|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:Was Christianity really popular as an underground movement before Constantine the Great or is this partly a fabrication of Christian writings from the Middle Ages? When Constantine comes to power and starts his whole Christian period, he doesn't seem to really go full into being a "Christian emperor." It doesn't seem like at that time they were a large enough force to offer legitimacy to a leader. Even before his ascension, Christians seemed like a small enough group to persecute and not worry about the ramifications. If they were the force some sources make them out to be, wouldn't the Emperors have made more deals with them? (I don't want to upset you OP but since you mentioned not being too familiar with anything past AD200, I hope you won't mind if I have a go at answering this.) It was popular well before Constantine, at least enough to bear mention in historical writings down to the first century. But at the same time, there were plenty of other popular cults and sects in the Roman Empire and Christianity was just one of them. The reason the Romans persecuted the Christians so much was because their whole belief system goes against Roman religion and the concept of the emperor. There must have been enough of them to warrant such persecution as we saw in the reigns of virtually every emperor up to Constantine. We know that Constantine's co-ruler, Maxentius, actually ended the persecution of the Christians before Constantine did. And you're right about Constantine not going full into being a 'Christian emperor.' I suppose it's often forgotten that he had a brief flirtation with Apollo in AD310. I don't believe that Constantine became a Christian until about the middle of his reign either - so 425-26ish. His religious policy towards both 'pagans' and Christians is fairly ambiguous before this period. Obviously a lot of the information is from Christian sources (with the exception of Zosimus, I believe), but there is the odd archaeological artefact that tends to be slightly less ambigious as to Constantine's policy. :P I suppose Maxentius and Constantine were the first to make a deal with the Christians, if you want to call it that. Goodness knows Diocletian's persecution didn't do much to stop them. Then there's the question of Julian. This is a guy who was emperor twenty years after Constantine's death and tried to bring the Empire back to the old religion. And he just couldn't. I'm reminded of a story when he went to Antioch to try and revive paganism there and instead he was greeted by a huge Christian population. I'm not sure that Constantine's reforms encouraged conversion to Christianity so much as his tolerance revealed just how many there were in the first place. Pagans were still a majority of course, but I don't recall there being any revolts by them against Christian emperors. They even seemed fairly apathetic to Julian's reforms. I hope my musings weren't too unclear. I realised I'm a little rusty on this specific period as I haven't studied it for a bit over a year. Octy fucked around with this message at 13:32 on May 24, 2012 |
#
¿
May 24, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:It seems like Rome viewed Christianity as a threat not so much for the basic beliefs but that Christianity seemed intent on forming a competing bureaucracy with its eventual hierarchy built from the ground up. Ha yes, I've just dug up an essay I wrote on the subject which more or less argued this. As much as I like reading about Julio-Claudian politics or the Civil Wars, there's just a whole other dimension to the Late Antiquity that is absolutely fascinating. It ought to be taught more.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I'd love if someone made a writeup about it because my knowledge about Rome ends with Augustus' death... Ooo, we can't have that. Go out and buy a copy of Tacitus' Annals. I'm not a huge fan but he's a good start, even though he only goes up to Nero and a few books are missing. If you want someone more readable and entertaining, Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars is fun as he finishes at the end of the first century. But as a very quick, general and not very well written write-up to hopefully pique your interest: AD14 begins with Augustus' death. His stepson Tiberius comes to power. This guy is one of the least favourite of the ancient historians. He ends his days in a slightly emo depression on the island of Capri, never once visiting Rome. Our next emperor is Caligula, star of that exceptionally graphic film with Malcolm McDowell. His reign started off well, although he went a bit mad about six months in, started executing people and what