|
|
Post by Arethusa on Aug 31, 2011 8:42:19 GMT -8
When 101 and I were talking about my membership here, I mentioned that his list of forums was very inclusive and included a number of topics that are serious interests of mine.
One of those being Classical Roman History - particularly the period from 100 BC with the birth of Julius Caesar and ending with the death of Nero in 68 AD - a time generally called "the Julio-Claudian era".
Although I love all history - having majored in the subject as an undergraduate (with a minor in German) - this is the place and the period that interests me most and has engrossed me for a very long time.
In fact, it's the reason I first came to the internet 6 years ago because there was nobody around me in real life who subscribed to HBO and watched its excellent first season of the series, "Rome".
All that being said, I've started this thread in the hope that there are others here who have either studied or have an interest in learning about this period too. I ran a "Julio-Claudians" thread in the Europe forum at THC that you might have seen if you looked in there before those boards closed.
How it will work is that I'll post chronological topics about figures who lived and events that occurred from 100 BC through 68 AD in hopes that you will add your thoughts, knowledge, questions and material on those topics and the overall subject as well.
Thanks in advance and ave atque vale!
Arethusa
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Aug 31, 2011 9:16:13 GMT -8
I have "Roman" hands.
Do they count?
(and you thought Caesar had Gaul!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Aug 31, 2011 9:22:39 GMT -8
I have "Roman" hands. Do they count? (and you thought Caesar had Gaul!) Where's that dancing banana smiley when you need him? Laughing so hard now I can barely type!! ;D And thank you for that.  Muffin |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Sept 1, 2011 2:49:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Sept 1, 2011 4:11:53 GMT -8
***** Thank you, Sailor! I've bookmarked this virtual libary of dancing bananas! There's even a Brutus Banana with a little dripping sword. ;D Enjoy your Thursday! Arethusa/Pat  |
|
socialcaesar
First Class Member
I AM CANADIAN!!!!
Posts: 240
|
Post by socialcaesar on Oct 4, 2011 6:39:58 GMT -8
When 101 and I were talking about my membership here, I mentioned that his list of forums was very inclusive and included a number of topics that are serious interests of mine. One of those being Classical Roman History - particularly the period from 100 BC with the birth of Julius Caesar and ending with the death of Nero in 68 AD - a time generally called "the Julio-Claudian era". Although I love all history - having majored in the subject as an undergraduate (with a minor in German) - this is the place and the period that interests me most and has engrossed me for a very long time. In fact, it's the reason I first came to the internet 6 years ago because there was nobody around me in real life who subscribed to HBO and watched its excellent first season of the series, "Rome". All that being said, I've started this thread in the hope that there are others here who have either studied or have an interest in learning about this period too. I ran a "Julio-Claudians" thread in the Europe forum at THC that you might have seen if you looked in there before those boards closed. How it will work is that I'll post chronological topics about figures who lived and events that occurred from 100 BC through 68 AD in hopes that you will add your thoughts, knowledge, questions and material on those topics and the overall subject as well. Thanks in advance and ave atque vale! Arethusa So when are you getting started? I also enjoy discussing Roman history and would like to contribute. Can anyone start? |
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Oct 4, 2011 11:59:08 GMT -8
When 101 and I were talking about my membership here, I mentioned that his list of forums was very inclusive and included a number of topics that are serious interests of mine. One of those being Classical Roman History - particularly the period from 100 BC with the birth of Julius Caesar and ending with the death of Nero in 68 AD - a time generally called "the Julio-Claudian era". Although I love all history - having majored in the subject as an undergraduate (with a minor in German) - this is the place and the period that interests me most and has engrossed me for a very long time. In fact, it's the reason I first came to the internet 6 years ago because there was nobody around me in real life who subscribed to HBO and watched its excellent first season of the series, "Rome". All that being said, I've started this thread in the hope that there are others here who have either studied or have an interest in learning about this period too. I ran a "Julio-Claudians" thread in the Europe forum at THC that you might have seen if you looked in there before those boards closed. How it will work is that I'll post chronological topics about figures who lived and events that occurred from 100 BC through 68 AD in hopes that you will add your thoughts, knowledge, questions and material on those topics and the overall subject as well. Thanks in advance and ave atque vale! Arethusa So when are you getting started? I also enjoy discussing Roman history and would like to contribute. Can anyone start? ***** Hi Again, Hab - left you a reply in your "Hello" thread just now. Go right ahead - I'll be back and forth for the next week or so, since a big work project and the Yankees playoffs are taking most of my time right now. But, I will read what you say and speak when I can and am really looking forward to continuing this conversation! Enjoy! Arethusa |
|
socialcaesar
First Class Member
I AM CANADIAN!!!!
