Ingsoc
-
Posts
546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Ingsoc
-
-
So do you think that his time spent in the east was just as a result of him taking that area as his land in the agreements at the start of the triumvirate and that he made the best of what he could? Do you think that the accusations of Antony's self-portrayal as a Dionysian figure is over played? I know that he tried to keep it in the East and not to bring it back to Rome so maybe he was trying to play some kind of double game - appeal to the East while he was there and also maintain his position as a prominent politician in Rome at the same time.
Yes I do tend to believe it's was a personal battle rather than ideological one, of course this theory (just like those of the eastern monarchy) has it's problems.
I'm certain Antonius display himself as a god in the east, this was a regular thing for Romans to do (including Augustus and his successors) while of course they didn't do this at Rome and the western provinces since the Romans weren't use to consider their leaders as living gods like the people of the orient do.
-
Thats rubbish, the views that challenge the dead sea scrolls were written by a faction of the Essenes existed for years. the "revelation" of Ha'aretz is just a cheap way to cause a provocation in order to sell newspapers.
-
Which view would you support? I know it's a bit futile and hypothetical but which side would you take?
It's easy to see why Antony would wish to set up a monarchy (worth a try maybe...?) but is there much evidence of his republican tendencies?
I think there is a good evidence to choose either side, to me it's hard to explain Antonius actions of moving to Alexandria, marrying a foreign queen (a thing that was a taboo in the Roman society) without the eastern monarchy theory on the other hand it's obvious why Augustus wanted to portray Antonius as Cleopatra sex toy who abandon his Roman ways and left the management of the state in Cleopatra hands.
If you look on who were Antonius supporters you will find many republicans who fought alongside Brutus and Cassius in Philippi. another example is Gaius Asinius Pollio, who was a republican and even criticize Augustus in histories, I'm think we could say with all certainty that he did not want to establish a Hellenistic monarchy in Rome.
-
Surely if Antony had defeated Octavian, he would have had to find a more suitable solution to the problem of government than simply running Rome as a monarchy based in Alexandria. He knew the dangers of assuming dictatorship - worse still, monarchy and had seen, the same as Octavian the fate of Caesar. Don't you think it possible that had he have defeated Octavian he would be likely to try to promote himself as the restorer of the Republic?
Just wondering.....
The historians who analyze the events of the late republic put two different historiographiec views:
The first was mainly put by Eduard Meyer (in his book "Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus"), he claim that the Roman leaders of the late republic were disappointed by how the republic conduct itself and aim to establish a single man rule, the different was in their aims, while people like Pompeius, Augustus and Tiberius wanted this authoritarian rule to be based on the old republican traditions people like Caesar, Antonius and Germanicus sought to copy the Eastern Monarchy model in which the ruler in a God-King. hence the civil wars were a struggle between two kinds of ideologies.
On the other hand Ronald Syme (in his book "The Roman revolution") claim that there wasn't any real difference between Pompeius and Caesar or Octavianus and Antonius, they were supported by the same kind of men and had the same aims in mind. hence according to this view the civil wars were purely a struggle for personal power.
-
ARCHEOLOGISTS and forensic experts believe they have identified the skeleton of Cleopatra
-
Happy Birthday!!!!!!
-
From The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised):
plenipotentiary /plnp'tn()ri/
→ noun
(pl. plenipotentiaries) a person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country.
→ adjective
having full power to take independent action: [postpositive] a minister plenipotentiary.
-
My topic is "the impact of slavery on the wealth of the patrician class and poverty of plebeians (including the free farmers)".
Sorry to say but your topic is not good, first of all the division between Patricians and Plebs only relevant to the early republic period (about 509 BC - 287 BC) after this period the Plebs had full equally and in a short time there were created a Patrician-Plebian nobility, the Nobilitas. second in the early republic the Plebs elite just as much was rich as the Patricians the "class" war was between two elitists groups.
I'm assuming that you mean to the situation of the end of the late middle republic in which the there were a proletariation of the Roman peasantry, if so it's has nothing to do with the Patrician-Plebs status. I suggest you start by reading about Tiberius Gracchus who attempted to restore the peasantry to it's former glory.
-
Dear Smith is back ? ...Yes !!!
Why they don't make a new edition ? So many things have changed since 1860 or so . In 1860 they thought that Brutus "the first" was a real person and now we know (O.K.,I think that I know) that his image is somekind of a combination of several people from the aristocracy who stood against the Tarquins etc' . There is a chance for a new edition ?
Try using "The Oxford Classical Dictionary", much more updated than Smith.
-
Happy B-Day!
-
I agree with you caldrail. In regards to Pilatus i think that the writers of the NT portray him as weak so they could lay the blame of Jesus crucifixion on the Jews, partly because the vast majorty of Jews didn't accept Christianity and partly because the Roman became the main target pool from whom Christianity wanted to draw conversions. Josephus portray of Pilatus is much more accurate, true you could say that he made his look like a bad guy to explain the Jewish anti-Roman sentiments, however he doesn't make the same thing with Pilatus predecessors and in my view it's would indicated the truth in Josephus claim about Pilatus hard hand.
The connection between Sejanus and Pilatus seem dubious to me. first thing Pilatus was just a minor equestrian and if not for his involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus he wouldn't be remember by anyone just as his predecessors as Judean governors are remembered, so he wasn't someone who probably had strong connections to the Roman elite, even not the equestrian elite. second thing the only source for such connection is Philo and we need to remember that he make this connection when he was appealing in front of Caligula to back away from his anti-Jewish policies, obviously Philo wanted to make that hostility to the Jews is something that belong to the enemy camp and connection Pilatus with Sejanus was the perfect way to do it.