not. A popular joke around that time was when Caligula a consul if he had slept with his sister. The consul, who was extremely quick-witted, replied, 'Not yet.' Caligula was eventually assassinated and the Praetorian Guard proclaimed his uncle, Cl-cl-Claudius emperor. Claudius was a decent enough emperor, despite his stutter and all the other horrible things wrong with him. He successfully launched an invasion of Britain and had, I think, four wives. In fact, his fourth wife, was actually his niece Agrippina the Younger. He had to force the senate to change the law so he could marry her, which goes to show that the Romans were pretty sensible before then. She brought a bit of baggage with her, namely in the form of her son Nero. Nero was older than Claudius' own son Britannicus. Claudius died, possibly poisoned by his wife, in AD54. So because Nero was older, he became emperor (and possibly for another reason I can't remember). This is the guy who supposedly slept with his mother and later had her killed after a series of overly complicated attempts. Nero is also popularly known for having 'fiddled while Rome burnt' (it was a lyre, I believe.) You're welcome to form your own views on whether or not he actually had anything to do with it. His death in AD68-69 (?) began the Year of the Four Emperors. The first emperor was Galba who was a hard, authoritarian absolute bastard. He was quickly superseded by one of his followers, Otho. Otho ruled for 95 days and I believe, is the only emperor to have worn a toupee. In turn, Otho was defeated by another general Vitellius. At this time, a guy by the name of Vespasian was hanging around in the East at the head of a huge army but he wasn't doing anything. Eventually he invades Italy and begins the new Flavian dynasty. I don't know a huge amount about Vespasian but his first son Titus ruled for about two years. He happened to be emperor during the eruption of Vesuvius (yeah, that eruption) which I think was followed by an epidemic and then Rome burnt down again and the whole thing must have been awful for him. Then he died and his younger brother Domitian succeeded. At this point I'm afraid I actually have to go university. Feel free to correct anything and fill the rest in. Octy fucked around with this message at 00:51 on May 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:
I'm not sure if you mean sole emperor of the western part of the empire or the whole empire. Anyway, just in case anyone else is confused, Constantine still had his co-emperor Licinius kicking around in the east. Constantine doesn't actually become sole emperor of the whole empire until AD324. quote:Tacitus and Plutarch are good. I hate most of the translations though, there's a tradition of translating Latin into overblown Victorian English and I find it very annoying to read. I wish someone would do translations into a more readable, modern English. Michael Grant does a good translation of Tacitus. I mean I like it mostly for this line which always cracks me up: 'She several times appeared before her inebriated son all decked out and ready for incest.' Yes, I am a grown-up, but drat it, it's good.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
What happened to the senatorial families? I think most of the original patrician class was gone by the end of the first century AD, but were there any notable descendants of other old families still around in AD400-500? Or had their bloodlines simply merged with the Germans and everyone else to the point where we can't really speak of them as being a real descendant of a family that was around during the time of Trajan or whoever?
Octy fucked around with this message at 08:51 on May 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Radio Talmudist posted:How did Romans see themselves? Oh yes, as much as any advanced civilisation does, I guess. I think they even saw the Greeks as inferiors, despite all the culture, religion and learning they took from them. To add to your question, I'd be interested in how the Romans saw themselves in the later empire, before Christianity. When you've got things like the Third Century Crisis, it can't be that easy to see yourselves as 'everlasting.'
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 13:07
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:There are attempts to trace the royal families of Europe back to a senatorial family that popped up around the 300s. This is called descent from antiquity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_antiquity) and has thus far proven to be elusive. Ah, this is mainly what I was thinking of. It's still absolutely fascinating, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 13:57
|
|
.
