|
down on their luck aristocrats: the cause of, and solution to, all of society's problems.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Benagain posted:down on their luck aristocrats: the cause of, and solution to, all of society's problems. Now, now. You can also get impressively bad results out of down on their luck bourgeoisie
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Founding a stable society with institutions that last beyond your death/deposition is more heroic imo. Augustus>Caeser
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:From a modern perspective, he was a down-on-his-luck aristocrat who got his wealth and glory back by doing a genocide and then launched a brutal civil war That's one perspective. The other perspective is that Vercingetorix was born into the elite nobility and his father was killed by the Celts for attempting to become king of all the Gauls. But he had the same dreams of reclaiming the Arverni's lost heritage of being the most powerful tribe. His uncle forbade him from risking all out war with Rome due to the risk it would bring, and preferred seeking a diplomatic alliance with them. But war was the best opportunity for becoming king so Vercingetorix ignored him, raised an army, killed his uncle, and took control of the city. He "united the Gauls" by brutally killing or enslaving anyone who resisted. He then forced all the tribes to tribute him family-members as hostages to maintain their loyalty. After all this heroic and freedom fighting stuff, he started a scorched earth campaign against Rome, and kept ambushing civilians and small armies but then getting walloped by big legions. The height of his hubris was probably in camping right outside the city where all the refugees had fled to, conducting a bunch of raids, and then leaving the city to its fate when the Romans eventually sent in a legion to stomp them. In the end, his nation-building came to nothing, and the Gauls paid the price for his attempt at a crown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
Of course, Caesar is still the villain of that story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Of course, Caesar is still the villain of that story. A story that Caesar wrote! That’s all straight out of Gallic Wars. The historical character Vercingetorix is a wicker man, the enemy Caesar thought, and/or wanted others to think, he had. there is no source more than politely sympathetic to Vercingetorix’s actual perspective (whatever that was).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
zoux posted:From our modern perspective, and ignoring Shakespeare, would you say Caesar was a hero or villain? Evidence weighs towards overall good . So hero in your dichotomy If you ignore the Gallic wars
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Caesar was on that sigma grindset.  Sigma is a decadent Greek letter and no self respecting Roman would identify with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
If you are looking for pure heroes in ancient warfare, you aren't going to find any. Ancient warfare was extremely brutal, and while Caesar's campaigns were really nasty, they were also far from unique. Attempting to identify "good guys" versus "bad guys" in these kinds of ancient wars is a fool's errand. By modern standards of morality, every leader in involved in ancient warfare all deeply, deeply immoral. Caesar gets disproportionate amount of a lot of attention because of his fame, and so moral questions get raised about him more often than most, but when it comes to his morality, he's not a unique figure. Ancient war leaders were uniformly awful people by any modern standard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
Even modern war leaders only come through looking any good due to having enemies that it's really easy to be made to look good in comparison to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Even modern war leaders only come through looking any good due to having enemies that it's really easy to be made to look good in comparison to. Eisenhower seems pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 08:11
|
|
|
But weren't Caesar's actions in Gaul denounced in the senate even at the time? So people even then were being all 'that poo poo ain't right'. Altho I don't remember how much of the outrage was about him just stepping outside of his jurisdiction vs genuine outrage about atrocities. But then again if we are being all morally relativistic here, then that doesn't matter because it still shows that there were people then who thought Caesar was being morally bad and not a hero... But then again that outrage could have been more politicking and not genuine moral denouncement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 08:23
|
|
|
It's really hard to say. We know there were differing opinions on this sort of thing, Tacitus is famous for having some rather cynical takes on the whole project of Roman imperialism and he certainly wasn't the only one. But in Caesar's particular case there's so much other political stuff going on that I don't know that you can disentangle all the motivations with what material survives. I am sure at least some of the people who objected to his actions genuinely thought they were morally repugnant. Which ones? Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 08:32
|
|
|