Posts: 240
|
Post by socialcaesar on Oct 5, 2011 8:58:10 GMT -8
Where does one start with this era in Roman history? With Julius Caesar and how lucky he got at Pharsalus? His troops were hungry, tired and thinking of mutiny. Pompey had the upper hand, he had patience trying to starve out Caesar's army and with the larger army but one thing that worked against Pompey was that he had politicians in his camp who didn't have his patience. They wanted an attack on Caesar, thinking that with a bigger army Caesar would be crushed. Boy were they wrong and how different history would be today if the politicians would have stayed in Rome?
If Caesar had lost and Rome had stayed a republic I think it would have been only a matter of time before it became a dictatorship. Rome was in a freefall and its central government weak and corrupt. The next Caesar would have been just around the corner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Oct 5, 2011 14:44:56 GMT -8
Where does one start with this era in Roman history? With Julius Caesar and how lucky he got at Pharsalus? His troops were hungry, tired and thinking of mutiny. Pompey had the upper hand, he had patience trying to starve out Caesar's army and with the larger army but one thing that worked against Pompey was that he had politicians in his camp who didn't have his patience. They wanted an attack on Caesar, thinking that with a bigger army Caesar would be crushed. Boy were they wrong and how different history would be today if the politicians would have stayed in Rome? If Caesar had lost and Rome had stayed a republic I think it would have been only a matter of time before it became a dictatorship. Rome was in a freefall and its central government weak and corrupt. The next Caesar would have been just around the corner. ***** It's likely the Republic became a dead letter circa 165 BC when the Gracchi brothers and their supporters were slaughtered for supporting agrarian reform that would have stripped the ruling Senatorial class of its power, prerogatives and privileges. From then on, a refusal to follow the entrenched Senatorial elite's dictates led to unmitigated bloodshed in Rome's streets. There were Generals like Sulla and Marius (Caesar's uncle) who first collaborated and then warred against each other in the name of restoring some sort of order and accomplishing an awkward meshing of the interests whose conflict threatened to destroy Rome. A conflict not resolved and a meshing that remained unaccomplished until Caesar's heir, Octavian Augustus, rose to power following Caesar's assassination in 44 BC. The Roman Senate, by Caesar's time stripped of its best and brightest through proscription and judicial murder, spoke of "The Republic" in much the same spirit as cynics refer to "The American Dream" nowadays. It lived only as an ideal in the hearts of traditionalists and in the speeches of the cynical looking to exploit the will of the public for purposes of retaining the Senatorial power to rule Rome and control its riches. Caesar, who grew up in genteel poverty in Rome's subura, rose to power as a champion of the plebes and as a member of Rome's aristocratic elite, with a "centrist" appeal to both sides of the spectrum. An appeal that modern day centrists in this time and place can ruefully note ultimately did Caesar in. As we pursue the story of his life and its sad ending - noting that I adore Caesar - it was fascination with him that led to my longtime interest in this period in history - I'm reminded of Blanche of Spain's plaintive cry made in Shakespeare's "King John" over a war waged between her father and husband: "Two armies clashed by night, and I, having a hand in both, they did whirl asunder and dismembered me." Plenty more to come. Enjoy your evening, Arethusa |
|
socialcaesar
First Class Member
I AM CANADIAN!!!!
