Some questions about the Roman Empire... (1 Viewer)

Just curious about a few things regarding the Roman Empire...

-When did the Roman Empire begin & end?

-I know they conquered the Greeks and adapted their pantheon of gods. So what did they worship before that?

-How did the Romans go from believing in the pantheon of Gods. To adopting and becoming the leadership of the religion for whom they persecuted...including killing its creater?

-What is the story with the Eastern & Western Empire?

-How many structures from Ancient Rome are still around?


Thanks!!

ps-Any other tidbits of info you want to add...please do.

I can't really speak authoritatively, since my knowledge of mythology is more a hobby (an expensive one, no less ), but generally speaking the Romans believed in household gods (Penates) and protective spirits (Lares for the home, Numina in general). I dug up one of my old study books from school:

"As a rule, Romans were not mythmakers and the myths they had were usually imported. The Roman gods were utilitarian, like the practical and unimaginative Romans themselves. These gods were expected to serve and protect men, and when they failed to be useful their worship was curtailed. This does not mean Romans lacked religious sentiment. They had a pantheistic sense of the divinities present in nature. But their deepest religious feelings centered on family and state. When the Romans adopted the Greek gods from the third century B.C. on, these deities were simplified to conform to the Roman religion. Mars was the chief god of the imperial age, more honored than Jupiter, since he aided and symbolized the Roman conquests."

You can read a pretty comprehensive entry on the Wikipedia.

Sort of like Virginia and West Virginia but with not as many Romans.

Two very excellent points! It sparked a memory from a book I read on Celtic Mythology (Heroes of the Dawn). The Romans also picked up more than a few Celtic gods (among others) during their World Tour through Gaul and Britain, along with area-specific protective/fertility deities like Vosegus. Sequana, Sabrina, etc. Remember the Romans were very big on what deities could do for them.

Pet peeve: whenever people refer to Julius Caesar as "Emperor" -- he never was, he was "merely" Dictator.

Perhaps Latin speakers could clarify something: as I understand it, Latin does not have "soft" "Cs", only hard, so wouldn't "Caesar" be properly pronounced as "Kaiser", like the German, rather than "see-zer"?

What would a discussion of the Roman Empire be without a little excerpt from Monty Python's Life of Brian?

Great - now you propose throwing the entire food-service-industry into a tailspin !


I was always under the impression Latin was only written and not spoken.

No report. Just curious. Thanks for the info.


ps-All this talk makes me want to watch the original Trek episode "Bread & Circuses". Where the Roman Empire never fell.

So Caesar handed Brutus a note that said, "Et tu, Brute" after he got stabbed? (Yes, I know, that's Greek but - never mind. )

Seriously, think about it. If Latin were "only written", what language would Caesar and Cicero and Cato would have spoken to one another in the Senate or on the street? Why would they speak one language and write in another? (Since Caesar and Cicero in particular are known for their written works.)

There had to be an international spoken language, as well as a written one, for the educated classes of Europe during the Middle Ages. Italian, French, Spanish and Portugese all derived from the same parent language. They are called the "Romance" language because they derive from the language f the Romans. Surely these spoken and written languages could not have derived from a language that only existed as writing?

No, Latin was spoken first and then written - like most human languages.

There are disagreements over how Latin was pronounced, but it does seem likely that Caesar's name would have been pronounced "Ky-zer". But after all these years I think we can just accept that the English version of the name is "See-zer". It would just be too confusing and distracting to try to change that now, especially in a popular drama.

The title "Emperor" derives from the word "Imperator" - understood to mean "one who is worthy to command Romans". Being hailed by his troops as Imperator on the field of a victory over an enemy was one of the requirements a general had to meet before he could petition the Senate for permission to return to Rome and march his army in the traditional victory parade. (Called a triumph if the enemy was foreign, an ovation if servile or domestic.)

Caesar was certainly hailed as "Imperator" many times in his career. Although Octavian (later Augustus) established the Principate (as "First Citizen", from which "Prince" as a name for a ruler derives) and a form of "Imperator" later became attached to that position, it has been tradition to regard Gaius Julius Caesar the Dictator as the founder of the line of Emperors and at leaast honorary First Emperor. That is why "Caesar" which was his family nickname and the name by which he was best known to contemporaries became the commonly used title for all future emperors, rather than Octavian's honorific of "Augustus". (Although that was the official title of many future emperors.)

