phil25
-
Posts
702 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by phil25
-
-
I'll air a topic that has long fascinated me.
Hollywood and many writers/TV documentaries strongly suggest that the gladiatorial combats in the arena were bloody and to the death. That makes them ghoulish and ghastly and attracts a certain sort of viewer, I suppose.
Gladiators have long been an interest of mine - I have spent quite a lot of time in Naples Museum looking at the superb collection of gear there; and in walking around the two gladiatorial schools in Pompeii (well looking through the gate at one!!); and at the remains of the Ludus Magnus in Rome.
It made me think...
We know the Romans loved betting
We know the Romans put a lot into training gladiators (at places like Capua)
We know that gladiatorial TROUPES toured the cities
We know - from inscriptions and graffiti that certain gladiators became well-known (Celadus and Crescens at Pompeii)
But how long would horse-racing last if all but the three first past the post in any race were slaughtered immediately after the race?
How good a standard would any professional sport reach if after any game the loosing team were killed?
How would people know how to bet if they were constantly faced with newcomers, new names and untried contestants/players?
So I have come to the conclusion that, while there were important exceptions when fights were to the death, in the main Roman gladiatorial contests (perhaps in 80% of cases) both fighters survived.
As in modern boxing where a "knockout" can be literal, but also a technical term (ie the fighter does not get up before the end of a count, but remains conscious - perhaps in Roman times, "death" in the arena could be a technical term (and Romans knew the difference).
Figures such as Charon with his hammer appeared in the arena - could a "tap" to the head of a defeated gladiator have equated to a technical "death", as distinct from the term "missus" (let go)?
All this is pure speculation - and we know that some Roman writers hated the games because they were bloody and cruel. But I do think that logic and commonsense argue for a different approach.
I have more i can say on this, but I'd welcome feedback on what I have said so far, and any views, supportive or alternative, from the informed users of this site.
Thanks for reading what may just be my ramblings (and my apologies if this has been raised before - I couldn't find a similar thread),
Phil
-
In the republican heyday, murder was not a usual way of settling political scores. Exile was the usual way of getting rid of rivals who were perceived as too great a threat to have around. The aim was to be seen by ones rivals as suceeding where they had failed, or surpassing them in opena and equal competition.
All that changed with the fate of the Gracchi, of course, but even then the proscriptions of Marius and Sulla were open. As were those of the second triumvirate - no one doubted how Cicero died or who was responsible. Cicero had Catiline's co-conspirators judicially murdered. But there seems to have been no direct threat to Caesar's life at until he crossed the Rubicon - had he laid down his imperium, his Boni enemies would have tried and exiled him. Watching events, stripped of citizenship and rights was a crueller punishment.
Clodius is perhaps one of the few exceptions.
So why do we assume the principiate indulged in murder any more than its predecessor system?
If we look at some of Robert Graves' (or Suetonius') candidates for murder, what do we see?
Marcellus - could easily have died of food poisoning or "plague".
The elder Drusus - war wounds (a hazard of his profession)
Agrippa - was getting old for his time
Gaius and Lucius - died far from Rome, one in the east where disease was perhaps more common.
Augustus - a very old man, his death seems natural, no need to ascribe unnatural causes (as with Tiberius later)
Germanicus was a somewhat hysterical figure - again he died in the east perhaps of an illness caught there. But he had enemies other than Livia and Tiberius. There is also a direct explanation if he was "executed" for treason - his unauthorised and politically dangerous visit to Egypt not long before his death - a forbidden land for senators without imperial prior permission.
On the other hand, it is not impossible that there was a genetic fault in the Julian, Vipsanian or Claudian bloodline that led to early deaths in some of its members. Caesar's Julia died young. Gaius and Lucius both had Agrippa's blood, so did Germanicus. His younger son Gaius may have suffered from ill-health.
I would not take at face value the sexual indiscretions of the two Julia's under Augustus - political conspiracy covered up is more likely given the different fates of Iulus Antonius and Ovid. But the exile of both women was public and they were not killed.
