|
This really is a different discussion, but it's very implausible that Pilate ever actually spoke with Jesus. There probably was no trial either. Jesus was crucified as an insurgent and mocked as such by the Romans (INRI, the king of the Jews etc.) and insurgents weren't tried, they were simpy executed. The trial episode of the gospels was probably a case of artistic licence by the evangelists to round out their narratives. They actually had no way of knowing what happened to Jesus after he was arrested. By the way, it's also extremely implausible that there was no historical Jesus (Jazerus seemed to imply this). As to how the historical Jesus relates to the Jesus of the gospels... that's a very different discussion still.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Girafro posted:What were the Romans relations like with the Middle-east? Seeing as how they had extended all the way to Egypt there must have been some sort of contact and Persia (Was it still Persia by the time the Romans had expanded that far?) would have been nearby too, you'd think there'd be a lot of conflict. Especially is Persia was still kicking around since the Romans would have expanded right into their back yard, or whatever replace Persia. When Rome first gets to the east, they encounter the remains of Seleucid Persia, a Greek successor state of Alexander's empire. This is quickly obliterated, and the Romans get to face off against the Parthians. Parthia (later the Sassanids) are Rome's nemesis, the one state Rome can never seem to get rid of. There are numerous wars, which typically go one of two ways. Rome sends in an army that gets annihilated, or the legions run around Parthia burning everything and killing everyone, then withdraw and Parthia comes back later. Parthia/Sassanid Persia seems to be the one state that is just as stubborn about getting beaten as the Romans, they just don't give up and have the money/resources/military technology to keep going and prevent the Romans from ever gaining a real foothold east of the Tigris. Thundercakes posted:Was there any Roman or otherwise secular records of Jesus ever having existed? No contemporary records, no. Like the others posted, there are some references in other later work, but those are all about this weird Christian cult. There's nothing independent of the religion that would indicate he existed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
The Sanhedrin could have tried Jesus, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The Sanhedrin could have tried Jesus, no? He would've been a non-citizen in a famously resistant province stirring up trouble against the state. There would not have been a trial. He and every follower they could find would've been crucified. If they had considered it a serious threat they would've started razing cities. Resistance against the state was the fastest way to get the entire Roman civilization crashing down on your head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Resistance against the state was the fastest way to get the entire Roman civilization crashing down on your head. How much of an influence did Rome have on Italian fascism? I know Mussolini consciously adopted the symbolism of the Roman state (the fasces), and some of the things you've posted about Roman attitudes towards the state sound relatively consistent with fascist ideology (the importance of the state, anyway, and individual service to it as the path to political power). Did Mussolini only adopt the symbols of Rome, or did Roman political attitudes influence fascist ideology? And if it did, was it at all accurate, or were fascists entirely projecting their own beliefs onto the Romans?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:When Rome first gets to the east, they encounter the remains of Seleucid Persia, a Greek successor state of Alexander's empire. This is quickly obliterated, and the Romans get to face off against the Parthians. Parthia (later the Sassanids) are Rome's nemesis, the one state Rome can never seem to get rid of. There are numerous wars, which typically go one of two ways. Rome sends in an army that gets annihilated, or the legions run around Parthia burning everything and killing everyone, then withdraw and Parthia comes back later. If they had beaten Parthia and kept it for whatever reason, what do you think would have changed in the middle east? I think the most prevalent would be easier contact with China / India / Huns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Did Mussolini only adopt the symbols of Rome, or did Roman political attitudes influence fascist ideology? And if it did, was it at all accurate, or were fascists entirely projecting their own beliefs onto the Romans? Only to the extent of militarism and aggressive foreign policy aimed at creating a colonial empire. But the latter was tied more to the late-19th century imperialist attitudes that Italy had been trying to pursue before fascists. There wasn't anything uniquely Roman about militarism, either. The fascist ideology was otherwise very different from ancient Romans. Fascists were Italian nationalists, whereas for Romans your ethnicity was less important, indeed later on the capital was moved out of Italy. Fascism was also founded on rather egalitarian principles (despite of Italy remaining a monarchy until 1944) instead of the Roman society where all political power was with the nobility and economy was based on slavery. Besides, no Roman consul or emperor would ever have treated a German leader as his equal. