Segestan
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Segestan
-
-
Thanks for sharing you're fine images. Hope you enjoyed you're trip , looks like a great time.
-
My apologies, I meant only within the Ptolemy dynasty.
Ah, apologies are mine -- I should have realized you were talking strictly about the Ptolemy dynasty. I guess I was so enamoured of Hatshepsut that I had to get in a plug for her.
But here's my question: Does history tell us whether the ruling, Ptolemaic Cleopatras were named "Cleopatra" from birth, or did they acquire the name of "Cleopatra" upon succession to the throne?
-- Nephele
After further study , I digress on the name being a title. It would appear that ' Cleopatra' was just a very common name within the Ptolmatic line. To associated the child to Royalty. The sister of Cleopatra VII,... Berenice was also a ruler, she organized a resistence took the throne from her father Ptolomy , and it was this event which brought the Roman Army to Egypt to reinstall Ptolomy. In this way Cleopatra VII became Ruler.
What can you tell us about the children of Cleopatra VII ..interesting pedigree... to my knowledge she had two sons, one from Caesar the other of Antony? My source material on this is incomplete.
-
Cleopatra is a 'title' that was taken up by eight different women. The line of 'Cleopatra' was Macedonian .
I do believe that "Cleopatra" is a name -- not a title -- meaning "father's glory." And, in fact, I know of at least 15 different Cleopatras.
Regarding Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator... the fact that there were several Cleopatras in her Ptolemaic line of descent no more makes "Cleopatra" a title than is "Antigonus" for those dynastic kings of Macedonia who bore that name in succession.
There was the 4th century BCE Cleopatra who was the niece of one of Philip II's Macedonian generals (Attalos).
There was the 1st century CE Cleopatra who was a friend and client of Poppaea Sabina (the same Poppaea who eventually became the emperor Nero's second wife).
There was even a freedwoman named Cleopatra, who was a favorite of the emperor Claudius.
But, if you have some source you can cite providing information confirming that "Cleopatra" is a title and not a name, then I would be very interested in reading it.
-- Nephele
The name means " born of a famous father" came into prominence during the hellenistic period mainly as a result of its close association with the Royal House of Macedon. The first Cleopatra was the wife of Perdiccas II of Macedonand Cleopatra was also the name of the daughter of Phillip II at whose wedding celebrations Phillip was assassinated in 336 BC.
You are correct it is a name but a name with a clear meaning of Royalty.
Yes, but you said that "Cleopatra" was a title, which is misleading, just as is your statement that "Cleopatra" is "a name with a clear meaning of Royalty." Sorry if I appear to be overparticular here, but such "meaning" is derived through association -- not etymology.
The name of "Cleopatra" comes from the Greek words kleos ("glory" or "fame") and patros ("father"), taken together to mean literally: "glory of the father."
As for your statement that "the first Cleopatra was the wife of Perdiccas II of Macedonand..." No, actually, that's incorrect.
Perhaps the earliest recorded instance of the name can be found in The Iliad, a work of literature which predates the reign of Perdiccas II by about three hundred years.
In Book IX of The Iliad we find a woman by the name of Cleopatra, briefly mentioned as the wife of Meleagros (or, Meleager):
"So [Meleagros] was angry with his mother Althaia and stayed at home with his wedded wife. She was the beautiful Cleopatra, the daughter of Marpessa Euenin
-
Cleopatra is a 'title' that was taken up by eight different women. The line of 'Cleopatra' was Macedonian .
I do believe that "Cleopatra" is a name -- not a title -- meaning "father's glory." And, in fact, I know of at least 15 different Cleopatras.
Regarding Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator... the fact that there were several Cleopatras in her Ptolemaic line of descent no more makes "Cleopatra" a title than is "Antigonus" for those dynastic kings of Macedonia who bore that name in succession.
There was the 4th century BCE Cleopatra who was the niece of one of Philip II's Macedonian generals (Attalos).
