caesar novus
-
Posts
750 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
41
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by caesar novus
-
-
She has study notes for the course she teaches about her book at http://www.recordedbooks.com/courses_pdf/UT015.pdf
It is interesting to do a repeat-find on "conclusion" to pick up sentences that summarize each lecture and give a starting point for pursueing any points in more depth.
-
The rationale of this episode seems faulty from its very foundation; metabolic brain injury (including lead toxicity) is actually not so rare, and sadism is not listed as one of its regular (or even exceptional) manifestations; it simply makes little clinical sense.
Did I say they were strictly supporting the "illness" option of this poll? That seems to conflict with what I described about them putting him on a 2d graph of (psychopathy X paranoia?) which to me implies a concious choice (but maybe not neccesary). I don't know if they were driving to a conclusion so much as fleshing out claims with show and tell demonstrations. I voted for the seeking gravitas option rather than the illness option anyway.
I mainly wanted to raise this show as an entertainment resource rather then something to settle the poll question. It had cartoonish aspects needed to keep paying advertisers in the current downturn I guess. I think the most successful series on the History channel is now the rednecks-on-ice series "ice road truckers". Hopefully with a recovering economy they can get back to the proper balance of Hitler/Napoleon/Roman Empire.
-
Rome would be a great idea but it depends upon finances for me as it would for others undoubtedly. If you wish to organise that as a seperate meeting to that of the UK ones then do go ahead.
I would never organize any such thing because just getting myself there has some of the most extreme hurdles. But I hoped we could post a clearinghouse of ideas.
One approach I had about given up on is getting piles of frequent flyer miles for a free flight. But I did notice one flight on one airline that was being offered for very few miles. I then checked corners of their website for obscure ways of earning miles. The did in fact offer the number of miles I needed for simply testing the services of a company for something I needed anyway. Well, I am pursuing it even though nearly certain the plans will crash to pieces (there is a yearend deadline for the program), but maybe food for thought in your strategies...
-
OK, so there is enough interest to refresh my memories of "Ancients Behaving Badly" Episode: Caligula http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=det...pisodeId=503012 . It broadcasts on Fridays, and if you can endure spurts of sensationalistic claims by the narrator, there are amazing tours of various sites in hi-def worthy of freeze framing every few moments. You may find the guest experts a little sensationalistic too, but I reckon that helps keep the peanut gallery watching thru the commercials.
As for arsenic poisoning, they were going by stated symptoms of mouth foaming and blotchy skin. I think they lost enthusiasm in diagnosing it tho, after finding their favorite theory of syphilus was disproved.
As for lead poisoning, I think it wasn't the normal exposure but a hyper exposure based on the method elite classes of wine were boosted by fancy additives (combined with extreme levels of consumption by Caligula).
IIRC guest host Darius showed 2 sites he escavated related to Caligula. He's quite a TV character that has started showing up in place of the usual bespeckled academics; I think I lived nearly walking distance from him for several years.
The very reason I am fuzzy on their arguments was because the program had such a sensationalist approach that didn't inspire trust (and thus retention). But the site walkthrus and some of the host comments woke up interest. Even when they contradicted; for instance they had new analysis of digs around Holland/Belgium indicating Caligula laid very wise foundations for Claudius having a good jumping off point (logistics and forts) for invasion of Britain. And a detailed walkthru of the same argument in my atrocity thread about the context of violence being far more important than the number of victims. That flag never seems to get saluted here though (victims would back me up if only they weren't dead, sigh) regardless of the orthogonal issue that the related facts have poor degree of certainty.
-
Some new CATV series popped up last week about ancient notorious figures. Can't remember the name, but it spent an hour on Caligula. Gathered a bunch of "experts" who claimed to prove that Tiberious was killed by arsenic poisoning (by Caligula?). And that Caligula's sickness was caused by lead poisoning from his overindulgence in wine (they tested the method they used to boost the sugar content in wine which gave extreme lead levels).
There was coverage of "new" caligula related archeo dig information from the last few years, esp by Darius Arya who is popping up all over in Roman documentaries as a swashbuckling expert. Kind of suspiciously young and model-like to be heading the institute he does, and there is gossip on the internet of an attempted coup that tried to remove him but resulted in mass resignations instead. More camera friendly tho.
