|
Hello, gentlepeople! Do you reckon there's a way to gain good knowledge of Herod the Great in his last years in a reasonably short amount of time by a layperson? Specifically in such a manner as to allow someone to write a believable short work of fiction? I'd like you to keep in mind that "no" is also an answer, due to the fact that I'm quite a failed writer, and I suspect that this idea is another setup for failure, but wouldn't mind being wrong. I'm aware of Josephus, if it matters, although I reckon, as a layperson, I'm not going to gain much useful information from him. On the positive side, what I'm planning doesn't require the familiarity of an involved first-person narrative. What I envision is actually more like a historical account, or at least a modern history book, instead of a historical fiction book.
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I've been challenging people for years in this thread to point to one specific moment and tell me when the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire, and I still want them to do it. I know history, especially recent trends in the field, shies away from that kind of thing, but for a lot of people this question is about how they feel. If you don't believe in 1453 as the end, which specific Emperor or year are you not comfortable saying "The Roman Empire" any more? I think I've done this before but it's not a matter of when it starts being Byzantine it's the tricky matter of all the other Romes popping up. Then it's no longer 'the' Roman empire but 'a' Roman Empire and we run into the Roman's invading Rome to restore the proper Roman Church instead of that Roman hogwash only then some new guy comes in and declares himself the Roman Emperor but you see he was bless by the proper Roman Pope but then those guys (well, the various dynasties that usurped those guys but w/e close enough) teamed up to kick the Muslims out of Rome only then the Roman's burnt down Rome and set up a new Rome only those Romans kicked them out and now they're the true Romans (never mind that the Romans are still chilling in actual Rome, never mind that by this point they'd totally reordered their society/had it reordered by those outsiders) anyway then those invaders who set up in part of Rome but called themselves Rome sent some cast offs who -whoops- went and conquered Rome and took the title Caeser, but of course none of the other Romes (nor the various Roman dynasts married off to other houses that were happy to pick up the name) really believed that, only well, they were camping out in Rome hard to dispute that. Anyway, this dude went to Rome, got himself crowned Emperor and just up and disbanded the Empire (but not the one he founded, nor the one in actual Rome, or even the heathen one. Well, heretic. Actually, what's the difference between those two?) And then at some point some Turks showed up and declared the Empire dead. In 1920 or something like that. So, you know, not that long before Mussolini showed up and redeclared the Empire, but in the real Rome this time, and that's hardly long at all as far as interregnums go. I'm not loving around here. Swap in the 'right' names for all those Romans for: Latins or Byzantines or Pope or Rum or Kaiser or Kaizar or Constantinople or what have you and you've got real events. Many times over, actually. Was that the interregnum of the 4th Crusade or the interregnum ended by the 4th Crusade? gently caress if I know but the description works both ways. It's not a matter of the 'real' Rome having any one dying date, it's a matter of Rome-ness splintering into a bunch of little bits that are still around, one way or another, just, you know, changed by a few millennia of history. In other word, no, your question is wrong and predicated on irrelevent assumptions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:The correct answer is "narrative". See: the eternal China
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
I was reading about the feud between Cicero and Clodius and its an amazing story, starting with Clodius' sister hitting on Cicero and ending with Clodius renouncing his patrician rank to become tribune of the plebs so he could banish Cicero. In between there is stuff like Clodius falsely trying to prosecute the sister of Cicero's wife (a Vestal Virgin) for having sex with Catiline, the actual Catiline conspiracy where Cicero and Clodius work together, Clodius dressing as a woman to infiltrate a mystery rite to hit on Caesars wife, and Crassus using his wealth to bribe the jury to get Clodius to walk away from it all. Its amazing and i want it turned into an HBO serie. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Don't forget that Clodius kinda got the final laugh as well, in that years after his own death (itself a giant scandal) his wife's new husband was able to proscribe Cicero who was tracked down and decapitated, and Cicero's head was presented to Fulvia who stuck a hairpin through his tongue as a final revenge against all the trouble it had caused her throughout her life. Of course things didn't end well for her either, as she evidently overplayed her hand and pissed off Antony, and after her death she was used as a political scapegoat for Antony and Octavian in order to consolidate their own power. Then of course Antony found himself on the wrong side of history which lead to Octavian's ascension, and Octavian got away with it all considering he ruled for another 40 years or so..... though of course he saw most of his loved ones die badly, and some claim he ended up being assassinated by his own wife. Ancient Rome had the best gossip
