Ingsoc
-
Posts
546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Ingsoc
-
-
I would want to get books that would help to shed light of some of history mysteries: Tacitus books on Caligula reign, Josephus lost book in Hebrew/Aramic and Justus of Tiberias book on the Great Revolt.
-
Just to give you a quick time table of events:
161 BC: An alliance between Rome and Judas Maccabeus (then the rebel leader in Judea) is struck is alliance will continue until the days of Alexander Jannaeus (reign 103 BC - 73 BC).
63 BC: Popeius conquer Syria and naturally Judea become a client state.
At this date Antipatar (Herod's father) became the most prominent of Hycranus II advicers, he came from a family of Edomites who were converted into Judaism after John Hycranus I conquer their homeland in 112 BC, his father Antipas was made the governor of the province in the days of Alexander Jannaeus, and Antipatar himself manage to became the strongest man in Judea due to his assistence to the Romans (Pompeius and Julius Caesar) after his assasination in 43 BC his sons, Phasael and Herod, continue to rule Judea until the Parthian invasion in 40 BC which put the Hasmonean Antigonus on the throne.
Phasael were put to death and Herod escaped to Rome where he manage to presuade Antonius that he be made king of Judea, in 37 BC he manage to capture the throne with the help of the Roman legions.
Upon his death in 4 BC his kingdom is divided into three realms: Herod Antipas (the one who were called "the fox" by Jesus) receive the Galilee and the Perea, Philipus receive the Trachonitis and the northen parts (which were non Jewish) and Archelaus receive the largest parts of Edom, Judea and Samaria.
6 AD: Archelaus is exiled and Augustus annexed Judea
41 AD: Agrippa I united his grandfather kingdom under one ruler.
44 AD: Agrippa I death, Claudius re-annex Judea. a few years later his son (Agrippa II) is made king in the northen parts of his father kingdom and would rule them until 100 AD.
-
It's all depend of which Jews you refering to, some in the hellenic diaspora like Philo were well versed in hellenistic culture however the situation was much diffrent in Judea - if you look in the writing of Josephus you may notice that he feel the need to aplogise for his lack of knowlege in Greek and if this was the case for Josephus who were of the Jerusalem nobility that it's certinly would be the case for Jesus early followers who according to the Gospels were of the Galilee "plebs".
-
I don't think he is (and mind you I have not read the book) claiming that the Jews did, afterall, they did not believe Jesus was their Messiah. I think it more likely that later Christians, when the new church was developing, used some of Caesar's story, as well as others. But I do not think he implied the Jews borrowed Caesars life. If he did, and I will find it, then that I disagree with his assertion, as you do.
As you quote the author in your original post :"The Gospel proves to be the history of the Roman Civil war, a 'mis-telling' of the life of Caesar-from the Rubicon to his assassination-mutated into the narrative of Jesus, from the Jordan to his crucifixion. Jesus is a true historical figure, he lived as Gaius Julius Caesar, and ressurected as Divus Julius.''
The "church" is the first decades after Jesus death was almost entrirley compose of his Jews followers and they are the one who wrote the Gospels of the New Testeament (atleast the Synoptic Gospels). The it's would be right to assume that the later gentile church made some alterations to the text but I having a hard time to believe that they reworte to such a deep extent.
-
I believe the author's original contention was that the Jesus evolved essentially from the real life of Caesar, not that Caesar was literally Jesus. There was a rather long discussion of this some time back and I had meant to read the book for purely entertainment purposes but I had forgotten completely about it.
This thread serves as a nice reminder
It's just simply doesn't make sence, from all we know of the Imperoal Cult in Judea who can safely say that the Jews rejected it completely. why would a group of Jews in Judea, the place where the Roman culture was the furtherst from the people minds in all the empire, would model there Messiah base on a Roman god?
-
I think Carotta (and many more) makes the mistake of not distinction between two kinds of Jesus.
The first one is the historical person, this Jesus was one of many would be Jews reformators, he was a minor sect leader in Judea and his attempt to challenge the Roman authority and the Jewish elite failed and led to his death.
The second is the Jesus who is the God-Messiah, since the break between the followers of Jesus and Judaism Chriastianty became a Chameleon like religion who absorbed local elements into her tradition.
-
Any record of who this family member was? And if I am understanding correctly, Caesar's line died off. And those after were not from the Julii family he was from.
Caesar's only daughter died few years before him without children, after him death all the Julian Caesarian family were descended from his sister throught Augustus. Nero was the last of the male line thought be may have survive by few females.
-
Would the common naming system in the western world, in which every person have three names, would also be a heritage of the roman naming system?
-
I think you mean to the city of Tzippori.
Currently, isn't there something in the news about this town?
I have no idea what you talking about.
-
It's seem that in later times the range of names to be chosen was much wider. for example in this letter by Apion, a Greek who join the Roman navy, he mention that his Roman name is Antonius Maximus.
-
I think you mean to the city of Tzippori.
-
Well, I think those scholars have a myopic view of things. Yes, both men were pissing on the corpse of the beloved Republic and aiming to concentrate powers in their own person. But to say there is no difference in personality, style and governing strategies is absurd. History would have been quite different in an empire run from Alexandria. Whether better or worse is I suppose a subjective viewpoint.
I still think that the Hellenist monarchy theory has it's problems, for start there were fighting and bad blood between Octavianus and Antonius long before the later attachment to Cleopatra, also if you claim that Antonius strove for esthablishment of an Eastern-Hellenistic style monachry in Rome and Octavianus wear a mask of pseudo-republicanism to pacify the Senatorial ranks how would you explain the many senators who supported Antonius?
For example I think we could say for certain that Gaius Asinius Pollio, one of Antonius supporters and a man who in later times criticise the Princeps system, did not want to establish an Eastern-Hellenistic style monarchy in Rome.
