Caesar CXXXVII
-
Posts
433 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Caesar CXXXVII
-
-
Unsurprisingly, Livy's answer to a related question (Alexander III versus his contemporary Romans) was definitive too; Alexander wpuld have been utterly defeated.
Ah, one of my favorite subjects ! Alexander would have won every battle and lost the war...(see 4 Greek invaders to Italy before and after the times of Al , and Pyrhus and the Carthagian one...) . No, Rome was not a small vilage in 330 BCE .
-
I agree but at least he had a source (Suetonius ?)
I forgat my first biography of Augustus - Ya'avets Tsvi - Augustus, the triumph of moderation, 1988 (in Hebrew).
Covered all aspect of Augustus' life (important) + a very mature (with out trying to make sensations) judgement of his rule and character .
-
N, you are fast !
-
Perhaps this idea for a list will have more meaning if participants will include a few descriptive sentences -- a sort of snapshot review -- on each selected book, stating why these particular books are recommended above the many others that are available.
-- Nephele
It is a good idea . I must say that I did not read all the above so it will be good to see why a scholar wrote an Augustan biography in 2009 for example, after some 30 others
-
To make "a full list" of all biographies would seem to me pointless as there always plenty of new books published with usually little advancement to the research with new views.
So, in your view it is pointless to right new biographies - fine with me (and compeletly against my view), but that was not my intention
I am not a biographer, just making lists, I believe it is usefull and would do no harm except to my boss (who is paying me to do other things)
-
Isn't it's a bit pointless? at least for the most famous emperors (like Augustus) there is piles of biographies that keep coming every year.
I am trying to understand your point
It is pointless to have a list of Imperial biographies ? Why ?
It is pointless to have a list of Imperial biographies because there are piles of them about Augustus every year ? Never heard about updates ?
And if it is pointless to have a list of Agustan biographis (God knows why) than what about Titus, Nerva, Caracalla or Valentinian III ?
And if you know other biographies about Augustus - Please list them ! It would be nice
-
In other words - Sona si Latine loqueris !
-
I don't know if UNRV have a full list of Imperial (modern) biographis and I think it can be very usefull, so without further words I will start chronologically with Augustus and ask you, dear members, to participate .
Augustus -
Lacey, W.K., Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of the System (Liverpool, 1996)
Shotter, D.C., Augustus Caesar (London, 1991 and 2005)
Southern, P., Augustus (London, 1998)
Eck, Werner , Deborah Lucas Schneider, Sarolta A. Tak
-
Wasn't the Cohort just a structural unit until the "Marian reforms" ?
"Marius exchanged the manipular formation for a different organization based on the cohort. There were precedents...in the war with Hannibal...but only as a temporary arrangement, and a "cohort" at this period may not have signified unit of a standard size." (the Roman army, Pat Southern, 2006) .
So, it is a Legion/Maniples against "Phalanx" at pydna and before
-
Who is the African ????
-
Just two examples -
1. When did the praetor or propraetor Sicinius landed in Epirus with his 5,300 troops ? Before or after the opening of the consular year 171 (ie december 171) ?
2. Walbank thinks that the consul Licinius landed in Epirus (with his 35,000 soldiers) in early April 171 (after a comitian decleratiuon for war) but Gruen thinks that the comitia voted for war only in June 171...
Livy's mess probably came directly from his primary sources, like Polybius and Antias. This was in all likelihood related to the shame for the subsequent Roman defeat at Callicinus by Perseus, a deeply despised adversary. As you said, there's no scholar consensus regarding the chronology; my impression is that Sicinius led a preemptive strike before the opening of the consular year, as Perseus' cause at the Senate was doomed from the beginning; however, the Romans subsequently lost their initiative, mainly because of their overconfidence and petty bureaucratic arguments.
I agree but don't understand the "petty bureaucratic arguments"
-
So, who won Pharsallus ? Maybe it was good old Poempy and Caesar just lied ?
-
I see . Now, that he lost the cup (by his arrogace), Sir Al will make a meal out of the frog .
BTW - In order to see the two games it will cost -
550 $ (flight)
150 pound (sleep, 3 nights)
600 pound (300 per game)
250 $ (food and stuff)
That is some 8,000 Sheqels !!!
Oh, and one big fight with Lady S
Dreaming...
-
Do you have ?
I say Sir Al will take the frog and that Chelsea-Barsa is 51:49 for the The Blues
Any bets ?
-
Just two examples -
1. When did the praetor or propraetor Sicinius landed in Epirus with his 5,300 troops ? Before or after the opening of the consular year 171 (ie december 171) ?
2. Walbank thinks that the consul Licinius landed in Epirus (with his 35,000 soldiers) in early April 171 (after a comitian decleratiuon for war) but Gruen thinks that the comitia voted for war only in June 171...
-
Believe me, I have tried over and over and just can't .
Dublets, duplications, revisions, nonesense, misunderstandings, propoganda, erroneous copying etc' .
Have read Walbank (History of Macedonia), Gruen (The Hellenic world and the coming of Rome), CAH, and some more, all criticize Livius for his lack of chronological accuracy, among other things, and composed a different chronology . I know that Valerie M. Warrior worte an article about the whole subject in 1981, in AJAH but can't reach it .
Any suggestions ?
EDIT - Does anyone can help with the AJAH article by JSTOR ? (if they actually have it)
-
A pretty harsh accusation, right? But I personally think that in some ways, he's one of the most disastrous emperors next to Honorius and Romanus IV Diogenes.
