phil25
-
Posts
702 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by phil25
-
-
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
-
As I recall, Syme was fairly young when he wrote "The Roman Revolution" - a very radical work based in part on then current events (Mussolini's march on Rome). Radical, and in an odd style, yet it's greatness was evident to all.
Of course, one places greater faith on someone with credentials - but in my experience, they don't have a monopoly on insight or knowledge.
Phil
-
I'll just live with ideas, at a push. That's what matters - the fuel for thought. Much of the rest is, IMHO, just snobbishness.
Phil
-
A question arising from, but at a tangent to this thread:
Why should academic views be regarded as the be all and end all of debate or rectitude?
No one could hold academic excellence in higher esteem than do I, but it can (rather like views in a convent) run on certain tracks and get caught in a lcircumscribed conventional wisdom. In my experience, academics can be very bad at examining radical views because to do so may undermine their own credentials with colleagues, or their own published views.
I think that any writer who argues his case well deserves a hearing (I include in that statement such outre studies as UFOlogy and alternative approaches to very ancient history - Velikovsky, Sitchin etc).
Anyone with half a mind and a knowledge of the basic material can assess the quality of the work for themselves.
I would also include in my list historical novels which can often move into speculation and imaginative areas where academics fear to tread.
If Mr Parenti (an author I have not read) wishes to delve into new areas or express radical views, then that's fine by me. I think most of our views of the past need to be challenged because they are too beset with a Victorian ethos./ One of the things that I liked about HBO/BBC's "Rome" was that it challenged the Hollywood view of white marble and pristine togas. It gave us an alien society which would frighten most of us were we to find ourselves there.
Any regular poster on this site or others similar, stand or fall by their mastery of the facts and the quality of their argument. That is even truer of published writers. We should surely not seek to "ban" certain books because they don't agree with our views. Such views are personal.
As for:
Controversy is fine--but Parenti's book is essentially a political pamphlet that merely uses Roman history as a backdrop for his modern political arguments. We normally keep a tight leash on that sort of thing from posters to the forum, and there's no reason we should do an end-run around that policy through our book reviews.
I understand the site rules, and in part the reason for them, but I think it is the weakest aspect of this largely admirable board that I have found, and may yet limit the length of time I remain here. History should NOT (IMHO) be "safe". It should challenge, annoy, ittitate and perplex - and above all it should do that by being relevant. Unless one can draw analogies from the present, the past is a distant fiction.
I applaud MP Cato's passion, his knowledge and commitment add lustre to this site, but I don't think we should dismiss views because they are radical.
Phil
-
I'll have a look at it sometime, but I'm afraid i'm sceptical of ideas like that. I've read too much over too long a period about Rome to believe for a moment that the mass of society there was enfranchised in more than name. It is not a concept that the ancients would even have understood.
And i am afraid that in politics cynicism is the only frame of reference.
Phil
-
The Wishart "Sejanus" is fiction, but he writes well. Especially recommended for those who like Lindsay Davis; Stephen Saylor etc.
Phil
-
I am all for revisionism of Caligula (and Nero) since the view of them we have is almost certainly wrong or at least incomplete.
By the way, do you know Anthony A Barrett's biography of the man "Caligula: The Corruption of Power"? I have not read the one you mention.
I believe that to understand Gaius (part of the problem, for me, is the constant reference to the nickname "Caligula") we need to do at least three things:
i) look at him in context;
ii) look at what other interpretations there might be for his recorded actions;
iii) look at how the deeds of others sround the same time are interpreted.
To give a few examples only at this stage:
On i):
Gaius was a direct descendent of Marcus Antonius, and knew his grandmother Antonia (Antonius's daughter) well. Could some of Gaius' attempts to introduce a Hellenistic-style of monarchy into the principiate, be a direct reference to some of Antonius' policies?
Tiberius had, for part of his reign at least sought to play up the republican credentials of the principiate (he failed). he then retreated into seclusion and was an invisible figure. Gaius may have sought a reaction to both approaches - reduce the fiction of continuing republicanism in favour of realism; be much more visible and glorious.