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:The Roman Empire fell in 395, after the death of Theodosius and the final division of the empire into east and west. Those are successor states both about as Roman as the HRE. I like this idea better than most.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:The Roman Empire fell in Rome stopped being the actual capital of even the Western Empire as early as 293 when it was moved to Milan. What most people think of as Classical Rome like you learn about in high school Latin class with Caesar and Cicero and Octavian and Mark Antony hadn't existed for 300 years in 476 when the Western emperor abdicated, and 500 years in the 700s with the Muslim conquests. Basically the problem is nobody gives a poo poo about Roman history outside of a 200 year or so window centered around the Punic Wars, Caesar, and Augustus icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:42 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
I mentally use the fall of Egypt (646) as the end of the "Roman" Roman Empire.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Actually the Roman Empire ended when the last rightful heirs to the golden laurel were deposed in 1917
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
supermikhail posted:Hello, gentlepeople! Do you reckon there's a way to gain good knowledge of Herod the Great in his last years in a reasonably short amount of time by a layperson? Specifically in such a manner as to allow someone to write a believable short work of fiction? I'd like you to keep in mind that "no" is also an answer, due to the fact that I'm quite a failed writer, and I suspect that this idea is another setup for failure, but wouldn't mind being wrong. I'm aware of Josephus, if it matters, although I reckon, as a layperson, I'm not going to gain much useful information from him. Simon Sebag-Montefiore's Jerusalem has a pretty good summary of his downward spiral.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Don't forget that Clodius kinda got the final laugh as well Cicero is still well known, read, and held up as one of the prototypical politicians, while Clodius is all but forgotten outside of us history nerds. I'd say he had the last laugh in the whole thing, despite his end. Well, except the whole Death of the Republic thing. icantfindaname posted:Rome stopped being the actual capital of even the Western Empire as early as 293 when it was moved to Milan I think 286 is generally the accepted year now, 291 at the latest, when Diocletian and Maximus met there and the Roman Senate had to visit there to get an audience. I'd say there is even a good case to be made that actually Gallienus already moved the capital to Mediolanum decades before, since he moved most of the Imperial administration there when he chose it as headquarter of his military defense strategy of the Western half of the Empire, leaving Rome no more than a ceremonial capitol. Decius fucked around with this message at 14:23 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
can someone explain the why of all this capital movements within Italy? Ravenna, Milan, what advantages do they confer over Rome?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:can someone explain the why of all this capital movements within Italy? Ravenna, Milan, what advantages do they confer over Rome? Rome is rather inconveniently placed to be the center of a Mediterranean empire, since messengers have to travel all the way up the boot of Italy before heading North, West, or East. Rome is relatively distant from the rebellious provinces in the West, the invading barbarians in the North, and the wealthy trading cities in the East. Once the Romans had largely pacified their southern provinces in Africa and Iberia, it simply made more sense for the Roman emperors to be closer to where the action was.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
If you have a premodern (read pre 20th century city) of about 1 mio. people, you run into a series of problems in terms of comfort and sanitation so to speak.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
the JJ posted:I think I've done this before but it's not a matter of when it starts being Byzantine it's the tricky matter of all the other Romes popping up. Then it's no longer 'the' Roman empire but 'a' Roman Empire and we run into the Roman's invading Rome to restore the proper Roman Church instead of that Roman hogwash only then some new guy comes in and declares himself the Roman Emperor but you see he was bless by the proper Roman Pope but then those guys (well, the various dynasties that usurped those guys but w/e close enough) teamed up to kick the Muslims out of Rome only then the Roman's burnt down Rome and set up a new Rome only those Romans kicked them out and now they're the true Romans (never mind that the Romans are still chilling in actual Rome, never mind that by this point they'd totally reordered their society/had it reordered by those outsiders) anyway then those invaders who set up in part of Rome but called themselves Rome sent some cast offs who -whoops- went and conquered Rome and took the title Caeser, but of course none of the other Romes (nor the various Roman dynasts married off to other houses that were happy to pick up the name) really believed that, only well, they were camping out in Rome hard to dispute that. Don't get your tunica in a twist.