tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post6884843770245897741..comments2023-10-10T05:17:55.737-07:00Comments on Crushed By Ingsoc: The Romans of TiberiusCrushedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02479751225625007588noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-32784619821938424492008-11-15T14:25:00.000-08:002008-11-15T14:25:00.000-08:00Rome would have been far better off if Drusus or G...Rome would have been far better off if Drusus or Germanicus had succeeded Augustus.<br><br>The reluctant Tiberius had a great start but gave way to the vilest corruption, delegating too much to the evil Sejanus, and then had to install Caligula as his heir to ensure a successor worse than him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-64759890864738118352008-11-15T14:29:00.000-08:002008-11-15T14:29:00.000-08:00Great post, that's the sort of stuff I enjoy readi...Great post, that's the sort of stuff I enjoy reading here. And I have had it said before - that we as a people really are probably suffering from a collective post traumatic stress, esp after 9th of Sep 2001Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-9179391667140144072008-11-15T17:22:00.000-08:002008-11-15T17:22:00.000-08:00Tiberius - interesting. I'd always thought it was...Tiberius - interesting. I'd always thought it was during the age of the Antonines that the Romans were happiest, given that so little history occurred during that era (other than Marcus Aurelius finally securing the northern borders), and given that history is little more than a baleful recitation of wars and misery. Gibbon certainly waxes poetic about those two emperors.<br><br>Ah, Rome!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-58376888816441383042008-11-15T20:59:00.000-08:002008-11-15T20:59:00.000-08:00Rome had so many bad emperors that it is lucky it ...Rome had so many bad emperors that it is lucky it lasted so long. It is easier to count the good ones. Tiberius wasn't as bad as those who followed Titus (Nero and Caligula, honorable mention). Didn't they get murdered every few months so that there was no steady regime until about 5 years? Then there were the latter losers after the Eastern Empire got smart and left. I need my Gibbons nearby, but offhand I think Augustus was good and Julius C, if he really counts, Marcus Aurelius, Titus--a son of a bitch, but he kept the empire together, Vespusian (sp)--ditto on Titus, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and some other guy who tried to make Rome go pagan after Constantine--don't remember his name and there was civil war, but I have a soft spot for any guy trying to overthrow one institutionalized religion for another. Constantine is everyone's hero, but thanks to him, Christianity is a mess--did good things in the East, fought some good wars, but I don't think he should be remembered well.<br><br>Instead of counting sheep to sleep, I should count Roman emperors--first the West than the East. Then I will start counting popes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-16751187482776152772008-11-16T16:53:00.000-08:002008-11-16T16:53:00.000-08:00Lad Litter- That view is certainly the one put acr...Lad Litter- That view is certainly the one put across by Suetonius and perpetuated by Robert Graves in I Claudius.<br><br>But we mustn't forget, Graves was the translotor of Suetonius for Penguin Classics and Suetonius was a kind of gossip columnist historian whose main aim was to demonstrate how bad the Emperots prior to the 'good emperors' were.<br><br>I don't actually think Tiberius chose Caligula just to make himself look good by comparison.<br><br>Caligula had a lot of apparent merits prior to his accesion. He certainly had Charisma.<br><br>Tiberius is often under rated, I think by modern history, familiar as it is with Suetonius and Graves. The Middle Ages regarded him highly- medieval mystery plays generally portray him as angry that Pilate had killed Christ, for example.<br><br>Kate- I think possibly 9-11 tapped into our apocalyptic fears. They sem only to ever lie just under the surface.<br><br>It strikes me especially looking at Germany. I still think Germany lives in a shadow, and of course Austria too. Imagine having a whole history that kind of leads up to you rejecting your entire past?<br><br>It can't be good for the psyche of a culture. I can't believe its just coincidence that when something truly wierd or sick hits the headlines, it tends to be from that part of the world.<br><br>Martian- One could argue that all empires go through a number of different peaks, rather like waves- that there is a true peak period, followed by a delayed zenith which hides the fact the decline has already begun.<br><br>For example, I don't think the British Empire of 1900 any longer had the drive it had had at the Great Exhibition of 1851, when it truly was the powerhouse of the globe. But in wealth and territorial extent, it was at its greatest.<br><br>Likewise I think the Antonine Empire was probably Rome at aits wealthiest and most prosperous, but it was still a chastened Rome and one which already had within it the seeds of its own decline.