|
cheetah7071 posted:I wonder if there legitimately were enough omens and enough ways to game the system that if you wanted a specific answer you could make it happen no matter what that answer was I'm absolutely sure you could do this if you wanted to. There were a lot of ways to take omens.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
sullat posted:How'd that work out for you, chief? Servius Tullius was remembered as one of the best kings, and the only one of mostly undubious historicity to be remembered fondly. He was supposedly born a slave which was a point of embarrassment both for him and for later writers and there was a lot of efforts to change the story to "he was an enslaved prince from a conquered city" or "his mom was a slave, but his dad was Vulcan". This latter was probably an active story when he was king--populist usurpers (e.g. tyrants in the greek sense), which he probably was, very often claimed divine descent during this period to legitimize their hold on power Ynglaur posted:Of course they shouldn't do something on an ill-omened day. What if that was the day Bibulus was correct? As I recall, Caesar just threw his weight around and said "who are you going to believe, a consul, or a man who is both a consul and pontifex maximus?" and conducted his business anyways. This was super illegal and one of the things he feared being prosecuted for if he ever lost his proconsulship (the fear of this prosecution was the proximate cause of his civil war)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Caesar: This was super illegal
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Do we know of anyone making a systematic attempt to catalogue omens, their outcomes, and their accuracy? Like, "that was a bad omen, but things turned out okay, maybe it was actually a good omen" kind of thing? Bibulus busy p-hacking the omens to cancel business? Checking to see if the Syblline Books were cooked? Or was it more common that omens, like history, are written by the victor, and the loser always has bad omens and the victor always has good omens? Edit Creative Augury
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Shang oracle bones. Some of the first history written down was records of divinations, how the rulers responded, and how it turned out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Aren't like 1/3 of surviving documents from the ancient near east omen literature? Records and interpretations, especially astronomical stuff (hence why we can interpret their dating systems).
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I could be wrong about this, but I believe Xenophon (who was a sacrificin' fool) writes about this, taking the angle that divinations show what is *possible* if we live up to our potential. Bad omens, You're fuxked; good omens, you've got a good chance, but no guarantees. Oh very interesting, so it's more like a weather report of your chances essentially, than taken to be a prophecy of this has to come to pass. (Babies with fire crowns excepted)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
I think the question of what people thought augery means is related to that quote Epicurius shared regarding how Romans saw traditional religion. "there was no such thing as paganism, only people doing what they were in the habit of doing." Remember that for many or even most of these practices, there weren't really any coherent scriptures, there was no defined theology, no well defined canon of beliefs, and often no organized system for resolving disagreements. If you would ask someone what they thought was happening when they looked at a goose liver, you'd hear all different kinds of explanations. If you asked the same person this question a second time, they might even give a completely different and seemingly contradictory answer. This inconsistency wouldn't bother most people, who if challenged on this point would just say "oh well there's a little truth in all of them" or even just "I don't really know." cheetah7071 posted:I wonder if there legitimately were enough omens and enough ways to game the system that if you wanted a specific answer you could make it happen no matter what that answer was I think I remember Thucydides complaining about Athenians doing exactly this during the Peloponnesian War. Whatever happened people would always find an omen to explain it after the fact, or even make one up if there wasn't something suitable. As I recall Thucydides didn't really seem to take omens and augery very seriously, in contrast to Xenophon who sometimes seemed to worry obsessively over them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:" or "his mom was a slave, but his dad was Vulcan". Today I learned Spock was King of Rome. Regarding Biblius and Caesar and the omens, theres a reader called "Religion in Ancient Rome", cowritten by Mary Beard, that looks at the question. It points out both that , on its face, Biblius's actions were illegal, because surgery, to be legal, had to take place in public. On the other hand, that's complicated because Biblius was under constant threat of death from Caesar and Clodius if he left his house, and, if Cocero is to be believed (and its Cicero, so who knows if he is), the college of augurs had legitimized his actions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Servius Tullius was remembered as one of the best kings, and the only one of mostly undubious historicity to be remembered fondly. He was supposedly born a slave which was a point of embarrassment both for him and for later writers and there was a lot of efforts to change the story to "he was an enslaved prince from a conquered city" or "his mom was a slave, but his dad was Vulcan". This latter was probably an active story when he was king--populist usurpers (e.g. tyrants in the greek sense), which he probably was, very often claimed divine descent during this period to legitimize their hold on power I’d say his opponents unreasonable insistence on prosecuting for being a winner was the proximate cause
