georgious

That is true about the writing of history in general since historians project the conjectures and dilemmas of their age to the past when they describe it. They are also writing for their contemporaries which means that their readership is experiencing the same world as they. The point is that future generations as we, in the case of Syme, have to come to terms with his world, which is remote from us, to understand his analysis of the late Roman Republic and Early Principate, an even more remote world for us and him alike. Which shows how tricky and difficult is to obtain valid and objective historical knowledge.

Thank you for informing me about Gruen and Millar. The exact phrase of Syme was: "In all ages, whatever the form and name of the government, be it monarchy, republic or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the facade;and Roman history, Republican or Imperial, is the history of the governing class" Stated like this I think that it is far too sweeping a statement to have universal validity. Confined to Roman history of the Republic and the Empire, it is much more credible.

I have finally suceeded to read "The Roman Revolution" of Syme in a linear instead of a haphazard fashion and I have to point out that he makes a vast use of names and family connections of the Roman movers and shakers at the end of the Republic. I suspect that he must have attended a British public school in order to make statements such as "the history of Rome is the history of the governing class". Nevertheless his history of the fall of the Republic and the institution of the Principate is surely such a kind of history from the above. The book has literary qualities and is written in impressive English prose which keeps the interest of the reader if one excludes the very common and long recitation of the names and fortunes of consuls, sons of consuls and grandsons of consuls. One does not always need to be reminded how many consuls one noble family had in the span of five generations. I would not be surprized to learn that Syme was a Tory, because in his book his oligarchic convictions crop up incessantly. Perhaps he projects the ideology of the late British empire to the Roman Republic. He likes sweeping statements such as:"Whatever the name of the polity, always an oligarchy lurks behind the facade". I also found interesting his belief that he could divine the motives and the rationale behind the acts of the major actors of the political drama and his conviction that what Cicero or Augustus had in mind when he acted thus was such and such. He is a forcefull writer and his prose is strong but his premises are some works by ancient historians and Cicero's letters-how can one reach so solid conclusions about states of mind and motives of political actors? Well his wordview is bleak and relevant to that of Thycidides, Hobbes, Machiavelli and the 20nth century political thinker Panajiotis Kondylis-that is that the main motive behind political action is the pursuit of power and politics is essentially a struggle of power amongst competing groups. This underlying assumption is very clearly inferred from the whole tone and logic of his narrative, and even if he directy attributes this motive to Augustus, he does not imply that his opponents were any better but rather less adept than him in the pursuit of power. Surely his book resonates in the mind after one has read it and the way it is structured gives a dramatic flair to the clashes of those Republican Romans who reside to the mists of time. I would like to ask which is the present opinion about this book among those interested in Roman history and how are his assumptions and conclusions rated today....

count me in.

Roman Empire(fiction) I Claudius & Claudius the God Robert Graves Roman Empire(history) The Roman Society Ceza Alfoldi

There is a decision of the Dean to close the Department of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies of King's College London. Signatures are being mustered for a petition to overturn this decision. If you want to help in this effort go to the following address: www.PetitionOnline.com It is a Department worth preserving, source of notable hellenists and byzantinologists, such as Roderick Beaton, the late Philipp Sherard and Averil Cameron among others.

I agree with your overall view of the film. On the subject of Cyril's followers the movie may be more ambivalent than it seems at first sight. Intrigued by their strange-sounding name Parabolani, I resorted to Gibbon and I found that he too uses this term when describing the hold of Cyril on them as well as the nature of followers:"his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic parabolani, familiarised in their daily offce with scenes of death...." At first, having the film in mind, I thought that the parabolani were carrying executions of dissenters daily. Then when I looked in Wikipaedia I realized that they were a religious brotherhood devoted to the caring of the sick and the burial of the dead. My first superficial impression of the film was that all the dead people they carried in the carts to burn, were their own victims they wanted to dispose of. This is not true because even in the movie Cyril says before the Prefect when confronting the Jews that his Parabolani care for the sick and dead. It may be conceived as a stratagem but this was they were supposed to be doing and a scene in the beginning where Ammonious persuades Davus to offer bread to the (many) poor confirms that. Therefore the movie is more multilayered than a superficial observer may first consider.

