Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 18, 2024, 6:22 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ask A Historian
#31
RE: Ask A Historian
The point is that the documentation is not reliable.  It tells a one-sided story for the benefit of the upper classes.  The Roman Civil Wars of the first century BC need to be put into context. 

Rome emerged from the Second Punic War c 205 BC as the dominant power in the Western Med.  They managed to get through that entire war - which they very nearly lost - without deviating from their standard military recruitment system.  Based on personal wealth, Roman infantry were classed into one of three groups:  Hastati, Principes and Triarii.  Without worrying too much about the differences between them these were drawn from the independent farmer class and had to pay for their own equipment.  Towards the end of the 2d Punic War the Romans got entangled with Greece and Phillip V of Macedon.  Needing allies, the Romans joined the city of Pergamum as well as the Aetolian League.  A series of 4 wars were fought in the first half of the 2d century BC culminating with the sacking of Corinth in 148.  Also in 148 the Romans finished off Carthage and the conclusion of these two wars led to the introduction of massive numbers of slaves in Italy.  The senatorial class, barred by law from business ventures, began buying up the individual holdings of middle class Roman farmers who relocated to the city and became the basis of the urban mob.  The senators combined their plots into plantations called Latifundia and staffed them with slave labor.  Meanwhile the Roman military system was being starved of its recruits as the farmers quickly pissed their money away and could no longer sustain themselves in the appropriate "classes." 

Civil strife grew, everyone has heard the story of the Gracchi brothers who struggled for land reform and were effectively murdered by the senate who liked their land.....(some things never change.)

The situation deteriorated until 105 when two Roman armies were crushed by the Cimbri and Teutones.  The loss of these two armies left the Romans looking for soldiers and finding that the cupboard was bare.  Luckily, the Cimbri and Teutones did not invade Italy which gave the Romans time and Gaius Marius stepped forward to reorganize the army.  In effect, he did away with the old system and recruited soldiers from the urban mob.  Since they could not afford to buy their equipment the state provided it.  He also provided pay for the soldiers and the opportunity for spoils of war was yet another inducement.  The ranks filled.  But these were not citizen soldiers who fought the campaign and then went back to their farms.  They remained under arms as a standing army for the duration of their enlistment.  And, they could get very attached to their commander, especially if he was successful in the plunder department.

So the bulwark of the republican state which the senate idolized was gone.  Within 20 years both Cornelius Sulla and Marius had marched their armies on Rome itself to settle political disputes among themselves. The republic was a dead man walking.  In 73 the Third Servile War broke out (Spartacus) and the Romans suddenly discovered that the mechanism they had devised to keep troublesome armies out of Rome had a serious flaw.  Pompey was fighting in Spain.  Lucullus in Asia Minor. And there was no usable body of troops in Italy.  Watching the slaves rout several forces, Marcus Licinius Crassus raised several legions at his own expense and, after a few fits and starts, crushed Spartacus in 71.  In 59, Crassus, Pompey and Caesar formed the first triumvirate which was essentially a government within a government and had Caesar elected consul.  In 58 he began his campaign in Gaul.

Crassus was killed fighting the Parthians in 53 which was the end of the triumvirate and the senate seduced Pompey over to their side leaving Caesar as the champion of the people.
Caesar defeated Pompey at Pharsalus before being murdered by the senate in 44.  Octavian, as Caesar's heir, Agrippa as his military commander and Mark Antony eventually stopped fighting one another long enough to defeat the senatorial party again at Phillipi and then had a long falling out.  But the senatorial party was crushed at this time.  They were a non factor and when Octavian/Agrippa defeated Antony at Actium the senate meekly made Octavian emperor ( in effect) and had their lips surgically attached to his ass. 

So, the political squabbling of the first century BC had resulted in the crushing of senatorial influence.  Augustus ruled by maintaining the fiction of the republic and that was good enough for the senators.  But everyone knew who was in charge. 

