ASCLEPIADES
-
Posts
2,115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by ASCLEPIADES
-
-
... Rome's economy, while agricultural, was supplemented by a semi-regular influx of war spoils, whether it was in currency, valuable luxuries or slaves.
-
I find myself very sympathetic with the Arian view of the Christian faith. It is essential to recognize the importance of the suppression of pagan and non-orthodox Christian views in the history of Ancient Rome.
-
Salve, Amici
For this and related topics, the first question is always the same:
What is the author's working definition for the Fall of Rome?
More than half the authors I have checked on have extensively argued why it happened without actually explaining what it was (at least for each one of them).
-
At least in the case of Attalus III the will were made public. I think that the Senate was very eager to annex Peragemon since Tiberius Gracchus tried to hurt their authority by proposing that the new province be added by a law of the Concilia Plebis.
Sorry; what I was asking if if the royal wills were made public before the King's death; only so they would have been able to become an evidence of loyalty to Rome in any meaningful way for the wills' authors, as you suggested.
Was that tyhe case?
The rational of my argument is very simply: the equestrians were one of the main benefactors of exploiting of the provinces and they were also the bitter rivals of the old Roman oligarchy in the fight for the very limited numbers of senate seats. so the senate prefer not to annex new province and thus prevent creating new territories in which the equestrians could exploit to increase their wealth.Actually we haven't dealt with this argument yet; simple it is indeed, and so is the obvious question:
What prevented the Roman Senate from taking the provincial revenues for itself?
(In fact, it seems that was exactly what they did)
After all, according to W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities article on Senatus (by HF Pelham):
, "...it was the senate which determined what a province should pay, and in what form; which granted exemptions, increased the amount, or altered the mode of collection...
... It was the senate which sanctioned the expenditure, which directed the payments to be made from the treasury--except where these were in a few cases fixed by law,--and which authorised the striking and issue of coins in Rome...
...The organisation, in the first instance, of a new province was usually carried out by a commission of senators in accordance with a decree of the senate, and it was by the senate, as a rule, that any subsequent modifications in its constitution were made, and regulations laid down as to the methods of its administration ".
-
Irrespectively of Mr Shenkman's hypothesis, Lady N had a concrete and direct question that remains not entirely answered; in fact, it seems there is currently no scholar consensus.
But what about when the Romans filled in the inner moat, a short time following the construction of the wall? Do we have evidence that attacks from the south then increased, if the inner moat had previously been a deterrent? -
Plinius.
-
Salve, DD
This is pretty inspired.A few months ago, I wrote about my friend Bryan Doerries -
The Ptolemies of the first century BC are not the same as their ancestors, like all the other Hellenistic kingdoms their power was severely diminish, at the same time Rome rose as the supreme power in the mediterian and was the one which called the shots even without a permenent military garrison. to me those "gifts" of the Ptolemies (as well as Attalus III of Pergamum) were actually a political move that was suppose to show that they are loyal friends and allies of the Roman people (it's also is according to the Roman custom that a person suppose to leave some of his property to his friends in his will).
It's likely that they die before that they could change their will and choose an heir from their family.
If the wills were by definition posthumous, what benefit would Attalus, the Ptolemies and the other kings get by then from showing such loyalty?
Should we suppose rhe Romans knew the wills' contents in advance? If that was the case, it didn't seem to have helped Apion for getting the Egyptian throne,
Why wouldn't these kings be able to change their wills as required?
Even if the purported benefit was for their surviving families; what potential benefit could have been enough to compensate the Ptolemies for giving away the wealthiest Hellenistic kingdom?
If the royal wills were all the enigma, the most economic explanation would be that the Romans simply faked such documents.
But why would the Romans get into such trouble if they were going to reject the donation in the first place?
(Admittedly that was far from being always the case; the Senate seemed to have had no problem in making the rich Asia a Roman province at once).
It makes sense the idea that a group of Romans may have been the only ones able to opposse another group of Romans at the time.
Even so, I stll can't follow the rationale here.
-
Romans often showed surprising reluctance in annexing foreign lands. In contrast with some "imperial" campaigns like those of Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Trajan etc that are typical wars of conquest the Republic moved very slowly and usually regions were transformed in provinces only after a long period of roman hegemony.