...which is what a lot of people think today, and what I thought when I read about the tragic lynching of Hypatia in Carl Sagan's Cosmos. I have yet to see the film, but one or two others on the forum have alluded to its 'anti Christian' attitude. My personal view is that it is difficult NOT to have a negative view towards the particular bunch of fanatics who carried out this murder, set as it is amongst a backdrop of Theodosius' dismantling of Classical culture in general. I think it is time I sprang into action and bought a copy of this film from Amazon. Well I did see the movie today and it absolutely presented that view. I am aware of the end of Hypatia and the movie on that matter is modest presenting a censored version of events. Otherwise the portrayal of Cyril, the leader of Alexandrian Christians is very negative and conforms with Bertrand Russell's opinion in his "History of Western Philosophy":"St Cyril, the advocate of unity, was a man of fanatical zeal. He used his position as patriarch to incite pogroms against the very large Jewish colony in Alexandria. His chief claim to fame is the lynching of Hypatia, a distinguished lady who, in an age of bigotry, adhered to the Neoplatonic philosophy and devoted her talents to mathematics." The large bunch of fanatics, whom Cyril manipulates for his purposes, are called "Parabalanoi" in the movie(I have not confirmed their existence during that age) and they are a form of a para-religious body of zealots, used to terrorize Jews and pagans, kill, pillage and destroy(and rape, as it is hinted) and are finally responsible for Hypatia's death. The pagans get a better press in general.

Interesting news. I have read in an english paper-a serious one- about this effort at least a year ago and I remember that their findings have made the archaeologists believe that they were discovering the birthplace of an Emperor-and also hat would be Vespasian -although that last assertion I am not so sure I remember that they made. But it is a running story.

I would like those of you who have seen the film "Agora" about the life of the pagan philosopher and mathematician Hypatia, in late Roman Egypt illuminate me on the stance it adopts on issues concerning the role the Christians and religious rivalries during that age-because some people in Athens regarded it as a vindication of the free thinking ancient worldview against the emerging obscurantism of rising Christianity and the eventual halt to scientific pursuit it's final dominance heralded.

It is true that there has been a personality cult among ancient historians who blamed everything bad on the person of the emperor as if he was all powerfull. That has to do with the class bias of roman historians who belonged to the governing class and considered it's head to be of outmost importance for the society they inhabited. Powerfull clans dominated the politics of the republic and the empire.It is true that roman political groupings were aggregates of people around a powerfull leader who expected benefits from his accession to power. The same structure applies to modern Greek and Italian politics among others.One must not moralize a lot against roman political morals-I do not think that modern meditterean politics are any better- patriarchal structures, clientelism, servility, gerontocracy, pre-eminence of the military and the priesthood.

Plebs and Princeps by Yavetz may be useful on that respect since it elaborates on the emperor's public image and the way it was projected to the masses to legitimize his authority. It is true that roman civilization and society remained oligarchic throughout their history despite the transformations of the name used republic,empire etc. But do not forget that the European Union is also oligarchic nowdays since the Commision is singularily opaque and the supposedly democratically elected parliament is the organ with the less power.So do not blame the roman lower classes for apathy the modern ones are the same-they only watch TV and football instead of gladiatorial shows-which can be considered a progressive step.

Ihave to agree about your assesment of the Republic. My readings both ancient and modern have led me to the same conclusion.The Republic was an instrument of aristocratic clans and the Senate their council of clan rulers. Their purpose wasI to enrich themselves by the spoils of wars of conquest while keeping the lower classes happy with bribes of cheap corn and spectacles of ridiculus barbarity and vulgarity.Sources testify of their loans with extortionate interest and thier use of private armies to terrorise debtors. One must remember Crassus dictum that one could not be considered rich unless he could maintain an army by himself.This warlords were assisted by a priesthood which manipulated the masses through divination and explanation of signs and portents. Aristocrats and priests were the equivalent of military-industrial complex of modern USA.The bureaucracy of the principate was better than this system.I can not say really.

In Rome the priesthood was a political power.By declaring days fasti or nefasti:lucky or unlucky(roughly) it could block the decisions of the popular assemblies.A previous member mentioned the dictum of Polybious about the use of religion to control the multitude.Although Tom Holland in Rubicon which I am just now reading after having bought a second time questions this view of religion as the manipulative instrument of a cynical upper class claiming an attachement of the Romans to their Gods-I do not think that those two facts are mutually exclusive.Religion comes from the Latin verb religo-to hold together and that was its' function in Rome. If you have seen Rome the series you would have observed Caesar's effort to include young Octavian, his nephew in the priesthood-making him a flamen dialis(I think)In western europe there existed the alliance of Throne and Altar-The red and the black to reffer to Stedhal's famous novel. The Romans were the precursors of this system. Patrician families made careers in the priesthood and in the Army.Roman law also included many elements of ritual which made its transactions similar to religious rituals.In the past I have read the book by Lilly Ross Taylor "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar".Of course the term political parties is an anachronism but there is also a book "Romische Aldeispartien"(approximately since I do not know German)which uses the term parties to describe alliances beetwen noble factions. I venture to introduce the bold idea that the combination of war-lords and priests was for Rome what the industrial-military complex is for USA today.

