Titus Maccius Plautus
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Titus Maccius Plautus
-
-
You'll find most of the sources with English translations available in this post.
I found all the English translations, but I was wondering if the original texts, not even the Latin transcriptions, but the real things are anywhere to be found. Maybe in a museum or library.
As for the "populares/optimates"... the issue was relatively moot in this period of Roman politics. The parents of "Caligula" were Germanicus and Agrippina. While Germanicus was definately a popular figure, he was a member of the ruling family and his political position was completely dissimilar to the political battles of the late Republican period. I am by no means suggesting that political "conservatives" and "populares" did not exist, but the ideological differences in philosophy that defined the late Republic was not as relevant in the politics of the empire. For all intensive purposes, the politicians of the imperial era would've been considered populares by Republican standards.I see. Maybe it was Germanicus's popularity that led to his association with the possible 'populares'.
Are you perhaps mixing a touch of Gaius Caesar the 3rd emperor with Gaius Octavius (later Augustus)? If so, the issues of the populares vs. optimates would be more relevant. His father Gaius Octavius Thurinus was a relatively obscure figure, but since he was married to Caesar's niece Atia and was appointed to the governorship of Macedonia while the first triumvirate dominated Rome in 60 BC, one might assume he was a "populares". He died when Augustus was only 4 while en route to Rome in 59 BC to stand for the consulship for 58 (presumably with the support of the triumvirate). However, Atia remarried Lucius Marcius Philippus and Augustus' step-father seemed to have anti-Caesarian leanings. When war broke out between Caesar and Pompey he actually sat it out without openly supporting either side.Nope! just good ol' Caligula
Anyway, are you familiar with other contemporary sources (with Caligula of course) or some that would praise him?
Thank you.
-
Salve! Long time no see! I believe this is the proper part of the forum where to post this. Here it goes: I'm doing what I call a 'pseudo' research on the emperor Gaius (for a faculty research project) and I was wondering if the original texts of Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Philo of Alexandria, Plinius the Elder, Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Seneca, Juvenal have survived, and if so where can one find them now?
Are there any other sources that mention him apart from these ones? I'm mainly interested in the contemporary ones. :S
Another question: how intense were the 'fights' between the optimates and populares at that moment, and I remember reading some time ago about his parents siding with the populares.
Please shed some light upon this.
-
Salve! I tried to tranlate it, but then I thought I should only make a correction of your own, even though I haven't had anything to do with Latin for more than two years. ( I hope this is accurate):
Impleto infernis mortui ambulabunt super terram.
1. Why 'infernis'?
infernus, a, um - is an adjective.
You can find the noun only in plural : inferi, orum ( 2nd declension, masc.), or inferna, orum ( 2nd declension, neuter), and the case, like you said Ablative.
2.Why 'ambulabunt'?
This is the indicative future tense ( 3rd person plural). "ambulabant, on the other hand is the indicative imperfect tense ( 3rd person plural). For the future tense you have the verb ambulo, -are, -avi, -atum ->conjugation I; take the stem which is the infinitive form 'ambulare' without the 're' -> thus ambula + 'b' for the 1st person singular, 'bi' for the rest of them except the 3rd person plural, 'bu' for the 3rd person plural + present endings for each person ( o, s, t, mus, tis, nt).
Hope this helps. And if I am wrong, feel free to correct me!
-
Thank you for your time. As a matter of fact it did shed some light upon the vagueness I had in my head!
-
I don't know much about roman tragedy, but comedy seemed to be relatively popular among the romans, as they had this sort of inclination towars satire, is what Quintus Horatius Flaccus called Italum acetum ( the Italic vinegar), towards shows and irony. That is why playwrights like Livis Andronicus, Naevius, Ennius, Titus Maccius Plautus ( that'd be yours truly!
) or Publius Terentius Afer started to 'compose'. As we can see, the comedy masters lived in the 3rd and 2nd century BC. Anyway, playwrights continued to exist even after these guys, however, their work doen't reach that kind of standards.Ursus is right. The first stone theatre was bulilt in 55 BC. I'm not so sure about the 'disguising' part. The theatre was a public institution strongly related at its origins to the religious life.
@CiceroD! Good question about the Mime and Pantomime... I'll see what I can find, (the thing is I don't know much as to when drama started to decline, thus some digging must be done).
-
Salve guys! My apologies if this had been posted before, but the 2000/2001 BBC documentary series 'The Blood Of The Vikings', along with Julian Richards' book
, may come in handy. For the beginners in the domain is excellent. If I am not mistaking this should also provide the results of a genetic survey that was taken in Britain, but with emphasis on the Scottish isles of Shetland and Orkney. Here's a link -
Carthage
They could've conquered Rome had Hannibal headed there following Cannae.
My vote goes to Carthage as well. Let's remember the roman tactic when annihilating ( the second meaning = conquering ) a new people : a process of romanization would have started. Now, why on earth, would Scipio Aemilianus and his fellow romans wipe out Carthage? And why was the 'salted farmland' legend born? Probably because they thought Carthage was their worse enemy...
