Geskiedenis Podcasts

Augustaanse Romeinse triomf

Augustaanse Romeinse triomf


Augustus en die vernietiging van die geskiedenis: die politiek van die verlede in die vroeë keiserlike Rome

Die gebruik (en misbruik) van die verlede in die vroeë dae van die Romeinse ryk was lank 'n sentrale kenmerk van die studie van die Augustaanse prinsipaal. Hierdie bundel - een uit verskeie wat voortspruit uit die herdenkings rondom die tweejarige bestaan ​​van Augustus se dood - sit hierdie fokus voort en voer aan dat die Augustaanse verhouding met die verlede gewortel was in die 'uitskakeling van gebeurlikheid uit die historiese proses in diens van mag'. [1] Die idee blyk dat Augustus tydens sy skoolhoof wou wegbeweeg van idees oor historiese tyd as 'n onsekerheid, waarin die toekoms ongeskrewe is na 'n ideologie van tydloosheid waarin die Augustynse Goue Eeu buite alle tydelike grense sit en waarin die geskiedenis self tot 'n einde gekom het. Sodoende het Augustus natuurlik die oomblikke waarop sy greep op die mag minder veilig was of sy optrede nie deur 'propaganda' verlos kon word, verlig nie. Dit het geleerdes te dikwels daartoe gelei dat hulle per ongeluk met die princeps in sy 'vernietiging van die geskiedenis', byvoorbeeld deur oor te skakel van chronologiese na tematiese analise in die nasleep van 27 vC, en deur te swig voor die versoeking om te praat van 'n homogene 'Augustaanse era'. Hierdie bundel daag hierdie neiging uit deur 'n reeks uiteenlopende en nadenkende essays wat die probleem van Augustus se verhouding met die verlede vanuit 'n verskeidenheid hoeke aanval, elk beklemtoon kwessies van dubbelsinnigheid en kompleksiteit. Die lang inleiding van die redakteur is baie goed om die belangrikste temas van die werk uit te lig, sowel as om 'n gedetailleerde agtergrond te gee vir die spesifieke argumente wat in die hoofhoofstukke aangebied word. Hulle begin met 'n inleiding tot hul sleutelfrase, 'die vernietiging van die geskiedenis', wat gebruik word om na alles te verwys, van die 'vergeet van ongerieflike feite en doelbewuste verdraaiings tot die feitelike rekord' [2] tot die direkte transformasie van die idee van historiese tyd hierbo bespreek. Die res van die inleiding is toegewy aan 'n nuttige bespreking van die rol van kulturele geheue in die voor-Augustaanse Rome en die probleme en uitdagings waarmee tradisionele historiografie te staan ​​gekom het met die aankoms van die triumvirale tydperk en die Augustaanse beginsel.

Die boek begin met die afdeling met twee hoofstukke, '(One Possible) Order out of Chaos', waarin Hodgson en Welch alternatiewe geskiedenis van Octavianus se opkoms aan bewind ondersoek deur die rolle van die bevryders en Antony onderskeidelik. Hodgson toon oortuigend aan dat die algemene moderne slagspreuk libera res publica was relatief skaars in die ou bronne en word uitsluitlik gebruik om te verwys na die regeringstelsel wat deur libertas deur die moordenaars van Caesar voorgestel in die nadraai van sy dood. Dit verteenwoordig dus 'die pad wat nie geneem is nie' en stoot terug teen die tradisionele aanname dat 'die Augustaanse prinsipaal 'n oplossing was sonder 'n alternatief vir 'n onvermydelike krisis'. [3] In 'n soortgelyke trant bied Welch se hoofstuk 'n alternatiewe siening van die Philippi -veldtog waarin Antony 'n groter rol as Caesar -wreker aanneem as wat Octavian se latere pogings om die posisie te monopoliseer sou suggereer. Uiteindelik verteenwoordig die teenwoordigheid van hierdie alternatiewe vertelling die mislukking van Augustus se poging om die geskiedenis heeltemal te vernietig. [4]