|
icantfindaname posted:How likely was it for the Republic to have been reestablished after the death of Augustus? I understand there was republican sentiment, but was the memory of the civil wars still too bitter? Not very. Anyone who could actually remember the Republic before the Civil Wars (let alone afterwards) in AD14 would have been either very old or dead. There were various senators over the next few decades who are known to have wanted to restore the Republic, but obviously nothing ever came of it. They tended to be brushed to the side whenever succession issues came up. Once you give people a taste of institutionalised total power, what are the chances people will want to change the system? Octy fucked around with this message at 05:57 on May 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:Makes sense. Dicks are also used in Buddhist culture a lot as talismans for prosperity and virility. The crossroads thing is very Feng Shui. I wonder if different cultures adopted this superstition against crossroads because it was a place of uncertainty and banditry. I suppose a lot of people may have mysteriously disappeared at junctures back in ancient times. Yes, but it still doesn't explain why modern teenage boys like to draw dicks over everything.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:Can those who know more than me say something about education on the Latin-speaking side of the Empire? I know of it only through the rather entertaining portrait that Augustine gives in the Confessions, but I'm always left wondering when reading ancient texts who was actually reading these things. I assume it's the tiniest of fragments of the overall population that can read, say, Cicero or Augustine, yes? Pretty much. I think a lot of these works were often written in Greek rather than Latin too, at least up until towards the end of the Republican period. The elite would have learned to read, write and speak in both. I believe it was Cato the Elder who was the first to write a history in Latin.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Mediochre posted:The Praetorian guards seemed totally badass and awesome to have as your protectors, unless of course they decided to kill you. Well, the Praetorian Guard was originally a small bodyguard for a general. With Augustus they grew into a large, permanent force that protected the emperor. Until Augustus' bloodline died out (as well as his adopted line), the Guard were ludicrously loyal to anyone who was remotely related to the guy, so there wasn't much worry there. Afterwards, it was simply a matter of paying them enough and putting trustworthy people, usually close family members, as the Praetorian Prefects. The Prefects were always the weak links and the first guys you'd approach if you were planning a conspiracy. Funnily enough, I don't think the Praetorian Guard ever tried to establish itself as a military dictatorship. They were just content to back a senator or army general as emperor. Amused to Death posted:Well there was Hero of Alexandria And if you've got an endless supply of slaves for all your labour needs, would it ever occur to you that steam power might be applied to something other than opening doors (as an amusement)?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 04:10
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:How big was the population of Rome/the empire? At the height of the empire? Sixty millionish. There might be some who place it higher, though. As for Rome itself, it was about a million. Geographically it wasn't a big city either so unless you were rich you were living at close quarters with hundreds of thousands of other people. Perfect setting for disease to spread.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
While I think of it, do we have any idea just how many people died during say, the Great Fire of Rome? I don't recall any of the sources mentioning it nor would I expect them to, but the number must have been fairly high. Without Crassus' elite 'firefighting' force, it's a wonder they managed to put it out.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
I know. It's a great way to make money if you can live with yourself.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 10:07
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Wait, what? I must not be as educated as I thought I was about Rome, I thought the position of emperor just passed down from father to son? Hold on a second, you're making it sound like Rome had actually returned to the monarchy! If only it were so easy. The problem was that everyone, senate and emperor, lived and worked under the pretence that both were equal and the emperor position was just a temporary thing. Primus inter pares - first among equals was the idea. Like Hitler, Augustus drew state powers to himself through a 'democratic' vote of the senate when he first started out, with the idea that you needed someone in charge to fix all the problems of the state right after the Civil Wars. These powers could be renewed through another vote of the senate, which they did multiple times, through fear of Augustus who had the backing of the army. So as you can see it was all done good and proper during the life of Augustus. Augustus' problem was that