Gaius was the first princeps not to know any other form of government. Like Commdus later, Gaius may have been seduced by his birth and blood (Commodus was the first "porphyrogenital" emperor in several generations) - and this went to his head?
On ii) a (deliberately??) misunderstood sense of humour might be responsible for some stories - Cincinnatus as consul; as with the legions collecting "seashells" (their huts??) on the seashore..
The maoeuvres in the Rhine could be training or discipline.
On iii) Claudius faced a serious mutiny before his invasion of Britannia. Did Gaius face something similar which is interpreted one way for him, another for his uncle?
Anything that allows us to see this politician and ruler as a real actor in affairs rather than as a madman or monster, helps out understanding of the early empire.
Phil
-
ND:
Who were the "true statesmen and Romans who kept pushing back the death date" to whom you refer - who could they have been? the list must be short.
I genuinely believe that Caesar, for instance, had no interest in destroying the republic. It was only by being seen to be the "first man in Rome" ahead of his contemporaries that he could measure success.
To conquer was a poor option. To be recognised as primus inter pares the great achievement. As with Sulla, I think Caesar hoped that he could "tweak" the system enough to preserve most of its features - perhaps more than Augustus did later.
It was the Bibuluses (Bibuli for purists); Catoes (Porcii?) and Brutuses (Junii?) of the later years who were blind to the changes, the fractures and the weakening of the republican system - who looked back not forwards, who seem to have been more part of the problem than of the solution (to use modern management speak).
And perhaps that is one way of seeking to examine this:
In (say) 60BC what were the problems facing the republic?
What were the key issues to be resolved?
Who stood where on what issue?
Was the position taken by each main protagonist (on the basis of the evidence we have, at least) one that sought to ignore the problem; or one that offered solutions?
A grid would summarise things nicely.
Phil
-
I can't think of a single system of government ever devised that is entirely altruistic and starts from a blank sheet of paper.
Almost all seek to carry forward the aspirations of the controlling group (usually a clique of some sort) and to address whatever the perceived problems were of its predecessor. The "consitution" written or not, will also seek to bind the opponents of the regime and control their "fears" - of the "mob" or revolutionary change; or extreme groups or whatever.
The Roman republican constitution was rather like the modern British one: a collection of laws and customs, traditions, common law and practice, rather than a single written document. As the british system is extremely flexible, evolving by interpretation of the past and of law against the circumstances of the day; so the Romans moved forward by interpreting and re-interpreting the mos maiorum. To a certain extent even Augustus did this in creating the principiate - few of his innovations were wholly novel, from tribunician powers to the idea of a princeps.
Another point, politics is entirely perceptual, subjective. Change is made by people who perceiv a weakness or seek to build on success. the system is like a river with currents ebbing and flowing - it is never still or fixed. The later republic changed as it addressed challenges, the Gracchi; Marius' domination of the consulship; demagogues like Saturninus, Carbo and Clodius; Sulla's right-wing backlash; Pompeius exta-constitutional activities and rise; Caesar and his battle with Bibulus etc; aggravating sores like Cato who so often blocked change or necessary, practical steps being taken and were essentially backward looking.
The triumvirates were simply vessels floating on that river, or even dams or additional currents within it - to provide several applicable analogies. They were of the problem as well as attempted partisan efforts to change the situation and overcome perceived problems. But the perceived problem to (say) Pompeius was not the same as it was to (say) Cato; indeed the latter may have seen the former as the problem!! caesar saw problems in the state that needed action; Bibulus saw Caesar AS the problem.
Finally, to address a previous comment:
but the problem still stems from human nature, if it wasn't then government should need not have to concern itself with watching it and to not ignore it and account for it.
Modern governments (in terms of infrastructure, permanent bureaucracy; continuity of officials etc) exist to a certain extent outside politics and thus can "watch" the process and analyse it, suggesting and advising on changes to law or constitution. But I would argue that as all officials (aediles, quaestors etc) and all ministers (praetors, consuls) only existed and held office during their terms, there was no stable body to "watch" how things unfolded. The Senate, which might be perceived as having some potential to do so (because it contained former officials and ministers) could not do so because it acted in an entirely partisan and individual way.
