+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ancient Civ Talk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Common errors about Antiquity (/showthread.php?tid=14976)
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Robert Vermaat - 05-03-2010
Quote:To get full effect there, though, you'd need to have all the examples of invaders who just landed, beat up the locals, got what they wanted and left. Caesar, Claudius, William of Normandy, and William of Orange are just the most famous.Caesar yes, but one can hardly claim that Claudius or the Williams 'just landed and left'.. :roll:
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Memmia - 05-03-2010
The Angles and Saxons invaded and drove out or killed every inhabitant of Britain and as a result all 'English' people are now (pure?
D ) 'British' people being the Welsh, Scottish and CornishIt's amazing how many people believe this!
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Gorgon - 05-03-2010
Quote:The Angles and Saxons invaded and drove out or killed every inhabitant of Britain and as a result all 'English' people are now (pure?
It's amazing how many people believe this!
Probably less than the amount of people who believe that the British/Irish are "Celts" even nowadays.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Sean Manning - 05-04-2010
Quote:I meant "the Ceasars and Williams are just the most famous invaders" not "the Caesars and Williams are just the most famous hit-and-run raiders" but I can see my wording was unclear.Sean Manning:3to4p93l Wrote:To get full effect there, though, you'd need to have all the examples of invaders who just landed, beat up the locals, got what they wanted and left. Caesar, Claudius, William of Normandy, and William of Orange are just the most famous.Caesar yes, but one can hardly claim that Claudius or the Williams 'just landed and left'.. :roll:
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Timotheus - 05-12-2010
Quote:But Romans of the upper classes also possessed a potlatch mentality - instead of investing, they used their fortunes on things like monuments, public shows and banquets, restoring temples and, sometimes, useful things like aqueducts, bridges and roads. The point was to glorify their names, and it worked: we still speak of the Aqua Claudia and the Via Appia and the Ponte Fabrizio.
You have to keep in perspective though. You cannot compare to life today. How I live, you live, and say how Bill Gates lives, is worlds apart. Heck, what Bill Gates can do because of his wealth versus what a "mere" millionaire can do is pretty staggering.
But in Ancient Rome? Really, what could Crassus do financially that Cicero could not do? When you look at their world you realize that the further back in time you go the less money you need to hit the physical limits of life as wealth can provide you.
Once you hit that point any more wealth accumulated is aimed at other items like the prestiege builders you mentioned. An interesting question that might put things into even better perspective is do we have evidence of high level members of Roman society who absolutely destroyed themselves via their attempts at glory. If we do and its more than just a rare random occurance then that would suggest that prestiege was considered much much more important than pure wealth.
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - SigniferOne - 05-13-2010
Quote:An interesting question that might put things into even better perspective is do we have evidence of high level members of Roman society who absolutely destroyed themselves via their attempts at glory. If we do and its more than just a rare random occurance then that would suggest that prestiege was considered much much more important than pure wealth.
I would posit that pure prestige was actually the main currency in Rome in the first place, rather than pure wealth. Aside from the basic human needs additional money added a dwindling advantage, especially as you say in antiquity; and especially for the Romans. Any further money gained was always gained for an increase in auctoritas, dignitas, etc.
Then there are ethical, non-monetary examples of this pursuit of prestige, e.g. e.g. Cato or Musonius or Curiatus, who pursued prestige as exemplified in honor.
Then again you do have gigantically dignified statesmen like Scipio Africanus receding into absolute obscurity upon their retirement, with no collateral advantages from their life in service...
Re: Common errors about Antiquity - Metalstrm - 05-30-2010
A misconception that may have been spread by the growing Church. At least I know that I used to think it: On the cross, Jesus was given a drink of sour wine/posca as an act of cruelty.