caesar novus

Hmm, I gather my video course professor isn't exactly mainstream. He advocates #3 for Caligula, Nero, Domitian(?) and someone else. He further says this became more the rule rather than the exception. Not so much craziness, but seeking respect less from military experience, but accomplishment in athletic and artistic ways, like games, hunts, theater, music and maybe debauchery.

Two years into the reign of young Caligula, he seemed to go from admirable to crazy (or at least extremely cruel). Was this a result of an illness at the time, or was it's roots in his scary and politically violent childhood? If the good part of his reign works against a victimology excuse, were his actions a seeking out of alternate forms of gravitas for the first emperor without military laurels or typical forms of power? Did he experiment with eastern styles of getting respect or at least fear within a potentially hostile and dangerous political circle, or what?

Just some naive thoughts: I wonder how many folks are attracted vs repelled to the Romans for their gladiator habits. I was pretty much repelled, and would hardly glance at coliseums of Rome or Pompeii. Mussolini could have put his archeology-destroying boulevard right thru the coliseum rather beside it for all I cared. But that impression is changing if I can believe the video course I am following (won't give it any more plugs by name). Apparently it didn't focus primarily on gratuitious gore and death, but was loaded with etiquette (changing with the times). There were countless rules intended to spare lives of respectable or expensive fighters, sometimes built into what ethnic group was allowed to fight with which. Not only did emperors seek favor by sparing lives of popular losers, but listened to petitioners on other business during the spectacle, especially when democracy had otherwise shriveled. The gore was possibly secondary to some constructive social purposes, such as seeing how your (in the audience) station in life is respected by others. Too many details to enumerate, but just thinking the Romans seem less barbaric if you follow certain academic descriptions in depth. To me their architecture/sculpture just shouts civilized refinement. If their history is sometimes stereotyped to be Nazi like, they why didn't their achitecture reflect that (like facist or Stalinist brutal architecture/sculpture)? If the modern trend is so comparatively genteel, why for example are we allowing increasing cruelty in meat processing http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/d...ory_id=14460095 . Bring back the Roman empire!

Is Europe about to fall due to abandoning Christianity, or due to embracing Christian guilt? Is Europe falling? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0138906916.html found thru http://www.aldaily.com/

The worst thing is to become fundamentalist (one sided) about it. Just because there are abuses in removing objects out of context doesn't mean it should never happen. It would be silly and anti educational to only have museums of local objects. You have to be a priviliged and rich enough to spew jet exhaust all across the world to see anything Egyptian and Aztec at all? Things shouldn't always stay put in the region they originated and among the people who happen to live there. Sometimes objects aren't valued locally (may seem mundane and only practical), and gain significance when transported across the world to a new, universal context. Even if objects are highly valued locally, having some of them spread out can protect them all sucumbing to a regional disaster like war, earthquake, or acid pollution. Some things are valued locally that shouldn't be, like ancient bones that are legally claimed by indian tribes who may not be their descendants at all, and are a great loss to science when "given back". Legality doesn't equate to ethics, and certainly more and more silly laws are being made and retroactively applied. The somewhat flakey host of Naked Archeologist aired a lot of discussions with Israeli archeologists about how amateurs and looters seem to bring valuable finds to light that the leave the stodgy professionals way behind. This with the full knowledge that the pros work in preserving original context is a million times more valuable... outweighed by the ten million times better productivity of the non pros he suggested. Well, that is admittedly fringe, but not all wrong.

I guess I'm thinking of the 4th century bc Greek visitor to Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas#Discovery_of_Thule . I haven't replayed the cd's yet, but flipped thru course notes booklet. Lecture 4 is on Vikings & Romans, and you can see in the 2nd paragraph of http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=3910 that the author bases some of his Viking history on "Roman reports". However many of these are about Germany, then he seems to make inferences about Danes, etc. The chapter 4 course notes end with a question that I don't think he answered: "What was the impact of imperial Rome in shaping society in Scandinavia? How decisive was contact with Rome in changing political and military institutions? How important was trade for the prosperity of Scandinavia?" Other Italio-Norse contacts: On the 5th floor of the Venice Naval Museum there is a big map showing routes of several Viking incursions to Italy! It seems so out of the way, maybe they knew of the former Roman empire from earlier contacts? In my own history I have over 600 years documentation of only Norwegian ancestors, but a DNA test suggested a an earlier Sardinian female (that in the mitochondrial dna; the male side being the viking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1_%28Y-DNA%29 )

Wasn't there a Roman who visited Norway and left one of the only written descriptions of it pre Viking, maybe around 400ad? I forget what his purpose was, but don't think it was very clear anyway. I seem to recall this from a "teaching company" audio course on the Vikings, but it is hard to access the quote buried somewhere on a dozen or so CDs.

