A pain in the ass from the saddle😂

However they did use birds to send messages as the quickest way to send crucial information. I think they learned this from the Egyptians.

@@itsmeaustin9561 You are joking, right?

Messenger owls, like Harry Potter? Oh, yeah, more likely pigeons...

@@pawelpap9 doesn’t take a phd to do a little research. How else did Ceasars news of each campaign reach Rome lightning fast before Roman roads were built in Gual. It’s how the new pharoahs of Egypt were announced to the far away territories in their kingdom ect.

I don't know where you're from, but for me it has never taken more than maybe 2 hours to get a passport.

It takes months where I'm from too to get them.

​@@sebastianwolfmayrtakes upwards of 6 months in mantioba Canada

​@@brandoncampanaro7571 now its back to normal in Quebec but last year when i did it it took 7months and I had to show up prove them I had a flight in 48 hours for them to produce it in 24hours...

​@@sebastianwolfmayr The United States is horrible about handling passports. Mine expires this month and I am upset to have to deal with the renewal process.

I assume a crisis that big would cause exemptions.

Yeah, good thing no modern civilization used anything fragile or easily lost, like paper. Or still do, in places further from major nations. Or central witnesses like some sort of judge or priest, who could die.

An easy solution would be to provide a small amnesty window, where those claiming to be from Pompeii can have new documents issued, also provided that they're in the area at the time, rather than coming from some other region into Rome. If you're from Pompeii and were travelling, and just came back to Rome, then you'd probably have corroborating evidence that explains your travel. Plus you probably met a few people in Rome during your travels who can support your claims with evidence.

witnesses were a normal requirement in rome, they probably had mechanisms in places against this, they weren't stupid

Most likely he did!

I was thinking of this the entire time.

Makes sense; that status would confer privileges not available to ordinary persons. The passage in question implies that he was carrying some kind of proof, or could easily produce it.

Not necessarily, though. Paul was not some random stranger - he was a Pharisee, grew up in Jerusalem, was educated by one of the most prominent Rabbis of his time, and had a certain notoriety among Jewish leaders in Jerusalem (at least according to Acts). Also, the passage in question in Acts 22 makes it clear that he _didn't_ have some certificate on him, he just claimed to be a citizen - but the officer didn't proceed with whipping him anyway just as a precaution in case he might actually be right. Afterwards, Paul stayed under house arrest for two years during which people had access to him, and he regularly talked to the governor - which was ample time to produce any evidence of his citizenship if the governor wanted to.

​@@varana It's also worth noting that being asked to prove your citizenship status would've been relatively uncommon, and once you had then it would be common knowledge among local authorities.

That rests on the assumption that bureaucracy is the highest form of existence.

this is tyranny at the beginning

@@pawelpap9 Also presuming that this level of governance extended to everybody when much like every empire Rome was terrible for much everybody who wasn’t privileged, or a citizen.

@@leplus1 As opposed to? You should be careful not to fall into anachronisms. In Roman society everybody had a status that was regulated in legal terms, and that included slaves. One could move between social strata. Slaves could own property and buy or earn their freedom. There were legal ways to acquire citizenship. That of course suffered sharply from social organizations of tribes living behind the Danube, where the chieftain was simply the strongest guy who could simply knock your teeth out if he disliked you. All that aside from the fact that until rather recently life of most if not all people was short and brutal. Lack of anything resembling modern medical care was one of the reasons.

@@pawelpap9 slaves couldn't own property. They could be granted peculium, which is some property they look after, but it belongs to pater familias. The same with sons of PF, they couldn't own property unless they were emancipated. Slaves were legally things (res), and they didn't have rights and couldn't buy their freedom. However, there were cases, where you could make someone slave for some time (if you are PF and your child caused damages, you give your child to the familly they caused the damages in and they are slaves until they make up for it) Those slaves had some privilages and rights, but it was not nearly as common as normal slaves.

Love it. Funny as hell.

Biggus Biggus Dickus

Ahem. You appear to have your facts wrong, citizen. It was Naughtius Maximus who was the lowly soldier in the Jerusalem garrison, whereas Biggus Dickus was an upper-class Roman who lived in Rome and who rubbed shoulders with governors.

@@volodymyrboitchouk ahh, thank you kindly, I’ll look into his work!

@@camerongrey3643 comment deleted, who/what was the source you were happy to find?

Older than that

Thank you! Saved me 7 minutes of waiting around for the video.

@@themysticalcolby Max's info, while perhaps true, is quite different from the video's. I put the speed on 1.75X, and watched it a touch over 4 minutes.

@@earlysda Duly noted, ‘preciate the heads up.