On the other hand, Sejanus, known as ruthless, may well have had Tiberius' son Drusus killed, and certainly had Germanicus' elder sons judicially murdered. But we can see the shape of the politics that might have brought that about. And Sejanus, specifically, was attempting to break into the royal family from without. He had little option but to remove rivals.
By the time we get to Claudius, I'll admit murder as a likely cause of death, but there is good political reason there - the struggle for the succession and the need for Nero to act before britannicus came of age. I'd also see the younger Agrippina as more ruthless than her mother or Livia (although that is, perhaps, just personal preference). But I'd argue the political dynamic had changed by the 50sAD.
So, I think I still see Livia as an unlikely murderess. If she needed to act against someone, unlike Sejanus, she simply had to poison with words.
All just my musings, of course,
Phil
-
With Suetonius, we must also not forget that ancient writers believed that a man's (person's for the PC) character was fixed from birth - so, if caesar ended a tyrant, he must have been a tyrant all his life (he just hid it well). If Tiberius was a pervert, he must have been a pervert all his life, however well-concealed that was.
We now know this is nionsense of course, but it makes a mockery of some of the judegements that Suetonius, in particular, makes.
It is quite possible, reading between the lines and using other sources, such as Tacitus, to perceive an entirely different explanation of the lives of Tiberius and Gaius, or Nero. They emerge as much more serious, believable people. Suetonius makes them almost "soap-operaish".
Tiberius emerges as a reclusive, introverted but capable man, inclined to philosophy. His privacy and remoteness in his later years fuelled by ignorance of what went on at the Villa Jovis, gave rise to feverish speculation about orgies and naked children. In fact that lofty residence was probably used for philosophic discussion and reading. Tiberius emerges not as a pervert, but as a much more believable man of his times - touched by the republicanism of his father, a reluctant princeps, a man thwarted in his one great love and married to a political heiress who was enmeshed in conspiracy, and harnessed to an equally determined and political mother who dominated him. No wonder he escaped for 12 wonderful years at Rhodes!!
Similarly Gaius can be perceived as the first princeps born to the purple, knowing nothing other than the Augustan regime, conscious of Sejanus' failed ideas, and perhaps with an Antonian dream of hellenistic glory and monarchy bequeathed him by his grandmother. He may have been close to his sisters (who would not have been after their childhood and seeing the fate of their siblings); and he may have suffered an illness that affected his mind later on - or is that just a falsification by political rivals who were the but of a harsh and sarcastic wit.
We must, it seems to me, be judicious. What I have set out above is no more than informed speculation. Suetonius was far closer to the events, and the spirit of the age than am I.
But look at our own age. How partisan, even 20 years after their day, are biographies of Mrs Thatcher or Ronald Reagan (or of Nixon)? Then, in C1st Rome, biography was a political tool - look at the way allegations of sexual misconduct and sodomy were thrown around to besmirch the likes of Antonius and Octavian. How close, given the effectiveness of Augustan propaganda (I put him on a par with Goebbels, perhaps even rate him higher given that his means of communication were more limited) can we get to Antonius and Cleopatra, their genuine political agenda, or the meaning of the (so-called) Donations of Alexandria?
Moving forward - I enjoy the Scriptores Historiae Augustae - SHA - (we don't have much else as sources on fascinating figures like Caracalla, Elagabalus, or Commodus). I have well thumbed Loeb editions by my hand as I type. But dip into the scholarship and one immediately finds that these "biographies are not what they seem. That said, how difficult it is to dispense with them - we WANT to believe that we can rely on them. We cannot, or at least not without enormous care.
Suetonius, as others have noted, is beguiling precisely because he is so racy and glittering, so saucy and indiscreet. he seems to pull back the sheets on many an imperial sleeping couch!! But would we take the word of The Sun or the National Enquirer seriously - or the work of anyone who used those as his main sources.
When any ancient author quotes a letter, document or speech, how do we know it is accurate. Battle orations we KNOW were invented - why not documents and other quotes. How would readers, even in the authors day have known?
