Rubicon by Tom Holland
ForumAncient History
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.
Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.
1stellarexplorer
Just finished the book, which I enjoyed. I am not an accomplished scholar of the period, and I found the book very clear and succinct on these events.
Some thoughts on the book:
1. I never imagined that the throwing of excrement upon one's enemies was so prevalent in the late Republic.
2. I could not but be reminded during my reading of that shining 1970s cinematic vision, The Godfather. Almost all the principals, from Pompey, Crassus and Caesar to Cato and Cicero and then to Antony, Brutus and Cassius died violent deaths. Almost no one was spared in this battle for power and vision. And then there was Octavian, like Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone, as violent as any, the victor in the wars, who like The Godfather alone survived to die a peaceful death in old age. Who can forget the death in the garden, as an old man, while playing with his grandson? Octavian.
3. A question for the educated: One theme in this book was the struggle for naked power against the vital urge to retain the ancient political tradition of the Republic. Augustus appears to have done a masterful job of holding on to power, paying lip service to the Republican ideals, avoiding being murdered, and not rubbing people's noses in his success and "princepshood". What became of the nostalgia for the Republic that fought so hard for survival in the first century BCE? Did it dissipate, to be gone forever? Did it play a role in the future evolution of the Roman Empire?
Some thoughts on the book:
1. I never imagined that the throwing of excrement upon one's enemies was so prevalent in the late Republic.
2. I could not but be reminded during my reading of that shining 1970s cinematic vision, The Godfather. Almost all the principals, from Pompey, Crassus and Caesar to Cato and Cicero and then to Antony, Brutus and Cassius died violent deaths. Almost no one was spared in this battle for power and vision. And then there was Octavian, like Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone, as violent as any, the victor in the wars, who like The Godfather alone survived to die a peaceful death in old age. Who can forget the death in the garden, as an old man, while playing with his grandson? Octavian.
3. A question for the educated: One theme in this book was the struggle for naked power against the vital urge to retain the ancient political tradition of the Republic. Augustus appears to have done a masterful job of holding on to power, paying lip service to the Republican ideals, avoiding being murdered, and not rubbing people's noses in his success and "princepshood". What became of the nostalgia for the Republic that fought so hard for survival in the first century BCE? Did it dissipate, to be gone forever? Did it play a role in the future evolution of the Roman Empire?
2Feicht
The Republic fantasy carried on well into the High Empire. The Senate was still a privileged club of the aristocracy (or what was left of it after Octavian's purges) for a thousand years in one form or another.
If you want an (almost) first hand account which sheds some light into the transition from "republic" to "make believe republic", Tacitus' Annals fits the bill nicely. There's only a tiny bit about Augustus' reign, but if you read through say the first 100 pages, you'll really see the development of the fantasy, and it's really quite fascinating.
Octavian was a charismatic leader who was able to trick everyone into actually believing that he was simply safeguarding the Republic (and if there was a problem with his legacy, don't worry...the guy who killed all those people? That was Octavian. He's Augustus now!); he never claimed to be an "emperor" in our sense of the word, even though he really was.
As soon as he died and the power passed to Tiberius, people rightfully started thinking about what was going on, especially because he was probably Augustus' last choice for a successor (his wife seems to have had any rivals "done away with"). He was almost the polar opposite of Augustus, and truth be told it rarely got any better than him afterward. It would seem that the system the man set up so expertly (and ruthlessly) could really only function perfectly with its creator at the helm. After his death--which, by the way, he died without leaving any directive for the transfer of power--all bets were off.
If you want an (almost) first hand account which sheds some light into the transition from "republic" to "make believe republic", Tacitus' Annals fits the bill nicely. There's only a tiny bit about Augustus' reign, but if you read through say the first 100 pages, you'll really see the development of the fantasy, and it's really quite fascinating.
Octavian was a charismatic leader who was able to trick everyone into actually believing that he was simply safeguarding the Republic (and if there was a problem with his legacy, don't worry...the guy who killed all those people? That was Octavian. He's Augustus now!); he never claimed to be an "emperor" in our sense of the word, even though he really was.
As soon as he died and the power passed to Tiberius, people rightfully started thinking about what was going on, especially because he was probably Augustus' last choice for a successor (his wife seems to have had any rivals "done away with"). He was almost the polar opposite of Augustus, and truth be told it rarely got any better than him afterward. It would seem that the system the man set up so expertly (and ruthlessly) could really only function perfectly with its creator at the helm. After his death--which, by the way, he died without leaving any directive for the transfer of power--all bets were off.
