Virgil61
-
Posts
851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Virgil61
-
-
An antiquarian bookshop in Melbourne is selling an awsome copy of the Gallic wars, a translation published in the late 19th century, great condition, and one of only 1200 printed. Has really good engravings throughout based on Caesars descriptions - only a paltry $650 AUD.
Who's the translator?
And isn't $650 AUD like $5 US dollars?
...running and ducking...
-
Yes, PP. it is strange how in popular culture Octavian/Augustus seems always to be shown in a negative light.
Well truth be told he was a cold, calculating, manipulative and often murderous individual, especially when he was consolidating power.
-
Not too shabby. I really liked the opening battle sequence with the century in combat against the Gauls.
The actor playing Cato captures what I think of him pretty well, maybe not as stubborn but close. Pompey is sufficiently weak-willed and living on past glory; great realistic quote he has on stomping his feet and making legions appear. The actor playing Caesar also comes across well, maybe a bit more reflective and less energetic but it's still early in the show. The surrender of Vercingetorix was great, although I thought he sat at Caesar's feet [which wasn't shown].
The sub-story line between the centurion and drunken legionairre, although not based on anything real, looks promising enough. I think it gives you the feel for the average soldiers pov. I also think they capture the political intrigue of Rome well enough.
The legion's look like someone did their homework. On the pre-show they pointed out that 65 actors playing legionairres lived together and trained for two weeks on battle drills, marching, etc. And they were mostly played by my 'peeps' the Italians [the show was filmed in Italy].
The streets of the city are very colorful, much more reflective of what Rome looked like than the plain stone remnants today. Lots of graffiti, paintings etc.
Nudity and sex? Oh yes.
-
I was a student guest of a Moscow university for several weeks and greatly know the value of Russian hospitality. I was also a student of Russian language and literature for four years, and know something more about the culture than sleazy night clubs. I think a lot of people are misinterpreting my post. *shrugs* Sorry if it came off wrong.
I thought I understood it.
Be that as it may someone can have a Phd in Russian Lit and still be bowled over by the nightlife, rudeness, drinking, high level of intellectual accomplishment and somewhat aggressive members of the opposite sex. It pretty friggin' overwhelming the first few weeks in country. Then there's the wonderful customer service...
-
In order to encourage more community contributions to our quickly growing site, we've come up with an idea that will hopefully inspire some new articles. (I have stumbled across major writers block and can only seem to put together a little bit here and there, lately. Hopefully that changes as summer fades away
)What a great idea.
Thank you, but I've got at least three, one new and two I've reread, to write reviews for and submit; "Soldiers and Ghosts", "The Gallic Wars" and "The Jewish War". I'm procrastinating as usual, and would hate to accept a free book and then take weeks or months to write a review.
-
I was in Moscow once as a college kid. Met a couple of those guys. They don't like Americans. But then, they don't seem to like much of anything except vodka.
But the rest of the city was beautiful and cultured. Plenty of young, pretty girls looking for a Western sugar daddy.
I visited Moscow several times when I lived in Kiev and St. Petersburg. A lot of hustle and bustle, sort of a Las Vegas meets London feel to it. I'm partial to St. Pete's, a very beautiful city. And yes, many women of all ages interested in Western guys. I don't think it's just because they need a sugar daddy, there seems to be a shortage of single Russian men over 30. It made for an interesting year...[clears throat]...I went from feeling like George Costanza among women in the U.S. to feeling like Brad Pitt in Russia. Then I came back suprisingly single in spite of my experiences with Olga, Sveta, Varya, etc.
Because of my background while in the military- Russian language- I now work almost exclusively on Russian and CIS issues. They can come off rather unfriendly, especially to Americans who tend to smile more than any other nationality. Once you get paste the rough exterior, they value their friendships and keep them for a long time.
-
Caesar is way over rated, he is a conqueror but his strategy and tactics are not on the same level with Alexander and Hannibal, by the way, for a good leader luck is important^_^
I'd say you're incorrect. Caesar isn't overrated, he is probably rated third behind Alexander and Hannibal. He was outnumbered, operating in enemy territory during his conquest of Gaul, always moved quickly and getting to hotspots when he needed. He was certainly as good a leader of men as Hannibal and Alexander were and was possessed of enormous energy.
