Horatius
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Horatius
-
-
What do you guys think of this? http://www.historyswomen.com/moregreatwomen/Locusta.html Seems she is touted as one of history's first serial killers. Was this a real character?
-
How many leading Romans of Sulla's time--or any time leading up to Sulla--engaged in the systematic, wholesale slaughter of whole political classes? The notion that Sulla was just an "ordinary person, full of flaws" strains credulity, and the reasoning vividly demonstrates who the real beneficiary of that "judge not" nonsense is--the most wicked and the most corrupt. When Sulla retired, he was a debauched, bitter, evil old man. Moral relativism would only have warmed his black, rotten heart.
LOL Kind of hard to disagree with that .What's worse is it really didn't accomplish anything for very long. Hard to believe the Republic chugged along for hundreds of years before that. Was there any way to put the genie back in the bottle? Do you think a written constitution that clearly delineated powers would have helped?
-
I'll happily concede for argument's sake that Sulla wanted to prevent another one like him, but which of his reforms actually could have stopped someone like Pompey or Caesar?
Marius used the Tribunes and Assemblies in such a crass and personal way. Sulla re-instituted the Senates role in government. I am not sure if the Tribunes had not been made into a dominating political force again that things like the lex Gabinia would have come about. Gabinius certainly used his position to weaken and corrupt the Senate I gather. Roman history might have been very different if the Tribunes had remained somewhat emasculated. I have a question too on when and why the Roman practice of not allowing succeeding yourself in office and age restrictions were removed? I guess I see Sulla (in spite of the horror of the terror) as the very antithesis of someone like Caesar.
-
I read this column a little while ago and saved it http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines . I really think it has gone beyond the point of fiasco now and is just an unmitigated disaster. We can't leave and we can't stay but either way I doubt Iraq will survive as a country. I remember reading somewhere how when the Mongols sacked Baghdad in the 13th century they set the Christians and Shiites against the Sunnis with much the same results. Ultimately dividing the Mongols and leading to civil war.
-
"It stands in the Comitium
Plain for all folk to see;
Horatius in his harness,
Halting upon one knee:
And underneath is written,
In letters all of gold,
How valiantly he kept the bridge
In the brave days of old. " What 's not to believe? http://www.killgrove.org/etruria.html
-
While what Gracchus did was not strictly illegal (since there was no written constitution), it was just not done that way before. Tradition was broken and the way government worked was broken also.When Marius used the same tactic later it led to the first Civil War. Sulla's reforms were meant to make sure there would (and could) never be another Marius OR Sulla. They were gradually dismantled. With the Sulla reforms in place,would Caesar have been able to get as far as he did? Sulla was a living memory to most of these actors. With a codified government of checks and balances maybe the other problems could have been worked out. I blame Marius
-
ROFL O.J. Simpson, The Fall of Rome and Bill O'Reilly to the Tartarus !
-
Sulla's memoirs.
-
Generally speaking, biological sons seem to have been chosen in favor of adoptive, but Claudius chose Nero over Britannicus.
So two of the three natural grandsons of Augustus, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar were appointed his heirs but specificaly not Postumus? Whether this meant they would have just inherited his money and property or assume his functions as head of state I don't know but I would assume so. Why was Postumus excluded? Was there any suggestion he was not Julia's son and so not a blood decendant?
-
I have always had the suspicion that many went into the hierarchy of the Church. Archbishops and Bishops were temporal rulers in those days and many took over the functions of the former Roman Magistrates . There were no restrictions on marriage and such in those days.
-
All fascinating questions; all off-topic. This is the Rome Television Series subfora. Pose the questions again in the Republic, and I'm sure many will weigh in with their two cents.
I agree great thread ! please move it to the Republic forum and get on with it:)
-
I think this is an interesting thread also. This site suggests a possible burial site for a very real Romulus http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...lsen*/2/17.html Perhaps there will be other discoveries like the Lapis Niger, this guy thinks he has found one http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicis...s/00000308.html. Seven Kings with an average of 40 years rule is improbable but not impossible if they were 'appointed' young. http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/history2.html
-
-
Cards in 6 !
-
I'm not aware of any such notion that the ancient Daci were exterminated. It's my understanding that the great bulk of the population was Romanized... admittedly some of this was likely done quite forcibly, but genocide and assimilation even if by force or threat of force are entirely different things in my opinion.
Maybe genocide was a little too harsh PP , but I don't think it was for want of trying lol. Maybe cultural genocide would be more appropriate.
To go through the bother of conquering an area to exterminate its population and turn it into a 'desert' makes no sense. To lose tax payers? To make land unusable (and therefor less valuable at sale) for its future Roman holders? I think not.Thars gold in them thar hills! "gold and silver were found in great quantities in the Western Carpathians. After Trajan's conquest, he brought back to Rome over 165 tons of gold and 330 tons of silver " http://www.unrv.com/provinces/dacia.php http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/pir/dacia.htm .
-
Rather, the important question in terms of settling and Romanizing Dacia would be - "Would the people of Dacia have been more content under Roman rule than their own?"
Trajan made this question moot by committing genocide in the Balkans over 100 years later. I am sure Caeser in his own imitable way would have done the same. If you exterminate the people you have nothing to fear from them. The area is called Romania 2000 years later not because they were content, but because they were replaced.
