sylla
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by sylla
-
-
I've seen it on 5th century AD brick stamps, indicating state property.
So seems to be also its main use within legal texts: for the common as opposed to the private property.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the term res publica was used as late as Valentinian I.
And even far later; for example within the Justinian
-
Just for the record; the title naturally refers to CJ Caesar the dictator and PC Scipio Africanus Major.
For Sir Liddell Hart, Scipio would have been the best; it
-
If I'm not mistaken, the term res publica was used as late as Valentinian I.
And even far later; for example within the Justinian
-
In any case, the relevance of this battle for the demise of the Western Empire has been presumably highly overrated; after all, it was the eventually surviving Eastern Empire which was defeated here.
The battle was on eastern territory, but the Romans' loss made the Goths a permanent fixture in the empire, and we all know where they eventually ended up. I do think that had they been beaten, the West's fall would have been postponed.
Maybe (just maybe) postponed at best; we agree.
The number of both internal and external variables potentially involved in the demise of the Western Empire was so immense and they were so heterogeneous (military, political, social, economic, ecological and so on) that the specific fate of some thousands of Gothic warriors (that were in any case eventually defeated just by the early 380's) seems like a drop of water in the ocean.
Even the exact relevance of Adrianople for the "permanent fixture" of either the Visigoths or the Ostrogoths at the fifth century is quite disputable, especially again because it didn't directly affect the Western half of the Roman Empire.
-
Merry Dies Natalis Solis Invicti To All! 
A wonderful illustration, as usual.
A Xmas Hawker Hurricane, maybe?
-
Maybe the repeated defeat of one army after the other from the second most powerful nation of the era in its own backyard was not so unnoticed after all; Polybius mentioned the Maccabean revolt in his book 16 (39, 3-4), as quoted by Josephus; it's unlikely that the decree was recorded in the lost portion of this book, as Josephus didn't report it.Judea was just a small part in the Seleucid empire and the Jewish revolt was a minor problem to them as they have to handle the Parthian threat in the east (this was part of the reason they couldn't master enough force to crush the revolt). Any author which deal with the Seleucid would take no notice of little Judea and rightly so.Diodorus Siculus gave a more detailed account of the Jewish rebellion (34, 1); he essentially confirmed the factual account of Josephus, but with a far more favorable depiction of Antiochus.
The radical decree was absent; the exemplary but mostly symbolic punishment would have been applied only once exclusively to some of the Jewish ruling elite (" Antiochus ... had penetrated into the sanctuary... extinguished the lamp ... perpetually burning in their temple. But again he forced the High Priest and other Jews to eat meat that they were prohibited by their laws").
Diodorus specifically stated that against the best opinion of all his officers, who "urged him strongly to exterminate the whole nation, or at least force it to take other customs", the "gentle and human" Antiochus just required from the defeated Jews tribute and hostages.
Something like that may very well have been what Tacitus had in mind when he descibed Antiochus as "endeavoured to abolish Jewish superstition and to introduce Greek civilization"; this would be quite far from the draconian decree reported by Jewish sources.
So it still seems the political conflict predated the religious punishment...
EDIT:
An Hellenistic power had occupied Palestine (Judea) since 332 BC; however, the Jews didn't rebel until 167 BC.However, I'm not sure how easy it is to separate the religious and political intentions of the Macabees. For a start, if you believe that your state has been divinely decreed, you can be both a religious and a nationalist extremist without any conflict between the two viewpoints. I'd suspect that the Macabees and their supporters included both secular and religious extremists, and which motivation dominated depended on the individuals in each case. Anyhow, Antiochus managed to offend both the religious and secular factions, so arguing which group took umbrage first excludes the possibility that the two were sometimes in fact, one.Hellenism and Judaism had therefore coexisted peacefully for 165 years; where were the purported
-
The above linked passage (Annales, 1,1-9) is a good example.
Tacitus used here the phrase Res publica (or a declination/abbreviation) eight times.
AJ Church & WJ Brodribb translated it as:
-
-
Far as I'm aware, most modern estimates are within the 20,000 - 30,000 range.650.000 men it's the number of soldiers presumed for the entire roman army (East and West) not the size of the force at Adrianopole that was much smaller. -
A little more context: "The Jewish civil war raised questions: Who is a Jew? Who gets to define the right level of observance? It also created a spiritual crisis. This was not a battle between tribes. It was a battle between theologies"You're attacking a straw-man and quoting Brooks out of context. Far from claiming that the conflict was purely theological, Brooks points to political, cultural, and theological elements of the conflict:In any case, Mr. Brooks confessed that he didn't know the reason behind Antiochus' decree (All Emphases are mine).
