Commonly taught inaccuracies about the classical world

[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.

 

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.

 

You are correct of course, my point is that most books are refer to Rome from a very "legal" and "official" point of view that was could be understand by the Roman aristocracy but probably wasn't shared by the masses who lived under Roman rule.

[sylla]

- 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.

The word "Basileus" is an excellent example of the complex nature of Classical translation; its meaning evolved significantly across the centuries and there' plainly not a single English (or Latin) term adequate enough for any single translation; it was something like "chieftain" for the Myceanians, and Classical Greeks used it for many oligarchic and even democratic magistracies. It was indeed used as a Greek equivalent for both "Rex" and "Imperator".

 

- 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.

You are correct of course, my point is that most books are refer to Rome from a very "legal" and "official" point of view that was could be understand by the Roman aristocracy but probably wasn't shared by the masses who lived under Roman rule.

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

[Primus Pilus]

A couple of years ago, I found that wikipedia had plagiarized almost my entire narrative. Other wiki-thieves, rather than chastise those who republished that work, started to pick apart in the comments and discussion section, both grammatical and factual. Normally, I don't mind when someone challenges what I've written, but to re-publish it as their own while then re-purposing it to fit their own views made my blood boil. In any case, I joined up and immediately starting deleting everything. Others reverted the work back to pre-delete. It was actually Bill Thayer from Lacus Curtius who ultimately fixed it. I believe there are still several altered works, but it's definately hard to prove.

 

Copyscape is helpful... http://www.copyscape.com/

 

(PS this has nothing to do with any inaccuracy other than my own really, but just thought I'd share =P)

[sylla]

A couple of years ago, I found that wikipedia had plagiarized almost my entire narrative. Other wiki-thieves, rather than chastise those who republished that work, started to pick apart in the comments and discussion section, both grammatical and factual. Normally, I don't mind when someone challenges what I've written, but to re-publish it as their own while then re-purposing it to fit their own views made my blood boil. In any case, I joined up and immediately starting deleting everything. Others reverted the work back to pre-delete. It was actually Bill Thayer from Lacus Curtius who ultimately fixed it. I believe there are still several altered works, but it's definately hard to prove.

 

Copyscape is helpful... http://www.copyscape.com/

 

(PS this has nothing to do with any inaccuracy other than my own really, but just thought I'd share =P)

By "ultimately fixed it", do you mean the plagiarized information was eventually deleted from Wikipaedia?

[Primus Pilus]

By "ultimately fixed it", do you mean the plagiarized information was eventually deleted from Wikipaedia?

 

Everything I that I had personally pointed out at that time, yes. I think if you get the attention of the right "higher-level" editors, then challenges to either accuracy or plagiarism resolve more quickly. I have no way to verify that, but it was my impression.

[sylla]

Everything I that I had personally pointed out at that time, yes. I think if you get the attention of the right "higher-level" editors, then challenges to either accuracy or plagiarism resolve more quickly. I have no way to verify that, but it was my impression.

Was it hard for you to get the attention of the right "higher-level" editors?

[Ludovicus]

 

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.

 

 

That's a curious statement. If Dalton Trumbo couldn't even use his own name in the credits for fear of the Hollywood blacklist how are we to believe that he could browbeat anyone on that set?

Edited June 22, 2009 by Ludovicus

[Primus Pilus]

Everything I that I had personally pointed out at that time, yes. I think if you get the attention of the right "higher-level" editors, then challenges to either accuracy or plagiarism resolve more quickly. I have no way to verify that, but it was my impression.

Was it hard for you to get the attention of the right "higher-level" editors?

 

Again, this is just an impression, so take with the proverbial grain of salt... but I believe the history section of wiki is heavily moderated and my actions (logging in and deleting my content) brought it quickly to the attention of those with a keen interest. Beyond that, I admit to being completely clueless on the operational mechanism of the site.

[Ludovicus]

Rome fell in 476 AD.

This is another inaccuracy perpetuated by badly written textbooks.