I guess I keep projecting some grand Roman cultural evolution that didn't exist. Apparently they had an acretitive (sp?) culture that borrowed here and there and didn't really redefine it and make it their own very much over time except to scale up and tweak the technology forward. Some odds and ends from my video course: Roman temples are not comparable to churches, but sanctuaries are (pantheon is an exception). Sanctuaries are the overall complex that includes the public spaces as well as the little temple that houses the god. Roman gods tend to stay put, vs the Greek gods have dramatic lives thru time and space. Roman temples are different from Greek ones in not having to face east. The whole relationship of man to god is so fundamentally different between the pagan and christian phases, that you wouldn't expect a lot of similarity between a sanctuary and church.

I just fired up a DVD with Miami U professor Steven Tuck claiming Romans initially DISDAINED Greek culture (maybe because they disdained the Etruscans?). Then he says they gradually learned to like Greek art and architecture, especially after 212bc sack of Siracuse, and emulated it as soon as they had a need for big formal temples, villas, and such. Back to S.G. Laterno, if I had read more about it I would have realized it was not only Rome's first church, built by Constantine, but features a regal statue of him brought in from Diocletians bath. Might account for part of the pre-Christian feel. I really like it, and would like to put in a claim for the beggars spot behind a certain rear corner where robed officials file by and seem to compete to be seen contributing coins to affluent looking recepients.

I wonder what style changes there were among Roman temple architecture as Greek, then Christian influences were encountered? The question sprang from my visit to the vatican-before-vatican San Giovanni Laterano which has a strange spellbinding effect unlike those other gaudy baroque churches in Rome. It seems to have a pagan vibe like a Greek temple, with all the spacious rectangularity and immense statues (not shown too well in http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/r...ohn-lateran.htm ). I guess this place replaced some Roman fort/palace and maybe even inherited Roman temple style? Also interesting is that church retrofited into Diocletians Baths by Michealangelo or whomever, but that's an oddball case.

I'm sick of arriving at the British Museum only to find the fine upstairs room or two of Roman sculptures shut off. It seems to be the first section to close if (when) they have a staff shortage. Especially at night hours; it is just hopeless to see them except for some dribs and drabs downstairs (those copies of greek sculptures rather than the emperors, etc). I modestly propose that they be repatriated to another museum that can appreciate their primary importance to western civilization and the need to be shown. Anywhere in the former Roman empire with no entrance fee; maybe the nearby Wallace collection. The Wallace seems to stick to their hours, vs the B.M. staff seem to take every opportunity to take (paid?) leave. Not even the Italian museums with their reported 75% absentee rate of guards shut you out as much. I recently visited the majestic Baths of Caracalla where almost the only sign of guards were a pair shutting themselves out of the heat. But they let the small handful of tourist roam the amazing grounds anyway. Also the magnificent Massimo Roman sculpture Museum was fully open and may even be a magnet for guards due to it's almost adaquate a/c. I would show pictures, but broke my viewfinder and the pix all cut off the head or feet due to mis aiming.

Wow, that is a really frigging interesting way of examining the forest vs getting bogged down in the nuances of trees. I wonder how it extrapolates to now and the future. I suppose we may be 2/3 into a period of Relative Peace, with only some low level cycling of war lust (witness the temporary dip after Viet Nam, then revival). There are some details I might nitpic along the lines of is it really sociology at work when a small ruling elite works thru ambitions probably incomprehensible to the peasant majority. But OK, that may be sociology of the inteligensia, or at least the informed and able. And pure democracy may be overrated; I hear the US founding fathers hated Greek style direct democracy and strongly preferred Roman inspired representative democracy with gravitas. In fact some lecturer recently claimed the US was uniquely blessed by evolving at the boundary of renaissance and enlightenment so not to go too far in direction of (mob democracy = enlightenment?). And circling back to backstabbing old Stalin, I don't see how this applies. I viscerally hate that guy... for exterminating more millions than Hitler, I think. One source said he also gave key support to Mao's advancement, who also starved millions. I can't believe that Putin has arranged to whitewash Stalin's record and put praise in latest textbooks. There used to be a lone statue of Stalin in the Kremlin, which I once spontaneously cursed at and scared the tourists away (just out of earshot of commie guards). Another observation in the late commie days gives me pause about the viability of a post war conquest of Russia. When people crossed Moscow streets in underground passages (so party limousines didn't have to slow down for pedestrians) you could get a pretty intimate reading of their moods. If a police officer was there, they would be frozen in tense expressions. If just a military officer was walking along, it would all be warm smiles - him basking in adulation with his cartoonish array of medals. So unless you could do a miracle of surgical regime change, I think Soviet military under attack from the west would have fanatical support from the populace (Ukraine et al may be exeptions?)