Conquered people had time to adjust with romans because this process often lasted several generations (even if we see it on the same page in the history books)
Also there was a blur between the inside and the outside of the empire as it was a foedus-ration. Even within a province the relations between the governor and the cities were often based on treaties. Many allies like Rhodes, Massalia or Callatis were never formally annexed.
-
Yes and no... Rome's economy, while agricultural, was supplemented by a semi-regular influx of war spoils, whether it was in currency, valuable luxuries or slaves. The great majority of Rome's military conquests resulted in such an influx. While there are many factors involved, it wasn't really until the over-extension of the empire and the inability for Rome to continue under such a methodology that we see the failure of the economy.
I understand the spoils from the campaigns of Scipio Asiaticus (DLXIV AUC / 190 BC), Pompeius Magnus (DCXCI AUC / 63 BC) and Octavius Caesar (DCCXXIII AUC / 31 BC) were each one of them enough to produce significant deflation and other persistent macroeconomical effects.
Anyway, spoils came just once from any conquest. I would be more interested in the long term economic effects; revenues, explotaition and so on. The more subjugated territories, the better?
-
Methinks that part of the problem in Roman-Christian relations was the deifying by a minority sect of a person who was ostensibly crucified for sedition against the empire. To modern eyes this may not seem much of an issue but put in it's proper historical context the import is enormous. Can you imagine how a sect that adored Spartacus as a deity would have fared in those times? The analogy might be a little grotesque but we have to bear in mind that people back then understand a simple fact that escapes our modern minds - crucifixion was a standard punishment for sedition and rebellion, which were considered heinous crimes in most classes of Roman society. The fact that Christians adored a crucified figure would have been, as they say in the Indian subcontinent, a bone in the kebab, the only solution for which would have been extensive doctoring and remaking of Christian doctrine and wholesale borrowing of pagan religious and social paraphernalia.
-
Gratiam habeo for that.
-
For the sake of the argument, let's just admit for now
-
Why would the powerful and despotic Ptolemies like to release whole wealthy nations to the Roman republic?
Why was the Roman republic so reluctant to accept them?
And your best guesses are...
-
Galen really was a prolific author. He composed his first medical works as only a teenager: Diagnosis and Diseases of the Eye, On the Best Sect, and On the Anatomy of the Uterus. As much as 2/3 of his works have been lost and much of the surviving works have not been made available to English readers.
Here is an interesting source for information about the works of Galen:
http://www.bium.univ-paris5.fr/histmed/medica/galien_va.htm
(Click on the Books list near his picture to see some of of his works)
guy also known as gaius
Merci pour cette b
-
I remember reading that Septimius Sever was embarrassed when he was an emperor that his sister spoke Latin with a very strong Punic accent. This may indicate that his mother tongue was Punic.
Some roman cities from North Africa kept Punic organization and titles like while others were organized on the roman model.
-
Aphrodite! (I finally got one!)
Here's my entry:
Oooh! Who do I see?
The fairest lad of all, to me
There is not a prettier face
Closer to the pond, to embrace
That fairest visage looking back at me!
Indeed it is, Lady Magistra.
Are you Narcissus?
-
In addition to what PP said I think that the Roman themselves thought about Roman "allies" (which were in fact client states) as being part of the Roman rule and in their eyes the transfer of a territory from being rule by a local ally to being ruled by a promagister from Rome wasn't that radical.
60)
Even if most Roman allies eventually finished as client states, both terms are not synonymous, not even for the Romans.
For example, Carthage was a Roman ally during the Pyrrhic Wars; it became a client state only after the end of Punic War II.
"He also united the kings with whom he was in alliance by mutual ties, and was very ready to propose or favour intermarriages or friendships among them. He never failed to treat them all with consideration as integral parts of the empire, regularly appointing a guardian for such as were too young to rule or whose minds were affected, until they grew up or recovered; and he brought up the children of many of them and educated them with his own." (Suentonius Divus Augustus, 48)"His friends and allies among the kings each in his own realm founded a city called Caesarea, and all joined in a plan to contribute the funds for finishing the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which was begun at Athens in ancient days, and to dedicate it to his Genius; and they would often leave their kingdoms and show him the attentions usual in dependents, clad in the toga and without the emblems of royalty, not only at Rome, but even when he was travelling through the provinces." (Suentonius Divus Augustus, 60)
By consideration, do you mean...