In 167 B.C., however, the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, issued a series of decrees defiling the temple, confiscating wealth and banning Jewish practice, under penalty of death.It -
Speaking of books has anyone read this one?
http://www.amazon.com/Romes-Gothic-Wars-Co.../ref=pd_sim_b_4
Only some extracts; it seemed like a nice general review.
-
Nice spotting; thanks for that quote.However Antiochus IV decrees against the Jews are mentioned when Latin-Greek authors write about the Jewish people or Judea. Tacitus write that "after the Macedonians gained supremacy, King Antiochus endeavoured to abolish Jewish superstition and to introduce Greek civilization" (Histories, 5.8) .Tacitus wrote two and a half centuries after the facts, when the Jews were already considered a nuisance by the Empire.
His ideas on the Jewish "superstition" were extremely confuse and his sources were clearly indirect and hostile to the Jews, probably related to Apion and Lysimachus.
Hardly could any of them have been considered an expert on the Jewish issues; therefore, it is not clear which "superstition" was going to be abolished (even less how).
My point is still the same; the conflict between Seleucids and Jews was probably political at the beginning, not theological; and definitively not for the purported obstuction to "create an advanced universal culture", as pretended by Mr. Brooks.
At least from the Syrian side, the purported religious component was presumably reactive and was probably exaggerated by the Jewish tradition.
At least that's the way the things happened under the Roman rule; if Hadrian did really ever interdict circumcision (as pretended by the Historia Augusta), the explanation for that action would have clearly been political, not theological.
Besides, that's the way Josephus himself presented the facts:
First, the political motivation (BJ:1,31-33):
" At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemaeus about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judaea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judaea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favoured Ptolemaeus, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemaeus, and received a place from him in the nome of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple, concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter".
Then, the reactive religious decrees (ibid,34-35):
" Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves".
-
It's widely accepted the when the Roman wrote "Res Publica" they meant a specific type of regime which existed from 509 BC - 49 BC and many of the translation from Latin tend to translated "Res Publica" into "Republic". but is this really true? I shall try to determine this by checking the context which the ancient author use the word "Res Publica".
"Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere; libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus instituit." ("Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus." Tacitus, Annales, 1.1) as you might notice when Tacitus talk on the overthrow of T. Superbus by Brutus he describe the new regime as liberty and consulship and not as a "Res Publica".
Cicero speaks of "regali re publica" (de re publica, 3.47) - Republic (or more accurently a state) of king.
As many other Roman administrative terms, its meaning evolved with time.
The phrase Res publica literally means
-
Far as I'm aware, the First Crusade and related expeditions massacrated the not necessarily pacific Muslims, Jews, orthodox Christians, contemporary heretics & bystander populations for almost purely fanatic religious reasons.
The successive Crusades and Crusade-like expeditions, the same as the Muslim counteroffensives, did more or less the same, but now seemingly more for political than for religious motives.
There was often a lot of pragmatism but also an immense absurd fanaticism from both sides.
-
-
Full context might be even better (emphasis is mine):
So far Josephus. The -admittedly less exciting- truth is that the people who occupied Masada, were neither religious literalists nor fanatic soldiers.
The siege is not mentioned in the Jewish sources, because the Jews did not recognize the fall of Masada as part of their history.
Josephus himself admits that not all Sicarians were Jews (Jewish Antiquities, 2.434), and this is confirmed by the fact that archaeologists have found the bones of pigs on the platform.
On the other hand, copies of certain texts found on the rock of Masada were also found at Qumran, which -depending on one's view of the sectarian nature of the Scrolls of the Dead Sea- may or may not prove the presence, among other fighters, of a group of literalists."The Sicarians were, to say the least, not deeply attached to the Jewish faith. The archaeologists also discovered the bodies of people who tried to flee from the violence." -
You may be thinking about Ventidius, who seemingly was the first Roman that (quite successfully) applied such tactics against the Parthian army; Crassus' army was defeated exactly for not doing that. The "triumvir" simply tried to profit from a surprise factor that he actually lacked.As I recall, Crassus attempted to use his archers and slingers to keep the Parthians away without success. -
Lower figures circa 400,000 were probably closer to the real stuff; you still have an excellent and quite valid point, which BTW also applies to the usually absurd statements on the fantastic numbers of Achaemenid armies.I find it perplexing that the late Roman army with all of its 650,000 men had that much difficulty containing a relatively small group of barbarians.IMHO, the quid is that you are looking only to an isolated picture of the whole film.
It seems the number of the Roman troops was actually a bit lower than the Goths they were facing.
The other thousands of Roman troops were not simply resting at their homes; virtually all of them were in the places required for defending the immense Imperial border.