I offer my small contribution here.If you have read Robert Gaves novels about Claudius which are supposedly based on the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, you will discover that what the Romans found striking about Judaism what its' exclusivity that is the belief in one God and one chosen people, a point which made adaptation difficult in the pluralist religious environment of the Roman Empire.The polytheism of the pagans made room for many cults that is many centers of piety and power.Jewish belief in one true God was a threat to all the other gods depriving their priesthood of clients.Most religious systems of the subject peoples were more or less adapted in the religious structure of Roman Imperialism.This was more difficult to happen with the Jewish religion.There have been terrible moments in Romano-Jewish relationships as the destruction of the Temple by Titus and Massada but I do not think that in those cases the Romans were more deadly and bestial compared with what they did with Carthage or Athens or Corinth or Gaul. I cannot say that Romans have been more ruthless with the Jews than they have been with other peoples.It is true though that the Jewish God was less easy to incorporate to the realities of the Empire compared to the Greek pantheon for example.

yes, but it was only an issue in the sense that it allowed suspected christians to prove they were a 'good pious roman.' It was never required of the ordinary citizens en mass until Decius, so it is only really an issue to those denounced as christians. At this point one needs to consider far more the reasons why someone would be locally denounced. the swearing of oaths to the emperor was something which many christians could do, and did. it really depends on what the oath in itself was, a simple oath to the emperor's genius under augustus should have posed no problems, as well into late antiquity christians still percieved a variety of intermediate figures between man and god, genius being one of the. cf. P.Brown- cult of saints Thus the oath would only be a problem if it was to the emperor's personal divinity, something which was never asserted during the Augustan period (in public/state religion anyway, although some private religious imagery does assert this link, eg Gemmae Augustae. Also, the ability to swear an oath to the emperor was a way of avoiding the charges brought, just as demonstrating that your accuser was lying or it wasn't true for many other reasons. If one accepts the flagitia accusations as the basis for persecution then simply disprove the existance of flagitia and no oath would need to be taken. A.N. Sherwin-White is in part responsible for this idea of the oath and the rejection of imperial/magisterial power leading to persecutions, but i personally feel his theory based on the contumacia of the christians fails to account for the initial act of denouncement. After all, if the christians were not to be hunted out as Trajan replies to Pliny then why would they be infront of the provincial governor? it required an accusation, which can not be because they wouldn't swear the oath, because they were only asked once accused. Interestingly, given the provincia assinged to Augustus in 27BC he might have avoided most of the ares where christian persecution generally occured, although it does crop up in most places at one point or another. It seems unlikely he would have excercised his maius imperium proconsularae to intervene in 'senatorial' provinces on this topic. A most interesting counterfactual question which belongs to the What If? historical genre now in vogue in Britain.My entirely personal and subjective idea is the following. Augustus came to power after the titanic struggles that convulsed the Republic which was a conservative, expansionist and militaristic regime, controlled by aristocratic factions who vied for power and an equestrian class lobbying for wars of conquest to augment its' tax-farming prospects in conquered provinces. Contrary to all the "great" men of the final days of the Republic, Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar and even Antony or Agrippa, Octavian was not a man with military experience or great skills as a military commander.Nevertheless he was an astute politician and he tried to cloth his autocratic power in republican forms. My humble opinion is that Republican forms did not anyhow have meant anything to much for the population of the Principate-the famed mos maiorum was a rationalization of aristocratic domination exercised through the dual avenues of military command and priestly office.It was the Roman variety of what in Western European history was known as the alliance of the Throne and the Altar.Augustus wanted stability-already Cicero spoke about concordia ordinum, a union of the boni-that is a confluence of the Senators and the Equites, the two possesing classes in the administration of the empire.Ancient classical civilization was oligarchic- Roman civilization even more. Augustus wanted the support of the possesing class in the support of a political and social programme that was essentialy conservative-that is, it promoted the policy of Romanization along with the creation and strenghtening of a mythology and morality of Romanitas, the quality of being Roman which was exemplified in Virgil's stanza in the Aeneiad which stressed the Roman mission of- to put it simply- governing the world, an ancestor of the British "white man's burden" or even the French "mission civilizatrice" . Of course the Empire to survive had to be tolerant but "four legs good, two legs better" which meant that all customs and traditions were acceptable but the best traditions were the Roman ones, that is those that emanated from the great famililies of the Republic and their traditions of service to the state that is their expertise in wars of conquest and manipulation of popular sentiment through skillfull use of the religious apparatus.This last aspect was important to Augustus and I think Christianity would have posed a problem to him since unlike Judaism it was expansive.It was a subculture and in some aspects a counter-culture-as the hippies were.It's message of universal brothehood and pacifism contrasted with the class-ridden and militaristic aspects of the Republic that Augustus was supposedly restoring.Rome was essentially a war machine and Christianity could not be incorporated in this tradition.But one must not be very pressing on that, since historical Christianity adapted very well to the political practice of Spanish Imperialism, British Imperialism, French Imperialism and recently American Imperialism.But it is the pristine Christianity we are now talking about, before taking the vestiges of power. I do not think Augustus would have been very happy with such a religion that was so obviously in contrast with the traditional conception of Roman virtue.I do not know whether he would have actively persecuted it-he was probably too suave for that and after all he had been tired battling aristocratic Romans to be occupied with persecuting low-class individuals following a Semitic superstition. I think there is a negative reference to Christianity in some passage of Tacitus and I think Augustus would have subscribed to this view. I think that he would have considered them not worthy of his notice as a marginalized sect with low-class adherents. Of course that would have been a mistake because as things turned latter the aristocracy of the Senators was transformed to an aristocracy of bishops and the Pope became for some centuries the closest office to a Roman Emperor that Western Europe had. But how could poor Augustus have guessed such an evolution?