-
The real issue was which form of government, based on the contender's personality, did you want replacing the Republic. Did you want a tidy, organized and fairly restrained pseudo-monarchy of Augustus, or the fully blown Hellenistic style god-king monarchy of Antony and Cleopatra? The former was less offensive to Roman sensibilities, although the latter would not have had any problems with dynastic succession and therefore might have spared Rome a few civil wars.
It's certanly one view, on the other hand there are some (like Ronald Syme) that think that there weren't any real diffrent between either one of the antagonist factions and the civil war between Antonius and Octavianus revolved around the gain of personal powers.
-
I just like to mention that those speeches weren't really made by Octavianus and Antonius but are a literature device used to convey the intentions and views of them by the book's author.
-
According to Suetonius Galba did indeed understand the threat that Vespasian pose:
"He met his end in the seventy-third year of his age and the seventh month of his reign. The senate, as soon as it was allowed to do so, voted him a statue standing upon a column adorned with the beaks of ships, in the part of the Forum where he was slain; but Vespasian annulled this decree, believing that Galba had sent assassins from Spain to Judaea, to take his life." (Life of Galba ,23)
-
As I understand there were several restrictions on the status of freedmen, especially in realation to marriage into senatorial families, however I recently read Astin biography of Cato the Elder and he seem to think that Cato second wife was the daughter of one of his freedmen.
Now as Cato was known as the protector of Roman traditions and customs it's would seem to indicate that such a match was acceptable in that time, now my question is my and where did the treatment of freedmen change?
-
The story about Proculus Julius is probably a later invented tradition that was first appeared during Julius Caesar dictatorship or the Julio-Claudian rule, as we only hear that the Julii arive to Rome later in the book after the destruction of Alba Longa (Livius, 1.30).
-
It's unlikely that this Caepio was Brutus, first of all Suetonius mention that he render Caesar "conspicuous service in his contest with Bibulus" (Julius Caesar, 21) a thing that Brutus was unlikely to do since Bibulus was the father in law of his beloved uncle Cato
Bibulus was married to Cato's daughter Porcia. Thus, Cato was Bibulus' father-in-law, not the reverse.
Arrg... you right ofcourse, it's was a silly mistake on my part.
-
The headline of the article, "Tomb of Cleopatra and lover..," made me wince. To think that Mark Antony is today known principally for being that Egyptian whore's lover...ugh.
I think that even in anciet times (after his death) Antonius was known as "that Egyptian whore's lover" thanks to Augustus smear campaign against him.
-
Does anyone have a strong opinion about the proposal in Munzer (Roman Aristocratic Families and Parties pg 308-11) that the "Servilius Caepio" who was originally betrothed to Caesars daughter (who ended up married to Pompieus) was none other than Brutus?(!) And that he had gone thru some sort of unofficial-fictitious "adoption" so as to become the head of the house of the Servilii Caepiones under the name Q Caepio Brutus ?
Brutus was indeed adopted by one of the Caepio family (probably his uncle) and for a time was called Q. Caepio Brutus, thought Clarke think that the influence of his adoptive father was minor in comparion to that of Cato and Servillia (The Noblest Roman: Marcus Brutus and His Reputation, pp 12). in any case he bore this name for a short time and never was the head of the Servilii Caepiones.
It's unlikely that this Caepio was Brutus, first of all Suetonius mention that he render Caesar "conspicuous service in his contest with Bibulus" (Julius Caesar, 21) a thing that Brutus was unlikely to do since Bibulus was the son in law of his beloved uncle Cato, it's also likely that if this Caepio was indeed Brutus Suetonius would use the name which he was best known.
-
That's quite interesting, but quite logical...if I recall correctly, the notion of patriarchy was quite strong, such that most things would have to be 'approved' by the patriarch (or at the very least the father). But did this also go for plebs who were adopted by patricians? Did they have to get permission from the patriarch/father first? Or was it simply an obvious move and therefore didn't require permission?
All adoptions would have to be approved by the head of the family (pater familia) as he had the legal power (poestas) over his children. It's wasn't anything to do with the origin of the adopter and the adoptee.
-
Weren't Romans supposed to die before being captured? If they escaped from captivity, weren't they supposed to wear some sort of cap to indicate their shame?
The treatment of former POW was all depend of the circumstance in which they were captured, for example the Senate refuse to buy the freedom of the Cannaeprisoners as they their surrender as disgrace and a sign of cowardnece beacause some of their comrades manage to escape and return to Rome (Titus Livius, 22.59-61).
-
Vespasian publicly proclaim as a pretender to the throne at July 11
"Tiberius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, was the first to compel his legions to take the oath for Vespasian on the Kalends of July, the day which was afterwards celebrated as that of his accession; then the army in Judaea swore allegiance to him personally on the fifth day before the Ides of July." (Suentonius, life of Vespasian, 6.3)
Before that he even sent his son Titus to congratulate Galba on becoming the new emperor (Suentonius, Life of Titus, 5)
-
We know Lucius Brutus executed his own sons for treason and died in battle almost immediately afterward, so unless there was subsequent unrecorded male issue from a quickie before the campaign, the line is not direct. This is suggested also in that Lucius was a patrician, but the later Bruti were plebeian, I believe.
In 493, another L Junius Brutus was a tribune of the plebs (Dion. Hal.6.70.1-89.1; Plut. Cor. 7.1). Maybe the plebeian tyrannicide was actually descended from him? It's interesting that Atticus had another resolution to this.
Or maybe either Titus or Tiberius had children of their own who at some point transfer to a plebian rank.
Legions that Invaded Britain
in Provincia Britannia
Posted
Take a look at this collection of inscription