Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Aurelianus

Plebes
  • Content Count

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Aurelianus


  1. The mob that murdered Hypatia was no typical mob. Typical mobs cheer for Green to beat Blue. Only religious fanatics murder women for their mathematical ability. If you don't think that's Taliban-like, what is???

     

    IMO early christians were responsible for the loss of many great philosophical works, and that christian mobs were unbelievably hypocritical. I don


  2. What were Scipio's interests in Rome ?

     

    Considering the times he was in, I would presume that his first interest was to beat the Carthaginians, as that, by the time scipio was elected consul seemed to be far more important than the cursus honorum, and aquiring of personal glory. something demonstrated by the multiple elections by the senate of Fabius and Marcellus as consuls, because of their competance.

    However, rather cynicaly I cant help thinking that all the prestige he was aquiring must have been at the back of his mind, and that during most of his career he would have been very 'happy' about that.

     

    Why the "nobility" hated him ? Why Scipio failed as a politician ? Did he failed ?

     

    I dont think he did fail, he just acieved it all at a younger age, and by the time he gained his second consulship there wasnt realy anything left for him to achieve within the system...

    In Rome the political rivalrys were huge, it was part of their culture and nature to want to achieve more and better things than anyone else. This had a tendancy to cause mistrust and dislike of all who outshon their peers, and the political shunning of them; this hapened on multiple occasions, but the only one that sprigs to mind imediatly is Pompey.

     

    If Scipio had wanted (my english..) to take the republic , could he was able to took it ?

     

    I dont think the idea would ever evan have occered to him, and even if it had he probably would have dismised it. this is not from any favorable opinion of his moral values, but simply because to march on rome was unthinkable for a roman general, and the notion of a single man in power for any great length of time still went against the grain. When Sulla marched against Rome, even his supporters in the senate were shocked, and that was over a hundred years later.

    And nor do i think he would have been able to, even if he had wished to. Back then, the army was still a levy (mostly) of landed citizens, who would have nothing to gain from installing Scipio as Dictator, and would have been repulsed by the idea anyway. Even his popularity with the citizens wouldnt have held if he had done such a thing; look what hapened to Gracchus. Although his main opposition was in the senate, when it was said he wished to become king, those that belived it turned against him.


  3. So what would you say, in your eyes, was THE definitive reason for the rise Roman Imperialism?

     

    In my opinion it was the Senate who prompted the rise of Imerialism, indirectly anyway. Had the Senate been a little more people friendly, and at least listened to people like Gracchus, then soldiers would not have been indebted to their general, and remained loyal to the state.

    The Emperors always made a point of making it known that they were the soldiers paymaster, and rewarder, if the Senate had done the same, it would be far less likely that an army would be willing to follow its general to Rome. That coupled with soldiers being drawn from the unlanded poor.


  4. I think that it was more likely internal instability within Rome than anything. there was very rarely an imperial succession that was without doubt, and especialy towards the later empire there was large amounts of civil war. An invasion would have needed huge resources, and would have required internal and external peace every where else in the empire, as this usualy occered after a strong monarch had been ruling for a long time, and if they have been ruling for a long time they are unlikely to want millitary glory, or near death... conditions were never right, but if they had been, then do you think it would have been possible? If Caesar had lived, if Julian had planed better, if Aurelian hadn't been killed...

     

    I must just say that im not entirely serious about the curse, and should have put it in inverted commas. ;)


  5. Every roman general who planed or led a campaign of conquest beyond the eastern Mediterranean either failed, or had short lived success. I use the word curse rather loosely.

    Both Caesar and Aurelian (i think there was another, but I cant remember who) were assassinated just before they set off, Crassus and others failed miserably, Pompey and Augustus didn


  6. Christianity was never followed by its founder, christ, and yet it is based on his teachings, so you must draw the conclusion that it came from previous religions (jewdaism). The core of the religion is the bible, and that is half Jewish, and the new testiment was not completed within a life-time of christ.

