The Roman Uncle Sam

[Onasander]

Did the romans ever develop a all embracing figure to represent the entirety of the Roman state? Im not talking about deifying the Emperor, as the Emperor wasn't also the Senate.

 

We dont worship Uncle Sam (save some radical leftest), its always been a cross between a parody and a satire, sometimes embraced by the government, othertimes used to mock it.

I could see the Romans sarcastically worshiping such a diety everytime the government screwed up.

[caldrail]

No, they didn't, and instead the imperial cult fulfilled that vacancy. Some Caesars were more charismatic, some never made the grade, a few got deified after their deaths, and one or two assumed godly status because they felt like it. The Romans were on the whole a superstitious bunch and evidence of votive offerings suggest rathr less sarcasm than you infer. Also bear in mind the number of offerings bearing the name of someone the offerer wants to curse - something I suspect the offerer thought of very seriously.

[Number Six]

In the later Roman Empire, though, you may say that the Emperor was the state. There was also Dea Roma, which was worshipped in shrines together with the living emperor, but was never 'felt' too much. Anyway, I don't think this is what your question is about.

 

Funny enough, one could easily answer your question if we were to follow Dum

Edited November 3, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

The tripartite division closely resembles to monarchical divisions between the royal house, and the civil and martial wings of the royal court.

 

Guessing it was a theocratic categoric emphasis of rites that divided state functions, at least from the viewpoint of some priest trying to make sense of the component arms of the state.

 

If this was formed in the republic, it would of had to be very early when monarchial leanings hadnt been intentionally weeded out yet. It smells Royal,and too primitive to be a ceasars idea in the form you presented. Most monarchies have this division ironed out. Byzantines figured it out.

[Number Six]

Dum

Edited November 3, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

Never read the guy, so maybe he is a genius.

 

However, it is hardly restricted to indoeuropean cultures, nor protohistory. It's a generic feature of monarchy in general. Republics tend to maintain offices that roughly mimic it.

 

Remember, we have two loafs of brain, and not very parts of the brain offer a sense of self. Many cognitive theories say just three regions for sense of self.

 

So the natural number is three here, with all the clique behavior and intrigue and cross alliances, and thickheaded ways of thinking.

 

Our sense of self, who we are, oftens determines how we think. Its hard under group think conditions to break this trend, and think differently. Hence why the martial and civil aspects of government are often antagonistic.

[caldrail]

Religious emphasis changed quite a lot over the course of the empire, thus I don't think we can easily assert that 'tripartitie theory' applies to a question of iconic sympathies. It's as well to remember that gods were invariably local as well as pantheonistic, however aligned or interpreted. Also we have the persistence of foreign cults at all levels of society.

 

The Roman Empire was after all not anything like as culturally homogenous as people often believe. It consisted of a variety of disparate peoples all under Roman governorship, with considerable cultural diversity. Since this empire revolved around the idea of of personal loyalty rather than nationalism, of localised worship and government, and that we have evidence of the requirement to observe dynastic divinity, the only common feature across the Roman empire is the guy running it.

[Number Six]

Never read the guy, so maybe he is a genius.

 

However, it is hardly restricted to indoeuropean cultures, nor protohistory. It's a generic feature of monarchy in general. Republics tend to maintain offices that roughly mimic it.

 

Yes, Dum

[Onasander]

He still holds a archetypal sway on me. Easy to relate to.

[caldrail]

The Romans liked the idea of humble agrarian ideals because it showed that their leader wasn't a power hungry man, and led by virtue of civic responsibility (which of course was absolute bunkum - it's rare for someone to be so motivated - most leaders lead because they want to, and because they profit from doing so). The same reasoning was used on estates of wealthy landowners. The front gardens were kept neat and tidy by slaves apparently happy in their work. The hard labout was hidden behind the house with retinue of oppressed menials.

 

The idea is therefore emphasised by Roman writers to inform the reader what a good man the subject was (in his opinion). What it doesn't represent is some sort of generic icon.

 

However, I will concede that the concept of rural bliss is a common feature of the Roman psyche, however contrived or artificial, and the idea that tilling the land brings responsibility for defending was a guiding principle behind the militia armies of the eralier Republic, which would therefore underline connections with republican sentiment, even in Imperial times. A false 'golden age' syndrome, you could say.

 

 

He still holds a archetypal sway on me. Easy to relate to.

That doesn't make him right.

Edited November 5, 2013 by caldrail

[Onasander]

Just because the Romans got it wrong in time doesn't make the genesis of the ideal wrong. It takes pressure and time. It was a early influence on me. I'm not blind to the ways of the world, am pragmatically grim and realistic to it from years of exposure on the bottom and working security for some outwardly decent people who proved to be disturbed. But at my core, this time of the year, walking through the appalachian plateau, seeing the changing leaves and rugged hills, the long meander of the ancient creeks and Ohio River, cities waking under the drift of fog, and rural houses alone in forgotten valleys, I'm left to remember our short and yet brutal history. Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson (Thomas the closest in expressing this Roman ideal), Samuel Brady and the too many wars here.