There was the 1st century CE Cleopatra who was a friend and client of Poppaea Sabina (the same Poppaea who eventually became the emperor Nero's second wife).
There was even a freedwoman named Cleopatra, who was a favorite of the emperor Claudius.
But, if you have some source you can cite providing information confirming that "Cleopatra" is a title and not a name, then I would be very interested in reading it.
-- Nephele
The name means " born of a famous father" came into prominence during the hellenistic period mainly as a result of its close association with the Royal House of Macedon. The first Cleopatra was the wife of Perdiccas II of Macedonand Cleopatra was also the name of the daughter of Phillip II at whose wedding celebrations Phillip was assassinated in 336 BC.
You are correct it is a name but a name with a clear meaning of Royalty.
-
Hello everyone. I heard in a biography that Cleopatra was not Egyptian. I also read or hear somewhere that she was massidonian. Does that mean she was Greek or what? Also, how did her family come to power?
Cleopatra is a 'title' that was taken up by eight different women. The line of 'Cleopatra' was Macedonian .
-
The annas house was considered a temple
Now that sure is news to me. You have any sources for that?
You may find the uniquely Johannine scene of the session at Annas' house ( 18:12-24)
also that Jesus was struck very hard for speaking to Annas sharply, ( v 22 ) and Jesus is brought to Annas' house ( v 12 )
Fact is the Annas house provided the many animals for sacrifices and Jesus' demands that this stop would have caused a large loss in sales to the sheeple. The Temple was the bank in those days and Jesus tried to halt the banks trading and sales. Result--- execution!
-
So really, all Anna's five sons, one after another, became high priest? Still very interesting. So who was high priest after Ciaphas?
Annas and his family held the position. In 62 AD ; Annas the youngest son, took advantage of a hiatus in Roman rule to arrange the death of James , the brother of Jesus.
The annas house was considered a temple, and Jesus was even taken their before his execution by Roman and Jewish soldiers.
-
If a much more concrete method of succession to the imperial throne had been developed, would that have done anything to strengthen the Empire and perhaps stave off its fall for a few more centuries? Since I believe the throne was basically de facto hereditary, I don't understand why a series of laws were not passed to clarify it. I mean, in the UK and most other European monarchies, there is a long list of candidates that spells out who gets the throne next if so and so dies, which basically prevents any dispute since it is always known who gets it. But many times when an emperor died, there wasn't that procedure to follow. It was basically the last general standing gets it.
Now I understand that the first few emperors couldn't do this since he still needed to maintain the pretense that the Republic was alive and well and there was no monarchy.But when that facade did eventually disappear, why was a system of succession not established?
The biggest problem with the Imperial Throne was it
-
That sounds interesting. So how did caiphas become high priest? And what was Annas after his son in law was made that title?
Annas was appointed by Quirinius around AD 6 and deposed by Valerius Gratus in AD 15. Joseph Caiaphas was appointed by Valerius Gratus in 18 AD and removed from office around the year 36 AD by Vitellus Annas was influential far after his removal , in that his five son
-
Hello all. I didn't know where to ask this question, but I always wondered who the high priest Annas was? Does anyone know anything about him? I did hear his daughter married ciaphas and he became high priest.
High Priest in Jerusalem between AD 6 -15. He and his family where members of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The family of Annas , his five son
-
What not?
Film : SPQR
-
He was from Picenum, which was settled by Gauls. He certainly looked more like a Gaul than a Roman. Was Pompeius Magnus of Gaulish descent?
No .. he was born in Rome the son of the soldier and statesman Pompeius Strabo. He was given the Title.. Magnus by the senate after his victorious campaign over Marius in Sicily.
-
I go evolution every time. Gods just don't do it for me. I would be interested to what the great minds of UNRV think about this topic.
-----Intelligent Design----
There is Not nor has their ever been two person
-
Sorry about the double post, it seemed as though the link failed.
-
This line from gladiator, (a movie I ended up disliking, not just for the metal spoons the slaves ate with) bring to mind, just how different do you believe modern people are? "Rome was an idea," Aurelius said in the movie.
