Tiberius Cornelius Brutus
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Tiberius Cornelius Brutus
-
-
As for Marcus Aurelius restoring the Republic. . .
I think someone has been watching too much "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe.Haha no way...I totally forgot that that was a part of that movie! Good call, sir. Marcus Aurelius was a student of philosophy, and as far as I know he was a proponent of decentralized power in government.
-
I'm not sure i agree, GO.
the truth is that the catholic church has adulterated and diluted - one might even say perverted - Jesus' message as set out in the gospels, to provide a power base for unspiritual men with a lust to control. Some of the more modern churches who seek to go back to the original teachings are actually more honest.
the arguments you advance for doctrine, dogma and the church fathers (so called - rightly catholic fathers) are simply sophistic arguments to defend the catholic position.
Phil
I understand you have your opinions, but some consider that people reading this may find your comments on the Catholic Church as offensive, myself included...remember, you aren't just talking about history, you are talking about a church's teachings and doctrines which people base their faith and spiritual lives. I'd appreciate a little more consideration...
The REAL truth is that nobody knows for absolute sure what is true and what is distorted in Christianity. What we don't know is all a matter of faith. That said, just because you have absolute faith doesn't mean you can have aboslutely no tolerance. Let's all remember that, k? Thanks
-
In my opinion and from my meagre readings, it was the Republic which destroyed itself with its avarice and contempt and not Caesar. Had it not been Caesar, then another would have taken the reins of government. Yet, I am not saying that the contempt and avarice of the nobles ended with the Republic.
When a government has decayed, it is the obligation of the patriot to amend it.
Brutus' ancestors give him no credit.
I think I agree with you...even though Cato is right in some respects. It is a Roman's obligation to kill those who conspire against the Republic, but the Republic as everyone knew it was collapsing around them. Caesar did everyone a favor by taking control. And even with his heightened sense of self, I believe that he would not have become king, but instead established himself in a position similar to Augustus's, essentially becoming the first emperor. Could be wrong though!
-
Just come back tio this thread.
As is probably evident from my initial post in it, I am of utterly the reverse opinion to that posed by Cato and supported by so many others.
First, I find it sentimental. the Roman republic (so-called, it had few features that would have made it commendable as a modern republic) was every bit as cruel, devious, grasping and nasty and it successor empire. why should we want it back - it failed. It was outgrown. And it was never more than a crudely effective city Government.
Second not a single argument is advanced as to HOW the republic could havesurvived or returned. It fell for good reasons and powerful forces would have prevented its return. Why on earth - even had it done so - would it have succeeded any more than the earlier one did.
There also seems to be a supposition that a Rome that survived would have be recognisable as it was in the first millenia - the jest about togas makes the point.
Yet Byzantium by 1453 was unrecognisable as Rome. It saw no reaon to revert to Republicanism.
Even if you were right and a version of the empire had survived to today - you would not recognise it as such in terms of its culture (you might JUST in terms of political forms) any more than Washington would recognise Bush's USA, or William I, Elizabeth II's britain. In the latter case both are monarchies but they have been transformed .
Rome would have been too.
Phil
I think you may be contradicting yourself.
You are a strong advocate of the fact that Rome itself would change, in culture and appearance, over time. This will be true to an extent, but I think that Roman culture as a whole would remain largely unchanged. Given, its society would change over the centuries, as any society does. But look at Italy today, and especially the city of Rome - the culture is ENORMOUSLY influenced by that of Rome. Mussolini even tried to return the "glory of the empire" to Italy once again. The Catholic Church speaks Latin, and even the Italian language is very similar to Classical Latin. Not to mention the hundreds of monuments and structures that still stand as a testament to the glory of Rome.
My point is that the culture of Rome has had a huge influence on most of the European countries it occupied, especially Italy. Do you really think it would have changed beyond recognition in a few thousand years? The Egyptian civilization has been around for more than 9,000, and their traditional culture still remains deeply rooted in their history. The same can be said for many of the eastern peoples, China specifically. Although the face of China may have changed physically with modernization, the culture has remained largely traditional. So is it really so far-fetched to think that Rome would remain as Roman as it ever was?
Politically, I think there is some fault in your argument. Of course the east would never want to revert to Republicanism - it didn't have nearly as many problems as the west did. The booming eastern trade kept Byzantium's coffers full, and they could generally throw money at many of their problems (especially the barbarian ones). So if the culture of Rome would have changed so much, how could you think that politically, the Roman people would want a republic that was based on their previous one? There would have to be great changes, and nobody denies that. Things would be better, considering the Rome of 200 AD was much more powerful than that of 200 BC. Rome had a more powerful military, an established legal code, and established provincal governments. After all, it took the French several times to get Republicanism right - Rome wouldve definitely tried a new system.