But we HAVE to make some use of Suetonius and Tacitus and SHA because we have comparatively so few other surviving records But these are different from say the Armana tablets or the Hittite archives, because although they are even more ancient, they are (to an extent) original documents. Those quoted by Tacitus, Suetonius et al, we have to take on trust.
But I think we have to admit that the APPARENT charcater we can put on ancient Roman personalities, in comparison to (for example) Egyptian Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, may be spurious. Like detectives, we need to proceed with care and sift the evidence carefully.
All just my opinion, of course,
Phil
-
I'll check, but I seem to recall he paraded the connection in Greece and Asia Minor as well.
Phil
-
Another topic I found as i explored this forum's backstory!!
The end of Roman rule in Britannia is interesting and i think the view of historians has changed in recent decades.
I recall childrens' history books from my youth that had pictures of Roamn legionaries filing down to the docks in their lorica segmentatae, pila in hand; or Roman soldiers kissing farewell to their loved ones as they went off to defend the City of rome (about to fall to the Vandals of course) in 410.
We now know better - by C400 the legions, their organisation and equipment had changed. And there was no dramatic pull out - like the British quitting India, or the US Vietnam.
Legions and troops of various kinds went off with pretenders from Constantine onwars - probably lastly Magnus Maximus c 383, and a later "Emperor" Constantine III, but there were probably still locally based soldiers on the Wall and elsewhere. These were often Frisians or germans imported from Europe.
It also seems that it may not have been the Empire that withdrew, but the Romano-British who threw out the imperial administrators - then appointed emperors of their own.
Later Aurelius Ambrosius would be said to have had parents who had "worn the purple" - does anyone have any views on what that meant.
To me the possibilities include (but are not restricted to): descent from Constantine I; relationship to Maximus (though it would seem Vortigern may have been his son-in-law); or a relationship to one of the last emperors created in Britain c 400-410. I have also seen the argument that the phrase could mean simply that he was true born Roman; or that his parents had been leading members of the tribal aristocracy. Personally, perhaps romantically, I rather favour one of the earlier options.
I see the end of Roman Britain as a slow process too - extending (at least in the western parts of the promise) over 100 years or so, and including the liftime of that celebrated warrior, Arthur.
What do others think?
Phil
-
Exploring old threads (from before my time) and found this one.
The Prima Porta statue (possibly from a villa belonging to Livia (Augustus' wife) is truely fascinating. There is practically no aspect of it that is not redolent with imagery from the cuirass - the return of the Carrhae eagles from Parthia; to the bare feet (a sign of divinity).
The whole iconography of Octavian/Augustus is an interesting subject - the British Museum did an exhibition on the theme many years ago - which brought together many examples. I have the catalogue - "The Image of Augustus" still.
It would be fascinating to know whether this was a statue made after his death - hence the bare feet - but commissioned by someone close to him, meaning that it should have been a good likeness.
There are no statues of the first princeps showing thim as "old" - although I think a togate statue at either Corinth or Epidavros, with the fold drawn over the head in priestly, mode might be thought to have an older air. It was made to go with a pair of Gaius and Lucius.
Phil
-
This is nothing new, prehistoric graves have been found in the Forum area since at least the C19th. As I recall many of the finds are in the Forum Museum (if that is still open!!).
In the earliest times there were settlements on the Capitol and the Palatine and the Forum area was common to both. I'm sure Michael Grant discusses it in book on the Roman Forum.
In republican and imperial times burial within the city limits - the pomerium - was, of course, illegal (Trajan was a sole exception).
Those who have been to Rome may also recall a tiny basement-like structure beside the temple of Antoninus and Faustina - sometimes referred to as the "brothel". This is, I think too quite early.
No surprises in this find though.
Phil
-
I was actually thinking of the Annals and the histories in my comments about Tacitus' sources. i don't challenge what you say about the Agricola, but, of course, that has other problems of closeness to the subject and bias.
