|
I think at least some of Caesar's star power comes from the fact that for a long time Latin was the language of scholarship and people from his generation were held up as the highest models of Latin grammar and rhetoric. I can imagine it was easy for young, male aristocrats to be inspired by bits of Caesar's commentaries given to them as translation exercises. In 18th and 19th century American education in particular, Caesar's commentaries were basically what you read if you were learning Latin. William Harris, who was a professor of classics at Middlebury, suggests that there's a parallel between Caesar's conquest of Gaul and the American conquest of the Native Americans in an essay on Caesar as an author. quote:[...]
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Did later Byzantine scholars study upon the earlier history of Rome? Like, how much did they know about their empire's past in the 12th-14th centuries?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:How is it different? Kaiser is presumably pronounced Ky-Ser, where Ky rhymes with Rye, and Ser rhymes with sir. Which is pretty damned similar to how Caesar would have been pronounced in old latin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yes, that is just what I said - Kaiser is pronounced a lot like Caesar would have pronounced his own name; and very different from how Caesar is pronounced today (= from the pronunciation of the English or German word Caesar).  Weird, I thought you said the exact opposite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:Yeah, I always liked Cato. That's why I was confused as to why someone before said that they liked he died painfully. I mean, I like it too, but I like it because it's badass. Your opinion of Cato will necessarily depend on your opinion of Caesar. If you are looking at the story of the fall of the Republic from a Caesar-centric point of view then Cato is an absolutely infuriating figure, loving up every good thing Caesar ever did, pushing him to violence due to the fear-mongering and political marginalization Cato deployed against Caesar at every turn, ruining his attempts to reform the government and ensuring its collapse. On the other hand, Caesar's career is legitimately worrying with the precedent of Marius and Sulla looming in the background and attempting to check his rise was obviously a high priority for anybody that did not trust his intentions. Cato was still a total dick in just about every aspect of his life though, no matter what your opinion of his political stances. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Your opinion of Cato will necessarily depend on your opinion of Caesar. If you are looking at the story of the fall of the Republic from a Caesar-centric point of view then Cato is an absolutely infuriating figure, loving up every good thing Caesar ever did, pushing him to violence due to the fear-mongering and political marginalization Cato deployed against Caesar at every turn, ruining his attempts to reform the government and ensuring its collapse. On the other hand, Caesar's career is legitimately worrying with the precedent of Marius and Sulla looming in the background and attempting to check his rise was obviously a high priority for anybody that did not trust his intentions. I don't think that's why I like him, actually. My opinion is largely based on how well I can perceive him. I feel like I can see Cato, the obstructionist ideologue; I can see his motivations. I think it's a little weird (also maybe a little boring) to go picking sides out of the fall of the republic. I was joking earlier about the some of these guys, but the major players that emerge from this period are the reason why I liked Roman history to begin with. They're all really interesting. Marius makes my top 5 in neatest historical figures, I'd reckon. And if I were to place myself in the time period, I'd take Cato the wise-rear end dick over all the mass murderers that was opposing him. Odds are I'd be some slave or something, and wouldn't give two shits about the issues of Latin alley citizenship or whatever. Really, framing Caesar and the rest as "men of the people" by our modern standards is terrible, no one should do that. No one that commanded an "ancient" styled sacking of a city can really fit into our ideas of the way people act.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
I always liked Cicero more than Cato. It took a lot of balls for a guy who wasn't exactly an imposing physical specimen or a respected military figure ala Cato, Caesar or Mark Anthony to stand up and speak out against what he felt were threats to the republic. And though he didn't tear out his own guts of anything, he faced up to his execution with as much dignity as he could, regardless of what Fulvia did with the head afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
I strongly suspect, though it can't be proven, that our vision of Ceaser is mostly a creation of Octavian/Agustus. His rise to power was based on nothing but being Ceaser's heir and adopted son, and he built a powerful propaganda machine. Look how it still colors popular perceptions of Cleopatra even today. Then Shakespear sealed it. He even got people who know better to say "Mark Anthony."
