Commonly taught inaccuracies about the classical world

[Northern Neil]

Inspired by a similar topic over on RAT (Roman Army Talk Forum) and our Antiochus III's recent comment on a thread dealing with Rome / US comparisons, I thought I'd start this one off. What also inspired me was the current (in my view) implausible views on the construction of Roman Granaries which unfortunately are still found even in scholarly works ( See: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=96930)

 

So anyway, Antiochus has inadvertently set the ball rolling with this:

"Roman culture is Greek culture," "The Roman army faced elephants at Cannae," "The biggest factor in the Roman army's defeats in the Second Punic war was elephants," "The Roman army had never seen elephants before Hannibal invaded Italy," The Romans 'conquered' the Jews in 162 B.C."

ATG

Heres another: 'The Romans invented the Arch'.

 

EDIT: It woulkd be nice to refer to a direct source if possible to substantiate your example. I would like to give the Walls of Miletus as an example of the arch used in a Greek/Hellenistic context. Over to you, folks!

[Ursus]

The Romans were the most violent and expansionist society on earth who beat up on their peaceful neighbors. Those culture loving Greeks and tree hugging Celts didn't have a violent bone in their body, and Rome was a big bully who ran roughshod over their pristine, peace loving cultures.

 

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/mediterranean-anarchy.php

[Formosus Viriustus]

Some years back I was at a friend's place and his 9 or 10 year old kid was doing his homework. One of the questions he had to answer was : ''Who invented sailing ships ?'' According to the 'lesson' that went with the questionary, a piece of work by the teacher him- or herself, apparently, the correct answer was :

[Nephele]

The praenomen "Appius" was "used only by the gens Claudia." False.

 

While "Appius" was perhaps the most restricted of the commonly seen praenomina (primarily during the period of the Republic), it could nevertheless be found in the following gentes in addition to the Claudii: the Annii, Modii, Popidii, and Iunii/Junii. (Reference: Charles Davis Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina.")

 

Wiktionary perpetuates this error, in its article titled "List of Roman Praenomina".

 

But no doubt they will soon lift what I have written here, in order to correct their own article on Roman praenomina.

 

Just as Wikipaedia plagiarized my article "Roman Naming Practices During the Principate Period" in their article titled "Praenomen".

 

In their article on the praenomen, the folks at Wikipaedia clearly lifted their information on the number and frequency of praenomina from my article. They write: "Compared to most cultures, Romans used very few given names: the common praenomina were fewer than 40. The 17 most common male praenomina accounted for 98% of all male Roman names[1]. The most popular - Lucius, Gaius, and Marcus - constituted 59% of the total."

 

The reference they give for this is the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, which shows that they don't know what they are talking about, because the CIL does not provide conveniently worked-out percentages of praenomina usage.

 

I had worked out those percentages myself, based on a compilation of praenomina made by Charles Davis Chase (whom I credited in my own article), and this compilation of Chase's was taken only from the first volume of the CIL.

 

Wikipaedia is frequently wrong and frequently plagiarizes other sources without giving sufficient credit to those sources. I know that our own Primus Pilus on this site has had this same experience with Wikipaedia.

 

I think that anyone here who wants to be taken seriously should refrain from quoting Wikipaedia as a source to back up their debates, arguments, whatever on any particular subject. While I, myself, admit to having been guilty on occasion of referring to a Wikipaedia article for a quickie definition, I try not to make a habit of it. Because that is just plain lazy.

 

In fact, henceforth I am boycotting Wikipaedia. And anyone here who quotes from a Wikipaedia article is going to be the most deserved object of my mockery and derision.

 

-- Nephele

[Ludovicus]

By the time of the Empire, Rome was almost entirely built of marble. It was a white city.

 

Quite the contrary. Aside from the monuments and the temples, Rome was shades of red brown due to the use of brick in the overwhelming number of building used by the poor and middle class. Also many public structures such as walls, towers, and large halls were of brick.