he had no biological son, which was how he wanted to solve the problem of succession. He'd already been married and produced a daughter but then he married Livia and she brought her own son from a previous marriage with her: Tiberius. Augustus had also adopted Agrippa's kids but two mysteriously died in AD4 and the third in AD14. When Augustus died, it seemed set for Tiberius to become emperor, as he was also married to Augustus' daughter Julia. The traditional way of doing that is to go the senate and go through a charade of declining and eventually accepting the senate's vote of the same powers. So Tiberius went through this charade, perhaps to a greater length than most, and thus he had the senate on side. Tiberius was also an experienced military general so he could count on the support of the army. Tiberius had a son Drusus (?) and an adoptive son Germanicus. Germanicus was the poster-boy for the empire but he died in the east in AD19 while Drusus followed him in AD23. Tiberius is quite alive at this point, but he has no sons. So he chooses Gaius (Caligula) as his heir, alongside Tiberius Gemellus who doesn't matter because he ends up dead. Caligula is Agrippina the Elder's and Germanicus' son. The difficulty with Caligula and subsequent emperors was that they had no auctoritas, which translates as 'authority.' You could accrue it through military and/or political success. It was a very symbolic demonstration of prestige and it was what you used to convince people that you were the one for the job. Caligula was 24 when he became emperor and being so young he basically didn't have it. This is why Caligula, Claudius and Nero both worked to gain auctoritas through military campaigns and expansion of the empire, particularly Claudius. After the Year of the Four Emperors, Vespasian decided to get around this problem of auctoritas and the hereditary succession by voting positions and powers on his sons. His firstborn, Titus, was made joint-consul with Vespasian pretty much until he became emperor. He was also given a few triumphs. The idea was that the position wouldn't be 'hereditary' in principle, but in practice, by giving your sons all these positions and powers, it would be clear to everyone that they were in the best position to lead the state. After the Flavians, there was no form of hereditary succession at least up until Diocletian, I believe. Emperors adopted and named their successors for a while, although in effect it formed a dynasty of sorts, e.g. Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius. I've tried to make it as simple as possible, so it's only a basic answer to your question. EDIT - Seems like I've been beaten several times.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I always wondered what would've happened had Germanicus not died. He would've been next in line instead of Caligula right? There's be no 4 years of weirdness from Caligula and no succession problem since Germanicus was from everything I ever read basically the rock star of the Roman world. If bras were around in 15AD, they would be being thrown at Germanicus. Yeah, assuming Drusus still died. But even if Germanicus became emperor and died naturally, Caligula would still become emperor. Germanicus had two other sons but they both came to a bad end before Tiberius died. The only hope is that under Germanicus' tutelage, Caligula might've turned out fairly normal and sane. And the thing is, Caligula was normal and sane for the first six months or so until he came down with some illness. Grand Fromage posted:Nero was not a great guy, first. He was full of his own poo poo and exploited his position. But a lot of his actions are open to interpretation, and notably there's a pattern of taking power from the senatorial class and putting it into the emperor's office. Remember this is still early on, so the senators are fighting tooth and nail to retain as much of their power as possible. Nero also liked hanging out with artists and actors, who were the lowest of the low in society, so it was scandalous. There was also a story that Nero used to disguise himself in order to go out to taverns with his friends and start fights. Octy fucked around with this message at 02:48 on May 28, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:One of the most interesting things to come out of this was the rise of the Pseudo-Neros. At least three of them seem to have attracted strong enough followings to be recorded in history. Only the first one ever amounted to much, but fake-Nero pirate is sort of a badass resume - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Nero You'd think the third guy might have taken a cue from the first two impostors and think maybe it's not such a good idea to proclaim yourself as Nero.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Edit: There was a later service too, called the agentes in rebus. That literally translates as 'People Active in Things' (what a fuckin' badass name for a spy service), and while their formal role was to act as couriers, they were outside the control of provincial governors and were effectively a secret police loyal to the Emperor. Wikipedia says they lasted till the 8th century, but who knows? Some say they're still with us, lurking in the shadows...
