The History Thread

[Guest ZipGunBop]

The best of the worst.

 

[ManfredSchaefer]

The best of the worst.

 

 

Seen this a few months back...Little Boots gets a good run as 'maddest/most dangerous Roman emperor', usually vying with Nero. But for me, it's the Syrian teenager who is the star performer of the Scriptores Historia Augusta, Elagabalus, who deserves this honour:

 

 

 

 

When his friends became drunk he would often shut them up, and suddenly during the night let in his lions and leopards and bears — all of them harmless — so that his friends on awakening at dawn, or worse, during the night, would find lions and leopards and bears in the room with themselves; and some even died from this cause. Some of his humbler friends he would seat on air-pillows instead of on cushions and let out the air while they were dining, so that often the diners were suddenly found under the table. Finally, he was the first to think of placing a semi-circular group on the ground instead of on couches, with the purpose of having the air-pillows loosened by slaves who stood at the feet of the guests and the air thus let out.

 

Any emperor who used whoopee cushions & defanged lions to take the piss out of his guests is dude as far as I'm concerned.

 

Of course the SHA has issues as a primary source but it's still a great read...

[Guest ZipGunBop]

I often wonder if he was a man of the people, lavishing excess on the peasants,

 

If most of the stories are fabrications of an aristrocracy to paint him as a tyrant so their betrayal would be excused in the pages of history.

[marron]

IS elagabalus the guy whose mum got him the position more or less? He was from Asia minor or somewhere?

[Guest ZipGunBop]

Open question;

 

Besides Cicciro, can you think of any favourite skilled rhetoricians throughout history, that you particulalrly enjoy?

 

Am looking for study material.

[ManfredSchaefer]

I often wonder if he was a man of the people, lavishing excess on the peasants,

 

If most of the stories are fabrications of an aristrocracy to paint him as a tyrant so their betrayal would be excused in the pages of history.

 

 

IS elagabalus the guy whose mum got him the position more or less? He was from Asia minor or somewhere?

 

That's always the question with virtually every ancient literary source, and specifically in the Roman context the bias held by most writers (who came from at least the equestrian order if not senatorial). However in Elagabalas' case you also have a helluva prob with the SHA, which as the key biography of him (and most who assumed that position from Hadrian through to I think Carinus) has so many issues with corrupted text, authorship and falsified documents it makes Suetonius look like Hansard. I think we can disregard probably 60-70% of the 'facts' reported in the SHA, but having said that there must still be a kernel of accuracy within the narrative, such as the importance of his familial links to the earlier Severans, the bonds between the family and the army, his capricious nature, his religious devotion and the alienation his figure created within the establishment.

 

Having said that Elagabalus was not necessarily a man of the people nor indeed was he betrayed by the aristocracy per se. He both ascended and then fell through the agencies of his complex family, i.e. the Syrian Juliae (Maesa, Bassiana - his mother, and Mamea, his aunt). He also was nominally disconnected from the urban populi of Rome because of his ethnicity and his religion (the worship of El Gabal, a sun god from Syrian Emesa). Throw in the fact he was a teenager when raised to the throne and also when assassinated by the supporters of his cousin Severus Alexander, my expectation of and for him was he was probably a convenient figurehead for Julia Soaemias Bassiana to rule through (a bit like how Agrippina the Younger guided the early years of Nero's regime). I suspect the profligacy and distribution of largesse (which is a them for every despised Roman emperor) is exaggerated because of Elagabalus' 'non-Roman' qualities.

 

And I wouldn't get too focused on his sexual behaviour either as a key criticism. The ability to express and find physical pleasure with both women and men was not judged in a dialectic we understand now through Homo/Hetero/Bisexual discourse. Where there is a barbed criticism (e.g. his passivity with social or political inferiors) it is not what we may understand to be sexual prejudice. That's best seen in the anecdote about Elagabalus being a bride for his cook.

 

 

Open question;

 

Besides Cicciro, can you think of any favourite skilled rhetoricians throughout history, that you particulalrly enjoy?

 

Am looking for study material.

 

Cicero is the most important (and best preserved) rhetorician we have and to be honest you could study him for years and still come away feeling like you haven't got to grips with his work. Having said that there are a few others from the imperial period worth checking out. Seneca the Elder and Seneca the Younger are both polished rhetors, though the Younger has the more divergent material (his letters and plays are a good read, as is the Apocolocyntosis Divi Claudii or Pumpkinfination of the Divine Emperor Claudius. Quintilian (fl. 1st century AD) is another major source, and he actually writes about rhetoric as a craft/skill/art. Fronto is fragmentary but his letters to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus are useful (the Loeb edition of his correspondence should still be available). Then you could skip forward to the 4th century, Libanius of Antioch was a friend of Julian the Apostate and his works have survived in good quantity and quality. Lactantius is useful from a Christian perspective, and you might find some material of interest in Jerome and St Augustine.

