Roman Empire and such (from 300 thread)

[DarthTofu]

Did the Battle of Thermopolies feature Roran at the Bridge or someone else whose name started with an "R" at a bridge of some sort? My dad and I were discussing the movie and he mentioned some soldier in some war or another who stood on a bridge much like the bridge of Kazad Dun (sp?) which the enemy could only cross one at a time. He then pulled a Gandalf/Ganner Rhysode and attacked man after man as they tried to pass, though I'm fairly certain that he niether blew up the bridge nor killed every last attacker.

 

He did, however, blow his horn when he knew he was going to die soon. Which makes me think that LOTR might have stolen a fair amount of material from history and just stuck in new factions and people and the like, and mixed battles and such up.

[SOCL]

Did the Battle of Thermopolies feature Roran at the Bridge or someone else whose name started with an "R" at a bridge of some sort? My dad and I were discussing the movie and he mentioned some soldier in some war or another who stood on a bridge much like the bridge of Kazad Dun (sp?) which the enemy could only cross one at a time. He then pulled a Gandalf/Ganner Rhysode and attacked man after man as they tried to pass, though I'm fairly certain that he niether blew up the bridge nor killed every last attacker.

 

He did, however, blow his horn when he knew he was going to die soon. Which makes me think that LOTR might have stolen a fair amount of material from history and just stuck in new factions and people and the like, and mixed battles and such up.

Horatius at the bridge. It's actually a story from ancient Rome. Basically, he held off the enemy at a bridge whilst the rest of the army retreated, and he did indeed blow a horn to warn the others; however, he did not die. Rather, he jumped into the water and swam across, which gives me the impression he was holding the enemy off whilst the Roman army destroyed the bridge (I don't remember the story very well since I read it some years ago). Nothing of the sort at Thermopylae, that I remember, though.

 

Now, it's seriously doubtful that it was a single person. Rather in the same way "Israel" was used a collective term for the tribes of the Hebrews or the actions of Abraham's tribe attributed to the single man, or how the tribes were referred to as collective wholes (Levy and such), Horatius was likely the captain leading a group of his personal best men. They would, thus, attribute the victory to Horatius and say "Horatius fought at the bridge" knowing that most people would understand they meant Horatius and his troopers. In time, though, and as we don't refer to groups of people as a collective whole, attributing the actions of a single to the whole, the legend has grown around a single person.

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

I don't think any movie even ones that claim to be true stories are accurate.

 

Lest we forget about Ed Wood?

[Darth_Rob]

@SOCL- I remember the story from my Western Civilizations class last semester. Im pretty sure he held the bridge until everyone was safe, than destroyed the bridge, jumped in the river, and swam to the other side, so that the invading army could not easily cross the river.

[Mad78]

Lest we forget about Ed Wood?

Brilliant movie!!!

[SOCL]

@SOCL- I remember the story from my Western Civilizations class last semester. Im pretty sure he held the bridge until everyone was safe, than destroyed the bridge, jumped in the river, and swam to the other side, so that the invading army could not easily cross the river.

Something along those lines.

 

The Etruscans were attacking Rome and it was thought they'd be safe if they retreated behind the Tiber River, the problem was, there existed a bridge...

The story goes that while Horatius Cocles was engaged in combat...he saw a large body of reinforcements approaching. Fearing they would succeed in forcing the passage and entering the city, he turned round and shouted to those behind him to retire once and make haste to break down the bridge. His comrades obeyed, and all the time they were demolishing it Horatius stood his ground.... Once the bridge was cut the enemy's advance was halted, whereupon Cocles threw himself into the river still wearing his armour and weapons. He deliberately sacrificed himself because he valued the safety of his country and the glory which would later attach itself to his name more than his present existance and the years of life that remained to him.

