Chariot Racing in the Roman Empire

 

Fik Meijer was professor of ancient history at the University of Amsterdam for fifteen years (1992-2007). His book about chariot racing in the Roman Empire was published in Dutch in 2004. The English version (translated by Liz Waters) appeared in 2010.

The main text is divided into 11 chapters, which cover different topics and events. In the beginning of the book there is a chronology. At the end there are notes, a bibliography, and an index. There is also a list of Roman racetracks and a glossary with technical terms.

What about illustrations? In the beginning of the book there are two maps (the Roman Empire and the city of Rome). In addition, there are 22 black-and-white illustrations placed throughout the book (19 photos and 3 drawings).

At first glance this book seems to be well-researched, well-written, and well-produced. If you take a closer look, you will find that this is not true at all. There are many flaws (factual mistakes and serious omissions). Let me explain:

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

John D. Muccigrosso reviewed the book for the internet magazine Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2010.11.26). This reviewer has two serious objections. Number one:

“The last chapter seems clumsily tacked on to the rest of the work.”

He is right. The solution is easy: the chapter about the movie Ben Hur should not be chapter 11. It should be a separate appendix next to the glossary at the end of the book. Number two:

“... better use could have been made of the vast archaeological material available, including at least minimal incorporation into the text of the nearly 20 black-and-white images dispersed throughout the book.”

He is right again. There is (almost) no connection between the illustrations and the main text.

Muccigrosso says: “I found few outright errors.” He mentions the following cases:

(1) “the fourth century AD” on page 29 should be the fourth century BC.

(2) The circus built by Maxentius is called “Circus Maxentius” - but the correct form is the Circus of Maxentius (pp. 37, 47-48).

(3) The Roman underclass is described as “Plebeians” (page 2), which is unfortunate, when we are dealing with the imperial period.

(4) The Roman emperor, who ruled 218-222, is called “Heliogabalus” - but he is usually known as Elagabalus (pp. 47, 66, 125).

UNRV Roman History

Philip Matyszak reviewed the book for the website UNRV Roman History (October 2010). This reviewer has three general objections:

(1) The structure of the book is unfortunate

(2) Juvenal’s famous complaint in Satire # 8 about the high earnings of the charioteers is not quoted

(3) The author’s personal opinions about the social relations of the Roman Empire are not always backed up the evidence

I agree with Philip Matyszak on all three counts.

Additional mistakes

These critical remarks are merely the beginning. To them I will add the following observations:

(1) Page xii - the chronology for the year 69 says: Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were emperors. But Galba ruled from 68 to 69, while Otho and Vitellius ruled in 69.

(2) Page xii - the chronology for Antoninus Pius says: 136-161. But this emperor ruled from 138 to 161.

(3) The map of the Roman Empire in the beginning of the book shows Cyrene on the coast of North Africa, but Cyrene is located inland, ca. 20 km from the coast. Apollonia served as the port of Cyrene.

(4) On page 9 Meijer describes the attack on the imperial palace during the revolt of 532:

 

“Not even the Hagia Sophia ... built there by Emperor Constantine was spared.”

 

This is not true. The first church (known as the great church) was dedicated in 360 during the reign of Constantius II (long after Constantine's death in 337). It was destroyed after riots in 404. It was rebuilt, and the second church was dedicated in 415 during the reign of Theodosius II. This is the church that was destroyed in 532, and it has nothing to do with Constantine.

(5) On page 51 Meijer mentions Constantine again and says:

 

“As his center of government he chose the city he had founded himself, Constantinople...”

 

This is not true. The city on the Bosporos was founded by Greek pioneers ca. 600 BC. They called it Byzantium. In AD 324 Constantine announced that he was going to move the capital from Rome to Byzantium, and preparations for the move were made. Six years later (330) the new capital was dedicated. At the same time the name was changed to Constantinople. The first name was Byzantium, and the author knows this, because he mentions this name on the very same page (and on page 5). If he knows this, why does he claim that Constantine founded Constantinople?

(6) On page 163 there is a note from the translator Liz Waters:

 

“Most passages from ancient texts have been translated by me from the Dutch...”

 

This approach is extremely unprofessional. Every time you add a link to the chain, there is a risk of a mistake or a misunderstanding.

