ASCLEPIADES
-
Posts
2,115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by ASCLEPIADES
-
-
From a quick checking on this provoking article, I can say Ferguson have a lot of interesting concepts and made some good statements, but overall his comparisons are tricky and asymmetrical, mainly because he didn't give any explicit working definition for what an "empire" is for him;
Empire or Hegemony < CLICK >
Salve, F.
Both terms are not mutually exclusive.
Here comes the American heritage Dictionnary:
Empire:A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
Hegemony: The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
-
Salve, Amici.
Here comes a nice map from en.wikipedia:
The green area is the traditional extent of G
-
Here, I think this quiz is a bit more comprehensive.
Salve Ursus et Gratiam habeo for that link.
And comprehensive indeed it is; whole politics, economics and sociology class in one shot.
-
I rather think the most successive empires are forged for mostly defensive purposes. Look at Rome: an empire was forged simply by absorbing the territories of local rivals (the definition of "local" becoming ever broader as strategic theatres enlarged): Etruscans, Italians, Celts, Hellenistic powers, Carthaginians.
It depends which account you rely on: if I use any radically nationalistic text, let's say Titus Livius' Ab Urbe Condita as sacred words, I will have to blindly believe that Rome really conquered the known world in perpetual self-defence. Of course, all Empires and nations can play the same game. Under such assumptions, aggressive war simply doesn't exist. We would be forced to admit that Arabia Felix and Nubia were a real menace for Augustus' Empire, Inca and Aztecs for Spain, Zulu and Maori for Britain, Finland and Lithuania for the Soviet Union or Luxembourg and Greece for the III Reich.
-
I agree; true figure must be between both extremes.
Must it? Couldn't the true figure be more or less than either extreme?
You mean more than 100,000 or less than 2,000? Based on which source?
OK, let's rewrite it: "true figure should be".
-
Salve, Amici.
I prefer to read Caius Suetonius Tranquilus' De Vita XII Caesarum backwards, as it might be the easiest way to understand his main global purpose on this series of outstanding but extremely Manichean biographies.
We begin with a relatively brief first-hand account on T.F. Domitianus, the man subject to Damnatio Memoriae whose death let Suetonius' patron dynasty succeed; unsurprisingly, Suetonius
-
Slave, Amici.
Extracted from UNRV "Christian Persecution":
"Despite the sporadic persecutions, Christianity was persistent. Between the beginning of the cult through the Great Persecution of Diocletion, some estimates have placed the death toll as high as 100,000 people during that period. Others, like the ancient source Origen, list the number of Christian martyrs simply as 'relatively few'. Edward Gibbon, the 18th century writer lists the number at 'less than 2000', but the truth of the matter will never be known for sure and these numbers are also dependent on semantics".
I agree; true figure must be between both extremes... Judging from the primary sources' statements (or if you prefer, silence) I think it should be closer to Gibbons' one.
-
So in the end the republic fall wasn't due to the so call corruption of the Roman people in the late republic but to the inability of the small aristocracy to compromise and that led to the civil wars and in the end to the rise of the imperial autocratic system.
Salve, I. Excellent commentary, we agree.
But of course, if Roman people would have really liked the Republic to return, so would it have happened, corrupt aristocracy or not.
-
From a quick checking on this provoking article, I can say Ferguson have a lot of interesting concepts and made some good statements, but overall his comparisons are tricky and asymmetrical, mainly because he didn't give any explicit working definition for what an "empire" is for him; as it frequently happens at UNRV, he is comparing apples with oranges with coconuts: the "average Roman Empire"? Please...
If we literally consider his statement on the III Reich as his implicit definition for an Empire (sic: "Technically, the Third Reich lasted 12 years; as an empire in the true sense of the word, exerting power over foreign peoples, it lasted barely half that time"), the Roman Empire was there long before Augustus (at least from Camillus' conquest of Veies, maybe even from Tullius Hostilius' conquest of Alba Longa) and it lasted no longer than the IV Crusade at 1204 (the capital change from Rome to Constantinople is irrelevant for his own definition); the non-roman so called "Holy Roman Empire", on the other hand, got no farther than the Golden Bull of 1356, and that's presumably still too generous.
Anyhow, I basically agree with his conclusions on Iraq and Afghanistan (even if I got there by not exactly the same reasoning), which seems to be the main purpose for this article. No way to rule an Empire, no matter how you define it.
-
Browsing the net I came across an essay of foreign policy quite by chance. With the european union looking very much like a wannabe empire, I thought it might be useful sharing the work with you all.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3550
Anyone who's read my blog recently will know my misgivings about the franco-german desire for a european empire, something they've always aspired to. My main objection is that all such empires eventually crumble, and usually violently. History is happening right under our noses and its all been done before...
Salve et Gratiam habeo for such nice link, Cal. It will certainly have to been reviewed carefully previous to any comment.
I will love to check your blog too.
