spittle Posted November 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Inherited conditions do seem to play a disproportionate part in the affairs of the leading families of history. It was an obvious consequence of in-breeding with the Egyptians (who regularly married their brothers, sister or even their mothers and fathers - shudder!) but what degree did limited gene pool contribute to the British, Russian and Roman (tenuous inclusion for the purposes of relevance to the thread/forum) 'royal' families. there does seem to be an awful lot of cousins marrying for the sake of dynastic convenience during the post Augustan race for succession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 (edited) "as for 'disagreeing with scholars" it is my opinion that several of the forum members ARE scholars." If you say so . It is my opinion that we should keep some modesty . saying "We are scholars" does not make our argument stronger and that is in contrast to quoting scholars . "but Claudius chose Nero over Britannicus." As I said , this case is the extraordinary one . We should not forget that Britanicus was under age in 54 !!! Listen what Agrippina (Nero's mother) is saying when Britanicus was 14 - "that Britannicus was now of full age, he who was the true and worthy heir of his father's sovereignty, which a son, by mere admission and adoption, was abusing in outrages on his mother " . In a short time he was dead , why ? Suetonius - "When he (Claudius) expressed his intention of giving Britannicus the gown of manhood, since his stature justified it though he was still young and immature, he added: "That the Roman people may at last have a genuine Caesar." Edited November 10, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Each to his own, Caesar. But there are scholars on this site - modest ones - but one's whose depth of knowledge and understanding of the period sometimes makes my spine tingle. Quoting scholars is useful if done intelligently, but as the Good Book says, even the devil can quote scripture. Just because it's written in a book doesn't make it correct or true. Citing a single quote says no more than that you have read that quotation. It is how you cite references and marshall your arguments, and what you bring to the analysis that distinguishes the good from the indifferent. All MHO, of course, but if you read posts by Andrew Dalby, The Augusta, Primus Pilus, MP Cato, Ursus, to name but a few of the many, you'll see what I mean. I by no means agree with all of them all the time (or ever) but I sit up and take notice of their views and learn from their style and erudition. they - and i say again, many others here - are class acts. We are in high calibre company on this site, Caesar, and sometimes I think it's good to recognise that, even if the individuals will not say it for themselves. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 "Citing a single quote says no more than that you have read that quotation." Not nice . Maybe I have read the whole article ? Or the whole book ? A single Quotatin ? Make it 2... So now I should bring tons of quotatins just for 1 or 2 arguments ? "ah 1936..." "ah 1 qoutation" , "ah we are scholars" , "ah , who you are to question our knowledge" - not Academic , not nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Allow me simply to say this... The entire idea of this website/forum is to discuss the history of Rome and to advance the study of history. Through this discussion we not only polish our own existing views, but we learn from others and open our minds to new theories. As two simple examples: I have often been frustrated by MP Cato's aggressive tone regarding his discussions on the fall of the Republic, but I am always forced to think. I often disagree with some of Phil's notions on the Julio-Claudians and the Antonian/hellenistic agenda, but I am always forced to think. Each person who posts on this forum in a manner that indicates a desire to learn or to share an idea has my complete respect. Sometimes we may be combative, and sometimes we may completely disagree to the point of anger, but the key to this site is trying to encourage continued development of these ideas. Let's not argue over which scholar or which source is more or less valuable than others, but simply make our arguments to the best of our abilities. Whether people agree with our ideas or not, my general goal is to rest on the hope that we made a counter or supportive case that simply forces someone else to think. With that in mind, please keep in mind these goals as the discussion continues, so we don't go off on tangents regarding which method of historical study is best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Noted, PP - I will desist. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 Allow me simply to say this... The entire idea of this website/forum is to discuss the history of Rome and to advance the study of history. Through this discussion we not only polish our own existing views, but we learn from others and open our minds to new theories. As two simple examples: I have often been frustrated by MP Cato's aggressive tone regarding his discussions on the fall of the Republic, but I am always forced to think. I often disagree with some of Phil's notions on the Julio-Claudians and the Antonian/hellenistic agenda, but I am always forced to think. Each person who posts on this forum in a manner that indicates a desire to learn or to share an idea has my complete respect. Sometimes we may be combative, and sometimes we may completely disagree to the point of anger, but the key to this site is trying to encourage continued development of these ideas. Let's not argue over which scholar or which source is more or less valuable than others, but simply make our arguments to the best of our abilities. Whether people agree with our ideas or not, my general goal is to rest on the hope that we made a counter or supportive case that simply forces someone else to think. With that in mind, please keep in mind these goals as the discussion continues, so we don't go off on tangents regarding which method of historical study is best. I agree with every word . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.