sylla
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by sylla
-
-
No. The heir of the roman emperors it's close to the city now.
Petra?
-
From Suetonius, Appian, Dio and others we know that across his last months of life Caesar:
- upgraded his fourth dictatorship term into a lifelong tenure,
- proclaimed himself:
-- Consul for 10 years,
-- Censor for life,
-- Father of his Country (Pater Patriae),
- declared his person sacred and inviolable (*),
- named after himself the month of Quintilis,
- extracted:
-- from the senate all kind of honours (divine included),
-- from the magistrates an oath immediately upon their inauguration not to opposite any of his decrees,
-- from each and any senator an oath to protect his person (*).
He was about to begin his Parthian campaign when he was killed (even if Sextus Pompey was still active).
The signs of progressively increasing hunger for power, glory and deification were everywhere.
Nowhere can I find any sign that the man was expecting to depart from this life any time soon.
This might explain why Suetonius and Plutarch required from supernatural omens to provide the literary tragic effect of their narratives.
(*) Additionally, this might also explain why Caesar was confident enough to dismiss his Spaniard Guard.
-
The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" because that charge was a valid reason to punish or even execute them
No. The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" to make it clear that they were not executing regular enemy soldiers and hence putting them beyond the pale of protection accorded to enemy combatants by international law. The offence was thus political, just as it was with the Romans.
You're only walking around my argument and you know it. The point is that robbery was one of the many reasons to crucify a man; if that man was a slave, the reasons were virtually limitless, entirely at his master's discretion.
Spartacus and his men were crucified for being rebel slaves, not political rebels. That's why bona fide political rebels of the time (ie, the men of Catilina) were not crucified.The Caltiline conspirators were all Roman citizens, that is why they were not crucified. Spartacus and his men didn't just defy their private owners, they took up arms and annihilated more than one Roman army sent against them, hence their offence was political. One does not need to have a written political agenda in order for his acts to be considered political.
Then, anything is politics; in this case, the number of the rebels defined it so.
This is pointless.
If you really care, you can check on the dictionaries of William Smith and Daremberg et Saglio.
You will find there the reasons for crucifixion were multiple and, in the case of slaves, infinite.
If I understood it rightly, the quid was that Jesus crucifixion must have been political, because crucifixion was never done for other reasons.
Even I actually find no reason to disagree with the political nature of Jesus' crucifixion (even the Gospels did give a political interpretation) your argument is patently false. Period.
And for what it's worth, my last posts on this thread may be good material for Tartarus.
-
Besides, please check on the primary sources; Spartacus and his fellows were crucified for being rebel slaves, not for political reasons.
And how is being a rebel slave a non-political offence?
Needless to say, most slaves were private property; any slave rebelled against his/her own master. The master required no public sanction to crucify them, at least until Hadrian.
Spartacus and his men were crucified for being rebel slaves, not political rebels. That's why bona fide political rebels of the time (ie, the men of Catilina) were not crucified.
I'm not aware of any political agenda from Spartacus & co; I will be glad to check on any primary source quoted by you on this issue.
-
Additionaly, not all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus were explained for political reasons; non-political crimes (ie, robbing) is also mentioned.
The word used by the author is lestai, or lestes, indicating banditry, a term he routinely uses to describe the Jewish rebels. That does not necessarily mean they were robbers. It was a political term used by a historian writing in Vespasian's palace for a Greco-Roman audience (who indeed would have considered the rebels as "bandits"). During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Communist authorities routinely described the Afghan rebels as "bandits". The Nazis used the same expression to describe the French resistance. You are obviously reading something into the text that is not there.
The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" because that charge was a valid reason to punish or even execute them
The original question here was on the indications for Roman crucifixions; your original statement was that there was no other reason but politics.
These Jews were crucified on the accusation of robbery; ergo, robbery was a valid explanation for their crucifixion, at least for the Romans (and Josephus' readers).
For the crucified apostles , you can check on the Catholic Encyclopedia.Yes. I already have. The Catholic Encyclopedia just mentions letters by Ireneus, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers in which they regurgitate preexisting legends about the supposed martyrdom of the apostles. Nothing concrete there.
Hagiography is hardly a concrete science.
-
You mean in that moment; no less than four apostles (Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew and Philip) were eventually crucified.