I'll take good training and leadership over luck any day. Luck eventually runs out.
-
Cairo
I spent a month in Cairo around ten years ago. It may have been beautiful at one time, but it's a smelly, tourist-trap cesspool now. Grenada on the other hand, seems to have aged well.
-
I'll quote one line to tell you why the critics don't like it...From the very beginning, "Rome" follows the historic record too dutifully, making reference to famous events and real-life figures from Brutus and Mark Antony to Cato, Cicero and Calpurnia. Everybody knows something about ancient Rome, if only from Shakespeare or even just the matchbooks at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas. Few remember all the historic details exactly. They don't matter.
The very thing that makes me excited to watch this...a recreation of some of the most significant events in human history... and the critics would prefer it be more fictional.
Yeah I caught that too. I almost emailed the critic concerning that very line, I was going to say the dumbing down of TV applies to critics as well as viewers. I thought I'd watch it first before emailing anything.
-
I've only read one book from Tom Holland, but honestly it was the most well written history book I ever read. More like a novel than an academic treatise. I much check out his other works.
I agree he's a great writer and it does read like a novel. However I wasn't so impressed with his depiction of the end of the Republic. I thought he really harkened back to the historians of the 17th century-- in all the bad ways; The vast majority of Romans are the "mob", guilds are nothing more than gangs rather than any sort of economic protection society, and so on. Caesar comes off worse than he should-- Holland is very skeptical of his "mercy"-- and Cato comes off far better than he has a right to.
-
NY Times August 21, 2005
HBO's Roman Holiday
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
See the full article at: http://tinyurl.com/dbn8j
LIKE science fiction, the allure of ancient Rome is that it promises a society that is just like us, only more so.
Ever since Robert Graves' historical novel "I, Claudius" was turned into a hugely successful BBC series, screenwriters have reveled in the possibilities of an empire with mail delivery, dental work and plumbing, but no Christian inhibitions or Senate subcommittee hearings.
HBO is the latest network to fall under the imperial spell with "Rome," a 12-episode series produced jointly by the BBC and HBO at a cost of $100 million. Filmed at the Italian film studio Cinecitt�, it features if not a cast of thousands, at least the television equivalent of Cecil B. DeMille extravagance.
HBO is the ideal place for such imaginative play. The Sopranos, after all, are mobsters with Prozac, flat-screen television sets and social slights. (We sulk or sue, they slaughter, but otherwise, the discontents are eerily the same.) No other network, cable or broadcast, has a stronger mandate to update the rivalry of Julius Caesar and Pompey or the filial strains between Octavian and his mother Atia. Certainly no other network has more license to depict sex, violence and family intrigue (all premium cable gall is divided into three parts.)
...
From the very beginning, "Rome" follows the historic record too dutifully, making reference to famous events and real-life figures from Brutus and Mark Antony to Cato, Cicero and Calpurnia. Everybody knows something about ancient Rome, if only from Shakespeare or even just the matchbooks at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas. Few remember all the historic details exactly. They don't matter...
Continued at: http://tinyurl.com/dbn8j
-
I never understood how they could rotate the front rank?surelly when the front try to disengage,the enemy can swarm into the gaps in the lines.Unless the enemy stop bashing hell out of your shield and leave you alone to finish the manuvre,i cant see that happening.
Longbow
Good question, to add to Spurius' post I think the answer may be fairly simple. These battles could take hours and there had to be- great PT or not- pauses in the fighting on both sides as combatants stopped to take their breath, rest, get a drink, etc. Imagine thousands of soldiers hours on line, there's no way to keep up that sort of physical intensity hour after hour.
My guess is that during these pauses or lulls were when the rotations took place.
-
Years ago I read his history of Venice and remember it being pretty good. He's got an excellent reputation so you wouldn't go wrong with him.
