NationStates Jolt Archive

For those who care, the Roman Republic was officially dissolved 2034 years ago when Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus, also known as Octavian, was given the title Augustus by the Roman Senate. Hail to the Empire!

On a related note, anyone take Latin/know it pretty well?

My Latin's shitty.

I took three years of Latin in high school. I remember the first ten lines of Vergil's Aeniad, the first sentence of Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars and hic, haec, hoc.

This thread is in association to? or just a thread offering information for digestion?

This thread is in association to? or just a thread offering information for digestion?

Celebrate the glory of the Roman Empire! (and to sneak in that question about Latin learners, although that was not an origianl intention)

This thread is in association to? or just a thread offering information for digestion?

It sounds to me like an opportunity for spam, or, as I like to term it, a "spamortunity."

*Sees disgusted NSrs looking in my direction with nauseated looks, runs*

Latin sucks. It's virtually useless, and far too complicated. Almost every type of word has a variety of different endings, there is no standard word order, etc., etc., etc.

*looks at first two words in post*

*looks at last three words*

:headbang:

My Latin's shitty.

latina eum scatissime est.

(Does that answer your question? :D)

For those who care, the Roman Republic was officially dissolved 2034 years ago...

27 + 2006 = 2033, no?

27 + 2006 = 2033, no?

*hands you a finely-crafted joint*

*hands you a finely-crafted joint*

Your point being?

Your point being?

I have a point?

I have a point?

You tell me. I'm confident in my calculations.

Didn't the Roman Republic frequently disolve itself. It was like a hobby or something. However most dictators never got the title 'dictator for life', just 'dictator for 6 months'. :(

I seem to remember Cincinatus being an import figure in the republic. One of the first dictators of Rome, but at the end of his term he handed back power peacefully and went back to working as a farmer. The only possible candidate for dictator of the proletariat ever.

You tell me. I'm confident in my calculations.

So am I. That's why I gave you the joint.

You did work that I was going to do, so you got rewarded.

So am I. That's why I gave you the joint.

You did work that I was going to do, so you got rewarded.

Phew. I wasn't sure if the joint was mocking me for being like a stoner and not knowing what year it was, or an actual reward.

Phew. I wasn't sure if the joint was mocking me for being like a stoner and not knowing what year it was, or an actual reward.

Nah. Whenever I give something to somebody in those bullets that depict action, it's always a reward... Unless otherwise noted.

latina eum scatissime est.

(Does that answer your question? :D)

Your Latin is scattered? So much for taking it for one year! I liked it, but I found the teacher fucking unbearable.

27 + 2006 = 2033, no?

IT's 2007...

Didn't the Roman Republic frequently disolve itself. It was like a hobby or something. However most dictators never got the title 'dictator for life', just 'dictator for 6 months'. :(

I seem to remember Cincinatus being an import figure in the republic. One of the first dictators of Rome, but at the end of his term he handed back power peacefully and went back to working as a farmer. The only possible candidate for dictator of the proletariat ever.

Did you watch the Book of Virtues with the talking buffalo and the two werid kids...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

Didn't the Roman Republic frequently disolve itself. It was like a hobby or something. However most dictators never got the title 'dictator for life', just 'dictator for 6 months'. :(

I seem to remember Cincinatus being an import figure in the republic. One of the first dictators of Rome, but at the end of his term he handed back power peacefully and went back to working as a farmer. The only possible candidate for dictator of the proletariat ever.

Well, no. Dictator (dikta.tor) was a constitutionally defined, and checked and balanced post within the Roman Republic, and so when a dictator was appointed the status of the Republic itself was not jeopardised at all. Even under Julius Caesar the Republic still technically existed, he just needed to bend the constitution a bit.

Well, no. Dictator (dikta.tor) was a constitutionally defined, and checked and balanced post within the Roman Republic, and so when a dictator was appointed the status of the Republic itself was not jeopardised at all. Even under Julius Caesar the Republic still technically existed, he just needed to bend the constitution a bit.Well de jure it didn't dissolve itself, but de facto it did (the Senate out lived the Western Roman empire by a century or two). The Senate passed complete and utter power and legal immunity to the dicator and hoped like hell that they would be so kind as to give up these powers of their own free will at the end of his term. They guy had pretty much supreme power, and more importantly he had complete control over the military. For the duration of a dictatorship the Senate might as well not existed.

As far as I'm aware any dictator could have changed the consititution without recourse to another other person or body to allow himself to be dictator for life.

IT's 2007...