I think the republic was probably lucky to survive as long as it did.
Could one even argue that it died with Marius (around his sixth consulship), and that Sulla, the triumvirates, Pompeius as single consul and caesar as Dictator were simply proto-principiates - attempts to find a system of domination by a small group or an individual, to restore the state?
Just for arguments sake of course,
Phil
-
My problem with McCullough's portrayal of Caesar has nothing to do with my personal views on him or others, but on the reading of her text:
- every criticism of him (whether his relationship with the King of Bythinia or his severing of hands at Uxellodorum is excused, portrayed in a good light, or made the groundless "smears" of his opponents. Even his temper is frightening but controlled. Events NEVER take him by surprise. he handles women, troops, daughters, wives, brilliantly...... I could go on.
A bit of a "dark side" might actually have made McCullough's Caesar more interesting - a youthful gay fling that would prove a potential weakness; his epilepsy, his baldness, being wrong-footed now and again.
But this character is almost "Superman" he has no flaws, no weaknesses... and that makes him slightly unbelievable, though not unsympathetic.
It is clear in the context of the whole series that from the start the six books are about Caesar (almost McCullough's Harry Potter!!) even before he is born. Marius is initially seen in his dealings with the Julii, and Sulla given a Julia as a wife. Caesar is evidently the author's hero - and I would argue that it is HER views of him (perfervid adoration almost) that are a flaw in an otherwise laudable, useful and reliable series.
Phil
-
Augustus
On Augustus, I too endorse Syme (but be warned his Latinate style, abrupt and terse, and his very exact use of words can be demanding. But it is one of the greatest of history books and well-worth reading.
I recently enjoyed, very much, Richard Holland's "Augustus: Godfather of Europe".
"Rubicon" (confusingly by TOM Holland, has I think been reviewed on this site before. A good overall coverage.
Augustus caesar by David shotter is a short pamphlet examining some key questions..
I also have a work "Augustus" by AHM Jones.
On Caesar - Rex Warner did an excellent (and in their day much admired) series of novels (but excellently reserached and written). I have "The young Caesar" on my shelves (Fontana 1965 - originally published 1958).
I also have "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar" by Lily Ross taylor (Univ California Press c 1949) which has a bust of Marcus Porcius Cato as it's frontispiece!!
Sejanus - I am not aware of anything on his, but I'd be fascinated to hear if there is anything available. I see him as a pivotal character in understanding the early principiate.
Hadrian - "Beloved and God" by Royston Lambert is good, focused mainly on the relationship with Antinuous. Stewart Perowne (1960) wrote a "standard biography" - I have a US edition.
Aurelius - the Birley is good, as might be expected.
Phil
-
The "people of Rome" were never enfranchised in more than name. the system, whatever it might nominally offer, was strongly weighted in favour of the Senatorial and wealthy equestrian classes.
Frankly, I think this casual use of the democratic idea in connection with Rome between 500BC and c 30BC is dangerously anachronsitic and sentimental (as I have note before).
I am also amused by the implication that the Roman republican system could somehow have been "saved". All political systems evolve, and the Roman one did too - into the principiate and then a full imperial system. No system stays static - neither did the Roman one in the 500 odd year period I mentioned.
Throughout it was a fount of corruption (not least bribery) autocracy and abuse of taxpayers - though the latter was simply taking the standard practice of tax-gathering throughout history, a step too far for the tastes of that period (and they changed). Politics in Rome were never "nice" always brutal (though not always violently so) and to romaticise it it simply laughable.
Phil
-
The problem is not human nature; the problem comes only when government attempts to ignore human nature--and a triumviral monarchy ignores human nature and turns harmless faction, vanity, and greed into a threat to the system.