-
Popularity. Although Tiberius was Augustus's successor he wasn't popular with the masses. Germanicus was, and whether you rate his ability as a general or not, he was without doubt more popular than Tiberius. Thst important. With popularity, you have more freedom of action, more support. To all intents and purposes Tiberius was looking over his shoulder at the peoples favourite war leader, a celebrity in Roman terms.
Yes emperors saw a danger in popular generals, however Germanicus wasn't just a general but the emperor son and heir apparent (as much as their could be an heir apparent in the early empire) so his popularity would threaten Tiberius much less then if he was just an ordinary general.
No doubt that Germanicus defy Tiberius will on many occasions and behave in a manner that would look to the conservative Tiberius as un-Roman he didn't prevent his such honors as a splendid triumphus after his dubious military achievements in Germany or divine honor after his death - this behavior could be a testament against the theory that Tiberius had Germanicus kill.
-
What exactly do you mean by "possibility to nominate a consul by another consul"? the people who sought public would have to nominate themselves and as Manlius competed in the original election in which Fulvius was elected clearly he was nominated in this manner.
The election were conducted by the outgoing magistratus (in this case the outgoing Consuls) if not all the magistares were elected in one day the Comitia would continue in another day with the same nominees that weren't elected. I suppose it's possible that the newly elected Consul would conduct the election if the outgoing Consuls wasn't available for some reason.
Could you give references to ancient sources that deal with this affair?
-
This article make the claim that the Decapolis was strictly a geographic term used to describe a certain region and not any kind of political association.
-
The restoration of the Hellenistic cities in Judea and the formation of the Decapolis was most probably a Roman attempt to counter balance the influence of the Jewish population who were the majority in that area as they saw the Jews as not trust worthy in supporting the Roman rule.
I also think it's was an arrangement of common minded cities that was probably not relevant after the decrease in the power of the Jewish population in Judea.
-
If anything I'd serve Scipio Africanus in beating Hannibal
Agreed, not only due to their threat to Roman homeland, but the stories of child sacrifice in Carthage are supremely outrageous if true (?)
It was certainly a practice that originate in the Phoenician cities. thought I doubt it's was motive to the Roman war against Carthago and as far as I know they never try to ban the practice.
-
I have the feeling that after "the black president" will fail to answer to wet dreams of the extreme left in the world and people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad we would hear from them how he sold out and "gone white" or how the racists elites prevented him from fulfilling his ideology.
So in that sense, is the American President ( Whomever he/she may be) merely a constitutional figurehead like our queen, or does the office have real power?
What I meant that some of his critics would oppose any American president because they oppose the US in general.
-
well you know I doubt very much the claims that this was one of the earliest use of chemical warfare in history. I'm not a great fan of Iran but the articles seems to me to be a "look at the bad iranian who are the first to use chemical weapons" when the chapter 35 and 37 of Aeneas the tactician show it was a method already in use in the 4th century B.C. Of cours Aeneas does not recommand the use of bodies to fuel the fire, but he talks of pitch and sulfur to maintain a burning fire ( and his recipe is even more potent by the way ).
Yet despite my view on the "show" part of the announcement I must confess the information is interesting.
The Aeneas is a fictional story, I very much doubt if Vergilius knew much about the weaponry of the 4th century BC.
-
I don't think their were a standard legionary sword before the Gladius.
-
I believe it is the popular trend to dismiss him as one of the worst presidents thought in my opinion it's way to early to evaluate the impact of his presidency over the US and the world.
I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy.
Bush tendency to make dim witted remarks and "cowboy" certainly gave his critics around the world ammo to use against the US however I feel that many of them were simply oppose to the US regardless of who would be sitting in the oval office.
I have the feeling that after "the black president" will fail to answer to wet dreams of the extreme left in the world and people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad we would hear from them how he sold out and "gone white" or how the racists elites prevented him from fulfilling his ideology.
-
I believe it is the popular trend to dismiss him as one of the worst presidents thought in my opinion it's way to early to evaluate the impact of his presidency over the US and the world.
-
The term of "Bellum Iustum" (Just War) was important to Romans, basely it's say that a war is legitimate only if you to recover you rights from an enemy who inflicted harm upon them.
Of course this don't mean that the Romans were never the aggressive side but they always try to find some excuse so they could say that their rights or the rights of their allies were being hurt.
See chapter 2 in this book.
-
Just started with the hebrew translation of Confessiones by Augustinus.
Before that I have read Zvi Herman's "The Memories of Hannibal" which is the fictional autobiography of the famous Punic general (obivously the Herman stypled the book after "Memories of Hadrian" by Marguerite Yourcenar). the book has some good parts thought it's not as good as Yourcenar book and didn't really like some of Herman writing methods.
-
Happy birthday NN!
Dual leadership workable?
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
The main idea behind the appointment of several magistrates are to prevent one man rule, in Roman eyes it's was the worst thing that could happened and the system of colleague magistrates with equal powers was meant to prevent that (as Tacitus put it: "Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus.") and since the Roman consider a single rule as the worst thing that could happened to the state the upside were greater than the downsides.
Of course they had devices to counter the downside, such as the dictatorship which abolished the colleague principle for a time of emergency and the arrangements of duties between the magistrates (i.e the two consuls goes to different fronts, one stay in Rome and the other goes to the provinces, etc.).