Plutarch says that some guy called Tanusius says that Cato denounced Caesar during his proconsulship for the specific act of killing Germans during a truce.Life of Caesar 22 posted:On returning to his forces in Gaul, Caesar found a considerable war in the country, since two great German nations had just crossed the Rhine to possess the land, one called the Usipes, the other the Tenteritae. Concerning the battle which was fought with them Caesar says in his "Commentaries" that the Barbarians, while treating with him under a truce, attacked on their march and there routed his five thousand cavalry with their eight hundred, since his men were taken off their guard; that they then sent other envoys to him who tried to deceive him again, but he held them fast and led his army against the Barbarians, considering that good faith towards such faithless breakers of truces was folly. But Tanusius says that when the senate voted sacrifices of rejoicing over the victory, Cato pronounced the opinion that they ought to deliver up Caesar to the Barbarians, thus purging away the violation of the truce in behalf of the city, and turning the curse therefor on the guilty man. Of those who had crossed the Rhine into Gaul four hundred thousand were cut to pieces, and the few who succeeded in making their way back were received by the Sugambri, a German nation. Life of Cato 51 posted:After Caesar had fallen upon warlike nations and at great hazards conquered them, and when it was believed that he had attacked the Germans even during a truce and slain three hundred thousand of them, there was a general demand at Rome that the people should offer sacrifices of good tidings, but Cato urged them to surrender Caesar to those whom he had wronged, and not to turn upon themselves, or allow to fall upon their city, the pollution of his crime. "However," said he, "let us also sacrifice to the gods, because they do not turn the punishment for the general's folly and madness upon his soldiers, but spare the city." After this, Caesar wrote a letter and sent it to the senate; and when it was read, with its abundant insults and denunciations of Cato, Cato rose to his feet and showed, not in anger or contentiousness, but as if from calculation and due preparation, that the accusations against him bore the marks of abuse and scoffing, and were childishness and vulgarity on Caesar's part. Then, assailing Caesar's plans from the outset and revealing clearly all his purpose, as if he were his fellow conspirator and partner and not his enemy, he declared that it was not the sons of Germans or Celts whom they must fear, but Caesar himself, if they were in their right minds, and so moved and incited his hearers that the friends of Caesar were sorry that by having the letter read in the senate they had given Cato an opportunity for just arguments and true denunciations. However, nothing was done, but it was merely said that it was well to give Caesar a successor. This was political grandstanding against the tide of opinion. At other times in the war Caesar was voted long periods of public thanksgiving for his destruction and subjugation of Gallic peoples. Nobody, not even Cato, can have seriously expected that anyone was going to surrender Caesar to the Germans. Note also that Cato’s moral concern was not for the killing as such, but for the breach of truce. 300,000 dead Germans are just 300,000 dead Germans, but bad faith concerns Rome and the gods. As Plutarch says, Caesar also discusses the event in question (Gallic Wars 4.11-15). I’m not gonna quote it all because it’s long passage. Naturally Caesar blames it all on the barbarians, who he says asked for the truce first and then conveniently broke it first by a skirmish in which 74 cavalry and the gallant and distinguished Gallic ally Piso were killed, boo-hoo. This soured Caesar on the idea of a truce since those darn barbarians don’t keep ‘em anyway, so when the German leaders showed up trying to stabilize the situation he just took them prisoner and massacred their leaderless people at the junction of the Meuse and the Rhine, killing 430,000 without taking any casualties themselves. Caesar was able to say things like this because he knew Roman readers were not, in the main, going to shed any tears over any number of dead Germans however implausible. As long as you don’t think he broke faith to do it, he’s perfectly gratified to make you think he killed that many barbarians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 12:58
|
|
|
Edit: oops
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 13:38
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:
Hadrian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
it is somewhat hard to believe that cato had genuine moral objections to caesar's war crimes considering the depths of his personal hatred of caesar (because caesar had been carrying on an affair with cato's sister for years) but who knows maybe he did. like grand fromage said, it's essentially impossible to disentangle which of caesar's enemies were personal and which ones objected to his conduct on behalf of the roman state
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
I can buy that Cato’s objection to the breach of faith was genuine, albeit it reinforced a point of view he already held anyway. Caesar’s account of the massacre is very obviously self-justifying and defensive and suggests he had already caught heat for it from somebody and expected to catch more. You’re not supposed to break truces (as Caesar well knows, given his emphasis on how the Germans did it first) and on a strict sense, you’re probably also not supposed to manipulate the enemy into breaking truce by sending forward a cavalry group to go “lol im not touching u bro XD”. Obviously there was long personal and political history between the two and only Cato would have been the first to speak up against a Caesarian victory like that—but you can at least see the point of form he was complaining about. What I don’t believe is that Cato (or any of the Roman political elite) would have considered Caesar killing hundreds of thousands of Germans after a battle to be a war crime in principle. In Roman military-political understanding, slaughter and slaving are perfectly normal things to do after a battle with barbarians. The issue is not that, it’s that the battle was not joined in a religiously appropriate manner, something which indicates what Cato had been telling everyone all along, that Caesar is a menace who will ruin Rome by misusing the military power he is given.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
