Caesar CXXXVII
-
Posts
433 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Caesar CXXXVII
-
-
2 corrections , if I may - "Augustus was the title that came to be the imperial one among his successors (Augusta for empresses) - and this Tiberius NEVER took - indeed, as i recall, he REFUSED it."
A Denarius from a.d. 20 titled TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS - http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/tiberius.html
"But Tiberius was no allowed to have his son Drusus succeed him (Augustus insisted that Tiberius adopt Germanicus as his heir to the throne).
Germanicus was adopted as a son and heir to his property , not as heir to the "throne" . Tiberius could choose between his (now) 2 sons for the "throne" or even to choose them both as he did in 37 in redard to Gaius Caesar and Tiberius "Gemellus" .
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 .
-
The big question is - how come that the ancients did not manage to tell us wether this great man was murdered or just had died from old age (under 60...and we are talking about an Aristocrat) ?
"He was found dead in his bed..." ?!?!
-
An example -
The "Optimist" is saying - "The ancient sources are talking about a King , named Servius Tullius Who did this and that . The archeologists found leftovers of buildings that attributed to the same King . So my conclusion is that Servius Tullius is a historical figure , who ruled in the middle of the 6th century and we have some kind of proof that he did this and that..."
"Sceptic 1" will say (according to some of the books mentioned above) - "We have some kind of a legend about some kind of a King Who did this and that . The archeologists did not find any proof of his existance . So my conclusion is that there was no Servius Tullius !"
"Sceptic 2" will say (again , according to some of the books mentoined above) - "No . Servius Tullius did exists , we can't just ignore the sources and the archeological evidance . But , according to my analysis he ruled in the middle of the 5th century and did other things ..."
Now , anyone can add anything at the end of "Sceptic 2" last sentence .
So , until the 19th century everybody took the stories about the 7 Kings of Rome as truth , than a criticism emerged , than no one who took himself seriously belived the stories to be historical , than an opposite phenomenon took place and so on .
As I said , I prefer the "Optimists" point of view because of its ability to provide some kind of a narrative that combines the ancient sources (without them we have nothing) with archeological findings and without the urge to create a new history .
-
You can start from The Rise of Rome to 220 B. C. by F. W. Walbank; A. E. Astin; M. W. Frederiksen; R. M. Ogilvie and more in CAH vol. VII-2 , 2nd edition
For the "Optimists" point of view -
*Perizonius, Niebuhr and the Character of Early Roman Tradition by Arnaldo Momigliano in The Journal of Roman Studies 1957
*Some Observations on the 'Origo Gentis Romanae' by Arnaldo Momigliano in The Journal of Roman Studies 1958
*An Interim Report on the Origins of Rome by Arnaldo Momigliano in The Journal of Roman Studies 1963
*La grande Roma dei Tarquini by M. Cristofani
*Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries by Rodolfo Lanciani
*The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (C. 1000-264 BC) by T. J. Cornell
For the "Skeptics' point of view (some of them created a new Roman history from their educated minds) -
*The Origins of Rome by Raymond Bloch
*Early Rome. I: Stratigraphical Researches in the Forum Romanum and along the Sacra Via by Einar Gjerstad
*Early Rome and the Latins by Andrew Alf
-
"...Romans lacked information about their early past after the Gauls burnt all their historical records in 390 BC, when they sacked the city. Is there any truth in these ideas?"
Hi all ,
How we can know what the Sennones burnt at c. 385 bce ?
According to Cornell and "his school" the sack of Rome was not a disaster but only a setback . The Sennones wanted booty (and they took it) , they had nothing to gain from burning buildings or killing Romans . Cornell pointed to the fact that the political position of Rome after the "sack" did not change dramatically and that is to strengthen his stand . If I am not worng , there is no evidance for (?) fire in the beginning of the 4th century in contrast with the evidance about a "big fire" at the last decade of the 6th century (taken by all to be a proof for a violent removal of the "Tyrants"/Superbus) .
To sum up (?) - we have the traditional story about 7 Kings and the 753-509 problem and we have archeological evidance about a "Rex" , a Regia , several buildings , some kind of a wall etcw .
