Ingsoc
-
Posts
546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Ingsoc
-
-
8 out of 10
I made the mistakes in the last two questions.
-
Virgilius' Aeneas, translated to Hebrew by Shlomo Dykman, his translation is superb and I find myself enjoying his Hebrew as much as the plot of Virgilius.
Alan Moore's The Watchmen. A fascinating depiction of an alternate history for the late XX century.I've read it, I think it's the most interesting and original depicting of super-heroes in comics books.
-
-
I do believe the Senate legitimized his claim legally, whether coerced or not. Of course, anyone could see through such things if they chose to look deep enough, but we know the role of propaganda in such things. And... the legions were probably just happy with the donative of one thousand sesterces per man and ultimately to have one of their own in command.
I do have a problem with your answer, I think that the "adoption" was intended to court popularity for Severus with the common soldier, who probably didn't care much whatever the senate legitimized this proclamation or not. and I'm not agreeing with the second part of your answer, if the only thing the soldiers cared about was money why to make such a claim in order to gain popularity with them in the first place?
There isn't a need to "look deep enough" to see the truth as the adoption happened 15 years after Aurelius death. what I'm interesting is suggestion how Severus has manage to counter this "little" problem with his propaganda and make the "adoption" legit in the eyes of the common soldier.
-
"He caused us especial dismay by constantly styling himself the son of Marcus and the brother of Commodus and by bestowing divine honours upon the latter, whom but recently he had been abusing." (Cassius Dio, 76.7)
Obviously Severus "adoption" by Marcus Aurelius wasn't legit as Aurelius was dead since 180... and this move was made to give his dynasty legitimacy and popularity among the soldiers. however the thing I wondering about is how he manage to persuade the soldiers that he really was adopted by the divine Marcus?
-
From the BBC's site, their current article on An Overview of Roman Britain (by Dr. Mike Ibeji) states the following regarding people's view of Rome:
"... grand, monolithic dictatorship which imposed its might upon an unwilling people, dictating how they lived, how they spoke and how they worshipped. They see the Romans as something akin to the Nazis (which is hardly surprising since the fascists tried to model themselves on Rome)."
Dr. Ibeji's own impression:
"Yet perhaps Rome's most important legacy was not its roads, nor its agriculture, nor its cities, nor even its language, but the bald and simple fact that every generation of British inhabitant that followed them - be they Saxon, Norman, Renaissance English or Victorian - were striving to be Roman."
That's very interesting, Sylla.
Nazis, eh? I wonder how many people made that assessment after a careful comparative study, as opposed to how many think that because it seemed a trendy thing to say.
It did seem the fashion of the many post-modernist and post-colonialist to see every empire as pure evil that only wants to destroy the innocent and peaceful natives
I'm not from Britain but I think there are general decline in the important of classic era have on the west today and Britain is no diffrent. see for example this thread.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You do have some errors in your options:
A moderate Optimatis - A mixed government between Consuls from the nobility and T.B from the peopleThe tribunes just like others magisters where part of the Roman Nobilitas, I hardly think you could consider people like the Gracchii or Publius Clodius Pulcher to be "from the people".
An extremist Popularis - A dictator by the people for the peopleA Monarchist... Bring back the Tarquins
I actually see the two options as one and the same. consider this: initially the Roman Rex enjoy full Imperium. after the fall of the monarchy this imperium was divided between the magisters of them their were at least two to every office and they enjoy equal power and veto right over each other actions. however the Romans understand that sometimes the situation require a single man at the helm and thus created the Dictatura whose holder was without the colleague and enjoy the king's imperium for a limited time (until his task was completed or six months had passed).
Now when Caesar declare himself to be a dictator for life and abolished the time limit on holding the office he actually declare that he was king in anything but name.
-
I'm not aware of regional differences, aside from local pride in Roman remains, but in recent years the Romans have indeed become associated with Arthurian myth. The museum at Cirencester (Corinium) had on display the armour worn by Clive Owen in the King Arthur film that illustrated him as a Roman administrator protecting Britain against Saxon incursion.
One of the suggestion for the base of the Arthurian legend is Lucius Artorius Castus who serve as dux in Roman Britain in the second century.
-
Author = scriptor
Publisher = qui librum edendum curat
I'm not sure how to translated the other ones.
-
Ms. Bellemore suggests that the cognomen Apicata couldn't have been inscribed in the Fasti, mainly because it is too long (but even if that was the case; why not in an abbreviated form? Or just her Nomen? -possibly Gavia-) and also because Tacitus indicated Sejanus divorced Apicata eight years before (but Tacitus himself called Apicata Sejanus' wife in later quotes, not to mention Dio and others).