 

In 476 AD, Odoacer, German conqueror of Italy, though refusing to take upon himself the title of Roman Emperor of the West, did consider himself "Patrician of Italy." He retained the Roman administration in Italy. He enjoyed the support of the Roman Senate. With the date of 476, at least in Italy, we see what was left of the Western Empire evolve into a new political entity, admittedly under barbarian leadership, that was neither hostile to Roman ideals of civilization nor to the authority of the Eastern Emperor.

 

The Eastern Empire continued until 1453.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Ludovicus

[Formosus Viriustus]

Rome fell in 476 AD.

This is another inaccuracy perpetuated by badly written textbooks.

 

The Eastern Empire continued until 1453.

 

In my opinion there is no exact date to be put on when Rome - as a state - fell or the Empire ended.

But if pressed I'd say 1922 rather than 1453. The Ottoman Sultans had as legitimate a claim on being the rightful successors of the Roman Caesars as the Byzantines had.

 

Formosus

Edited June 23, 2009 by Formosus Viriustus

[marcus silanus]

 

That's a curious statement. If Dalton Trumbo couldn't even use his own name in the credits for fear of the Hollywood blacklist how are we to believe that he could browbeat anyone on that set?

 

With hindsight, 'browbeaten' is the wrong word to use. My point was that Kubrick wanted to present a more balanced picture of brutality on the part of both Spartacus's slave army and the Romans. He shot a number of 'gory scenes' only a few of which were approved by Kirk Douglas. Trumbo, who could not actually be present on set, had a vision of the 'big Spartacus' that he feared was being written out by Kubrick and Howard Fast.

 

Trumbo did bring pressure to have his vision of Spartacus realised in the finished film, regardless of whether he was blacklisted. In fact, a rival production of the story, by another blacklisted writer was to some extent the cause of the conflict remaining unresolved as Kubrick, Douglas etc pressed on with production to beat the competition.

 

My point is that many misunderstandings about the ancient world are because portrayals within popular culture are accepted as fact. When the writer has a naive political agenda such as Trumbo, modern values are ascribed to the ancient and ancient virtues are taken out of context.

[sylla]

My point is that many misunderstandings about the ancient world are because portrayals within popular culture are accepted as fact.

It would be hard to disagree, but such problem goes far beyond Spartacus or even Ancient History itself; some years ago, an editorial from no less than the New England Journal of Medicine was complaining about CPR depiction in TV medical shows like ER and Chicago Hope.

[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.

 

You are correct of course, my point is that most books are refer to Rome from a very "legal" and "official" point of view that was could be understand by the Roman aristocracy but probably wasn't shared by the masses who lived under Roman rule.

 

Ah, yes. Very true. And that is one thing that can be so difficult about studying and writing about a society and transcends so many other cultures: encompassing all thoughts and ideas. And with that, thanks for bringing up those points.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I wonder if there was ever the inconsistency that roman Africans were black.not really an inconsistency but just plain ignorance

[marcus silanus]

I wonder if there was ever the inconsistency that roman Africans were black.not really an inconsistency but just plain ignorance

 

I haven't seen any such misrepresentations thus far but I do know what you mean. Perhaps The History Channel will ask Don Cheadle to play Septimus Severus!!! As I am writing this, they are broadcasting "Battles BC" with a ludicrously miscast actor playing Hannibal, plainly of sub-Saharan African descent and I do know there is an image elsewhere on this forum but I couldn't remember in which part.

 

Casting directors nowadays seem to think that if a certain character, such as Hannibal or Severus, is from Africa - per se - they must avoid offence by casting an actor of sub-Saharan ancestry. This, to my mind, is as offensive as Laurence Olivier 'blacking up' for his portrayal of Othello who, by the way, was a Moor and therefore of Arabic descent.

 

Hannibal was of Phoenician lineage and would have been of Middle-Eastern appearance and Severus was of Italian, Libyan and Phoenician mixed heritage. It doesn't seem to be realised that Roman Africa was a province in the north of the continent, populated by a mixture of indiginous peoples mixed with other ethnic groups, non of whom match those misguided portrayals.

 

There are so many lazy intellectual attempts in the media to portray historical characters in, what they see, as a sensitive and accurate fashion. In doing this they cause more offense to the reasonably knowledgeable than the most crass and chauvinistic representations of the past.