Maty
-
Posts
557 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Maty
-
-
One thing about armour manufacture - why was so much armour needed? The thing about swords, helmets and the like is that they do not wear out and can last several generations of soldiers. For example modern re-enactment groups will tell you that once you have some chain mail, you never simply discard it because making more is such a swine. Instead it gets used and reused, and woven into different sets of armour.
We know the ancient Greeks had family sets of armour passed from father to son, and I'd be surprised if the legion did not take - or buy- a soldier's armour from him for re-use when he retired. So surely a fabrica was topping up an existing armour supply rather than making new gear for every recruit?
-
2
-
-
Just to add two bits worth here ... one of Constantine's major achievements was to stabilize the currency which had been in runaway inflation mode up to this point. (The new coinage of the libra, solidus and denarius made up the £.S.d which anyone familiar with British currency until a few decades ago will recall.) This stabilization was done by using temple treasure, and in the process peeving quite a few devout pagans.
Therefore C. needed political support to balance those alienated pagans. This support was most easily obtained from those who had no interest in keeping treasure in the temples - i.e. the Christians. Not saying this was Constantine's only reason for backing the Christians, but given his general cynicism, I'd say it was certainly on the list. (Have you noted the total lack of Christian iconography on his triumphal arch, which was built somewhat earlier?)
-
1
-
-
Well, they say the devil is in the details, and there were numerous little imps to exorcise before we finally got Hercules to press. However, I've just seen the first proofs, and (after another round of minor corrections) the book looks good. You can find it here -
http://www.matyszakbooks.com/book20.php
and if you have a Kindle, the first chapter is available for review from the amazon site (on .com or co.uk. at least - your mileage might vary elsewhere.)
It's been great working with UNRV and forum members on this. I look forward to your feedback, as the next 'unauthorized biography' is already at the planning stage.
-
Where did you get the toga from? Did you really go the whole six meters? Was it a toga pura, or praetexta as was Mark Antony's? And did you have a tunic underneath, or did you go commando, a la Cato Uticensis?
Inquiring minds wish to know ...
-
A great thread - the sort of thing that keeps me coming back to UNRV. I've often wondered why people do crosswords when trying to decipher and reconstruct inscriptions is more challenging and constructive.
Ofcourse, once you've mastered (!) CIL, there's CIG and IG. I've always considered IG to be the black belt of epigraphy.
-
2
-
-
Hercules is now going through production edits (the ones where the editor points out I've spelled the same place three different ways, not attributed some quotes, left notes to myself in the text - such as 'sort this out, stupid!' - and so on.)
Then there's the final edit, pictures and maps to be inserted for the final format, then indexing and bibliography, and we're good to go. So, 'Steve Hartman', you'll be seeing your signed copy a week or so before the rest of the world, hopefully around the end of November. Congratulations!
-
1
-
-
One statement in the review stands out - 'In a primogeniture-based world'. Are you sure about that?
It is is a rather controversial claim. Or are we talking Gallic tradition rather than Roman? If so, I'd love to see the evidence ...
-
MTG was my tutor at Oxford. Good to know about this book which I shall now hasten to acquire!
-
1
-
-
'He knows his history but doesn't scare the newbies.'
My mission statement for each book condensed into nine words. I'll be quoting this next time I pitch a proposal to a comissioning editor!
-
1
-
-
Well, there's 24 hours to go, and still no clear winner. Some excellent designs on offer. The feedback from here has been very useful, so thanks Viggen and all the participants!
-
Actually these are both books I wrote last year that are going to the printers before Xmas.
After that I've got book contracts with regular publishers and teaching commitments which will keep me busy till 2019, so by then I'll know how well these more experimental projects pay off. One thing though - it's really fun!
-
We like #38 also, and #8 will probably go through to the next round. What's the impression of #14? I rather like it as the viewpoint of someone whom big H has just squashed flat and the hero is now mooching away. My wife says it looks 'too textbooky' and over-macho as well. (Can a book on Hercules get too macho?) With #25 I told the designer I like the concept, but the actual pic looks too simplistic. Still hoping for another version of this one. #32 is another i'd like opinions on.
Overall, I'm blown away by the quality of the covers. I wish some of my regular publishers offered me a choice a quarter this good!
-
1
-
-
Maybe not the case for Macrinus' successor?
Looking forward to the Patricians book. I've often wondered whether the changing of emperors in the third century - or the fifth - mattered that much. The emperors and their nearest and dearest doubtless had strong sentiments on the topic, but it seems to me that by and large, foreign and economic policy remained pretty much unchanged, no matter who was in charge.
Most emperors were competent, because in a crisis - and most of later Roman history in the west is a crisis - the incompetents and the unlucky were taken out very early.
-
After the battle of Arausio the general who came second, Servilius Caepio, was first stripped of his powers then fined and finally exiled. Naturally Caepio fought this every step of the way using means both fair and foul.
Since (in The Gold of Tolosa) our hero was one of the few survivors of the battle, he is able to testify knowlegeably on Caepio's performance, and this plunges him involuntarily into the snakepit of contemporary Roman politics.
So, apart from kidnapping, riots, the occasional assassination, blackmail, rigged court cases and double-cross, we also get a look at the back-room dealings of the Roman senate. We also get a look at everyday life in the first century city of Rome, and since the hero is Lucius Panderius, we get acquainted with fine wines and gourmet cookery, Roman style.
-
1
-
-
Came across this thread while looking for something else.
Some points which the critic of the classics seems to have missed ... firstly, they remain hugely influential today. Two hundred years ago the second most popular book in North America was Plutarch's Lives. (The first was the Bible). This is one reason why the US constitution bears more than a passing resemblance to the Roman Republic.