BTW Roman Carthage doesn't count! 
-
Salve! I was just curious: were there any recorded strikes in Ancient Rome? If so, what were the main reasons, who was involved, what were the results? Were there any impacts on the economy or on the everyday life? I know the first ever recorded strike took palce at Deir-el-Medina during the reign of Ramses the third, about 400 years before the birth of Rome. Thanks in advance!
Labor strikes were definately a part of the Roman economy. We might even consider the secession of the Plebes from the city to be strikes. While these wouldn't be identified with the sort of labor strikes you might be referring to, they were still a cessation of work in order to enact political change.
In any case, GA Danziger published an entire volume on the subject in 1819. While there may be some more recent material, you may be able to find a public domain copy of "Labor Unions And Strikes In Ancient Rome" conveniently published online.
Gratias ago! I'll check that out!
-
Salve! I was just curious: were there any recorded strikes in Ancient Rome? If so, what were the main reasons, who was involved, what were the results? Were there any impacts on the economy or on the everyday life? I know the first ever recorded strike took palce at Deir-el-Medina during the reign of Ramses the third, about 400 years before the birth of Rome. Thanks in advance!
-
It must be said the romans were warned. There was an earthquake ten years before that ruined the city, and even at the time of the eruption work had not finished to rebuild the place.
Yup! And after that one small earthquakes were part of everyday life before the actual eruption.. Talk about serious warning... Yieks!
-
Well... that'll teach him not to steal ( again )
Now we all know that one of the causes of these deaths is the fungi on the tombs' walls. Curses were't found only in Tut's tomb, but in tombs of pharaohs before Neb-Kheperu-Re. The first one that comes to my mind is a curse written on the walls of Unas's pyramid. Ancient cultures were extremely superstitious, and the Egyptians made no exception. The main purpose of a curse was to keep the ancient thieves away from the precious objects found within the tombs . -
Were those tombs pre-Roman cremations?
Yes. Two such tombs were found there. One of them dates back to a more ancient period of inhabitation. The remains from the cremation were buried in a grave, not in an urn like the Roman practice. These remains were scattered among pieces of broken pots, apparently this was a Dacian ritual.
In your reply you said that the original Dacian inhabitants had vanished by the early 2nd century. Are you certain about that date? Trajan did not cross at Drobeta until that time. What would have made the original Dacian population vanish so quickly?This is funny, because I did notice that too. I wasn't sure wheter to write that piece of information or not, as it was in contradiction with another subsequent statement of mine. I got this from a feature report I saw some time ago, and it is funnier that I found almost the exact same thing on a pretty reliable Romanian site. That is why I thought I should display the info. Now you should see in the latter part of my reply that after the Romans came in and started to exploit the salt mines, the inhabitants ( I don't know if the entire population was involved ) moved southwards.
-
Salve, lothia! Here's the link to the official Alba Iulia town hall. Alba Iulia is now what the ancient romans used to call Apulum :Apulum
Now, about Buridava, there were found the first ever cremation tombs in Dacia. Its location is near The Great Salt Mines in V
-
And the closest we can get to actually seeing what they looked like, along with other important members of the family:Here
-
The spartans were excelent fighters that where either at war or training. This guys were a elite unit even among spartans, the best man Greece had to offer.
Their equipment was excelent for defensive battle with heavy armor and shield and a strong spear to keep the enemy away.
A head on charge against them was a dificult thing.
A roman army relied more on numbers and on manouvers. So in such small numbers I think that they would end up worse then the spartans did.
I second that. The Spartans were able to resist the Persians because of discipline, discipline and again discipline. This is quite extraordinary, as we have to keep in mind the fact that these guys didn't use the bow and arrow, as they were considered women's weapons. Again another plus for the Spartans was the fact that they all wore identical equipment - no one was above the other; furthermore the Spartan ehtics interdicted luxury, whereas the Roman soldiers would pillage everything in their way if they were allowed to. In addition the Spartans were used to being outnumbered : 80000 Spartans to 1.4 million helots was something... ( but eventually this is what brought them down ).
-
^Oh my! Vin Diesel... This should be interesting; or not. What's all this fuss about historical movies lately? Ok, I agree with the special effects and their commercial 'appearance', but do not change the historical truth and introduce another round of Hollywood myths! The masses watching this movies might as well have something to learn from them, if the 'books' option is old school.
-
I didn't know they made a film based on the book. I've just seen the trailer and it sort of reminds me of super-commercial films such as 300 or Alexander ( which was made apparently based on Manfredi's trilogy ). I've read The Last Legion about a year and a half ago, and I thought Manfredi's 'theory' about the possible destiny of Romulus Augustus was compelling. In the end, is it worth watching?
-
A team of archeologists from the National History Museum of Transylvaina (NHMT) made one of the most important discoveries at Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa - the Capitolium which, as the leader of the team of archeologists- Ioan Piso- declared for Rompres, is very important for the Romanian history.