-
SORRY
Duplicated post
please delete it or send it to Tartarus
Thanks in advance
-
One can approach poetry in two ways. A scholarly and objective treatment would analyze poetry in terms of its form, style and social relevance. I cannot claim to be a scholar, nor can I even claim poetry as a forte. I prefer instead to taste poetry - to sample its enticing, delectable sumptuousness. I offer here a purely subjective review of one author's own subjective treatment of the great Roman poets. What interests me is not so much genre and form, but the fashioning of a witty phrase. What intrigues me is perhaps not so much the historical and literary context, but the at times raw lasciviousness conveyed. Therefore if you want to know more about Roman poetry as Roman poetry, I cannot really help you, nor will I claim to do so. But what I will do is share with you an overview of an author's translation of several works. If you find them, as I did, to be on the whole inviting and entertaining, then consider yourself quite free to explore the topic further by consulting relevant sources, scholarly or otherwise...
...read the full review of Roman Poetry by Dorothea Wender
Salve, V.
I'm specially intrigued by the (almost always) censored Roman *or* poetry, like Martial (ie, Epigrammaton liber VII, sec. XXXV).
-
We are also, for good as well as ill, the heirs of the Roman Republic. Had the title not already been taken, I would have called this book Citizens--- for they are its protagnoists, and the tragedy of the Republic's collapse is theirs. The Roman people too, in the end, grew tired of antique virtues, preferring the comforts of easy slavery and peace. Rather bread and circuses than endless internecine wars. As the Romans themselves recognized, their freedom had contained the seeds of its own ruin, a reflection sufficient to inspire much gloomy moralizing under the rule of a Nero or a Domitian. Nor in the centirues since, has it ever lost its power to unsettle.
---Preface, The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland
Is this true?
Salve, Amici.
Certainly, Mr Holland critical appraisal is never easy to dismiss.
I specially like two aspects from his theory, which are better explained here than in other theories I'm aware of:
1) It considers a collective responsability for the demise of the Republic, too great to blame any specific individual, even Caesar, Octavius or whoever you like.
2) It explains why the Republic never came back, even after having so many chances ( Brutus, Murena, Chaerea, Galba and so on).
On the other hand, I'm not sure low Roman people status was any more slavery-like in the Early Empire than in the Late Republic, specially regarding the Roman soldiers, who were after all Roman citizens too.
Overall, a nice and valuable contribution to our understanding of the demise of the Roman republic.
-
The island of Scandza it's probably the Scandinavian peninsula where an area named G
-
Personally, I agree with Ayn Rand: "... The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe..."
I know I should have asked Mrs. Rand, but that phrase just doesn't make any sense.
-
A brilliant article. I was thinking about this same subject not long ago, about how much of our so-called ancient traditions and conceptions are heavily based on Enlightenment and Victorian period interpretations of the past. For instance we love to imagine Classical Rome as being full of men in togas among gleaming marble buildings. Most of those images come from 18th-19th century paintings rather than modern archaeology.
The faked clothes of Hadrian show how the mistaken Victorians re-interpreted the past to fit their own vision of Classical Rome. The thing is, we probably do the same today.
Salve, Amici. Gratiam habeo, Mel for such interesting article.
This statue (head) of Divus (deified) Hadrianus was from the temple to Apollo in Cyrene, a city which was one of the main focus of Jewish rebellion and repression previous to and during the Bar Kochba war; centuries later, his name in the Talmud was still followed with the curse "Crush his bones."
As there is additionally some evidence of christian persecution and martyrdom during his reign, one may reasonably suspect a religious background from the ravagers that crushed the statue with the head of a goddess.
Judging by other extant portraits, Hadrian probably wanted to be remembered as a warrior. The ravagers presumably wanted to erase his memory. It seems they were partially successful.
DC made a quite cleaver observation; if the message transmitted by a piece of sculpture can be so grossly and easily distorted, what can be expected from the ancient texts so frequently quoted by us, copied so many times?
-
Goths were not originated from the Black Sea area. They came here from the Baltic.
,,,possibly from the island still called Gotland, Sweden.
Salve, Amici. So explained it the Romano-gothic Jordanes, DE ORIGINE ACTIBUSQUE GETARUM, cp. IV:
Ex hac igitur Scandza insula quasi officina gentium aut certe velut vagina nationum cum rege suo nomine Berig Gothi quondam memorantur egressi: qui ut primum e navibus exientes terras attigerunt, ilico nomen loci dederunt. Nam odieque illic, ut fertur, Gothiscandza vocatur. Vnde mox promoventes ad sedes Vlmerugorum, qui tunc Oceani ripas insidebant, castra metati sunt eosque commisso proelio propriis sedibus pepulerunt, eorumque vicinos Vandalos iam tunc subiugantes suis aplicavere victoriis. Vbi vero magna populi numerositate crescente et iam pene quinto rege regnante post Berig Filimer, filio Gadarigis, consilio sedit, ut exinde cum familiis Gothorum promoveret exercitus. Qui aptissimas sedes locaquae dum quereret congrua, pervenit ad Scythiae terras, quae lingua eorum Oium vocabantur:
"Now from this island of Scandza (Gotland?), as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even today it is said to be called Gothiscandza. Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the Vandals, and thus added to their victories. But when the number of the people increased greatly and Filimer, son of Gadaric, reigned as king--about the fifth since Berig--he decided that the army of the Goths with their families should move from that region. In search of suitable homes and pleasant places they came to the land of Scythia, called Oium in that tongue".