Afdeling B, Augustan Plots, bevat drie hoofstukke wat die maniere ondersoek princeps gebruik die onlangse Romeinse geskiedenis om sy heerskappy in die hede te bevorder. Biesinger gebruik die voorbeelde van die ludi saeculares en die Forum Augustum om die princeps ' pogings om die onlangse verlede te ontsmet en die Augustaanse hede uit te beeld as die hoogtepunt van die verhaal van Rome, veral met betrekking tot militêre verowering. Volgens Biesinger het hierdie fisiese benadering tot die herdenking van die hede 'n impak gehad op die literêre praktyk van historiografie, wat die Romeinse historici beperk het om slegs implisiet kommentaar te lewer op kontemporêre aangeleenthede, in teenstelling met die eksplisiete verhale van vroeëre skrywers soos Asinius Pollio en Sallust. Gotter fokus op die Griekse idee van translatio imperii, via 'n fragment van Aemilius Sura bewaar in Velleius. [5] Hy voer aan dat Velleius se uitbeelding van Rome as die hoogtepunt in 'n reeks ryke 'n Augustaanse verandering in ideologie weerspieël imperium vervang libertas as die leidende beginsel van die res publica. Laastens ondersoek Havener die kruising tussen die vlugtige ritueel van die Romeinse triomf en meer permanente vorme van openbare herinnering. Hy beweer dat hoewel baie republikeinse aristokrate hoop dat hul oorwinnings 'n blywende impak op die openbare geheue sou hê (in teenstelling met net een in 'n lang lys), was Augustus die eerste wat dit werklik kon bereik. Hy het dit gedoen deur die herdenking van sy Partiese oorwinning as die hoogtepunt van die triomfantlike geskiedenis van Rome. Deur die installering van die Fasti Triumphales Capitolini op die boog wat besluit is om sy oorwinning in Parth te herdenk, plaas hy die oorwinning buite alles wat vooraf gegaan het, wat die tradisie van republikeinse triomfe effektief beëindig deur te impliseer dat niemand in die toekoms sy prestasies sou oorskry nie.

Afdeling C, The Histories of Empowered Subalterns, verskuif die fokus na die rol van individue rondom die prinses, begin met Osgood se opstel oor familiegeskiedenis. Osgood demonstreer die mate waarin beide elite en relatief ononderskeie gesinne hul geslagslyn probeer bevorder het deur middel van 'n nuwe stel reëls wat 'n groter klem gelê het op die deugde van hul voorouers, in teenstelling met hul ampte, en op die nabyheid en diens aan die princeps. Vervolgens Russell se artikel oor die senaat en die Fasti Capitolini bied 'n voorlesing van die Fasti baie anders as die vroeëre hoofstuk van Havener, deur die inskripsie te interpreteer as 'n voorbeeld van die senaat wat sy eie siening van die geskiedenis in die ontwikkelende historiese diskoers plaas, die kontinuïteit tussen verlede en toekoms beklemtoon en 'vernietiging van die geskiedenis' weerstaan.

Afdeling D, Historical Palimpsests, ondersoek 'die superimposisie van Augustan oor republikeinse realiteite' [6] in beide literatuur en materiële kultuur. Price se hoofstuk open die afdeling deur Augustus se transformasie van die Roman Forum te ondersoek van 'n tradisioneel republikeinse ruimte in 'n deeglik 'Augustaanse' ruimte. Sy identifiseer 'n ambivalensie in die Augustaanse literatuur oor die transformasie van hierdie ruimte van gekonsentreerde republikeinse openbare geheue, en sien die moeilikheid wat daaraan verbonde is dat Augustus homself in die voorafgaande mededingende vertellings van die Forum plaas as 'n bydraende faktor tot sy besluit om sy eie te bou forum, waarin 'die geskiedenis met homself begin en eindig'. [7] Lowe se hoofstuk oor die Aeneis sluit die afdeling deur verwysings na hedendaagse politiek in Virgil's te ondersoek Aeneis, verstandig beklemtoon die verskeidenheid van sulke toespelings en waarsku dat Vergilius as 'meer 'n logograaf as 'n ideoloog' beskou moet word. [8] Alhoewel Virgil duidelik nie onpartydig is wat Augustus betref nie, hoef sy verwysings na die republikeinse geskiedenis nie almal in diens van 'n verenigde politieke boodskap te wees nie en kan dit eenvoudig kleur gee, veral omdat hy weet dat baie van die individue slegs as karakters na verwys word die bladsy.

Die laaste gedeelte bestaan ​​uit 'n enkele hoofstuk wat dien as 'n epiloog van die bundel. Hier ondersoek Geisthardt en Gildenhard die idee van geskiedenis van die laat-republiek tot die bewind van Trajanus via gevallestudies wat fokus op Catullus, Virgil en Tacitus. Die skrywers volg die betrokkenheid van hierdie skrywers met Rome se verlede, en veral met die Trojaanse oorsprong van die stad, van Catullus se tragiese en pessimistiese siening in gedig 64, tot Virgil se epiese lotverhaal wat uitloop op die Augustus -tydperk, tot Tacitus se gebruik van Trojaanse verwysings om die onlangse keiserlike verlede uit te beeld as ''n afwyking met ernstige gevolge vir die politieke (en literêre) kultuur van Rome'. [9]