Just out of curiosity, where does it say that they were were crucified?
Just out of curiosity, should I infer you didn't find any documentary evidence on the Roman indications for crucifixion?
There are plenty. Spartacus being the most famous example. Then all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus in Jewish Wars. All these executions were of a political nature, either armed rebellion or sedition. I haven't seen any documentary evidence of crucifixion for non-political offences.
So now, let me repeat the question - where is the evidence that Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew and Philip were crucified?
This may surprise you, but I already knew that Roman crucifixions were sometimes done for political reasons.
If you review my previous posts in this thread, you will find no one that denies it.
What I was asking you for (and you were obviously unable to find) was any quotation that explicitly states the crucifixions were exclusively done by the Romans for political reasons.
Now you want me to accept your statement just because you didn't find examples of non-political crucifixions after an exhaustive search (BTW without giving any specific quotation).
Besides, please check on the primary sources; Spartacus and his fellows were crucified for being rebel slaves, not for political reasons.
(Please give me a primary source quoting his political agenda, if you still disagree)
Additionaly, not all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus were explained for political reasons; non-political crimes (ie, robbing) is also mentioned.
For other non-political indications of Roman crucifixion, you can check on Horace and Juvenal.
For the crucified apostles , you can check on the Catholic Encyclopedia.
-
In Answer to Sylla:
Caesar did not end the Republic by concentrating all power in the hands of one man (himself). That did not end the Republic any more than did Sulla's reign. Caesar broke the back of the Republic by what he did with his power: laying the foundations for Rome to truly become an empire, as opposed to a city-state that controlled a lot of territory. The essence of the Republic was it being a system designed to run a city-state, and though Rome now controlled vast territories, for all intents and purposes that was what it remained: a city-state. Until Caesar's ground-breaking distribution of citizenship and planting of colonies. That is Gelzer's thesis.
I do not conotate intelligence with "slavishness". On the contrary, it is a term I would have applied to the Boni had they worked with Caesar, rather than against him.
Caesar did likely aim for an autocracy (such a government being the only real practical one at hand). But it would, I think have been a gentler one than was eventually imposed.
By any definition, an Empire far beyond any city-state limits has been ruled by the Roman Republic for more than three hundred years, not a bad score as compared with any past or modern state; even under the Civil Wars, the Roman Empire was actually growing.
What evidence did Gelzer find on the sudden incompetence of the Republic for ruling such Empire?
For the sake of the argument, let us admit autocracy was required (???). Why Caesar? Just because he won the war?
-
To what extent does everyone feel, were the circumstances that ended the First Punic War, the direct cause of the second conflict? With the mix of loss of territory, reparations, rise of personality cult etc. the parallels with WW1 to WW2 are fairly irresistable and I hope that it is permissable to draw upon them. However, the subject is deep and gripping enough in isolation if the feeling is that the comparisons should be avoided.
Comparisons are inherent to the scientific method, even as applied in history and related humanities; after all, humans have always been humans, with more or less the same psychology and motivations. In my humble opinion what we should avoid are general equivalencies among nations and populations from different eras, especially when concepts like national pride and Manichaeism are involved; for example, if we use the wars of the good Greeks against the bad Persians as a precedent and model for the contemporary fight against the Axis of Evil.
Both periods lasted almost a whole generation, the 241-218 BC for the western Mediterranean region and the 1918-1939 for Western Europe. In both cases, the preceding wars were extremely exhausting for the sides involved (XX century war was far more expensive and lethal); the defeated powers retained significant military potential; and they may have considered unfair the imposed peace conditions. However, I find far more differences than similarities, simply too many to be enumerated here. To begin with, we have accounts from both sides for 1918-1939; for 241-218 BC, just from the winners.
In any case, I don't think neither Punic war II nor WWII were unavoidable at all; the "what-if" scenarios are countless. For example: What if Carthage and Rome had become allies for the conquest of Iberia and Gaul? What if Hitler had died from his toxic gas exposure in WWI?
Additionally, under such rationale, as any war can be seen as the consequence of a former conflict, all peace periods would then be "provisional" and the only definitive outcome would be universal conquest or annihilation.