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
It's a bunch of different things I imagine: the fall of the Republic is just really good narrative for one, which we have an overabundance of extant writing on it and the larger than life figures of the time. With Caesar you have this tidy arc of a man who is very charismatic rising up to the heights of power surrounded by friends and enemies who are nearly as impressive and colorful as he is, with war and political subterfuge every step of the way, ending with his climatic taking of absolute power and then betrayal on the Senate floor (and for the extra curious, his adopted son steps in and mops the floor with all his father's friends and betrayers and starts the Roman Empire proper). Augustus is something of a less dramatic story; he finally accomplishes what people since Marius had been after and then just kind of oversees half a century worth of stability and expansion and growth. Boring. His successors then range from the boringly competent, assassinated within hours, (allegedly) scandalous hedonists, or whack jobs. Most of these being interesting accounts, but probably lacking that kind of punch and framing that the life and times of Caesar has. Or we just don't have as many sources for them. Then with conventional Western Judeo-Christian outlook the Roman Empire starts to turn into this decadent villain figure oppressing people and Christians, which doesn't change for a couple hundred years until Constantine who is probably the last Roman Emperor your average person would be aware of (he's got a pretty good story too). Though one thing I don't know: did this period still resonate with Romans like, 300 or 600 years later? Were there people sitting around in Constantinople who thought about Julius Caesar all that much or is it more of a modern thing where we fixate on it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yes, that is just what I said - Kaiser is pronounced a lot like Caesar would have pronounced his own name; and very different from how Caesar is pronounced today (= from the pronunciation of the English or German word Caesar). I'm not sure what your point is then. Mine is that it seems clear that the German 'Kaiser' is a fairly straightforward transliteration from the Latin 'Caesar'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 06:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
A goon went to Iran and took pictures of the ruins of Persepolis which you can see here!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Squalid posted:
Caesar, Classical Latin (EN wiki): [ˈkaj.sar] Caesar, Classical Latin (German wiki): Gaius Iulius Caesar [ˈkae̯sar] Caesar, Modern German pronunciation: Gaius Julius Cäsar [ˈt͡sɛːzaɐ̯] Kaiser, Modern German: [ˈkaɪ̯zɐ] You see that the German and English wiki actually disagree how the original one went, but if you look just at the initial consonant, you got the plosive "k" for Latin and "Kaiser", and the affricate "ts", that is the transcription of the classic german "Z" sound. Kaiser and Latin-Caesar are quite similar, Modern-Caesar is totally different. It's actually not totally uninteresting how that might have come about. German orthography was fixated a lot later than say English orthography, so it's a lot (though always) more systematically connected to how German is spoken than for English. For example, Kaiser and [ˈkaɪ̯zɐ]/[ˈkaj.sar] don't look that different - that is because letters map to sounds fairly straightforwardly in German. In medieval times and for hundreds of years to come, people basically spelled however they felt like. Somehow, the word itself did not change in sound very much (that is surprising, considering it's 2000 years old), and when time came to decide on one spelling for the title of the Emperor, it was still quite similar to the original pronunciation of Caesar. However, the way associations between letters and sounds changed a lot (with initial C going from a plosive to a fricative in most contexts), so when the original latin texts, which had of course been preserved mostly in their original spelling, were read, the changed mapping between letters and sounds combined with the tradition of reading stuff as-written led to Caesar getting a new name. E: also, of course, the latin ligature Æ is understood as one of the German umlauts, Ä, so it's CÄSAR/Cäsar, and Ä/AE is a totally different sound from latin AE. PittTheElder posted:I'm not sure what your point is then. Mine is that it seems clear that the German 'Kaiser' is a fairly straightforward transliteration from the Latin 'Caesar'. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Aug 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:A goon went to Iran and took pictures of the ruins of Persepolis which you can see here! Sweet. I've always thought the Persian Empire was much more interesting than the Romans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:Sweet. I've always thought the Persian Empire was much more interesting than the Romans. Crucifixion. NEXT!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:I strongly suspect, though it can't be proven, that our vision of Ceaser is mostly a creation of Octavian/Agustus. His rise to power was based on nothing but being Ceaser's heir and adopted son, and he built a powerful propaganda machine. Look how it still colors popular perceptions of Cleopatra even today. On that point, where would of Shakespeare got the historical information to write his historical plays in the first place? I cant that kind of information being easily available in Elizabethan England.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:On that point, where would of Shakespeare got the historical information to write his historical plays in the first place? I cant that kind of information being easily available in Elizabethan England. Shakespeare was an educated person. Education was still done in Latin, and Latin was taught by studying the classics. Any educated European would have practically memorized the works of Caesar and Cicero, who were generally considered the best Latin writers/stylists and thus good models to study. The stories were well known within the circles Shakespeare would've been in, and probably not wholly unfamiliar to the regular people either. Specifically, there was a 1579 English translation of Plutarch, which is believed to have been one of the primary sources for Julius Caesar. But all the classics were available. Many were always in circulation in the west, and those that weren't were certainly around every place of learning in Europe by the 16th century. People at that time didn't have the benefit of archaeology or some of the more obscure text evidence, but most/all the major surviving Roman books you can think of were around by then, so they had quite a bit of the same information we do now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Okay. Here you go. Museum images. http://imgur.com/a/mtwJR
