Common errors about Antiquity

[Narukami]

My books on Alexander and daily life in ancient Rome will this summer be published in Turkish, and I hope to find an English publisher soon;

Looking forward to that.

:wink:

Narukami

[M. Eversberg II]

I do not often browse these boards, but this topic is intriguing. I spotted numerous fallacies I too thought were truth; I look forward to seeing them debunked.

Good luck on your monumental project!

M.

[Jona Lendering]

Good luck on your monumental project!

We'll do our best.

[SOCL]

Here's a rather simple one: the idea that the Romans used chariots, so popularized by films. :roll:

[SigniferOne]

Caesar did not want to be king? This is news to me, perhaps I could be explained the significance of the golden throne that he built for himself then.

[Narukami]

The question of Caesar's motivations could form not just its own thread but an entire Topic Section all to itself.

If I might suggest...

Take a look at The Assassination of Julius Caesar A People's History Of Ancient Rome by Michael Parenit. c2003 ISBN: 1-56584-942-6

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Caesar.html

http://www.amazon.com/Assassination-Jul ... 1565847970

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/med ... 279877.mp3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=e ... IO_Ldn2H4o

Neil Faulkner in his book, Rome Empire of the Eagles, found Parenti's book to be "... an excellent read and a refreshingly acerbic indictment of the Late Republican ruling class, but the analysis of Caesar and what he represented is naive." (p329)

I could not disagree more. I think Parenti's assessment of Caesar is right on the money. Now perhaps this is my own bias because it reflects what I want to believe of Caesar, even so I think Parenti makes excellent points not only about the major actors of the Late Republic, and latter day historians, but about Julius Caesar as well.

Some believe that Caesar was a populares plain and cynical, but from my reading I hold that Caesar truly believed in the popular cause and was indeed a champion of the people, the so called "mob."

Other members of our Forum may not hold with this view, in fact I dare say the last two links above, to a radio show and a video of lectures by Parenti, are likely to upset some people. My intention is not to upset, but I do like to keep the conversation lively. :oops:

As I say this is a subject perhaps best moved off to its own Thread. I leave that decision to our Moderators. :|

:wink:

Narukami

[M. Eversberg II]

As a total amateur, I am certain Cæsar thought he was Jupiter incarnate.

M.

[M. Demetrius]

Well, he said it was just a chair.

[Theodosius the Great]

"What would the name "King" buy me that I don't already have ?" - Richard Harris in his final role as L. Cornelius Sulla. Indeed, what besides a great deal of trouble ?

Here's a rather simple one: the idea that the Romans used chariots, so popularized by films.

Well, not in warfare at least. :|

~Theo

[Gluteus Maximus]

Great Idea!

T[color=#800000]hat there were only 300 Spartans at Thermopylae (I guess technically the Helots were not Spartans :? )
Narukami

I think that there were a couple of thousand Thespians as well. I believe they put on a good show.

[M. Demetrius]

:lol:
And they did right well, considering their broken legs, eh?

[SOCL]

Caesar did not want to be king? This is news to me, perhaps I could be explained the significance of the golden throne that he built for himself then.

The "throne," if I understand correctly, wasn't much more than an elaborately decorated curule chair, part of the symbol of his office - not much more. The concept of the "throne" probably comes from this type of chair, but majorly evolved and used as a symbol of power for the later European nobility/monarchies. I would not invest much, if anything on Caesar wanting to be king just because he had a nice, new chair made for himself. Yeah, sure, it signified his power, but it didn't carry the kingly connotation then that it does today.

[M. Demetrius]

During the time that the two consuls sat in the Senate, they both sat on curule chairs, iirc. Caesar just had one of them removed when he became dictator. That probably wasn't unique, as there had been other dictators in time of need before.

[Jona Lendering]

During the time that the two consuls sat in the Senate, they both sat on curule chairs, iirc. Caesar just had one of them removed when he became dictator. That probably wasn't unique, as there had been other dictators in time of need before.

Yes, but notice that Caesar received the Senate, seated on the platform of the Temple of Venus Genetrix on the Forum of Caesar, and refused to stand up when his guests came in. If Caesar did not realize that this would be interpreted as royal behavior, he was a fool; I think it was a calculated act. Had the conscript fathers accepted it, he might have set further steps.

[Nihonius Legio]

Some of this stuff is really debatable, not all of it can be called false for sure.