First, when it came to his foreign policy, I feel that it was lacking in some area, and totally idiotic in other areas. While his initial policy of peace with the Persians and building up the eastern defenses was good, his ignoring of the East for his western conquests spurred the Persians into attacking again and Antioch being sacked. In his western wars, the taking of Africa may have been justified and well-thought out, but not Italy. By the time the Italian Wars were over, the place was a wreck and all of the Roman institutions of the last millenium were either gone or permanently weakened. I know that he tried to preserve the old Roman civic institutions with the Pragmatic Sanction, but the Roman Italian adiminstration was a complex organism that couldn't be turned on and off at will. The only big players left standing in Italy were the exarch and the pope, and this weakness would allow the Lombards to invade, and to prompt the Italian political division that lasted until the 19th century. Many of the old cities, including Rome, were as left burnt-out, depopulated husks that didn't recover for centuries. And the Spanish campaign was totally pointless in all ways, with a number of Spanish nobles senselessly slaughtered in the initial landing of troops. The soldiers used there and in Italy should have been on the Danubian frontier trying to keep the Slavs out. Also, Narses and Belisarius were excellent generals, but even there, Justininian couldn't help but screw up. In the initial phase of the Gothic Wars, had Belisarius been kept in Italy for another month or so, the Germanic resistance probably would have been defeated, the province would have been fully secured, and the old Roman way of life would have continued. As it was, Justinian's removal of him to the East stalled the Byzantine momentum, allowed for the coronation of Totila, and led to the devastating trench warfare that wracked Italy for another decade... The empire may have been physically bigger on Justinian' death, and had some new nice buildings, but it was strained to the breaking point both militarily and economically, and many of its people's loyalty had been severely tested. I honestly feel that had Justinian followed the more conservative policies of his ancestors, the East Roman Empire may have remained large and strong for a much longer time and the ancient Roman culture of the West may have continued.
Anyone agree or disagree?
I'm not a big fan of Justinian as a conqueror, but as a whole his foreign policy was not a failure and could hardly been responsible for the shrinkage of the Empire; chronology simply doesn't add up. The Roman Empire remained large and strong for quite a long time. The Vandal state disappeared and the Ostrogoths' defeat proved to be definitive; in any case, no Germanic kingdom ever returned to the Empire by its own choice, and the Romans had vast experience with their foedariti for expecting otherwise, no matter their "romanisation" degree. Rome, Ravenna and at least half of the re-conquered Italy were still under Imperial rule two centuries after Justinian; Africa and Sicily were firmly Roman up to the Arab conquest; and the last Roman stronghold in Italy wasn't conquered (by the Normans) until the XII century. If the Empire was eventually not able to recover its lost territories, the main explanation would be Muhammad; the powerful Caliphate was essentially unbeatable, and the Arab conquests deprived the Empire from most of their economic infrastructure.
I agree .
James Allan Evans' words are fair - "...it (Iustinianus rule) appears to be a brilliant effort to stem the tide of history, and in the end, it was more a failure than a moderate success."
-
Indeed . The sources are a mess . Can't accept the story of HA and Zosimus, it is just too simple . One can't kill a mighty emperor as Aurelianus just like that (see other assassinations) . I believe it was a huge conspiracy . Alas, we will never know the details but can speculate . Maybe some unsatisfied officers in the army (we don't hear any of that between 270-274 ?) or in the praetorian guard, some bitter senators...
There is a modern biography (2004) about Aurelianus by Alaric (what a name !) Watson, forgat his assumption .
-
The record of Aurelianus is well known . He was a very able emperor and achieved so much in 5 years .
Have read about him a lot, there seems to be a big lacuna here .
Any detail and opinion about the murderers, their reasons, the acale of the conspiracy etc' ?
-
Great !!!
Is there a better performance for the Toccata and Fugue in D minor ?
I mean, it's sound too electronic...
Caesar, I have been doing a bit of digging for you regarding what was considered THE best rendition of the Toccata - arguably Leopold Stokowski's version in 1957, but I can't seem to find a recording that is still purchasable on the Net. I'll keep looking. As with most things Classical, I know it's a cliche, but all the best ones are dead or retired
There was a Eugene Ormandy version in the 70s I think (off the top of my head) but I'm not the biggest fan of this guy's conducting.I'll dig about on MDT (I'm a subscriber) and see what I can find for you. Chances are, we are talking an old recording with all its crackles
ETA: I have managed to find a version of the Stokowski, Caesar: Here However, this is orchestral. I did find a not half bad organ recital
Enjoy!Thank you Augusta, love it
-
-
Great !!!
Is there a better performance for the Toccata and Fugue in D minor ?
I mean, it's sound too electronic...
-
I've seen better!!
Where ?
Anywhere thats not at Old Trafford!!!
If you have something to say about Sir Al, say it !
-
Yes, 25 was old enough in legal terms but for running a 60,000,000 people, 10,000,000 km2 empire ? I think not .
A somewhat illogical statement, forgive me. He would hardly have run it on his own! Even Augustus didn't do that. But I think we've agreed on this thread that his age was immaterial. He just wasn't a capable administrator - nor would he have been had he been 60 when he became Princeps!
And the president of the U.S. have some 1,000 advisers and nevertheless -
From Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the U.S. :
A Presidential candidate must be at least thirty-five years old
Why is that ? They knew history (forgive me)
Emperors and biographies
in Libri
Posted
Do you mean his performance there ?
"During the following year, AD 63, Nero performed in the theater at Neapolis, moden day Naples, which marked a turn in his confidence". (Nero, by Julian morgan, 2003, page 40) .