-
Seutonius suggests a number of reasons why Caesar, being fully aware of the danger, chose to ignore it. One of those was poor health and if I recall, a documentary of a few years ago suggested that this ill health was of the sort that was robbing him of his dignity. The suggestion was that his condition and the knowledge that he had nothing further to gain rendered him literally careless. I wonder, can anybody recall the documentary? I am very sketchy but simply remember the emphasis put on I think, a digestive disorder.
There was an old thread about some books that considered Jesus as a re-edition of Caesar; the books themselves were a mess, but there's an obvious parallel between both figures; they were considered as tragic saviors, for whom we normal mortals should be eternally grateful.
Naturally, they were hardly original; there was a long tradition of tragic literature, inherited mainly from the Greeks; and an even longer Roman attraction for the supernatural omens.
The archetype of the tragic hero (ie, Oedipus) unselfishly accepts his duty (and power) even knowing his terrible fate (by supernatural methods, of course). For him, the power is a painful charge, which he must bear just for the sake of Humanity (or even the whole world).
Both Suetonius and Plutarch relied heavily on tragic and supernatural connotations to increase the dramatic effect of Caesar's death. Besides of being excellent for their marketing, such literary trick must have also pleased their patrons, Caesar's ultimate heirs.
-
Did Caesar trust that his life was so indispensable to the republic that his assassination would be unthinkable? Probably. Did he take any precautions so that his death -- whether natural or artificial -- would not upend the state? Not at all. Could any such actions be undertaken? Sure -- by revoking all his own acts, which served only to monopolize power and make the state dependent on the life of a single man. Of course, had the darling of Venus done that, future monarchs -- from the Caesars of ancient Rome to the last Czars and Kaisars of the 19th and 20th centuries -- wouldn't have been named after that tyrant.
You're asking a self-made autocrat to renounce his power after all the struggle and risks required for winning it; a most extraordinary course of action that would have in all likelihood actually increased the danger for him. It's hard to find bona fide examples for such conduct; after all, Cincinnatus and the other classic dictators were not true autocrats. Not even the Liberatores themselves renounce to power when they had the chance.
On the other hand, a faked resignation, like that of Sulla (ie, preserving his control over the army) might have been in order; Octavius certainly learned that lesson.
To say that Caesar's act served no more purpose than to "monopolize power and make the state dependent on the life of a single man" (which is a false statement by the way) is to make a mockery of the career of one of the most extraordinary, if not the most extraordinary statesmen in history.That's actually Gelzer's thesis; that Caesar expected his enemies to be "intelligent" enough to perceive such fact.
-
Caesar's highly unique policy of universal clemency and later his policy of reconciliation are critical to things. Some people argue that it was just a clever ploy to win around opinion in the Civil War, others argue that it was in keeping with his character and was a genuine noble act (I think both). Having won the Civil War he not only pardoned many of his most die-hard opponents, but offered them positions in his government. It was all part of a reaching attempt at unification, not unlike the sort of "Harmony of the Classes" proposed by Cicero, except that in marked contrast to Cicero's hypocrisy, Caesar actually intended to bring benefits to everyone.
Caesar's clemency may have been a bit atypical, but hardly unique; many examples of clemency can be found from Sulla to the last Emperors; if most of them didn't end like Caesar, they must have used their clemency more wisely.
By itself, clemency is a typical tyrannical attribute; the enemies of the state (All the state) were pardoned by Caesar (Only him and just him).
Ergo, Caesar Was the state. He even (sic) "offered them positions in his government ".
Then, the mere existence of any Roman was a gracious gift from Caesar.
As any politician, Caesar promised benefits to anyone; he only required Everything in exchange.
The use of any autocrat's clemency should be determined by careful political calculations; nobleness should not have a place at all. Otherwise, he/she erred his/her job.
Would you explain to me how Gelzer's hypothesis is "completely against all what Caesar ever did either in war or in politics"? I think it is quite the opposite - it is exactly in keeping with the way he conducted politics, and especially in keeping with the way he conducted his wars... As far as relying on their intelligence went... On the contrary to your statement, all of the factors and threads in Caesar's life, and especially his last years, can be seen to point to a conclusion that matches Gelzer's hypothesis.Intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. My own impression is that Caesar had a good deal of it, and that he always counted on having more than his adversaries; otherwise, he wouldn't have dared to begin any ay single battle or any political step.
