| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Julius Caesar Greatest man in history.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Julius Caesar Greatest man in history.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2011 at 04:52
I don't know the MCullough books. I don't mind however an occasional piece of sleuthing with Gordianus the Finder. Smile
 
Also I didn't have love in mind to explain Sulla relenting on Caesar's proscription. It was definitely a weaker moment but I don't know why he did it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2011 at 05:33
I really don't get why Caesar has so much press in the west. So what? He defeated a couple of native tribes with tin swords (if they actually had them) and who paint themselves blue. Big deal.
 
As for the republic, it was dead long before he was politically relevant.
 
For me the guy is no where near the greatest Roman let alone the greatest man ever, the greatest Roman in my opinion is either Sulla or Augustus with Trajan being a distant third.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2011 at 05:57
I have always found it interesting that people often gloss over this subject entirely and not ask where the hell does this order of divorce come from and under what authority was Sulla operating. Why should Sulla instruct Gaius Julius to divorce his wife Cornelia? Could it be with respect to the interesting interconnections of the gens Cornelia?
 
Now for those of us that read pulp for escape...
 
The seven novels that make up Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome cycle:
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2011 at 06:25
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The more important man in history is Jesus, followed by Columbus.


Pinguin, everything is relative in this question. If Jesus was not there, there might not been a conservative Christian church denying the earth is round, which means that someone way before Colombus might have found the Americas. You get my point... Wink
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2011 at 08:06
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

I have always found it interesting that people often gloss over this subject entirely and not ask where the hell does this order of divorce come from and under what authority was Sulla operating. Why should Sulla instruct Gaius Julius to divorce his wife Cornelia? Could it be with respect to the interesting interconnections of the gens Cornelia?
 
Now for those of us that read pulp for escape...
 
The seven novels that make up Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome cycle:
 
 
I love the series, at least from the books I have read. Even though I was familiar with the historical narrative, I still felt great pain watching the decline of Marius' faculties in the Grass Crown. McCullough is an excellent writer and a good researcher to boot. Thanks for bringing back fond memories, drgonzaga. Smile
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 03 Feb 2011 at 08:06
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2011 at 08:35
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I really don't get why Caesar has so much press in the west. So what? He defeated a couple of native tribes with tin swords (if they actually had them) and who paint themselves blue. Big deal.


LOL "Big deal", indeed.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


As for the republic, it was dead long before he was politically relevant.


Caesar finished the murder.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


For me the guy is no where near the greatest Roman let alone the greatest man ever, the greatest Roman in my opinion is either Sulla or Augustus with Trajan being a distant third.


The greatest Roman? Marcus Aurelius? Seneca? There are many candidates
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2011 at 08:39
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The more important man in history is Jesus, followed by Columbus.


Pinguin, everything is relative in this question. If Jesus was not there, there might not been a conservative Christian church denying the earth is round, which means that someone way before Colombus might have found the Americas. You get my point... Wink
 
The assertion that the "Christian" church denied the earth was round is repeatedly proved false by religious iconography! What the heck do people think that little orb with a cross atop  (now usually seen in the coronation regalia of the British Crown) in the hands of the Pantrocrator represented if not the terrestrial? This orb (globus cruciger) gives lie to the repeated nonsense over the "flat earth". No educated individual from the Fourth Century BC onwards asserted the world was flat but for the ocassional nut-case and the persistence of this rubbish generated by the 19th century equivalents of Dawkins and Hitchens (not to mention Sagan) is really a mark of the polemical pissant with other objectives in mind.
 
Here in popular form is a good synopsis:
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Feb 2011 at 12:14
Very interesting, doc. And revealing.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2011 at 19:22
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I really don't get why Caesar has so much press in the west. So what? He defeated a couple of native tribes with tin swords (if they actually had them) and who paint themselves blue. Big deal.
 
Shocked
 
The Gallic Wars were a huge deal, but I'm guessing you're in tavern mode here.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 13:50
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I really don't get why Caesar has so much press in the west. So what? He defeated a couple of native tribes with tin swords (if they actually had them) and who paint themselves blue. Big deal.
 