-
I've attempted to adjust a reputation score I gave someone to no avail. I wanted to balance a negative I gave with a positive but the board keeps coming back with an error message stating I should wait a week. Well it's been over a week and a half now at least and I keep getting the error message.
Any suggestions?
-
Comparing Islam to Christianity isn't very useful because Christianity has the benefit of being softened by an Industrial Revolution, a capitalist revolution, an Enlightenment and an Age of Democracy.
Islam hasn't had these things.
I share this same view, it hits the problem squarely on the head.
I've been to the Middle East several times including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq and Turkey. In spite of having many muslim friends I find it difficult, after seeing how women and Christians are treated in the countries I've visited, to have much sympathy for Islam. I've read through the Koran and quite honestly I've been taken aback by it's view of Jews and Christians; while it isn't actively hostile to them as it is towards paganism it's also not exactly friendly, Jews and Christians are to be tolerated but not befriended, trusted or lived amongst.
Until Islam adjusts to the modern world rather than confronting it, it will retain a large measure of violent hostility.
-
Adrian Goldsworthy is probably my favorite on Roman military history.
Of the ancients, Polybius and Josephus are my favorites [it's been so long since I've read Livy or Tacitus]. Both present a lot of first-hand information on the Romans from a non-Roman perspective. Polybius is especially good at a bigger picture, while Josephus does a great job on the military aspects of the Jewish War.
They were both a couple of major brown-nosers though.
-
I mean, it's my view that Ceasar single handedly put naval technology behind ~1000 years by completely obliterating the Veneti...
1000 years? Is there evidence about these Veneti being that much more advanced in naval technology?
-
About the hair colour of the Romans and Italians...Augustus had blonde hair and didn't Sulla also? I don't believe that the Romans could have come from the Moors....Romans are Whites for crying out loud!
The Sicilians are darker because they were invaded by the Arabs in the Dark Ages and some mixing did occur.
I'm American but my family is 100% Italian and both sides come from the same part of Italy- an area where Pompey's family had great support and in pre-Roman times bordered Umbrian and Samnite territory.
Of course there's been infusion of other genes in the area since, be that as it may most of us [my family] are brown-eyed with a few blue-eyed among us and hair color ranges from black to dirty blonde.
Pre-Roman Italy more commonly called "Ancient Italy" is a fascinating subject. A lot of the evidence points to the original Indo-Europeans all speaking a common Italic language when first settling Italy then splitting up into Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc. The theory puts the Italic tribes approaching from the Central/Eastern Europe
-
On the subject of history, the biggest thing I learned in college is that most so-called scholars have an agenda. You have to determine what that agenda is before you can place a value on their work. Marxism per se is now a rare phenomenon, but virulent post modernism seems to be the new orthodoxy among the so-called intellectual class. They evangelize worse than militant Monotheists.
Absolutely agree. Whenever I read a history I always ask myself from what point of view the historian is writing from. It doesn't invalidate that historian's work, but it gives the reader an idea of what bias that author holds if if it's not a conscious one. One of the best classes I ever took was a historiography course to complete a BA in History. That's one reason I enjoyed "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Parent. He's flawed definitely, but he makes a great point about how writers on Rome have written from the point of view of their own class bias relegating the majority of Romans to being a part of the mob. Again, it doesn't make their contributions invalide, it just gives the reader a heads up.
I've always thought that marxism held some useful analytical tools for studying history.
-
Above all else, I have deep respect for Virgil, whenever I see his name, I remember he used to be a 1Sgt and also a member of the airborne community, and is my senior; and in a lot of cases where I don't reply to a topic, its because he already said what I wanted to say, because we agree on a lot of stuff. The only two areas I disagree with him are the Byzantine-Roman continuity issue and this. Any conflict between us has been respectible for the most and only increases our insights into history in areas neither of us might not of bother to look before.
Nice clarifications Onasander, it sure beats "all historians suck". Well thought out. Having said that, I'd agree that quite a few do. I hope someday you get a chance to take a historiography class at a decent college.
Sorry 'bout the negative rep vote, I was in a crotchety mood that day, I'll fix that when the board allows it.