Posts: 240
|
Post by socialcaesar on Oct 7, 2011 8:43:47 GMT -8
Where does one start with this era in Roman history? With Julius Caesar and how lucky he got at Pharsalus? His troops were hungry, tired and thinking of mutiny. Pompey had the upper hand, he had patience trying to starve out Caesar's army and with the larger army but one thing that worked against Pompey was that he had politicians in his camp who didn't have his patience. They wanted an attack on Caesar, thinking that with a bigger army Caesar would be crushed. Boy were they wrong and how different history would be today if the politicians would have stayed in Rome? If Caesar had lost and Rome had stayed a republic I think it would have been only a matter of time before it became a dictatorship. Rome was in a freefall and its central government weak and corrupt. The next Caesar would have been just around the corner. ***** It's likely the Republic became a dead letter circa 165 BC when the Gracchi brothers and their supporters were slaughtered for supporting agrarian reform that would have stripped the ruling Senatorial class of its power, prerogatives and privileges. From then on, a refusal to follow the entrenched Senatorial elite's dictates led to unmitigated bloodshed in Rome's streets. There were Generals like Sulla and Marius (Caesar's uncle) who first collaborated and then warred against each other in the name of restoring some sort of order and accomplishing an awkward meshing of the interests whose conflict threatened to destroy Rome. A conflict not resolved and a meshing that remained unaccomplished until Caesar's heir, Octavian Augustus, rose to power following Caesar's assassination in 44 BC. The Roman Senate, by Caesar's time stripped of its best and brightest through proscription and judicial murder, spoke of "The Republic" in much the same spirit as cynics refer to "The American Dream" nowadays. It lived only as an ideal in the hearts of traditionalists and in the speeches of the cynical looking to exploit the will of the public for purposes of retaining the Senatorial power to rule Rome and control its riches. Caesar, who grew up in genteel poverty in Rome's subura, rose to power as a champion of the plebes and as a member of Rome's aristocratic elite, with a "centrist" appeal to both sides of the spectrum. An appeal that modern day centrists in this time and place can ruefully note ultimately did Caesar in. As we pursue the story of his life and its sad ending - noting that I adore Caesar - it was fascination with him that led to my longtime interest in this period in history - I'm reminded of Blanche of Spain's plaintive cry made in Shakespeare's "King John" over a war waged between her father and husband: "Two armies clashed by night, and I, having a hand in both, they did whirl asunder and dismembered me." Plenty more to come. Enjoy your evening, Arethusa I agree with you. But why did the Republic become stagnant? Was it because Carthage, Rome's fiercest enemy up to this time, no longer posed a threat? That the senatorial classes no longer had any real use for the plebes? Except to get elected. Many soldiers came back to their lands and found them taken over by some in the upper classes. Many widows of soldiers were thrown off their land. Tiberius Gracchus saw this and wanted to change things lawfully. I think he may have been a little naive to think that senators weren't going to challenge his land reformations. It cost him his life. Caesar knew he had to fight to get reformations passed as well as for his own political gains. The people loved him for it. Caesar was such a great showman who knew how to get that upper hand in any situation be it politically or in battle. This is what makes him so great. His showmanship. I don't believe any other general in the history of the world, not even Alexander the Great, has been romanticized as much in literature as Julius Caesar has? Maybe Napoleon? Do you know if Caesar held Tiberius Gracchus in high esteem? Seems that they both wanted Rome changed for the better but tried to accomplish it in very different ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Oct 8, 2011 9:00:52 GMT -8