Shocked
 
The Gallic Wars were a huge deal, but I'm guessing you're in tavern mode here.

Yeah the Gauls and Romans were at war for hundreds of years. To get a better idea of caesar I immediatly went to my library during school and took out Suetonius's book "The lives of the caesars" so this will give me a better idea and then I was a second away from taking out a collection of ovids books also. I almost wanted to learn latin lol. I figure most college students won't take out a book on Ovid so i'm pretty much good that it'll still be there in a month. So far this translation about Caesar in a chapter called the "Deified Julius" its weird cause it almost starts off mid of his life and the way he works through events is odd and it seems to skip from event to event; like the book mentions Caesar was kidnapped by pirates and then ransomed off and apparently "Caesar made a joke about how he was going to kill them" and then it never happens. All it says is then Caesar sends his ship to do what he promises almost like a story or something or maybe the translators latin is lacking but I do not know. Though it seemed to leave out what he did or maybe I read over it. Maybe its one of those things like the author had to re word it to be readable. I'm getting to the part where Caesar is doing things and its mentions in the consuleship of "Julius and Caesar" instead of "Hibilius and Caesar" Whoever the hell Hibilius was; so i'm almost to the part Caesar goes and kicks the guals asses cause its already mentioned "Caesar saw the gaulic regions as a way to get rich and powerful."


Edited by Joe - 05 Feb 2011 at 13:57
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 13:55
Read through Caesar's own commentary of the war. While it is certainly propaganda, it does contain a lot of authentic and informative information.

Anyone who knows anything about the ancient world knows that the Romans adopted iron weapons from the Gauls after the Gauls crushed the Romans in the 4th century. Rome may have had a more advanced urban culture, but the Gauls had formidable soldiers and were not primitively armed. The tin swords comment made me laugh, as it is as backwards an understanding of Romans vs Gauls as one can get.


Edited by Constantine XI - 05 Feb 2011 at 13:56
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2011 at 13:59
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Read through Caesar's own commentary of the war. While it is certainly propaganda, it does contain a lot of authentic and informative information.

Anyone who knows anything about the ancient world knows that the Romans adopted iron weapons from the Gauls after the Gauls crushed the Romans in the 4th century. Rome may have had a more advanced urban culture, but the Gauls had formidable soldiers and were not primitively armed. The tin swords comment made me laugh, as it is as backwards an understanding of Romans vs Gauls as one can get.

I do want to get that cause I wanna get Vegetius's books also. I feel vegetius's books will give me a better idea about how the Roman military thought. I think I'm going to reread the first chapter of "lives of the Caesars" cause it was "In the Consuleship of Julius and Caesar" instead of "In the consuleship of Bibulus and Caesar."


Edited by Joe - 05 Feb 2011 at 14:02
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 04:34
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Read through Caesar's own commentary of the war. While it is certainly propaganda, it does contain a lot of authentic and informative information.

Anyone who knows anything about the ancient world knows that the Romans adopted iron weapons from the Gauls after the Gauls crushed the Romans in the 4th century. Rome may have had a more advanced urban culture, but the Gauls had formidable soldiers and were not primitively armed. The tin swords comment made me laugh, as it is as backwards an understanding of Romans vs Gauls as one can get.
 
Read his Gallic wars and was not impressed by the self promotion. Rome had already a professional army with decades of experience in wars against the Gauls. While Gauls were indeed well into the Iron age that doesn't mean that all the Gauls had swords of iron. Bronze weapons still made the majority of equipment for these people because they didn't have professional armies like Rome, they called men of the tribe to fight and most of those had simple weapons if they had them at all.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 05:48
Sorry Al, but the Gauls were the premiere ironsmiths of their time and even the development of chain mail derived from their iron mongers. True this latter was the trait of their "upper crust" (we will not go into the sense of valor implied by the "naked" in battle aspect of the Celtic culture, but even there formidable shields were no novelty) hence the demeaning of the achievement of Gaius Julius by the dismissal of the Celtic warrior requires some tremendous legerdemain.
 
Here is a summarized description that should underscore that weaponry is not an element in this equation:
 
 
Rather, what has to receive overall emphasis lies in the realm of the tactical. And for that we must perforce place greater emphasis of Gaius Julius.  
 