In regard to comparisons of Gibbon and academic historians of today, I think their job is different. I love a good "narrative historian" - among my favorites is Shelby Foot who writes about the American Civil War, but there are tons of others. Their job, IMHO, is to allow a general reader to understand the sweep of events, to grasp the unfolding of a theme.
But an academic historian can have much wider aims - to explore and criticise the sources perhaps (understanding the references and allusions, clarifying language, investigating motive and purpose); he might be looking at detailed interconnections between (say) the economy and expansion; health and political vivacity; he might be focusing on interpreting archaeological evidence; or seeking to cross-reference cultures.
Where, I ask would the narrative historian be without the academic detail - it is far more likely to be the "scholars" who make the break-throughs and lead to new interpretations of events, than the narrative generalist.
I heard an archaeologist say not long agao, that his teams were made up of scientists, being an historian wasn't important, he could buy those in if he wanted them!!
But the best academics also write goo narrative - in our period Syme is a key example. Superb scholar, his broadly scoped work was based on his detailed studies.
Give me the footnotes and the scholarly paraphenalia - that way I can assess the basis of the writers evidence and how he has used it.
But let me curl up with the thick narrative for a long read.
Phil
-
Which period are we talking about? It is not clear from your post?
As far as i am aware, there is NO evidence (written or archaeological) that the British legions were ever so seriously affected by plague between 43-410AD.
-
What is accuracy in an historical source?
IMHO (inserted for tflex benefit) but I think also more widely recognised by academics, one in analysing historical sources one MUST consider the motive in writing and the position someone held.
I recall an article in the London Times about 35 years ago, written by Bernard Levin. It has always been a salutory reminder to me. he wrote that in 1912, the Russian Tsarist authorities were celebrating the 100th anniversary of the battle of Borodino. There were many centenarians living in Georgia (the Russian state) and experts went to see if there was anyone who had fought in the battle who had survived. Eventually they found a man who had been a 16 year old drummer boy in 1812.
They asked him about his experiences, and with mounting excitement at last asked, "And did you see Napoleon?"
"Yes", replied the drummer boy, he was a big tall man with blond hair."
Now the point is that there is no need to doubt the sincerity of the man's testimony, he believed what he said, but it could not have been Napoleon. had he seen Murat, maybe and assumed a magnificently equipped general must be the great Emperor? Had memory played tricks?
In evaluating a story like this, surely an historian must ask several questions:
a) was the man in a position to see what he saw? (A general might meet important people regularly, a common soldier rarely or never - so how would he interpret what he saw?)
was he educated, equipped or trained to recognise what he saw? (In an age before mass media, how would a farm boy from a remote area know what napoleon looked like?)c) how long had passed before the memory was recorded - could the mind/time/age have played tricks?
d) what sources were being used, how close was the wtiness to the event? (Anne Frank may have been much more reliable about events in her house or in Amsterdam, but if she reports what was being said in Hitler's HQ, how much reliability should be placed on that?
e) is the material first or second hand?
f) not in the case of the doldier, but is there room for bias, distortion for political reasons (an Appeaser in the 1930s might write a different account and emphasise different points to say WS Churchill, or Moseley (a fascist).
I could go on, but i hope you'll take my point.
EVERY aspect and issue around an historical source needs to be analysed.
Tacitus was writing after the event, from sources, not first hand experience (even human sources must have been old by the time he talked to them). He wrote from a Senatorial perspective, had a grudge against at least one Emperor (for the treatment of his father-in-law). His sources may have been senatorial archives which given fires in Rome may have been incomplete. Tacitus may also have had contemporary political views, lost to us now and irretrievable. He was not an eye-witness, did not know the individuals he wrote about, may have had private motives or tastes in writing or a bias that influenced his interests or choice of material. we do not know what he rejected or his method.
All this and more is surely relevant in interpreting and using Tacitus as a source?
Phil
-
All my arguments and points are "my humble opinion" - how could they be anything else?
What is history but subjective interpretation and opinion? There is NO objective history. EH Carr made that point decades ago.