@@themysticalcolby what exactly are those 7 minutes doing for you that your attention span was too degraded to watch a video

@@Rockzilla1122 reply to nosy comments i guess

Harder, but not impossible. Communities were smaller and more tightly woven than today, everyone was part of a network of family and associates who could vouch for them. I'm the son of so-and-so, or [insert local notable person] knows me and can speak for me, I'm traveling from out of town but I'm staying with Lord Whatshisface who knows my father. Someone who didn't seem to know anybody or couldn't identify their family would be regarded with suspicion, might be fleeing from the law or an escaped slave or something like that. Although this is from a much later time period, there was an interesting case in 16th-century France of a man who impersonated someone else whom he closely resembled, and he wasn't found out for years. There's an excellent French movie about it, called "The Return of Martin Guerre".

Lol no bruh more like museums

Their genitals, obviously.😛

At the foot of Trajans Column was the office where manumitted slaves went with evidence and received a token as a libertus or liberta.

You're overcomplicating it. Think more like a King's seal on a letter. The fact the wax hasn't been broken means the letter hasn't been read. It's information is protected. They break the seal ONLY when it comes into question. So when the 2 sides are taken apart you have 2 identical faces & the wax - matching each face perfectly - so 4 sides in a row mirrored to prove it's a secure document. Then you know whatever the document says is true. Then you move to the next step. Reading off the witnesses on it etc & bringing them to court if need be. I would assume in 9/10 cases most people lived in that town or close by. So once the seal was broken 2-3 people would be available to say "Hey I've known him all my life." Case dismissed before we ever get to court. Then they would just make a new record & update it on the spot with new witnesses. Plus the incident itself would create some more people who would know & I doubt it would be raised again. I'm sure there are "curious" cases of this happening in history where identity theft happened as widows tried to claim property & people would ride in from out of town with forged documents to take the lands with "friends" who claimed to be the witnesses. Imagine if you're citizenry was called into question & then you bring 4 witnesses with you & THOSE people are called into question & they bring 2 each & THOSE people are called into question etc. I'm sure at some point someone would say "What are the odds they are all liars? And it would stop." You'd end up with half the town on trial. Eventually someone would bribe someone etc. So it's really not a matter of wax etc. It's actually more of a question of WHO had access to wax & stones & how did they curb forging in the first place? It would seem almost anyone could max such a document. Which defeats the entire purpose of the "security" measures anyway. This was the important information left out that I was waiting to hear. Perhaps we simply don't know.

There's a story about that from centuries ago. Martin Guerre was the person. Went off to war and someone else apparently came back to take his place if I remember correctly.

Probably to prove that it hasn't been tampered with. I'm assuming that, when checked, the wax is replaced with fresh wax, and then probably stamped to prove it was done by the correct authorities.

@@DISTurbedwaffle918 that would make quite some sense. It would be similar to a signature. Many official documents nowadays even still make use of stamps. For example, in my life ive had many paper documents that were stamped in a way to make a 3D logo or writting somewhere on the paper. It makes it harder for a document to be falsified because you cant simply print it. You would need to perfecly replicate the stamp. It is quite possible that each roman archives could had a list of the people who had such stamps authorized to make theses citizenship tablets. It is even possible that each of them had a unique stamp, and a sample tablet of the stamp could been archived. Would a tablet legitimacy be in doubt, they could had compared the stamps to check if the stamp on it matches the one of the person who’s the tablet is claimed to have been made by.

*humans

"All free men in the empire citizens in 212" in reference to the year he made the decree.

​@@LarzAlupheahh thanks! I didn't realize I struggled parsing years from the 200s 😅

I presume most citizens would not be literate. "According to what I gather is one of the most influential studies of the subject, Ancient Literacy by William V. Harris, even in the periods and places where literacy was highest, only 10 to 15 percent of the population was what we would today consider "literate."" Its a very recent development that the majority of people are literate.

Even citizens were not neccessarily highly educated and even those who studied in an academy, may not have been taught to really read or write much. Literacy was a vocational skill taught for specific reasons, like jurists or scribes or administrative people.

No.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f9CTi5Z-u7nIqXU.html

Yes, that’s right. Julius was pronounced yulyus too. J is a medieval creation.

The government did but the laws didn't

Yes, for a while Roman laws were used in parallel with german laws. I one identified itself as Roman he would answer to roman laws, he one identified as german he would answer to german's. But that can only last for so long. As far as I know in northern Italy this would continue, since after Justinian left, roman law would still be largely the base of italian signoria's laws. In fact Bologna's university, the first university of the world (as how we define an university, arabs had similar centers of culture I think), were intellectuals from all europe would learn Jurisprudence and Law, they would be studying the roman laws. In the eastern world the Roman Empire would continue for another 1000 years, and Roman Law would continue without interruptions, then the end of the Eastern Roman Empire would cause a massive migration of intellectuals into Italy, who would kickstart the Reinassance. During the Reinassance, roman art and culture would be seen as a model to imitate. Because of this, you could see most of Western and maybe even central europe laws as a continuation of Roman law. And in a way a continuation of Rome's civilaztion.