The prospect of the Roman empire surviving under a Republican is not merely sentimental. Romans may have said the same thing during the Punic Wars, when Hannibal was in striking distance of the jugular of the republic, but the fact is that it happened. And the survival of Rome past the 5th century could've very likely happened as well.
-
[st telling evidence of a "pagan" takeover.
Much of catholic teaching and ritual - as I understand it - is not Biblically based. Indeed, Jesus was much against ritual and ceremony and condemned it. Saints, bishops, and all the other paraphenalia was not mentioned in the giospels
I believe all of Catholic teaching and ritual to be biblically based. What evidence do you have that it is not? I would be intererested in learning.
Blessings, Jeri
One that I always knew of was the idea of prayer for the dead and of Purgatory. Neither of these were directly mentioned by Christ, but instead vaguely mentioned in Daniel, Macabees, Revelations, and a few others (if memory serves). I'm pretty sure that the doctrine of Purgatory, where sinners suffer the pain of hellfire in order to be "purified" and gain entrance to heaven, was decided on by church leaders during the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Im sure there are many more, but I'd have to do a bit more research to assure my accuracy
-
I'm a pretty strong proponent of the link between Catholicism and Roman culture, especially in the late empire. The structure of the church hierarchy, the titles, feast days, holidays and much of the symbolism owes a lot to Roman paganism and cults. Of course I should point out that Catholics don't worship their saints as deities, as you obviously know but thought I'd should state for non-Catholics.
I was brought up Catholic, and as I started to study Roman culture and the religion(s) is was centered around, I see the connection as well. After all, the only things St. Peter had to go on when building Christ's church were the teachings of Christ himself. Little, if anything, about the church hierarchy as mentioned above, was based on Jesus's instructions and/or teachings. Most of it was decided at various councils conducted by church leaders centuries after both Christ's and Paul's deaths. Even the Pope is often referred to as "head pontiff", a title often given to the pagan head priests in Rome during the Republican era and afterwards. Christmas, as well, although widely celebrated as "Jesus's birthday", is thought to be based on a pagan holiday. And lest we forget that the official language of the Vatican City, and many other traditional Catholic diocese, is Ecclesiastical Latin! Correct me if I am wrong in any of this, but expanding on what Virgil said, I too see the strong link between Catholicism and the culture and religion in Rome. And I'm proud to be a Roman Catholic!!!
-
Will Clodius care to pepper his invective with evidence, or shall it be pure invective this evening?
I'm not sure what Clodius' logic is, but here are the reasons I would tend to agree with him...
Even before the civil war broke out, Caesar had practically godfathered Brutus and considered him a very close friend. However, Brutus still chose to take arms against Caesar's legions, although he did eventually apologize. Caesar accepted Brutus' apology and pardoned him in 48 BC, despite the traitor's death Brutus deserved after being a key member in Caesar's opposition the year before. Caesar's mercy and love for Brutus was further demonstrated when in 46 BC he appointed him governor of Gaul, and again appointed him praetor in 45 BC.
My problem with Brutus is not especially that he joined up with Pompey initially - many people were uncertain about Caesar's intentions before the war broke out. However, even after Caesar had given him endless mercy and even helped to restore his honor and status, Brutus was still seduced by the other conspirators, and by the illusion of his family history. Yes, his ancestor helped overthrow the last Roman king, but Caesar was no king - or at least he had little desire to be one, as far as we know. When it comes down to it, Brutus' weakness caused the death of one of Rome's greatest leaders, and then he ran rather than face the judgement of the people. He is a coward, and not a man.
-
Well I brought up China just by accident...= =, since I don't notice it myself.
The time when Western Roman Empire fell, i.e. AD 476, it was South & North Dynasties in China. During the era the kingdom of China was split into two, the north and the south. Emperors changed frequently; the living environment was not really that good. It was until 589 when King Sui (I dunno if it is the right name..) unify the two sides and brought China to the Sui Dynasty. However life of the people was not improved until 618.
Within the 200 years of the fall of China, she could not possibly compete with Rome. And as I study Chinese history, it is obvious that the Chinese seldom invaded other nations. Also, it was until the 19th-20th century, European nations started to have their influence against Chinese history. So you say China and Europe were not quite really related.
I stand corrected! Maybe they shouldve given Sui the imperial throne instead of Theodisius - if only he were alive then
At any rate, China sure is a frontrunner for competition with the West nowadays...
-
Caesarion. He did less harm than all the rest.
Haha yes. touche
-
Who do you think was the greatest Caesar? In terms of improving the welfare of the empire, I would argue either Augustus Caesar, Vespasian, or Trajan. But then again, Nero did a great job of pinching the Rome out of their dream of security! Its up to you all!