How many years are there in between 16th January 1BC and 16th January 1AD?

Sex homo molestus.

latina eum scatissime est.

(Does that answer your question? :D)

It wasn't a question I'm really bad at languages and I'm rather freaked because I'm going to have to take another level of Latin if I want to Minor in Classics. It's not even like I don't like it I find the etymology part interesting and don't particularly dislike learning vocab I'm just not any good at it.:(

I did Latin up to a GCSE A, but that was... 5 ish years ago.

I do still remember all the BO BIS BIT BIMUS BITIS BUNT stuff, though.

Your Latin is scattered? So much for taking it for one year! I liked it, but I found the teacher fucking unbearable.

Think about the word "scatalogical".

He's saying it's shit.:p

For those who care, the Roman Republic was officially dissolved 2034 years ago when Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus, also known as Octavian, was given the title Augustus by the Roman Senate. Hail to the Empire!

On a related note, anyone take Latin/know it pretty well?

The Republic had crossed the point of no return much before that. I'm not sure when, but maybe Rubiconic Crossings knows.

For those who care, the Roman Republic was officially dissolved 2034 years ago when Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus, also known as Octavian, was given the title Augustus by the Roman Senate. Hail to the Empire!

On a related note, anyone take Latin/know it pretty well?

I used to be a good translator. 5 years of Latin at the high school, and I got 10/10 in Latin translation at the final state exam. Ok it was easy (M.T.Cicero) compared to what people got some years ago (an essay of Vitruvius about architecture), but I guess I'm still good.

Think about the word "scatalogical".

He's saying it's shit.:p

Just to make the point, it's scatological. :p

Well de jure it didn't dissolve itself, but de facto it did (the Senate out lived the Western Roman empire by a century or two). The Senate passed complete and utter power and legal immunity to the dicator and hoped like hell that they would be so kind as to give up these powers of their own free will at the end of his term. They guy had pretty much supreme power, and more importantly he had complete control over the military. For the duration of a dictatorship the Senate might as well not existed.

As far as I'm aware any dictator could have changed the consititution without recourse to another other person or body to allow himself to be dictator for life.

No, because there was no actual constitution as we understand it today. There were the laws, which were what was passed by the Senate, the customs, which had the force of law save when actually contradicted by law (such as the prohibition of anyone not of Roman birth wearing a Toga), and the traditions of Rome - which had no official standing at all, but which often wound up trumping everything else.

It should surprise no one that professional jurisprudence reached a height in Rome equalled only by Imperial China and the Modern Civilization.

So when is the orgy?

How many years are there in between 16th January 1BC and 16th January 1AD?

Two. Some argue that it is only one because it is argued that there is no year zero.

The Republic had crossed the point of no return much before that. I'm not sure when, but maybe Rubiconic Crossings knows.
Well it officially dissolved at this point. It's the final step in a series of great events.

I used to be a good translator. 5 years of Latin at the high school, and I got 10/10 in Latin translation at the final state exam. Ok it was easy (M.T.Cicero) compared to what people got some years ago (an essay of Vitruvius about architecture), but I guess I'm still good.

Interesting...

Two. Some argue that it is only one because it is argued that there is no year zero.

What do you mean 'argued that there is no year zero'? Within the BC/AD system there is no year zero. It is only argued against those who are in the wrong.

Thus to calculate the number of years elapsed between a date in 27BC and a date in this year we can to add the number of years BC to the number of years AD and then subtract one.

Therefore the anniversary is the 2033rd, not the 2034th.

- for the sake of clarity we ignore the parts of years which were skipped due to calendar reform between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars.

All that remains of the Roman Empire. (http://www.vatican.va/)

I'm currently taking AP Latin, and this is my third year of studying Latin. I really like the language.

All that remains of the Roman Empire. (http://www.vatican.va/)Don't forget the Greek Orthodox Church.

What do you mean 'argued that there is no year zero'? Within the BC/AD system there is no year zero. It is only argued against those who are in the wrong.

Thus to calculate the number of years elapsed between a date in 27BC and a date in this year we can to add the number of years BC to the number of years AD and then subtract one.

Therefore the anniversary is the 2033rd, not the 2034th.

- for the sake of clarity we ignore the parts of years which were skipped due to calendar reform between the Julian and the Gregorian calendars.
Some say there is a year zero.

All that remains of the Roman Empire. (http://www.vatican.va/)

lmao...