Of course there's always Hollywood:
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 06 Feb 2011 at 05:59
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 06:11

Perhaps some may see this comment as a bit off-topic, but I cannot help relating the figure of Caesar to the contemporary world. for me it seems one of the thing many peioples want to get rid of is their "Caesars".

Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 06:29
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 



Why the hell is there a black guy in that trailer?


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 06:52
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Read through Caesar's own commentary of the war. While it is certainly propaganda, it does contain a lot of authentic and informative information.

Anyone who knows anything about the ancient world knows that the Romans adopted iron weapons from the Gauls after the Gauls crushed the Romans in the 4th century. Rome may have had a more advanced urban culture, but the Gauls had formidable soldiers and were not primitively armed. The tin swords comment made me laugh, as it is as backwards an understanding of Romans vs Gauls as one can get.
 
Read his Gallic wars and was not impressed by the self promotion. Rome had already a professional army with decades of experience in wars against the Gauls. While Gauls were indeed well into the Iron age that doesn't mean that all the Gauls had swords of iron. Bronze weapons still made the majority of equipment for these people because they didn't have professional armies like Rome, they called men of the tribe to fight and most of those had simple weapons if they had them at all.
 
Al-Jassas


Of course they all had weapons, and the nobles in particular were outfitted with good quality iron. Where did you read that they didn't even have weapons?

Their cavalry was far better than that of the Romans also (better equipped and superior breeds of horses).

Their design of open sea going vessels (the Veneti tribe) was also superior to that of the Romans and could only be defeated through a combination of luck and innovative tactics.

The Gauls had good quality metallurgy at their disposal, for which they did not need to possess a complex urban culture. While the less informed are inclined to think of the Gauls as savages wearing animal skins, the reality was that they were a heavily agricultural people whose grasp of most aspects of technology was similar to that of their neighbours (including the Romans). It was from the Gauls that the Romans copied such items as iron weaponry and soap.

Time and again they proved themselves organised enough to conquer territory in Britain, Iberia, Italy and the upper Danube region. Hardly the sort of thing a primitive tribe with no weapons is capable of. The only reason Caesar found it easy in the first years to conquer the Gauls was because they had fragmented politically. Once they united, the achievement of Caesar in defeating them certainly earned him his reputation for greatness.


Edited by Constantine XI - 06 Feb 2011 at 06:59
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 07:17
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 



Why the hell is there a black guy in that trailer?


Well one could just chalk it up to the impact of the EEOC on even Hollywood (despite a filming on European shores) or be quite sanguine on the topic and acknowledge that by 117 AD Rome reached down into Nubia and the legions were open to enlistment by men wherever found in the Empire. Then there is the iconographic represesantion of the 4th century Saint Maurice of the Theban legion, where he is represented as Black man! We are not discussing "Rasta" history here or the claims that Septimus Severus was a "black" African. The BBC did a piece a while back on the presence of "Africans" along Hadrian's Wall, not that such did not raise some polemical distinctions...

Edited by drgonzaga - 06 Feb 2011 at 07:18
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 08:21
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 



Why the hell is there a black guy in that trailer?


Well one could just chalk it up to the impact of the EEOC on even Hollywood (despite a filming on European shores) or be quite sanguine on the topic and acknowledge that by 117 AD Rome reached down into Nubia and the legions were open to enlistment by men wherever found in the Empire. Then there is the iconographic represesantion of the 4th century Saint Maurice of the Theban legion, where he is represented as Black man! We are not discussing "Rasta" history here or the claims that Septimus Severus was a "black" African. The BBC did a piece a while back on the presence of "Africans" along Hadrian's Wall, not that such did not raise some polemical distinctions...


I assumed it would be a racial thing that they wouldn't be "full legions" rather as spearman or bow men or something. I thought only men from "italy" proper were allowed to enlist and then later on the mixing began like in the late 300s early 400s with the Foederatus.


Edited by Joe - 06 Feb 2011 at 08:21
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 08:36
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 



Why the hell is there a black guy in that trailer?


