Commonly taught inaccuracies about the classical world

[Formosus Viriustus]

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.

 

When talking about the Roman gladiatorial fights the tone used is often as not one of :

[Ursus]

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.

 

We have that in North America, too. In fact, even on this forum we occasionally get people who feel the better part of intellectualism is denigrating everything that is Western (pre-Marx, anyway). They eventually leave once they find out most of us actually like Roman history.

[sylla]

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.

 

When talking about the Roman gladiatorial fights the tone used is often as not one of :

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Fulvia]

- Romans spoke Roman.

- Commodus died fighting in the Coloseum

- Everyone in Rome, including women, wore togas

- Everyone wore the corona civica if they were having a happy day

- Romans and Greeks were pretty much the same...just one happened to live in Greece, the other in Italy

- It is okay to use the word "Emperor" and "King" interchangably.

- Rome was only ever an Empire, only ever ruled by an Emperor all of whom were crazy, mad and blood thirsty.

- Julius Caesar was the first Emperor of Rome.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Fulvia

[Ingsoc]

- It is okay to use the word "Emperor" and "King" interchangably.

 

Funny that you mention this, in the ancient Jewish sources the Roman emperor is often called a "King". It's seem that some of the people which lived under the empire rule were also confused on this subject.

 

- Julius Caesar was the first Emperor of Rome.

 

While Caesar wasn't a Princeps some ancient authors like Suetonius saw his as the founder the imperial power in Rome.

[sylla]

- Julius Caesar was the first Emperor of Rome.

While Caesar wasn't a Princeps some ancient authors like Suetonius saw his as the founder the imperial power in Rome.

Arguably, this misconception came from no lesser authority than Suetonius himself.

[Formosus Viriustus]

Julius was his 'first name'.

 

F rmosus

[sylla]

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

[Ursus]

- It is okay to use the word "Emperor" and "King" interchangably.

 

Funny that you mention this, in the ancient Jewish sources the Roman emperor is often called a "King". It's seem that some of the people which lived under the empire rule were also confused on this subject.

 

- Julius Caesar was the first Emperor of Rome.

 

While Caesar wasn't a Princeps some ancient authors like Suetonius saw his as the founder the imperial power in Rome.

 

 

I also believe the Greeks referred to Roman emperors as Basileus, which means king or sovereign.

[sylla]

- Romans and Greeks were pretty much the same...just one happened to live in Greece, the other in Italy

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

[Ingsoc]

- The xenophobic Romans were extremely Hellenophilic from the very first historic records available to us.

 

I think you simplified the matter, all Romans understand that Greek culture is superior to their own and some did become Hellenophilic but some like Cato the Elder had a more ambivalent view, on the one hand as I say he appreciate the Greek culture but on the other hand he hated the contemporary Greek and thought that if Rome would absorb too much of the Greeks it's would hurt the Mos Maiorum and in the end led to the weaken of the Roman state.

[sylla]

- The xenophobic Romans were extremely Hellenophilic from the very first historic records available to us.

 

I think you simplified the matter, all Romans understand that Greek culture is superior to their own and some did become Hellenophilic but some like Cato the Elder had a more ambivalent view, on the one hand as I say he appreciate the Greek culture but on the other hand he hated the contemporary Greek and thought that if Rome would absorb too much of the Greeks it's would hurt the Mos Maiorum and in the end led to the weaken of the Roman state.

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

[marcus silanus]

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.

 

We have that in North America, too. In fact, even on this forum we occasionally get people who feel the better part of intellectualism is denigrating everything that is Western (pre-Marx, anyway). They eventually leave once they find out most of us actually like Roman history.

 

Much of what is learnt, or accepted as fact, in the West derives from popular culture. However because of the freedom of expression in liberal democratic law, that expression can lead at times to deliberate distortion of truth.

 

I do not know anybody that does not think that Stanley Kubrick's "Spartacus" is not a great film. It is therefore sacrilege to suggest that whilst it is great in the context of cinema, some of its greatest scenes are pure 'lefty' propoganda.

 

My position is that the story of the Servile War is dramatic in content enough to provide great cinema. This is also my position on most historical drama - why mess with the facts or the consensus born of decades of debate? That consensus is very well represented by Philip Matyszak's piece in his "The Enemies Of Rome", which I am sure many here are familiar with and provides a somewhat different picture to that derived from Kubrick's epic.

 

Spartacus is depicted as almost faultless; a freedom fighter with a concept of freedom and self determination that, I think, did not exist in the ancient world. To be fair, Kubrick was unhappy with this portrayal but was browbeaten by Dalton Trumbo, writing under the name of Sam Jackson that appeared on the credits.

 

I will get to the point. As a result of the popularity of the Trumbo/Kubrick film, Spartacus is seen as the ultimate freedom fighter. In truth he gave no mercy and expected none. Spartacus executed hundreds of prisoners and many thousands died in his prosecutions. He also enslaved captives; at Rhegium at least which is hardly the action of an anti-slavery campaigner in the modern context.

 

If we accept the ancient context of Spartacus, he was to all intents and purposes, a "terrorist". Crassus was not a 'good' man but Spartacus was in no way the saint portrayed in the film that is responsible for the general perception of his character.

[Fulvia]

- It is okay to use the word "Emperor" and "King" interchangably.

 

Funny that you mention this, in the ancient Jewish sources the Roman emperor is often called a "King". It's seem that some of the people which lived under the empire rule were also confused on this subject.

 

I also believe the Greeks referred to Roman emperors as Basileus, which means king or sovereign.

 

This king=emperor thing may be true from point of view of other cultures who had long histories under kings and even some very positive experiences at that....Greece being more subjective with their independent city-states, but Romans hated kings. I am not familiar enough with the later Empire to speak for it, but at least in the earlier Empire it was certainly not a good thing to be called a king! From the point of view of Romans, this interchangeability is not cool. Then again, I don't recall any emperor exactly rebuking any non-Roman for calling them king. Maybe it all comes down to giving allowance for other cultures and a double standard where one thing is not acceptable in Rome but is outside?

 

- Julius Caesar was the first Emperor of Rome.

 

While Caesar wasn't a Princeps some ancient authors like Suetonius saw his as the founder the imperial power in Rome.

Founder, perhaps yes, and I can agree well enough. There is a distinct but subtle enough line dividing Caesar's position with what could be considered the role of an emperor, a line which remains irrevocably important. Or at least in my mind. I suppose I've created a small pet peeve about it.

[sylla]

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