than this, mostly writing under Trajan. Book 10 contains his letters as proconsul (governor) in Bithynia, referring questions to Trajan, with the replies (probably preserved by Suetonius) and a good insight into relationships and practicalities of administration.

Also, Letter 6.31 is an account of Pliny and a group of fellow-senators acting as assessors for Trajan and a very good account of how the power structures worked outside the formal proceedings in the Senate.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I have read a few extracts, but not the whole thing: that definitely sounds like something I should read properly & make notes about before I go further, thanks!