-Polybius 6.55

 

Livy, a Roman writer of two centuries later, retells the story as thus:

]The wooden pile bridge, however, almost gave the enemy entrance to the city, but a single man, Horatius Cocles, stopped them... As the enemy hurtled down the [Janiculum hill] on the double and a swarm of his fearful fellow soldiers began to drop their weapons and withdraw from their place in the ranks, he grabbed one man after another and blocked his way; he swore by all that was sacred to gods and men that abandoning theirs posts was utter folly: if they left the bridge in their rear for the enemy to cross there would soon be more Etruscans on the [Palatine hill] and [Capitoline hill] than on the Janiculum. He urged and pleased with them to break down the bridge, using steel, fire, or whatever means was to hand; he would take the brunt of the enemy onslaught with as much strength as a single man could muster. He then strode the bridge's entrance; conspicuous amid the visibly retreating backs of those abandoning the fight and brandishing his arms in the enemy's face as he entered the fray, he stunned his opponents by his astonishing bravado. Yet shame kept two of his companions by his side, Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius, both distinguished for high birth and achievement. With their help he withstood for a time the first burst of the battle's tumultuous storm; when only a small part of the bridge was intact and those who were cutting it down screamed for them to go back, he forced them to retire to safety as well.... [The Etruscans] kept trying to drive him off by one assault after another; but the crash of the broken bridge and the shout of the Romans, exuberant at finishing the job, stopped them in their tracks in sudden panic. Then Cocles cried, 'Father Tiber, may you, I humbly pray, receive these arms and this solder into your favouring stream.' Thereupon he leaped into the Tiber in full armour and, with many spears raining down upon him, swam in safety to his comrades on the shore....

-Livy 2.10

 

And I am more inclined to believe the more modest version Polybius provides, as in most other things wherein the details between Livy and Polybius conflict. Why? Polybius was not Roman-born, he was a Greek writing the history of Rome from an outsider's point of view. Further, Polybius died long before the time of what we call the Roman Empire, but rather lived in the middle part of the Republic. Livy, though, was writing in a time when Rome was at the height of its power, in control of the whole of the known Western World--he has no issue making the Romans look even better.

 

Further, Romans have a thing where they like to look back on their past and add more and more details as time goes by in order to make the past seem much better than it was, but more importantly, much better than what was happening in the present. Indeed, everything that was written about Roman history by Roman was written from the perspective of "Remember the good ol' days?" They valued the past much more than we ever do our own and looked to the past for guidance, longing to be able to herald in times like the days of yore. In any event, critical reading of Livy's account of Roman history normally reveals many, many biases and justifications for Roman actions, convinced that nothing wrong was ever committed in the past, especially compared to the present. Just examine the differences in detail and elaboration between the accounts Polybius and Livy each wrote about Horatius. Livy's is FAR more detailed, strange for someone who wrote about it more than four centuries after the fact.

 

So in conclusion, Rob, no, Horatius didn't tear down the bridge whilst fighting. Others broke down the bridge while he fought the enemy.

[Darth_Rob]

Ahhh but if not for him, the others would not have been able to tear the bridge down. So, from a certain point of view, he did indeed tear the bridge down!!!

[SOCL]

Ahhh but if not for him, the others would not have been able to tear the bridge down. So, from a certain point of view, he did indeed tear the bridge down!!!

I dig through my personal library, notes, journals, and papers to write up the exact words from Polybius and Livy and then a short analysis and the best you can do is say, "Nuh uh!"

[Darth_Rob]

Well of course you're gonna be correct with all your fancy smancy source documents you have. All I have to go on is memories from a notebook from last semester that has hence been thrown away. You've won this round...

[DarthTofu]

Ahhh but if not for him, the others would not have been able to tear the bridge down. So, from a certain point of view, he did indeed tear the bridge down!!!

I dig through my personal library, notes, journals, and papers to write up the exact words from Polybius and Livy and then a short analysis and the best you can do is say, "Nuh uh!"

 

Hehe- I can see Luke saying that.

 

"I duel with the Dark Lord of the Sith, get my hand chopped off, and have to force a mangled confession out of a crazy Jedi Master to find out whether Vader was really my father or not, and all this time you claim you'd already informed me of it from a CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW?!?!?"

 

"Yup, pretty much. Dang, they make much nicer mechanical hands nowdays than they used to!"

[DarthTex]

... everything that was written about Roman history by Romans was written from the perspective of "Remember the good ol' days?" They valued the past much more than we ever do our own and looked to the past for guidance, longing to be able to herald in times like the days of yore.

 

I don't see a problem with that

[SOCL]

... everything that was written about Roman history by Romans was written from the perspective of "Remember the good ol' days?" They valued the past much more than we ever do our own and looked to the past for guidance, longing to be able to herald in times like the days of yore.