Because movies trade unions force directors to include them, no matter it is not accurate to despict subsaharans in Britian in those historical times. An Egyptian or Ethiopian could be, actually, but the Yoruba, Mandinga and other West Africans were unknown at the time.

By the way, the same unions force directors to despict upper class Romans like Anglosaxon and Scandinavian people, which they weren't. Even more, in the same movie the Celt are despicted a lot more blond that they probably were. Remember that the Scandinavian and Germanic invasions of Britain changed the make up of that country.


Edited by pinguin - 06 Feb 2011 at 08:56
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 10:15
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

I assumed it would be a racial thing that they wouldn't be "full legions" rather as spearman or bow men or something. I thought only men from "italy" proper were allowed to enlist and then later on the mixing began like in the late 300s early 400s with the Foederatus.
 
No that chronology would be incorrect. While originally under the early Republic. recruitment was limited to the five upper classes of the Roman Republic, by the end of the Social War (87 BC), recruitment was open to all of the free men (not to be confused with freedmen) of Italy (including Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul). Already, in the closing years of the Republic the provincial governors were enlisting freemen from the provinces under their control without any authorization from the Consuls since the privileges of citizenship had been granted to significant numbers of non-Italians. This process had expanded further under the Empire so that by the times of Marcus Aurelius and Caracalla (AD 169-217) recruitment came from the entire Roman World.
 
Now if one is going to quibble about Hollywood taking "liberties" with history or that in entertainment one must faithfully reflect the past then you might as well forego theatrical events altogether! For if you are going to have Romans speaking English, yet quibble over non-Latin looking legionnaires, one enters the realm of the loonie! Just recall all the ranting Mel Gibson received when he had his Mayans in Apocalypso speaking in Ch'ol , the closest proximate to Classic Maya.


Edited by drgonzaga - 06 Feb 2011 at 10:16
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 10:21
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

I assumed it would be a racial thing that they wouldn't be "full legions" rather as spearman or bow men or something. I thought only men from "italy" proper were allowed to enlist and then later on the mixing began like in the late 300s early 400s with the Foederatus.
 
No that chronology would be incorrect. While originally under the early Republic. recruitment was limited to the five upper classes of the Roman Republic, by the end of the Social War (87 BC), recruitment was open to all of the free men (not to be confused with freedmen) of Italy (including Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul). Already, in the closing years of the Republic the provincial governors were enlisting freemen from the provinces under their control without any authorization from the Consuls since the privileges of citizenship had been granted to significant numbers of non-Italians. This process had expanded further under the Empire so that by the times of Marcus Aurelius and Caracalla (AD 169-217) recruitment came from the entire Roman World.
 
Now if one is going to quibble about Hollywood taking "liberties" with history or that in entertainment one must faithfully reflect the past then you might as well forego theatrical events altogether! For if you are going to have Romans speaking English, yet quibble over non-Latin looking legionnaires, one enters the realm of the loonie! Just recall all the ranting Mel Gibson received when he had his Mayans in Apocalypso speaking in Ch'ol , the closest proximate to Classic Maya.


Having an All Latin movie would be amazing. I mean the closest thing to the then language is the catholic church leaders whom still speak fluent latin but thats transformed over the years. I don't care if a movie is "historically inaccurate" as long as its not just BS and completely untrue. Like Gladiator completely awesome movie and I love it. The historical inaccuracies are not a problem. I mean when Russel Crowe takes off that mask and gives the little speech is epic as hell and worth the entire movie.

Another note though how cool would it be to bring latin back as a spoken language. I wanna learn the language and then attempt to hand in papers at my college in all latin; it'd be pretty awesome to learn it enough where you speak it as a second language. It'd probably be more worth it than to learn spanish I think.


Edited by Joe - 06 Feb 2011 at 10:22
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 10:35
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

... 
Now if one is going to quibble about Hollywood taking "liberties" with history or that in entertainment one must faithfully reflect the past then you might as well forego theatrical events altogether! For if you are going to have Romans speaking English, yet quibble over non-Latin looking legionnaires, one enters the realm of the loonie! Just recall all the ranting Mel Gibson received when he had his Mayans in Apocalypso speaking in Ch'ol , the closest proximate to Classic Maya.