 

From: Brick in Roman Antiquity, Prof. Ing. Carlo Roccatelli

http://www.giorgiozanetti.ca/bricks/bricks.html

 

"The use of brick construction in Roman antiquity, contrary to what a superficial observer might believe, was very widespread, indeed one might say almost general. Passing by the well known, venerable monuments of Roman art, the notable character of which demanded in their exterior forms the use of stones and marble, let us seek rather to obtain a close view of the familiar life of Rome by turning our attention to those elements which, up to our day, have been so much neglected as to seem foreign to the classical world as known to us. In fact, by observing the humbler class of buildings, those in which the activities of every-day life were carried on, those quarters of the ancient city inhabited by the middle class, by merchants and workmen with their houses, shops, and taverns, where in short pulsed the real life of antiquity, we experience a complete transformation of the ideas we had formed of ancient architecture by our observation of stately temples and sumptuous public edifices.

 

The excavation at Ostia, even more then those at the less commercial and more tranquil Pompeii, shed great light upon the subject. We see in fact how general was the use of brick and how it afforded many solutions in construction and admirable decorative effects, while the use of cut stone was, as today, only an exception.

 

And if the evidence of ancient constructions themselves is not sufficient, Vitruvius reminds us of their value, by praising the structures of brick as worth of being the dwellings of kings. While burned brick were used in buildings within the city of Rome, he tells us why sun-baked brick should not be used and then gives rules for their use in construction outside the city. Dion Cassius informs us of the disastrous effects of the inundations of the Tiber upon many buildings of sun-baked brick, and finally Suetonius relates how Augustus was able to boast that he had received a Rome of brick but had left it one of marble.

 

Going back to the origins, we find, as one of the very first examples of brick construction, the Etruscan wall of Arezzo, mentioned by Vitruvius (in Italia Arretio vetustum egregie factum murum), built of burned brick with the facing so well executed as to cause Caporali of Perugia to write in 1536, nearly two thousand years after its construction: " Arezzo possess a wall of brick so excellently worked by hammer and laid that one can hardly see the mortar joints between them; more-over the brick are so well burned that the color is absolutely uniform." All this proves, at least indirectly, how widespread was the use of brick before the days of the Empire, and suggests how important had been both Greek and Tuscan influence."

[Maty]

That Julius Caesar said 'veni, veni vici' to describe his conquest of Britain. Apparently its one of those factoids that 'everybody' knows is true.

 

And the 'fact' that orgies were a regular Roman pastime. Or that Cleopatra held the asp to her bosom. (Plutarch tell us it was the wrist, which is a heck of a lot more practical.)

 

Or that legionary tunics were always red?

 

or ... (I'll let someone else take over from here. I need to lie down.)

[Formosus Viriustus]

That a vomitorium was a room where they went to throw up during their lucullan orgies.

 

 

F rmosus

[Medusa]

For the SVR board I wrote an article on misconceptions regarding gladiators:

 

http://www.societasviaromana.net/Collegium...conceptions.php

[sylla]

...Wiktionary perpetuates this error, in its article titled "List of Roman Praenomina".

 

But no doubt they will soon lift what I have written here, in order to correct their own article on Roman praenomina.

 

Just as Wikipaedia plagiarized my article "Roman Naming Practices During the Principate Period" in their article titled "Praenomen".

 

In their article on the praenomen, the folks at Wikipaedia clearly lifted their information on the number and frequency of praenomia from my article. They write: "Compared to most cultures, Romans used very few given names: the common praenomina were fewer than 40. The 17 most common male praenomina accounted for 98% of all male Roman names[1]. The most popular - Lucius, Gaius, and Marcus - constituted 59% of the total."

 

The reference they give for this is the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, which shows that they don't know what they are talking about, because the CIL does not provide conveniently worked-out percentages of praenomia usage.

 

I had worked out those percentages myself, based on a compilation of praenomina made by Charles Davis Chase (whom I credited in my own article), and this compilation of Chase's was taken only from the first volume of the CIL.

 

Wikipaedia is frequently wrong and frequently plagiarizes other sources without giving sufficient credit to those sources. I know that our own Primus Pilus on this site has had this same experience with Wikipaedia...