3ThePam
1. I never imagined that the throwing of excrement upon one's enemies was so prevalent in the late Republic.
You really know how to do a sales pitch, Stellar. ;
You really know how to do a sales pitch, Stellar. ;
4stellarexplorer
*Bows in appreciation*
Thank you Pam!
Incidentally, I did not mean as a tactic of war (the quantities of excrement required might be rather challenging), but only as a humiliation of political enemies. In the Senate, for example.
Thank you Pam!
Incidentally, I did not mean as a tactic of war (the quantities of excrement required might be rather challenging), but only as a humiliation of political enemies. In the Senate, for example.
5cemanuel
And thus the term, "throwing a shit fit" was born.
EDIT: As a followup, I have 12 Latin Grammars and/or dictionaries around - you'd think at least 1 would have the Latin for feces or excrement. Wheelock's doesn't know what it's missing.
EDIT: As a followup, I have 12 Latin Grammars and/or dictionaries around - you'd think at least 1 would have the Latin for feces or excrement. Wheelock's doesn't know what it's missing.
6rolandperkins
" (Augustus) never claimed to be an emperor, in our sense of the word, although he really was. " (#2)
True! and from the Romans' point of view linguistically, there wasn't even a word that would translate into Latin our word "emperor". "Emperor" in English and similar words in other modern languages, is derived from "imperator" ( in Rome, a certain kind of general --one who was "more equal" than his colleagues.) The closest contemporary latin word was "princeps". It went without saying that the princeps would also be an imperator. Even Cicero had tried to be an imperator; but imperator didn't become the POLITICAL title of the PRINCEPS.
"Imperium", the domain of the imperator, was a very specific thing. Several generals could have, in different places, imperium at the same time, so it couldn't mean the overall rule that our "empire" means.
"Emperador" in Spanish, had become, in the Middle Ages, just about the equivalent of English "Emperor" and French "Empereur" (Napoleon's self-imposed title). In the Poem of the Cid, his villainous prospective sons-in-law say, "We should be marrying daughters of REYES or EMPERADORES (instead of daughters of the Cid, a minor noble)." There were many kings (reyes), but, in the Christian World, only 2 emperors --- the distant "Holy Roman" Emperor in Austria, and the even more distant Byzantine emperor. (The former, and, later the Russian emperor, derived his title from "Caesar", not from "imperator".)
Building on the "new" (that is, medieval, ,not ancient) meaning of "Imperator", we have lost sight of the fact that no classical Latin word
translates it. "Caesar" was used sometimes to refer to the princeps, but that was an honorific rather than a political title.
True! and from the Romans' point of view linguistically, there wasn't even a word that would translate into Latin our word "emperor". "Emperor" in English and similar words in other modern languages, is derived from "imperator" ( in Rome, a certain kind of general --one who was "more equal" than his colleagues.) The closest contemporary latin word was "princeps". It went without saying that the princeps would also be an imperator. Even Cicero had tried to be an imperator; but imperator didn't become the POLITICAL title of the PRINCEPS.
"Imperium", the domain of the imperator, was a very specific thing. Several generals could have, in different places, imperium at the same time, so it couldn't mean the overall rule that our "empire" means.
"Emperador" in Spanish, had become, in the Middle Ages, just about the equivalent of English "Emperor" and French "Empereur" (Napoleon's self-imposed title). In the Poem of the Cid, his villainous prospective sons-in-law say, "We should be marrying daughters of REYES or EMPERADORES (instead of daughters of the Cid, a minor noble)." There were many kings (reyes), but, in the Christian World, only 2 emperors --- the distant "Holy Roman" Emperor in Austria, and the even more distant Byzantine emperor. (The former, and, later the Russian emperor, derived his title from "Caesar", not from "imperator".)
Building on the "new" (that is, medieval, ,not ancient) meaning of "Imperator", we have lost sight of the fact that no classical Latin word
translates it. "Caesar" was used sometimes to refer to the princeps, but that was an honorific rather than a political title.
7Feicht
Great point, Roland. It is a truly fascinating quirk of linguistics + psychology I suppose; they didn't have a word for "emperor" because they didn't want to believe that they had one!
