Virgil61
-
Posts
851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Virgil61
-
-
There is the story of Crassus' Carrhae survivors eventually finding their way to China...
It just struck me that whether the story is true or not, this would make a great movie epic.
-
After reading these, if you're willing to delve into autobiography, I'd add Augustine of Hippo's Confessions or maybe The City of God. Both give tremendous insight into the psychology and daily life around the late 4th/early 5th century.
-
What do people think ? Has anyone made a serious attempt and going through his "facts" and classifying his claims as either believable or unbelievable ?
I haven't made any attempt to do either of the above, but my impression of Suetonius was that he was far more accurate than I had expected based on his reputation for gossip. I've always thought the recounting of past emperor's scandals based on biased perspectives and popular mythology is instructive in itself.
-
Have there been any generals, presidents, prime ministers or even lower that deserve the title of Magnus for their deeds? What about humanitarians or doctors or scientists?
The first that come to mind are Churchill, Zhukov and possibly Ghandi for his influence.
Other choices: Einstein for science, Freud for influence, maybe Bill Gates and Henry Ford as well.
Yuri Gagarin and/or Neil Armstrong would be interesting choices.
-
P.S. --- the following gives a brief overview of the Roman government and Sulla's changes to it:
Excellent, thank you. It always amazes me what an great resource wikipedia is.
-
This article touched me for some reason. I don't know why. I'm glad the GI's could help the German townsmen.
There's an interesting reason for this. The US Army has spent, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars in the last fifty years doing this kind of reaching out to the communities in the parts of Germany units were stationed in. The reason is that countless German farms, fields and other propety were very often damaged by units manouvering during training, traffic disrupted, noise levels raised, etc., and millions were paid out as compensation to farmers and landowners.
This gave Army units a very strong incentive to mitigate bad press by co-operating with locals, fostering good will and making nice by doing this kind of thing.
-
That is indeed interesting. But why not use Munda for dramatic effect as we near Caesar's grand achievements in Rome at the end his work. Fire or not, it just doesn't make sense to drop his pursuit of the Republicans in the narration. It would, on a grander scale albeit, be like recounting Hitler's death in the bunker and then leaving out Hiroshima.
By the way, how do you define being a ''professional historian''?
I'm guessing he had only so much time and/or space available for print so he probably made the choice between recounting Munda or outlining the consolidation of power in Rome by Caesar and the subsequent even more dramatic events which were to have such great influence on history. In spite of the (very) tough fighting in Munda one could argue the real heart and soul of the old Republican resistance was eliminated after the defeats and deaths of Pompey, Cato, et al. But I'm just guessing as to his intentions.
My definition of a professional historian would be someone who is trained in the subject and makes his or her living on it. Mommsen was a professor of Ancient History so he pretty much fits it.
-
I had a nation at NationStates called Aeternitas which died a long time ago, unfortunately. Due to lack of time I left my citizens in a total anarchy so they started killing each other and eventually gave the government to a neofascist party. LOL. I didn't know the site was still up =) I had a lot of fun with Aeternitas (holy empire of Aeternitas, to be precise
).I just signed up with the nationstate thingy yesterday. Looks like fun and maybe a few people taking it a bit too seriously. I'm the 'Republic of Plastic Flatware' based on the first thing I glanced at while typing.
-
If a 21st century scientist or some very learned person were to go back to Roman times and witness some of the "miracles" performed by the gods or signs of the gods, i'm sure they'd be able to give a plethora of logical scientific reasons as to how they happened i.e. the eruption of Vesuvius. But, were they to try to explain to devout Romans that these weren't signs of the gods, at best they'd get a "prove it" attitude in reply. The Romans knew no better, and they reasoned that they must happen for some reason. Thus, obviously the gods must make these things happen!
On at least one occasion it suited a Roman general to "science up" real quick. At Pydna (I think) a lunar eclipse happened the night before the battle with the Macedonians. Lucius Aemilus Paullus had enough knowledge of astronomy to explain the mechanism of eclipses to calm his troops. Didn't stop him from making sacrifices-- just in case.