It's true that socio-undercurrents are key, but they don't directly drive events. They are more a fuel waiting for a match. The resulting inferno can take very different directions. The Czar not only could have more competantly utilized ww1 to build his support, but the revolutionaries that did ultimately triumph could have a quite different ideology than bolshevik (didn't Lenin despise Stalin anyway?). And sure, the "great man" theory fails in making events unfold according to his dictates (Hitler, Napolean, and Caesar for a while tho), but even a flake like Willy2 can trigger events in a "unique" direction. Earlier I was hoping to give examples from some Hew Strachan lectures and documentaries other than Willy2, but I couldn't find the references. I believe he said the actual go/no-go decision that put ww1 (begatting ww2 and cold war) into play was misteps by the German foreign minister, who Willy2 failed to leash in. Furthermore Hew talked about the sociology of ww1 as being grossly misunderstood today due to propaganda campaign in the early 60's by peace activists in London. Their ww1 poets criticizing that war were ignored at the time, vs poets praising the national defense angle were the popular ones. I don't know how he resolves that with the French soldiers going on strike, and similar actions by Russians, Italians and a bit by Germans (his live talk indicated some disagreement with the famous documentary series he consulted on).

I guess I shouldn't leave this as an unexplained digression. War plans aren't statements of intent, but interesting learning exercises that can reveal opportunities or make contingencies "unthinkable". I heard a talk from a naval war college prof about the referenced war plans being paired up, to reflect how a second opportunist power will open an additional front. I believe it was the combination of plan orange and red that led to apocalyptic consequences estimated for the US. Well, so what; why would Japan and the UK attack? Well that scenario became more realistic in 1941 when it became conceivable that Germany might be able to reflag the British global navy and support the Japanese navy. So maybe this was behind the "altruistic" US policy of defending Europe with priority above the defense of Pacific? Anyway, funny how all these issues seem to originate from Kaiser/Caesar Wilhelm2. He not only transported Lenin from exile but supported him with money and propaganda when at first Lenin had a poor reception in Russia. (It was a shame that Churchill's original more feasible plan to attack thru Turkey and support the eastern/Russian front was modified to one with doomed tactics.) So the Kaiser begat communist USSR, just as republic of Ireland, and almost a Mexican republic of Texas (Zimmermann telegram). And maybe he enabled WW2 and cold war by: - Surrendering WW1 a few weeks too soon, before the German populace really comprehended recent military setbacks, and in particular Hitler who had been knocked out of action by wounds just before major turnaround. - Caused UK and possibly France to finance the war in a disasterous delayed-action effect (bonds) that recent economists think was a root cause of the depression. It was the depression that revived Hitlers political career, after being treated as a streeet thug earlier. - So weakened the French military that even with superior equipment they folded under Hitlers invasion. This gave Hitler a teflon halo which the German military could not fight against when they considered his further invasions looney (I hear even the invasion of France had the army poised for a coup if it didn't go well).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Five#...coded_war_plans http://www.booktv.org/search.aspx?For=winston%20churchill http://www.economist.com/books/displaystor...ory_id=14082081

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8168085.stm seems to put this happy discovery in a negative light. I gather these were Cartagenians who died just a few decades too early to be victims of the Roman invasion of Sardinia.