~ T. Cornelius Brutus
-
Brutus could have been a good man and a good Roman, but he chose to betray one of his closest friends, not to mentions relatives, in Caesar. A man without loyalty and honor is no man at all in my book.
-
What strikes interest is that a Roman Republic the size of the Imperial state could be easier to rule if they had better communications. Today a republic of that size could easily function.
If you look at a map, the size of the empire at its peak seems similar to our great American republic - and we seem to be doin alright!
-
Imagine if it survived, the history afterwards would be completely different. Perhaps no Feudalism, no Renaissance, no Revolutionary time, no USA (
), no Napoleon, no imperialism (or yes, maybe), and surely, no WWI, WWII and Cold War. With a world that is totally different, well, I dare not to imagine. Just think about your very own life; you are from USA, right? Perhaps there would be no you?! Or maybe you are in Europe and speak Latin and Greek 
? And about me, I am from Hong Kong. Perhaps there would be no Britain to colonize Hong Kong and - ah, very luckily - still a happy city in China , perhaps?and um...what if there is no World Cup?
Italia cannot win?!?! /__\"A tantalizing thought indeed. It's interesting that you bring up China, also - I would almost wonder if Rome wouldve kept to its half of the hemisphere and would eventually have competed with a strong eastern nation such as China? It seems possible for China to have gained greater strength at an earlier point in time without the interference of the imperial European nations.
Also, sort of going along with what Cato said, I think that the fact that we think no republic or government can last forever is largely based on the failure of the greatest nations in history, Rome being one of them. If the republic had survived, it would take much of the bulk of that prenotion that we all know today. I think it would probably eventually die out, either by war, environmental factors, or its own instability, but just long long it would take before this happened is a point of interest for me.
-
Even without Christianity, the emphasis of Stoicism on the universal possession of reason and human rights at least had the potential to undercut slavery. Though it is remarkable to me that both the Christians and the Stoics seemed to have no problem with the institution.
I'd tend to agree. Christianity arose in a time of less advanced cultures ideal-wise, and some people still found justification in scripture - the same way slave owners in the south did during the 19th century. It would be interesting to see how Stoicism would have affected the Roman Empire had it become predominant over Christianity, though.
-
These are the top four reforms that would have helped keep the restored Roman republic on sound footing. There are more, but I think these make the point that even had Marcus Aurelius attempted to restore the republic, he would still have had a great deal of work ahead of him in keeping it.
You bring up some good points Cato. If there was one good thing about the Imperial era, i suppose it is that loyalty to the emperor was not a huge problem within the legions - ironically, it was the Praetorian Guard who were the most disloyal! But anyways, you are right that a new republic would have to find a way to secure the loyalty of both legionaire and general alike. The one thing that I had not thought of before was the issue of slavery, and I'm glad you brought that up. It is definitely likely that by the 15th century, the ideals of freedom would have to advanced enough to include basic human rights, and therefore challenged the Roman slavery system. But who knows? The Renaissance thinking that spawned widespread belief in human freedom may not have appeared in a Romanized Europe. This is unlikely though, considering the spread of Christianity that would surely happen. At any rate, I'm sure that the need for slave labor would eventually lapse due to industrial advancements by the Romans. A "Roman" industrial revolution could even have replaced the European one of the 18th and 19th centuries and preceeded it by hundreds of years, especially considering that the technological void that occured in the Dark Ages would probably have been prevented.
-
Why should A republican Rome have been more capable of surviving than an imperial/monarchical Rome? That idea along smacks of modern political correctness and would have been anachronistic for any period before the C16th at the earliest.
Second, even if the empire had survived - and others (including the Spanish, British, Holy Roman, Hapsburg and Russian etc) have not - it would be no more the empire of the first few centuries AD than Britain is now the Britannia of Agricola, the England of Alfred or William of Normandy or even of Henry VIII. Countries change, evolve.
This sort of idea is OK as the basis for a Harry Turtledove novel, but won't stand scrutiny as an historical "what if".
Even a more recent example - what if the American War of Independence had never happened? In my humble opinion things would probably not be very different. Like India, the US would by now be a self-governing, probably independent country. It might like Australia or canada still have a monarch as titular head of state, but would more likely be a republic, and perhaps a member of the Commonwealth.
But the economic realities, the balance of power - even dare I say, the "special relationship" between the US and UK - would, I suspect, be little different from today.
On what basis do you claim the the Roman Empire survived would have prevented the rise and impetus of Islam; or held the Mongol hordes better than did the Europeans; held the east better than did the Byzantines; or blunted the Ottoman incursions better than Charles V? Your case requires special pleading, I think, to be in any way valid.