Wikipaedia explicitly states that (SIC) "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and that they considered themselves ruled by the regulations on copyrights of the state of Florida.

 

Have you tried to contact the "Wikipaedia folks"?

Edited June 18, 2009 by sylla

[Nephele]

Wikipaedia explicitly states that (SIC) "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and that they considered themselves ruled by the regulations on copyrights of the state of Florida.

 

Have you tried to contact the "Wikipaedia folks"?

 

No, I haven't. I know that Primus Pilus went through a veritable circus trying to get his own stuff removed from Wikipedia for a long time. If you know whom to contact and if you'd care to PM me the info, I'd be most appreciative.

 

-- Nephele

[sylla]

Wikipaedia explicitly states that (SIC) "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and that they considered themselves ruled by the regulations on copyrights of the state of Florida.

 

Have you tried to contact the "Wikipaedia folks"?

 

No, I haven't. I know that Primus Pilus went through a veritable circus trying to get his own stuff removed from Wikipedia for a long time. If you know whom to contact and if you'd care to PM me the info, I'd be most appreciative.

 

-- Nephele

No, sorry. I just clicked on some of the Wikipaedia's hotlinks. PP will surely be able to guide you within these issues.

My guess would be that, even if legal actions were not a practical option, you can always create an account for editing the relevant article(s) and/or to link them to UNRV (but again, this is only a guess).

I think this is a most interesting topic for many of us that may well deserve its own thread, so we may be able to check on the contributions of other UNRV members.

[sylla]

Inspired by a similar topic over on RAT (Roman Army Talk Forum) and our Antiochus III's recent comment on a thread dealing with Rome / US comparisons, I thought I'd start this one off. What also inspired me was the current (in my view) implausible views on the construction of Roman Granaries which unfortunately are still found even in scholarly works ( See: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=96930)

 

So anyway, Antiochus has inadvertently set the ball rolling with this:

"Roman culture is Greek culture," "The Roman army faced elephants at Cannae," "The biggest factor in the Roman army's defeats in the Second Punic war was elephants," "The Roman army had never seen elephants before Hannibal invaded Italy," The Romans 'conquered' the Jews in 162 B.C."

ATG

Heres another: 'The Romans invented the Arch'.

 

EDIT: It woulkd be nice to refer to a direct source if possible to substantiate your example. I would like to give the Walls of Miletus as an example of the arch used in a Greek/Hellenistic context. Over to you, folks!

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[sylla]

Or that Cleopatra held the asp to her bosom. (Plutarch tell us it was the wrist, which is a heck of a lot more practical.)

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret.

 

Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[sylla]

That a vomitorium was a room where they went to throw up during their lucullan orgies.

 

 

F rmosus

This must be my favorite:

 

TO THE VOMITORIUM OF MILETUS

[marcus silanus]

The Romans were the most violent and expansionist society on earth who beat up on their peaceful neighbors. Those culture loving Greeks and tree hugging Celts didn't have a violent bone in their body, and Rome was a big bully who ran roughshod over their pristine, peace loving cultures.

 

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/mediterranean-anarchy.php

 

I think that this is actually a very important observation. We are afflicted, in Europe, with a post colonial self hatred that leads to such ludicrous revisions of history. It also leads to insidious cultural relativism and moral equivalence where we dare not criticise the questionable aspects of former subject peoples.

 

The teaching of the classics has for so long been considered the fun part of formal education, with little attention to detail and consequently full of inaccuracies. In the little time that children in the UK are exposed the the subject, that all members here know to be vast, they learn that Rome was the "emperor" Julius Caesar, baths and gladiators. Carthage, Gallic tribes and everybody else that came into conflict with Rome were plucky underdogs striving for freedom and self determination. Without being glib, this is the connotation of various History Channel one hour wastes of time.

 

If the "educators" would acknowledge that Rome was responsible for creating a highly efficient and unified Europe, from which the current EU would do well to emulate and that her opponents were not universally pastoral, peace loving victims, we might be able to glean some benefit to assist in improving our current circumstances.