|
Has anyone read the Masters of Rome series by Colleen Mccollough? Her portrayal of Sulla was hilarious. His last thought when he was dying was basically "Holy poo poo, this really hurts. I can't believe I've been doing this to people. Now I just feel awful". In the first chapter he bangs his mother in law.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
But then you could blame Marius for creating the situation in the first place and his reforms to the legions. But then his reforms to the legions were a long time coming, and so on and so on
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
Probably you can go back the Gracchus bros and the dispute re them. Not anyone person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Is a dictatorship really preferable to an oligarchy, though? OK, in this case probably yes, but you don't have to be super-right-wing to consider oligarchies less bad than dictatorships as a matter of general principle. Well they were both dictatorships. I mean for all that we talk about the Roman Republic, it was still a dictatorship. An oligarchical one as opposed to an imperial one, but that made no difference to the average Roman, much less anyone else. There was no representational government, or meaningful elections. If we're talking about the merits of a society based on democratic legitimacy, Augustus' popular empire had it far more than Cato's mafia-esque proto-feudalism. OctaviusBeaver posted:Cato was a plebian as were Pompey, Bibulus, Cicero and most of the other prominent Optimates. The plebian/patrician split wasn't really a major thing by that point. There were tons of rich and powerful plebs. Being rich wasn't really the point though was it? The entire point of the Optimates was to protect the political and social privileges of the traditional elites and to prevent them from being usurped by rich men with popular support amongst the poor. Cato opposed men like Caesar not simply because he promoted the interests of the average Roman, but because Cato feared the impact of actual democratic power on an inherently undemocratic system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
underage at the vape shop posted:But then you could blame Marius for creating the situation in the first place and his reforms to the legions. But then his reforms to the legions were a long time coming, and so on and so on I think the fundamental problem was that there were major power dynamics that weren't being recognized by the system of government, specifically the growing value of money and standing armies, and the importance of having some degree of popular support. And a hereditary caste system, even with a nominally representative council, just couldn't paper over it all forever. As long as those issues existed, there was always going to be a Caesar. And if you look at other societies later in history, you can see similar examples as civilizations begin to complexify and transition from city states into full-fledged nations. Ultimately though, it was Cato's inability to seek compromise and navigate the transition into a new political era that doomed the republic. Cato had several opportunities to negotiate a peaceful resolution, but he consistently refused to accept any middle ground. Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Caesar should probably get that giant bulge on the back of his head checked out. I think that's his hair. And they tried surgery, it's just they had really bad aim? Kaal posted:Largely my understanding is that traditional historians admired Cato's support of the oligarchical hierarchy, and blamed Caesar for ending the republic. This was very much aided by the fact that winners write the history books, and Rome's wealthy elites delighted in using Caesar's story as a parable of the hazards of jeopardizing the nobility. Modern historians have largely begun questioning this view, seeing Cato's patrician elitism less favorably and Caesar's proto-nationalism as a more meritocratic alternative. Personally I see Cato and his aristocratic followers as effectively crashing the Republic rather than allowing plebeian leaders access to the levers of power. I guess. I think, though, though, that Cato tended to be admired more for his personal morality and second because he was seen as a protector of republicanism against dictatorship. As far as your theory, I don't know that that really fits, given that Caesar was patrician, and most of the prominent Republicans during the Civil War, including Cato himself, were plebeian. I'm also not sure what makes Caesar 'proto-nationalist'. If you look at Caesar's actual actions, they weren't very different than Sulla's....he led troops on Rome because it was controlled by political forces hostile to him, crushed his enemies and had himself declared dictator. Then, he gave himself a title that had the same powers as the Censors, expanded the senate and appointed people loyal to him in it, gave himself powers equal to a tribune of the plebs, which included the power to veto any law he didn't like, increased the number of magistrates, and then, because he was planning on invading Parthia, passed a law cancelling magistrate elections and letting him appoint whoever he liked. If you're going to say he opened up power to more people, that was probably true, but it wasn't meritocratic...all the new people he put in were either clients or allies of his, and they were picked to the positions because of their loyalty to him. If you want to talk about some of the laws he passed as Consul, as part of the First Triumvirate, then maybe you can make an argument that they set up some level of social change....he got a land reform bill through, although that was mainly to settle Pompey's veterans, and he got a reduction in debt owned by the publicani....but given that the publicani were all equites, and almost as rich as the senators themselves (or in some