The capitolium is located in what the archeologists call 'forum novum', which is the second forum of the colony, the first one being Trajan's forum or 'forum vetus'. 'Forum novum' is located south of Trajan's forum, and was built around 150 AD, under Antoninus Pius.
The archeologists only uncovered a small section of this Capitolium, the rest is due to be uncovered in the following years, including the courtyard, where they expect to find valuable artefacts.
'It is one of the most important monuments of Roman Dacia, and so far the only one. Anyway it'll remain unique as the first Capitolium of the province.' said Piso. He also explained that the whole temple is covering an area of several hundred square meters, and the diggings have to go down to almost 3 meters, this being the reason for which the 'unveiling' of the edifice will last several years.
( NOTE: this is an English version of an article which appeared in 'Noul Adevarul', anyway it is very exciting news for us! -heard about it on the radio the other day.)
-
I'm still a scheptic in this particular case of Caligula's madness, nontheless. It would have been intersting, if Cremutius Cordus for example, had lived during his reign, and survived it to give us more info about the real Gaius. But this mere speculation unfortunatelly.
-
Propaganda implies that there was some campaign against Caligula, yet Caligula was long dead at the time of Suetonius' writings.
Agreed. However he knew he was writing for posterity, and the way people's memory would be remembered hudreds or thousands of years later was extermely important for them. Now I wonder, as I haven't read the original writings- only the translated ones, if there were those common transcription mistakes in the texts we have now, as it happened for instance with many of Nostradamus's manuscripts; a simple misplaced apostrophe led to a phrase that alarmed many people, the one about the upcoming 'king of terror'.
Seems likely to me that Caligula was just as bad as Suetonius depicted him.I'm not really sure about this, hence I have to do more research.
-
I agree, but I stated the fact ( maybe not as well as I should have ) that in order to get an objective point of view, about this so-called madness of Gaius, I wouldn't go searching for answers in the writings of Suetonius.
Why not?
It's not like I'm dismissing his work, I would never do that, but I said that due to the fact that most of the Gaius mentions are negative propaganda. But this just my opinion. After all, I am only a kid
English isn't my first language; and I'm not an expert, that is why I am willing to learn. ( hopefully I'll get your help too, if you'd like to Thanks! ) -
They reported everything, whether it be rumor, innuendo or substantiated fact. There is still a great deal to be learned from Suetonius especially if we realize he is reporting a general sentiment of the day, rather than what may or may not have been the complete truth.
I agree, but I stated the fact ( maybe not as well as I should have ) that in order to get an objective point of view, about this so-called madness of Gaius, I wouldn't go searching for answers in the writings of Suetonius.
Cheers!
*Something off topic : A bas-relief showing a thracian knight has been stolen from the History and Archeology museum in Constanţa on the 6th of August. The police have no clue to lead them to potential suspects, as the bas-relief wasn't in the eye of any of the three surveillance cameras in the room. Sad indeed.
-
That's certainly true about Caligula's behavior. It was very ruthless. As for Tiberius and Caligula, it could be that they both saw what happened to their parents and family and became mad?
This must have been an extremely traumatising experience, first waching his father slowly dying, with helpless physicians beside his bed, then seeing his mother taken away to the isle Pandataria, his brothers Nero and Drusus, the first one exiled, the latter basically rotted in prison. And then, I would guess that there was the constant fear of him being the next on the list... Plus his rage and thurst for revenge must have grown stronger day by day, as he was living with 'uncle' Tiberius at Capri. This was probably a reason that led to his subsequent actions, and if it were, I wouldn't judge him.
Now we all know that history is written by the winners, and in the end poor Gaius was anything but a winner. So in order to clearify certain aspects about his life, I personally woulndn't turn to Suetonius.
-
I read somewhere that during Caligula's reign he would strongly criticize the extravagant way of life led by the Emperor and his court, as opposed to the traditional more conservative Roman every-day existence, though I'm not really sure how accurate this information is.
What I found about LA Seneca and Gaius (aka Caligula) is considerably different:
Here comes Cassius Dio, "Roman History", Book LIX, Ch. 19, sec. 7-8:
"On the other hand, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, who was superior in wisdom to all the Romans of his day and to many others as well, came near being destroyed, though he had neither done any wrong nor had the appearance of doing so, but merely because he pleaded a case well in the senate while the emperor was present. Gaius ordered him to be put to death, but afterwards let him off because he believed the statement of one of his female associates, to the effect that Seneca had a consumption in an advanced stage and would die before a great while."
And here comes Suetonius, "Vita Caius", Ch. LIII, sec. 2:
"...and he had such scorn of a polished and elegant style that he used to say that Seneca, who was very popular just then, composed "mere school exercises," and that he was "sand without lime"."
I hope this stuff may be useful.
Hey, many thanks for those!
Gaius Caligula - help needed
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted · Edited by Titus Maccius Plautus
Thank you, I had those saved to Favourites already.
I was afraid of something like this, well... inevitably, happening.
Intriguing! I'll check that out! Thank you.
Is there any serious research about Caligula's actual state of mind, and the political situation at that time, and perhaps a correlation between them?