In die algemeen is dit 'n baie nadenkende boek. Ten spyte van die veelvuldige skrywers, is daar duidelike argumente en 'n sterk gevoel van samewerking tussen bydraers. Beide redakteurs en bydraers moet gelukgewens word met die so 'n hoë vlak van algemene tematiese eenheid. Op een vlak is baie van die argumente wat hier aangebied word, relatief onbetwisbaar en sal dit nie 'n verrassing wees vir almal wat vertroud is met die Augustaanse geleerdheid nie. Dit is duidelik dat die Augustaanse regime deeglik bewus was van die 'politiek van die verlede' en probeer het om dit te manipuleer tot voordeel van die hede deur 'n komplekse proses van vergeet, verdraai en oorskryf. Voorbeelde van hierdie soort betrokkenheid by die geskiedenis (met verskillende vlakke van sukses) word oortuigend aangebied in die meeste opstelle in die boek. Wat egter meer omstrede en minder oortuigend is, is die bewering dat hierdie betrokkenheid by die verlede deel vorm van 'n meer omvattende program wat handel oor die 'vernietiging van die geskiedenis' van Augustus, waarin hy probeer het om die 'n idee van die geskiedenis self en plaas sy prinsipaal buite tydelike grense as 'n kulminatiewe, tydlose 'Goue Eeu'. By eerste indruk blyk hierdie teorie wel te ondersteun deur sommige van die voorbeelde wat in die boek aangebied word (bv. Die Forum Augustum), maar dit laat ook noodwendig die geleenthede kant toe waar Augustus gesien kan word in die rigting van die toekoms, veral in sy beroemde obsessie met die opvolging en sy vasberadenheid in die Res Gestae om 'n spesifieke lees van sy loopbaan aan te bied (wat impliseer dat daar ander is en sal wees). Tog bly die boek 'n belangrike en waardevolle bron vir studente van die Augustus -tydperk en word dit sterk aanbeveel vir almal wat meer geïnteresseerd is in die 'politiek van die verlede' en kulturele geheue.

Skrywers en titels

Inleiding
Gee aandag aan die verlede: Oor die politiek van tyd in antieke Rome, Ingo Gildenhard, Ulrich Gotter, Wolfgang Havener en Louise Hodgson
A. (Een moontlik) Bestel uit chaos
1. Libera Res Publica: The Road Not Taken, Louise Hodgson
2. Geskiedenisoorloë: Wie het die keiser gewreek en waarom maak dit saak? Kathryn Welch
B. Augustan Plots
3. Ruptuur en herstel: Patroontyd in diskoers en praktyk (van Sallust tot Augustus en verder), Benjamin Biesinger
4. Die opvolging van ryke en die Augustaans Res Publica, Ulrich Gotter
5. Augustus en die einde van 'Triumphalist History', Wolfgang Havener
C. Die geskiedenis van bemagtigde subalterns
6. Gesinsgeskiedenis in Augustan Rome, Josiah Osgood
7. Die Augustaanse senaat en die herkonfigurasie van tyd op die Fasti Capitolini, Amy Russell
D. Historiese Palimpsests
8. Oorstromings van die Roman Forum, Hannah Price
9. Stof in die wind: Laat Republikeinse geskiedenis en die Aeneis
E. Epiloog
10. Trojaanse plotte: opvattings oor die geskiedenis in Catullus, Virgil en Tacitus, Johannes Geisthardt en Ingo Gildenhard

[4] Alhoewel die mate waarin dit 'n gekoördineerde program van Augustus se kant was, aanvegbaar is (sien hieronder). Die voortbestaan ​​van hierdie 'alternatiewe geskiedenisse' kan bloot voortspruit uit 'n gebrek aan belangstelling om opposisie uit die weg te ruim (vgl. Suet. Aug. 51.3 oor Augustus se verdraagsaamheid teenoor kritiek).


Augustaanse Romeinse triomf - Geskiedenis

Sommige van sy dissipels merk op hoe die tempel versier is met pragtige klippe en geskenke wat aan God gewy is. Maar Jesus het gesê: Wat u hier sien, sal die tyd kom dat daar nie een klip op die ander gelaat sal word nie, elkeen van hulle sal neergegooi word. ” (Lukas 21: 5-6)

Toe die uitsig op die Tempel uiteindelik in 70 nC die oë van Titus bereik, moes hy hom op 'n soortgelyke manier oor die heerlikheid verwonder het. Titus en sy vader, die groot keiser Vespasianus, het sedert 69 die opstand in Palestina en Sirië onderdruk, en toe sy pa se dienste in Egipte ontbied is, is Titus die bevel van die Romeinse leër toevertrou om die verplettering van die rebellie.