cases richer), I don't know that that changed much for Rome's urban poor. Caesar, in other words, was playing the same games as the rest of them, and for the same reason....his own personal glory. Ultimately, the thing is, Republican and Imperial Roman society wasn't our society. It can be easy to pretend it is, when you read the Vindolanda tablets and see a note from some soldier's mom nagging him that he should wear warm socks, or you read the graffiti at Pompeii and see the boasting about somebody's sexual conquests. That sort of thing humanizes them, and you see them as actual people rather than just a voiceless historical mob...people who had parents who worried about them, and boasted about sex, and worried about food and drink, and all those other things. That's all really good. I think that sort of thing is easy to forget when we're studying history, that we're studying the lives of real people, and we forget it at our peril. The problem that can come with that, if you're not careful, is that you start to think that they were the same as we are. You start to think that people in the past had the same mental map, the same set of ideas, values, and worldview as you do. And you start making comparisons between historical figures and modern figures. You see it all the time...all of those books asking if America is the new Rome, or the people talking about Gaius Gracchus as a socialist, or those 17th-18th century Englishmen and Americans loving Cato, because he was fighting for "liberty" (or for that matter, a modern libertarian think tank naming itself the Cato Insitute). The problem with that is that it's not true....these people thought differently than we did. They didn't share the same values, they didn't see the same things as important, they didn't share the same virtues. There's a gap of two millennia that can't be bridged over so easily. quote:Being rich wasn't really the point though was it? The entire point of the Optimates was to protect the political and social privileges of the traditional elites and to prevent them from being usurped by rich men with popular support amongst the poor. Cato opposed men like Caesar not simply because he promoted the interests of the average Roman, but because Cato feared the impact of actual democratic power on an inherently undemocratic system. Also, just to point out, Caesar didn't promote the interests of the average Roman, Caesar didn't believe in "democratic power", and Caesar was more one of the "traditional elites" than Cato. The Julii were descended from the goddess Venus, were the Kings of Alba Longa, and after agreeing to submit Alba Longa to Rome, moved to Rome to become the advisors of the Roman kings. They were the first people to see Romulus in a vision after he had become a god. The Porcii Catones were farmers from Tusculum. Cato's grandfather was the first of the family to become prominent in Rome, and the only reason he did was because a Roman patrician lived near the farm and saw that Cato the (not yet) Elder was a brave soldier, became his patron and took him with him to Rome. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I think the fundamental problem was that there were major power dynamics that weren't being recognized by the system of government, specifically the growing value of money and standing armies, and the importance of having some degree of popular support. And a hereditary caste system, even with a nominally representative council, just couldn't paper over it all forever. As long as those issues existed, there was always going to be a Caesar. For much more in this vein, see Mike Duncan's The Storm Before the Storm, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N9ZJXZJ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
I think with any downfall of a political system, it's ultimately the fault of many people. Sure it's some people's fault more than others, but it takes more than one person to build a compromise. Sometimes when you step back, it's hard to really say what'd be better about if the Republic survived longer, and I guess ultimately it's in imagining how the Republic would somehow start integrating more population past even Italy, and how much disparate peoples from across the Mediterranean all trying to force themselves into prominence would concentrate them all together. Maybe it'd resist civil wars better (which is very tautological, "if the Republic didn't fall to those civil wars, it'd resist more civil wars", but y'know, a constant FIFO on politicians in a more distributed power system would be at least...different than wars to be the next emperor), or maybe a civil war in a republic with voting members across Europe would be prone to more cleanly fracturing, ending Roman hegemony earlier, but leaving more complete successor states with less fragmentation and less vulnerable to their power structures being taken by force by invaders or some such. It's weird to think about. Kaal posted:And a hereditary caste system, even with a nominally representative council, just couldn't paper over it all forever. Now I'm thinking of the Republic as those fake home repair with ramen videos, just sanding down and painting over the absurdity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I'm constantly puzzled by the utter contempt that a bunch of people in this thread hold the guy in. He had his flaws, but he generally viewed positively by historians, and pretty consistently has been throughout history. Epicurius posted:(or for that matter, a modern libertarian think tank naming itself the Cato Insitute).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
What story was Pierre Mignard trying to tell in "Time clipping cupids wings"? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Mignard_(1610-1695)_-_Time_Clipping_Cupid%27s_Wings_(1694).jpg