Spanish experts, including those organized by Capa's brother have carefully judged his famous "Falling Militiaman" as staged for the purpose of partisan propaganda. They do not comment on the veracity of his other famous war shots such as from WW2, Palestine, Indochina: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...T8ZXXAD99K6MCO0 What must have been behind the long suspicion is the stereotyped stagey look of the thing - like what a child might think getting shot is like rather than a doctor or an eyewitness to similar things. For an earlier contrary opinion, go to the temple of loony victimology (thanks again my dear emperor Constantine)... the ever affable and reasonable seeming PBS from it's American Masters documentary http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/ep...ove-and-war/47/ Read the tail end of their conclusion; it just reeks of bias, ideology, and the opposite of fact-weighing judgement.

The following 2005/2008 source made me chuckle in a section dismantling the NOVA science TV program attack on the Vinland Map (VM) as science fiction. Nowdays I find NOVA unwatchable due to their endless mangling of science to promote hysterical global warming themes. Anyway, here are other sections re quoted points above. It's not all one sided, as they do mention the map having to be considered guilty until proven innocent (core principle of French/Napoleonic justice?)

Here are more free recordings of audio books, including Roman ones. Just this page (click thru all 19) contains Suetonius and a bunch of Tacitus http://librivox.org/newcatalog/search.php?...&offset=600 The list is growing, and you can volunteer to read more into the database. A spot check revealed pretty good quality of readers, as long as you can accept that substitution of W for R kind of thing. I wonder if that's a modern day equivilent to Hadrian's wall. Some English men (the women don't do it) may be intentionally distinguishing themselves from the bold rolling R of the "barbaric" Scots by going to the other extreme of a babytalk W? For them, WORLD rhymes with RAILROAD... sort of a WE-WOD!

To get back to Professor Madden, who was cited in the original post: Now every once in a while tempers wear thin, but there is still implicit trust. Most of Europe can go flabby with minimal inconvenience for military preparations because they know in a crunch that the blood and wealth of the US will again defend them against any attack. Same for much of the rest of the world - every little indefensible country can party on and get rich, instead of making awkward alliances against the thuggish natural predators of the world, because they know "daddy" is highly motivated to be there for any rescue. The financial crises is partly an indicator of this. A key root cause was the tidal wave of savings that were built up by developing countries benefiting by the pax Americana and Anglo/Confuco economics. This "success" had the contrary effect of knee-capping conservative investments like bonds, whose return rates plummet if in too much demand. Just for survival, conservative bankers from US to Germany tried out weird ways to leverage bond returns higher or weird links into physical assets bubbled up by the global wall of money. I believe one of the biggest drains of the $200 billion US taxpayer bailout of AIG is to cover insurance on German bankers reckless purchase of toxic instruments. Unlike the other bailouts, this one (costing maybe $1000 per taxpayer!) may never be recovered by the gov't since AIG stock is going to zero. German landesbanks in particular did this due to overregulation (not under) making conventional investments unworkable. Another sacrifice of heartland America to it's thankless "empire".

I wonder if architecture and sculpture styles changed significantly during empire days. For example, I really resonate to Roman sculpture which is supposedly copies of Greek ones (which I don't resonate to and seem "mannered" rather than natural). So I wonder did the Romans pick up where Greece left off and evolve a slightly different style? I gather their love affair with Greek sculpture and architecture came from their conquest of Siracuse... maybe that colony had a unique style that the Romans picked up and didn't evolve? I realize there is a big pitfall to my uniqueness theory in that perhaps many Roman sculptures were done by Greeks. Another oddity was that a detailed re-creation of the Baths of Caracula (shown on history channel?) made it look startlingly Byzantine, especially in it's exterior structure. I'm wondering if this late date building is part of an overall evolution which was preceeded by Hadrian "pumpkin-domed" villa, or if styles were relatively static during peak empire days (not counting technology changes, such as for water). A poor reproduction below:

I question calling Hadrian one of the most extravagant; wasn't there value to most of his expenditures? Tivoli may be an exception, but not as a world beating extravagance. BTW see "heart of italy" aerial documentary on hi def Smithsonian tv channel, which has one of the longest sequences on Hadrians villa from the air. Like most of their programs, it's a bit unpolished, and in this case they chose a hazy/smoggy day to depict Italy from the air. I was going to make a similar case against the Emperor Wu choice, who spent a lot but gained an empire larger than Rome's. I was going to propose Empress Dowager Cixi who is always castigated for diverting military funds to a summer palace and it's marble boat in particular. This is repeatedly said to weaken China defenses enough to make it eventually fall to Europeans (which would give it negative value for the money). But I always thought that stupid ornamental ship could hardly cost so much, and it would almost get lost in some Roman villas. Now I see wikipedia paints a much more complex or muddied picture for Cixi, so I am left without a good case. Awaiting more knowlegable replacements... pharaohs?