... he was counting on their understanding that when he predicted the outbreak of a new Civil War on his death, one even more devastating for Rome, he spoke true. This was because Caesar understood what nobody else apparently did, and what later only Augustus would: that Rome had to be ruled by somebody who could control the army, and that the city-state system that was the Republic was obsolete and had to end, indeed, had been effectively ended...Apparently, what you and maybe Gelzer count on is the lack of intelligence from absolutely any other Roman of his age; that is, unless your definition for "intelligence" is under the heading of "slavishness" (abjectly submissive) in my dictionary.
-
Shouldn't is be possible (at least in theory) to date plaster?
Does anyone know what ancient Egyptian plaster is made out of?
Even Mr. Stierlin accepts that the pigments are really ancient, so I would infer they have indeed been dated.
The problem would be that a modern forgery (early XX century) might have been made using ancient pigments.
-
Matthias Gelzer takes another tack - Caesar was relying for protection on the intelligence of his opponents.
It's evident to me that neither Sulla nor Augustus nor any later Emperor (that I
-
(SIC) :"The head of tourism for Lazio, Claudio Mancini said: "The message is that visitors to our city continue to cherish it even after so many years"."
Alternative reading: "our security sucks".
-
I sincerely hope some alternative uses for the NASA's budget are still being considered, besides of UFO "investigation".
There are pareidolias and "pareidolias"; I'm not sure if the word can even be applied here.
If this is the best the UFO "investigators" can show us, ET has nothing to worry about yet.
-
First the Lupa Capitolina; which would be the next one?
In any case, I would think the jury is still out; this note has just been published this month by AFP (The Australian).
It's interesting to compare this note with the radiologic report of Mr. Huppert, published two months ago also by AFP (Aurelia's post); Mr, Stierlin might not have been aware of this CT scan when he wrote his book.
After all, Mr. Stierlin himself admitted that "it was impossible to scientifically establish the date of the bust because it was made of stone covered in plaster" and also that "The pigments, which can be dated, are really ancient"(!?).
In fact, after the radioisotopic dating of the metallic Lupa, I wouldn't be so sure about Mr. Stierlin's first statement.
-
Thanks DDickey, UNRV and NewBooksInHistory for the chance of hearing this wonderful interview; thanks, Maty for the advice.
On Mr. Poe, I must agree with Ursus.
As expected, Mr. Goldsworthy didn
-
I wonder then if the spread of the remaining leaders was more to do with personal danger than religious zeal. The spread of christianity in the early days can't be ignored though. I see that the first ecumenical council was held in Jerusalem in ad50, on the subject of how to treat gentile converts.
It depends on what is meant by "Christianity". I seriously doubt the movement crystallized into a separate religion until the advent of Paul of Tarsus. Whatever writings we have available, both biblical and extra biblical, indicate that the early following of Jesus were pious Jews who followed the Mosaic Law, worshiped and sacrificed in the Temple, and were seen as fellow Jews by their own countrymen. That is, until the cataclysmic events of the 60s and the final fall of Masada. The school of thought adhered to by Paul, with its apolitical world view and its disregard for the Law and the Prophets, was the natural survivor of these happenings and finally metamorphosed into a bona fide religion.
In fact, the more conservative Christian groups (those still at least partially observing the Mosaic law) were progressively alienated after the council of Jerusalem, until being openly considered heretics (Ebionites) at least since the middle II century.
-
...After the defeat of the Helvetii, Caesar had decided to take on the German tribes under King Ariovistus. Such was his reputation for the torture of child hostages and other practices cruel by even ancient standards, discipline in the Roman ranks started to break down. The less experienced were brought to fearful tears and in general, the legionnaries spent all night bemoaning their fate and writing wills. Such was the panic that it spread to the more experienced....
If we are talking about Caesar's account from his Comentarii (Book II, ch. 32), that psychological description was not on the legionaries but on the Gauls (more especifically, the Aedui).
-
I wasn't aware of that. However, it doesn't change anything. If the Romans had seen these early christians as a political threat they would have been flushed out and dealt with with en masse. What the Romans actually did then is treat these individuals as undesirable radicals, and given the zealousy we often find in judaic cults, may well have shown no sign of repentance. I do also feel that Pilate was concerned not to ruin his reputation by having a revolt in his province. Instead, if a leader was identified as a threat, arrest him and deal with him quietly. As with all movements, the early christians relied on charismatic individuals for the vitality of their cause; the Romans understood that.