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Julius Evola was constantly pissing on Fascism for being too Christian and humanitarian, and not pagan and militaristic enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:If they had beaten Parthia and kept it for whatever reason, what do you think would have changed in the middle east? A lot would've changed. More money, more trade, more contact with the east, and depending on how things went later Muslim culture might be a whole lot different, having a western/Roman base instead of growing in an area outside of western culture. Hell, they might've been defeated and not even be around now. It's like the cultural divide that was produced by the Rhine/Danube border. Culture in Germanic Europe would be a lot different if they had been under Roman control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:A lot would've changed. More money, more trade, more contact with the east, and depending on how things went later Muslim culture might be a whole lot different, having a western/Roman base instead of growing in an area outside of western culture. Hell, they might've been defeated and not even be around now. I thought Islam originated in North Africa, which would have been in Rome?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:He would've been a non-citizen in a famously resistant province stirring up trouble against the state. There would not have been a trial. He and every follower they could find would've been crucified. If they had considered it a serious threat they would've started razing cities. Resistance against the state was the fastest way to get the entire Roman civilization crashing down on your head. I seem to remember that the Romans at that time took a hands off approach in Iudaea and let the Sanhedrin run some criminal trials. Oh hey a wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanhedrin_Trial_of_Jesus
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I thought Islam originated in North Africa, which would have been in Rome? Islam originated in the Arabian peninsula(Around Saudi Arabia and Yemen), and moved to North Africa later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
To Chi Ka posted:Islam originated in the Arabian peninsula(Around Saudi Arabia and Yemen), and moved to North Africa later. The Arabian Peninsula was a no-man's land between Persia and Rome, equally affected by both. The Umayyad Caliphate had its capital in Damascus, which was Roman Syria. When the Abbasids overthrew them, the remnants of the Umayyad dynasty relocated to Cordoba, which was in Roman Hispania. Augustine was in Hippo, which is modern-day Libya, and is the founder of Scholastic philosophy. Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem were all Apostolic Sees. It's ignorant bordering on propagandistic to think of Islam as being some kind of Eastern import.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:The Arabian Peninsula was a no-man's land between Persia and Rome, equally affected by both. The Umayyad Caliphate had its capital in Damascus, which was Roman Syria. When the Abbasids overthrew them, the remnants of the Umayyad dynasty relocated to Cordoba, which was in Roman Hispania. Augustine was in Hippo, which is modern-day Libya, and is the founder of Scholastic philosophy. Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem were all Apostolic Sees. It's ignorant bordering on propagandistic to think of Islam as being some kind of Eastern import. Nobody's saying its Eastern, but it originated in an area completely outside Roman control, in the southern Arabian peninsula.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
Potzblitz! posted:By the way, it's also extremely implausible that there was no historical Jesus (Jazerus seemed to imply this). As to how the historical Jesus relates to the Jesus of the gospels... that's a very different discussion still. Sure, but there were a bunch of Jesus Christs walking around, and had been for several hundred years as part of the adoption of Greek ideas by similarly conquered Jews. I mean the phrase "Jesus Christ" literally means "Savior Messiah". I think that the point of argument here is that there's no compelling evidence that Jesus was a singular person. Tacitus is really the only historian that writes about the Christ-figure with credibility, and he wrote his Annals some 80 years after the Crucifixion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Tacitus_on_Christ Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Nobody's saying its Eastern, but it originated in an area completely outside Roman control, in the southern Arabian peninsula. Yes. It did not originate within Roman culture, which would've been changed by Rome conquering the Middle East more thoroughly. A good deal of the Muslim expansion was fought against Rome, and while Roman culture had its influence it was never adopted by Islam the way it was by Christianity. Had Islam originated within Rome as Christianity did, it would probably be different. All three of the Abrahamic religions are weird eastern imports by Roman standards, I don't know what you're getting offended about. euphronius posted:I seem to remember that the Romans at that time took a hands off approach in Iudaea and let the Sanhedrin run some criminal trials. Generally everyone was allowed to handle their own internal affairs as long as it didn't have anything to do with Roman poo poo. There's no reason why he couldn't have been tried by the Jewish authorities but the Romans wouldn't have given a trial or particularly cared about their judgments, especially if they conflicted with Rome's desires.