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Speaking of Hannibal, was there any particular reasons for Rome's exceptional hatred towards Carthage? I mean Rome was often sacked by barbarian tribes and yet it's MO towards them was always conquer and assimilate. And yet Rome didn't take chances with Carthage, opting instead to famously raze the city and salt the earth (yeah yeah this is speculation) I was always under the impression that the Third Punic War was more of a symbolic act. There was no threat from Carthage at this point and Scipio Aemilianus just took Cato's words a little too seriously (you know, Carthago delenda est). But I think there was also a lot of resistance from Carthage itself in being assimilated. They were Rome's only true equal and rival for centuries before and to come. I'm sure Grand Fromage will soon come and give a more in-depth explanation. My knowledge of the Punic Wars is not what it should be.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Have there ever been any significant amount of wax tablets found? Or more importantly found and translated? I'd love to read the random thoughts of some guy while taking a stroll through the forest near his villa or ect, the real stream of conscious of people at the time. It's not quite what you're looking for, but Pliny's letters are interesting enough. They're not all about politics either. There's a letter in there where he writes to his mother-in-law and praises the quality of her slaves whenever he visits. Or there's the letter to Tacitus where Pliny talks about hunting boars.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Suetonius' Lives of Famous Whores.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:What were the greatest stories of upward mobility? Someone lowborn holding high office that sort of thing I suppose freedmen are good examples of upward mobility. Some of them grew to be enormously powerful. Emperors like Claudius relied on freedmen to administer government too. And they could also be very rich. During the early Principate, I believe a requirement to be a senator was to be worth one million sesterces - a veritable sum - while it is said one particular freedman during the reign of... Claudius (?) was worth 40 million sesterces.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 11:46
|
|
|
diphenhydramine posted:Did extremist groups exist in Roman politics? Some emperors would have you believe the Stoics were an extremist group and certainly their beliefs went against the whole idea of the Principate. But I don't think they were ever a formal, organised group.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
TipTow posted:Wasn't Marcus Aurelius a stoic philosopher? How would that have worked? Sorry, I should have clarified. The Stoics supported the idea of the best man ruling, specifically the idea that their moral values should be on the highest level. Occasionally it went beyond passive arguments like these so you'd get Stoics refusing to recognise the imperial titles of emperors. At any rate, they were perceived as enough of a threat for some emperors, e.g. Domitian, to execute them.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:I studied Latin for 6 years in secondary and I only now know about the Roman Iberian conquest because I looked it up in Wikipedia. Was it just my education or is this part of Roman history often overlooked? It is often overlooked. In fact, I've studied Roman history in some form since Year 7 (I'm a third year university student) and I have never come across it. Obviously I knew it was part of the empire and the Romans must have conquered it at some point before Augustus, it has just honestly never occurred to me read up on it. Time to go read Wikipedia, I guess. So here's my question: Why is it overlooked? Octy fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
So do we have any idea what sort of accent the Romans might have had? I mean, I suppose linguistics is probably some help here and we may never truly know, but surely we can come up with an approximation?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I think you mean 1922. I think you mean 1945.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 10:32
|
|
:turkey:
|
Pfirti86 posted:1918 CE: Fall of the Hapsburg dynasty in Austria after WWI. The Hapsburgs (okay you nerds, the Hapsburg-Lorraines, as the senior male line had died out) pretty much owned the title of HRE until they were forced to give it up in 1806, and if there ever was a revival of the monarchy, they were the strongest claimants to it. It's got to suck knowing you're the heir to a thousand year old dynasty and that if it hadn't been for WWI (my knowledge on this period isn't too good so feel free to correct me someone) you'd probably be kicking around as the Emperor of Austria in 2012. Then again, I just checked Wikipedia and it looks like the current head of the house is doing alright.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
Girafro posted:Also how was Rome's relation with Egypt? Did they mostly get along and only went at odds on occasion or were they constantly at each others throats? They mostly got along, namely because Egypt was a Roman province from the time of Augustus. I think it was a fairly stable province but I'm not too sure of its history before the annexation apart from it being a sort of protectorate of Rome.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Dr Scoofles posted:Do you have any good stories/accounts of excessive luxury in Roman times? I'm thinking extravagant feasts, indoor water gardens, vast villas, ultimate spas, private theatres and so on. I don't know about extravagant feasts, but obviously the emperors were known for having vast villas. Nero's Golden Palace is a good example. It was built after the Great Fire in 64 and some say it covered 300 acres. It is supposed to have contained a 30m statue of Nero himself, pools and fountains, an artificial lake and a revolving ceiling underneath the dome. People would come and dine under this ceiling while perfume was sprayed on them and rose petals floated down. On the subject of baths, would they not have been a breeding ground for all sorts of horrible bacteria or things like that? Isn't that why we put chlorine and all sorts of things in our bathing pools today? Octy fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 11:59