[Guest ZipGunBop]

Ooohhh St Augustine,

 

Hero and villian in equal measure.

[Guest ZipGunBop]

Thanks for the tips Manny. Will look into them.

 

In regards to history, ancient has never been my forte. I've generally been more drawn to the medieval period and the enlightenment. The ancient world is a difficult one to navigate by comparison. Tyranny of time and all that.

 

My favourite subject matter has always been the Mongol empire. Unfortunately, the written word and/or records were not readily available or reliable until at least Kublai, the golden hordes and the splitting of the empire by the various Khans.

 

They were barbarians after all.

 

The study of the military tactics employed by the Mongols is fascinating enough as it is.

[marron]

Gabal Manfred thankyou I knew there was something specific about this guy I couldn't quite put my finger on.

 

As for the proclivities, I well remember trying to work out an accurate translation for "irrumator"...

 

 

I was never into ancient history myself beyond a general interest really but teaching it the last few years has given me a bit of a renewed interest. I like the fact that ancient people can seem so close to us in many ways but in others are beyond our comprehension. So Juvenal and catullus are my favourites (not rhetoricians zip!)

[Guest ZipGunBop]

See I always regarded Greece and Egypt as the "proper" ancients.

 

Rome In many ways was like the blob. Going around and sucking up the culture and customs of those they conquered and adapting it to themselves.

 

Same thing eventually happened to the Mongols. They basically became chinese.

 

Chinngis wanted them to stay nomadic. No cities for their enemies to conquer.

[marron]

That's why I like em. Reminds me of us

 

I don't know if I could say I love Egyptian history per Se but I love Egypt. Have been a few times.

 

Greece I find interesting politically.

[Guest ZipGunBop]

Oh greece and politics.

 

Peas in a pod.

 

We still use alot of that wisdom today.

[Guest ZipGunBop]

http://youtu.be/eZ5Bu-eqVZM

[pseudonym]

Open question;

 

Besides Cicciro, can you think of any favourite skilled rhetoricians throughout history, that you particulalrly enjoy?

 

Am looking for study material.

 

Hi Zip

 

I would say that Lincoln might give you a more modern example of good rhethoric

 

Background Context

 

If you need some background context on antebellum America (nineteenth century prior to the Civil War), I'd recommend:

• David Herbert Doanld's biography just titled Lincoln (there are several good biographies, I just prefer his writing)
• Sean Wilentz - The Rise of American Democracy

Primary Sources

 

Since he was an American president, a lot of effort has been dedicated to digitally preserving his papers.

 

The Abraham Lincoln Association (University of Michigan / Library of Congress) has collected works here:

 

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

 

Otherwise, most bookstores in the Sydney CBD sell a collection of Lincoln's famous letters and speeches.

 

Books on Lincoln and Rhethoric

 

A quick list of books is as follows:

• Kenneth Cmiel - Democratic Eloquence: The Fight Over Popular Speech in Nineteenth Century America
• Nan Johnson - Nineteenth Century Rhetoric in North America
• Edwin Black - Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method
• Ronald C. White Jnr - Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural
• Harold Holzer - Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President
• Harold Holzer (eds) - The Lincoln Douglas Debates
• Harry Jaffa - Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln Douglas Debates
• David Zarefsky - Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In The Crucible of Public Debate

If you need some more help, don't hesitate to ask

 

Cheers

[Guest ZipGunBop]

Holy $hit.

 

Thanks man.

 

Much appreciated.

 

You are an unsung hero on these boards. Always popping up with stuff. Useful stuff.

 

I wish you and your serfs a plentiful harvest and military conquests to resonate throughout the ages, my liege.

[wendybr]

^^^ I was just going to say the same  

 

Zip said it better (and more entertainingly)  than I  could.... but if there is a nicer, more thoughtful and helpful person out there than you, Pseudo,  I'd be surprised!  

 

 

[marron]

You know what a pseudonym is right wendy?

[pseudonym]

Aw shucks guys

 

It's all good. I'm glad I'm able to use my Social Science degree from USYD for something

[wendybr]

You know what a pseudonym is right wendy?

 

Ooooops.  I fixed my typo!!!    

 

Ta!

 

PS    You men and your pseudonyms!!  .

 

Women here don't bother with them.

[Guest ZipGunBop]

Aw shucks guys

 

It's all good. I'm glad I'm able to use my Social Science degree from USYD for something

A POX!

 

A POX ON THEE!

[Guest ZipGunBop]

Soooo,

 

All this time, all this time you've been playing the unassuming, helpful stranger.

 

Slowly becoming part of the furniture, warming our hearts and stimulating our minds.

 

But all the while, hiding your secret shame, as a master of the dark arts.

 

Pray for the kingdom dear peasants, for I have seen the devil.

 

He has a social science degree.

 

Oh the wickedness.

[wendybr]

Just don't let Mick know!!  