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:It's a bunch of different things I imagine: the fall of the Republic is just really good narrative for one, which we have an overabundance of extant writing on it and the larger than life figures of the time. With Caesar you have this tidy arc of a man who is very charismatic rising up to the heights of power surrounded by friends and enemies who are nearly as impressive and colorful as he is, with war and political subterfuge every step of the way, ending with his climatic taking of absolute power and then betrayal on the Senate floor (and for the extra curious, his adopted son steps in and mops the floor with all his father's friends and betrayers and starts the Roman Empire proper). BurningStone posted:I strongly suspect, though it can't be proven, that our vision of Ceaser is mostly a creation of Octavian/Agustus. His rise to power was based on nothing but being Ceaser's heir and adopted son, and he built a powerful propaganda machine. Look how it still colors popular perceptions of Cleopatra even today. Another question: I guess the transition from Republic to Empire did not change much for the average Roman citizen, all the poor people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Another question: I guess the transition from Republic to Empire did not change much for the average Roman citizen, all the poor people? Nothing, essentially. The consolidation of farmlands into the latifundia over time changed lives a lot, but the actual workings of the government rarely affected peasants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:I strongly suspect, though it can't be proven, that our vision of Ceaser is mostly a creation of Octavian/Agustus. His rise to power was based on nothing but being Ceaser's heir and adopted son, and he built a powerful propaganda machine. Look how it still colors popular perceptions of Cleopatra even today. If Caesar's name was so powerful that it helped solidify Augustus's position, he would not have needed to propagandize him all that much. He was way more worried about shoring up his own abilities and reputation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:If Caesar's name was so powerful that it helped solidify Augustus's position, he would not have needed to propagandize him all that much. He was way more worried about shoring up his own abilities and reputation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:But can't one use hagiography to bolster one's own position? Similar to how Rome came from Aeneas ... Of course, but Ceasar was already so well known and so popular, that his name alone got a nobody that he happened to adopt catapulted to the top of the heap. What else did Augustus need to do, especially after he was already Emperor? He used propaganda masterfully to control the public's opinon of him, but once he was in power, he was no longr gaining legitimacy from Caesar's name. I'm sure he would sugar coat things, but I do not think he would have had to make up history for him out of whole cloth. A whole lot of people were still alive at that point that knew Caesar and his life rather well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Okay. Here you go. Museum images. [ would you like to know more? ]
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
The life of people radically improved under the Princeps system. Don't forget Rome was already an empire before Augustus. After Augustus there was less civil wars which helps everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:If Caesar's name was so powerful that it helped solidify Augustus's position, he would not have needed to propagandize him all that much. He was way more worried about shoring up his own abilities and reputation. Mark Anthony famously told Augustus, "You, boy, who owes everything to a name...." Augustus had the Senate declare Caesar a god, so he could call himself the son of a god. Hell, the first thing Augustus did to launch his career was win over Caesar's veterans. He was an unknown 18 year old, and never became much of a soldier, but he was a good public speaker, and he had that name. If step back, Caesar's career looks a lot like Sulla's (and not very different from Marius, Pompey, Mark Anthony...) Both won big foreign wars and used the popularity and army loyalty they generated to march on Rome and have themselves declared dictator for life. Caesar never held more power than Sulla had. Sulla died in his bed because he because he slaughtered all his domestic opponents and wasn't tin-eared enough to push for King of Rome, but otherwise they followed pretty much the same arc. So why wasn't Sulla's name preserved in titles and honorifics? Why is Caesar, even today, far more famous? Because Caesar had Augustus promoting him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Sulla was unpopular with a massive part of the population by the time he died. No one bothered to challenge him because he had murdered everyone with the balls to do so. The causes between the civil wars were extremely different, as well as the situations the affected the people during them. Caesar never used proscriptions, and was far more successful at gaining new land for the empire then Sulla was. Sulla won agaisnt Mithradates yes, but Caesar conquered all of Gaul, and successfully invaded Britain. Caesar also did a whole lot more for the people with his power, as opposed to Sulla who just tried to recreate the prior status quo and freeze it in time. He was well liked by a whole lot of people, so taking a liking to his son was expected. I am also not denying that Caesar's name initially gave Augustus legitmacy. But once he was in power, and had the capability to actually make propaganda, he would not have needed to make up much about Caesar, since he was already in power. He did not need to refrence his name to get things done when he had annihilated all of Antony's forces. Also, what parts do you think were created by Augustus? De Bello Gallico was released while Caesar was alive, as wre his other works, and thousands and thousands of people had seen him speak and boast of his accomplishemnts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
I don't think it was outright lies, so much as promotion and debatable claims. I'd compare it to modern advertising, which can't quite lie, but will push to the edge of it. People, remember how much Caesar loved you! (forget Marius and the Gracchi brothers and Clodius and dozens of other politicians) People, remember how he defeated the hated and feared Gauls for you! (forget that Marius and Sulla stopped an invasion of Italy, and the Social War happening right next door, and all the citizens massacred by Mithridates) People, remember what a wise ruler he was! (and I'm his heir and inheriting that position) Augustus had the ability to generate propaganda long before he had uncontested power. Mark Anthony was given control of the east, while Augustus (who was using the name Julius Caesar at the time!) had the west. There were years of uneasy peace between them before their final civil war, and Augustus worked hard to get people on his side and think of him as legitimate, while making it appear his rival had become a pawn of Cleopatra. As an aside, I would argue that both Caesar and Sulla did good things for their supporters. For Sulla they were nobles and for Caesar's they were commoners, but in both cases it was promoting their power base. While we tend to look at ancient times and overlay our familiar western politics, they worked very differently. It was about who got the power, not which ideology would be followed by the government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:Crucifixion. NEXT! Scaphism, you mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Seoinin posted:Scaphism, you mean. Nah, decimation. Sorry Decimus, you knew it was going to happen some day...
