Fulvia
-
Posts
104 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Fulvia
-
-
Thanks guys.
This is the site I found with pictures etc. On second review, the saddle pictured on the far left of the photo is a steppe saddle. If you look at this, it might take a few seconds for the text to appear. Do you think "rear horn" gives the reader an accurate frame of reference or picture?
Cinzia
If I were to read that, I would have in mind a horn much like modern western saddles have. If the only import it plays is having your character rest his hand upon it, then that description would be fine in my reading of it.
-
I have a non-history friend who recently began to engage me on the subject of Roman armour. She was reading a chapter out of a book by Rick Renner who was discussing the care that a Roman legionary took with his shield. Firstly, he would regularly oil his shield to help keep the leather supple and to prevent cracking. This is not surprising or questionable, however, the book continued on by saying that before battle a legionary would soak his shield in water for a time which would hinder it from catching on fire. I have two problems with this in my logical thinking mind:
1) if the shield is so well oiled, would it not repel the water like, well, water off a duck's back?
2) should the water be absorbed it would add a significant weight to the bearer who really didn't need to be loaded down any more than he was in the midst of battle. In the mind of a solider, this doesn't seem like a good choice unless it was known that the enemy was going to use fire against them.
The author gave no reference for his source of information regarding this practice, does anyone here have anything they could share regarding this supposedly common habit?
-
Number 1:
Hera. The crown she wears, while larger, reminds me of the one seen by Hera here:
Admittedly, the nudity bears a bit of a snag with Hera's quality of chastity, but depending on when the statue was created, the artist might not have necessarily cared as much about such things.
Number 2:
I'm curious to know what makes one think this is a god at all and not just a heroic nude of an esteemed young man. I too, GhostofClayton, am often in awe of the abilities of others to pinpoint identities
-
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, I will humbly accept a redirection if that's the case
The Landmark: Thcydides, Xenophon, Herodotus etc. series of books by Robert B. Strassler I've had my eye on for a little while now and am wondering about opinions on their quality as a source. I haven't really had a chance to sit down with a copy and look through it, but any thoughts on the translation, notes, etc? With Christmas come and gone and gift certificates awaiting to be used, I am eager to know if my high expectation for these guided texts will be upheld.
-
I want the Roma Victrix Beaker @UNRV http://bit.ly/romavictrix
No, seriously, I do. And I'm not just saying that because I was told to.
-
Anyone who works out knows that getting a six pack abdomen means hard work, careful nutrion and lots of time,
is there any information on how they achieved this?
http://www.learner.org/courses/worldhistory/archive.html?f_itemNumber=4288&return=25-1
(looking at those athletes i have to guess that their body fat level is of not more than 8%, so thats one hell of a job to get to that level)
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thinks of questions like these!
-
The only thing I could think of would be some connection to the old Greek tradition I remember reading in some of the various tragedies of women baring their breast in supplication to their sons. Perhaps the HBO creators were trying to make a link with Ceasar being a "son" of Rome- the woman was showing how much she loved her "son".
It's a stretch but a theory.
-
The second is from the Golden Ass where our hero (a donkey) is required to copulate with a poisoner in the arena prior to a leopard being unleashed on both. However, as this tale has a number of magical transformations and other unlikely happenings, the reader must decide how credible this event is. Given that Roman punishment went in for maximum pain and humiliation, it seems quite possible to me.
To add to this, there is also the instance where Lucius (as the donkey) is being brutally abused by a boy who lies to the caretakers that Lucius the donkey has been attacking young girls and women attempting to rape them. Everyone who hears the story believes it. While this novel is fantasy, I believe it was also written with enough truth, autobiographical or otherwise, to give the audience something to latch their laughs onto. It is possible that Romans believed animals did hold tendencies to desire human women.
-
The University of Oxford has set up a really nifty website allowing anyone, from high schoolers to accomplished academics to help them sort through the Oxyrhynchus collection- papyrus fragments found in Egypt. These fragments hold everything from Sophocles to stories of Jesus casting out devils. They give you a quick tutorial on how to use the simple system then set you off to match up Greek letter with Greek letter. So much better than wasting hours playing Angry Birds.
-
Ah, thank you.
So the cult of Serapis was almost like the fruit cake of all cults: whatever looked good to make the cult "taste" better went in.
-
Tv audiences today want more sex, more blood and gore. Can you imagine how excited the creators of this new "I, Claudius" were to be able to vamp up the old series now that they can get away with so showing so much more? People will be anticipating the Caligula episodes for sure.