Well, in the movie the Passion of Christ, by Mel Gibson as well, Jews speak in Aramaic and Romans in Latin. Accurately enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Due3iUlaoX4



Edited by pinguin - 06 Feb 2011 at 10:36
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 10:39
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

....
Having an All Latin movie would be amazing. I mean the closest thing to the then language is the catholic church leaders whom still speak fluent latin but thats transformed over the years. I don't care if a movie is "historically inaccurate" as long as its not just BS and completely untrue. Like Gladiator completely awesome movie and I love it. The historical inaccuracies are not a problem. I mean when Russel Crowe takes off that mask and gives the little speech is epic as hell and worth the entire movie.

Another note though how cool would it be to bring latin back as a spoken language. I wanna learn the language and then attempt to hand in papers at my college in all latin; it'd be pretty awesome to learn it enough where you speak it as a second language. It'd probably be more worth it than to learn spanish I think.


Forms of Latin are still alive outside the Catholic church. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French and Romanian are derivations of vulgar Latin (Latin of the soldiers and merchants). Spanish and Italian, in particular, are close enough to the original Latin "sound" to introduce you to Latin with relative easy.


Edited by pinguin - 06 Feb 2011 at 10:42
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 10:48
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

[QUOTE=Joe] ....Forms of Latin are still alive outside the Catholic church. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French and Romanian are derivations of vulgar Latin (Latin of the soldiers and merchants). Spanish and Italian, in particular, are close enough to the original Latin "sound" to introduce you to Latin with relative easy.


True I use to take spanish in high school and all I can remember is that theres feminine and masculine wording and Comos Estas. I use to have an amazing teacher whom I really liked and he even offered to teach me on the side but then he moved like a fag. I thought of him as friend in the closest way a student and a teacher can be friends. I had all A's in his class. then none of the other teachers were as awesome.


Edited by Joe - 06 Feb 2011 at 10:49
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 11:00
And we all know how tedious films with subtitles really are particularly if one is fluent in the language requiring captions. Every minute one has to mutter to one's self "that's not what they are saying"!  As for Gibson and his bit on Aramaic and Latin (with members of the Sanhedrin and Pilate no less communicating with each other thus) well such is more than improbable given the fact that the language for communication in that setting was Koine Greek! Or has everyone forgotten that the Sanhedrin was the forum for the Hellenized Jew.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 11:10
Indeed, Greek was the lingua franca in that part of the Roman Empire. However, Gibson wanted locals to look as much Romanized as possible, so make them to speak Latin.

Edited by pinguin - 06 Feb 2011 at 11:12
Back to Top
King Kang of Mu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
(Foot)Balling DJ from da Eastside

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1408
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King Kang of Mu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2011 at 11:26
while we are off topic on hellenization of christianity and cinemas dealing with roman-christian relations, i actually enjoyed David Bowie as Pontius Pilate in The Last Temptation of Christ.  Harvey Keitel as the militant Judas was interesting too.  Of course, Kazantzakis' book was much better.  the movie was banned in Korea, so i had to wait until i moved to u.s.   rather silly now i think about it.


Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought.

Milan Kundera
Back to Top
jonathanhardy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 03 Jan 2020
Location: CANBERRA
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jonathanhardy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2020 at 20:50
Julius Caesar is without peer in world history.  The greatest soldier statesman of all time.  Incomparable genius.

I'll say it again: incomparable genius.

and yes, I can imagine the clamour arising from the the ignorant or the jealous ; or from the craven or the simply mediocre: 'that's just another opinion'.

yes, it is.  But an opinion shared by the majority of great historians past and present, and held uniformly by those schooled in the classics according to the standard and measure of a time that is now passed..
JH
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2515
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2020 at 03:13
Julius Caesar was great in part bc the traditions of Rome did not impose a patriarchal god as a foundation for civilization. 

Where is the religion in the contractual civic duty of a Roman citizen? 
Julius Ceasar is the closest thing to a deity, not gods who had prescribed honors due to them in exchange for continued prosperity.

The war machine of Julius Caesar is the Demi urge in an arguably non religious society that births Western Civ.
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.