Economics. Complex social organization requires $$$. When economy began to decline, it started to collapse into unrest and then dissolution

​@@leonardocontin937Salic law isn't german law

From what I understand, it was more of a systems collapse than anything. To maintain their empire, they needed the money from their territories. However, these territories gradually started to cost more to garrison, build infrastructure in, govern, etc, but the empire needed the money from them all to maintain itself. It was a vicious cycle, they needed to invest money to get the money to invest, and eventually, the costs just rose to a point where neither investment or extraction could continue, so it all just imploded.

Probably you mean Londinium.

@@pawelpap9 Haha - yes

No doubt because if Paul had pushed the matter, he probably could have gotten the Roman commander executed.

Citizenship iron ring.

This was on Malta. A snoop betrayed him and he was taken to the governor, but not tortured because it was illegal to jail or harm a Roman without trial.

@@Joanna-il2ur The story I am thinking about happened in Philippi, when Paul and Silas were thrown in prison without trial for driving an evil spirit out of a slave girl (Acts 16)

It might be faster and wiser to consult a history book rather than wait for a KZfaq video. You’d be surprised how much one can learn just by sitting and reading.

Depends on time and marital status, rights of woman were complicated in rome.

@@Michalosnup I'm sure, but I'd love to see a video on that. :-)

The symbolism of sacking Rome being like shooting someone in the kneecaps is pretty neat

yes. our modern legal system, in USA, is, in fact, based upon the ancient Roman system, partially. Fascinating indeed!

This is presentism, romans wouldn't see it that way. Being roman citizen was a privilige, not right. Their empire didn't work the same as countries function today, and talking about basic rights 1 500 years before there was an idea that every human should have some basic rights really doesn't make sense.

is this some right wing serfdom fantasy?

My 9 year old reads Latin educate your children or we will go the same way as the Roman Empire

lol yeah. We learn about it in law school.

It was the most functional sociatal infrastructure at that time in the entire world.

W

You shouldn’t believe everything you read. The shipwreck account, for instance, is straight out of Homer.

@@kellydalstok8900 Kelly, until you believe the Holy Bible, you will not be able to understand this life, or have hope for the life to come. Please start believing and reading it today.

@@earlysda HAHAHAHAH. Imagin thinking you need to "believe" in a stolen collection of corrupted pagan stories to understand them as such. The Gods give men more hope for this life, and all our futures lives. All you have is a false hope that you can be as mediocre as you want and still earn eternal happiness for doing nothing worthy of it. the desert tribe has made you a worthy slave

@@xShadowChrisx a2, Everything that is, is evidence for God.

@@earlysda you don't know what "evidence" means. Or what "God" is. YHVW is a lie. Mankinds true Gods teach us to prove things scientifically and spiritually, with the powers of our souls. Meditation is the only path to truth, not worthless koans you vomit.

rome lasted for minimally 1 100 years, i don't think this is bad.

@@Michalosnup Good point. Their organization brought their (our) civilization to another level.

In a word, none. Children and slaves were under the "Manus" (Hand) of the "Paterfamilias" - (Father of the family), who had full legal authority over them and could kill them if they wished. (Though generally it was rare and frowned upon for a man to kill his child) Women were originally under this arrangement, however this got repealed when Augustus came into power

@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 I had assumed what you're saying, but this video implies that Roman slaves had (some) rights. I'm aware of the Paterfamilias, etc., that he could even kill his own children, and, I assume, his wife, if she had become part of his family rather remaining part of her own. please, just because I sound like I know more than I do, just because, I believe, that what I'm saying is accurate, doesn't mean that I know much, more than most people, obviously, but not much about Rome. but, in thinking about what you've reminded me of, it seems to me that "rights" have to do with our relationship to government, the Paterfamilias had a right over his family and household within which the government couldn't interfere, but that, say, his sons and daughters, and he himself, had rights regarding the Roman state and its laws, that a slave might have some smaller part of. I'm just wondering what the video presenter meant when she included "slaves" on the bottom of her list of groups of people with "rights" under Roman law. and I'm just not willing to accept that they became Roman citizens upon emancipation, because they'd stop being slaves, i.e., stop being under that category.

​@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 oh, are you aware that adult children were under their paterfamilias, and could be killed, too?

@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 That is not true. For one, they had property rights, meaning slaves could own slaves. Their earning were their own (could deposit money in a bank), not their owners.