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I believe Ravenna was more defensible, and Milan is far enough north to get away from the fact that Rome was a sweltering malarial hellhole for four months a year and nobody with money wanted to be anywhere near it. All the way back to Tiberius you see emperors not wanting to be in Rome, but Rome is where the action is so they're stuck with it. Fast forward a couple centuries and Rome is still a large city but otherwise not especially important anymore, so resistance to moving the capital had lessened significantly.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Rome is rather inconveniently placed to be the center of a Mediterranean empire, since messengers have to travel all the way up the boot of Italy before heading North, West, or East. Rome is relatively distant from the rebellious provinces in the West, the invading barbarians in the North, and the wealthy trading cities in the East. Once the Romans had largely pacified their southern provinces in Africa and Iberia, it simply made more sense for the Roman emperors to be closer to where the action was. Not exactly. There's not a meaningful difference in travelling times to Constantinople or Alexandria from Rome or Ravenna. It's Milan (Mediolanum) that's far away, because it's inlands, and it's faster to travel with a ship than on foot. Capital change to Milan was made because it was closer to the northern frontier. And the capital change to Ravenna was made because its swamps made it easier to defend than Milan, and because it was a coastal city. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Not exactly. There's not a meaningful difference in travelling times to Constantinople or Alexandria from Rome or Ravenna. It's Milan (Mediolanum) that's far away, because it's inlands, and it's faster to travel with a ship than on foot. Capital change to Milan was made because it was closer to the northern frontier. And the capital change to Ravenna was made because its swamps made it easier to defend than Milan, and because it was a coastal city. Traveling by ship was quick, but not quick enough for Roman couriers (particularly if the sea wasn't cooperating), which is why the cursus publicus was built. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_publicus http://orbis.stanford.edu/ Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:05 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Traveling by ship was quick, but not quick enough for Roman couriers (particularly if the sea wasn't cooperating), which is why the cursus publicus was built. full circle again
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:full circle again That's why it's called ORBIS! 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
The Ancient History thread maintains a keen awareness of how exactly it started.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
LordSaturn posted:The Ancient History thread maintains a keen awareness of how exactly it started. There were two brothers, Romugoonlus, and Remugoon ...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Personally I think we should split this thread into a eastern thread and western thread and then after both of those are in the archives we can argue which thread was the actual thread and have a bunch of threads each claiming to be the one and only true successor to the original thread.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:can someone explain the why of all this capital movements within Italy? Ravenna, Milan, what advantages do they confer over Rome? Milan is closer to being the center of the travel network of the West than Rome due to being closer to the inland parts of Europe, even if you factor in that a person can't just sail up to it, and much closer to the stuff that requires the Emperor's attention. Ravenna was chosen during the hard decline of the West for a reason; it was not a great or conveniently placed city, just a good defensible location.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Decius posted:Cicero is still well known, read, and held up as one of the prototypical politicians, while Clodius is all but forgotten outside of us history nerds. I'd say he had the last laugh in the whole thing, despite his end. Well, except the whole Death of the Republic thing. Oh I'm a huge Cicero fan, make no mistake, but it's kinda neat to look back at how few of the prominent people of Ancient Rome managed to make it through their lives without ultimately getting hosed over in some way. I mean, who would really be on that list? Hortensius? Arguably Augustus unless you ascribe to the Livia poisoned him theory? Atticus? Agrippa? Edit: Oh and Sulla of course, he basically got everything he ever wanted and died a happy and respected man no matter how history (immediate and modern) remembered him, which is probably more than can be said for Marius. Jerusalem fucked around with this message at 00:26 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Oh I'm a huge Cicero fan, make no mistake, but it's kinda neat to look back at how few of the prominent people of Ancient Rome managed to make it through their lives without ultimately getting hosed over in some way. I mean, who would really be on that list? Hortensius? Arguably Augustus unless you ascribe to the Livia poisoned him theory? Atticus? Agrippa? Yeah, Sulla drank himself to death instead.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Milan is closer to being the center of the travel network of the West than Rome due to being closer to the inland parts of Europe...
