Ingsoc
-
Posts
546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Ingsoc
-
-
I actually thought that the original novel was great, I hope that they manage not to ruin it.
-
Mine:
1. Claudius
2. Hadrian
3. Julius Caesar
-
The sons of senators were equestrian.
-
It would seem logical for Augustus to assign 12 lictors in order to keep up the Republican facade, but I'm having trouble locating any additional definitive statements regarding the exact number. Most references are generic (accompanied by lictors, preceded by lictors, etc.).
"The following year C
-
Caesar wasn't the first deified Roman. Romulus was deified first (Plut. Rom. 27, 28; Liv. I.16; Cic. de Rep. II.10). Among other deified Romans were Augustus' wife Livia, Nero's wife Poppaea, Antoninus' wife Faustina, and Hadrian's lover-boy Antinous. What merry pantheon they would have made with Caesar as their Jove!
EDIT: Or would Caesar play Ganymede to Antinous' Jove?
Romulus wasn't exaclty an historical figure.
-
The deification of Roman emperors were common but only after death (in the east they were consider even in life) Julius Caesar was the first person who were deified in Roman history, what intresting about his deification is that it's was initiate by the people and only after were adopted by politicians like Pseudo-Marius and Octavius.
-
You seem to be right about the adoption as a political tool use by the imperial family (for example Claudius had his daughter adopted out of the family so she could be married to Nero) but it's seem that adoption of females began at the time of the repulic.
"And so died Tiberius, in the seventy eighth year of his age. Nero was his father, and he was on both sides descended from the Claudian house, though his mother passed by adoption, first into the Livian, then into the Julian family." (Tacitus, Annals, 6.51)
Obiviously Livia first adoption happend in the time of the republic.
-
Happy B-day!
-
You could download the audio version of I Claudius from E-Mule.
-
I don't think such a law would prevent a power struggle, even ancient monarchies like the Ptolemaic and Seleucid had power struggles for the throne.
Also many of those struggles were due to the fact that there wasn't any male descendance availiable from the imperial family to assume the throne (like after the death of Nero).
-
The purpose of the adoption practise was to provide male heirs so families wouldn't be extinct, but what was the purpose of the adoption of women?
-
I doubt that any Romans could hear Paulus, at the time most of the mission was directed toward "god fearer" people who adopted the Jewish monotheism but didn't fully convert into Judaism.
-
Usually the position of a tribune was reserved for Roman of equestrian rank, the most that a common soldier could rise to is a Centurian rank.
Military service wasn't mandatory at the time, however you would have to serve in the military in you desire a pubkic life.
-
Okay. Here's my point. Octavian also killed Caesarion, which I feel would have been more of a threat to Antony's children, sincer he was the son of Julius Caesar. And to the point of Octavian killing Antony's son and Caesarion, and if they felt they had to distroy all the children who they felt were a threat, why didn't they kill the other three children of Antony and Cleopatra? Does this make any since?
Cesarion was the son Julius Caesar and as such a was a threat to Octavian, whose entire political career was base on the fact who was adopted by his great uncle. Antyllus was put to death beacause he grew up with Antonius and groomed as his heir while Iulius was brought up by Octavia most of his life and as such might be consider as her son.
Cleopatra and Antonius children probably weren't consider Romans and as such they could be spared, it's also importand to remember that the civil war against Antonius was allways presented as a war against Egypt and Cleopatra and it's may be another factor in Octavian decision to spare some of Antonius children.
-
Could it be that Augustus was thinking in terms of future wars with such as Parthia; the ferrying of legionaries and supplies to hot spots; and communications between Rome and the provinces?
By their nature military organisation are conservative and tend to continue with what method that brought them victory hence Augustus saved the navy that give him victories over Sexstus Pompius and Marcus Antonius but in reallty the navy was much greater that Rome needed, for example Nero saw no problem to recriut two legions from the navy in the begining of the revolt against his rule since the navy wasn't that usefull.
-
So, in your view, Tacitus was wrong that there were two views about Augustus? That, in fact, there was only one view--that is, unanimous praise for the butcher of Perusia? That's very difficult to believe. If that's not your view, what alternative interpretation should we be "careful" not to overlook?
You're still into Revisionist history Cato? I thought you'd grow out of it eventually. It doesn't matter how Tacitus or some delusional people in Rome felt about Augustus; what matters are the results. Under the great Emperor Augustus, Rome grew out of the petty politics that plagued the late Republic era, and flourished into the greatest empires ever known. Augustus' reign and adminstrative skills triggered the most prosperous era in Roman history, and there is nothing Tacitus can say to alter that.
It's still doesn't contradict the fact that some people wasn't satisfied from the autocratic rules of the princeps.
-
In fiction I'm mostly reading the Disc World serie by Terry Pratchett.
-
On what do you base your opinion that he had Asperger's Syndrome? There is a good article by Ernestine Leon which conclude that Claudius phsical condition was due to cerebral palsy.
-
Assume that the chances are two in a billion. If you find one, how do you know that it is the right one? Let's not forget the standard deviation (or whatever deviation). There might be three, dare I say four tombs that fit the parameters used.
What help to narrow it down is the historical evidence, for example if you know of an historical figure call David and know that his father name Joseph and that he live during the 1st century in Jerusalem, etc., than it's likely that if you find a grave in Jerusalem from the 1st century who bear the name David son of Joseph you could associate the grave with the historical figure in great confidence.
-
And a question for Ingsoc. Is there a text online of Augustus' funeral oration for Agrippa published in 1970? This, too, has passed me by! If it's out there somewhere, I'd love to have a copy.
Thanks, guys.
ETA: (Sorry, Ingsoc - I have just read the scrap from your link to the JSTOR article that explains that this laudatio only exists in a fragment - therefore, no need to answer the question)
The fragment is lomger than just themention of Varus, it's about ten lines and mostly mention Agrippa powers, an English translation can be found at Robert K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, pp. 24-25 (PM me if you having trouble finding the book).
Sorry to bump the thread, but I manage to find an online translation of the text: http://www.umich.edu/~classics/programs/cl...yl/db/H003.html thought I prefer Sherk translation.
-
B.A Marshall (in his book "Crassus: A Political Biography") seem to think that Clodius acted as Crassus client and his attacks of Pompius was desgine to show him that Crassus was still relevant power in the Triumvirate and that he shouldn't attach himself too much to Caesar.
-
What intresting is if they were a time were the citizens of the eastern empire stop seeing themself as Romans and begin to think of themself as Greeks.
-
I agree with Klingan it's unlikely to find a tomb of someone who was at his time unimportand figure, second I tend to suspect about most of the finding concerning the "celebrities" of the Bible, in many cases they turn to be fake.
-
Pullo is the nomen, you need to remember that not all Roman had a cognomen. A good example to this is Marcus Antonius of the plebian Antonii while the patrician branch of the Antonii used the cognomen Merenda.
Greatest Roman Figure??
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
Sorry but I have to disagree, to me Caesar is extremly overrated: I don't think that his conquest of Gaul produce much good for Rome, after all what could Rome really get from a bunch of primitves Gauls?
As a politician Caesar was a utter faliure, unlike Augustus, he didn't know how to appease the senate and kept insulting them (even when this wasn't necessary) and thus inflame the opposition to his rule. and while he himself was relatively moderate no doubt that his destruction of the Roman republicanic system and one man rule set the foundation to the rise of tyrants like Caligula and Domitianus.