-
So, that I think explains it. The question is, why did Mommsen leave it all out? Maybe he was attempting to crown Caesar's achievements and didn't want to end with the sad fact that he got taken down.
The answer I think is simpler; he never was able to complete the full history of Rome that he originally intended-- the manuscripts for the remaining volumes were destroyed by a fire and the later half of his life was relatively busy with political and other interests. In case anyone doesn't realize it he won the Nobel Prize largely on the basis of the History of Rome. I just read a line on a website that he was chosen over Leo Tolstoy because of LT's radical views but I can't verify the truth to that. I believe he is the only professional historian to have ever won the prize.
-
It is my understanding that stirrups originated in the orient and didn't make it to Europe until about the *th century. It is safe to say that the early Imperial cavalry didn't have them. I assume that the early Byzantine Cavalry of Belisarius et al did not have stirrups either. What about the late Sassanids? They had closer contact with the orient. Is there any evidence that they had access to stirrups? What about the HUns?--they supposedly came from the orient--why didn't they have stirrups?
Can anyone tell me when was the first recorded use of stirrups in the following locations:
Far East (China)
India
Mesopotania
Eastern Europe
Western Europe
I can point you to the works of Ann Hyland. She's done some extensive writing on the subject of horses in ancient and medieval history including how Roman and Byzantine cavalry were trained. Looks like interesting stuff.
-
Caesar screwed the whole of Gaul, Nicomedes Caesar.
See now, Caesar rides in triumph, after screwing Gaul.
Nicomedes does not triumph, though he screwed our Caesar.
They look like the same verse to me, just translated much differently. The one you supplied is the more literal-- closer to the original I would guess-- Legionairres I would imagine would be pretty raunchy. The one I linked to seems like a 19th century whitewash of the more lewd bits.
-
I don't know if these are marching songs, but Seutonius has two different lines that the legions sang about Julius Caesar [i think Plutarch has similar lines as well]:
"All the Gauls did Caesar vanquish, Nicomedes vanquished him;
Lo! now Caesar rides in triumph, victor over all the Gauls,
Nicomedes does not triumph, who subdued the conqueror."
And
"Men of Rome, keep close your consorts, here's a bald adulterer.
Gold in Gallia you spent in dalliance, which you borrowed here in Rome."
I think the Penguin translation is a lot more modern but I don't have it nearby.
-
That has to be one of the coolest stories I've seen yet pertaining to Rome. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
-
-
Indeed, my apologies, they are not completely fictitious as names in history... however, their lives beyond a single event are essentially made up entirely. There is no historical record for these men beyond the following passage from De Bello Gallico. I did jumped the gun on the use of 'completely fictitious and I hope all will be forgiven
From the Gallic Wars book 5 chapter 44.
That's a particularly vivid scene from Caesar. I'd not remembered the names though, thanks for bringing that up.
It may not be historically accurate, but it's nice to see Hollywood writers actually reading ancient histories.
-
A battle count isn't the sole measure of military greatness. METT-T [Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops and Time] factors as well as fielded weapons systems vary far too greatly to simply use a battle count as the determing factor.
-
I've started a new thread based on Viggen's watching the show on Roman engineering.
This week is Rome week on the History Channel in the U.S. Last night was Roman Vice...very interesting. Both shows have been excellent and I was very surprised to see Peter Weller [yes, Robocop] an instructor on Rome and Roman art at Syracuse.
Here's the link for those interested: http://tinyurl.com/8dub8
-
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846
I saw this book on amazon and has great reviews, but was curious your thoughts? Or do you recommend another book for beginners?
I'll have to agree, Michael Grant is the best introductory writer for Rome. He's sort of the Bruce Catton [American Civil War historian] of Roman history; in other words a real popularizer of the era with a readable narrative style.
-
Primus Pilus: Thank you, that is exactly all I was trying to do.
Clodius: Roman Revolution- quite a book. It's been years since I've read it, every serious student of Rome needs to tackle it at least once, even if you hate it. .