(7) In the bibliography (on page 173) a Dutch translation of a French book from 1939 is listed. Why list a Dutch translation of a French book in an English book? The book in question by Jerome Carcopino is so famous that it has been translated into several languages, including English: there is a Penguin edition from 1991. This edition should be listed in an English book, not a Dutch translation.

(8) Sometimes Meijer contradicts himself. In the text (on page 1) he says: “The number of monographs on the subject is limited...” But in the notes (on page 163) he says: “There are several excellent studies...” He cannot have it both ways. Either the number is high or low. The text is correct. The number is low.

(9) On page 172 (and on page 56) the Latin term hortator is defined as a “member of staff of a faction who passed on orders from the stable to the horses on the racetrack.” In fact, a hortator is a person, who cheers somebody on. If he had to pass on a message, it would not be to the horse but to the charioteer.

(10) On page 172 (and on page 56) the Latin term sparsor is defined as a “member of staff of a faction who sprinkled the horses and drivers with water.” This is very strange. It is not easy to sprinkle water on a chariot as it races by you. In fact, the sparsor sprinkled the sand on the track with water in order to minimize the amount of dust in the air (this problem is mentioned on page 158).

(11) On page 44 Meijer mentions an obelisk and says:

 

“In 1587 ... Pope Sixtus V transferred the obelisk to the Piazza del Popolo where it now stands at the center of the oval piazza.”

The year is wrong. The Egyptian obelisk was moved to the square and raised there in 1589. Sixtus V (pope 1585-1590) managed to move and raise no less than four obelisks: the first (St. Peter) in 1586, the second (Esquiline) in 1587, the third (Laterano) in 1588 and the fourth (Piazza del Popolo) in 1589.

(12) On page 89 we are told the charioteer Pompeius Muclosus won 3,599 victories; Muclosus appears again on page 148, only this time the figure is 3,559. Which one is correct? The answer is the lower figure. The source, which Meijer does not provide, is ILS 5287 (section 19).

(13) On page 142 Meijer mentions the fourth crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204:

 

“Only the four big bronze horses crowing the starting stalls were spared…”

But the famous horses are cast in copper, not bronze. See Charles Freeman, The Horses of St Marks (2004, 2005), pp. 175, 184-185, 262-264.

(14) Meijer claims the circus of Leptis Magna measures 450 x 70 m (pp. 49, 161). He has confused the exterior and the interior dimensions. The outside dimensions are 450 x 100 m, while the inside dimensions are 420 x 70 m.

Captions

(15) Many captions are incomplete, because they do not tell us where the item shown was discovered and where it is now (if it was moved to a museum). The caption on page 59 says: “A charioteer holds his horse by the bridle.” This mosaic is one of a set of four. Another mosaic from this set appears on page 100. Today the set of four mosaics is on display in the National Museum in Rome (Palazzo Massimo). Why is this not mentioned?

(16) The caption on page 80 is incomplete and moreover false. The caption claims the winner of a race gets an olive branch, but this is not true. In the mosaic shown on this page we can see he gets a palm frond. On page 72 there is a quotation from Sidonius Apollinaris, who says: “Now the ... emperor calls for palm fronds ... to reward the performance.” In this case Meijer contradicts his own illustration (the mosaic) and his own source (the quotation from Sidonius).

(17) The caption on page 87 says: “Head of a charioteer.” Where is it from? When is it from? Where is it now? Do we know who it is? Meijer does not even try to answer any of these questions.

(18) The caption on page 113 says: “A relief on a panel from a sarcophagus, depicting a chariot race...” Where is it from? Where is it now? Meijer does not even try to address these questions.

(19) The caption on page 123 says: “Nero.” It would be difficult to have a shorter caption than this.

(20) The caption on page 124 says: “Commodus.” Meijer does not say anything about this bust of Commodus, which is on display in the Capitoline Museum in Rome - Palazzo dei Conservatori – in the Room of the Tapestries. Commodus is portrayed as Hercules, even though he had a frail and skinny body. Meijer does not attempt to describe or analyze the ancient bust.

(21) The caption on page 126 says: “Caracalla.” It would be difficult to have a shorter caption than this.