... Archelaus of Judea, freezing at his exile in Gaul?
... Or the executed Antiochus of Commagene?
... Or the deposed Malichus of Nabatea?
Please remember who wrote this; Caius Suetonius Tranquillus was the number 1 fan of Divus Augustus' club.
-
At least from the sack of Veii to the battle of Carrhae, Absolutely ALL (I can't emphasize enough the absolute) Roman neighbours (ALL Roman allies and friends included) were eventually conquered by Rome.
It's extremely unlikely that this was just a coincidence.
Conquered or incorporated? Semantics in some cases, but there were many people who were willingly absorbed by Rome peacefully, even if the threat of violence was constantly looming.
-
Does the entire expansion of Rome need to be pigeon-holed into a single strategic explanation. Some wars were aggressive and others defensive by nature. Some were in response to allied requests (or so the politicians wished the world to believe), others in response to real or perceived affronts. The Claudian invasion of Britain for example, where no threat existed to the mainland continent, can hardly be compared to the the Pyrrhic War or the 2nd Punic War in their nature. While Rome may have played an explicit role in causing both the latter confrontations and both clearly resulted in expansion of territory, it's far less difficult to determine if that was the ultimate goal of the conflict (though it assuredly played a role).
-
p.s. On Language. "the gospels were written in Greek for the general Roman population". Um. Language use and spread (how much Berber used in North Africa, any "Celtic" left in Gaul, use of Greek vs Coptic in Egypt, how much Greek, known by the upper classes in the west) is a huge topic in itself. Not necessary here 'cause the west had little influence on Christianity. But it's a good'un too!
That demotic Greek was the lingua franca .
-
Throned in splendor, O blessed goddess,
Child of Zeus, Enchantress, I implore thee
Slay me not in this distress and anguish,
Lady of beauty.
All in smiling wreathed thy face immortal,
Bade me tell thee the cause of all my suffering,
Why now I called thee;
What for my maddened heart I most was longing.
-
Economic Imperialism:
Defensive Imperialism:
Expansion Imperialism:
-
"The German bodyguards, Corporis Custodes, numbering between 100-500 men were recruited by Augustus who seemed to use them as a private militia. They were disbanded after the Varus disaster and re instated before 14AD. It was Caligula who militarised them completely..."
O.K
What was the correlation between the Praetorians and the Corporis Custodes ?
Where the c. 300 german bodyguards were when Chaerea stabed the mad god ?
No correlation at all.
The Praetorian cohorts came at least from the middle Republic. During the Civil Wars their loyalty was never completely assured, so foreign mercenaries were regarded as more reliable.
Augustus actually had two units, one of Hispanians (Caligurritani) and other of Germans (Germani Corporis Custodes: Suetonius, Vita Divus Augustus cp.XLIX).
Even the general Statilius Taurus (Salvidienus Rufus successor) had his own Germani Corporis Custodes, accorfing to epigraphic evidence.
They were a de facto private paramilitary force, aside from the regular army. They acted as infantry in the palace and as cavalry in the field. They seem to have been predominantly Batavians. Caius (aka Caligula) actually gave some "thracian" gladiators the command of the guard (Suetonius, Vita Caius, cp. LV) .
As his namesake (CJ Caesar) Caius got overconfident, so Cassius Chaerea and the other conspirators were able to surround him within a covered passage, far from the German guard, which subsequently killed many conspirators and bystanders (ibid. cp LVIII).
Aggripina Minor had his own German guard until Nero deprived her for offending him (ibid Vita Nerocp. XXXIV).
They abandoned Nero in the face of Galba's uprising (ibid cp. XLVIII).
The German cohort was finally disbanded by Galba and send back to their native country withoutany reward, alleging that they may favoured Cn. Dolabella, another imperial pretender (ibid Vita Galba, cp XII).
From: Why would some countries beg for being annexed by the Roman Repu
in Tartarus
Posted · Edited by ASCLEPIADES
So far I have found no evidence for (or against) such possibility.