No, because there was no actual constitution as we understand it today. There were the laws, which were what was passed by the Senate, the customs, which had the force of law save when actually contradicted by law (such as the prohibition of anyone not of Roman birth wearing a Toga), and the traditions of Rome - which had no official standing at all, but which often wound up trumping everything else.

It should surprise no one that professional jurisprudence reached a height in Rome equalled only by Imperial China and the Modern Civilization.I don't think I understand constitution the same way you do. I understand a constitution to be a set of laws that govern the operation of a government. A law that says theft is illegal is not constitutional one, whereas a law that states a president may only run for two terms of exactly four years each is a constitutional law.

Hence, a dictator, who was given powers to pass any new legislation on his own (but normally doing so with the consent of the senate), complete legal immunity and control of the military, could pass a law that made him dictator for life. And if he had the support of the military and the plebs then there would be very litte the senate could do about it. As a certain Gaius Julius Caesar did. Or as Sulla did (who merely extended his term for a finite amount of time rather than indefinitely).

Don't forget the Greek Orthodox Church.

Technically, the Orthodox Church never claimed sovereignty over the Roman Empire, it always accepted that it was subservient to the Autocrat in all secular affairs. Unlike the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who did claim full sovereignty over Romandom (which until the Renaissance was synonymous with Christendom).

I don't think I understand constitution the same way you do. I understand a constitution to be a set of laws that govern the operation of a government. A law that says theft is illegal is not constitutional one, whereas a law that states a president may only run for two terms of exactly four years each is a constitutional law.

Hence, a dictator, who was given powers to pass any new legislation on his own (but normally doing so with the consent of the senate), complete legal immunity and control of the military, could pass a law that made him dictator for life. And if he had the support of the military and the plebs then there would be very litte the senate could do about it. As a certain Gaius Julius Caesar did. Or as Sulla did (who merely extended his term for a finite amount of time rather than indefinitely).

I'm not sure how much legislative powers the Dictator actually had. I think those powers remained with the Senate, and the Dictator had to deal purely with making the executive decisions. Until Julius Caesar of course...

But to blame the rise of Julius Caesar on the Roman constitution seems unfair. The Republic throughout its existance had over a hundred dictators, and none of them attempted to maintain their position after their term was over (I think some came close, but they were dealt with via Roman Law). The rise of the Caesars had a wide range of factors that came with the rapid expansion of the lands controlled by Rome, the constitution had not adequately dealt with what should become of the people it now controlled, but that is hardly a problem to do with the post of Dictator itself.

Some say there is a year zero.

Such people are categorically wrong with respect to the AD/BC system.

Some say there is a year zero.

Yea, and some say mankind was created by aliens coming down from space in Douglas DC-8s, placing people around volcanoes, and blowing up hydrogen bombs around them.

Such people are categorically wrong with respect to the AD/BC system.

Whatever...I still say there is a year zero.

Eh, the Roman Empire is all around us these days, they're just hiding.

Cookie to whoever points them out first.
^I'm serious.

Whatever...I still say there is a year zero.

Can you find a single plausible reference to the existence of year zero in the AD/BC system anywhere on the net? When you're in a hole stop digging.

i've decided there should be a year zero.

so now people can look it up.

Technically, the Orthodox Church never claimed sovereignty over the Roman Empire, it always accepted that it was subservient to the Autocrat in all secular affairs. Unlike the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who did claim full sovereignty over Romandom (which until the Renaissance was synonymous with Christendom).Ah, I just remembered that it was the state religion of Byzantine empire... that and the fact that the romans had a penchant for mixing religion and politics.I'm not sure how much legislative powers the Dictator actually had. I think those powers remained with the Senate, and the Dictator had to deal purely with making the executive decisions. Until Julius Caesar of course...In total control of the city and its affairs, Sulla instituted a reign of terror, akin to, and in response to that which Marius and Cinna implemented while they were in control during Sulla's absence. Proscribing or outlawing every one of his political opponents, Sulla ordered some 1,500 Roman nobles (i.e., senators and equites) executed, though it is estimated that as many as 9,000 people were killed[8]. The blood bath went on for months. Romans were executed for any reason or none at all.I would have to say that is seems like Sulla had de facto power over every affair in Rome.But to blame the rise of Julius Caesar on the Roman constitution seems unfair. The Republic throughout its existance had over a hundred dictators, and none of them attempted to maintain their position after their term was over (I think some came close, but they were dealt with via Roman Law). The rise of the Caesars had a wide range of factors that came with the rapid expansion of the lands controlled by Rome, the constitution had not adequately dealt with what should become of the people it now controlled, but that is hardly a problem to do with the post of Dictator itself.Many might blame the rise of Caesar on Sulla. His style of leadership formed an example to others, and nearly executed Caesar, but was convinced not to. Even then he remarked that Caesar would mostly like try and take power for himself to become an autocrat.