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Yeah, Sulla drank himself to death instead. Yeah, but that was his choice - he retired and (according to some) turned his life over to pleasure after a public life of what he considered duty, and as far as I know he wasn't drinking out of bitterness or regret but in wanton abandon because he'd achieved everything he ever wanted or desired and had nothing left to prove/do and just wanted to enjoy his final years. Would that we were all so lucky.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I think Julius Caesar won the ancient world fame game. You can ask practically anyone who Julius Caesar was and at least get "oh, the Roman guy, they stabbed him". But if you ask who Cicero was, you maybe get Latin students, and if you ask who Clodius Pulcher was, well, forget it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:I think Julius Caesar won the ancient world fame game. You can ask practically anyone who Julius Caesar was and at least get "oh, the Roman guy, they stabbed him". But if you ask who Cicero was, you maybe get Latin students, and if you ask who Clodius Pulcher was, well, forget it. Who was Coracinus?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
A pussylicker.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:I think Julius Caesar won the ancient world fame game. You can ask practically anyone who Julius Caesar was and at least get "oh, the Roman guy, they stabbed him". But if you ask who Cicero was, you maybe get Latin students, and if you ask who Clodius Pulcher was, well, forget it. Some of my favorite Romans can be found by looking at the list of consuls who served especially during the early Imperial period. It's full of rich guys who lived full, happy lives holding various offices before disappearing into obscurity. Everything worked out for them, and they are almost not even remembered. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Avidius_Quietus
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:I think Julius Caesar won the ancient world fame game. You can ask practically anyone who Julius Caesar was and at least get "oh, the Roman guy, they stabbed him". But if you ask who Cicero was, you maybe get Latin students, and if you ask who Clodius Pulcher was, well, forget it. Herostratus 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:I think Julius Caesar won the ancient world fame game. You can ask practically anyone who Julius Caesar was and at least get "oh, the Roman guy, they stabbed him". But if you ask who Cicero was, you maybe get Latin students, and if you ask who Clodius Pulcher was, well, forget it. Nearly the most famous: Augustus: 91 million hits Caesar: 78 million hits Cicero: 43 million hits Clodius: 430k hits. Octavian beats his adopted father by quite a margin (it changes if you search Gaius Julius Caesar vs. Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, but since Augustus called himself Gaius Julius Caesar his whole remaining live, not Augustus like we do that seems a bit unfair). Or at least he has more written about him. Although having a month named after your posterity name might skew results a bit too. Decius fucked around with this message at 14:18 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Decius posted:Nearly the most famous: Arguably "Julius Caesar" is enough of a posterity name, though, and he had July to remind us.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:H*********s If ever there were a man deserving of damnatio memoriae, it's him.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Our society today is well rooted in the traditions of Athens
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
homullus posted:Arguably "Julius Caesar" is enough of a posterity name, though, and he had July to remind us. Having the words King, Kaiser, Tzar, (and I don't know the rest) named after you is not to shabby for posterity either.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Having the words King, Kaiser, Tzar, (and I don't know the rest) named after you is not to shabby for posterity either. 'King' doesn't come from Caesar, it's from Proto-Germanic 'kuningaz'.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Decius posted:Nearly the most famous: Alexander the Great has 208 million hits. Someone should make a thing of Julius Caesar as a young man googling Alexander and weeping. e: interestingly, Hitler only has 103 million results, and Abraham Lincoln has 78 million. fantastic in plastic fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 02:28
|
|