    In the original quote the word "invented" is used to describe a personality (i can only understand this as the personality of Jesus, correct me if i'm wrong) but as i undersatnd and belive (although im no christian), Jesus existed and even if he didnt perform miracles, he did have a "winning" personality. Christianity was Judaeism changed by Jesus, and changed again by the writers of the bible, not something invented in a lifetime.


  7. Why do you think this sort of 'battle' is reported so very often, from the time of Homer to the time of Livy, and across so many different societies?

     

    Like I said, its a heroic "ideal". do writers today make stories on commonplace and uninteresting people on a regular basis? I'm not saying this single combat deciding of disputes didn't take place, but they were exagerated and multiplyed in their telling for greater effect.

     

    Exactly, even into the period of historical documentation the Celtic peoples were known to settle inter-tribal disputes in single combat.

     

    Archaic Rome and certainly Alba weren't very densely populated places. My guess is you may just have ~2000 men on either side of fighting age. If you were king, you let them all whack each other and loose your ability to be productive come harvest time? Nope.

     

    Single or limited combat is an extremely sensible alternative. Even if it means you loose your territory if your man looses.

     

    I agree, it is more sensable, and probably did hapen. but I doubt that it would have been fought over an entire teritory. The Albans, once they have lost the single comat would have had a choice - lose everything or fight and possibly lose everything/gain rome. Human nature dictates they would choose the later, which leads to my saying that it is not due to the Horatii brothers that saved Rome.


  8. The World as We know it would need to be totally destroyed if the World is to enter a New Dark Age. The human drama cannot co-exist with the knowledge that the present advances in tools and ideas if those things of the material experience are to become archeologist finds. The archeologist of 4006 will find few clues. Either the World advances or begins a New Age Not a Dark one.

     

    regards,

     

    i suspect that if you asked a roman a similar question in say 350, he would have found it dificult to belive that aqueducts, baths and all other engineering would be lost for centuries...


  9. Do you think that the wealthier citizens would have had a seperate part of the baths reserved for them? I just can't imagine the rich and famous people of Rome sharing the same baths and conversing with the poor and the slaves.

     

    oh, they had private baths. ;)


  10. Hmm, i doubt that a country/city state would just hand over its teritory because one of its people lost a personal combat. Naturaly it is a myth, or possably legend, but befor ridiculing your statement "If the Horatii brothers had lost this battle Rome would have never existed. So all ancient Roman fans should be thanking them to this day." I will agree with it in kind.

    even if this alone didnt get them alban teritory, it cast a mould for later Romans to emulate. legends like this and Horatius at the bridge, were created (or exagerated) to give an ideal that should be lived up to, and can be seen in the junior commanders of the republic, and in the case of Metellus a general.

    All nations need to have these Hheroic ancestors to look up to and emulate, its what formes their culture. Horatius refuses to give up after his brothers have fallen, rome dose not surrender to carthage after her armies have been beaten. its the mentality of rome that made her grate, and this legend (amongst others) illustrated it for them.


  11. Caesars victory did a lot for Rome; if Pompey had won, there is no evidence to suggest he would have made himself Dictator (maybe first among the senate, but not in terms of power), so the civil wars would have continued until a monarchy was established, and the sooner that happened the better. After Sulla marched on Rome monarchy was inevitable. Rome was just lucky that Octavian as Caesars successor was an able politician.

     

    I don


  12. No, the passage didn't give any indication of numbers, or of people beeing simultaneously burned and crucified. It only stated that Christians were persecuted and killed.

     

    I would have to say, as someone else did that Nero never realy appeared to be in any way perverse, or sadistic. His faults were extravagance, and lack of interest in the governance of an empire. The wanton infliction of pain is something more assosiated with Caligula or Domitian.


  13. Yes , the "Imperial throne" was hereditary pure and simple . If an Augustus had a son (biological or adopted) , he was to succeed him . Tiberius was the son (yes , adopted) of Augustus , Gaius was the son of Tiberius (adopted) . Gaius was dead without a son . Nero was the son of Claudius (adopted) , he died without a son . Titus was the son of Vespasianus , Domitianus was the brother of Titus and died without sons . Traianus was the son (adopted) of Nerva and so on . Even the consept of the "adopted Emperors" is wrong - The adoptive Emperors (Nerva , Traianus , Hadrian and Pius) simply had no biological sons and in the very first instanse Commodus the biological son of Aurelius - succeed him . Geta and Caracalla succeeded Severus and were dead without sons so their relatives , Heliogabalus and Alexandrus succeeded them .

