MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
All Things Roman (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 26, 27, 28  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Anyway.

Two years after the Caesar was assassinated, at the point he was going to invade Parthia, he becomes Divus Iulius (the divine Julius).

Later his adopted son Octavian styled himself Divi filius (son of the deified one, son of the god). The title is found on the coins Augustus issued http://gjclarthistory.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/coin-shown-here-is-coin-issued-by.html

Meanwhile, almost unnoticed..... The actual Son of God..... is about to launch a greater empire than even Augustus could contemplate. The first christian state is formed 301.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiley can't help thinking we have a lot to thank Crassus for.

Sure he made mistakes, he entered territory that was favorable to his opponents, at first his troops form a shield war and he is safe.. but he insists on going forward alone on a mount (provided by his enemies) thinking that peace is the only hope

To the chosen few that are to survive he tells them.... that Crassus died by the subtlety of his enemies rather than the disobedience of his countrymen.

Strong stuff.

He then dies a horrific death.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
What struck me as odd was that Pompey, who was the eastern specialist, got sent to Spain, Crassus the businessman was sent out to take on Rome's most dangerous enemy and Caesar stayed in Gaul. Who was minding the shop in Rome?


The Parthians with their stolen Eagles were a problem, Caesar (Julius) was well advanced in preparation of an invasion but was assassinated before he got the chance. Marcus Antonius had a botched go (his heart wasn't in it), so Crassus (according to the historians) was the first real try, he was after all governor of Syria.

Still he had his helpers, his son Petronius and err a certain Gaius Octavius who unlike Crassus distinguishes himself during the campaign.

You might notice this is the same name as that of Emperor Augustus.

So to summarize Gaius (1) is with Crassus as he loses the Eagles
Gaius (2) retrieves the Eagles

The most significant part of the ceremonies attendant on an imperial apotheosis was the liberation of an eagle which was supposed to bear the emperor's soul to heaven. All of this symbolism is shown on the coins and sculptures etc, but which Gaius are we looking at ?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Meanwhile, almost unnoticed..... The actual Son of God..... is about to launch a greater empire than even Augustus could contemplate. The first christian state is formed 301.

I quite like this. It's a matter of orthodoxy that Christian monks worked out the Years AD system. It's a matter of orthodox unorthodoxy that three hundred years have gone missing somewhere. It is Harpero-Veredian unorthodox unorthodoxy that the whole system was rigged by ... oh, you know ... whatstheirsname ... it's on the tip of my tongue.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Too many points to pick up, too many paths.

There is a 300 and 1 gap.

Basically there are folks that think life starts with conception ie 0 and folks that think that life starts with birth ie 1.......

Chronologies follow this pattern.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

The most significant part of the ceremonies attendant on an imperial apotheosis was the liberation of an eagle which was supposed to bear the emperor's soul to heaven.

Dio describing the funeral ofAugustus: wrote:


all the priests marched round it first; and then the knights, not only those belonging to the equestrian order but the others as well, and the infantry from the garrison ran round it; and they cast upon it all the triumphal decorations that any of them had ever received from him for any deed of valour, Next the centurions took torches, confortably to a decree of the senate, and lighted the pyre from beneath, So it was consumed, and an eagle released from it flew aloft, appearing to bear' his spirit to heaven,



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Dio



https://www.flickr.com/photos/69716881@N02/8737018769/in/photostream/

Winged victory crowns apotheosis. Some dispute over who the figure is ?

Wiley wondered why angels have the wings of eagles......
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

So to summarize Gaius (1) is with Crassus as he loses the Eagles
Gaius (2) retrieves the Eagles

The most significant part of the ceremonies attendant on an imperial apotheosis was the liberation of an eagle which was supposed to bear the emperor's soul to heaven. All of this symbolism is shown on the coins and sculptures etc, but which Gaius are we looking at ?

Folks tend to know a bit about Gaius 2 although little is actually known about what happened after coming to power, so let's take a look at Gaius 1. Here we draw a blank although there is some speculation that he might be Augustus' father.........

Let's take a look what Plutarch writes.

Crassus militarily defeated is forced into negotiation, he approaches the enemy on foot with Gaius 1 and Petronius to negotiate peace.