Well, they rated Caligula as over the top cruel, sort of from the gratuitous angle I brought up in the "atrocity" thread. I forget the details but on a 2 dimensional psychopathy grid he came near Himmler and the polar opposite of Gengis Khan, who was a darling in comparison despite mass killings.
NOTE: none of the above is claimed to accurately represent the facts from the documentary or even the historical facts. It is simply a lazy pointer to media activity that you can catch in reruns if it sounds interesting...
-
That seems to be an anachronic statement; arguably, for the people of the time (from any side) that's exactly what it was.WW1 wasn't a battle of good vs evil with natural villains.Obviously I meant WW1 didn't have such clear ethical polarization as WW2, that could motivate remote global players such as the US to put aside it's mixed allegiances and inhibitions to play war. 1930's Japan invasion of China, and Hitlers invasion of Poland etc was so over-the-top brutal and uncalled for. WW1 had more balanced moves, a little rough on Belgium and the Balkans perhaps, but more often in a tit-for-tat fashion. Meanwhile countries like Italy bargained with each side to see what rewards would come with an alliance (chunk of Austria eventually awarded to Italy).
WW1 seems to fiercely have that quality of how a butterfly's random movements has an expanding domino effect on bigger things. I thought this obscure book emphasized that, since it almost put Wilson out of the picture who like FDR campaigned for peace, but did all kinds of sneaky things to get into war. In hindsight, maybe it would have been best if only a very weak US participation was deployed, so that a more balanced Armistice came about. Could have easily happened, apparently.
-
There were plenty of people in the US - particularly of German descent - who held sympathy with Germany during WWI
Of course, but my point wasn't sympathies so much as acting on them... such as from a neutral or pro German US president. WW1 wasn't a battle of good vs evil with natural villains (although I gather it started mainly due to the German negotiator being sloppier and less war-averse than his counterparts in the initial diplomatic crises).
However as a stalemate WW1 was a powderkeg of possibilities for a fresh player such as US to make a splash on 20th century history. If it remained neutral, the US probably would have remained weak and uninfluential in the globe because gearling up for WW1 was a big learning process. Not sure about the fate of Europe... weren't many French troops in mutiny just before the Americans came?
It's probably unlikely that even a pro German president could have asisted the Axis side, because the British ruled/blocaded the seas. But a neutral or even weak pro Allies policy by a president other than Wilson would seem to exert a lot of leverage to change history, esp if you think of WW2 as cleaning up loose ends of WW1.
-
I caught bits of a talk that seemed to have weighty claims about the near-alternate-history of US involvement with Germany in the last century: http://www.booktv.org/Program/10805/The+Ha...+Great+War.aspx has the video and future TV schedule. Apparently it is based on a bootleg copy of presidential correspondance whose official copy is withheld and was almost destroyed.
I will mention some half remembered themes to encourage some interested person to pursue it. If I have it wrong, remember that at least I have led you to the source. I am not going to pursue this because I don't yet have enough WW1 background info to sort out conflicting claims.
-Wilson was only president by a fluke when he declared war on Germany in WW1. He had almost lost to a nobody for his second term, and the popular Harding could have had the presidency then for the asking but for some reason bowed out.
-Harding was long term soul-mate to a rabidly pro German mistress (who spent part time in Berlin, tried to blackmail him into not voting for war, and joined a bunch of German mata-hari type spies outside US military camps). There was a lot of pro-German sentiment in the US, although not necessarily in Hardings case.
-The spying in US focused on ascertaining when the trainees would be ready to ship over, so that Germany could use all the time it could to build up the greatest possible assault and end the war before US could tip the stalemate the other way. This played out in the massive Leutendorf(sp?) attack which was almost successful if it hadn't exhausted troops from it's very progress, and left Hitler and the German populace unconvinced they had been properly beaten after their show of strength.
-
On that basis although the potential problems associated with a changing climate are now more commonly accepted and/or reported on I wouldn't necessarily say it was always the first explanation that archaeologists or any other researcher will think of.