This long, drawn out struggle for supremacy left the senators pining for the old days of the republic and I suspect this is what we are seeing in the writing of Suetonius and Tacitus.  The Julio-Claudian dynasty was gone and it was safe to work them over while extolling the alleged virtue of the republic.  But the Roman republic was mainly a sham set up to benefit the senatorial and equestrian classes and what we see is that the population as a whole was quite content with the new order even if the senators who wrote the books were not.  So one cannot simply look at a couple of passages in some books about two emperors and think that was all that was involved.  Hopefully you see that this was a multi-century series of political events and a little bit...okay a lot of....nostalgia for what the senators thought they could get back by simply mouthing the word "republic."

Was not going to happen.
Reply
#32
RE: Ask A Historian
That was fascinating to read, Min. Thank you for taking the time to write that. Have you had the opportunity to visit Rome?
Reply
#33
RE: Ask A Historian
(May 17, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Exian Wrote: Is it "an historian" or "a historian"?
I'm pretty sure it's "an historian." Not really sure why but I think I see it written that way most of the time. Maybe it's like "an academic"? Though we don't typically say "an philosopher" or "an scientist" so I don't know what the rule is or why.

@OP
What I don't understand about mythicists is what reasons are there for believing that a bunch of Jews and Greeks got fixated on this idea of a Jewish man from Nazareth named Jesus, who has parents, brothers, and sisters, and is crucified by the Romans? The additional mythological components make sense to me. We see numerous figures become the focal point of cults throughout history and even today---Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus---shit, even Virgil was granted divinity. But it doesn't make sense to me that there could be Epicureans, people who follow the philosophical teachings of a man that they later bestow godlike features upon, without an (a?) historical Epicurus. Aside from the fact that I think there is ample evidence in the NT texts themselves to establish the likelihood that Christianity began with the teachings of a single Jewish peasant, I don't see mythicists offering any evidence or plausible scenario to the contrary. All they do is explain how the myths were borrowed from other figures without clarifying why the all too realistic aspects are at the story's very core. If there is a plausible alternative, my question is, what is it? What's the evidence?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
#34
RE: Ask A Historian
What is it like, to live in that wonderland across the pond?
Reply
#35
RE: Ask A Historian
Wait .. so you're saying the USA didn't grow from shore to shining shore because of manifest destiny?


What next? No exceptionalism or even Santa?
Reply
#36
RE: Ask A Historian
Was WW1 really completely pointless/avoidable?
“The larger the group, the more toxic, the more of your beauty as an individual you have to surrender for the sake of group thought. And when you suspend your individual beauty you also give up a lot of your humanity. You will do things in the name of a group that you would never do on your own. Injuring, hurting, killing, drinking are all part of it, because you've lost your identity, because you now owe your allegiance to this thing that's bigger than you are and that controls you.”  - George Carlin
Reply
#37
RE: Ask A Historian
(May 18, 2015 at 6:09 am)Saxmoof Wrote: Was WW1 really completely pointless/avoidable?

Who says it was avoidable?

(May 17, 2015 at 9:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
(May 17, 2015 at 8:28 pm)JuliaL Wrote: Were Caligula and/or Nero as nasty as painted or were they smeared by later writers?

Was it Elvis or the CIA that fired from the grassy knoll?
(You don't have to answer the second one, I already know.)

Ooh, Julia, I love you.  Magnificent question.  Maybe hard to answer within the confines of a message board but I'll try.  Refer above to earlier answer about writers having an agenda and hold the thought.


When I was in Rome last year, I read that Nero's new palace was an unusually decadent and wasteful project even for the time, and that it was a sign that he had lost it. Is that an exaggeration?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#38
RE: Ask A Historian
Yeah ask a historian my ass. Jesus was a real person, and from everything we know about him he was quite a good person. He wasn't afraid to stand up to the authorities for what he believed in, and he brought a message of peace -love thy neighbour, do unto others, etc. He had overridingly good qualities, and your assertion that he isn't a historical person leaves you with the burden of proof as to how did Christianity start?
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK

The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK


"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
Reply
#39
RE: Ask A Historian
(May 17, 2015 at 1:22 pm)Exian Wrote: Is it "an historian" or "a historian"?

"An". If the stress falls on the first syllable, "a" is used ("a history"). Otherwise "an" is correct.

Grammar Nazism is a friendless pastime.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#40
RE: Ask A Historian
(May 17, 2015 at 3:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:
(May 17, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Who was the "babushka lady"?

Kate Bush.

Ya ya!
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)