<br><br>Enemy of the Republic- The third century sees a thick and fast succession of emperors, none of them much good and few very memorable. Heliogabulus the Horrible is perhaps the most amusing- far worse than Nero really. He had a macabre sense of humour- he'd feed his guests food from ivory and of course, they'd eat it anyway so as not to offend. Anmd if they got drunk, he'd send the lions in. And he was drawn by a chariot pulled by nude women. He was 21, I think, at his death.<br><br>Julian the apostate is the guy you're thinking of.<br><br>I think constantine deserves remembering well, because of his astute realisation that the only way to save the Empire was to accept Rome was done for- that civilisation could only be saved by building a new capital free from the dieing city and the past.<br><br>By building Constantinople, he changed the realpolitik of the Empire and allowed a New Roman Empire to carry on by merging the best of the decaying Empire with the values of the new Christian Imperium.<br>I often think the Byzantine Empire is a much neglected topic of history.<br><br>I'm not sure I could count Roman Emperors- Eastern ones from Justinian onwards, yes. Popes, well there were a lot of them. And it can get confusing with all the anti-popes and the errors in numbering, etc. With Popes I can usually say ROUGHLY when each one reigned if you give me his name, but I wouldn't want to attempt to list them in succesion. There's 262 of them, I doubt I'd get too far :)<br><br>And that doesn't count anti-popes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-42332129789930003062008-11-16T23:47:00.000-08:002008-11-16T23:47:00.000-08:00Yes, I'm a bit Graves-Suetonius centric I'm afraid...Yes, I'm a bit Graves-Suetonius centric I'm afraid, CBI. Dilletante, me?<br><br>If only the lost Annals of Tacitus would turn up in some attic.<br><br>Your knowledge and insight are superb.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-12316446517927451302008-11-17T20:04:00.000-08:002008-11-17T20:04:00.000-08:00But that we could share a pint and debate this, Cr...But that we could share a pint and debate this, Crushed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-11484002497009081602008-11-17T20:13:00.000-08:002008-11-17T20:13:00.000-08:00I agree with you there, Crushed. Certainly the Br...I agree with you there, Crushed. Certainly the British Empire was at its height in direct correlation with its maritime supremacy, which corresponds to that same general time period (albeit a bit later, perhaps).<br><br>Here's a thought that I know you will find familiar: at the height of their power, the Romans ruled a world at least as big as what Americans rule now -- without electricity, Internet, or artificial light.<br><br>How far, indeed, has civilization grown?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-53432700217038146822008-11-18T10:24:00.000-08:002008-11-18T10:24:00.000-08:00Lad Litter- Tacitus is generally quite reliable, i...Lad Litter- Tacitus is generally quite reliable, in my opinion. But yes, it's a shame we don't have the Caligula years.<br><br>I think I just look at the realities of Rome under Tiberius. Yes, he certainly succumbed to dotage a bit, but he came down on Sejanus like a ton of bricks when he went too far.<br><br>I think I tend to judge any culture on its literary/scientific output. And the height of Roman culture does seem to be about this point.<br><br>I'm not sure what moral lessons we can draw from this period, but it seems to me that humanity kind of found a perfect balance at that point- but balances are of their nature delicate. And time doesn't stand still.<br><br>But Rome still represents, to me, the earliest attempt to establish a truly comprehensive systematic way of living. Rome was the first culture to actually get down to trying to work out what was the best way for people to live and how to do it. A very practical culture, in some ways, if at the same time curiously ignorant in their superstitions.<br><br>Martian- I quite enjoy that actually, a good intellectual chat over a pint.<br><br>It's interesting your points ind of link with eachother...<br><br>It is a little known fact that the British Foreign Office was thoroughly pissed off by the Berlin Conference and the plans to actually carve Africa up. As it stood, Britain controlled the African trade without having to spend too much money on it. The concept of 'Invisible Empire'. And it was true, of course.<br><br>Actually carving africa up meant Britain spent more, but actually had less sway.<br><br>The British empire at the height of its ACTUAL power, controlled a lot more of global affairs than the map suggested. By 1900 it LOOKED bigger, but its power was on the wane.<br><br>Take South America. Up till the Spanish American war, the Monroe Doctrine meant diddly squat. Go south of Panama, and you might theoretically be looking at a load of unstable banana republics, but in practice, South America was a solely British trade preserve.<br><br>Even in the 1930s it was debatable ground- witness the Gran Chaco war- essentially between British Petroleum and Standard Oil.<br><br>Same with the US today. The only places it doesn't ACTUALLY determine the economy of, it declares to be pariah states.<br><br>One could argue that the US of today is equivalent to that portion of Italy that the senate ruled, the rest of the world is the wide Empire across the Rubicon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com