and ibid, cp. V:
Quorum mansione prima in Scythiae solo iuxta paludem Meotidem, secundo in Mysiam Thraciamque et Daciam, tertio supra mare Ponticum rursus in Scythia legimus habitasse:
"We read that on their first migration the Goths dwelt in the land of Scythia near Lake Maeotis. On the second migration they went to Moesia, Thrace and Dacia, and after their third they dwelt again in Scythia, above the Sea of Pontus".
-
Salve, Amici
It seems fiscal terrorism is reaching new heights ...
(possible Romanian exception?)
-
Several contemporary biblical scholars believe that the Book of Revelation was written in part as an anti-Roman tract. It's true, you don't that feeling from any of the Gospels.
From a BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/ch...evelation.shtml
"The word Armageddon is taken from al-Megiddo, a place on the Jazreel Plain in modern-day Israel. By John's time many famous battles had been fought there and in the first century it was the site of the camp of the brutal Roman Ironsides.
To John's (author of Revelation) mind this would have been the perfect place for the final battle between good and evil.
So it seems that the Book of Revelation is not prophesising the end of the world but is a polemic against the Roman Empire.
John frames his attack in a way that parallels other religious writings of the time and which would have made sense to early Christians.
John was telling first century Christians to galvanise themselves against compromising with Rome, and that their faithfulness would be rewarded.
-
Northern Neil,
Yes, I agree with you that as the centuries wore on, and especially as the Church gained power wtih Constantine and his successors, many Christians began to ape the Empire they had earlier associated with evil incarnate.
On the other hand, given what we know about the patron/client relaionship, a key feature of Roman society, it seems that the early Christian belief and practice of equality would have been seen as very counter cultural if not seditious.
-
The second issue was that because the exclusivity of the Christians made them - by definition - anti Roman, they tended to worship secretly. This, as pointed out was illegal, and it led to all sorts of dark rumours of that they were up to. See the earlier suppression of the Bacchic cult to show that once this kind of suspicion took hold it was very bad for those suspected.
-
My Latin is very rusty, but it would be something like "reason illuminates the symbols of nature".
Iirc it is a masonic phrase, and in that case I'm sure it's not a coincidence the words form the acronym INRI.
haha, indeed
-
BTW Klingon, one other point the photo's are very good but a brief description of where they are may help anyone who hasn't been there identify which site is which.
I will add comments as I have time
Oh another thing about visiting Pompeii and Herculaneum. Be there before the tourist groups if possible. And unless you are, do not listen too seriously to the guides, I heard some truly terrifying things while being there.
Salve, K. Et gratiam habeo for such wonderful pics. I have copied them all (with their respective credits, of course). So I'm waiting for your comments, specially on the last one. Thanks in advance.
-
Salve, Amici.
Even with the presumed support of Plinian and Imperial archives, toxicology wasn't one of the strongest points of C Suetonius T (or any otherancient Roman historian, BTW). Here come some crucial implausible descriptions:
On Germanicus' death (Vita Caius, cp I):
obiit, non sine ueneni suspicione. Nam praeter liuores, qui toto corpore erant, et spumas, quae per os fluebant, cremati quoque cor inter ossa incorruptum repertum est, cuius ea natura existimatur, ut tinctum ueneno igne confici nequeat.
"There was some suspicion that he was poisoned; for besides the dark spots which appeared all over his body and the froth which flowed from his mouth, after he had been reduced to ashes his heart was found entire among his bones; and it is supposed to be a characteristic of that organ that when steeped in poison it cannot be destroyed by fire".
On Caius' (Caligula) personal reserve (ibid, cp. XLIX):
Inuenta et arca ingens uariorum uenenorum plena, quibus mox a Claudio demersis infecta maria traduntur non sine piscium exitio, quos enectos aestus in proxima litora eiecit.
"There was found besides a great chest full of divers kinds of poisons, which they say were later thrown into the sea by Claudius and so infected it as to kill the fish, which were thrown up by the tide upon the neighbouring shores".
On trying to kill Agrippina Minor (Vita Nero, cp. XXXIV):
et cum ter veneno temptasset sentiretque antidotis praemunitam
"and after thrice attempting it by poison and finding that she had made herself immune by antidotes"
Then, I must conclude Suetonius' (and others') numerous accusations of assassination by poisoning are questionable at best.
(Here is a previous thread on poisoning in the Roman world).
On The Political Spectrum
in Hora Postilla Thermae
Posted
Salve, MPC.
The mere fact that you consider the phrase "predator multinationals" biased or not is an actual measure of your political attitudes.
Lex talionis ( "an eye for an eye" from Exodus 21:23