I think that Boudicca became associated with Queen Victoria, the ruler of the British Empire during the 19th century. Victoria was almost the 'modern' version of Boudicca in some Victorians eyes' and the Boudicca statue that can be seen in London was constructed in honour of Victoria. To the Victorians, Boudicca represented the most ancient form of British ideals such as freedom and the 'fight against oppression'. Ironically when the Boudicca statue was built the British ruled a quarter of the globe, and they imitated Boudicca's enemy - the Romans - in many ways. Thank you-Boudicca's statue is outside the Houses of Parliament I think.The non-historical character of political propaganda is very common - in Greece Leonidas was used as a role-model during the formation of a national-state.19th century nationalism searched in the past to create foundation myths, as the Gauls and jEAN d' Arc for the French or even Vercicentorix who was made to a movie not a long time ago.

Chalcidian (& Corinthian) Greeks~~~~>Etruscans~~~~>Romans A good example of this flow is the cult of Hercules. If Rome had adapted the cult directly from Cumae the name *should* have been more like the Oscan which was Herekleis. Instead we find in Rome an adaptation of the Etruscan name of Hercle. What is puzzling however is how thoroughly the Etruscans embraced Greek myth & religion to express their own beliefs except for a few minor exceptions like the demoness Vanth. If indeed the Etruscans had a familial link in prehistory with the Pelasgians as suggested via the linguistic connection with Lemnian, then perhaps the similar pantheon was already in place before contact with the Euboeans & Phoenicians in the Archaic. In that case it may not be that the Etruscans borrowed the Greek pantheon in the Archaic, just that they perhaps embraced the new artistic modes of expressing those beliefs via the plastic arts? Roman imperial culture adopted elements of the religious practices of its subject peoples.The Greek pantheon was romanized, zeus=jupiter,aris=mars,aphrodite=venus,athena=minerva,ira=juno,hermes=mercury,haephestus=vulcan,estia=vesta(vestal virgins),dionysus=bacchus(whose cult was phohibited by the Senate through the senatus cosultum de bachanalibus),artemis=diana,poseidon=neptunus etc, the Latin names are the names through whom those names have passed in the english language.But I will not give an equivocal answer-in the roman religion elements from eastern religions were included-a ceremony is reproduced in an episode of the series Rome.It was a melting pot of religions.For ancient Roman religion I would suggest the book "Ancient Roman Religion" by Georges Dumezil- obviously at first the religion was stricter, purer, paternalistic and formalistic, expansion diluted its pristine purity.

[quote name='Gaius Octavius' date='Mar 14 2007, 04:54 AM' post='584hat Rome has bequithed us is paternalistic and clientelistic politics, centralization, a huge gap between the oligarchy and the popular masses, militarism,deferense to authority,vulgar and bloody entertaintment for the masses,the use of religion as an instrument of political control and power,deification of the rulers,appropriation of small-holders,elevation and veneration of wealth and power as yard-sticks of human achievement, domination of the priesthood and the warrior class over the people and imperialism. Wy were the opposite of the city-state and athenian democracy and the role-models of modern Americans.USA is a replica of Rome.That is why Rome fascinates me although it would have been much better if the Athenian paradigm had prevailed.

Wy were the opposite of the city-state and athenian democracy and the role-models of modern Americans.USA is a replica of Rome.That is why Rome fascinates me although it would have been much better if the Athenian paradigm had prevailed.

The famous Roman historian Mommsen wrote about "collegia and sodalicia romanorum"-Actually the Senate was the collegium of the big men who controlled the Republic or the Empire and since smaller men were denied entrance there they formed collegia through which they controlled there area of expertise-they were a form of guilds which latter in the modern age were called trade-unions.All kinds of people were banded in the collegia from people who exercised legal professions to people such as brigands or pirates.The most powerfull people were in the Senate and they decided what was legal or not for the people who were in the lesser collegia. Among those in the Senate also brigands and pirates were included although the scale of ther activities was much vaster and the rewards considerably more.