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:They did, under Germanicus. Arminius was also turned on by his former allies something like a few months after the victory. Germanicus' successes partly make it hard for me to buy the "Rome was never going to conquer Germania anyway" line of thinking regarding the Teutoburg disaster. As far as I know, up until that point Augustus was dead set on making the Elbe River the eastern border in the north, which would be a far more strategically defensible position then the Rhine. Augustus was drat good at getting done what he wanted done, and had Varus not blundered into that valley, I think things may have turned out differently. I was under the impression Germanicus' successes had fairly questionable value and also that Augustus was set upon maintaining the 'natural borders' of the empire as they were when he died, whatever that means. Then again, I'm a Tiberius fan boy so don't listen to me. :P
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Did the Romans ever consider invading Scandinavia? Or was there nothing there that they wanted so they left it alone? I presume they traded with the natives to some extent, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There was absolutely nothing there they would've cared about. Cold, no resources they were aware of, few people. Trees I guess but they weren't desperate enough for lumber to go that far. I just thought it might've been a case of conquering it for military glory in the same way Caesar and then Claudius invaded Britain.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:See that green, flat, lovely spot to the left of Dacia? What's that, and why didn't the Romans ever annex that? Are you referring to the bit that says Iazyges? They were a nomadic tribe that had some dealings with Rome, particularly in regards to Dacia. I believe they eventually became a client kingdom.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:But...but I thought Hadrian's wall was because the Scots were so inhumanly badass that they were like "oh man we conquered the celts but the Scots are just too badass for us let's build a wall to keep them out" Agricola was actually pretty close to conquering the whole island when he was unexpectedly recalled and advancement stopped. The myth about the Scots being hard to conquer is pretty much the same as for the Germans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Furthermore, were there senatorial families form the 100bc's that were still Senatoring in the 400's? I asked this question at the beginning of the thread. I believe the answer was that virtually all the original senatorial families were gone by the end of the 1st century AD, but there were people who claimed descendance from the more famous members even later on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Well I'm a direct descendant of Julius Caesar, Trajan, August, Octavian, Brutus, Crassus, Africanus and Agrippa. I think so. Also, lots of senators tended to be killed depending on the emperor. Luck of the draw really.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:Caesar killed a ton right? (Julius Caesar). Or was that somebody else? Killed them so he could collect their wealth and fund more wars I believe it was. I think Domitian is quite famous for refusing to take the oath not to execute senators despite being begged. It's unknown how many he killed but the sources say a lot. So many he didn't bother putting their names in the records, according to Dio. I haven't read much about the senate after the 1st century but I expect it still went on to some extent, presumably up until the Dominate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The senate continues meeting into the 600s. Sorry, what I meant was the executions of the senate went on presumably up to the Dominate. In the Principate everyone can behave as though they're all equals in government and most emperors will do so, but my understanding of the Dominate is that the emperors put an end to the charade and ruled accordingly. I don't recall reading about the senate doing anything in the third or fourth centuries, hence my presumption that they weren't particularly active and had accepted their subservient role so there probably wasn't much of a need for executions. Mind you, I haven't read up on the period too much so I could possibly be talking out of my rear end, so to speak. :P
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Augustus once ordered an army into Arabia Felix (modern-day Yemen) with orders to explore the region, secure a merchant route to India from pirates plaguing the area, and subdue the local population. To put it into perspective, Yemen is as far from Rome as New York is from San Diego. Prefect Aelius Gallus spent six months stomping around the desert thanks to a deceitful guide, and ultimately simply brought in a fleet to smash every port on the Horn of Africa.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelius_Gallus Pirates in the Red Sea you say? Clearly nothing has changed for 2000 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 04:33
|
|