The only point in using boards like this is discussion - hence anything I say is there to be argued against, and tested against the views of my peers (other posters here)? That's the only reason I post here. So what's the problem?
By the way, what have I done or said in a month on this board that makes you think I am so arrogant that I need to be told what you told me? If you disagree, or think I am a fool, then the way to proceed is surely to show how my argument is flawed or my facts wrong - is that not so. But you did not do so. why?
Is it that you don't like my view but cannot argue against it for some reason? I frankly doubt that.
Only a day or so ago it was pointed out that I had got the name of Caligula's horse wrong (I wrote Cincinnatus when it was actually Incitatus!!! I readily admitted my error. So why this attack?
I often include a phrase like "it's just my my opinion", "I think" or "IMHO" (in my humble opinion) in my posts, but it get's boring and limiting to do it every time. I take the view that others capable of posting here are also capable of appreciating that anything said here is a personal opinion. Is that not so? Do i have to spell it out each time for the juvenile?
Finally, if my posts offend, I am happy to withdraw from this site. It is quite possible that i have intruded on a clique, or been too forceful, or unintentionally am arguing in a way at cross purposes with this largely excellent site? Is that what you want me to do tflex??
Sorry to others for this off-topic post, but I think it had to be said. Now back to the discussion!!
E-mail me if you have a problem or want to respond tflex, so that other posters are not disrupted. (Perhaps in doing so you can explain to me what an "historical fact" is.)
Phil
-
In Britain, until the early C19th, every town kept its own time - noting the actual time from the heavens etc.
As a previous poster has observed it was the railways, and the need for timetables, that caused the |UK to adhere to a single timezone.
Oxford, in terms of latitude, is nine minutes behind London. Even today the bell of Christ Church collge is rung at nine minutes past nince each evening - 9.00pm precisely in Oxford, but nine minutes later according to GMT!!
Don't forget though, that in addition to time, the seasons were out of kilter for Romans until Caesar reformed the calendar. You could have winter in Sextilis, and summer in December!!
Phil
-
Nah - Cato's a pussycat. You know that they say about protesting too much. He's a secret Caesar fan....
Phil
-
Just to point out that it was Antonius' generalship that defeated the Liberators and not Octavian (whose whereabouts at Philippi remain a mystery).
Antonius did not initially want to go to war against the assassins, and Octavian's prompting was probably what changed his mind, but Cassius would probably have eaten Octavian alone.
In my post, I was not seeking to do more than to point out that Caesar was more able than those who killed him. He was, in a sense, part of the solution, they of the problem. But I don't think he had a clear idea of what to do in 44 - hence his decision to go east and try to find breathing space, and hope time might bring enough changes to allow some new options.
Phil
-
One of the great myths of politics is that killing the strong man changes anything.
As the dimwits who murdered Caesar (the one man who might have saved the republic) demonstrated, conspirators are usually disgruntled little fish acting on motives such as jealousy, envy, revenge, and who are incapable of organising a party in a brewery.
To remove a madman (Commodus, Caracalla, maybe Gaius) is one thing, but to remove an effectively performing head of state is quite another.
The Liberators were plain wrong. Fortunately, they all met their just deserts.
To answer the original question - I don't condone murder (unlike some here) under ANY circumstances - but the removal of Commodus has some amusing features.
Phil
-
The Julian family in the early principiate was not something out of Dynasty, Dallas or the Godfather - pace Graves.
Life was often short and brutal in imperial Rome - disease, inbreeding, lack of health and safety rules may all have contributed.
All the sources seem agreed that Livia was a woman of impeccable descent, strongly Roman virtues, and a model wife. She may well have worked for her family (ie Tiberius) to inherit power over Julia/Agrippas, but I don't think for a moment she could have had people assasinated over the distances involved.