The skeptics dismiss almost anything about the early history of Rome (an easy task that brings us to nothing but a big black Lacuna of nearly 300 years...) . The "optimists" like Momigliano and many others (including little me
)preffer to combine the tradition (with criticism) with the scant evidance and to create some kind of a narrative . That is the whole story . By the way , you can see this exact Dilemma in the most prestigious History book about the subject , the Cambridge Ancient History vol. VII-2 , 2nd edition .
-
About the dating - "c. 625 to c. 570...to c. 510...to c. 500" , so no 753 to 509
About the number - I listed between 10 to 13 "kings" at least , so no 7
About the source(s) - the great scholar T.G. cornell in "The beginning of Rome and Italy..." (1996) . he based his reconstruction on the even greater Italian scholar Arnaldo Momigliano . Cornell have a bibliography to rely on .
Some examples About the evidance - the Curia Hostilia was attributed (by Livius and Dyonisius) to Tulus Hostilius . The Archeologists dated this building to the Middle of the 6th century . The Regia was attributed (by Livius and other ancients) to Numa Pompilius . the Archeologists dated this building to the beginning of the 6th century or to the last years of the 7th . The famous painting from Vulci about the Vipinas brothers (6 th century) , the Gabii treaty (late 6th century) , the inscription about popilius Valesius (late 6th century) , Emperor Claudius speech about Mastrana (in Tacitus annales) , the leftovers of some kind of wall North of Rome dated by Archeologists to the Middle of the 6th century (the Servian wall) and on and on
(sorry about my English)
-
Almost until recently most of the historians could not offer an alternative structure for the Roman Kings list (and dating) and were satisfied with the traditional one .
Today , some scholars managed to reconstruct the list or to offer a more "scientific" one .
The first period (c. 625 bce to c. 570 bce) "the priest kings"
Romulus
-
Indeed Syme is the "father" of Roman Imperial prosopography . I have read many of his works but , again , he and many others didn't touch Antoninus Pius , Commodus and the last Severans systematicly (that is , in the same level of detail as PLRE for later periods) .
Thanks for the link
-
-
Hi
First let me say that English isn't my language
I am very interesting in getting a full knowledge about the Prosopography of the Antonines and Severans . but alas , in contrast to the periods that follow the Severans (PLRE I , II , III) there is no such Prosopography for their ages . to be more exact , there is no such Proso' in english but in German (G. Alfoldy, Konsulat und Senatorstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Fuhrungsschicht , Bonn, 1987) and in Duch (P. Leunissien, Konsuln und Konsulare und der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (180-235 n.Chr.). Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Elite im romischen Kaiserreich , Amsterdam, 1989) apart from summary in English , "Consuls and Consulars under the Antonines: Prosopography and History." Ancient Society 7 (1976), 263-99 .
I can't read German or Duch...and can't get Alfoldy's article .
Any suggestions (apart from learning German and Duch...) ?
Augustus was never made 'Emperor for' life...
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
K.H. Waters in "The second dynasty of Rome" (Phoenix 17.3 1963) - "The founder of the Roman Empire achieved two remarcable feats...He established a hereditary monarchy in the most aristocratic , conservative...and he succeeded in securing the acceptance , if not the enthusiasm , even of the Roman Senate for both the monarchic and hereditary principles .
"...The imediate point is that as early as 25 b.c. an heir apparent had been designated , soon to be removed by crual fate . Designated - for the lack of a son , or at least a legitimate son...He determind that his succesor should be a member of his family: The blood tie had always been important in Rome: In this particular case the continuance of the regime itself might well depend on how plausibly the transfer of power could be made to resemble a normal legacy to a son and heir . But in Rome , the long established custom of perpetuating a familyiline in name if not in blood rendered adoption an acceptable device for the purpose of establishing a successor..."
So , again , the only way to transfer the "throne" is from father to son , a biological son . In a case when there was no such a son , the only way was to adopt one . the facts are that when a biological son was alive he took the "throne" (the only extraordinary case was Britanicus and Nero , but that is another story) . There is no example of a biological son who did not succeed his father . when Constantine the great won the empire in 324 he orderd Licinius and his son to be murdered , why ? Because the son was the heir to the "throne"
About the army - Every un-democratic regime is based on the army . In Rome the army was the key factor regarding competitors but even the winners had to connect themselfs to the previous Emperors (Severus made the dead Pertinax to adopt him....