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Today I learned Spock was King of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I’d say his opponents unreasonable insistence on prosecuting for being a winner was the proximate cause it's both i was in that camp for a long time because cato et al are really an unlikeable bunch who are extremely unreasonable over and over again in every situation. when you see caesar the way he saw himself - a man on a narrative arc, highly competent and a political outsider, a man of the people - what's with all the fuss about a little unauthorized conquest, really? on the other hand, you've got a guy with the biggest army in the republic bearing down on you after years of hearing about his brutal conquest of the gauls. were cato and the other optimates really so unreasonable that they were still holding grudges over caesar acting as consul on ill-omened days even in the face of civil war? yes but also caesar committed a huge slate of war crimes, and these formed a large part of what they wanted to prosecute him for. is it actually unreasonable to refuse to let a criminal general march to the capital? even if the best possible solution for the health of the republic (in hindsight) probably would have been caesar taking power in a bloodless coup after coming home, as was basically inevitable if he wasn't prosecuted? Jazerus fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
really, none of the major players in the leadup to the civil war come off looking like sane, reasonable people
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Within Rome, both Caesar and his opponents were scummy rich politicians, and Caesar comes out a fair bit ahead from at least trying for popular appeal while the Senate was busy being focused on protecting their individual interests. Outside of Rome, he's a monster waging battles far and wide with no justification, burning down and slaughtering villages, and asserting supremacy over his allies. So it wasn't much of a surprise when he came back with an army to consolidate his position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
The optimates were a bunch of rich assholes who were open about being rich assholes. The populares were (largely at least) rich assholes who tried to use the support of the poor to get a leg up over the other rich assholes. At least that's my read of the situation. That said, progress that comes because of an argument between rich idiots is still progress and Caesar did seem to fight for some definitely good causes during his consulship
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
Genghis Khan: Emperor of All Men posted:One day in the pavilion at Karakorum he [Genghis Kahn] asked an officer of the Mongol guard what, in all the world, could bring the greatest happiness. Did not realize Conan got this from a history book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Did not realize Conan got this from a history book. Conan cares not for such things as sourcing his quotes!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it's both This is an excellent response I’m not equipped to handle at the moment Mea culpa
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Within Rome, both Caesar and his opponents were scummy rich politicians, and Caesar comes out a fair bit ahead from at least trying for popular appeal while the Senate was busy being focused on protecting their individual interests. I don't know that that's necessarily true. Almost everything Caesar did politically was to protest his individual interest. And Pompey, for instance, relied a lot on popular appeal, as did Titus Annius Milo. And even some of those politicians who didn't focus on popular appeal, like, say, Cato, were famous for not putting their personal interests ahead of the common good. Cato, for instance, as governor of Cyprus, lost a bunch of money because he didn't take bribes or embezzle government funds, and turned down proposals in both Cyprus and Rome to grant him honors, saying that a person shouldn't be rewarded because they did their job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
RE: augury, I always liked this story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Drepana Wikipedia posted:Meanwhile, on the flagship, some sources state that Pulcher, as the senior magistrate in command, took the auspices before battle, according to Roman religious requirements. The prescribed method was observing the feeding behaviour of the sacred chickens, on board for that purpose. If the chickens accepted the offered grain, then the Roman gods would be favourable to the battle. However, on that particular morning of 249 BC, the chickens refused to eat – a horrific omen. Confronted with the unexpected and having to deal with the superstitious and now terrified crews, Pulcher quickly devised an alternative interpretation. He threw the sacred chickens overboard, saying, "If they won't eat, let them drink!" (Latin "Bibant, quoniam esse nolunt!).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