Unfortunately, no system of Government yet discovered has proved entirely capable of resisting human nature - particularly ambition. Perhaps the British and American systems have proved most resisilent, but even they have had their lapses (Cromwell, in the case of the UK).
On a separate issue, aren't most systems of government essentially a form of committee - even dictatorships below the central figure. That's how bureaucracies and cabinets work - what they are?
Phil
-
Surely, the triumvirates were primarily about the self-interest of their members.
By uniting in a pact, the three leading figures could negate to some extent thir two rivals scheming against them, and channel that into other activities/influence it. It also allowed them the power base to ensure they got at least some of their own way - more than they would acting singly within the system.
For all the pious statements and propaganda, neither triumvirate was essentially formed for the good of the state, or the people. That was interpreted as equivalent to the purposesa and aspirations of the three men involved in each case.
So it follows that:
a) the triumvirates were always going to be limited in life because eventually the interests of the three power brokers involved would diverge;
they were never intended to carry out long lasting reforms;c) the system would (if allowed) probably just have reversed any measures it did not like - as they did those of Sulla (who did to some extent act to restore the republic), once the triumvirate had broken up.
History shows what happened. the first triumvirate, which was essentially of three co-equals (at least much more than the second) broke apart after the death of one member (Crassus0 and as the presteige of the remaining two clashed and became rivalry.
The second triumvirate was never more than a convenience, to harness Octavian and to avoid prolonged civil war. It was a division of responsibilities and spheres, rather than the sharing of power, and the thrird member was a nonentity, brought in as a make-weight.
So my answer is a firm NO, to both parts of the original question.
Phil
-
I cannot now recall where i read it, I'll try to track down the reference, but I had understood for years that parthian captives sort of drifted east and ended up in western China. My memory suggests they might have been some of Crassus' men after Carrhae, but that may just be my memory playing tricks.
Phil
-
I think one point to be made is that all these people would be totally alien to us - even assuming we could understand their language and accent, they worked within a totally different frame of reference to us.
I remember about 20 years ago being on a london bus. As usual, for me when I've nothing better to do on public transport, I was studying the faces of my fellow passengers to see whether any bore a passing resemblance to a historical figure (of any period). there was one blond young man with hair that stood and fell rather as Alexander the Great's does in statues (a style copied incidentally by Pompeius Magnus). As I looked at the lad, who could physically have passed I suppose as Alexander - it dawned on me that I would never see in the modern world anyone who would carry themselves, or have the look in the eye, that Alexander must have had.
A man who considered himself the son of God, whose confidence could win him battles against staggering odds, who could defy convention in many ways, must have been overwhelming - his charisma; the (probably to us extreme) arrogance of his manner and air; his assumption of superiority must be something gone from this world. people speak of the almost tangible majesty that surrounds HM The Queen today (I mean in personality terms) that affects them when they meet her. That must have been true in spades of Alexander... or Caesar, or Cleopatra, or Augustus...
What I am saying is that we would have to make so many allowances in meeting the sort of people mention in the title of this thread, that we almost would not be meeting them... To meet them on their own terms would, I suspect, mean that we simply would not understand their approach to life (belief in fate, luck, attitude to human life, slavery, women) and - I suspect - we would dislike them so much that we would loathe them. Moreover, their bearing, gestures, use of the voice and expression, might have references that we would not even begin to understand.
How could we judge them, since their civilisation and belief systems were not ours, and ours are not theirs.
And on what basis would you assume you meet (say) Caesar? As an equal? (Did he have any - and how would he react to such assumption?) As a slave? As another soldier or politician? As a friend? or an enemy? As someone he liked, or found useful? Or as a rival? Balbus the financier must have known a different Caesar to that whom Cato, Cicero or Pompeius were familiar with (and each of them might have known a different facet of Caesar.
All that said, I would be fascinated to see Caesar (but maybe to be a fly on the wall during his triumph, or watch his assasination, rather then to meet him); to see Antonius and Cleopatra and to understand what the Donations of Alexandria was all about; to be among the crowds when Jesus walked the Galilean hills.