Secondly, the classics contain archetypes, from the flawed hero (Achilles) to the femme fatale (Medea) who resound through modern literature and TV programmes today.
Thirdly, early modern literature was hugely influenced by the Classics - think of Ulysses who was the subject of works by Joyce and Tennyson. Even works by writers such as Kipling, which show no direct influence, have the cadences of Cicero and Vergil as these were uviversally taught and used as models.
-
1
-
-
'The traditional Roman religion was much more standardized and in harmony with itself...'
Hmm. I'm not so much disagreeing as asking for some support for this claim. My understanding is that Roman state religion was standardized to the point of being formulaic but religion as a whole was pretty free-form. That is, there was no canon law and no concept of sin (as opposed to crime). There was also no doctrine as such, or any concept of heresy.
Basically, it was up to a particular social group to decide how they interfaced with the deity, with the general understanding that the deity would let them know if they were doing it wrong.
The 'harmony' was probably more because since Roman religion aimed at channelling the benefits of a deity to the group involved, there was no desire to spread those benefits by proseletizing and if the neighbours were worshipping incorrectly, no-one was in a hurry to correct them.
-
I knew you were going to ask that.
The Seleucid book does look interesting.
-
Congrats! Any plans for a sequel?
-
'Possible cardiovascular explanations have always been ruled out on the grounds that until his death he was supposedly otherwise physically well during both private and stately affairs,' the researchers wrote in their study.' (From the Daily Mail article)
'Nevertheless, he did not make his feeble health an excuse for soft living, but rather his military service a cure for his feeble health' (Plutarch Life of Caesar 17)
'Caesar left in the minds of some of his friends the suspicion that he did not wish to live longer and had taken no precautions, because of his failing health' (Suetonius Caesar 86)
Incidentally, Caesar almost did not attend the senate meeting which killed him because he was in poor health that day.
Epilepsy was a well-known diease in antiquity, and Caesar's physicians would have known about the heart disease risk, since Caesar's dad dropped dead while lacing up his boots. The ancient docs still went with epilepsy, so I'd be inclined to agree. Especially in the light ofthe above quotes.
-
This is the imperial 'Nos'
Actually as you say, it's me and my editors - and now that UNRV is getting involved, you guys as well.
-
Thanks Viggen - I had a moment of existential uncertainty there.
We're at the draft stage with the novel (first draft done). Hopefully we will soon have a chapter here for UNRV members to look at and comment on.
With meals, and much else beside, my main sources are Dalby ('Food in the ancient world', 'Empire of pleasures') and recipes from Apicius.
-
'Cursing does have a legitimate Ontological root that effects Epistemeology, [sic] theories of mind in debate. I use it a lot, learned the value from the Cynics in discourse when appropriately timed. You should ask yourself why it bothers you, actually bothers you.'
Fair enough. If you feel the other party in the discussion is being idiotic, I refer you to Mark Twain, who said
'Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.'
Talking of which
-
Okay. I'd strongly suggest that you refrain from calling other people's opinions 'idiotic', as this is neither polite nor helpful.
While some parts of your lengthly post seem a bit tangential, I'll address what appears to be the point. If people accepted that the 'gods' and particularly the tutelary god of a particular city gave protection in return for public worship, then yes, it was right of the authorities to demand that worship. Belief was not neccessary or demanded. In an ancient city the people did accept that public worship was neccessary for divine protection. Please do give me any references you have to the contrary.
Certainly there was debate as to the nature of the gods. As I have said, no-one enforced belief. However, apart from Christians I know of no-one who did not participate in the rituals which were so much a part of public life. Cicero might have disputed that the gods existed, but you can bet that as consul he performed the rites to perfection.
Socrates was executed for teaching people to disavow the gods and for corrupting youth. Though this is a Greek example and less relevant, it shows the same point of view. That, incidentally is also the point of the story of transporting atheists by sea. If this does cause storms and leads the ship to the bottom of the ocean, do you really want atheists aboard?
Finally, the idea of 'resisting the tyrant' does not enter into the discussion. In this case ruler and people were in agreement, which is where the 'lynch mobs' in the original posting come in.
-
A religious organization once asked me to speak to an audience of priests about the persecution of the early church. I began by saying 'If we were in ancient Rome, the authorities would throw the lot of you to the lions - and the authorities would be right.'
Classical religion was a civic affair. That's why priests were politicians. Basically, the city - or state - adopted a particular god as a protector and sacrificed and performed ritual celebrating that god in return for blessings and protection. This was an explicit pact summarized by the expression 'Do ut des' (I give in order that you give).
This had nothing to do with belief, and absolutely nothing to do with private beliefs. People in an ancient city no more had to believe in their god than I have to believe in Revenue Canada. However, if either of these two entities do not get what they consider as their dues, they tend to get dangerously irritated. However, while the wrath of the taxman falls on my head alone, the wrath of the god fell on an entire community.
So, from an ancient point of view, what Christians got up to at home or among friends was their business. However, refusing to attend sacrifices and rituals, and even standing on the temple steps preaching against the god was the social equivalent of lighting cigarettes in a firework factory and insisting it is your right to smoke. In short, you have become a public menace.
Once Christians had reached a certain percentage of the population it seemed to the Romans that the gods did indeed withdraw their protection in response to Christian disrespect. That was the cue for barbarian invasions, earthquakes and plague. As we know, correlation is not causation, but someone who has just buried his family in the smoldering remains of his home might not have regarded matters so dispassionately.
-
1
-
Atheism older than Christianity or Islam, but Romans erased it from hi
in Templum Romae - Temple of Rome
Posted
Then of course, there was Diagoras of Melos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagoras_of_Melos
He is the guy who put a wooden statuette of Hercules on his fire, and said that as a thirteenth labour, Hercules could boil his beans.