caesar novus

Here goes some impressions of Roman sites in Barcelona's gothic quarter. This maze of streets east of the famous Ramblas tourist epicenter isn't always accurately portrayed on maps or guidebooks, so here are some tips by the naive for the naive. Experts feel free to fill in. 1) http://www.barcelona.com/barcelona_directo...ona_city_museum has a fantastic network of walkways suspended over excavations of Roman Barcino. The excavations themselves can be on the mundane side (dyeing vats, wine fermenting tanks), but the quality of walkway logistics and labeling raises the experience to a higher level. Maybe this has a low profile because they forbid photography and you can hardly see a preview anywhere. Where: from the rear of the main cathedral nearby, continue walking a couple blocks away from the curved rear of the church, zigging a bit left when blocked. Costs money, but you get a/c, w.c., seating for it. 2) Big Roman Temple Columns: This is a room just off an L shaped alley behind that same cathedral with quite impressive columns. You are so close to them that they don't photograph well, so again hard to get a preview that does them justice. I believe the text says that they were relocated in the past, but now are somewhere near their original location? I think these are often mislocated on maps, so find an alley going rearward from the rear of the cathedral. There are two that are parallel to the churches centerline; take the one offset to the right which has an L to the right. Opposite the crotch of the L, look for a doorway to the left which should catch your breath pretty quick. Free with seating. 3) Cemetary with Roman tombstones. There is a plaza several blocks northwest of the cathedral that has a sunken area with grass (a rare sight in Gothic Quarter that first catches your eye) and tombstones that are labeled Roman (I have no independant source or verification of it). Maybe the inscriptions are interesting for Latin readers...

Thanks for the Baudy reference. I hadn't heard that before, but just spent a few minutes trying to find his theory on the web. The best I could come up with was the following from an old special on PBS: "He (Gaudy) has learned that in the poor districts of Rome, Christians were circulating vengeful texts predicting that a raging inferno would reduce the city to ashes. "In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is prophesied," Baudy explains. "That is the constant theme: Rome must burn. This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt subjugated by Rome." I think the Baudy theory was more than idle observations, but was fully spelled out in his scholarly book (in German). Many academic assertions about Rome seem to not be supported by just doing a google search... analysis of the ancients seems have a low profile on the internet other than here. Well, some is showing up in the Google books project, but I find their format virtually unreadible (fuzzy light grey font). So again, let's not overlook the cuddly side of Nero! I gather he was loved by a lot of lower classes because his antics basically made fun of upper class pretentions. I hear there were 3 pretenders to pop up that seriously claimed to be Nero and that his death had been misreported - at least one of which gathered support by army and other sympathizers before being proven a fraud. And wasn't it only later in Vespasian times when the upper class fully asserted their demonization of Nero and tore down his palace, whereas the previous 2 weak emperors pandered to the lower classes with praise of Nero and talk about completing the palace?

Detroit pastors packing heat (Christian soldiers?): http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...POu_pwD9B2HVLO0 Is it protection from down and out desperados, or from the cream of society? (Detroit mayor charged with dozen felonies last year): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick#Resignation

I thought a key piece of evidence were stone spheres which could be ball bearings for the rotating roof (or floor?). I got the impression these were found, although didn't notice them in the pictures. P.S. on the burning of Rome in Nero's time, wasn't it during the anniversary of a sacking of Rome by the Gauls... an infamous kind of 9/11 date that a dissenting group might target? At first I connected this with the anniversary where they crucify dogs for not warning of the Gauls sneaking into Rome, but I guess the first was in July and the second was in August.

The other part was only briefly open when it had to be reshut for emergency restoral, projected to last a couple years from now (anyone know more precisely?). http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=Domus+Aurea shows a bit of the old tour. In a couple hours from this post there will be a repeat of "rome: engineering an empire" on history intnl channel which shows a recreation of the palace at about the middle of it's two hour run. P.S. isn't the new Gerhard Baudy theory interesting, which presents circumstantial evidence that an extremest Christian sect really did set Rome ablaze, as Nero claimed? Not as likely as the accident or 3rd party theories, but equally as likely as Nero did it. How about petitioning the Pope to have Nero cannonized as a saint, to balance all these years of persecution

1) ? 2) Claudius Naumachia where 19,000 POWs fight and die. http://www.the-colosseum.net/games/navmachiae.htm 3) ? 4) ? 5) ? 6) ? 7) ? 8) ? 9) Commodus slaying groups of cripples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus#Commodus_the_gladiator 10) ? Your version? I started by focusing on over the top, gratuitious depravity even by primitive day standards. Just put yourself in the victims place, when they are about to make a show of pouring liquid lead down your throat or something you could never have dreamed of in your experience. It seems a bit less bad to be torched as a Christian if they had already given you a chance to simply show respect for pagan totems (not even to believe in them or disbelieve in your god; just don't jinx the community good luck totem). Or massacre of a city for not surrendering... very bad, but they did have a chance to save themselves and save the Roman legion from risking their lives.

What museum? Do they mean in the original collection of Villa San Michele. Only other museum there I can think of is the church with those weird pictorial tiles, or the little museum in the other town (Capri). And is that depth for real? Way past diving limits, and I question if the cave would be that bright if the reflective (sand/limestone) floor was so darn far down.

Wiki sez it came from Trajan's civic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_Ulpia in his forum. Gosh, the Lateran church really has the same feel of this reconstruction http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encycl...n/basilica.html . I hope Mussolini's roadbuilding didn't permanently destroy that Basilica Ulpia, because I like the way it included a liberty apse used to record the names of slaves who had been freed. Hardly findable in google, unless you delve into the online book section. I wonder if there was a place to sign up into volunteering to be a slave too (to escape a worse fate). Nice how Roman slavery wasn't a life or ethnic sentence in some cases - they should get more credit for that, maybe by restoring that apse.

I can hardly believe that the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Funny_Thing...ay_to_the_Forum was actually based on and apparently typical of Roman comedies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_ancient_Rome ! I love it: mockery of authority, championing the underdogs, farce, and screwball. I was afraid they would lean more toward the austere Greek tragedies, but I guess they departed from that heritage. Are there other comic movies or media based on Roman plays? Are there entertaining translations or audio readings of them? I think the Turner Classic Movie channel repeats "a funny thing" (see clip http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=9056 ). It seems to me similar in spirit to their often repeated Astaire comedies, such as http://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article.jsp?cid=74675 , but I would prefer something straight from Rome eternal...

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.