Yes, there were many reasons for the rise of Caesar, but that the Republic lacked adequate constitutional protection from dictators was one of them. eg. that soldiers were loyal to their general and not the republic as they received their salary from their general. Hence, a dictator who was a previous general could recall his legions and command their loyalty as there was already an established bond of trust.

Eh, the Roman Empire is all around us these days, they're just hiding.


Indeed, people seem to be under the impression that the Romans magically disappeared one day when Rome was sacked by invading barbarians. Here in Britain, most people actually believe they just packed their bags one day and cleared off home to Italy.
Of course they didn't - they are still here. The Romano-British, Romano-Gallic, Romano-Hispanic etc tribes, which modern Europeans are descended from, had obtained Roman citizenship.

And the posters who claimed there was no year zero are correct. It is not a matter of opinion but a historical fact.

Indeed, people seem to be under the impression that the Romans magically disappeared one day when Rome was sacked by invading barbarians. Here in Britain, most people actually believe they just packed their bags one day and cleared off home to Italy.
Of course they didn't - they are still here. The Romano-British, Romano-Gallic, Romano-Hispanic etc tribes, which modern Europeans are descended from, had obtained Roman citizenship.

And the posters who claimed there was no year zero are correct. It is not a matter of opinion but a historical fact.

Agreed, in my opinion however, the Roman Empire still exists, and has a force throughout the world. But today, they're not known as Romans anymore. The correct terminology for these times would be Catholics.

I say that because Catholicism (sp?), as one of the largest religious organizations in the world began in Rome, and they've mantained significant worldwide power through the Vatican since...well, the Roman Empire broke up. So, no, there are not Romans around anymore...today, they're Catholics.

Rome is the eternal city. It is still there, and I´m pretty sure anyone born in Rome is still a roman.

The problem is that there is not a Roman Empire anymore. Its called Italy now.

Agreed, in my opinion however, the Roman Empire still exists, and has a force throughout the world. But today, they're not known as Romans anymore. The correct terminology for these times would be Catholics.

I say that because Catholicism (sp?), as one of the largest religious organizations in the world began in Rome, and they've mantained significant worldwide power through the Vatican since...well, the Roman Empire broke up. So, no, there are not Romans around anymore...today, they're Catholics.

Naah.
I've had time to go away and think about it, and I really can't see how the Catholic Church is a direct descendant of the Roman Empire, any more than modern day Tunis is a direct descendant of Carthage. It's like the Church of England claiming a special link with the people who built Stonehenge. The only connection is an accident of geography.

A very good book on the end of the Republic is Sir Ronald Syme's The Roman Revolution. Syme's witing style can be a little interesting, and he is certainly no fan of Augustus, calling him a political terrorist at one point, but his scholarship is excellent. Be warned, though, when he quotes authors writing in other languages he does not translate into English.

You could look on Augustus as a political terrorist, but I guess that depends on how much value you want to place on the Republic. As far as I can see, 'Republican freedom' just meant that a bunch of legalised gangsters had the freedom to bully, bribe, steal and kill their way to the top. Good riddance, I say.

Syme is okay, but I prefer Edward Salmon's 'History of the Roman World from 30 BC to AD 138'. Both are A Level textbooks, or were when I was studying, so either one ought to be good.

Oh, the Republic was by no means a democracy, despite what some folks seem to think. Rome was an oligarchy run by a few families and new people were admitted only when they were useful. I don't know the Salmon book, I'll look for it. Syme's is good because it starts a little farther back than 30 BC, in the years right after Sulla resigned his dictatorship.

A very good book on the end of the Republic is Sir Ronald Syme's The Roman Revolution. Syme's witing style can be a little interesting, and he is certainly no fan of Augustus, calling him a political terrorist at one point, but his scholarship is excellent.

You could look on Augustus as a political terrorist, but I guess that depends on how much value you want to place on the Republic. As far as I can see, 'Republican freedom' just meant that a bunch of legalised gangsters had the freedom to bully, bribe, steal and kill their way to the top. Good riddance, I say.

Syme is okay, but I prefer Edward Salmon's 'History of the Roman World from 30 BC to AD 138'. Both are A Level textbooks, or were when I was studying, so either one ought to be good.