***** It's likely the Republic became a dead letter circa 165 BC when the Gracchi brothers and their supporters were slaughtered for supporting agrarian reform that would have stripped the ruling Senatorial class of its power, prerogatives and privileges. From then on, a refusal to follow the entrenched Senatorial elite's dictates led to unmitigated bloodshed in Rome's streets. There were Generals like Sulla and Marius (Caesar's uncle) who first collaborated and then warred against each other in the name of restoring some sort of order and accomplishing an awkward meshing of the interests whose conflict threatened to destroy Rome. A conflict not resolved and a meshing that remained unaccomplished until Caesar's heir, Octavian Augustus, rose to power following Caesar's assassination in 44 BC. The Roman Senate, by Caesar's time stripped of its best and brightest through proscription and judicial murder, spoke of "The Republic" in much the same spirit as cynics refer to "The American Dream" nowadays. It lived only as an ideal in the hearts of traditionalists and in the speeches of the cynical looking to exploit the will of the public for purposes of retaining the Senatorial power to rule Rome and control its riches. Caesar, who grew up in genteel poverty in Rome's subura, rose to power as a champion of the plebes and as a member of Rome's aristocratic elite, with a "centrist" appeal to both sides of the spectrum. An appeal that modern day centrists in this time and place can ruefully note ultimately did Caesar in. As we pursue the story of his life and its sad ending - noting that I adore Caesar - it was fascination with him that led to my longtime interest in this period in history - I'm reminded of Blanche of Spain's plaintive cry made in Shakespeare's "King John" over a war waged between her father and husband: "Two armies clashed by night, and I, having a hand in both, they did whirl asunder and dismembered me." Plenty more to come. Enjoy your evening, Arethusa I agree with you. But why did the Republic become stagnant? Was it because Carthage, Rome's fiercest enemy up to this time, no longer posed a threat? That the senatorial classes no longer had any real use for the plebes? Except to get elected. Many soldiers came back to their lands and found them taken over by some in the upper classes. Many widows of soldiers were thrown off their land. Tiberius Gracchus saw this and wanted to change things lawfully. I think he may have been a little naive to think that senators weren't going to challenge his land reformations. It cost him his life. Caesar knew he had to fight to get reformations passed as well as for his own political gains. The people loved him for it. Caesar was such a great showman who knew how to get that upper hand in any situation be it politically or in battle. This is what makes him so great. His showmanship. I don't believe any other general in the history of the world, not even Alexander the Great, has been romanticized as much in literature as Julius Caesar has? Maybe Napoleon? Do you know if Caesar held Tiberius Gracchus in high esteem? Seems that they both wanted Rome changed for the better but tried to accomplish it in very different ways. ***** Those who have studied how change is wrought in mass human societies have theorized what is readily evident to the everyday onlooker. That, events can burble along, seemingly without causing great stress or distress among the general population until the balance becomes unglued by the excesses, misfeasances, or even neglect from one side or the other. Or, in present day America, the utter absence of a leveraging middle or center substantially influencing our politics. A constant factor in classical Roman history following the defeat of Hannibal was the incremental encroachment of Rome's moneyed elite on the ability of less-moneyed members of the agrarian classes to make a decent living. Land was gradually appropriated into increasingly large estates owned by fewer and fewer members of the public and less and less available to ordinary folk like you and me. Enter the brothers Gracchi, Gaius and Tiberius, in or around 120 to 130 BC, respectively, and witness the turmoil their efforts to break up the aristocracy's huge estates and divvy them up among the plebes ignited, and relatively quickly. The tensions were fomented by a Roman Senatorial elite possessing a vested interest in keeping the status quo in its favor and desirous of destroying the influence of those who were fomenting the burgeoning "revolution of rising expectations" against them among the lower classes. And destroyed any semblance of "the Republic" that - since the founding of Rome in 743 BC - had seemingly sought to meet the needs and interests of all of the people and consigned it to merely a mythical construct surrounding the blood soaked battleground of Rome's streets, countryside and territories until Augustus was named Emperor in 27 BC. A soap opera featuring the exact same dynamics played out in revolutions of rising economic expectations waged throughout human history - in France in 1789, the United States in 1776, South America and Latin