     

    You could have only 2 ways to become Emperor - To be older son of the previous Emperor (or his closeset relative) or to took the "throne" by using power .

     

    I would have to dissagree, Adoption was the way the emperors used of signaling their chosen sucsessor, because, as the son of the emperor their possition would be less likely contested.

     

    There was just one way to become emperor: army backing.


  14. Thanks, guys. :lol:

    Yeah, I'm familiar with Caesar's accounts of the Britons, Dio Cassius I think might have been quoted... not so contemporary, and I'm not at all familiar with them (something I need to rectify) ahh well ill go and do some googling.

    I suspect it will remain an enigma, one that will be solved at a completely random and inappropriate moment 30 years from now...

     

    edit: wasnt Cassius Dio :rolleyes:.


  15. I actually found one purporting to have Livia as a 17th great-grandmother! One has to feel quite sorry for such souls...... :rolleyes:

     

    If that is a modern claim it is obviously imposible. :lol:

     

    Come to think of it, the best documented genealogy is that of royals and aristocrats, and a Roman magistrate is the most likely candidate for aristocratic post... then I remembered that every place that was once in the empire has been conquered at least once (more than once in everywhere except Turkey), so it is unlikely that any old orders would have survived.

     

    However most of the monarchy of Europe will be descended of the neo Roman Aristocracy, through medieval marital diplomacy with Byzantium, and as I believe Alexius I said "we [the aristocracy] are a disgustingly inbred bunch". Only a few of the prominent families of Rome moved to Constantinople, and it is pretty guaranteed that most of the emperors were their (indirect) descendants. An interesting thought, I wonder if anybody has ever tried to trace it back...


  16. I remember a couple of years ago thinking that in the early days of Rome that chariots were used in warfare, and I also vaguely remember reading something on the web referring to an invasion of Britain (one of Caesars I think) that went something like this:

     

    ...the Romans, having long ago abandoned the use of chariots for use in war, were at a loss at how to combat the Britons in...

     

    I do not recall if it was quoting a contemporary source, and I have tried hard to find the page, but cant. I suspect it was not a brilliant one as I didn't make a note of it, but nevertheless, it still leaves me wandering where I got the idea from and where they did... Perhaps it was referring to the period of myths and legends before and after the founding of Rome.

     

    If the Romans had used chariots would they have been compatible with the legion, or were they too specialised for open plains?

     

    Can anyone shed any light on my youthful misconceptions that have come to haunt me? :rolleyes:


  17. Hannibal was undeniably a general of genius, but he was not Carthage. Hannibal was merely a member of one of the great families of Carthage, with the City and its empire run by its senate, in (I understand) much the same way as Rome. After the first Punic war Hannibals father, Hamilcar, went to the Iberian Peninsular where he carved out a personal empire, although it was technically still part of Carthage. It was inherited first by his son-in-law, Hasdrubal, then Hannibal.

    The Carthaginian Senate was, as I understand it in the majority under the control of political rivals of the Barca's, therefore cooperation was limited. A reason why Hannibal never received reinforcements in Italy. His Invasion of Italy was in many ways a personal thing, and he didn


  18. No matter what the reasons for invading were, whats done is done, and in the current situation executing Saddam is the best (and only) thing that America (George Bush) can do for the Iraqi's. Well, all they seem capable of doing. Bin Laden is a differant matter entirely... and off topoic, so i wont go there.


  19. I suspect that changes in language would affect changes to the names; foreigners always have trouble pronouncing some sounds in a language, and with names it was also common to equate it with a similar word in their own language. I was browsing a list of Italian sir-names, and the first one I came across that looked vaguely Roman was di Saluzzo = Sallustius; da Carrara = Carius or Carus; Rossi = Roscius or Rusonius? The prospect is there...

×