I wonder then if the spread of the remaining leaders was more to do with personal danger than religious zeal. The spread of christianity in the early days can't be ignored though. I see that the first ecumenical council was held in Jerusalem in ad50, on the subject of how to treat gentile converts.
I agree. The Jews as a whole were seen as a pretty unreliable and troublesome group thorough the first century AD, and minor factions would undoubtedly have been considered particularly problematic if the native authorities were unable to deal with them.
The Christians were identifed as Jews by the Romans for a long time, and for a good reason; they were so, at least up to the council of Jerusalem (still not considered Ecumenical); even so, the schism was not completed at least up to the Bar Kochba rebellion, when Christians and orthodox Jews openly clashed. It seems that even after Pliny Minor (at least up to Cassius Dio), Christians and Jews were frequently considered together by our sources; so when the Romans complained about Jewish proselitism, it's quite likely that at least some of them would have actually been Christians.
-
Speaking of which, can anyone name a dictator that died in office prior to Caesar?
Q. Hortensius was the first dicatator who died in office, in 287/6 .
That was a nice finding.
I suspect MPC was looking for administrative precedents relevant to 44 BC; unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, there are no detailed accounts on Hortensius' aftermath.
In any case, it seems no substitute was appointed, maybe because his legal mission had already finished.
-
You mean in that moment; no less than four apostles (Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew and Philip) were eventually crucified.
Just out of curiosity, where does it say that they were were crucified?
Just out of curiosity, should I infer you didn't find any documentary evidence on the Roman indications for crucifixion?
-
Actually, in his introduction, he makes reference to the ubiquitous comparisons between the US and Rome. He does not seem to be a fan on continual comparisons, especially at the expense of the USA.
Thanks; after reading your post and listening to the audio interview linked by DDickey, it's clear to me how mistaken I was.
On the other hand, from Mr. Poe's commentary (same site):
"In Goldsworthy
-
This thread deals with (and probably sometimes mixes up) two brutalities of quite different kind, even if both are not mutually exclusive and both have been fundamentally universal up to the present day.
The first one is included within the inherent and legally entitled use of force by any state to preserve law and order; naturally, the definitions of "force" and "law and order" vary. Any conquest has required the use of terror to try to dissuade any opposition.
The other one is the public use of violence for entertainment; ie, socially sanctioned sadism.
The Punic Wars
in Gloria Exercitus - 'Glory of the Army'
Posted · Edited by sylla
The Lutatius treaty that ended Punic War I in 241 BC, even after the Senate's revision, was far more balanced than the Versailles and related treaties that ended WWI in 1919; the former would have been more similar to the Armistice of Kaesong in 1953 that ended the Korean War.
First of all, the winners were many in 1919, with diverse interests; in 241 BC, Rome was alone.
Even after losing Sicily and other islands, the Carthaginian imperialist expansion was allowed in other directions, and not entirely suffocated, like it was the German case in 1919.
No restrictions were imposed in the size or weapons of the Carthaginian army or navy, as was the case for Germany.
The Carthaginians were forced to pay 1000 talents at once and 2200 talents within ten years (with an additional contribution of 1200 talents in 238 BC); no source questioned that they paid such money, and no long term consequence was evident from doing it so.
By the early XX century, war and its damage were far more expensive; the controversy on the feasibility for the payment of war reparations by the Germans continues to this day, but its crippling on their immediate development is undisputable.
Carthage was also forced to return the Roman prisoners (read slaves) without any ransom; however, Rome did exactly the same on their own side.
After 1919, the main tendency of the winners was to maintain (or at least delay the softening of) the original clauses; both the Nazi regime and its western opponents at some time considered that this might have contributed to the beginning of WWII.
After 241 BC, the persistent Roman tendency was to revise and harden the previous peace conditions; Sardinia and more money were seized in 238 BC under war threats (in fact, the war was actually decreed by the Roman Senate); in 236, an added clause restricted the Carthaginian expansion up to the river Ebro; Saguntum in 218 BC, the ultimate casus belli, simply filled the measure.