Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Ingsoc

Equites
  • Posts

    546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ingsoc

  1. While Agrippa put one of the most sympathies displayed toward Judaism by a Roman his stay in the east was short (17 BC -13 BC) so I doubt he could have a big affect.

     

    I assume those Latin named Jews were Roman citizens and hence they bore a Roman name, It's possible they had two name - one was Roman and was used in dealing with the outside world and the other is Jewish and was used inside the Jewish community.

  2. ...what I recall learning in school, the same happened with the Roman government, it started as a very prosperous republic for the people, morphed into a democracy of government bureaucracy, expanded into an empire, which could only be controlled by a dictatorship, and eventually began to collapse under strain.

    I would like to know if that is accurate, and if so, what were the approximate dates of progression.

     

    No it's not, Rome was never "republic for the people" nor a "democracy of government bureaucracy". if we are talking about republican Rome it's was rule by a small circle of aristocracy, the Nobilitas, who were only a fraction of the overall population. they weren't able to agree about sharing the power between them and thus the later republic period (133 BC -27 BC) is a period of instability and civil wars that in the end an autocratic form of government is created.

  3. As I said there some flaws in this methodology, and even ancient writers notice it. for example:

     

    "For it was customary in most families of note to preserve their images, their trophies of honour, and their memoirs, either to adorn a funeral when any of the family deceased, or to perpetuate the fame of their ancestors, or prove their own nobility. But the truth of History has been much corrupted by these laudatory essays; for many circumstances were recorded in them which never existed; such as false triumphs, a pretended succession of consulships, and false alliances and elevations, when men of inferior rank were confounded with a noble family of the same name: as if I myself should pretend that I am descended from M. Tullius, who was a Patrician,

    and shared the consulship with Servius Sulpicius, about ten years after the expulsion of the kings." (Cicero, Brutus, 16.62)

     

    Some modern historian (like Ronald Syme) seem to agree and claim that either the Nobilitas enter names to early consulate fasti of ancestors who never exist or falsely claim to have descended from families which by then were extinct.

  4. No doubt that the emperors give Senators a part in the government, however (and it's a big however) they were always appointed only on a personal base (i.e according to how the emperor trusted them) and not beacause they were members of the senate.

     

    And let's not forget that the emperor court house a great amount of freedmen that serve as bureaucrats and some time gain greater power than most senators and consuls.

  5. Another aspect of recent portray of Rome is that they tend to ignore Christianity (unless it's important part of the plot) in contrast to older portrays like "I, Claudius" which mention Jesus even thought it had nothing to do with the plot.

  6. I think that you completely misunderstand the issue, the pseudo-republicanism was a result of the Roman natural conservatism (to simply put it changes were viewed in a negative way) that why the more tactful emperor put this act and this all that it's was, an act. the senate stop to function by the end of republic and became nothing more than an honorary council of the emperor's favorites.

  7. Just out of interest, where is this picture taken?

     

    This milestone was found in Israel (it's suppose to be from Domitianus era), it's is now display at the entrence to the Tel-Aviv University. I will try to get more picture when I can.

×
×
  • Create New...