 

I don't see a problem with that

No, no, certainly not. It's merely the overwhelming attitude of the Romans to be rather fixated on the past. It's rather interesting when reading anything written by Romans. I could go on and on about some of the peculiarities of Roman writing.

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

... everything that was written about Roman history by Romans was written from the perspective of "Remember the good ol' days?" They valued the past much more than we ever do our own and looked to the past for guidance, longing to be able to herald in times like the days of yore.

 

I don't see a problem with that

No, no, certainly not. It's merely the overwhelming attitude of the Romans to be rather fixated on the past. It's rather interesting when reading anything written by Romans. I could go on and on about some of the peculiarities of Roman writing.

 

Please do

[Eagle]

I´ve allways found the old cultures like the egyptian, the greeks and the romans very interesting.

[Paul]

Same here Eagle my friend. - Grand Moff Conway

[SOCL]

... everything that was written about Roman history by Romans was written from the perspective of "Remember the good ol' days?" They valued the past much more than we ever do our own and looked to the past for guidance, longing to be able to herald in times like the days of yore.

 

I don't see a problem with that

No, no, certainly not. It's merely the overwhelming attitude of the Romans to be rather fixated on the past. It's rather interesting when reading anything written by Romans. I could go on and on about some of the peculiarities of Roman writing.

 

Please do

It may not be a good idea. Tofu might commit ritual suicide from boredom...or simply out of spite.

 

But if you insist.

 

I'll try to make it brief. Oh and all politics and societal details I discuss are primarily about the Roman Republic (think from about 500 BC to about AD 1) unless otherwise explicitly stated.

 

Read Homer's Iliad (and get an abridged version so you don't kill yourself over it and then blame me) and then read Vergil's Aeneid and you'll see what I'm talking about. Therein lies the Roman obsession with connecting themselves with the past and looking to the past the greatest moment of all time. Yesterday was better than today, so why should we look forward to tomorrow? It's one of the primary reasons Christianity wasn't so well accepted among many Romans: they didn't see a point to an afterlife since the beforelife had been so much better! In that same sense, it's that reason that Christianity caught on so well later in the Empire as people started seeing less and less to hope for. Indeed, the past was good, but who'd gone back there recently? No one. So, let's try to the make best of the future--though this feeling of "screw the present" persisted.

 

Back to the point, Romans were rather obsessed with trying to make ties to all the great things that had happened. It wasn't enough that Romulus established the city of Rome after seeing some favorable omens, he had to be a son of Mars. And who was the mother? The daughter of the an Etruscan king. Well, it certainly wasn't enough to be descended from royalty, he had to be the descendant of Aeneas. Who's Aeneas? Oh, no one; he just happens to be a great (Trojan) hero from the Trojan War who escaped the sack of the city with the sacred sword of the Trojan kings. But that's not enough because he's the son of the goddess Venus!

 

It goes on and on. On a related the matter, the story of Romulus being the founder of Rome existed for as long as memory. The story of him being a son of Mars, though, doesn't appear until much later in the record. And as for the whole Aeneas ordeal...well, that actually didn't appear until the First Century AD/CE! In other words, whenever the Romans wanted to praise themselves, they just added another bit to the story. Aeneas was a character Vergil took from Homer's Iliad in order to connect the Romans to the great ancient Greeks (not the same ancient Greeks, mind you, which Rome conquered in the Third Century BCE--they were considered a "bastard, barbarian race", "unworthy" of the older Greeks). And what about the bit about Aeneas being the son of Venus? Well, that was certainly never in the Aeneid.

 

No, it wasn't. That was added later, much later, so as to explain how and why C. Julius Caesar (the dictator of fame stabbed to death in 44 BCE) could claim to be the legitimate descendant of Venus. The original story was rather fuzzy and had to do with Romulus, but it was later worked in to the greater story in Vergil's Aeneid. It should be noted, too, that the Romans really didn't care if the stories contradicted. I remember reading a letter written be a Greek teacher come to Rome who didn't understand how so many stories kept circulating, and yet they didn't seem to follow a logical order. When he consulted the priests, philosophers, and other learned men of Rome, they replied that while Greek stories were so simplistic that they seemed to make sense, Roman tales ("truths") make so much sense they appear contradictory to the "barbarian mind".