America from the 1940's onward, and in the Middle East as we speak. And very possibly in the current demonstrations across America against the well-acknowledged excesses and abuses of "Wall Street". Caesar did not know the Brothers Gracchi, who died twenty plus years before he was born in 100 BC, but he was well versed in their example and followed it in his efforts to court popularity among the plebes. That he also courted the aristocracy and eventually suffered the same fate as the Gracchi, must surely have entered his comprehension as he sought with mixed success to assure that lands he had conquered were divvied up among the soldiers who had fought for him. Add Caesar's name to those of Cornelius Sulla, Gaius Marius, Che Guevera, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Robespierre, and Napoleon's, if you will. All champions of the people seeking to push back against the greed, the usurpations, the death dealing and oppression divvied out by the powerful upon the lower classes when unchecked in their power to do so. With any negative connotations arising from reading the listed names arguably illustrating that history is written by the winners who, until not too long ago, tended to have royal titles embellishing their own. But, as you say, history's verdicts in the cases of Napoleon and Caesar are different than in the others'. My opinion is that this is because they avoided being tagged as extremists in pursuit of their efforts on behalf of the public good. They did their best to cobble together governmental systems responsive to the varied interests of the warring factions in their respective societies that tended to function well in preventing excessive conflict from again arising amongst them. That Caesar failed initially with his work having to be taken up by his nephew, Octavian, resulted from the unwillingness of the Senate to give his reforms sufficient time to take hold before they killed him off. Here's a link to a piece providing a short chronological perspective of Roman history from the time of the Gracchi Brothers until the foregoing conflicts had all played out and settled down again with the ascendance of Augustus. Adding that there is little disagreement that Augustus had the intellect and the force of will and had amassed sufficient power to enforce the melding of the most popular features of the Republic with a behind-the-scenes dictatorship in creating exactly the form of government that increasingly complex challenges facing Rome had necessitated from the time of the Gracchi Brothers, if not before. From "Roman Revolution and the Civil Wars" by classical scholar Sanderson Beck: www.san.beck.org/EC25-RomanRevolution.htmlEnjoy your Columbus Day Weekend, Arethusa |
|
socialcaesar
First Class Member
I AM CANADIAN!!!!
Posts: 240
|
Post by socialcaesar on Oct 10, 2011 7:21:02 GMT -8
I agree with you. But why did the Republic become stagnant? Was it because Carthage, Rome's fiercest enemy up to this time, no longer posed a threat? That the senatorial classes no longer had any real use for the plebes? Except to get elected. Many soldiers came back to their lands and found them taken over by some in the upper classes. Many widows of soldiers were thrown off their land. Tiberius Gracchus saw this and wanted to change things lawfully. I think he may have been a little naive to think that senators weren't going to challenge his land reformations. It cost him his life. Caesar knew he had to fight to get reformations passed as well as for his own political gains. The people loved him for it. Caesar was such a great showman who knew how to get that upper hand in any situation be it politically or in battle. This is what makes him so great. His showmanship. I don't believe any other general in the history of the world, not even Alexander the Great, has been romanticized as much in literature as Julius Caesar has? Maybe Napoleon? Do you know if Caesar held Tiberius Gracchus in high esteem? Seems that they both wanted Rome changed for the better but tried to accomplish it in very different ways. ***** Those who have studied how change is wrought in mass human societies have theorized what is readily evident to the everyday onlooker. That, events can burble along, seemingly without causing great stress or distress among the general population until the balance becomes unglued by the excesses, misfeasances, or even neglect from one side or the other. Or, in present day America, the utter absence of a leveraging middle or center substantially influencing our politics. A constant factor in classical Roman history following the defeat of Hannibal was the incremental encroachment