The connection didn't stop there, however. It's also interesting to me that the word "imperator" was used for the "caesar"/"princeps" (whoever it was at the time) to really mean "emperor", but the emperors seem to have tried their hardest to keep the "imperator = general" connection alive as long as they could; for the first century and a half of the empire, there seems to have been a real connection between necessity of military victory to legitimize supreme executive power. The annals are full of examples of Roman rulers going to war at the head of a column for no real reason other than to get a few victories under their belt; Claudius' conquest of the Britons is a prominent example.
The connection didn't stop there, however. It's also interesting to me that the word "imperator" was used for the "caesar"/"princeps" (whoever it was at the time) to really mean "emperor", but the emperors seem to have tried their hardest to keep the "imperator = general" connection alive as long as they could; for the first century and a half of the empire, there seems to have been a real connection between necessity of military victory to legitimize supreme executive power. The annals are full of examples of Roman rulers going to war at the head of a column for no real reason other than to get a few victories under their belt; Claudius' conquest of the Britons is a prominent example.
8rolandperkins
To F eicht (#7):
Yes, most of the first 10 or 12 principes, in my observation, were victorious generals, or else aspired to that status. Caligula and Nero were exceptions.
Claudius, historians are beginning to think, was not the foppish dilletante that conventional history (with an assist from Graves's, and TV's I, Claudius) have made him. He may have been much like Julius Caesar in temperament: he dabbled in scholarship, but victory, not knowledge, was his great love.
Yes, most of the first 10 or 12 principes, in my observation, were victorious generals, or else aspired to that status. Caligula and Nero were exceptions.
Claudius, historians are beginning to think, was not the foppish dilletante that conventional history (with an assist from Graves's, and TV's I, Claudius) have made him. He may have been much like Julius Caesar in temperament: he dabbled in scholarship, but victory, not knowledge, was his great love.
9Petroglyph
#5: You´re looking through a Latin dictionary to find the Latin word for feces?
11stellarexplorer
>1 stellarexplorer:
Another point I forgot: When did police forces come into being, as distinct from armies, militias, etc? During the period in question, pure armed power was used to intimidate political opponents, often via mob attacks, personal attacks, etc. There seems to have been no organ at all for the protection of individuals, and little in the way of consequences for assailants other than the retaliation of others by force. Yet such intimidation became a commonplace part of Roman culture. It makes me think twice about opinions I have read expressing the idea that Rome would have been a lovely place to live at the time. Or maybe that was two centuries later. Was it considerably safer for individuals with a civic enemy by then?
Another point I forgot: When did police forces come into being, as distinct from armies, militias, etc? During the period in question, pure armed power was used to intimidate political opponents, often via mob attacks, personal attacks, etc. There seems to have been no organ at all for the protection of individuals, and little in the way of consequences for assailants other than the retaliation of others by force. Yet such intimidation became a commonplace part of Roman culture. It makes me think twice about opinions I have read expressing the idea that Rome would have been a lovely place to live at the time. Or maybe that was two centuries later. Was it considerably safer for individuals with a civic enemy by then?
12Feicht
Make no mistake, cities were dangerous as hell back then. Rich families used to pay people (or have trusted slaves) who would follow their kids around town just to make sure they didn't get kidnapped into slavery themselves (how's that for an interesting situation?).
There was an everpresent possibility of basically ANYONE being abducted though, not just kids. Don't forget, Caesar himself was kidnapped by pirates as a younger man.
And let's not forget the mob violence. Rich people of the time were also flanked by so called "lictors" whose job it was to essentially carry around heavy canes with which to wack the hell out of anyone who tried to get close to the guy who hired them.
As for the poor of the time? Well they were pretty much screwed. They were a lot less likely to be murdered in political purges, but they were also less likely to have food, shelter and clean drinking water.
And re: your initial point about when police forces were invented? No idea whatsoever. Off the top of my head I'd imagine some time during the middle ages, but even then I would assume they had more of a "maintain royal authority" than a "protect and serve" purpose. Think the Sheriff of Nottingham ;-)
Oh by the way, there are all kinds of interesting anecdotal things which tell you a lot about Roman society in the absence of police. We know that Romans had huge guard dogs guarding the entrances to their houses (this is one of the explanations for many breeds of dogs throughout Europe being based on the Mastiff-model). Sometimes there are even wall paintings or mosaics of big dogs and warnings to beware inside the fauces of a house (kind of like the doorway corridor). Check out this example from Pompeii:
"Cave canem" = "Beware (of) the dog"
There was an everpresent possibility of basically ANYONE being abducted though, not just kids. Don't forget, Caesar himself was kidnapped by pirates as a younger man.