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
BurningStone posted:I don't think it was outright lies, so much as promotion and debatable claims. I'd compare it to modern advertising, which can't quite lie, but will push to the edge of it. People, remember how much Caesar loved you! (forget Marius and the Gracchi brothers and Clodius and dozens of other politicians) People, remember how he defeated the hated and feared Gauls for you! (forget that Marius and Sulla stopped an invasion of Italy, and the Social War happening right next door, and all the citizens massacred by Mithridates) People, remember what a wise ruler he was! (and I'm his heir and inheriting that position) What debatable claims are you talking about specifically? You started this by saying that "our vision of Caeser is mostly a creation of Octavian/Agustus." That implies a whole lot. Caesar himself brought Marius out of the realm of shame and back into the public spotlight himself, there was no need to disparage him by Augustus. Caeser was related to Marius, and so was Augustus by adoption. I am not contesting Augustus' talent for propaganda, but most of the evidence we have of that is from after he became Emperor, and comissioned things like the Aeneid. Augustus certainly sent the word out that he was related to Caesar, but I'm not sure how that is the reason Caeser's accomplishments are so well known.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
If we're talking about propaganda Maecenas should probably be getting more credit than Augustus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:A goon went to Iran and took pictures of the ruins of Persepolis which you can see here! karl fungus posted:Okay. Here you go. Museum images. Thank you very much for both of these. Some of the art stuff from the museum is incredible, and that reclining couch is spectacular.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:
 What's this about? There's Sun as man, Moon as woman, young man or woman with Phrygian freedom cap riding a bull that is harassed by snake, scorpion and wolf. Or is the person wrestling with the bull? Could this be victory over pagan gods?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
I just looked it up based off its catalog number. Here's what it is.quote:Mithras was an Iranian god whose cult became very popular throughout the Roman empire, spread largely by soldiers. Shrines dedicated to Mithras have been found at sites as far apart as Hadrian's Wall in northern Britain and Dura-Europos on the River Euphrates in Syria. This plaque may well have decorated the wall of such a mithraeum (place of worship). Busts of Sol (the Sun) and Luna (the Moon) watch over the ritual scene of Mithras slaying the bull, aided by a dog, snake, and scorpion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Thanks for a quick reply! Was there some talk about mystery cults already in this thread? If not, could someone write what is known about them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
How did the ancient peoples preserve their food(specifically the ones that existed pre 500bc)? Might of been asked, I'm only halfway through the thread!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Okay. Here you go. Museum images.  This one is just stunning, I love it. Any chance of any extra info? Is it a floor or wall decoration? Something from a temple or somebody's home?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken it's a floor decoration from an upper-class home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
It looks like it's Bacchus or Dionysus. He's often represented adorned with leaves, flowers, and fruits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
maker posted:How did the ancient peoples preserve their food(specifically the ones that existed pre 500bc)? Might of been asked, I'm only halfway through the thread! Pretty much the same way people preserved food up until a century or two ago. Salt, fermentation or smoking were far and away how you preserved food. The stuff you couldn't store this way you either ate quickly or kept it as dry as possible and hoped mold didn't set in. A few cultures would use things like permafrost to or winter air to deep freeze meat, but that's obviously limited by location and sometimes season.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 05:45
|
|