Titus marsjeer na Jerusalem om die stad in 'n wanorde te vind. Drie afsonderlike groepe Yweraars het ontstaan, wat elkeen beheer wou neem oor die sukkelende opstand. Verder het die tyd van die jaar aangebreek vir die Joodse Pasga, hul grootste godsdienstige vakansiedag waartydens al die Jode in Jerusalem gekom het om opofferings by die tempel te maak, wat die stad vol en chaoties maak.

Deur 'n beleg het Titus vinnig die twee buitemure van die sterk versterkte stad oorgeneem, waarna hy op die tempel van Herodes afgekom het. Alhoewel dit minder groot was as die oorspronklike tempel en die tempel van Salomo wat in 586 vC deur die Babiloniërs verwoes is, was hierdie tempel nog steeds 'n gesig om te sien. Die belangrikste was dat dit die plek was waar die enigste God van die Jode gewoon het, die heiligste plek in die hele Israel, daarom het die Jode hartstogtelik geveg vir die beskerming daarvan. Na 'n mislukte poging om die verset uit te honger, het die Romeine 'n grootskaalse aanval op die muur rondom die tempel geloods. In die hitte van die geveg gooi 'n Romeinse soldaat egter 'n vlammende brand op die dak van die tempel en terwyl die tempel om hom brand, kom Titus die tempel binne en aanskou die Allerheiligste, 'n plek wat voorheen slegs deur Joodse priesters bekyk is. Die Romeine het verskeie voorwerpe in die tempel gegryp, veral 'n groot menora, die seestakige kandelaar wat die Jode as 'n lig vir die wêreld simboliseer.

Nadat Titus en sy leër die opstand klaargemaak het, keer hulle terug na Rome om te sien dat hy, sy broer Domitianus, en sy vader elkeen amptelik triomf ontvang het deur die senaat. Hulle individuele pogings het elkeen die vyf vereistes van die senaat oortref. Eerstens was hulle elk landdroste. Tweedens het hulle die vyand verslaan in 'n regverdige oorlog teen 'n vreemde vyand, een wat deur die senaat goedgekeur is, en daardeur goedgekeur deur die mense en verplig is tot die voortbestaan ​​van die ryk. Derdens het hulle elk meer as 5 000 mans doodgemaak. Vierdens, en miskien die belangrikste, omdat dit die glorie van Rome getoon het en trots by die mense gebring het, het hulle met massiewe hoeveelhede trofeë en gevangenes teruggekeer. Uiteindelik was die oorlog heeltemal voltooi, wat die soldate in staat gestel het om terug te keer vir die heerlike viering.

Die bekendste kenmerke van hierdie manjifieke boog is die ingewikkelde gedetailleerde interieur. Die noordelike fries toon Titus te midde van sy triomfantlike glorie. Hy word uitgebeeld in sy triomfwa wat deur vier ongelooflike, wit perde getrek is. In die wa saam met hom ry Victory, op die punt om Titus met 'n lourierkrans te bekroon, en die wa word deur Rome gelei. Op die teenoorgestelde fries lig die trotse terugkerende Romeinse soldate die buit uit die tempel van Jerusalem. Honderde jare later bly die silwer basuine en Table of Shewbread duidelik sigbaar. Die indrukwekkendste is egter die enorme menorah met sewe takke wat in die middel van hierdie reliëf lê, duidelik die glorierykste item in die hele triomf. Die krygsgevangenes marseer moedeloos voor die soldate in afwagting van hul naderende dood.

Die buitekant van die boog het oorspronklik aanvullende frise bevat wat die triomf toon. Die boog is egter in die Middeleeue opgeneem in 'n muur van die Frangipane -familie toe groot, magtige gesinne om die beheer van Rome sukkel. Alhoewel die buitekant van die boog in die proses vernietig is, en nog meer aansienlik beskadig is in oorloë van die 12de en 13de eeu, het die muur om die boog op baie maniere hierdie monument behou, net soos ander strukture in Rome gebou oor ou strukture gedien om hulle te bewaar.

Die boog self klim op die hoogste punt oor die Via Sacra. As u die boog uit die Ooste nader, loop u op die Via Sacra op die presiese roete van die antieke triomf. Diep groewe van strydwaens wat oor hierdie besige pad ry, bly in die groot klippe waarvan dit lank gelede geplavei is.

Aangesien die triomf self die naaste aan die ware etos van die Romeine was, het triomfboë gedurig herinner aan glorie uit die verlede en huidige veiligheid en oorheersing. In antieke tye sou 'n groot standbeeld van brons of ander edelmetaal bo -op die boog gemonteer gewees het. 'N Bykomende figuur bo-op hierdie reeds ontsagwekkende monument wat op die hoogtepunt van die Via Sacra rus, sou sy teenwoordigheid nog meer bekend gemaak het en dien as 'n konstante herinnering aan die oorskadu-teenwoordigheid en mag van die Romeinse Ryk.