skasion posted:I can buy that Cato’s objection to the breach of faith was genuine, albeit it reinforced a point of view he already held anyway. Caesar’s account of the massacre is very obviously self-justifying and defensive and suggests he had already caught heat for it from somebody and expected to catch more. You’re not supposed to break truces (as Caesar well knows, given his emphasis on how the Germans did it first) and on a strict sense, you’re probably also not supposed to manipulate the enemy into breaking truce by sending forward a cavalry group to go “lol im not touching u bro XD”. Yeah, I think this is the interpretation that makes the most sense. Romans very much did take the faith of Rome seriously, especially in the Republican era, and you can find a lot of examples of both statements and actions reflecting that fact in Roman sources. So much so that it's a trope brought up in Diodorus Siculus that Roman diplomats are constantly talking about the Faith of Rome, and their promises to uphold it. Trying to read into Cato's complaint about Caesar allegedly breaking the Faith of Rome (a specific thing that mattered greatly to Romans) a broader condemnation of mass violence and enslavement is imposing something that isn't there. Those are things that Romans celebrated! The highest honor a Roman man in the Republic could achieve was winning a Triumph for himself, where he would have the opportunity to parade war prisoners he had enslaved through the streets of Rome in chains. That's not just a Caesar thing, that's something that Romans did hundreds of times throughout their history. Cato himself had served in the Roman army and was an aristocratic slave owner, he was a part of this system that exalted military conquest and mass enslavement via said conquests. There is absolutely no evidence to support Cato objecting to Caesar's mass violence and enslavement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
So, when they aren't fighting, what did the Legions do? If you weren't on campaign, or marching to a new one, did the average legionary get to visit home, if close enough? Did they just have to sit around in camp doing busywork and drilling? From what I've read and recall (from this thread), they were mobile forces until the later empire, but you can't just have dudes marching and drilling for their entire careers, can you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:So, when they aren't fighting, what did the Legions do? If you weren't on campaign, or marching to a new one, did the average legionary get to visit home, if close enough? Did they just have to sit around in camp doing busywork and drilling? From what I've read and recall (from this thread), they were mobile forces until the later empire, but you can't just have dudes marching and drilling for their entire careers, can you? Building roads, FWIU
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
Cato was politically and personally opposed to Caesar. Politicians never crank the outrage up to 11 to try to damage an opponent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
There's definitely a lot of other political things that went into the opinions of other Romans on Caesar's conquests (and of course, generally most Romans in most circumstances are happy to reap the rewards and riches of conquest), but I also think that there were a lot of Roman norms about war that Caesar flagrantly violated, so even without the political turmoil that he was already mixed up in or the leadup to the civil war, he would've gotten some poo poo for what he was doing. Romans weren't very fond of the idea of unprovoked wars of aggression, which Caesar had basically no excuse to start fighting, and then when he did start fighting he kept going and going far past any of the peoples who even had any real dealings with Rome, all the way across the English Channel. And while Caesar was out fighting, one of the two provinces he was proconsul of (doubling up provinces was itself a massive violation of Roman political norms) was left undefended because Caesar had taken its legions with him for his own private self-aggrandizement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Well Played Mauer posted:Cato was politically and personally opposed to Caesar. Politicians never crank the outrage up to 11 to try to damage an opponent. "Pompey breaking truces I could accept and justify, but this loving guy? This is where I draw the line"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:So, when they aren't fighting, what did the Legions do? If you weren't on campaign, or marching to a new one, did the average legionary get to visit home, if close enough? Did they just have to sit around in camp doing busywork and drilling? From what I've read and recall (from this thread), they were mobile forces until the later empire, but you can't just have dudes marching and drilling for their entire careers, can you? Other than the obvious stuff like manning border forts and countryside policing duties (especially later when the borders are set) the legions were frequently used as construction workers. And like a modern military they did spend a whole lot of time marching and drilling. Military life being mostly repetitive and boring punctuated with occasional terror applies to legionaries as much as it does to guys today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:So, when they aren't fighting, what did the Legions do? If you weren't on campaign, or marching to a new one, did the average legionary get to visit home, if close enough? Did they just have to sit around in camp doing busywork and drilling? From what I've read and recall (from this thread), they were mobile forces until the later empire, but you can't just have dudes marching and drilling for their entire careers, can you? It depends a lot on what period you're talking about. For much of the legion's existence they could be marching and drilling most of the time, because the guys are only in for a year (nominally). It's only in the Punic Wars that you start to see really long enlistments for overseas campaigns outside Italy, but even then 10 yards is more typical, and there is a shitload of campaigning to do in that period. The enlistment only gets raised to 25 years under Augustus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 18:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