And let's not forget the mob violence. Rich people of the time were also flanked by so called "lictors" whose job it was to essentially carry around heavy canes with which to wack the hell out of anyone who tried to get close to the guy who hired them.
As for the poor of the time? Well they were pretty much screwed. They were a lot less likely to be murdered in political purges, but they were also less likely to have food, shelter and clean drinking water.
And re: your initial point about when police forces were invented? No idea whatsoever. Off the top of my head I'd imagine some time during the middle ages, but even then I would assume they had more of a "maintain royal authority" than a "protect and serve" purpose. Think the Sheriff of Nottingham ;-)
Oh by the way, there are all kinds of interesting anecdotal things which tell you a lot about Roman society in the absence of police. We know that Romans had huge guard dogs guarding the entrances to their houses (this is one of the explanations for many breeds of dogs throughout Europe being based on the Mastiff-model). Sometimes there are even wall paintings or mosaics of big dogs and warnings to beware inside the fauces of a house (kind of like the doorway corridor). Check out this example from Pompeii:
"Cave canem" = "Beware (of) the dog"
13rolandperkins
" . . . when police forces were invented?.....
Most historians trace police, in the West, to 17th century France of Louis XIV -- that is for any that would have continuity with modern police work.
England was groping toward modern police work in the following century. In the 19th century, police of England and Ireland were called in slang "Peelers" after Prime Minister Robert Peel; the name shows how closely linked to the political situation was the amount of police work that would take place.
Rome had groups, presumably of slaves, called "vigiles". A well-organized group of vigiles was sort of a primitive combined Police & Fire Dept, but neither volunteer nor professional. The name is derived from "staying awake", so they were much like what used to be called "The Watch". For outbreaks of crime, the military might o a :polilce" operation, if the location could be pinpointed. As you've noted above, the rich depended on what today would be called "security guards".
Most historians trace police, in the West, to 17th century France of Louis XIV -- that is for any that would have continuity with modern police work.
England was groping toward modern police work in the following century. In the 19th century, police of England and Ireland were called in slang "Peelers" after Prime Minister Robert Peel; the name shows how closely linked to the political situation was the amount of police work that would take place.
Rome had groups, presumably of slaves, called "vigiles". A well-organized group of vigiles was sort of a primitive combined Police & Fire Dept, but neither volunteer nor professional. The name is derived from "staying awake", so they were much like what used to be called "The Watch". For outbreaks of crime, the military might o a :polilce" operation, if the location could be pinpointed. As you've noted above, the rich depended on what today would be called "security guards".
14stellarexplorer
Very interesting Feicht.
Yes, the lictors, armed bodyguards, protected magistrates and, from what you say, the wealthy.
I guess that was the reality and it never occurred to anyone that maybe this wasn't the most felicitous way to run a city. Not that we don't have plenty of people in similar situations today -- those who travel with armed bodyguards -- but there are a few additional protections. That do fail at times anyway.
Yes, the lictors, armed bodyguards, protected magistrates and, from what you say, the wealthy.
I guess that was the reality and it never occurred to anyone that maybe this wasn't the most felicitous way to run a city. Not that we don't have plenty of people in similar situations today -- those who travel with armed bodyguards -- but there are a few additional protections. That do fail at times anyway.
15stellarexplorer
>13 rolandperkins:
Sorry to repeat myself, but very interesting, rolandperkins.
I find myself curious about what thinking there was in the past about the level of common violence. It is easy to imagine this might have been perceived as a natural reality of life, but one could also imagine there were utopian visions of a safer society.
What a brutish lot we can be!
Sorry to repeat myself, but very interesting, rolandperkins.
I find myself curious about what thinking there was in the past about the level of common violence. It is easy to imagine this might have been perceived as a natural reality of life, but one could also imagine there were utopian visions of a safer society.
What a brutish lot we can be!
17stellarexplorer
Never saw it, just the sign that presumably went with it. But I can imagine it...!
18Barton
It was always my thought that the first true police forces was trhe establishment created by Robert Peel after the difficulties following the Napoleonic wars. Before that period what you had were forces which were essentially political tools of those in power, essentially differing types of secret state polices. It has been my obervation that the subversion of a public police to be a tool of those in power. Is this might have happened by some individuals in Scotland Yard with regards to those in the present Labour Government? (e.g. The raid on the parliamentry offices of Conservative Members of Parliament.) Or have I misread these actions. I suspect the actions of the Nixon administration in the United States would be coloured in the same vein.