Bowenal was die triomf self 'n godsdienstige gebeurtenis. Die triomfante het hul gesigte rooi geverf om hul intieme kontak met die Romeinse god Jupiter te simboliseer, wie se tempel die uiteindelike bestemming van die optog was. Hulle was so naby aan die god dat hulle as bemiddelaars tussen die god en die mense beskou is. Om hierdie rede het hulle die eer gehad om twee groot wit bulle in die Tempel van Jupiter te offer as versoening vir die oorlogsmisdade wat die weermag gepleeg het. Aangesien die triomfator so naby aan hierdie magtige god was, en 'n gebeurtenis so indrukwekkend soos die triomf trots kon plaas op die een wat die fokus van die parade was, was 'n slaaf in die wa met die heerser wat fluister, “ is sterflik. ”

Die teenwoordigheid van die triomf kan vandag duidelik gesien word in die hele Romeinse argitektuur. Talle groot monumente vertoon met trots enorme standbeelde van die manjifieke triomfwa wat deur vier glorieryke perde getrek word. Die ingeskrewe boog is 'n algemene motief wat gebruik word om die teenwoordigheid van 'n belangrike pad in die lewens van die Romeine aan te dui.

Die triomf roer steeds die harte van almal wat dit vandag teëkom, net soos dit die Romeine van ouds moet hê. Die ware betekenis van die triomf is vervat in die aanhaling uit Robert Payne's The Roman Triumph.

Die hoogste eer aan 'n Romein was die eer van 'n triomf: Want hierdie manne het geveg, geïntrigeer, gely en gesterf. Vir die eer van 'n triomf is enorme bedrae geld uitgegee, ontelbare mense is onnodig vermoor, groot skatte het verdwyn en hele lande het verwoes. Die ekonomie van Europa, Afrika en Asië is genadeloos ontwrig, en honderd stede en honderdduisend dorpe is geplunder, sodat die veroweraars met plundery na Roma kon terugkeer en kon wys wat hulle bereik het. Maar dieselfde gevegte moes keer op keer gevoer word, en toe die Ryk uiteindelik in puin val, skryf die keisers nog steeds Pax Aeterna op hul muntstukke, as daar geen vrede of hoop op vrede was nie.

Payne, Robert. “The Roman Triumph. ” New York, 1962.

Romae, Mirabilia Urbis. “ The Marvels of Rome. ” New York, 1986.

Yarden, Leon. "Die buit van Jerusalem op die boog van Titus: A
Herondersoek ". Stockholm, 1991.

Zaho, Margaret Ann. “Imago Tiumphalis: die funksie en betekenis van
Triomfbeeld van Italiaanse Renaissance -heersers. ” New York, 2004.

Die UW KnowledgeWorks -sagteware wat gebruik is om hierdie webwerf te skep, is ontwikkel deur die The Program for Educational Transformation Through Technology by die Universiteit van Washington.


Augustaanse Romeinse triomf - Geskiedenis

Triomfe is op verskillende maniere herdenk. Die mees algemene is muntstukke. 'N Goeie voorbeeld van 'n muntstuk wat vir 'n triomfantlike generaal gemunt is, is die muntstuk van 101 vC deur Gaius Fundanius vir Marius se oorwinning oor die Cimbriërs en die Teutone. Hierdie muntstuk is waarskynlik die eerste keer dat 'n lewende Romein op die munt (Potter) verskyn. Bellori bevat 'n bord sulke muntstukke uit die keiserlike Severaanse dinastie in sy boek.

Ander vorme van herdenking sluit in boë, wat in 'n ander deel van die Rome -projek in detail behandel word.

Plaat 5
Bellori, Giovanni Pietro. Plaat 5. Veteres arcus Augustorm triumphis insignes ex reliquiis quae Romae adhuc supersunt: ​​cum imaginibus triumphalibus restituti, antiquis nummis notisquae Io: Petri Bellorii illustrati nunc primum / per Io Iacobum de Rubeis. Rome: Ad Templum Sanctae. Beeld CC-BY-SA Digitale [email protected] Universiteit. http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:38641.

Fasti seëvier.
Benoît, Rossignol. Fasti seëvier. Gelisensieer onder Public Domain deur Wikimedia. 28 Oktober 2011. http://commons.wikimedia.org
/wiki/File:CILI(2)p47fgtXXFastitriumphales.jpg.