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:What story was Pierre Mignard trying to tell in "Time clipping cupids wings"? I think it's just a straightforward allegory (love weakens over time) rather than a specific myth. This specific allegory seems to have been a fairly popular subject in 17th-century painting, though, judging by the other painting in the "Chronos cutting Cupid's wings" category. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I think it's just a straightforward allegory (love weakens over time) rather than a specific myth. Agreed with this, though it’s worth noting that Cupid originally represents specifically eros, the more lustful and, uh, erotic type of love, which obviously lessens with time. Bunch of classics nerds in the 17th c so I would guess it’s making the more specific point of lust and erotic love lessens over time, but also a bunch of sadness in the 17th c so maybe they did mean that love is slowly killed over time. idk not an art historian and may be a bit drunk,
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Agreed with this, though it’s worth noting that Cupid originally represents specifically eros, the more lustful and, uh, erotic type of love, which obviously lessens with time. Bunch of classics nerds in the 17th c so I would guess it’s making the more specific point of lust and erotic love lessens over time, but also a bunch of sadness in the 17th c so maybe they did mean that love is slowly killed over time. idk not an art historian and may be a bit drunk, I gotta say, this is not the way I thought Pontius Pilate posts
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
Tias posted:I gotta say, this is not the way I thought Pontius Pilate posts You smite some Samaritans, do they call you Pilate, Samaritan's Bane? But you kill ONE Jesus--
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 09:03
|
|
|
Tias posted:I gotta say, this is not the way I thought Pontius Pilate posts
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
He really nails his posts though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:the man's gotta let off steam SOMEHOW Pontius Pilate hosed
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 10:45
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:He really nails his posts though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:He really nails his posts though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocJqSOU8LnQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 13:34
|
|
|
it shits out roads
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
I am so excited for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
The Romans make a dessert and call it peas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
I thought about it and The names of the titles of the positions on the Cursus honorum are really boring. Tribal leader, investigator, builder, leader, counselor
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I thought about it and The names of the titles of the positions on the Cursus honorum are really boring. Tribal leader, investigator, builder, leader, counselor This is the culture whose legislative assembly was called “the old men”
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
I mean, that's basically the same as "council of elders". I feel like almost every premodern culture had an equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
I wonder if at the time (say 100bce) language had moved enough where those words were sufficiently abstracted so people thought “Aedile” was just a title and didn’t literally just mean builder
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I thought about it and The names of the titles of the positions on the Cursus honorum are really boring. Tribal leader, investigator, builder, leader, counselor This is unlike the US, where the title of the person who holds the top office is "Person in Charge"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
"president" used to also be an adjective, i.e. 'the president judge' instead of 'the presiding judge', and both this and the noun form is distinct from the honorific- the etymology's, you guessed it,"wiktionary" posted:From Old French president, from Latin praesidēns (“presiding over; president, leader”) (accusative: praesidentem). The Latin word is the substantivized present active participle of the verb praesideō (“preside over”). The verb is composed from prae (“before”) and sedeō (“sit”). The original meaning of the verb is 'to sit before' in the sense of presiding at a meeting. A secondary meaning of the verb is 'to command, to govern'. So praesidēns means 'the presiding one on a meeting' or 'governor, commander'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Romans make a dessert and call it peas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Or cabbage perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Couldn't think of a cabbage pun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
https://www.yamagata-u.ac.jp/en/information/info/20191115_01/quote:Key Points of This Press Release https://www.yamagata-u.ac.jp/en/files/5315/7381/2668/press2019115_02.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SarahEBond/status/1196887266758713345
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Well what does it say?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:Uh...if you're Cato the Elder, make pears and call it dessert? Wouldn't it be figs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Well what does it say? "merriment," "enjoying myself" (Εὐφροσύνος) in the classical world, all moms are wine moms
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
As much as I love the Roman era, drat I'm glad we don't write in old latin. It's awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Dalael posted:As much as I love the Roman era, drat I'm glad we don't write in old latin. Yeah, it's all Greek to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2019 21:09
|
|