sullat posted:Conan cares not for such things as sourcing his quotes! Since the Hyborian age was about 10,000 BC we have to accept that it was Genghis Khan quoting Conan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
It blows my mind that these people 2,000 years ago were trying to prosecute each other on war crimes of other societies. That seems to stop being a concern for a long time after.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
double
Animal fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
triple post
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Animal posted:It blows my mind that these people 2,000 years ago were trying to prosecute each other on war crimes of other societies. That seems to stop being a concern for a long time after. Nobody in Rome gave a poo poo that Caesar killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million. Those were his positive points to them The issue is that he declared war on his own prerogative without waiting for the government in Italy to do it
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
oh 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Trying to prosecute other people for not engaging in warfare as you thought was proper is a long tradition in human civilization, and as you might imagine it was about as effective in the past as it is now. If you were standing over a defeated people, you got to punish them for war crimes. If you were the Pope or the Emperor far away and without any real power, you could write them nasty letters and promise to get them in the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:It points out both that , on its face, Biblius's actions were illegal, because surgery, to be legal, had to take place in public. This is a wonderful bit of autocorrect that gives me some terrific mental images.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:This is a wonderful bit of autocorrect that gives me some terrific mental images. dissections were public in a bunch of early modern german citystates, as entertainment
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:This is a wonderful bit of autocorrect that gives me some terrific mental images. drat my phone posting!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Nobody in Rome gave a poo poo that Caesar killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million. Those were his positive points to them At that point the gauls were the only ones to have sacked Rome. Cesar killing gauls was like Obama killing Osama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
If Osama Bin Laden had blown up some buildings in 1650s New Amsterdam and took refuge in the Mughal empire, sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:At that point the gauls were the only ones to have sacked Rome. Cesar killing gauls was like Obama killing Osama. I think you mean the Celts. The tribes that sacked Rome had nothing to do with the Gauls. Or only in a very indirect manner, as Celts were living all over Europe at the time. SlothfulCobra posted:If Osama Bin Laden had blown up some buildings in 1650s New Amsterdam and took refuge in the Mughal empire, sure. Better then the examples I came up with, so let's go with this. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I think you mean the Celts. The tribes that sacked Rome had nothing to do with the Gauls. Or only in a very indirect manner, as Celts were living all over Europe at the time. So exactly like Iraq
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I think you mean the Celts. The tribes that sacked Rome had nothing to do with the Gauls. Or only in a very indirect manner, as Celts were living all over Europe at the time. The Romans called them Gauls in their histories and we know so little about them other than that so I'd be interested to hear where the notion they were non-Gallic Celts came from
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
The senones were from what the romans called cisalpine Gaul and came over the Alps before that at some point. That doesn't mean they had much to do with the folks living in the Loire valley 300 years later but then, did the belgae care about the helvetii?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
The Romans called basically any Celtic people Gauls and were absolutely still pissed off at them for sacking Rome. I don't know of a source stating it but I am sure this was part of Caesar's calculation that he could get away with waging illegal war, he was attacking the great bogeymen of the Roman imagination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:If Osama Bin Laden had blown up some buildings in 1650s New Amsterdam and took refuge in the Mughal empire, sure. Ehhhh a better example might be eg the traditional rivalry between England and France, or Scotland and England. Y'all are a babby country, you'll understand when you've grown up 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
We have McDonalds locations older than the government of France.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The Romans called them Gauls in their histories and we know so little about them other than that so I'd be interested to hear where the notion they were non-Gallic Celts came from That's a bit hard for me to answer, as all books on the matter I've read were in German and called the people sacking Rome "Celts". So my honest answer would need to be "the notion came from everyone"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 20:57
|
|