Fasti Triumpahles

Die mees volledige lys en die meeste van die triomf in die Republiek is die fasti seëvier. Dit was 'n marmer wat tydens die Augustus -era in die Forum opgerig is met die generaals, met die konsuls ten tyde van hul triomf, van Romulus in 753 vC tot Balbus in 19 VC. Al wat oorbly van die vas nou word fragmente in die Capitoline Museum in Rome vertoon. Dit het meer as 200 triomfe gelys. Interessant genoeg het dit onderskei tussen tipiese en vlootoorwinnings (Baard). Onofrio Panvinio, wie se werk oor triomfe in die spesiale versameling van Villanova is, het 'n lys van oorwinnings gemaak op grond van die vas. Die skrywer van die werk is onbekend- Panvinio skryf dit toe aan Valerius Flaccus, 'n idee wat nou as verkeerd beskou word.

Panvinio se Fasti
Panvinio, Onofrio. Fasti et triumphi Rom. a Romulo rege usque ad Carolum V. Caes. Aug., sive, Epitome regum, consulum, dictatorum, magistror. equitum, tribunorum militum consulari potestate, censorum, impp. & aliorum magistratuum Roman. cum orientalium tum occidentalium,: ex antiquitatum monumentis maxima cum fide ac diligentia desumpta. Onuphrio Panuinio Veronensi F. Augustiniano author. Additæ sunt suis locis impp. & orientalium, & occidentalium uerissimae icones, ex vetustissimis numismatis quam fidelissime delineatae. Ex musaeo Iacobi Stradæ Mantuani, ciuis Romani, antiquarii. Venetiis: Impensis Iacobi Stradae Mantuani. 1577. Beeld CC- NC-BY-SA Digital [email protected] Universiteit. http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:76363

Vroue en gevangenes: die 'ander' in die triomf

Vroue het tipies nie 'n groot rol gespeel in die triomftog nie, veral tydens die Republiek (Flory). Tydens die Ryk was daar 'n groter geleentheid vir vroue om meer as toeskouers deel van die dag te wees. Suetonius skryf byvoorbeeld dat Messalina gery het in die triomf van haar man, keiser Claudius (Baard). Dogters van die triomfantlike man kan ook in die optog wees. Dit lyk asof Livia, Augustus se vrou, 'n ete gereël het ter ere van Tiberius se triomf (Flory). Vroue is meer gereeld in die rol van gevange of lewende buit gevind. Byvoorbeeld, Thusnelda, 'n koningin, is gelei in die optog van Germanicus Arsinoe, Cleopatra se suster, is gelei in een van Caesar se Zenobia, koningin van Palmyra, is gelei in Aurelian's (Baard).

Gevangenes het 'n vernederende roete deur die stad gekry, maar Mary Beard skryf dat die optog egter nie altyd 'n stap na die dood was nie, maar dit 'n belangrike oomblik kon wees waarin die vyand Romein geword het '(Baard 140). 'N Voorbeeld van hierdie proses is Publius Ventidius Bassus, wat in 38 vC 'n triomf gevier het nadat hy tydens die Sosiale Oorlog as kind in 'n triomf gevange geneem is. Plinius skryf dit oor sy ongelukkige begin: "Masurius sê dat hy twee keer met triomf gelei is en volgens Cicero het hy muile vir die bakkers van die kamp laat uitloop" (Plinius, Natuurlike geskiedenis, Boek VII, hoofstuk 1).

Daar is geen prototipiese Romeinse triomf nie. Baie van wat ons van die Romeinse triomf weet, is 'n samesmelting van historici se verslag oor individuele seremonies, annalistiese verslae, literatuur en kuns en die argitektoniese erfenis van die gebeure. Oor baie belangrike besonderhede (en selfs die bestaan ​​van triomfe) word die ou bronne nie eens nie, om nie te praat van moderne geleerdes nie. Die basiese skelet van die Triomf is dit: dit was 'n parade, gelei deur 'n seëvierende militêre bevelvoerder, na en deur die stad Rome, met 'n hoogtepunt met offerandes in die tempel van Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Gevangenes, buit, diere, wapens, selfs modelle van slagvelde het die seëvierende man en sy strydwa voorafgegaan. Sy soldate het gevolg. Soos Mary Beard skryf Die Romeinse triomf, 'Met ander woorde, die triomf het die oorwinning weer aangebied en weer oorgeneem. Dit het die marges van die ryk tot sy middelpunt gebring ”(32). Die besonderhede moet ingevul word.

Triomfantelike prosessie uit die werk van Giovanni Bellori
Bellori, Giovanni Pietro. Veteres arcus Augustorm triumphis insignes ex reliquiis quae Romae adhuc supersunt: ​​cum imaginibus triumphalibus restituti, antiquis nummis notisquae Io: Petri Bellorii illustrati nunc primum / per Io Iacobum de Rubeis. Rome: Ad Templum Sanctae Mariae de Pace, 1690. Image CC-BY-SA Digital [email protected] University. http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:38641.