We seem in the third phase of anthropological agendas. Somewhere in academia there may be unbiased seekers of truth but especially at the entry level, participants underlying drive seems polluted by fashionable narratives about unfamiliar cultures:
1) Early "patronizing" phase - Cultures studied as curious stepping stones to the western ultimate.
2) Recent "Rousseau" phase - Cultures as romanticized ideals that show the west as wayward (eg Margeret Mead's disputed findings of supposedly uninhibited, pacifist cultures)
3) Current "Jim Jones" phase - Cultures demonized along with the west as examples of being on the road to ruin. Either nature is the ultimate good, and societies are better off dead like the Jim Jones mass suicide, or societies must be policed simply for their own survival by green-gestapo nut cases whose fractured knowledge of physics/chemistry springs more from puffing weed rather than textbooks.
I've been more guilty than most of #2 in my life and study. Now I realize all 3 are crap. Don't underestimate bias-by-implication rather than explicit bias. It's like the New York Times; it's not the wording of articles that exhibit bias (often they are written by other outsiders anyway). It's the editorial selection of stories chosen, and what narrative is implied by that pattern. Surely similar for what studies are done or published in anthro/archeology - if no energizer motive like 1, 2, or 3... the rewards for authors time may be pretty austerely intellectual (admirable but rare).
-
Question: How much do modern environmental sensitivities (and agendas) feed into conclusions such as the recent Nazca and Maya announcements?
Ours is going to be the first civilization that destroys itself due to environmental hypochondria, after regressing from the heights of scientific agnosticism down to timid new-age nature worship. All kinds of needless costs and restrictions are already kicking in, strictly based on junk science. Environmental stress of the ice age helped turn a bunch of scruffy mango pluckers into mighty toga wearing Roman wheat farmers - embrace the stress! P.S. no need to quote all of a post and cause needless scrolling and eyeball scrambling for your buried reply.
-
What a delectable movie, although a bit rough around the edges! I propose any true Romanophile use it's "Bring me my Bride" song as a wedding march or even vows:
[PSEUDOLUS]Hail, Miles Gloriosus.
Welcome to Rome.
Your bride awaits you.
[MILES]
My bride...
My bride!
My bride!
I've come to claim my bride,
Come tenderly to crush her against my side.
Let haste be made!
I cannot be delayed:
There are lands to conquer, cities to loot and peoples to degrade.
[MILES]
Not to mention the rest.
Even I am impressed!
My bride!
My bride!
Come, bring to me my bride.
My lust for her no longer can be denied.
Convey the news!
I have no time to lose:
There are towns to plunder, temples to burn and women to abuse.
[MILES]
I am my ideal!
I, Miles Gloriosus,
I, slaughterer of thousands,
I, oppressor of the meek,
Subduer of the weak,
Degrader of the Greek,
Destroyer of the Turk,
Must hurry back to work.
[MILES & ROMANS:]
I/he, Miles Gloriosus,
[MILES & ROMANS:]
I/he, paragon of virtue,
[MILES]
I, in war the most admired,
In wit the most inspired,
In love the most desired,
In dress the best displayed--
I am a parade!
[MILES]
My bride!
My bride!
Inform my lucky bride:
The fabled arms of
Miles are open wide.
Make haste!
Make haste!
I have no time to waste:
There are shrines
I should be sacking,
Ribs I should be cracking,
Eyes to gouge and booty to divide.
Bring me my bride!
[MILES]
Stand aside everyone!
I take really large steps.
-
I think the Turner Classic Movie channel repeats "a funny thing" (see clip http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=9056 ).
Its shewtime! HMGM high def channel will be showing "a funny thing" starting 8.5 hours from this posting (at least in my area).
-
After a cursory search of ancient roman maps,
Do you mean decades-old reconstruction maps of ancient Rome like http://catholic-resources.org/AncientRome/Platner.htm ?