 

Okay, so this idea of attaching yourself to the past is why Roman society, and politics especially, was so conservative, and by this I mean "conservative" in the oldest and most basic sense of the word: traditional, not very open to change. Indeed, in all acts of politics, a vote of "no" always outweighed any vote of "yes." So if the matter for vote came down to a tie within the Senate, those opposed won because change was considered bad. Again, it's the whole idea of why should we change the government? It's worked for hundreds of years before, why change it now? For that same reason, a single man in a certain position, could veto an entire bill! A consul was one of two chief executives of the Roman Republic's government (the "Commonwealth") and whatever one did, the other could veto with a single word (veto, which literally means "I forbid"), no questions asked. Sure, some people would be angry, but not so angry as you might expect because the old ways, the ways of yesterday are "safe". The same goes for a position called the Tribune of the Plebeians", who were between three and five in all and who represented the people in government. If anything happened which the Tribunes perceived to be unfavourable towards the people, they could just say no (and it only took one!) and that was that--no matter if the whole Senate and all the executives, including the two consuls, backed it! Certainly, tribunes normally perceived what was right for the people based on what certain wealthy Senators or factions desired to be favourable for the people, but that's another matter entirely.

 

I may have got a little away from the point. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll be more than happy to give more. Believe it or not, this is very helpful for me as it allows me to exercise certain bits of knowledge I might otherwise forget in time, especially since I have no classes concerning ancient Rome this semester. Oh, and also, I'm not Grade-A expert on any of this! I may know more than the average bear, but not enough at all overrule or countermand what someone like, say, Connolly or Goldsworthy, might say, so my words are how I have learned and analyzed the information--it's not at all the "say all, end all."

[Paul]

SOCL,

I love Rome to study and read ( I had a History minor/ Communications major in college) but prefer the Empire period, well starting with Julius anyway. Although Ancient Egypt is my favorite of the Ancient cultures , followed by the 18th century. - Grand Moff Conway

[SOCL]

SOCL,

I love Rome to study and read ( I had a History minor/ Communications major in college) but prefer the Empire period, well starting with Julius anyway. Although Ancient Egypt is my favorite of the Ancient cultures , followed by the 18th century. - Grand Moff Conway

Empire seems to be the most popular bit of study. Usually people either like the bit from Julius Caesar to Nero or from Vespasian to Marcus Aurelius, or (much later) Constantine, Domitian, and Theodosius. I'm a Republic fan, personally, and specialize in the Middle Republic Era to Late Republic (think Punic Wars to Civil Wars/Augustus). After that about 180 CE, I lose interest in European history until 1870 and the Franco-Prussian War through to the conclusion of the First World War. Interests in between are in Africa and Central Asia. Post-World War I...not much, just Latin America.

 

Ancient Egypt is something of a challenge all on its own, but thank goodness for new and improved techniques in research and dating. Much more interest, personally, concerning Meroe and Ancient Nubia to the south of Egypt, the people who inspired Egypt. By ancient Egypt I assume you mean New Kingdom (Ramses era)?

[Mad78]

Hehe- I can see Luke saying that.

 

"I duel with the Dark Lord of the Sith, get my hand chopped off, and have to force a mangled confession out of a crazy Jedi Master to find out whether Vader was really my father or not, and all this time you claim you'd already informed me of it from a CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW?!?!?"

 

"Yup, pretty much. Dang, they make much nicer mechanical hands nowdays than they used to!"

Brilliant Tofu!

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

Feel free to exercise your knowledge whenever you want SOCL. The conservative philosophy in context to the Romans (which is almost nihilistic, and existential in relation to how they view the past) is fascinating. I'm always up for learning more, especially about Rome as I know very little.

 

Also I am more inclined to read anything any one of you post as there is a degree of personal involvement, and without such I find myself easily bored with taking in information and reading facts... Online anyways.

 

So yeah, anyone who specializes in anything feel free to talk at me.