Oorsprong

Plutarchus skryf dat Romulus eers 'n eikeboon afgekap het, 'n lourierkrans gedra het en deur Rome geparseer het hy beweer dat "sy optog die oorsprong en model was van alle daaropvolgende triomfse" (Plutarch, Life of Romulus, 16). Plinius, Varro en ander het egter geglo dat dit afkomstig is van Bacchus, en dus vernoem na sy bynaam thriambos. In die Fasti Triumphales, die laat republikeinse lys van triomfe, Romulus is die eerste gelys. Daar word vermoed dat meer as 300 triomfe in die

1000 jaar vanaf die stigting van die Republiek tot die einde van die Wes -Romeinse Ryk (Baard).

Hoe om 'n oorwinning te wen en 'n oorwinning te behaal

Alle triomf begin met 'n militêre oorwinning oor die vyande van Rome. Volgens Livy moet die seëvierende generaal wat na Rome terugkeer, buite die stadsmure bly totdat die oorwinning deur die senaat en die mense toegestaan ​​word. Die senaat sou 'n formele stem hê wat die mense sou besluit om die vir triumphalis, triomfantlike man, imperium binne die stad vir die tyd van die optog. Uit sy verslag van Marcellus se verwerpte triomfbod weet ons byvoorbeeld dat 'n oorwinning in teorie slegs toegestaan ​​kon word as die bevelvoerder sy leër saamgeneem het en die oorlog met borg gesluit het (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 22.21). Soos Beard aanvoer, was daar egter geen harde reëls oor triomfe wat ons kan vasmaak nie- soos in die geval met Appius Claudius Pulcher in 143 vC. Daar word gesê dat hy 'n triomf geweier is en in elk geval een geneem het (Baard).

Ander opsies vir 'n terugkerende generaal wat nie triomfêre eerbewyse verleen het nie, was ovasies en 'n triomf buite die stad op die Albanberg. In 'n ovasie het die generaal nie 'n laurier of 'n wa (Baard) gekry nie. Marcellus het sy triomf op die Albanberg gevier toe hy ontken is.

Kaart van Rome deur Onofrio Panvinio
Panvinio, Onofrio. Onuphrii Panvinii Veronensis, De ludis circensibus, libri II. De triumphis, liber unus. Venetiis: apud J.B. Ciottum Cenensem. 1600. Beeld CC-BY-SA Digitale [email protected] Universiteit. http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:75216

Die Roete

Die roete van die triomf is meer 'n stel riglyne as 'n reisplan in klip. Die optog het basies buite die stad op die Campus Martius begin, daarna deur die Triomfpoort, deur die Forum, en geëindig by die Temper of Jupiter Optimus Maximus op die Capitoline (Baard).

Die optog

Interessant genoeg blyk dit dat daar geen vaste volgorde vir die triomftog is nie, of selfs 'n duidelike beeld van wie presies deel daarvan sou wees. Soos Beard aantoon, pas die volgorde in triomfboë en monumente, soos die wat deur Bellori hierbo geïllustreer is, nie ooreen met die volgorde wat deur Romeinse historici gegee is nie. Die optog kan veralgemeen word en in drie dele verdeel word: buit, generaal en soldate.

Die buit sou die triomftog lei. Bederf kan alles insluit wat uit die verowerde volke geneem is- standbeelde, goud, silwer, wapens, slawe, muntstukke, diere, koninklike gevangenes en selfs vlotte wat die aksie op die voorkant uitbeeld (Baard). In Livy se verslag van Nero en Livius se triomf in 207 vC, na die tweede Puniese Oorlog, word daar selfs syfers gegee oor hoeveel buit teruggebring word- 300 000 sestres en 80 000 bronsmuntstukke (Livy 28.9). Die mense wat te sien was, was dikwels konings en koninklike families van die opponerende magte. Daar word algemeen geglo dat Cleopatra haar eie lewe geneem het toe Octavianus uit die burgeroorloë van die Tweede Triumviraat die oorwinning behaal het sodat sy nie in 'n triomf sou beland nie (Bringmann).