I think we need to distinguish between literacy sources like Tacitus and Cassius Dio and official records like the fasti. while it's possible that a divorce wife would still be called a wife in the former (it's really depend on the style of the author) I think it's unlikely to happened in the later since they are considered public records and as such would probably record the legal marital status of a person.
In our case Apicatia was divorced from Sejanus for a few years and there wasn't any doubt about her marital status.
-
Here are a few jokes translated into English:
-
There is an article by Jane Bellemore dealing with Livillia death, base on an inscription that mention that the wife of Sejanus committed suicide eight days after his execution Bellemore identify this wife as Livilla and claim that Sejanus married her against Tiberius wishes as a mean to counter Caligula growing influence and when the emperor learn of this union he moved against Sejanus and had the couple eliminated.
-
-
It's more weird than amazing.
-
Caligula was just too young to become Emperor.
He was 25! Augustus started his career at 18 and became 'fully fledged' as the Princeps at 32, if you count it from Actium.
Now if you'd chosen Nero as an example of youth thrust into supreme power I might have agreed with you. A Roman in this age would have been fully mature at 25. He wasn't too young, he was just unsuitable
Augustus achieved his position due to a long and hard struggle with his many enemies (S. Pompius, Antonius, Brutus and Cassius) if he didn't have sharp political instincts he would never survive to his 20th birthday. while Caligula and Nero owned everything they were to the fact they were blood related to the imperial family, they were just spoiled "kids". in respect to his personalty Caligula weren't fit to rule the pseudo-republican system that the empire was.
It's actually interesting but it's seem that most of the emperor who were destined to greatness from birth or younger age turn to be bad emperors while the good emperors actually had to struggle for their position before they came to the throne.
-
It's hard to answer without a reference to the exact location in Josephus writing this incident appear, however Jews in the Hellenistic era were known as soldiers and we know that they serve the Ptolemean and Seleucean armies and I suppose that in the Roman era they still preserve some military knowledge.
-
I would also go with Simon Woods, his Octavianus was a cold blooded killer that would stop at nowhere to achieve supreme rule.
Brian Blessed is a good actor and his Augustus is much more "soft" and that would fit with his style since he became princeps however I couldn't accept him to be such political naive which was anything but the real Augustus.
-
Try to find it in here, they sometime have pictures as well.
-
On a similar note, does anyone know of any way I can access the history of Quintus Dellius? I am totallly lost.
You're not going to find a history by Dellius, for the reason given in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology:
"Dellius appears to have been a man of some talent; he did at least some service to literature by writing a history of the war against the Parthians, in which he himself had fought under Antony... This work is completely lost, and we cannot even say whether it was written in Latin or in Greek; but we have reason for believing that Plutarch's account of that war (Ant. 37-52) was taken from Dellius, so that probably we possess at least an abridgement of the work. (Plut. Ant. 59)."
For Plutarch's Life of Antony, which may have had bits based upon Dellius' work and in which Dellius is mentioned, click here.
-- Nephele
The more updated New Pauly seem to mention that a fragment of his work survive:
D., himself one of Antony's commanders in the Parthian War, wrote a history of the campaign (fragments HRR 2,53; Plut. Ant. 59; Str. 14,13,3)
-
Let say that Titus Flavius Clemens cos. 82 was not Christian (and if he was, who was the next ?)
Didn't Clemens convert to Judaism instead?
What's the source on this?
I just remember reading somewhere that he was very sympathetic to the Jews and may have converted (unfortunately I don't remember anymore where I saw it). Probably not the most reliable source, whatever it was.
Ahem... look at my previous post
-
Let say that Titus Flavius Clemens cos. 82 was not Christian (and if he was, who was the next ?)
Didn't Clemens convert to Judaism instead?
It's unclear, Cassius Dio mention that he adopted Jewish customs ("The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned" - 67.14.2). I think it's rather dubious since in Domitianus time many have been accuse of adopting Jewish customs and I suppose it's was a device to get rid of political rivals.
Some identify Clemens as a senator who is mentioned in rabbinic literature as a convert to Judaism, there is also a tradition that he and is wife were christian converters. there is an attempt to combine between the two evidences and claim that he converted to a Christian-Jewish sect.
-
First it's important to clarify that this work is by Seneca the Elder (and not his more famous nephew Seneca the Younger). as far as I know there are no translation of Seneca the Elder online, there is a translation made by M. Winterbottom and I suppose you could find it in any university library.
Quick Latin Test
in Lingua Latina
Posted
Btw if you want to practice your Latin this site is just great