It sounds like almost everything new is open on tuesdays only; can anyone point out any exceptions? Please post some pictures... my only visit to Rome will be cursed with a Naples sidetrip on the tuesday (when their museum is closed!). The Italian gov't should sponsor and unionize plumbers and barbers. So for a haircut or a faucet repair you will end up hiring 4 people in order for 1 to appear, and stimulate the phoney-balony economy. Well, maybe better than the Greek national museum guards, who shut down the entire museum during normal hours the first time I arrived, for a union meeting or something.

Ahh, if only the Islamic world was half as self doubtingly reflective as the self demonizing western intelligencia. Well, it may be the west-electuals that are out of kilter; everyone should carry some minimal level of cultural self esteem, or else it would be logical for them to swap cultures. Imagine having a member of a counterpart culture always apologizing to you for everything... would smack of them being patronizing to you or feeling too superior to have to worry about their own valid interests. Me, I'm ready to show some solidarity with the neanderthal brotherhood by selling off my only non-nonfiction book "Andalusian Poems" (from the Arabic era). Wow, since I bought it long ago at a great translators reading, it got rapturous online reviews and skyrocketed in price http://www.godine.com/isbn.asp?isbn=0879238879 . Maybe I should have also grabbed that art book on Mughal architecture that seemed too big to lug home from my India pilgrimage. In order to provoke thought, let me continue to risk putting the wrong words into someone's mouth. Note you seem to be looking for a stereotypical conclusion of your own, as opposed to the facts which lead to their own conclusion. That is the achilles heel of some modern scholarly work... there is a conclusion based on faith (that the neanderthal sector of your culture is extremely wrong), then the facts are selected or falsified to the opposite-of-neanderthal in hopes of the culture drifting at least to a midpoint (that is more correct than EITHER endpoint). It's like global warming, where patently and obviously false facts are knowingly repeated by scientists... to pull the culture in the direction they want. The end justifies the means... if they think they can pull the neanderthals in the right direction by falsehoods, they will. Or the gasbagging about everything invented in China first... no matter that gunpowder and guns were nearly useless for hundreds of years until perfected by foreigners, or that other things were reinvented independantly. In the Iberian collision, I am very rusty but faintly recall some reviews of books along those lines which were not by Bernard Lewis or knee jerk chauvinists, but pointed out there were dynamics that gave the invaders ulterior motives to collude with Christians and Jews, and for the Spanish to be harsh and fearful even after reclaiming the land. I'm not up to speed enough to argue Iberian-specific points, but want to alert y'all that we neanderthals have antennae that pick up being manipulated. Just before 2001 and instead of enjoying the more typical rewards of free time I took a course on Islam by an Islamic professor. It was so achingly clear we were being patronized... everything was to prove that the Koran was the exact equivilant of not only the most heartwarming passages of the Christian bible, but of modern science itself! No admission of a bit of difference, which I would have grooved on due having an anthropology background, and certainly no admission of the truely ferocious passages in the hadith. Prefer the facts, and some trust that they will be digested towards reasonable conclusions. Let's recognize that all cultures have their neanderthals, and not demonize ours more than theirs (especially if their actions aren't demonic). And don't propagandize them out of their neanderthality, but shed light in terms of unadorned but contextualized facts rather than risking a blanket of political correctness which seems so everpresent.

I'm a bit worried about Hadrian's Villa, since Tivoli is straight toward the epicenter and also has precarious high features. That seems one of the few spots on the tourist radar much nearer to the epicenter I would guess; strange how close Abruzzo is to Rome but with quite unfamiliar town names. Of course most thoughts are for folks who may be trapped, with time running out. Or even the many more with upset stomachs, but no access to bathrooms with running water even in prospect. I don't know if the Italian "experts" being quoted are correct in saying all deaths were cheaply preventable, and all buildings should have stood with only cracks. I heard the same thing after the Assisi quake, but it could be exagerations. Of course the loss of an entire 1st grade class in Naples 2002 building collapse has been recently ruled criminal.