Are we so lacking faith in ourselves not to understand that the past holds but examples of what we can accomplish today. You who study Rome, are Romans, because you have bought into the idea and ideals of what Rome was. We today are no different in basic character then those of thousands of years ago. Wasn't Rome an attitude that spread to the provinces. Didn't the Romanized provinces consider themselves Roman. Not all of them I grant you. After a few hundred years, didn't the Britons or Gaul consider themselves Roman Britons or Roman Gauls. In the end they all became Roman citizens. The first truly cosmopolitan nation with shared interests.
History is the inspiration for the future, its possibilities and its hopes. Rome continues today in those that believe so and understand its legacy. From its earliest days there was no other direction for them but avanti, forward. To stand still was to die. They actually had to live by "carpe diem" or perish. Are we any different? Isn't it necessary for us also to go out and conquer each day in our own lives?
We look back into their lives. I wonder what they would think if they looked into our lives and discussed us. What do you think they would say? How would they view political correctness? What would they think of people out to save trees? Could they understand groups like Greenpeace? Are you up for a little cultural role reversal? You are looking into the future 2000 years hence, as Romans. What would be your observations on the world of today?
Ron
I think the Romans would be amazed that it has been over 2500 years since the Republic was founded and after all these many centuries the battle for the perfect Republic still rages on. They would be saddened that in Italy itself, there still is no working Republic . The people have not learned how to govern any better than their early attempts. And an ...I told you so !... that the return of the Christ and his peace on earth was a fanthom idealism, one that still has not come any closer to realization today than what was so proudly proclaimed in Rome 2000 years ago. Amazed at just how little has actually changed in the ordinary lives of humankind. Modern tools do not make for a better man.
I do like you're reasoning that all those who study Rome today are a Roman. But in my view being a Roman is best lived as a Republican idea, not any other. Democracy is Greek.
-
This line from gladiator, (a movie I ended up disliking, not just for the metal spoons the slaves ate with) bring to mind, just how different do you believe modern people are? "Rome was an idea," Aurelius said in the movie.
Are we so lacking faith in ourselves not to understand that the past holds but examples of what we can accomplish today. You who study Rome, are Romans, because you have bought into the idea and ideals of what Rome was. We today are no different in basic character then those of thousands of years ago. Wasn't Rome an attitude that spread to the provinces. Didn't the Romanized provinces consider themselves Roman. Not all of them I grant you. After a few hundred years, didn't the Britons or Gaul consider themselves Roman Britons or Roman Gauls. In the end they all became Roman citizens. The first truly cosmopolitan nation with shared interests.
History is the inspiration for the future, its possibilities and its hopes. Rome continues today in those that believe so and understand its legacy. From its earliest days there was no other direction for them but avanti, forward. To stand still was to die. They actually had to live by "carpe diem" or perish. Are we any different? Isn't it necessary for us also to go out and conquer each day in our own lives?
We look back into their lives. I wonder what they would think if they looked into our lives and discussed us. What do you think they would say? How would they view political correctness? What would they think of people out to save trees? Could they understand groups like Greenpeace? Are you up for a little cultural role reversal? You are looking into the future 2000 years hence, as Romans. What would be your observations on the world of today?
Ron
I think the Romans would be amazed that it has been over 2500 years since the Republic was founded and after all these many centuries the battle for the perfect Republic still rages on. They would be saddened that in Italy itself, there still is no working Republic . The people have not learned how to govern any better than their early attempts. And an ...I told you so !... that the return of the Christ and his peace on earth was a fanthom idealism, one that still has not come any closer to realization today than what was so proudly proclaimed in Rome 2000 years ago. Amazed at just how little has actually changed in the ordinary lives of humankind. Modern tools do not make for a better man.
I do like you're reasoning that all those who study Rome today are a Roman. But in my view being a Roman is best lived as a Republican idea, not any other. Democracy is Greek.