I'd like to see them tell the story with a bit of class...not sure if they can restrain themselves
-
The god Serapis was a creation of Ptolemy I to try and unite the Greek and Egyptian deities, cultures, religion,and what have you. Now my understanding was this: that Serapis was something of a "bridging" god who kind of looked like Hades/Zeus, maybe Poseidon and somehow combined some of the Egyptian deities in there such as Osiris. Nevertheless,he always maintained that position as being his own unique god. Now I was reading a little bit about Ephesus in the first century AD recently and as the author was talking about the temples to Serapis and Isis, he was using the name Serapis but was accrediting the Osiris death/resurrection myth and god-attributes entirely to Serapis. The only thing Greek about this god was his name.
So that got me wondering- how "pure" did the Serapis religion stay? Did the Egyptian side win out after a few centuries and he just retained his own name? Or was he as a god even ever solidly defined? Or was his Greek/Egyptian proportions entirely fluid so that in one city you basically have Osiris- just with a different name, and in another city a perfect balance of Hades/Zeus and Osiris? Did the Greeks stay with Serapis or did he more or less stay a mostly Egyptian god? Did the Romans even like him?
I know, a million questions.
-
I'm going to be "that one" and blow my own horn here, but there is quite a fascinating read on Caligula that Sam Wilkinson wrote (my review of which can be read here) and he does a most thorough job of trying to chisel away all the debris the senatorial propaganda and historical haters left behind on Caligula. There are a number of stock accusations you can find against most disliked lofty public figures, particularly in the late Republic and early Empire such as being mentally unstable, unhealthy god-complex, blood thirsty spend thrifts etc. Kind of like when you're in grade school everyone you didn't like smelled bad and was a loser- even if that's wasn't necessarily or entirely true.
Caligula no doubt had a few complexes, some deviant practices and a twisted sense of humor, maybe he was even something of an evil genius.
And he writes: "From this marriage [Antonia and Drusus] sprang Germanicus and Claudius; of these, Claudius afterwards came to the throne, and of the children of Germanicus, Caius reigned with distinction, but for a short time only, and was then put to death with his wife and child..." [Life of Antonius, 87]Caius can only be the infamous Caligula. Or am I wrong?
That's what I would say- that Gaius is the same as Gaius Caligula
-
Had the author of that...interesting...quote ever thought of how a giraffe would copulate with a human
-
The answer is so easy, gosh, what is holding up the most brilliant minds? CLEARLY it was the first hamster ball.
-
Written generations after the events they describe, their authors were not above tampering with history or at least not researching alternate historical sources to find the truth. In their minds, they had The Truth already and to them, that was far more important.
Mainstream thought is that the Gospels were written within the same generation as the happenings,(as in, the same generation who was with Jesus wrote them, again, by popular argument) anywhere from c. AD 50-90 depending on whose arguments you want to follow. And the author Luke, of the Gospel of the same name and the book entitled "Acts" actually wrote for history's sake specifically mentioning that he is writing to record the events for a fellow by the name of Theophilus. He might not be a Polybius or Seutonius but many of the authors we consider "historians" weren't all that concerned about the truth of what they wrote either. They had an agenda to fulfill too.
Before 70 AD the Roman governor of Judea was of the equites order and so he lack any authority to command Legionaries, in time of need the proconsul of Syria could come with his legions to restore order.I know that around this time being discussed, c. AD 33, Rome didn't have official rulership in Judaea, but I was under the impression that the high level of interest in the country, not only with a cultural fascination (for better or worse), the strong ties between the Emperor and the Herodians, but with it also being a center of trade routes with the Middle East/ Asia Minor, that Rome had more of an official military presence there other than just picked-up local auxiliaries. It seems to me that Rome had its eye too closely to not have its foot in the door- unless they were still content to rely on puppet kings to keep Judaea? Was there a stationed garrison in Syria that I'm thinking of during this time?Ah, thanks for the clarity.
My memory on this is coming back now.
It was my understanding that Roman interest in Judaea began at least as early as 63BC and they took direct control of the province in ad 6.c. AD 33, Rome didn't have official rulership in JudaeaThat's what I knew too. In saying "official rulership" I was referring to having a proconsul there administrating it as a province. Sorry if I was unclear.
-
At the time their were no legions stationed in Judea (the first legion, the X Fretensis, was stationed in the ruins of Jerusalem after the Great Revolt has ended in 74 AD), the Roman forces were Auxilia compose of the local non-Jewish inhabitants of the province.At the time Christ was a nobody, I doubt his death would justify a special record or reward.
I know that around this time being discussed, c. AD 33, Rome didn't have official rulership in Judaea, but I was under the impression that the high level of interest in the country, not only with a cultural fascination (for better or worse), the strong ties between the Emperor and the Herodians, but with it also being a center of trade routes with the Middle East/ Asia Minor, that Rome had more of an official military presence there other than just picked-up local auxiliaries. It seems to me that Rome had its eye too closely to not have its foot in the door- unless they were still content to rely on puppet kings to keep Judaea? Was there a stationed garrison in Syria that I'm thinking of during this time?