of Rome's moneyed elite on the ability of less-moneyed members of the agrarian classes to make a decent living. Land was gradually appropriated into increasingly large estates owned by fewer and fewer members of the public and less and less available to ordinary folk like you and me. Enter the brothers Gracchi, Gaius and Tiberius, in or around 120 to 130 BC, respectively, and witness the turmoil their efforts to break up the aristocracy's huge estates and divvy them up among the plebes ignited, and relatively quickly. The tensions were fomented by a Roman Senatorial elite possessing a vested interest in keeping the status quo in its favor and desirous of destroying the influence of those who were fomenting the burgeoning "revolution of rising expectations" against them among the lower classes. And destroyed any semblance of "the Republic" that - since the founding of Rome in 743 BC - had seemingly sought to meet the needs and interests of all of the people and consigned it to merely a mythical construct surrounding the blood soaked battleground of Rome's streets, countryside and territories until Augustus was named Emperor in 27 BC. A soap opera featuring the exact same dynamics played out in revolutions of rising economic expectations waged throughout human history - in France in 1789, the United States in 1776, South America and Latin America from the 1940's onward, and in the Middle East as we speak. And very possibly in the current demonstrations across America against the well-acknowledged excesses and abuses of "Wall Street". Caesar did not know the Brothers Gracchi, who died twenty plus years before he was born in 100 BC, but he was well versed in their example and followed it in his efforts to court popularity among the plebes. That he also courted the aristocracy and eventually suffered the same fate as the Gracchi, must surely have entered his comprehension as he sought with mixed success to assure that lands he had conquered were divvied up among the soldiers who had fought for him. Add Caesar's name to those of Cornelius Sulla, Gaius Marius, Che Guevera, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Robespierre, and Napoleon's, if you will. All champions of the people seeking to push back against the greed, the usurpations, the death dealing and oppression divvied out by the powerful upon the lower classes when unchecked in their power to do so. With any negative connotations arising from reading the listed names arguably illustrating that history is written by the winners who, until not too long ago, tended to have royal titles embellishing their own. But, as you say, history's verdicts in the cases of Napoleon and Caesar are different than in the others'. My opinion is that this is because they avoided being tagged as extremists in pursuit of their efforts on behalf of the public good. They did their best to cobble together governmental systems responsive to the varied interests of the warring factions in their respective societies that tended to function well in preventing excessive conflict from again arising amongst them. That Caesar failed initially with his work having to be taken up by his nephew, Octavian, resulted from the unwillingness of the Senate to give his reforms sufficient time to take hold before they killed him off. Here's a link to a piece providing a short chronological perspective of Roman history from the time of the Gracchi Brothers until the foregoing conflicts had all played out and settled down again with the ascendance of Augustus. Adding that there is little disagreement that Augustus had the intellect and the force of will and had amassed sufficient power to enforce the melding of the most popular features of the Republic with a behind-the-scenes dictatorship in creating exactly the form of government that increasingly complex challenges facing Rome had necessitated from the time of the Gracchi Brothers, if not before. From "Roman Revolution and the Civil Wars" by classical scholar Sanderson Beck: www.san.beck.org/EC25-RomanRevolution.htmlEnjoy your Columbus Day Weekend, Arethusa I don't think Caesar failed. He accomplished enough reforms to make other elites,namely Augustus and Marc Antony, who wanted to keep his reforms and doing away with the Republic moving forward. Thanks for the link. It was a great read. I'll comment on that a little bit later on. |
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Oct 11, 2011 4:45:24 GMT -8
socialcaesar wrote: I don't think Caesar failed. He accomplished enough reforms to make other elites,namely Augustus and Marc Antony, who wanted to keep his reforms and doing away with the Republic moving forward.