Strictly speaking, the Roman army was constantly facing a myriad of groups of Barbarians in almost any point of the border.
BTW, the same has happened in virtually any empire; it's usually easier to conquer than to keep the conquests.
The problems for the powerful US army in dealing with a relatively small group of Afghan rebels are another good example.
And in practice too; they were a critical part of the military evolution that let the Roman Empire survive for a thousand-plus years (and the western half for a good two centuries).It puts in to question wether Diocletian's "reforms" were really beneficial. They sounded good in theory.
In all likelihood those were unavoidable inconvenients of keeping such a huge empire and not just Diocletian's caprice.It puts in to question wether Diocletian's "reforms" were really beneficial. They sounded good in theory. The total number of troops were increased, but the bureaucracy involved in maintaining them made them less available.
Another excellent point; IMHO, you are essentially comparing apples with oranges, partially for some of the reasons already explained above.Compared to the late republic, which had a much lower total number of troops, Consuls had no trouble putting together one field army after another. For example, when a large force of Teutons invaded and destroyed more than one Roman army sent against them, Gaius Marius was able to move on them and defeat them decisively. http://www.unrv.com/empire/cimbri-teutons.phpAnother reason; by the late II century BC most of the Roman conquests were not true provinces but client states, which were expected to fully defend by themselves.; in fact, the Cimbrii were first defeated by Iberian populations already conquered by Rome, not by the Romans themselves.
The subject is too extensive; you may require to review a lot of literature, particularly the works of Edward Luttwak.
In any case, the consuls mentioned above did have a lot of trouble putting together one field army after another, and a full reform of the Legions was required by Marius to decisively defeat the Germans.
-
I didn't "simply supply a URL " to MPC; I send him to the source of the information that he asked for.Sylla, considering that you frequently ask others to provide evidence for their assertions, I believe it would behoove you to be a bit more specific in your response to MPC here. While Livius.org is an admirable resource, simply supplying a URL doesn't really answer MPC's question: "How do we know the bones discovered there were of people trying to flee?"BTW, it's not a matter of admiration; the high standards of Prof. Lendering's use of the rules of evidence simply speak by themselves, as anyone can verify.
This would be the most directly relevant Article; there is some additional relevant stuff in other articles.
The author can also be directly adressed there if anyone has any additional question.
-
Some other remarkable quotes from this same series of articles:
(All emphases are mine)
Offending post deleted
-
Please note that even if the Assyrian Empire may seem too far relative to the Classical Era studied at UNRV, Nineveh actually fell during the lifetime of Solon of Athens and the reign of Tarquinius Priscus.
-
That might be so because it's seemingly an asymmetric comparison; the Roman equivalent of the Hellenic agora as a commercial center would have most likely been the Trajan's market; for Athens, the equivalent of the Roman forum as a political meeting center would have been the Pnyx.... I don't recall a lot of politics happening in the agora, while the forum was very political. -
Either for Alexander or for any other Classical tactician, heavy artillery and portable missile weapons were always complementary, never interchangeable; thatProbably because they had many competent archers (most on horseback) and archers are superior to crossbowman. The crossbow was a bit like the arquebus would be later: powerful and easier to master by less trained recruits but with a slower rate of fire.I don't think that the bows of the horse archers were as powerfull as the crossbow. I also don't know if their infantry archers had anything equivalent to the English Longbow.
At Jaxartes Alexander used the Ballista (giant crossbow) as field artillery because it had a much greater range than the bows of the Scythian horse archers.
-
Religious fervor has always been a useful addition to nationalist movements, even from laic (or atheist!) leaders; the modern use of the Jihad concept by Saddam and other Arab leaders is an excellent example.You're absolutely right (and thanks for pointing out) that the story of the anti-Jewish religious decree by Antiochus IV is entirely absent from contemporary Hellenic and Latin sources. It's possible that his anti-Jewish actions were fabricated after the fact by anti-Hellenic sympathizers. On the other hand, all accounts of Antiochus report on his activities strictly from the point of view of his enemies -- and his non-Jewish enemies probably wouldn't have cared about Antiochus violating Jewish religious law (which to ancient outsiders--though not later Christians--probably appeared ridiculous anyway) given Antiochus' more important effects on ancient geopolitics.There's plenty of evidence that the long-standing cultural and social opposition of Hellenic and other gentile populations against the Jews was for real; the anti-Jewish activities of Antiochus were in all likelihood simply utterly exaggerated by the Jewish patriotic narrative.
The origin of the conflict was probably entirely political at the beginning; the financial problems of the Seleucids and the subsequent sack of the temples (Jewish or not) are my best candidates.
The meaning of "Res Publica"
in Res Publica
Posted · Edited by sylla
After checking out on the Loeb Classical Library