So it is a quibble.

"Dictator", by the way, was not a term of abuse in Roman times, and did not imply abuse of power illegal action. "Dictator" was a constitutional office as much as tribune, praetor, consul or censor. The Senate had the power to appoint a Dictator in cases of emergency or insurrection. Traditionally the Dictator served for a term of six months only (although there is some indication that this could be renewed.) The Dictator had essentially absolute power, might or might not govern through colleauges (elected or appointed) serving as consuls, and was immune from prosecution for any actions he might take, even after he left office.

Rome very rarely resorted to Dictators, and almost never extended their terms. Up until Caesar's lifetime there hadn't been a dictator in at least 100 years. But after the Civil War between Lucius Cornellius Sulla and Gaius Marius and later his allies, Sulla was offered the dictatorship to rebuild a smashed Roman society. But Sulla initially refused the offer, insisting that the job ahead of him was too vast to accomplish in six months. When the Senate offered to renew his dictatorship every six months, he also refused, rightly thinking that they would never renew his powers once they saw how he planned to use them. Since Sulla had the only fully trained and disciplined military force in the area of Rome under his command, the Senate finally caved in and made Sulla dictator until such time as he decided to surrender the office. In doing so they either introduced a new Constitutional precedent or utterly destroyed the old Constitution. (The Roman Constitution, like the British, was unwritten and consisted of legal precendents, institutions and commonly accepted traditions.)

Sulla remained dictator until he retired not long before his own death. Although Caesar was at pains not to emulate Sulla in some respects (no wholesale murder of his enemies, no property seized and auctioned to favorites) the fact is that Sulla provided Caesar with important precedents, having been the first Roman to dare march an army against Rome herself and the first to establish a dictatorship beyond the old six month term. Caesar was originally appointed dictator for a period of five years, only later having the title given for life. (Which turned out to be less than another five years, if I recall the timing correctly. )

Regards,

Joe

"Like Jeff the god of biscuits, and Simon the god of hair-do's" - Eddie Izzard

It's been a while, but I believe that's Latin ("Brute" being the vocative of "Brutus").

M.

Sorry, that's Latin, but he is reported to have said whatever he said ("You, too, my son" or "You, too, my child") in Greek. Shakespeare rendered it in Latin. The words may have been a quotation from a play or poem they both knew. (As was the line, "Let the dice fly high" - which is one version of what he said, also in Greek, at the Rubicon. That seems more likely a thing to have come from Caesar, a lifelong gambler, than the more fatalistic "The die is cast.")

Regards,

Joe

--
H

I have read that Greek not Latin was the universal language in the roman empire.

Concerning the East / West Divison; mostly I have heard/read that it was done because the empire grew so large ...communication could take up to 9 months which is not very good when trying to govern. By spliting it up, they split that time in half. The Western empire disappeared early on but the Eastern half also called the Byzantine Empire lasted another 1000 years.
The city Byzantine became Constantinople and then Istanbul after the Ottoman Turks captured it.

The Romans were great for Conquering a country and then instead of destroying it, they turned it into an allie and incorporated many parts of it's culture into it's own. One pecular aspect was the transition from Republic to dictorship, the change was never codifide so technically it was still a Republic but not really.

Byzantine Empire Fun Facts: The ruler Constantine ruled for almost 6 months after he died and the empire hummed along without a problem.

Constantinople didn't officially become Instanbul until 1930. The Ottomans called it Instanbul, but officially it's name was Konstantiniyye until it was renamed by the Republic of Turkey.

I'll add that maybe 98% of original roman paved roads are still in use today. They just have been repaved several times in the last few millenia.

And according to a History Channel program on Roman medicine, they invented catarac surgery, the "traction" bed, brain surgery, permenantly implanted false teeth (iron, gold, silver, ivory, and ceramic), antiseptics, anesthesia, hinged artifiical limbs, hospitals with seperate wards, and massage girls.

Although personally I'd take modern eye surgery anyday.