ASCLEPIADES
-
Posts
2,115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by ASCLEPIADES
-
-
What would you be in Roman soceity, any era, job, class, or stature you would want to be in Rome. Describe what you would want things to generaly be like and such.
Personaly, I would like to be a banker durring Agustus's rule. A member of one of the more successfull but not inceribley well know, some what like the Caecilii of Pompeii. I would want to have a fairly nice town house but would spend most of my time in a villa out in the countryside, preferably tuscany or in the area around Naples. I would want to have a nice family, a wife and a son preferabley along with a good commidation of slaves so I didn't have to do anything becuase I'm lazy. All of these would let me have a fairly laid back lifestyle. Praise Bacchus!
Thats just me though, what would you want to be
I would probably be a slave after being captured in my former country, which is now a new province (I don't even remember its name) and where I was a writer. With a little luck (well, not so little) I hope to end as the teacher of the kids of a senator.
-
There are a lot of knowledgeable people here who are deeply interested in Roman history.
My question is: What got you interested in Roman history? Why do you like it? What fascinates you?
I like ancient Rome because, in many ways, we are still romans. Understanding our roots is understanding ourselves.
-
ASCLEPIADES, you belong to the same gens as that famous 1st century C.E. general and politician, A. Didius Gallus.
However, your branch of the Didii were renown for their skill as huntsmen, pleasing your emperor patron with an endless supply of fresh boar, hare, and stag for his banquets. And so your worthy cognomen is Venator, meaning "hunter". Your praenomen is Lucius, abbreviated as "L.", and your full Roman name is:
L. Didius Venator
HRTDAO KVLIISDN -hk +eu
-- Nephele
I'm impressed; you're really proficient with this stuff. Thanks a lot.
-
C'mon Miguel where's this hint you've been promising us??
Here it is
Let me reveal its location.
Turkey.
Zeugma?
-
Poseidon was also the god of earthquakes among the earlier Greeks. I don't know if this had any bearing on his horse creation - but I just thought I would point out that he wasn't always associated simply with the watery realms.
But didn't the Greeks believe that earthquakes started under the water? I don't know where the fault lines are in that part of the world, but it wouldn't surprise me, given the mountainous nature of the geography, that there are plenty of fault lines all over. So when an earthquake struck, the waves rise up, and people would think that they came from the ocean.
It has been said that what the sea, horses, earthquakes and even seizures have in common for the Poseidon's myth is the constant, powerful and uncontrollable movement. The association between deities and animals goes far beyond classical mythology; even Christianity has the fish, the dove and the lamb, among others.
-
I've been doing a bit of reading on the Emperor Aurelian (AD 270-75) and what becomes apparent apart from him being a very able General and Emperor is his fondness of giving himself a new title after nearly every military victory, Germanicuc Maximus, Gothicus Maximus, Parthicus Maximus, Persicus Maximus, Carpicus Maximus, and then we have restitutor orientis, restitutor orbis.
There were even coins issued during Aurelian's lifetime reading deus et dominus natus, "God and born ruler" although he did not officially take this title he must have still had a hand in getting the title put on the coins.
He also gave his wife, Ulpia Severina the title Augusta and the empress also bore the title, mater castrorum et senatus et patriae.
Was this sort of thing commonplace with the Emperors or was it just that Aurelian was proud of his achievements and also very fond of titles?
From where I am, this sort of thing was definitely commonplace with the emperors, the rule indeed. In a nutshell, besides the agnomen "Augustus", Caligula would be the first emperor to add a victory title ("Germanicus", inherited from his famous father); Trajan, the first to add multiple titles (3); Marcus Aurelius, the first to add the superlative "Maximus", and Commodus; the first to claim the same title more than once. Gratian (died 383) could be the last emperor with this "polyagnomia". The record probably goes to Diocletian, who claimed no less than 18 times 9 different titles ("Germanicus" at least 6 times), each of them with the correspondent superlative "Maximus"; anyway, other tetrarchs had similar figures.
-
What's the last book you read? What was it about? Did you like it?
"Giant killer" by Bertram Chandler. High quality science fiction; a very convincing depictions of an alien society.
-
Gaius Omarius, you share the same gens as a great, 1st century B.C.E. Roman poet, making you a member of the gens Albia.
Your cognomen of "Dominator" suggests that yours was a somewhat imperious branch of the gens.
Your praenomen of Aulus is abbreviated as "A."
Your full (hidden) Roman name is...
A. Albius Dominator
Rmoa Dair Bnsliaou -r +t
Welcome to UNRV!
-- Nephele
HRTDAO KVLIISDN. I am male. Please see what can you do with that and thank you.
-
Carsulae?
No. Would you like a hint?
Limes arabicus?
-
I was dipping into the Tacitus' Histories the other day, and I came across a fine example of his pungently cynical comments (in this case, regarding the last words of Galba):
'extremam eius vocem, ut cuique odium aut admiratio fuit, varie prodidere. alii suppliciter interrogasse quid mali meruisset, paucos dies exolvendo donativo deprecatum: plures obtulise ultro percussoribus iugulum: agerent ac ferirent, si ita [e] re publica videretur. non interfuit occidentium quid diceret.'