Thanks for the link. It was a great read. I'll comment on that a little bit later on.***** I'm looking forward to reading your take on Beck's chronology - some of which had me laughing out loud - it was so chock full of information that it was like reading a 100 year retrospective on steroids. Including the rumor of Caesar's alleged affair with King Nicomedes. I'll correct my statement that Sanderson Beck is a classical Roman scholar. He is an academic who specializes in examining ethics in governments ranging from antiquity to the present time. I saw no deficiencies or other issues with his accuracy - but he did omit that Caesar's first wife, Cornelia Cinna, had died before he married Pompeia, the "Caesar's wife must be above reproach" vixen he divorced following the Bona Dea scandal at his house. For those unfamiliar with the scandal, a roue named Clodius - dressed as a woman - crashed an all female gathering convened at the residence to worship that goddess - in pursuit of Pompeia and got caught. What's not to love about studying Rome - they had a lot of fun in the midst of ruthlessly slaughtering each other. But, responsible historians caution that the victims were invariably members of the aristocracy and their supporters. Poorer victims were either consigned to lives of slavery, or failing that, routinely starved to death due to frequent grain shortages. Although, bread sometimes being scarce, there were circuses aplenty to keep the rabble pacified. My opinion about the Romans' love affair with "The Republic" is that it was a noble construct and ideal to which most of the population gave homage and the cynical exploited through lip service. Ergo, much like modern day Western politicos need to profess their "faith" and "family values", anyone aspiring to power in Rome had to profess to a belief in the Republic, which, in the end, came to be honored more in the breach than in the observance. Pretty much like religious faith and family values are today. Also, I see in the Augustan system an embryonic vision of our own. The strong, behind-the-scenes chief executive who ran the judicial branch and controlled a pliant Senate. This tripartite system survives today in three co-equal branches of the U.S. government with checks and balances available to each to prevent the others from exercising more than a co-equal branch's share of power and encroaching or usurping the powers and prerogatives of the other spokes in the wheel. The Greeks attempted a "pure" democracy with government by a huge assemblage of the people. The Romans were better organized, but the abuses of the Senate, i.e., the "Republic's" kingless experiment in representative government, caused it to self-destruct by dint of its efforts to prevent any changes wrought by those in its ranks seeking to exercise strong leadership. Or from preventing any strong leader from emerging from within or outside of its membership by playing on fears that such men aspired to kingship. Without the imprimatur of their peers in the Senate, leaders like Marius, Sulla and Caesar resorted to use of the military with which to seize and exercise power and influence in the emerging empire. The size of which had increased due to their military efforts - with each expecting a reward for their successes - and ultimately having to employ war and mass slaughter of their fellow citizens to obtain it. Except for Caesar, who was assassinated by those he had pardoned in a spirit of clemency when he took over. Today, as a result of the foregoing, modern democracies enforce a policy of civilian control of the military, and again, the checks and balances on too strong a congress, a chief executive, as well as the federal courts should they encroach on the others' prerogatives. Arethusa |
|
socialcaesar
First Class Member
I AM CANADIAN!!!!
Posts: 240
|
Post by socialcaesar on Oct 27, 2011 13:47:24 GMT -8
Now going on to Nero.
Did he really fiddle or play the lyre when Rome burned? I've also read that he was very involved in the rescue effort. He started to go mad while rebuilding Rome and he got the god complex. Or did all Roman emperors think they were gods? Or that Nero took it to a whole other level? About that god complex of Nero's, I've read that Poppaea whispered to him that if he rebuilt a magnificent Rome he would become immortal.
While rebuilding Rome he ran out of money so he started to rob from the temples. After that he taxed his provinces heavier. And that's when Galba and Vindex started a revolt. The senate didn't want to kill Nero because he was the last of the Julio-Claudians but after the revolt the senate had no choice but to declare Nero an enemy of the state. And we all know what happens after that.