One thing I am sure - that all our preconceptions of the "look" of the past, and academic explanations of cause and effect, would be shot out of the sky in seconds.
Phil
-
I'm not sure about the history channel, but Angus McBride and Gerry Embleton do many of the illustrations for Osprey books.
I'd also recommend Peter Connolly for reconstructions of the classical period. he has a fantastic book on the Ancient City - half of which is about Rome, 2 volumes about a Roman cavalryman under Trajan ; one on The Holy Land in the time of Jesus; and one on Pompeii. very painstaking artist - and the one who by practical experimentation has rediscovered Roman practices, such as how their four-horned saddles worked.
Phil
-
In conservation terms the great paradox of our day is how to prmote, facilitate and increase access to sites of physical and historic significance, and yet to preserve them.
I don't know how the balance is to be achieved, but it has to be.
I am probably as fierce a critic as you of EH, but they do have a major problem.
It's like the modern city of Rome - simply too much to handle in terms of ancient remains.
Phil
-
I don't think I claimed that Clodius was the first, or created precedents, it is just that IMHO the impression one gets when one puts it all together is unpleasant - like something one has stapped in. But it's a purely personal view.
Phil
-
No, I am a Brit, Pertinax.
I think I have loved Housesteads every time I have been there.
When i first went, the Alan Sorrell drawings were about the only reconstructions atround 9of any period) and i loved them. He did a very dramatic one of Housesteads with the rain sweeping in. When I got there, the bleakness of the place entranced me. You stand on the north wall of the foot, with the scarp dropping away in from of you. Behind, the hills could almost be southern England, rolling and green, but northwards it is purple and grey, with hints of silver where the lakes are, and a vast expance of sky!! terricic. It never disappoints.
I love too the walk along the Wall, westwards, over Cuddy's Crag, to the milecastle, then down past the iron-age farmstead site, and across the fields to Vindolnda, the into Haltwhistle for tea and the train back to Hexham.
It's about 10 years since I was last on the Wall and quite a lot of work had been done at that time. I hadn't realised it was a concern now.
As to the National Trust, are they the responsible body for the wall, or is it English Heritage? I suspect the latter, as the NT is usually houses and gardens, rather than monuments in public ownership. But I maybe wrong. I think they do a huge amount of good, but they can be a dead, risk averse, hand.
I'd like to see much more imaginative management - with reconstructions in situ of parts of forts (where the remains are not particularly novel) and more excavation on the lines of that the Burley's understake. The military zone of the wall, as you say, holds immense promise of great finds.
Phil
-
I don't know whether this is the thread or forum in which to discuss acting styles, but:
I think until the late 60s, actors had to make their name on the stage. Even a fairly young man like James Dean had first acted on Broadway before getting his Hollywood break. A then anglo-phile America also liked the british accent - so there was an assumption that the Colman's, Oliviers, C Aubrey Smiths (in the 50s Burton) of the profession were the "actors". And "great" acting was established by conquering Shakespeare.
But from the 60s on the screen began really to overshadow the stage as the basis of decisions on effective acting. I would argue that Hoffman, Pacino and de Niro are three of the great actors on the basis of their screen work. These - not the Ken Brannagh's - are the ones who are emulated.
Brannagh chose the olivier path to glory - Royal Shakespear Company, solid TV roles, directing himself in Henry V, then to Hollywood. I would argue he has found fame, but not renown, because he took the wrong route. The greatest actors today are screen actors and the style is a natural, unforced one.
This is wholly in line with the development of acting, where each dominant figure - Burbage; Garrick; Irving; Olivier... has been seen as more "natural"/less theatrical than what cam before. 20 years later they are being seen as hams and a new generation of young Turks emerges.
So I think the US rules today in terms of acting greatness - though I'd defend the quality of our English actors (Holm, McKellen, Emma Thompson; Robert lindsay, Ioan Gruffydd; Bernard Hill....) to the death.
But I could be wrong. It's largely a question of taste.
Phil
-
An interesting and worthwhile project. I know Vindolanda quite well - a wonderful spot in my favorite county.