'His last words have been variously reported according to men that hated or admired him. Some have said that he begged and asked what harm he had deserved, imploring for a few days' respite to pay the troops their largess. The majority said that he voluntarily offered his neck to the blow and blade them, 'Come, strike, if it serves the Empire's need'. Whatever he said mattered little to his assassins.' - Histories, Book 1, 41.
In your view, what is Tacitus' greatest moment?
For me, Tacitus the historian is at his best quoting another historian, the emperor Claudius I:
omnia, patres conscripti, quae nunc vetustissima creduntur, nova fuere... inveterascet hoc quoque, et quod hodie exemplis tuemur, inter exempla erit.'
Everything, Senators, which we now hold to be of the highest antiquity, was once new... This practice too will establish itself, and what we are this day justifying by precedents, will be itself a precedent."
ANNALS: 11, 24
Here, Claudius is justifying the inclusion of gauls in the senate (48 A.D.).
-
A somewhat less sophisticated version of Cullen Murphy's argument in "Are We Rome?" is presented in today's NYT article, "Wrapped in Spar-Spangled Toga".
Hi, guys! From what I have read about this book (only commentaries and quotes) it seems like Mr. Murphy is trying to make a number of predictions of the social and political future of the United States based on his knowledge of the Roman Empire. Do you think that this kind of Plutarch exercise is useful? My impression is that being our ideas of the past so subjective, anyone can find any number of "similarities" (or "differences") between countries or individuals that he wants.
-
Do we really believe that the banishment of his daughter and grand-daughter (the two Julias) and of his grandson Posthumus Agrippa, was down entirely to defects of their characters?
Given augustus anger over his public humiliation then yes, it was. Was there any politics in the background? None that was directly connected I think. It was purely embarrasement at these youngsters behaviour that got them exiled. Augustus was performing a balancing act during his reign - his own personal power vs the dislike of tyrants/kings/dictators. His detractors would pounce on his families wayward behaviour (as the media does now to our own royal family) and given the murderous qualities of roman politics, then it was essential that such scandalous behaviour was seen to be punished. Augustus was keenly aware that he must show an example as much as preach his moral stance. We regard him as a hypocrite for that reason, but lets not forget that his womanising wasn't unusual for male romans and not considered scandalous. At least he was relatively discrete compared to the arrogant antics of his successors.
Sorry, Caldrail - I have to disagree with you here 100%. Even the most cursory glance through the names of the elder Julia's lovers suggests an attempted coup. I do not doubt that Julia's scandalous sexual behaviour offered Augustus the perfect front for her banishment. Far better to bemoan an errant daughter who fornicated in public than to admit before the Senate and People that his own flesh and blood were conspiring against him. This would have undermined the whole constitution he was trying to create and establish on a firm footing. The younger Julia's adherents were also highly political men. All the elder Julia's lovers were either executed or took their own lives. I really cannot accept that such a punishment - or such a reaction from them - would have been necessary had they simply been guilty of adultery. Why were they so publicly 'named and shamed'?
Above all, Augustus needed to create at least the illusion of a united front within his own family. Factional in-fighting was not to be countenanced - let alone admitted to openly. He had learned that through the crucial events of 23BC. And it was a particular thorn in his successor's side, as we know. Agrippina's support not only sprang from her being the widow of Germanicus, but also as the daughter of the late, exiled Julia, who was a popular lady with the People. Let us not forget that Augustus was often screamed at in the street by common folk wanting his daughter brought back to Rome. So much so that he eventually did relent late in his life, allowing her to return providing that she stayed in Rhegium. There is no record of the Senate's officially complaining to Augustus about either of the Julias' behaviour - only that of Postumus. Had the Senate been ready to complain, why then did Augustus remain in ignorance of her 'wild lifestyle' for so long? Nor did Augustus ever bother too much about what was said about him and his family. Suetonius himself quotes the emperor's famous saying of 'Let us be content that they stop at angry words.' Scandal alone would not have made him act in so harsh a manner, I am convinced of it.
In fact, one of the executed nobles was L. Aemilius Paullus, husband of the young Julia, on a charge of conspiracy, since that of adultery was clearly inappropiate.
-
Yup that's correct!
Yay!! The first time I got it right!
This should also be an easy one.
Limes tripolitanus?
-
No. Would you like a clue?
I think it can be Apollonia, Libya.
-
DC can you give a reference for that please?
Here is Pliny on Mithriditum:
http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin...Ahead%3D%231583
I think that the quote of DC is in the chapter 68 of the life of Augustus (Suetonius).
Roman relations with Parthia
in Historia in Universum
Posted
Not being an expert, the main problem that I can found in the aforementioned section is the description of a key character, the parthian prince Pacorus (wrongly described as a roman general); of his 3 or 4 expeditions against Rome, the article only describes the last one against Mark Anthony's soldiers (wrongly described as republicans). Certainly, this can be confusing.
www.parthia.com has a nice account of this events.