Plutarch wrote:

Then when Crassus proposed to send for a horse, Surena said there was no need of it, "for the king offers you this one." 4 At the same time a horse with gold-studded bridle stood at Crassus's side, and the grooms lifted Crassus up and mounted him, and then ran along by him, quickening his horse's pace with blows. Octavius was first to seize the bridle, and after him Petronius, one of the legionary tribunes; then the rest of the Romans in the party surrounded the horse, trying to stop him, and dragging away those who crowded in upon Crassus on either side. 5 Scuffling followed, and a tumult, then blows. Octavius drew his sword and slew the groom of one of the Barbarians, but another smote Octavius down from p417 behind. Petronius had no offensive weapons, but when he was struck on the breastplate, leaped down from his horse unwounded. Crassus was killed by a Parthian named Pomaxathres.

Hmmm Crassus approaches on foot, Surena can't understand why he has no horse, Crassus offers to send for a horse, but Surena insists he rides on a horse from the Parthan king with a golden bridle....... Octavian then tries to prevent Crassus going forward on this horse.

This is a reworking of Zechariah, itself a reworking of a reworking.


In the discussion regarding this verse in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) a story is told of the Persian king Shevor, who asks Samuel one of the Amoraim: Why doesn't your Messiah come riding on a horse? If he lacks one, I'll be glad to provide him with one of my fast horses! In response to the ridicule of the king, Samuel answers: Do you have a horse that has a hundred shades of color? As the donkey of the messiah will be such.

In Zachariah as it comes down the ages.

KJV wrote:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. 10And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

Let's call it the "Messiah Donkey story"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Messiah%27s_Donkey

It signifies the coming of the messiah and the end of days/the start of the new kingdom. Crassus is not the messiah as he gets on the horse with the golden bridle. Octavian spots the mistake and is killed, yet he is soon to retreive the eagles.....
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
Hmmm Crassus approaches on foot, Surena can't understand why he has no horse, Crassus offers to send for a horse, but Surena insists he rides on a horse from the Parthan king with a golden bridle....... Octavian then tries to prevent Crassus going forward on this horse.

This reminds me a little bit of how the Holy Roman Emperors were expected to lead the Pope's horse by the bridle in order to receive their coronation.

[Pope] Adrian and Frederick Barbarossa met ...to discuss Barbarossa's crowning as Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope.

According to protocol, the King should have met the Pope outside the camp to hold the bridle of the Pope's horse while he dismounted; Barbarossa did not do this, saying it was not part of his duty to act as Papal groom. In turn, Adrian refused the King the traditional kiss of peace until this service was delivered. In the end, Barbarossa gave in and ordered his camp moved a little further south where, on June 11, the procedure was repeated - this time with Barbarossa undertaking the groom duties - and conversations about the coronation began.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Thanks Scotty.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Folks might have noticed that whilst we know little of Augustus' father although some think he died in the same room, in the same villa, on the same island, Nola, that his son did. In truth we know almost nothing of this.


“Gaius Octavius, son, grandson and great-grandson of Gaius,
father of Augustus,
twice military tribune, quaestor, aedile of the plebs together with
Gaius Toranius, judge,
praetor, proconsul, proclaimed imperator
in the province of Macedonia”


Augustus senior (bit like Joseph) is a mystery, as are all of the Octavius Rufii (with the exception of the emperor up to the time he took the reins).

On the other hand we know a lot about the deified emperor who on death adopted Augustus as his son.

Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Divus Julius, after his assassination and his body was transported away by an eagle. The decline of the Caesar cult and the rise of christianity led Carotta to think that Julius was Jesus.

http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

Carotta is a fine disreputable source for us, doing a lot of spadework, but we don't think that Julius was Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Octavius_(proconsul)]
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The young Octavian's history is also closely tied to that of the eagle and horse. Here he is at the battle of Mutina.

Suetonius wrote:
In the former of these, so Antony writes, he took to flight and was not seen again until the next day, when he returned without his cloak and his horse; but in that which followed all agree that he played the part not only a leader, but of a soldier as well, and that, in the thick of the fight, when the eagle-bearer of his legion was sorely wounded, he shouldered the eagle and carried it for some time
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

https://deathinantiquity.wordpress.com/category/5-death-and-the-emperor/#jp-carousel-439

The apotheosis of Antonius.