Do you know that they found parts of a prefabricated palace there - perhaps used by Hadrian on his visit when he ordered the wall to be built?
The site also boasts excellent reproductions of both the turf and stone walls - last time I was there the turf wall was suffereing rather from age, subsidence and rot, but I think they may have allowed this to happen deliberately to see how long the original structure might have survived without repair.
I assume that you are also aware that all the digging that has produced the tablets has been carried out OUTSIDE the walls of the surviving fort. Inside belongs to the National Trust and no digging has been allowed. Outside the land belongs to the Vindolanda Trust.
I had the privelege, in my youth in the 60s of hearing Eric Burley (father of the two current academics) speak at my local archaeological society meeting. Even 40 years and more on, I can still recall his talk - he reminisced about spending summers on the Wall doing excavations, with his family in tow. Vindolanda was known as Chesterholm then. It was a couple of years later when I was about 14 that i first went to northumberland and visited Chesters, Houseteads and Corbridge. There was no considered much to see at Chesterholm in those days. I have been back many times since and am never disappointed.
Incidentally, the mystery of Vindolanda for me does not relate to the tablets, but to the round hut foundations thathave been excavated just inside and under the line of the wall of the stone fort. Anyone any ideas on what they might have been?
Phil
-
Of course, it's always possible Clodius (apparently a very strange individual) was simply curious to know what went on at this most secret of rites...
What do you find strange about him?
Won't don't I - his tactics, his desire to desert his own class, his odd relationships and willingness to court scandal, his resort to violence.... nasty individual all round as far as I can see.
Phil
-
If you are going to start building great empires, it would be almost impossible to do so under a republic. An empire needs to be steered in one direction with one descision maker that is wise enough to listen to good advise. The military is better served when the senate stays out of it's affairs and leave all decisions to it's commander. In a republic the senate would not be able to maintain such a large empire, different beliefs and views would bring about conflict and indecision which ultimately would lead to an inefficient military command. A good example of that is the Battle of Cannae which some how produced 2 consuls sharing equal power and leading Rome to one of their worst defeat that almost wiped them out before they even started. Thats why as soon as Rome began to principate their empire flourished and expanded.
But tflex, the foundations of the Roman empire WERE laid down - and indeed largely completed - under a REPUBLIC!!
Pompeius' conquests in the east, the accession of Greece and Macedonia to the empire, Caesar's conquest of gaul - the taking over of Spain and Africa from Cathage, ALL happened under the republic.
The empire, is anything, stalled growth. Augustus played a bit with Germania but stopped expansion after the Varus disaster; Claudius conquered Britannia - but how does that compare to the earlier work of Caesar in the west or Pompeius is the east? Trajan extended the empire in Dacia and Armenia, but this was not long-lasting, and was relatively soon given up.
So I don't think your argument stands up.
phil
Counting To Ruin
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
Your point might be of value in explaining why the Romans may have been limited in the extent to which scientific progress was possible, but i doubt whether it contributed to the "fall" of the empire - whatever that meant.
After all Byzantium (the eastern empire) survived as a form of government until 1453.
And Roman tecnology improved over the later years of the empire - have you ever looked at the Pantheon in Rome with its incredible dome and mathematical proprtions? or the Basilica of Maxentius in the upper Forum Romanum? Both are improvements over what could be achieved in (say) Caesar's day. Done without maths or an understanding of the laws of force and dynamics, or of proprtion? I think not.
In medicine too the Romans became very skilled.
Rome fell for political 9and geo-political), social, cultural and environmental reasons (perhaps aided by lead poisoning, epidemics, climate change and natural disaster) as well as invasion.
the principles of government may have been ineffective, I doubt there maths were.
If in terms of technology or industry Rome was unable to advance, I would be inclined to suggest that slavery had something to do within. A slave-owning state with sufficient labour has no need to invent efficient mechanical devices to augment or replace cheap human labour. That may have stilted innovation.
So on balance, I am not inclined to accept your thesis, but it was a thought-provoking one.
Phil