Phil
Phil
The reason I say a Republican Rome would survive better is pretty simple - By the end of the 2nd century and the reign of Commodus, the empire was in decline anyways. Since the monarchy had already been rejected by the people, and Rome had enjoyed some of its greatest prosperity as a republic in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC (besides, of course, the Pax), a republican form of government seems most logical to me if the government of Rome were to again switch in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD.
As for how Rome itself would change, I would fully expect it to evolve as you mentioned with Britain and such. Thats why I posted this - I was curious how everyone thought HOW is would change! And also, I don't claim that the Roman empire would stop the spread of Islam, or even the Ottomans - but I do admit the possibility that if they lasted that long, they would have been in a good position to do so. If the Palestinians never occupied Judea, the present day conflict between them and the Israeli's wouldn't exist over posession of Jerusalem. It is events like this that I suggest, and I welcome your thoughts. Perhaps in the end it is invalid, but it is sure worth thinking about.
-
At some point in time, any curious scholar of Roman history asks that ultimate "what if" question - what if the Roman empire, in all its glory and splendor, survived? Of course, the city of Rome survived several terms of barbarian rule and centuries of invasions throughout the Middle Ages, mainly thanks to the stability of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. However, for kicks and giggles, lets think along different lines.
Suppose Marcus Aurelius, or any of the later emperors, succeeded in returning Rome to a true republic, as it had been in the first century B.C. With the stabilization of infrastructure within Rome, the de-mercinization of the army could occur, and the East-West split never would have occurred. The population of Rome could have remained strong, especially since they would still be receiving royalties from the booming eastern trade, instead of Byzantium. With all these factors, 476 A.D. couldve marked a decisive defeat of the Visigoth tribes instead of the end of the Western Empire. From this point on, I leave it up to you to decide - what wouldve, couldve, or shouldve happened?
A timeline I devised is as follows -
- With a still strong military, Rome could have kept its posession of Judea, eliminating the need for and of the Crusades
- Another conquest of Germania could have Romanized the whole north of Europe, eliminating centuries of history that would have later fueled Hitler's ideals of German supremacy. This same Romanization of Germany could have prevented the Reformation and the beginning of Protestant faiths.
- Roman power, lasting well into 14th and 15th centuries, could have prevented both Moorish invasions of Spain and Ottoman invasion of Turkey, and maybe even the holy land. Conflict over Jerusalem may have never happened, both then and now. Hard to imagine, huh?
- In the age of exploration, Roman influence could have been extended throughout Africa and into the New World. In other words, we would all still be speaking Latin!!!
- As mentioned above, the absence of Hitler and the Nazi regime could have prevented WWII.
And most importantly...SPQR would have won the 2006 WORLD CUP!! BOOOH!!
Of course, I am only scratching the surface of endless possibilities, so this is what I ask you now - what if Rome had returned to a Republic, and survived the barbarian invasion of 476 AD? Would SPQR and her posessions still be on our maps today? I'm very interested to see what you guys have to say!
~ T. Cornelius Brutus
-
I think the answer to this question may be less obvious than it would seem at first, because there are a number of families that forever changed Rome, for better and for worse. However, I think there is still a clear-cut answer, and that is the Julii family and the Julio-Claudian line. After all, it was Marius who advocated reforms in the army, turning military service into an actual profession rather than an obligation of citizens. Then, of course, there is the great Julius Caesar, who conquered Gaul for the glory of Rome (and his own). He also was the biggest cause of the collapse of the Roman Republic. Octavian, Caesar's nephew, would later establish the Principate and declare himself Caesar Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome. From then on, the Julio-Claudian emperors all had an everlasting and often debilitating effect on the empire, from Tiberius to Nero. Can this really be said about any other family line throughout Roman history? In my opinion, certainly not!
T. Cornelius Brutus
-
I'd be happy with any one of these books! Good luck all!
-
From what I've talked about with the group I'm joining, we will do a bit of everything. I wouldn't want to use a gladius for more than a swing or a thrust, however - They've given me a few reccomendations for where to get a quality gladius (including Windlass, which I also came upon), as well as other equipment, but I just wanted to see what the UNRV community had to say
-
I'm new to reenactment, and I'm trying to find a classic gladius (not the waisted style) that at least can be swung around. Does anyone know where I can find a high quality sword for between 250-300 dollars? Thanks a lot!
The Pagan Front Of Christianity.
in Tartarus
Posted
Saying that a Christian institution's views on Jesus Christ and his teachings are adultered and perverted, and that its hierarchy are secular with a political adgenda, does not fall under the category of critical and rigorous examination - its extremely bias and offensive. If you are going to look at the Catholic Church historically, then do so objectively, and from the standpoint of the institution instead of the Catholic faith.