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I thought Islam originated in North Africa, which would have been in Rome? What 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:All three of the Abrahamic religions are weird eastern imports by Roman standards, I don't know what you're getting offended about. I'm not offended, I just honestly believe Islam is a lot more Western than traditionally thought. Not sure how you can consider Christianity a weird Eastern import, either. I thought that was Gibbon's long-discarded thesis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I'm not offended, I just honestly believe Islam is a lot more Western than traditionally thought. Not sure how you can consider Christianity a weird Eastern import, either. I thought that was Gibbon's long-discarded thesis. It depends on the timeframe. In the classical era, when Rome and the west were dominant, basically everything from the eastern empire was weird. The people, the languages, the culture, the religion. When emperors start coming from the east they're ridiculed and almost frightening, bringing all those strange Syrian ways into glorious Rome. Once the west has lost its primacy this changes, but there's a good few centuries when everything eastern is both attractive and bizarre to your typical Roman. All of the mystery religions are considered weird eastern things. Even Magna Mater, which had been in Rome for centuries by the time the mystery religions really get popular, never loses that. That might have something to do with the castration though. Edit: I agree that the orientalization of Islam is a problem but it did originate outside the Greco-Roman world, and the conflict between it and Rome is a big deal for basically the entire time that they both exist. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Did your social status shift in society based on your income? I.e. your family starts at the highest tier of society, has some terrible economic crisis and loses all of it's wealth. Is it still at the highest tier, just temporarily poor? My question is more based around families that had been around for a long time and were well known / respected / wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
Furthermore, were there senatorial families form the 100bc's that were still Senatoring in the 400's?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 09:24
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Did your social status shift in society based on your income? I.e. your family starts at the highest tier of society, has some terrible economic crisis and loses all of it's wealth. Is it still at the highest tier, just temporarily poor? Yes, Caesar grew up in a rough neighborhood despite being in the ancient Patrician Julii family. You can lose senatorial positions, but not Patrician status.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
Yep, it goes back to that big and excellent post describing the different social strata. Being an actual real patrician family was an inheritance, it didn't go away. There are many stories of poor as dirt patrician families, Caesar was famously in so much debt that it was probably part of the reason he took over the empire. Senatorial status could be stripped. I believe equestrians were always inherited.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 11:26
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Furthermore, were there senatorial families form the 100bc's that were still Senatoring in the 400's? I asked this question at the beginning of the thread. I believe the answer was that virtually all the original senatorial families were gone by the end of the 1st century AD, but there were people who claimed descendance from the more famous members even later on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
Octy posted:I asked this question at the beginning of the thread. I believe the answer was that virtually all the original senatorial families were gone by the end of the 1st century AD, but there were people who claimed descendance from the more famous members even later on. Well I'm a direct descendant of Julius Caesar, Trajan, August, Octavian, Brutus, Crassus, Africanus and Agrippa. More seriously though, I assume part of the reason why Patricians started to fade was that they were usually in debt as you said and the massive rise in power / influence of Plebian families?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 12:25
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Well I'm a direct descendant of Julius Caesar, Trajan, August, Octavian Is that so. Julius Caesar had no recognized biological grandchildren, although doubtlessly he shared his bodily fluids with all shapes and sorts of trollops. Bastardus! Also, Augustus and Octavian... are you suggesting that he was a self-sufficient hermaphrodite? That would be the second kinkiest rumour that I've heard told about a Roman emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:01
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Well I'm a direct descendant of Julius Caesar, Trajan, August, Octavian, Brutus, Crassus, Africanus and Agrippa. I think so. Also, lots of senators tended to be killed depending on the emperor. Luck of the draw really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