From fuzzy memory of watching a DVD course in a distracting environment, I gather many such layouts have recently been flipped around on very latest maps. "Experiencing Rome: A Visual Exploration of Antiquity's Greatest Empire" keeps apologizing for showing showing 3D layouts in conflicting ways - some apparently based on that old model in EUR that we always see in TV documentaries, and some corrected diagrams by the course artist. I believe most changes are a reversal of forum orientations, putting the temples and entrances(?) on opposite sides than previously thought. http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=3430
-
Does the Pantheon merit a visit? And is there anything to be seen at Hadrian's mausoleum (Castel Sant'Angelo)?
An easy visit (since it is directly across from the main train station Stazione termini) are the baths of Diocletion.
Pantheon is an obligatory 10 min stop any time you are in the tourist center of Rome. It is central, free, and lineless. I find the proportions and interior "upgrades" kind of awkward, but maybe take it too much for granted. Castel didn't leave much of an impression during a quick visit during the "free" week.
Diocletians baths look better than I have experienced in http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=terme+Diocletian (turn on the "show info" button, and maybe pause the show and click forward at your own speed). It has a jumble of churches and a museum embedded in a confusing maze of pedestrian hostile streets and eternally abandoned construction barricades, so I don't think of it as "an attraction" so much as a variety pack you nibble at occasionally. Major parts seem off limits.
It isn't directly across from the Termini; the epic Massimo sculpture museum slightly to the south is closer, although also surrounded by abandoned scaffolding blocking everything but an obscure side entrance. If you cross the sprawl of outdoor bus terminal from the Termini, and somehow survive the endless wide roads where exiting busses try to mow you down... you then have to cross a garbagy sun baked wasteland where out of work immigrants have drunken fights (maybe attracted by the watermelon kiosks where you should rehydrate too). From there, you can plan your assault on the fortress of the baths which gives every indication of not wanting anyone to enter.
Just about the closest entrance is obscure, but turns out to be a dazzling church (the one with an endless name) fitted into the baths by Michelangelo in a way that celebrates the original architecture. Now I see from the slideshow there is another nice church in there I missed. There is a museum that bored me at the time, maybe due to jet lag and it's focus on Latin inscriptions. Clearly I haven't done this site justice, but I think it's hard to. The Massimo museum surely challenges it in importance, since like the Naples one it cherry picks items from archeo sites all over Rome and Italy (ground floor a bit eccentric, so elevator yourself to the top, then work downwards).
-
Sagalassos (where all the blocks are being put on top of each other since they're all there). Pompei is probably the most over-rated site in the list after the Colosseum,
I think a key factor making Pompeii impressive is not only the horizontal sprawl, but the height. It isn't like most ruins with just some stubby blocks above foundations, but gives you the feeling of the original enclosed space. I think many Roman ruins in Africa and mid east are low (some used mud brick?). That is nice if Sagalassos is rising again. For a person not used to mentally translating low ruins to the original, Pompeii is mind blowing because it gives such 3D presence.
The height is sort of a triumph against the ravages of time, and gives a boost to not only Pompeii but the Colosseum and Caracalla's baths (which you can also appreciate even outside the entrance gate). Maybe lack of height it is why Ostia Antica and Herculaneum leave me a bit cold. In the latter case the buildings are as high as Pompeii but you only perceive that by walking in the narrow trench nearby; mostly you view it from above at modern ground level as almost a maze of basements.
With all the praise of sites outside Italy, it would still help to rate them relative to well known Italian ones. Exploratory travel can be expensive, wearing, and time consuming. I have little idea how to rate, say, Italica vs various sites in Turkey or Tunisia except for a few nonflattering photos. Need to be guided by prioritizing that stands up under scrutiny rather than just islolated report from an enthusiast. Personally I have already used up my 9 lives in adventure travel, for instance stranded in southern Algeria without money or plane tickets.
-
Why are Pompeii and the museum in Naples lumped together while Herculaneum is a separate entry?
I have a hard time comparing museums and archaeological sites, maybe there should be two separate lists?
Maybe so, but I was of course considering day tripping logistics (with my own biases). Pompeii is the superstar, but a bit wearing to spend every hour of a day there. What aching void most needs to be filled with your remaining shreds of strength? See yet more ramshackle dwellings in Herculaneum, or the gems of artifacts that were cherry picked out of Pompeii into the museum?