"Hark, now strikes on my ear the trampling of swift-footed coursers!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Arethusa on Oct 28, 2011 7:16:43 GMT -8
Now going on to Nero. Did he really fiddle or play the lyre when Rome burned? I've also read that he was very involved in the rescue effort. He started to go mad while rebuilding Rome and he got the god complex. Or did all Roman emperors think they were gods? Or that Nero took it to a whole other level? About that god complex of Nero's, I've read that Poppaea whispered to him that if he rebuilt a magnificent Rome he would become immortal. While rebuilding Rome he ran out of money so he started to rob from the temples. After that he taxed his provinces heavier. And that's when Galba and Vindex started a revolt. The senate didn't want to kill Nero because he was the last of the Julio-Claudians but after the revolt the senate had no choice but to declare Nero an enemy of the state. And we all know what happens after that. "Hark, now strikes on my ear the trampling of swift-footed coursers!" **** Ave atque vale, Socialcaesar! I'll offer these thoughts on what you've said in the hope that others will join in this discussion with us. Suffice it to say that, when parsing these personalities from the scant history remaining of the Julio-Claudians, we must do so looking through the sieve of the translators' and historians' own zeitgeists and values. To the modern soul, the outsized personalities of Caligula and Nero must be seen as reflections of the Romans' zeitgeist, although the concept of "superstar" is certainly familiar. As is the watering down of a concept through repetitive human behavior by individuals less talented than its pioneers were or are. Those who have held positions of great power over others tend to view themselves primarily as players of a theatrical part. Because they would never meet more than a small fraction of the members of their empires, the self-perception that they are playing a role must necessarily be front and center in their lives. Augustus, upon succumbing, asked Livia and Tiberius (if he had been there, in fact), "did I play my part well?" In ancient times, as in the modern, we've seen the sorry spectacle of heirs to the great and near great making utter fools of themselves. Where great talent is concerned, the apples tend to fall a bit farther from the tree than with mediocrities, but said lesser lights will attempt to seek the same sort of respect they were given as children by dint of mere relationship to their more able forebears. Either by use of great displays of conspicuous consumption (a/k/a borrowed charisma) or by deeds that will bring them plenty of attention, but hardly the sort of reknown they were seeking to replace. Or by conscious or unconscious efforts to bring great embarrassment upon their families so as to lessen the bar for their own efforts to achieve recognition. See: Billy Carter, Patty Reagan, Jane Fonda (who got the talent, but not the grace of her father, Henry), the much married and divorced, alcoholic FDR children, e.g.As well as the less capable, intelligent and gracious Julio-Claudian progeny who come down to us reputedly as Caligula and Nero. Whose outsized efforts to show themselves as magnificent as their forebears resulted in sad and outrageously silly performances, respectively, in the Roman senate and theater, as well as the building of magnificent temples to their "godhood", as in Caligula's case, and the budget-busting massive Domus Aureus, in Nero's. With Nero the self-styled "Elvis" of his age, in the moment when his assassins were nearing his unsafe hidey hole, uttering: "Qualis artifex pereo!", or "What an artist is now about to perish!" For a currently accessible example - see "The Gladiator" in which Joaquin Phoenix brilliantly portrayed Commodus, the far less capable and exhibitionist heir to the brilliant Marcus Aurelius. All of which goes toward demonstrating how dangerous it is for dynasties to rule a nation. If you don't want a Caligula or Nero calling the shots. Americans, however, are not immune to favoring "dynastic imperatives". We teetered on it precipitously when electing Bush after Bush and nearly putting another Clinton in office. We have had John Adams and John Quincy Adams, the latter a mere shadow of his father's greatness. There are other citable examples, but I'll leave it there, plus the thought that the dangers of that proclivity should assume greater awareness among the electorate when choosing our own leaders. With history from the ancient through the modern being our guide. In answer to your question as to whether Nero fiddled while Rome burned or marshalled his resources to put the fire out, historians are split on that. Although the more canny will say that he likely did both. Ha ha ha. Enjoy your day and a Happy Hallowe'en Weekend to you and all, Arethusa |
|