Octy posted:I think so. Also, lots of senators tended to be killed depending on the emperor. Luck of the draw really. Caesar killed a ton right? (Julius Caesar). Or was that somebody else? Killed them so he could collect their wealth and fund more wars I believe it was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
Several others did that, Sulla was the first to do proscriptions. Caesar was famous for clemency towards his enemies, possibly too much clemency given the whole assassination thing. Some occurred during the Second Triumvirate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
I was wondering about the ecological transformation of North Africa. From what I've read, the region was a lot greener than it used to be, to the point where North Africa was considered the bread basket of the Empire because of the amount of wheat it produced. The Romans did pursue a lot of irrigation projects in the region. But who was responsible for the desertification of the region? The source I read blamed the Muslim invasions for destroying all of the infrastructure the Romans built up, which led to the region drying out. Another source I read said that the Romans used up too much water. Could this have been attributed more to changes in global climate as opposed to human action?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
To Chi Ka posted:I was wondering about the ecological transformation of North Africa. From what I've read, the region was a lot greener than it used to be, to the point where North Africa was considered the bread basket of the Empire because of the amount of wheat it produced. It used to be, but that was before the Romans. I don't know how much it has changed between Carthagenan days and today. I could see irrigation causing salinity problems, too, like in Mesopotamia, so that once fertile land would eventually cease producing crops. Erosion would have been another issue in semi-arid regions. quote:The Neolithic Subpluvial — sometimes called the Holocene Wet Phase — was an extended period (from about 7500–7000 BC to about 3500–3000 BC) of wet and rainy conditions in the climate history of northern Africa. It was both preceded and followed by much drier periods. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Yes, Caesar grew up in a rough neighborhood despite being in the ancient Patrician Julii family. You can lose senatorial positions, but not Patrician status. Sulla was also poor as gently caress. Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Caesar killed a ton right? (Julius Caesar). Or was that somebody else? Killed them so he could collect their wealth and fund more wars I believe it was. Indeed he did, but that was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian, and he wasn't an emperor yet. Plus it was driven by Antony and Lepidus more since they had way more enemies. Sulla made theirs look not that bad though. To Chi Ka posted:I was wondering about the ecological transformation of North Africa. From what I've read, the region was a lot greener than it used to be, to the point where North Africa was considered the bread basket of the Empire because of the amount of wheat it produced. The Romans did pursue a lot of irrigation projects in the region. But who was responsible for the desertification of the region? The source I read blamed the Muslim invasions for destroying all of the infrastructure the Romans built up, which led to the region drying out. Another source I read said that the Romans used up too much water. Could this have been attributed more to changes in global climate as opposed to human action? Egypt was green and THE breadbasket of the Empire. And it still is pretty drat green. People who don't take a look at a satellite picture often are really suprised when they see it up close. Nile is a pretty awesome river. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Social status between the pleb/equites/senatorial orders was elevated or de-elevated by the censors, which were special appointments that occurred every decade or so. Technically very prestigious and above even the consuls, but in reality just auditors to make sure everyone was properly classified. If you had sufficient land/cash flow to qualify as an equites or senator, you had to wait for a censorship to get promoted. If a censor came around and you were under the necessary qualifications, you'd be demoted (or bribe your way through). Regarding surviving patrician families, it becomes impossible to know once you get too far into the Principate. Nearly every patrician gens had plebian lines that shared the name, plus naming customs relaxed quite a bit. To give you an idea of the watering down process, anyone you know today named Claude/Claudia, Fabio/Fabia, Julio/Julian/Julia, Amelia, or Sergio would have raised eyebrows as possibly being true blood patricians in the Republic. Today they're just random names given to babies, often on the other side of the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
To Chi Ka posted:I was wondering about the ecological transformation of North Africa. From what I've read, the region was a lot greener than it used to be, to the point where North Africa was considered the bread basket of the Empire because of the amount of wheat it produced. The Romans did pursue a lot of irrigation projects in the region. But who was responsible for the desertification of the region? The source I read blamed the Muslim invasions for destroying all of the infrastructure the Romans built up, which led to the region drying out. Another source I read said that the Romans used up too much water. Could this have been attributed more to changes in global climate as opposed to human action? The Berbers in the 11th century pretty much caused the decline of irrigation in North Africa. Large parts of it where pretty much no mans lands up till that point but the rise of the Almoravid and the Almohad dynasties where pretty nomadic based and caused large scale abandonment of irrigation. Pretty much the same issues that came from the Mongol sack of Baghdad and the lost of irrigation there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