[ManfredSchaefer]

Re the medieval/ancient history dilemma

 

I came to a more detailed study of ancient history late, i.e. university after a solid grounding in modern and Australian history at high school. Medieval history was there somewhat, insofar as getting to grips with the feudal system, a very very light touch on the Crusades, and that was about it. Where ancient history floated my boat, and to some extent underlines why I am always going to want to retain an interest in it is because of the vagueness of the period. Yes, there are some certainties (we know that Julius Caesar lived, we have epigraphic evidence for the strategoi of Athens etc etc), however thanks to the paucity and nature of the literary sources the ability to find plausible historical arguments is a never ending one, and the mostly pre-Christian aspects of the relevant societies means that the likes of Greece and Rome are truly separate from us in ways that, for example, medieval Britain isn't. 

 

Now, as for St Augustine I only have read his 'Confessions' and to be blunt I found him to be a sanctimonious, hypocritical, sexually conflicted wordy bastard who used religion as an excuse to create a misogynistic world view.  Perhaps it's because I was reading him specifically for his late antiquity views on homoeroticism I found this to be the case, plus I am hardly one to look for some kind of spiritual enlightenment from a father of the Catholic Church. However his relationships with his common law wife, his son and his mother in the Confessions leaves me with the conclusion he was ultimately using his Christianity as an escape valve for his psychological inadequacies. Throw in the importance he has within the Catholic church and the undue influence he has had on their theology, philosophy and culture...well he gives me the tuppenny bits.

 

See I always regarded Greece and Egypt as the "proper" ancients.

Rome In many ways was like the blob. Going around and sucking up the culture and customs of those they conquered and adapting it to themselves.

Same thing eventually happened to the Mongols. They basically became chinese.

Chinngis wanted them to stay nomadic. No cities for their enemies to conquer.

 

The whole construct of what made someone 'Roman' was a question for the Romans themselves, and it comes through even from the earliest myths and poems of their origins, insofar as the epic of the Trojan Aeneas, as well as the **** of the Sabine women, the influence of the Etruscans on the regal period, down through the expansion throughout Latium, then Italy etc etc.

 

By the time the western empire faded from imperial rule under Romulus Augustulus into 'barbarian' control being Roman was not as much a political or racial statement, as an intellectual or social one. Hispanics such as Seneca, Trajan and Martial were just as Roman as the Danubians Claudius Gothicus or Dicoletian, and just as Roman as the African Septimius Severus, or the Greek Dio Cassius, or the Syrian Julias I talked about before. The Roman ability to adapt and transform its politics, its culture, its intellectual and social world meant that it was able to succeed in both length of time and impact on Europe's future, unlike the city states of ancient Hellas.

[Nnnnnathan12]

See I always regarded Greece and Egypt as the "proper" ancients.

 

Rome In many ways was like the blob. Going around and sucking up the culture and customs of those they conquered and adapting it to themselves.

 

Same thing eventually happened to the Mongols. They basically became chinese.

 

Chinngis wanted them to stay nomadic. No cities for their enemies to conquer.

Exactly, 

 

what have the romans ever done for us?

[ManfredSchaefer]

Oh FFS...censoring a historic phase as that referring to the capture of the Sabine women by those early followers of Romulus?   

[Nnnnnathan12]

Fascinating how his birthday is the same date of the execution,

 

http://m.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/ahead-of-nrl-anzac-day-games-the-sharks-michael-gordon-reveals-his-brutal-heritage/story-fn2mcuj6-1227312571737

[marron]

My grandfather was up there in the same area.

 

This is one for the history buffs

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/20/ataturks-johnnies-and-mehmets-words-about-the-anzacs-are-shrouded-in-doubt

[ManfredSchaefer]

My grandfather was up there in the same area.

 

This is one for the history buffs

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/20/ataturks-johnnies-and-mehmets-words-about-the-anzacs-are-shrouded-in-doubt

 

Good read.

[marron]

Yep.

 

A nice little exemplar of how little things become hard facts.

Put a whole bunch of little things together and a myth can become hard truth.

[ManfredSchaefer]

Yep.

 

A nice little exemplar of how little things become hard facts.

Put a whole bunch of little things together and a myth can become hard truth.

 

I always remember one of the most brilliant examples of history teaching from one of my teachers in High School.

 

He got us to stand in a circle and gave one student a couple of sentences, and he had to pass it onto the next one. The next student had to repeat the exact words to the next one and so on until it got to the first person who started the recitation.

 

Of course it had changed so much by that time it was almost entirely different...thus indicating that when it comes to historical sources what may have been the original meaning, words, intent or language can and does change, thus making it vital to apply as much textual criticism you can. Throw in my years studying ancient history where that kind of approach must be paramount, and I have every respect for the detective work done by the article's writers.

 

Having said that it was also insightful that whilst attempting to reassert validity to the actual words from Attaturk, the article appropriately addressed the mythical nature of the quote's historicity within the culture context of Australian/Turkish relations.