sleepy.eyes posted:So, when they aren't fighting, what did the Legions do? If you weren't on campaign, or marching to a new one, did the average legionary get to visit home, if close enough? Did they just have to sit around in camp doing busywork and drilling? From what I've read and recall (from this thread), they were mobile forces until the later empire, but you can't just have dudes marching and drilling for their entire careers, can you? I've been slowly working through Mary Beard's SPQR and she has a little bit on this -- the vindolanda tablets imply only like 50% of the legionaries were actually at their posts. Some were way off in London or elsewhere acting as bodyguards, some were sick, and the vast majority were iirc resting at a nearby camp rather than on duty. Also mentions that there's plenty of evidence for families at the bases, even if it's technically prohibited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 07:05
|
|
|
there was no hard and fast rule for roman armies re: families and camp followers as far as i know. if the general wanted to march very fast he'd tell all of those folks to gently caress off but a wall garrison like vindolanda benefited more than not from forming a semi-stable community around itself basically the romans considered willingness to shed the non-combatants to be a mark of a good general but the dudes at hadrian's wall were not expected to deal with serious emergencies that would require that
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 07:20
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Also mentions that there's plenty of evidence for families at the bases, even if it's technically prohibited. I'm pretty sure this never works for long in practice but especially not for garrisons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm pretty sure this never works for long in practice but especially not for garrisons. Sacred band, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 06:04
|
|
|
Thebes Nuts
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 14:01
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Thebes Nuts The Sacred Band of Lygma
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 14:04
|
|
|
skasion posted:The Sacred Band of Lygma redundant
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:I don’t remember ever seeing "nunquam". The verb "to forget" is one of those weird "deponent" ones that are always in the passive voice. The infinitive is "oblivisci", "obliviscere" is imperative. So it is "obliviscere", then. ... well that kinda sucks for me. The thing I wanted to get this phrase printed on has a character limit, and that extra 'e' at the end of "obliviscere" would put it just over the limit. Maybe I should leave it as "obliviscar" or some other form after all. For reference, here's what the Google Translate app shows when I type in different versions of "never forget". "Numquam obliviscere", the form you recommend.  "Numquam" with the other spellings for "obliviscere".   "Nunquam (with two 'n's) obliviscere".  Two 'n's "Nunquam" with the other spellings for "obliviscere".   And here's the form Wikipedia shows. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
I. M. Gei posted:So it is "obliviscere", then. I think there's also a shorter form, "oblisci"; I can't find a lot of references, but it seems to be a contraction or archaic form with the same meaning. So you could say "numquam obliscere".
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:I think there's also a shorter form, "oblisci"; I can't find a lot of references, but it seems to be a contraction or archaic form with the same meaning. So you could say "numquam obliscere". That would put me just within the limit, so that could work. Unless there's another way to use fewer characters or abbreviate "a.d. xiii Kal. Apr. [year in Roman numerals] A.D." that I'm not aware of. How do you say "Vernal Equinox" in classical Roman Latin? I kinda like the abbreviated date better cuz it'd be harder for someone else to put the pieces together on what it means unless they know Latin, and this is supposed to be a kind of sub rosa personal inspirational quote just for me to get, but maybe saying "Vernal Equinox" instead of "March 20th" would be fewer characters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 22:32
|
|
|
It’s not a literal translation but iirc the romans called the spring equinox and its festival Quinquatrus. Someone correct me if I’m wrong (I know someone here can)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
The Google Translate app says "aequinoctium Vernale" and "aequinoctium vernum" both work. It shows the former as "Vernal Equinox" and the latter as "Spring Equinox". Personally I like the Vernale one better but I don't know how accurate it is. EDIT: Okay apparently that LatinCactus site shows both "numquam" AND "nunquam" as potentially valid ways to say "never", although it shows the two 'n's version in parentheses next to the other one and now my brain hurts.  https://latin.cactus2000.de/praepos/adverb_en.php?f=t https://latin.cactus2000.de/praepos/showadv_en.php?n=numquam 
I. M. Gei fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
On my way to the gym tonight, I remembered a family friend of ours is a Latin teacher (not sure whether retired or still teaching) and so I showed him the phrase to get his thoughts on it. He said "Nolite oblivisci" might be a more correct translation for "Never forget" than "Numquam obliviscere", since "Nolite" is a plural imperative roughly meaning "Don't" and he's never seen "numquam" or any spelling thereof used in an imperative or command-like statement. He also told me I could ditch the periods in the date abbreviations because ancient Roman writings typically didn't use punctuation (which, some of the stuff I found on Google says the opposite so I'm not real sure who to believe on that part). So according to him, the full translation should be "Nolite oblivisci a.d. xiii Kal. Apr. [year number] A.D.", possibly without the periods. What are y'all's thoughts on this? I. M. Gei fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
The correct answer is "this is an idiomatic phrase from the 21st century, it is not translatable into classical Latin" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 10:46
|
|