My own opinion is that Augustus was an astute and very intelligent man who put the acquisition of power ahead of everything. He leaned towards the ruthless in his youth and towards moderation in his later years. He deserves the criticism of his excesses and the praise of his later rule. There is a good case to be made that Rome survived rather than crumbling into seprerate states because of him. My greatest criticism is that he failed to set up stable measures to hand power over to the next government, but that may have been beyond any single man's ability.
I agree, he just may have been the greatest politician/statesman to have ever lived.
-
Hmm. Interesting logic. You acknowledge that the Republic was already dead -- being kept alive through artifical means -- and you agree that it was "others" who killed it. You then defend your denunciation of Octavian because he is "seen by many" as the culpret (who put the last nail in the Republic's coffin). Strange indeed. But the really strange thing is that (arg, this is painful) you really do know one hell of a lot about Roman history, so why would you defer to what "the many" think on a question like this?
You might want to reread all of my posts, you 've really gotten the gist of them wrong.
[AGAIN] I never denounced Ocatavian, you wondered about why some held him in a negative light, I put forth some possible rationales- not my opinions- and you didn't like it. Let me be clearer; I am just postulating, based on what I've read and on a listing of Octavian's less stellar deeds, on why some hold him in a negative light.
[AGAIN] A negative view of Octavian doesn't come from out of left field, it has a long pedigree. I didn't address his postitive features because this issue was strictly about the negatives. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this.
My own opinions of the man- which I haven't shared- are more complex than simply black or white.
-
To address two of your points: first, Octavian's "hand in the death of the republic." Actually, the more I study the repubic's last century the more I think the "Republic" was gone before "Augustas" was invented, probably even well before the Rubicon...
The second point is your apparent concession that once Octavian got the power Augustus used it responsibly and well.
All of which does NOT explain why, in popular Western culture, Octavian/August has always been portaryed in a negative light -- an oversight hopefully to be corrected in HBOs Rome.
There's a very strong argument the Republic was on life-support at least since the Gracchi, but that's not the point, the point is that he is seen by many as the man who put the Republic out of commission. Others may have killed the Republic but when the cops arrived it was Augustus standing over the cold body with a bloody knife in his hand [but...uh...let me explain...it's not what it looks like...].
I didn't really concede anything because I never made the point Augustus was evil, I simply kept my answer addressing his negatives. I personally think that among readers and historians throughout the ages, ruthless young Octavian has always had to compete with the older moderate Augustus and I think there lies the answer, at least for me.
-
Episode 2 continued along the same path... I am impressed with their general attention to history while using seconday characters to bring it to life.
I enjoyed it also, it's the attention to detail that is so impressive.
Quite a surgical scene.
-
"Cold," yes. "Calculating," sure. "Maniplative," of course. But "murderous"? Come on Virgil, I'm away for two months and come back only to find your Head Count biases showing again. Is there any Roman -- Republic or Empire -- who ever held meaningful power in Rome of which you DO approve?
The original statement I was responding to was why Augustus is often "shown in a negative light". I pointed out why.
Quite frankly I don't see how this shows a "head count" bias. It doesn't signify approval or disapproval, it was an answer to the question posed. Octavian had Cicero put to death as part of a three-way assasination deal with Antony and Lepidus. During the Second Triumvirate he put forth proscriptions that ended in the deaths of several hundred Senators and Equines, primarily it's suspected, to obtain their land for disbanded legions. I'm all for legions getting their farmland, but in most definitions I'd bet this would qualify as "murderous". Along with cold, calculating and manipulative- traits historians from Seutonius, to Gibbon until today have commented on- it does go far in explaining why he is often "shown in a negative light".
He certainly redeemed himself in later years with a moderate, peaceful and constructive reign, but these early traits, and I should add, his hand in the death of the Republic answer the question.
[edited]
U.s. Army Helped German Town Rediscover Its History
in Archaeological News: Rome
Posted
Yeah. I remember a bizarre pre-exercise tasking where we developed posters pointing out how much the US Army spent in the Bamberg area and a POC # to report any property damage by US soldiers; had them printed up and then deployed from Ft Bragg to Germany for the actual exercise.