I would say add Naples museum. Of course if you don't know to request permission for the "sexy" room when you buy your ticket, your percentage of Pompeii related stuff will fall and it can almost seem like a stand alone museum to judge on it's own merits. On the other hand, don't some archeo sites have their own little museum, which muddies the distinctions?
Basically the list was inspired by my regret at discovering quite late how important some of the lesser known items were, like Palazzo Massimo. But that point is made, and I guess a reformatted list could benefit from not assuming how you travel and for how long.
-
Regarding such political interlude, I guess your professor was actually referring to Caius (aka Caligula), not Nero.
Right, that seems to be Seutonious talking about Caligula. I think the prof did throw in a few kudos for Nero, but since there is no exam I never activated my photographic memory.
-
The Colosseum is, in my opinion, one of the most overrated roman sites of all times. It's terrible crowded, restored into ruins and there's frankly enough, not very much to see. I'm not even sure that I would add it to a list such as this one.
The Vatican museum would be placed a little further down. Yes, they have some of the most impressive pieces in the world, but the museum itself makes it painful seeing them.
One should never miss the outside of the Colosseum, but that comes automatically when touring around Palatine. I agree Colosseum INSIDE the entry gate tends toward the unrewarding and unpleasant - I even saw a tourism article advocate just seeing it from the outside as well. Thinking of yanking Colosseum from list and pulling in http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=ephesus last (due to logistics to get there).
Vatican logistics are truely awful, although there are rumours of times of the week or year that are more bearable. A tourism article recently called on the church to pull this museum out of it's shameful state. But in comfort take look at the Vatican slideshow link I posted (or your own pictures?)... wow, what a Roman treasure trove!.
-
Is there any evidence at all, buried in the ancient sources, that there were any positive traditions in his reign?
Like Caligula or Henry VIII, he started out really well. I heard he had some redeeming features even later, but one sticks in my mind from a lecture that said he was the last emperor who proposed a return to partial democracy. It wasn't put into effect, and the professor thought Nero might have been up to no good somehow. Anyway it would have allowed voting only for some something relatively minor, like city councils or the like.
-
1) Forum + Palatine http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=Palatine+forum
2) Pompeii + Naples museum http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=pompeii+museo
3) Palazzo Massimo http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=Palazzo+Massimo
4) Vatican museum http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=vatican+roman
5) Colosseum http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=colosseum
6) Capitoline museum http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=capitolini
7) Ostia Antica http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=ostia+antica
8) Hadrians Villa http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=hadrians+villa
9) Terme Caracalla http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=bath+caracalla
10) Herculeum http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=herculeum
Honorable mention: Palazzo Altemps, Hadrians wall, Diocletians palace
It has come to my royal attention that there is a lot of loose talk about Rome based on second hand naratives, and not enough attention to experiencing the actual artifacts first hand. Furthermore, wrong priorities are being applied as to which sites to visit first. So I have posted an official priority list for visitation.
FAQs:
Q: What if I do not agree with the list?
A: Pray night and day for the wisdom of a Caesar. If you still cannot contain yourself, you're allowed to suggest one more honorable mention here.
Q: What if I prefer to visit in a different order?
A: You may be quizzed at the entrance at, say, the Colosseum about your Massimo visit. Any wrong answers, and you may be tossed into the pool of victim reenactors.
Q: Why is X in front of Y?
A: The order is based on a balance of substance, crowd logistics, and presentation style. So for example Vatican suffers by logistics and Museum of Rome Massimo is elevated by substance. Capitoline has style with less subtance, and so on. Anyway, this is strictly a royal matter that is none of your business - just go follow it!
-
Whew, I just made it to the ship before they just now closed down its display for a few years. The Telegraph shows an artifact that reminds how transmitted disease wasn't entirely a one way street from explorers to the new world. Syphilis is thought to originate in the new world, and the Mary Rose used this urethra syringe to treat it:
-
Hey CN. Do you mind if I pinch your idea
No objection, but it would be nice to eventually see a summary here. I guess I had the order reversed from the usual convention, such as http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php which builds up to the #1 worst at the end. Maybe "worst" is a good term to put in front of "Roman atrocities" as well, in case someone wonders if you are for or against.