Omissions

(22) On page 49 Meijer says the best-preserved Roman circus is in Leptis Magna in Libya. This is true. There are nine lines about it, but there is not even one picture of this circus.

(23) On page 51 Meijer says the smallest Roman circus is in Gerasa (Jerash in present-day Jordan. This is true. There are two lines about it, but there is not even one picture of this circus (which has been partially restored). If you go to Jerash and visit the ancient city, you will discover that chariot racing has come back to this place. Local people perform races (almost) every day. In addition a small group of “Roman” soldiers put on a public show in the arena. It is quite interesting and instructive.

(24) There is a famous mosaic, which shows a chariot race in a Roman circus, in a Roman villa called Villa Silin in Libya (not far from Leptis Magna). This mosaic is not shown in the book. It is not even mentioned.

(25) There is a famous mosaic, which shows a chariot race in a Roman circus, in a Roman villa called Villa Romana del Casale, ca. 3 km from Piazza Armerina in Sicily. This mosaic is not shown in the book. It is not even mentioned.

The movie Ben Hur

(26) Chapter 11 is about the movie Ben Hur (as mentioned above, the reviewer of BMCR complained about this chapter, because it is not well connected with the rest of the book). In this chapter Meijer describes the chariot scene and tries to evaluate its accuracy: “Is it a faithful reconstruction?”

Some things in the movie seem to be accurate. If we take a closer look, we will find that they are not accurate at all. There are at least six points we can use to demonstrate that the scene with the chariot race is not a faithful reconstruction. I will present them here, one by one. I will see if Meijer mentions the point and if he mentions that it shows a lack of accuracy.

(A) The number of drivers

The Romans usually had 4, 8 or 12 drivers in a race. In the movie there are nine teams. Meijer mentions the nine teams, but fails to say out that this number is very strange.

(B) The starting boxes

The Romans started the race from starting boxes (carceres). In the movie the drivers start from a line on the track. Meijer mentions this point: “Least realistic is the starting line” in the middle of the track. He fails to mention that the movie set actually has some starting boxes, but they are not used to start the race; they are merely used as a waiting area.

(C) The chariots

The Romans used a light and small chariot (which weighs only 35 kilo). In the movie the drivers use a heavy chariot (which weighs more than 200 kilo). Meijer mentions this point, and says it is wrong.

(D) The spina

In the Roman circus the spina dividing the racetrack into two sections is abaxial. In the movie it runs parallel with the walls of the auditorium. Meijer mentions the spina, but fails to say that the spina is incorrectly placed.

(E) The number of laps

The Roman race comprised seven laps, which were counted by eggs or dolphins. In the movie the race goes on for nine laps. A few times there is a glimpse of a counter with nine dolphins. Meijer does not mention that a race with nine laps is strange. He fails to mention the incorrect counter with nine dolphins.

(F) Dirty tricks

The Romans allowed some dirty tricks, but there was a limit. In the movie Messala has a chariot with jagged blades. Meijer mentions this point, and says it is not a faithful reconstruction.

To sum up: using six points to evaluate the historical accuracy of the chariot scene, we can see that Meijer succeeds only two or three times. In other words: his attempt to evaluate the historical accuracy of this scene is not very successful.

Repetitions

(27) There are many repetitions in the book, which could and should have been avoided. Here are three examples:

(a) The number of seats in Circus Maximus is given six times: the low number (150,000) four times (pp. 1, 32, 38 and 92); the high number (250,000) two times (page 39 and in the notes on page 166).

(b) The Roman Emperor Constantius II placed an Egyptian obelisk on the spina of Circus Maximus. This fact is mentioned twice (pp. 37 and 44).

(c) Maxentius built a circus next to Via Appia, south of Rome. This fact is mentioned twice (pp. 37 and 47-48).

The final verdict

While this book is an easy read, it is not a good read, because there are so many flaws. My expectations were high. Unfortunately, they were not fulfilled; and therefore my conclusion has to be: Chariot Racing in the Roman Empire is a disappointing book about a fascinating topic.

* * *

Fik Meijer,

Chariot Racing in the Roman Empire,

Translated into English by Liz Waters,

Johns Hopkins University Press, hardcover, 2010, 185 pages

 

* * *