(edited for spelling)
(edited for spelling)
19Feicht
Stellar, that's so weird... after I made the post I could see it ... then when I came back it was gone.... hmmmmmmmm
Well anyway, this is the link:
http://catalepton.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/cavecanem.jpg
Well anyway, this is the link:
http://catalepton.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/cavecanem.jpg
20Nicole_VanK
> 6: And, on a related note, in many modern languages the word "emperor" still doesn't exist - the concept being expressed by words derived from Caesar (for example Dutch "keizer", German "kaiser", Russian "Tsar").
21Garp83
Great thread! Rubicon has been on my TBR for awhile; I really enjoyed his Persian Fire
22stellarexplorer
Still can't get that to work Feicht. Is it me?
23Nicole_VanK
It's a 1x1 pixel picture. It might display but still remain unseen.
24Feicht
What the hell? It shows up just fine for me.... let me try a few others (it's a fairly popular image)....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Dom_dramaturga.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Pompeii-_beware_of_dog.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Cave_canem2.jpg
Those are from wikipedia so if THEY don't work.... I dunno what to tell ya :-D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Dom_dramaturga.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Pompeii-_beware_of_dog.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Cave_canem2.jpg
Those are from wikipedia so if THEY don't work.... I dunno what to tell ya :-D
25Mr.Durick
Didn't one of the Roman emperors proudly proclaim that a virgin could walk from one end of the empire to the other unmolested? If that were a credible claim, wherein would her protection lie?
Robert
Robert
26Feicht
Haha... I'm not familiar with the quote, but the idea is laughable! I think that in our era of superhighways and highspeed rail, we tend to forget how incredibly hazardous intercity travel used to be. If you sent a young girl out of town by herself, the likelihood of her getting to the next big city without being kidnapped, raped, sold into slavery, or all three would be practically nil.
Another thing I think we tend to overlook is the idea of banishment. I can think of plenty of times I've read about it in a book and said to myself "so what? you have to go live somewhere else, big deal..." But in reality, what it meant is you were all by yourself and had to go find a new place to live with no protection along your way there....in an age before usable maps. When you think about how likely you were to be robbed or enslaved, it starts to sink in how hazardous it was.
Another thing I think we tend to overlook is the idea of banishment. I can think of plenty of times I've read about it in a book and said to myself "so what? you have to go live somewhere else, big deal..." But in reality, what it meant is you were all by yourself and had to go find a new place to live with no protection along your way there....in an age before usable maps. When you think about how likely you were to be robbed or enslaved, it starts to sink in how hazardous it was.
27Essa
Another thing I think we tend to overlook is the idea of banishment. I can think of plenty of times I've read about it in a book and said to myself "so what? you have to go live somewhere else, big deal..." But in reality, what it meant is you were all by yourself and had to go find a new place to live with no protection along your way there....in an age before usable maps. When you think about how likely you were to be robbed or enslaved, it starts to sink in how hazardous it was.
That's an excellent point. In our modern mobile society, awash with individualism, Internet, GPS, and constant travel and mobility, it doesn't sound like much. I always picture Eric Idle from Holy Grail ("Crucifixion?" "No, they said I could just go live on an island somewhere!"). :D
But you're right -- in an age without such things, it would be a whole different ballgame. Likewise, I don't know about Rome but in some cultures, family, tribe or clan affiliations were (and in some places, still are) profoundly important, so uprooting and going to live somewhere without the protection of one's family affiliations would be difficult and dangerous.
That's an excellent point. In our modern mobile society, awash with individualism, Internet, GPS, and constant travel and mobility, it doesn't sound like much. I always picture Eric Idle from Holy Grail ("Crucifixion?" "No, they said I could just go live on an island somewhere!"). :D
But you're right -- in an age without such things, it would be a whole different ballgame. Likewise, I don't know about Rome but in some cultures, family, tribe or clan affiliations were (and in some places, still are) profoundly important, so uprooting and going to live somewhere without the protection of one's family affiliations would be difficult and dangerous.
28varielle
>25 Mr.Durick: I always heard that quote was applied to Attila's empire, except that it was a virgin, riding a white ass, carrying a sack of gold.
29Mr.Durick
I've heard it recited in the same paragraph as the phrase 'pax romana.' It doesn't pop up when I google 'pax romana' though.
Robert
Robert
30stellarexplorer
>24 Feicht: Thanks for the pic Feicht. I wouldn't mess with that animal.