-
You're then answering your own question, at least partially.
Additionally. I would think most if not all of us (UNRV members) would perfectly get the usefulness of the panem et circenses concept; we're naturally talking here about the circenses part.
You seem to say punishment in order to make an example is nothing noteworthy for the time. Maybe a sort of hot-blooded knee-jerk variety was the norm, but I find the Roman style of cold blooded (staged) exemplary punishment beyond the pale. I really like Roman civilization as altruistic for the most part, so this selfish side of making potential innocents suffer sticks out as gangster-think. And it can even be counterproductive; think of how some bombings have rallied the victims or think of how many analysts today are saying the gov'ts exemplary punishment of Lehman (folding) greatly magnified todays financial crises.
Commodus is entirely known from utterly hostile narratives; even so, Dio, Herodian and the Historia Augusta were not especially uncomfortable regarding the fate of the victims; they were essentially denouncing this emperor for cheating and for using populist methods (ie. profitting from the heroic archetype of Hercules and the gladiatorial games); he was hardly the only one. His methods may have been unorthodox, but institutional populism was standard practice all along the Empire.I don't think Commodus' victims would have found him particularly more cruel (for killing them himself) than Claudius, Vespasian or Trajan for making others do the job.
We are not informed on how most of these victims were selected; arguably some may have "deserved" it more than the others; in any case, it would be naive from us to infer that such victims would have never been executed in any alternative way, even if the gladiatorial games have never ever existed.
The use of crippled fighters (or even deliberately crippling them) was extremely cruel, but it was an obvious requirement if the Roman head of state was going to participate in the games at all.
Besides, we have no reason to believe that these were the only fixed gladiatorial fights ever.
It's true I was going from summaries inferring the cripples were otherwise innocent and only there for the sick needs of a theatrical narrative. If they might in fact be guilty of something, then fine... I guess there were no jails, so offenders had to be sorted into extremes of very light or very harsh punishment. But it seems a stretch to project guilt, with no evidence.
BTW, I'm a bit puzzled why some emperors pandered largely to populism, esp via cruelty. It's one thing where my "genius" emperors balance pandering to the army, elites, AND populace to kind of keep the peace, but wasn't it really mainly the army that you had to buy off in order to survive and thrive?
Your main problem seems then to be that you are trying to mix myriads of entirely different unrelated poorly-defined categories; "institutional cruelty" (however you may define it) plus exemplary punishment and executions plus personal ruler sadism plus deliberate genocide plus massive war casualties plus famines, natural disasters and miscellaneous, to say the least.Homogenous samples are an absolute requirement for reaching any meaningful conclusion.
In any case, there's more than enough evidence that perfectly functional emperors ("geniuses") like Octavian, Vespasian and Trajan were perfectly capable and willing to perform extremely cruel actions when required.
For goodness sake, I was being metaphorical. If you require such tidiness to reach any conclusion, then no conclusion can be reached for Rome with it's incomplete evidence. One thing that is certain is archeological remains, and I think Roman architecture, engineering, and art just shout refinement for the most part. But the scraps of surviving narrative contrast so much from what we associate with refinement, that it's reasonable to assume where there is smoke there may be fire. So it's interesting to look at the contrast, and not get at all relativistically jelly spined about it. Romans are interesting precisely because when imposing TODAYs standards they look so good in many ways... and bad in others (with volumes of admittedly shakier evidence for the latter).
-
Gladiatorial games and related spectacles were the most notorious examples of the overlap of sadism and exemplary punishment in the Roman society; on both counts, from Claudius
WW1 German sympathies in high US places?
in Historia in Universum
Posted
This series tends toward polish and away from edgy-ness because it doesn't cater to teens spending their parents or scholarship money, but to discretionary spending of mature adult customers. You can overtype random numbers in the filename to pick up interesting other course notes (like UT050.pdf for WW1 proper, or UT003, UT125, and UT094 for history of Rome).