-
Before we go way off here allow me to interject. I personally am not all that concerned about natural evolutions of a discussion as long as they maintain a constructive atmosphere. While Virgil and Onasander seem to be developing an adversarial relationship, its been largely done in a respectful manner.
Nothing personal, but if someone is going to cruise a history board and make sweeping statements against historians they should be challenged to present specific facts. For every marxist there are about a dozen professional non-marxist historians who've written on a topic. Even fewer marxists have written on the topic of Roman history for that matter, although I own at least one study of crowds in the Republic done by a marxist-ish historian I've yet to read.
-
Virgil.......what exacly is the point of your response, and how does it relate to Imeprlism????
Zeke
I was responding to part of the comment on this thread that deals with the relevance of historians and trying to pin the guy down with something a little more definite. How does Imperialism in a general sense relate to "Ethics and Morals of Roman Society"? Or jobs in Bangladesh [to qoute you]. It's a discussion group.
-
Progress without aim? You know, if blaim is to fall on someone for the ideological wars that turned the world upside down from 1776 to the present, it's gotta be the historian with a philosophical bent. We look at history though a set of ideological lens, automatically denying certain strains of logic from comming into exsistance.
What book by what historian caused what war that wasn't influenced by economic or social factors? Rather than vague generalities please show an issue, name a historian and point out what "strains of logic" were denied from coming into existence. And while you're at it explain how Polybius, Josephus or name-your-ancient-writer don't view their own history through an 'ideological lens' of sorts related to their own era.
Take a graduate historiography course and you'll find that determining a historian's 'filter' is a common theme. And do you actually think it always discounts a point of view completely? Read "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by a marxist named Michael Parenti. It has a lot of problems, but anyone who can't see that he makes some excellent points about the Senate using the Roman constitution as a fig-leaf to cover it's unwillingess to share economic or political power than or that his pointing out the bias of the Roman commentaters has some credibility is blind.
Read "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy, a flawed book that still makes some brilliant observations showing the link between technological innovation, economic strength and political/military power from the 17th century to the 20th. Combining military, economic and political history, he moves the imperialism debate into a higher level.
You're giving a politically motivated lash-out at the left-wing, leaving right-wingers like Paul Johnson or even worse, holocaust revisionists free to ply their trade.
I'm not going to say we're all marxist in our frame of historical thought; the problem I think goes back even further to the defeat of the Republican forces in the English revolution when ideology was forced to hide in the commentaries of the classics. We judge what came before on how we think the proper way should be. What is progressive to me or you today is a result of our values and perspective of the world on how it should be going, and where we want it to go. When we look back in time, we say "this is good" or "this is bad" of this or that society. They suddenly become progressive in our view. We might not even understand their aims in freeing the slaves or serfs, or in changing the tax code or laws. To complicate this, we add the qustion of civilization to this, something we have the least understanding of all (even modern civilization).So when a historian talks about six million Jews killed in the holocaust they are wrong when they make judgments? Or when a historian talks about Jefferson and Washington, whose personal writings make clear they knew the contradictions between slavery and holding the values of the Consitution, personally kept their own slaves then that historian is wrong to point out that contradiction? Or is a historian's POV only valid when talking about the leftist evils of the Soviet Gulag?
-
The revolt of Spartacus isn't related to the incursions of Barbarian tribes centuries later. I google the quote, it's from a review of the movie Spartacus, sounds like the reviewer needs a history lesson.
You might want to do a search for previous threads on why the Roman Empire fell, there've been several.
Caesar's 'gallic Wars'
in Libri
Posted
I remember reading a very recent book that Goldsworthy contributed to that indicated that what he believes is the site of the siege of Aleisa [the site controversy is another matter] contains enough evidence to confirm Caesar's account but with significantly fewer fortifications than The Gallic Wars seems to indicate. In other words Caesar didn't lie but stretched the truth.
Most of the Civil Wars seems to have been written by someone besides Caesar, his colleague Hirtius being the chief suspect. The best thing, to me, is that his works are written with a real soldier's eye. Even the later books written by others in his name seem to have been written by eyewitnesses to battle.