-
Julius Caesar
For his role as leader, stateman and general he was the most influencial person in world history. By his crossing the Rubicon he set the stage for the worlds greatest empire , the Roman Empire and in doing so helped Roman ideas of law and order influence all following ages of law. Rome was the seat of Republican ideas , Athens the seat of Democratic.
The second most important person would therefore be the first consul of the new Roman constitution and Republic : Lucius Junius Brutus. The worlds first genuine Republican leader and representative of moral law and order.
-
I thank everyone for the feedback.
I noticed this generated a certain amount of enthusiasm not seen in most book reviews. Do you all feel UNRV needs more reviews and articles on popular entertainment with a Roman theme?
Please do. Always interested in Roman related subjects.
-
I am happy to present to you UNRV's first video game review.
http://www.unrv.com/book-review/rome-total...old-edition.php
Feel free to discuss.
Before you make reviews please learn how to use the controls. Rome Total War is THE best game ever... period!
press control I for infantry then drag the mouse placing the whole unit group in a long line formation, taking individual units from the line as needed. . Depending on you're faction units you may need to place common units at a staging area then groups them as needed. Taking certain units and individually placing these on the flank helps the whole line from being attacked and detroyed. AI likes to attack the flank. Legions and other spear throwing units needs to be -told- to throw at will( press the Throw at Will Icon, Place these throwing units behind the phalanx-Scitarii-hoplite units, as the enemy then approaches the army they will come under heavy dart attack and their numbers will be cut down. Make sure to have these units Not on Stand Ground, otherwise they will not pursue or attack at will. Calvary units grouping is control C placing these on the flanks aids the line once under attack. Once you have grouped you're units, placed them it is best to release them back under individial will. You can however fight as a complete group but AI will attack you at weak points and route you're army. Three weeks of game play in nothing , you need alot more time learning ; a campaign can lasts months. RTW is the best game you'll ever play.
I strongly suggests you try again.
-
What Mommsen saw is a civilisation with some high ideals that was losing its way. The introduction of new ideas might be cosmopolitan, but it can also destabilise a society at worst. One view is to assume that new ideas are a good thing - because without them a society can stagnate (something the republic has been accused of sometimes). The reason I posted this is because if you look askance at it, there's a wide parallel with our modern age. For us, the world wars were as delibatating as the Punic Wars were to the romans. We too saw an introduction of luxuries afterward (also due to increasing technology) and have been through a permissive change in society. The role of women has expanded to fill almost every male bastion for instance. We accept this because we're brought up within this enviroment. To our ancestors many of these changes might have been viewed with horror. Remember Enoch Powell warning us of the dangers of immigration? Mommsens viewpoint is from a time before these changes occured which is why I thought it interesting.
Personally, I think Rome left its rustic latin roots much earlier than the empire. It remained as a fond folk memory well into later times, the scene of rustic tranquility and honest agricultural labour being very close to roman hearts even after they embraced urban sprawl. Everything the empire was going to become was already present in the late republic and the change was happening over the last two hundred years. The senate recognised these changes with some concern and attempted to hold it back, yet there seems a certain ineptness and lack of will in the senate's actions. They've been accused of being too concerned with their own affairs, engaged in their own tussles for popularity and career, until the point is reached where charismatic individuals are calling for support from the common people directly.
Mommsen of course regarded the empire as a 'bad' thing, a degenerate form of government that shared nothing with the high ideals the romans had when they booted Tarquinus off his throne. He has a point, but then, if the rule of tradition breaks down as it did in the late republic, you approach a situation where the law of the jungle prevails, and in the increasing political anarchy the fittest pushed forward and achieved domination.
Now since our idea of modern society, since we live in it, is nothing like as bad as Mommsens fears, one has to draw the parallel again and wonder if the romans too decided that the declining restraints on society weren't so bad after all. Idleness for instance means exactly what is does today, that people choose to be unemployed and obtain a living by other means, often at the cost of the state. Gambling brings all manner of social ills with it. Relgion can warp peoples perceptions and make them do some very anti-social things and still believe they are right to do them. The changing of eating habit? Not terrible in its own right, but an indication of a desire for luxury, a sign that the old discipline and manners of what may seem to a golden age is falling away. Sounds familiar?