Note the Eagles.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

wiki wrote:
Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the official sun god of the later Roman Empire and a patron of soldiers. On 25 December 274 AD the Roman emperor Aurelian made it an official cult alongside the traditional Roman cults.[2] Scholars disagree about whether the new deity was a refoundation of the ancient Latin cult of Sol,[3] a revival of the cult of Elagabalus,[4] or completely new.[5] The god was favored by emperors after Aurelian and appeared on their coins until Constantine I.[6] The last inscription referring to Sol Invictus dates to AD 387,[7] and there were enough devotees in the 5th century that the Christian theologian Augustine found it necessary to preach against them.[8]


On 25 December
Hmmmm
emperor Aurelian

Aurelian=Golden......Aurelian built a new temple for Sol, dedicated on December 25, 274. Games in honor of the sun god, were held every four years from a.d. 274 onwards. Sol invictus was effectively made a state religion, with the emblem on Roman coins.

Christian theologian Augustine found it necessary to preach against them

I bet he did but by then he had been ousted.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Also, not to be petty (lie: I love being petty), but the letters AD stand for 'Anno Domini', which means 'in the year of the Lord', so it comes BEFORE the years. AD 500-1300.


Here are just a few notes on academics and Roman dates. None of which are original, until the end....Some are just Wiley's impressions

1) The obsession with dating begins as a 19th century (whenever... ortho chronology) thing. Historians at this time started the convention of being really really picky about dates, still, there was genuine debate about which chronology was to be used. In fact, there was a fashion during the renaissance for Livy's Ab Urbe Condita and this appears to have sparked a 19th century revival. Rather interestingly modern academics pour scorn on Ab Urbe Condita as an academic conceit (!)

2) Classical historians of early Rome used very few dates (in the sense of dating from a very early agreed starting point), it's all about narrative. I suspect mostly they had none at all. The few dates used could be later additions. They sensibly (unlike modern academics) largely worked from what they knew, ie..the 2nd year of Consul so and so. They did not use A.U.C with the exception of Livy....

3) The Romans always started from 1. Life starts at conception not birth, so on becoming Consul you count from year 1.

4) The Romans were aware that other Calendars, eg Egyptian, Greek (and regional variants) were different, so by the Time of Augustus they wanted their calendar to replace the others, so it was a question of improving the Roman calendar and synchronizing this with all other calendars. Their main motivation was in fact tax collection (cf modern tax year) and a general accounting of all things Roman, via a census.

5) The Emperors in fact trialed their calendars away from Rome first (cf Poll tax introduction)

6) The story of the birth of Christ is the slaughter of innocents by Herod (there is no evidence for this). It's about a census.

census (n.)
1610s, in reference to registration and taxation in Roman history, from Latin census "the enrollment of the names and property assessments of all Roman citizens," originally past participle of censere "to assess" (see censor (n.)). The modern use of census as "official enumeration of the inhabitants of a country or state, with details" begins in the U.S. (1790), and Revolutionary France (1791). Property for taxation was the primary purpose in Rome, hence Latin census also was used for "one's wealth, one's worth, wealthiness.


7) Christian scholars simply used The Gospel of Luke to date the birth of christ, on the few dates available in the classical histories.
In doing so they adopted the start date the Romans used in their attempt to synchronize their calendar, with the others of the time, with a view to conducting a Imperial census.

8) Mary is fleeing, hiding from the census......

9) Academics have adopted the basic dating of the Christian scholars and reinforced it by the addition of numerous new dates mostly by inference from what they consider as trustworthy sources. In fact these sources..........had very few or no dates prior to the census ......and the Christian Scholars motivation was primarily trying to reconcile these dates with the Birth Of Jesus and this... gets overlooked ......his Second Coming and the new Kingdom.

10) Modern academics are unwittingly reinforcing this Christian paradigm by dating things that no-one can be sure about, creating false history (it really builds on false notions of New Kingdoms) ...they are also obscuring this by the adoption of the term Common Era.....


Just my View.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The real bitch is when historians (A) are using the sources of historians (B) who are using a different Year Zero. Unfortunately our own historians (C) are using historians (A) who are using historians (B). By not cutting out the middle man, historians (C) are getting whole centuries of spurious history inserted into our own histories. Thus academic Egyptologists rely on [copies of] Manetho, classicists rely on Egyptologists and we end up lumbered with the Greek Dark Ages. Medievalists rely on [copies of] Dionysus Exiguus, all academic historians rely on medievalists and we get lumbered with the European Dark Ages.

When it comes to Dark Ages, always remember the AE Rule: if there's nothing there, it may not exist.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 26, 27, 28  Next

Jump to:  
Page 9 of 28

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group