[Paul]

SOCL,

I actually like Old Kingdom through the end (Cleopatra) when the Romans conquered it. I admit that Rameses the Great is my favorite followed by Khufu with his great pyramid. The long time of the society is awesome to read about and study. - Grand Moff Conway

[SOCL]

SOCL,

I actually like Old Kingdom through the end (Cleopatra) when the Romans conquered it. I admit that Rameses the Great is my favorite followed by Khufu with his great pyramid. The long time of the society is awesome to read about and study. - Grand Moff Conway

Ancient Egypt is, indeed, the most prominent example of societal and governmental change over time as they were so drastic. The only reason I get bored with Egypt after the arrival of Alexander the Great is that at that point it's no longer African-Egyptian, but has become a typical Hellenistic society run by Greek-speakers.

[Lord_La_forge]

Very nice description of romans there SOCL. Good to see such small essays time by time And as far my knowledge reaches, I think it's totally correct.

 

I've read the Iliad several times (my all time favourite book. Diomedes rulez) but as for the Aeneid, I couldn't finish it. It was just "wrong" somehow. Without judging it of course, you could tell me your opinion about Vergil's book. I felt it was a bit like "forced". (mostly because of the "hidden" linkage with Augustus)

 

"And what about the bit about Aeneas being the son of Venus? Well, that was certainly never in the Aeneid. "

 

Are you sure? I thought he is the son of Venus in Vergil's tale.

[SOCL]

Thanks for the feedback, LaForge.

 

"And what about the bit about Aeneas being the son of Venus? Well, that was certainly never in the Aeneid. "

 

Are you sure? I thought he is the son of Venus in Vergil's tale.After writing that, I started wondering and realized I might have messed up there somewhere. I would go get my copy of Aeneid, but...well, I didn't enjoy it. I may be wrong, though, on the Venus matter. I do know, however, that the Venus issue was intended to tie Julius Caesar and, by way of legal adoption, Augustus to the gods. Besides that, before Octavian became the emperor Augustus, he made Julius Caesar a god and, thus, advance his image by making himself the son of a god. Thus, rather than use a proper Roman name (since his legal name C. Julius Caesar, sometimes called Octavianus--thus the English "Octavian", due to adoption), he dubbed himself Imperator Caesar divi filus, which literally means "Victorious General Caesar, son of a god". It was literally the first time anyone has bestowed upon themselves Imperator ("victorious general") as a title rather than as name as in the past Imperator was only a temporary addition to a legal name bestowed upon generals for a triumph. A triumph is a parade given to a general to march through the city, which was quite popular among the soldiers and even more so among the people as the triumphal army usually tossed money and other prizes gained in battle and subsequent looting to the people.

 

LaForge, I am in complete agreement with you about Aeneid. Not at all a good tale because, as you said, it was quite forced. Vergil was writing under the reign of Augustus, doing his very utmost to praise Augustus--it's thought that Vergil may even have been hired by the Imperial Court for the sake of authoring a story to connect Augustus to the great ancient stories. Besides, he also includes more connections and tries to make a far-reaching reason for the rival hatred between the Romans and Carthaginians in the story of Dido, Queen of Carthage. Then, of course, is Aeneas travel to Hades where he sees all the great rulers of Rome, among which is (surprise! surprise! ) Augustus. In truth, Aeneid was just a political story to praise and justify the actions of the Empire. If you read Augustus' memoirs (Res Gestae Augusti divi, a free, translated copy of which can be read here), you'll notice many, many, many similarities, namely how and by what reasons Augustus uses to defend his actions. Compare this to the reasons and logic Vergil uses to defend Rome's rise to power.

[Lord_La_forge]

Thanks, I will check that.

 

I was just wondering because many teachers tell about Vergil's story as it was something huge. In school I was told 10 years ago, that this writing is one of the greatest epics ever told from the ancient times. After reading it with more experience, I'm pretty sure that the importance of this book is poorly historical, and it could survived with it's fame, mostly, because Rome, and the Roman Empire itself had always been something that Europeans were proud of. (like as I have learned last 7 years, it's art and architecture design (mostly got from the greeks of course) were used all over the past 1500 years. Even my university looks like a roman building (not greek, rather roman.)

So I think the Aeneid is so famous and beloved, because it is about the glory of the Roman Empire. Which was an all time favourite topic in the past centuries. But the story itself is quite forced and maybe a bit kitschy even. I don't know why people still are teaching that Vergil and Homer are somehow on the same level. Must be some strange habit here