-
Unleash the Legions! lol. Seriously glad it wasn't a big deal, was getting worried when it was down all day.
-
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gr_byz14.gif The site I got this from has this to say "This is the flag of the Byzantine Empire, as shown by a major source of information on the flags of the XIVth century, the Conoscimento de todos los Reinos . The flag consists of a combination of the St. George Cross (red on a white field) with the arms of the ruling family of the Paleologues (1258-1453).
The four charges in the corners of each of the other two crosses can be seen either as firesteels, as in the badges of the Order of the Golden Fleece, or as the Greek letter Β. In the latter case they form the initial letters of the Paleologues' motto:
Βασιλευς Βασιλεων Βασιλευων Βασιλευσιν,
that is,
King of Kings, ruling over Kings" http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gr_byz.html#att They also have a similar flag they attribute to Constantine. http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/g/gr~byzn.gif
-
It's a good thing that all of us with a common interest can communicate so easily.
-
Yes, since it turned out so succesful in Pompey's case it had the effect of stifiling opposition to it being done again. Of course when you give that kind of power to the wrong man at the wrong time then the consequences will be disastrous for a republic. It's just a matter of time until that happens. I think maybe that is what Harris is saying.
-
To quote one of my favorite posters ( MPC
) "I don't think the Romans were always quite so cavalier about conquest as has been suggested. Recall that Roman religious law (the ius fetiale) forbade Romans from embarking on wars of aggression solely to gain new territory." http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2630# . It certainly looks like Pompey's little adventure was mostly just an excuse to plunder and aquire new lands based on the flimsiest of provacations. In the sheer scale of it I can't see any precedants. There was much opposition to it though in the beginning. In fact it was a very near thing. In the end it turned out wonderful for Rome and Pompey .If it would have been limited would Caeser have been able to do essentially the same thing ? There was much opposition to the Gallic wars also. You have the example of Pompey and the wealth it brought and no power grab from Pompey afterwards though. So did this tip the scales and allow Caeser to destroy the Republic? that's the consequence I see. -
Wait a second, what makes you think that the lex Gabinia gave Pompey unlimited power in the Mediterranean? That's not what the ancient sources claim
"whereby there was granted to him, not only the government of the seas as admiral, but, in direct words, sole and irresponsible sovereignty over all men. For the decree gave him absolute power and authority in all the seas within the pillars of Hercules, and in the adjacent mainland for the space of four hundred furlongs from the sea. Now there were but few regions in the Roman empire out of that compass; and the greatest of the nations and most powerful of the kings were included in the limit. Moreover, by this decree he had a power of selecting fifteen lieutenants out of the senate, and of assigning to each his province in charge" -Plutarch http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/pompey.html at least Plutarch seems to think so, did this mean he actually appointed the governers? The Lex Manilia in 66BC gave him even greater power. He marched from modern day Georgia to Judea, setting up provinces and puppet states along the way. Until he finally returned to Rome in 61BC and demobilised the legions, he was no Ceaser after all, You can see how Ceaser might have used this model though. Without the riches and expansion Pompey brought to Rome and the happy ending,would Ceaser have been able to 'get away with it'? Now obviously Harris is using all this to make a very modern political point but is he just ignoring or distorting history to do so? "The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect." Harris says I think he has a point.
-
Well as I see it the Scipio case was different because Rome was in a very real war for it's very survival. Scipio won the war and pulled Hannibal from Italy in the process. As Harris points out the 'pirate' threat " took less than three months" to defeat. Yet "Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years" with 500 ships and 120.000 men gobbling up regions like a pac-man apparently. This had nothing to do with the long vanquished pirates but enriched Pompey and gave him immense power. Where there any attempts to call home the legions at this time because the original mandate was complete or was this all a scheme from the beginning to plunder the mid-east? I kind of agree with Harris that this was some watershed event unlike anything before. I think the Romans of the time recognised this also. As Harris says "Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state."
-
Are not your earlier cites all legitimate uses of the imperia extra ordinem though Cato? ( I don't know just guessing) Is Harris just pointing out that this was a case of fear-mongering and manipulation leading to a reaction far in excess of what was needed ? That's what I get out of it at least that this was the first time for such a disproportionate response. He says earlier that "Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal." This seems to be an open ended granting of powers that went far beyond the original intention and scope. If so is it without precedent then?
Sulla
in Res Publica
Posted
"The father of Sextus Roscius had been slain during the proscriptions of Sylla, and his estate, which was very large, had been sold for a very trifling sum to Lucius Cornelius Chrysogonus, a favourite slave to whom Sylla had given his freedom; and Chrysogonus, to secure possession of it, persuaded a man named Caius Erucius to accuse Roscius of having killed his father himself." http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?...f043-1_head_004 Sextus was aquited and apparently the trial was seen as an attack on Sulla himself since he had put Chrysogonus in charge of the proscriptions. Sulla had Chrysogonus thrown from the Tarpeian Rock and let Cicero live. I don't know what this all means but I thought Caldrail might find it interesting since it was at the height of Sulla's power. Pretty brave on Ciceros part I think. Kind of ironic he was executed during the Triumvirate proscriptions in 43 BCE.