Much of those habits of luxury living that Romans discovered after the Punic Wars where the direct results of an ever increasing use of slavery. One of the prime reasons that the Greeks managed to advance culturally, was in fact slavery had allowed a greater amount of personal free time. Free Time to achieve at arts , crafts and philosophy that would never have been possible in an labor high society. Unfortunately slavery results in an ever increasing moral decay and self defeats the advancing high culture achievements. This civil conradiction , along with a brutal competition of city-states for slaves defeats the noble ideas of Republicanism. The Empires architects knew full well to give the Roman citizens the allusion of Republican politics. Nothing works as well as having the citizen think he is free.
-
Certainly the Republic saw moral decay result from Roman expansion; but it was never easy from the beginning for Rome. Being a Roman required a respect of law , a great social responsibility. The Civil Wars, were testimony that the Republic had become unstable, that the Roman system was being tested to the limits of fairness, and the moral decay wasn
-
It's said that Caesar's assassins also wished to kill Marc Antony on the Ides of March but that he was spared at the (looking back now) naive insistence of Brutus, who thought Antony could be brought around once Caesar was gone.
Hearkening back to Cicero's famous quote describing Caesar's assassination as "that superb banquet," what would the impact have been had they expanded the menu to include Antony? Would the Republic have survived? Or was the Empire inevitable? I find it hard to imagine Octavius rising to power without Antony's military might to do the heavy lifting. That aside, was the Republic already beyond saving? Was the damage inflicted upon it by the brothers Gracchus, Gaius Marius, Sulla, Caesar, etal, a mortal wound? Was it only a matter of time until somebody was able to come along and consolidate power and sweep away the last vestiges of he Republic ?
The Empire was an unlawful result of outlaws , the Republic was founded on Roman moral law. All that was needed , to save the Republic, was a senate that could enforce the Laws of the Republic , by default remove the Oligarchies puppet Caesar. Caesar was murdered but his power was bigger than he. Augustus did a good job of using that which Caesar had stolen, as an outlaw ruler , but it wasn't long before the barbarians were at the gates, so to speak, and the Republic was no more. .
-
After a few weeks research, most sources claim that Julian was inducted into the cult of Mithras. Now whether this was purely propaganda, or sincere, that will require further investigation. It is also been stated by several sources that Julian built a Mithraeum in the place of Constantinople. That to me, seems very important. I doubt there were many adherents to Mithras in the city of Constantine, so it is likely, and I say this loosely, that it was for his use.
Here are a couple of coins of some interest.
That looks more like an image of the Sabellian Bull from the Italian Confederacy not a Mithraic Bull. Julian was a follower of the ancient Roman religion as was most every member of the Roman aristocracy of his day. What sources says that all of Romes aristocracy was following Mithraism? None that i know of. Even Julian's own brand of Roman religion was heavily influenced by the Greek deities and those schools of philosophy , were are the sources of institutional Mithraism in Rome? Julian however never actually followed even the ancient religion of the Romans, his brand was politically influenced by the Greeks.
-
Yeah...I'd like to apologize ahead of time if this idea has already been beaten to death and left in the sun to fester....
I'd like to recreate the Roman Republic in modern day Europe...that being said...
REPUBLIC
No, I'm not the anti-christ people...I don't want another Empire.
I think that if we can acheive the social tolerances of the time (plus the ones we've come up with since then) we can unite under one banner, the banner of Rome. I'm an American in New Jersey...but the thought of another Roman Republic is a good incentive to move...
Anyway, feel free to argue and discuss
A few thoughts on you
Europe's debt to Islam given a skeptical look
in Historia in Universum
Posted
Islam has added nothing positive to European culture or history. Islam is a system not a religion, a system that brings tyranny, brutality while destroying the conquered peoples free speech. The supposed knowledge that Mohammad