To Chi Ka posted:I was wondering about the ecological transformation of North Africa. From what I've read, the region was a lot greener than it used to be, to the point where North Africa was considered the bread basket of the Empire because of the amount of wheat it produced. The Romans did pursue a lot of irrigation projects in the region. But who was responsible for the desertification of the region? The source I read blamed the Muslim invasions for destroying all of the infrastructure the Romans built up, which led to the region drying out. Another source I read said that the Romans used up too much water. Could this have been attributed more to changes in global climate as opposed to human action? The exact extent of irrigation projects remains debatable, whether they were Carthaginian, Roman or built by the native Numidians/Gaetuli/Garamantes. At least several Garamantine towns have been discovered in the middle of the desert, fed entirely by irrigation. It may have been a net producer of crops. I've heard there are Byzantine records of buying wheat from the Garamantines. Also, Lake Triton (now an all but vanished salt lake in southern Tunisia) may have been freshwater, and possibly artificial. It was not small. But the fact that these people were building irrigation to tap the aquifers suggests that the area was not that green when they found it, and if it ever was, they likely made it so. Or preserved a bit of green before changing climate turned it all to desert. I have to qualify all this with maybe because this is pretty much the frontier of classical archeaology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Caesar killed a ton right? (Julius Caesar). Or was that somebody else? Killed them so he could collect their wealth and fund more wars I believe it was. I think Domitian is quite famous for refusing to take the oath not to execute senators despite being begged. It's unknown how many he killed but the sources say a lot. So many he didn't bother putting their names in the records, according to Dio. I haven't read much about the senate after the 1st century but I expect it still went on to some extent, presumably up until the Dominate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Octy posted:I haven't read much about the senate after the 1st century but I expect it still went on to some extent, presumably up until the Dominate. The senate continues meeting into the 600s. North Africa was somewhat more lush at the time. The Sahara was there, but it's been slowly expanding over time so go back 2000 years and it's smaller. But keep in mind the Roman settlement is all along the coast. The climate there is moderated by the Mediterranean, and there's irrigation. The Romans are responsible for the lack of animals in North Africa but it's unclear how much other environmental damage was done. Even back then people hosed up the environment though, Romans stripped much of Europe of its forests. They grew back some, then were stripped again, and by the Industrial Revolution you have the modern situation of Europe having very little in the way of natural forest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The senate continues meeting into the 600s. Sorry, what I meant was the executions of the senate went on presumably up to the Dominate. In the Principate everyone can behave as though they're all equals in government and most emperors will do so, but my understanding of the Dominate is that the emperors put an end to the charade and ruled accordingly. I don't recall reading about the senate doing anything in the third or fourth centuries, hence my presumption that they weren't particularly active and had accepted their subservient role so there probably wasn't much of a need for executions. Mind you, I haven't read up on the period too much so I could possibly be talking out of my rear end, so to speak. :P
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Octy posted:Sorry, what I meant was the executions of the senate went on presumably up to the Dominate. In the Principate everyone can behave as though they're all equals in government and most emperors will do so, but my understanding of the Dominate is that the emperors put an end to the charade and ruled accordingly. I don't recall reading about the senate doing anything in the third or fourth centuries, hence my presumption that they weren't particularly active and had accepted their subservient role so there probably wasn't much of a need for executions. Well, most of the proscriptions of senators were about taking their stuff as much or more than anything political. I don't know enough about late antiquity to argue one way or the other, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The senate continues meeting into the 600s. I've read that most large animals where gone for North Africa/Egypt before the Romans fully controlled the area. I know Egypt was pretty much emptied by the time Alexander got there. In the late Empire, a place in the senate was pretty much just a title of nobility
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 16:41
|
|