We must avoid getting sucked into the Roman view that as a man was at the end of his life, so he was (even if it was concealed) earlier. Tiberius may always have been a reluctant soldier and a happy philosopher. He may have been quite content to be on Rhodes in "exile"; more so than on duty on the Rhine. he may have loathed marriage to Julia - and leaving aside the rather unbelievable allegations of sexual misconduct - may have preferred to distance himself from anti-Augustan political machinations.
Gaius and Lucius would not be the first hopeful young men to die prematurely. In part the number of deaths of heirs is simply a factor of Augustus' very long lifespan in an era when men were said to reach their prime at 42!! he lived too long.
No, Livia, IMHO may have been a consummate politician, she may have conspired and may not have been as virtuous as her public persona would have us believe - but a murderess? I think NOT.
Phil
-
Thanks for the correction on Incitatus - you are of course correct. I was writing in haste - thank heaven for the true scholars amongst us.
While I enjoyed the "reconstruction" of the Senatorial discussion (it may even be right!!) - I can see a more "serious" possible explanation. Perhaps annoyed by Senatorial opposition, Gaius remarks that he might impose his favorite horse as Consul - suggesting both his contempt and power at the same time.
My own reading of Gaius is that he had a very serious and focused agenda, at least in the first years of the reign - and that was to make Rome very visibly a monarchy. It maybe why he got such an incredibly bad press from an early date, especially from Senatorial writers.
I think the possible explanations of the Jerusalem incident and the Phideas statue are also good ones. Many Roman statues did have heads that were separate, so changing them was not a problem. The method of construction of Phideas's Zeus (I have seen the original moulds for some of the drapery in Greek museums) would make replacing the head very easy. We also know that after Nero's death, the head of his colossus was altered to that of Apollo or the Sun.
Did not one of the authors also say that Gaius used to receive vistors while standing between the statues of Castor and Pollux? Their temple in the Forum Romanum is EXACTLY in front of the vestibule Domitian built to give access via a ramp to the Palatine palace. I believe that under the Flavian building of the vestibule, there are remains from Gaius' period. It may be that here we are misunderstanding an author's witty reference to the location or access to a new reception hall built by Gaius. We may never know.
But I'd love, one day, to try to write a piece that would reveal a very different Gaius, and reinstate him as a "serious" princeps, at least to some extent.
Phil
-
I must be brief - but just a thought.
It has been suggested that under "totaliatarian" regimes - where attacking the ruler is (shall we say) unwise - history provides a way of making points which cannot be made directly. So we have to read the past as the present.
An example from outside the period would be Thomas More's "Richard III", which it has been suggested is actually about Henry VII. I don't agree with the hypothesis in this case, but the idea is not impossible. How would we know if (say) Suetonius had used this "trick"?
The question then arises, particularly with regard to Suetonius, as to whether some of his comments about earlier emperors ,ight have been read by his contemporary readers, as applying to Hadrian not (say) Tiberius.
Tacitus, I need hardly say, writes from the Senatorial viewpoint, and that needs to be taken into account. He was also clearly in a position where bias, family or personal agendas may have crept in over Agricola. That has to be taken into account in assessing what he says about Domitian - but I agree that no writer can stray too far from the broad presentation of facts simply because others will recall them.
On the other hand, we know that today writers can take a position in the face of conventional wisdom, or on the edge of credibility and still be successful - David Irving on Hitler and "Holocaust denial" would be an example of the former; Erik von Daniken ("Chariots of the Gods") of the latter. How would an historian 2,000 years in our future regard these woorks if they had by chance survives where those of others more in the mainstream had been lost?
Finally, because I must go to work, I always have to remind myself when reading ancient historians, we must make many assumptions and speculate about what happened, simply because we do not have the sort of detail of daily events we have for more modern periods. Our knowledge and understanding of an event such as the assassination of Caesar may actually be deeply flawed.
We also lack a great deal of knowledge about the minutiae and background that might have informed the writing to someone of its own time - humour, allusions, irony, literary taste - all of these can transform the meaning of a text in both subtle and dramatic ways. Editors often do a great job in hunting these out and throwing light into dim recesses of works, but i doubt we can say 9or ever will) that we read them as did their first readers.