 

The little bit of beauty we have came from this effort. Our town started wars, we built the largest steel mill in the world, and through it all even the richest, most brutal, most powerful held none the less to this humbling ideal.

 

Im not a farmer, but as a American I'm obsessed with it in our own way. I really don't know if I know of another way to approach life except contribute by my best means, and relish the unfolding of time and society. It's something that has me randomly humming Simple Gifts from Appalachia Spring.

 

I don't care about how life is in Europe, the march to destroy life, time, and embrace every new vogue of insanity, in the name of progress and reason, a mere shadow of a chimera of those supposed ideals. I would much rather just have the real thing.

[Number Six]

I don't care about how life is in Europe, the march to destroy life, time, and embrace every new vogue of insanity, in the name of progress and reason, a mere shadow of a chimera of those supposed ideals. I would much rather just have the real thing.

 

Do you realize that this might as well be what Europeans think of US?

Edited November 5, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

I couldn't begin to care less about the the mirrored perspectives of moral relativity, Europe = Fail, they can believe what they want. We've been stuck nearly 100 years babying that place, be it allied or enemy. I'm quite frankly deeply tired of it. When the US needs help, we are increasingly on our own, and Europe trash talks us, perverting our intellectuals in their freshman years with moronic crap, then when Europe needs something, we suddenly need to drop everything and help them, because they never built their military up, blowing it all on socialism and early retirement.

 

Im tired of it. Libya and this global warming hysteria was the last straw for me. We didn't even want to invade Libya, it's the first time since President Roosevelt that we embarked on a actual, real imperial war, attacking a country for a commodity, without a iota of strategic or national threat concerns, or even threats to our allies. Gasoline would of gone up for four months until Nigeria could meet export demand. We bombed the daylights out of a dynasty, for nothing but oil, and we didn't even get the oil in the end, and made the deeply idiotic mistake of not wipping the whole dynasty out, the family is in exile in Oman, and a Scion of Gaddafi's regiem is hiding out in the air mountains, with a finance minister still paying employees of the old government. We essentially are stagnant in this increasingly fail war. For what? We owed Europe something? For the aid we got in Iraq?

 

And the global warming cult is getting old fast. Im on the verge of taking a flight to greenland and take a pickaxe to the precious glaciers. No amount of carbon control, even shutting down EVERY factory, powerplant, refinery, fireplace, and car on the planet will stop the damn icecaps from melting. It's because they were melting away back during the neolithic. Nothing we can do will change it in terms of pigovian taxes. It doesnt 'get the ball rolling in the right direction', nor does it get us to a solution. By the very faulted logic they present, our actions to fix it just get worst and worst. Like the European fetish with cutting down forests to burn in their renewable energy program. It drives me insane to no end.

 

It bothers me Japan got nuked twice, and Europe got off scot free. It doesn't seem right, especially in the land of Marx and Nietzsche, Stalin and Hitler.

 

Europe, 100 years of stupidity, pointless violence, and failed excuses. Don't care for the reasons, your feelings, or you retorts. Just collectively stop it. Just make it stop. Please stop. No more. No more bright ideas, just knock it off, and start doing the right thing.

[caldrail]

Europe got off scot free? I'd love to put you straight on that but forum rules prohibit discussion of modern eras.

 

 

Just because the Romans got it wrong in time doesn't make the genesis of the ideal wrong.

No, you really did miss the point. What I was telling you that simply because an idea seems easy and digestible to you does not make it right. Every so often someone comes along and tries to boil everything down to a simple quote or equation (I've done that myself) but the inherent problem with doing that is that it ends up as an excuse for laziness - why learn all those complicated facts and extrapolations when a simple sentence will do? That simple sentence teaches you nothing, it's merely a label to cover a crack. The crack is still there of course, dark, dangerous, and probably likely to cause a failure of your simplistic intellectual construct under pressure.

Edited November 6, 2013 by caldrail

[Artimi]

Europe, 100 years of stupidity, pointless violence, and failed excuses. Don't care for the reasons, your feelings, or you retorts. Just collectively stop it. Just make it stop. Please stop. No more. No more bright ideas, just knock it off, and start doing the right thing. as per Onasander.

 

Curious, doing what right? and how? and dictates the right thing and the method?

 

Scot free? North America which includes the USA by this analysis got away scot free...

 

 

I don't care about how life is in Europe, the march to destroy life, time, and embrace every new vogue of insanity, in the name of progress and reason, a mere shadow of a chimera of those supposed ideals. I would much rather just have the real thing. Onasander what it is the real thing?? -

Edited November 6, 2013 by Artimi