-
They? Clearly we're talking about the top half of Roman society here. Did patricians share a convivial atmosphere with the cities plebians?
They certainly did bath together actually. As someone has already pointed out, the large thermae provided ample room for joint bathing, though even as today, classes naturally drifted together. Think of the amphitheaters: everyone of all classes went there; granted, with specific seating arrangements. The baths would've been an excellent place for politicians and candidates to be seen, to arrange for business deals, for businessmen to advertise themselves to everyone, pick up girls etc. If you think of the baths as a society within a society then you have a good idea about what they must've,speculatively, looked like. People mingled but as with Roman society, the classes would've been obvious. The bigger the bathhouse the more social mingling. There is also some evidence in certain bathhouses mentioned in writings of the time of specific bathing times for men, women and slaves (I'm sorry I don't have the references on hand). There were always private bathhouses for those who desired such, and more elite bathhouses would've charged more automatically filtering out people of lesser means. Not all places charged.
I believe it is Seneca or Martial who writes about the the room in which men, and women, would go in to be strigiled. Rubbed down with oil by a slave and then scrapped by a slave who would flick all the grim off onto the floor and walls. Yes, very nasty as it all festered.
-
Lego! All the city planners and architects would probably fall off their chair giddy to see Lego!
Clothes hangers- I'm saying this not knowing the method of clothing storage they commonly employed
Full floor carpeting
Watches- they might not feel such a liberation as we do having a "mini-sundial" attached to the wrist though. lol
-
Turns out that Cleopatra VII just may have lost her title of first female Ptolemy Pharaoh.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101128194011.htm
-
I had to vote for a Byzantine map. As addicted as I am to the Republic and interested in Christianity's spread, there seems to be so little documentation on the Byzantine era (maybe I'm just not looking hard enough) and I'd love to have a map that just makes it all laid out simply, nicely and easy to follow.
I would love a wall map of the city of Rome, itself. When I was a kid in Latin class, we had this gorgeous city map on the wall, and it depicted the buildings in a sort of 3-D effect. You could stare at that map and actually imagine yourself walking through the ancient city.
I've hunted around for that map for years, and have never found it.
-- Nephele
That wouldn't be the poster of the Campus Martius and Forum Romanus of up-close pictures taken from the plastico in the Civilization Museum would it?
-
If you enjoyed Lindsay Davis's noval on Antonia Caenis, she also has a novel called "The Course of Honor" which focuses entirely on the love story between her and Vespansian.
-
I would love to have a round table with Aristophanes, Catullus, Ovid, Martial and Juvenal. I don't think I would say much, just listening would be enough!
Having a sit down with Publius Clodius and Fulvia to try and get into their head
And how can you talk history and not want to spend at least a few minutes with Jesus!
Who cares about opinions, he would have to be a very fascinating conversationist. -
The more plausible motivation for appointing Cato was economic. First, the republic had been deprived of nearly 1/4 of its income by settling Pompey's vets in Campania, and Clodius' lex frumentaria was bleeding the state of its remaining cash. Obviously, stealing 7000 talents from some Hellenistic potentate isn't a problem -- as Pompey and his kind well knew from their own experience. The problem is finding someone who will turn the loot over to the state. For this task, Cato was the *perfect* choice -- he was devoted to the claims of Roman law over the claims of some king (*cough* Caesar! *cough*) and he was scrupulously honest. Plus, the other choice would have been Gabinius, who almost certainly would have kept a large share of the gold for himself. Thus, by choosing Cato, Clodius managed to bankroll his corn dole, co-opt an opponent of both Clodius and Cato (i.e., Gabinius), and thereby forestall criticism that he and his patrons had bankrupted the state -- and, frankly, nothing in any of this could have been opposed by Cato on any principled grounds. The only risk that Clodius ran was that Cato would keep the money for himself -- but that was hardly a risk: Had Cato kept the money, he would have done far more to cripple the optimates than any good that would have come from the money itself. Plus, what would Cato (who was already rich) going to do with 7000 talents? Buy himself a tunic and some shoes??
I had never thought of this before, that Clodius was banking on Cato's high handed morality to actually validate and fund his popularis lex. Cato was about as predictable as a clock when it came to matters of intigrity, Clodius couldn't lose on him. Cato gets an ego boost, which if anything, would placate him towards Clodius if even for a moment, I wonder if he ever realized how he was being used....
Identify the Ancient God
in Templum Romae - Temple of Rome
Posted
Thank you!
The source from where I took the picture from wasn't clear but I believe it to be a copy. The bust in Altempts stops at the neck and this one does not.