Broadly though I agree with the points made in this excellent discussion.
Phil
-
I was pondering Caesar's greatness today - tell me, some ardent adherent of Caesar:
Why, if he was so unchallengably, undeniably great as you propose, did so many of those who had served under him so loyally in Gaul and elsewhere turn against him to the extent that they were eventually part of the conspiracy, and in some cases wielded daggers against him?
Decimus Brutus, Trebonius, even Antonius possibly are names that spring to mind, Titus Labienus earlier.
Surely it can only be that something happned in Caesar to disillusion them - perhaps that his character changed before the end...
Grateful for an explanation,
Phil
-
A major source of lead poisoning may have been water-pipes!! You can see them in places in Pompeii.
Infertility, as a result, has long been argued - hence the small numbers of children we know from the sources were born in noble families (there were many cases of adoption to keep a name alive), and why some families died out.
Phil
-
I don't doubt, however, that the Roman empire fell--
I agree, but I think we need to be sure of what we mean by the term.
In Britannia for instance, elements of Roman culture seem to have survived for decades in some areas? And when did the empire in Britannia "fall" - was it with adventurers like Magnus Maximus? With usurpers such as Allectus? There is even some evidence that in the early 400s the british threw out the imperial government but appointed their own emperors and continued in an independent way.
In other areas the empire was simply taken over by Visigothic and other leaders - there is eveidence in the Palatine Palace in Rome of structures erected by one such character.
Even before we usually think of Rome as having fallen, non-Italians such as Stilicho were prominent. how do we tell "before" the fall from "after".
Emperors were no longer resident in Rome by the time it was raided in 410 - was that move part of the fall? Should Constantine's decision to move his capital to Constantinople be considered part of the fall, or a solution to try to stop it falling earlier?
Did Rome "fall" or was it transformed over a period?
We no longer perceive the "dark ages" as our forebears did, neither as an age, not as quite so dark.
One could say that the British empire "fell" after 1947, but actually it was part retreat, part a realisation of a changed world order, part economic necessity, part transformation into a "Commonwealth" (which still continues.
I think there are some serious questions here about interpretation.
And eggers, please don't apologies too much about your initial post _ i for one enjoyed it.
Phil
-
But tflex, Caesar dd not "save" Rome.
Some of his ideas and decisions may have helped blaze a trail for Octavian/Augustus, but they did not offer a solution - not even one as effective as Sulla's was (at least temporarily).
The proof?
That the moment Caesar was killed everything reverted to the chaos and confusion of before the Rubicon - Antonius seeking to dominate - resistence to him; a weak Senate easily co-erced into granting extra-constitutional favours to Octavian; civil war (even leaving the Liberators aside) between the Antonian faction and other Caesarians under the consuls Hirtius and Pansa.
In what way, pray, had Caesar "saved" the republic in any sense?
He dominated it, and his will gave the state direction, order, strong government - but it was a Dictatorship (literally in both senses - as office and style) and it was resisted: Caesar died at the hands of Senators!!
Neither did Caesar restore any energy or potency to the republic. It was within the lifetime of all the leading figures that Pompeius (and Lucullus before him) had conquered in the east and before that put down the pirates. Caesar had only just returned from gaul which he had added to the empire - and he had voyaged to far Britannia (crossing Ocean for the first time in that sense). he was about to go off to war in Parthia when murdered.
In what sense is this a stste or society needing "*iagr*" - you must live in a dream world.
I think you ignored my last post pointing out the deficiencies of your logic and facts - no doubt you'll do the same this time.
Phil
It's age tflex - initially your comments didn't show up for me. But you have still not responded to my points? my questions still stand.
Phil
Sorry tflex - I kept seeing different versions of your last post.
I am certainly not a "Caesar basher" i have commented on my admiration for him elsewhere on these boards.
But you still have not answered my direct discussion of your post - and if caesar was killed half-way through his reforms, then he certainly did not save the state - he can merely be said to have been trying to do so.
In any case, perhaps you can elighten us as to what those reforms were?
Had he not been murdered, he intended to quite Rome for some years to campaign in the east. So his reforms would still have been left to settle without him. It has been argued that he had to absent himself to give himself time to consider what needed to be done, and/or because he was actually bankrupt of ideas.
I'd be interested to hear your views.
I addressed your initial post seriously, I'd be grateful if you would do the same for mine.
Phil
-
Perhaps on a slight tangent to the main thrust of the thread, but I'd be interested in the views of others on this:
It seems to me that from C1st AD onwards (perhaps before but I am unaware of any evidence) the so-called "mystery" religeons of the east seem to have gained in popularity among Romans. Christianity was, of course, the final victor - or at least was the one eventually chosen to be used as the veneer for a re-directed/refurbished paganism, but the Elusianian mysteries, Sol Invictus, Mithraism and the Cult of Isis all had their devotees.
The main thing in common between all these is a faith that was personal, redeeming and which appears to have involved some idea of resurrection (the corn that has to die to be reborn at Elusis; Isis/Osiris; symbolic rebirth was a right of passage/initiation in Mithraism...).
I'd be interested to know what others think on the reasons for this. Was paganism failing, or was there some new spirit abroad? was it that the mystery cults were stronger than the old pagan ones; or was there a knew need aboraod in society that these imported cults could answer, but the old temples could not? If so, what was the force behind this?
Secondly, it is clear that Christianity took on aspects of it's rivals - the Madonna and Child is clearly Isis and Horus (such an image is not in the gospels or the epistles); Christmas Day- 25 December has links to the bithdate of Sol and Mithras; Mary as mother could well be Bona Dea; the pope took the title Pontifex Maximus - a title carried by Caesar as head of the Roman religeon.
So was it Christianity that triumphed (I write as a practising Christian in case there is a feeling I am knocking something)? Or do we have, in orthodox catholic Christianity today, some survival at least of ancient cults, including that of Isis?
Phil
-
There are some good "popularisers" who write readable books accessible to the general reader - Tom Holland is an example.
I rather expect some books to follow up on interest in the "Rome" series (HBO/BBC).
I think one question is whether academic writers will be widely published. In the UK I see a lot of excellent detailed stuff, but if for the academic market it is expensive (around double the price of a standard "popular" hardback).
I also wonder whether the "classical" world, once so dominant, is now having to vie with other subjects - Egyptology, mezo-America; China; to name but a few.
Schools in the Uk used to teach Greek and Roman history as a background to teaching Latin (and sometimes Greek) as languages - Latin was a mandatory requirement to study history of any kind in my day. (I failed it and read international politics instead!!) But that is no longer the case.
Culture too has moved away from the classical in terms of painting and archietecture.
So I wonder whether the demand that was there when Grant was in his heyday, is still there? Others will know (as I do not) the state of the market in the US.
Phil
Did The Romans Use Metal Nails To Make Crosses?
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
What is the evidence either way - the sources?
I have seen it argued that the condemned carried the crossbeam ONLY to their place of execution - the upright was already in situ? This by contrast to the traditional "stations of the cross" depiction of Jesus with the whil;e"X". But do we have reliable information on this - if so i am unsighted on it.
Are we even sure of the methods used?
Commonsense suggests that nails would work loose over the period of days a victim spent dying on the cross. The reult of the method of execution was that the victim rose and fell on his hands in a struggle to breath - a violent see-sawing moving that would surely have put huge stress on the junction between upright and cross beam, whether a T or X shape.
In ancient cultures, I suspect that pegs and joints (however crude) would have been more in use and the preferred approach - but do we know?
So far as fastening the victim to the cross is concerned, I have seen depictions both of ropes and hails. I know that the ankle bones of a crucified man were found in Jerusalem some decades ago - recognised as such by the spike/nail through the ankle joint. There was a shard of wood inserted between nail and victim as i recall.
What we need is someone who knows about Roman carpentry...
Phil