Die generaal self was veronderstel om die vernaamste aantrekkingskrag te wees- alhoewel die swarring van die gevangenes of die glans van die goud die krag kon hê om hom te oortref. Weereens 'n baie algemene en basiese skema vir sy rol: hy het in 'n wa "in die vorm van 'n toring" gery met sy kinders, getrek deur perde (Cassius Dio in Potter). Ten minste een keer het 'n triomfantlike bevelvoerder nie in 'n wa gery nie. In die triomf van beide Nero en Livius na die 2de Puniese oorlog, ry Nero te perd- Livy skryf dat 'die triomf wat tussen hulle gedeel is, die glorie van albei versterk het, maar veral die een wat sy kameraad toegelaat het om hom in ere te oortref soveel as wat hy hom self in verdienste oortref het ”(Livy 28.9). Oor die algemeen het die generaal egter vir die hele optog in die wa gestaan. Op sy kop was 'n krans van 'n lourier en 'n goue kroon, en hy het 'n pers tuniek en 'n toga picta, 'n toga wat gedink word bedek met patrone of ontwerpe. Hy het 'n septer vasgehou. In sommige berigte is sy gesig rooi geverf. Dit het gelei tot debat onder geleerdes. Versnel verduidelik die twee teorieë- een, dat hy geklee was in navolging van 'n standbeeld van Jupiter Optimus Maximus, en twee, dat hy geklee was in die styl van die oorspronklike Etruskiese konings van Rome (Versnel). Ongeag die oorsprong, die vir triumphalis sou 'n wonderlike gesig gewees het. Mary Beard voer aan dat die laat -republiek minder gereeld by die rooi gesig sou verskyn.

Volg die vir triumphalis en sy strydwa was die soldate van die seëvierende leër. In teenstelling met die generaal, het hulle volle militêre klere en regalia gedra. Hulle sou skree "io triumpe ”, 'n frase waarvan die betekenis toe was en nou nog nie verstaan ​​word nie. Hulle sou ook liedere sing wat hul generaal bespot of prys, genaamd carmina onvoorwaardelik deur Livy (Beard). Die bekendste liedere is liedere wat gesing is tydens die triomf van Julius Caesar oor Gallië, insluitend die een wat deur Suetonius opgemerk is:

"Manne van Rome, hou julle by julle medemens, hier is 'n kaal egbreker. Goud in Gallië het julle as dapperheid deurgebring, wat julle hier in Rome geleen het" (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 50).

Julius Caesar's Triumph deur Andrea Mantegna
Mantegna, Andrea. Triomf van Julius Caesar IX. Engeland: Royal Collection, Hampton Court Palace. 1488. Publieke domein. "Triumph9-Mantegna-Julius-Caesar" deur Andrea Mantegna. Gelisensieer onder Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons-http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triumph9-Mantegna-Julius-Caesar.jpg#/media/File:Triumph9-Mantegna-Julius-Caesar.jpg

Republikeinse triomf

Tydens die Republiek was die triomf die eer wat mans gedroom het om te behaal. Dit was vermoedelik die toppunt van die Romeinse militêre en dikwels politieke loopbaan. Een van die bekendste manne wat geseëvier het, was Pompeius die Grote. Pompeius het 'n seldsame drie triomf in sy loopbaan gevier. Plutarchus skryf dat hy nog nie 'n baard gehad het toe hy sy eerste triomf gekry het nie- nog 'n rariteit. In this first celebration, Pompey reportedly “tried to ride into the city on a chariot drawn by four elephants for he had brought many from Africa which he had captured from its kings. But the gate of the city was too narrow, and he therefore gave up the attempt and changed over to his horses” (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 14). Pompey celebrated his triumphs on his birthday, which was also the day he died in Egypt.

The end of the Republic, the 30’s BCE, saw a jump in the frequency of triumphs. In fact, the number of triumphs dropped off sharply after the Augustan settlement and the end of the fasti triumphales in 19 BCE (Beard).

Imperial Triumphs

After the founding of the Roman Empire, triumphs were only awarded to emperors or members of the imperial family (Beard). Some scholars link this change to the triumph becoming a step in the coronation and legitimacy of the new emperor, starting with Julius Caesar (Versnel). Triumphs in this period were much scarcer than during the Republic, and could often be quite flimsy to the modern eye. For example, Caligula is said to have dressed up Gauls as Germans to celebrate his triumph by Suetonius, and Dio relates that he raided the palace for “spoils” (Beard). Tactitus describes the triumph of Germanicus in terms of the new imperial regime:
“There were borne in procession spoils, prisoners, representations of the mountains, the rivers and battles and the war, seeing that he had been forbidden to finish it, was taken as finished…Still, there was a latent dread when they remembered how unfortunate in the case of Drusus, his father, had been the favour of the crowd how his uncle Marcellus, regarded by the city populace with passionate enthusiasm, had been snatched from them while yet a youth, and how short-lived and ill-starred were the attachments of the Roman people” (Tacitus, Annale 2).

Germanicus celebrated his triumph before the war was even completed and in the shadow of the mysterious deaths of two other popular generals. Tacitus highlights the change in tenor of the celebration in the empire. The Arch of Titus even seems to show the deification of the Emperor, linking the triumph and the divine during the Empire (Beard).

Triumph of Germanicus
Guerber, Helene. Triumph of Germanicus. 1896. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triumph_of_Germanicus.gif

Triumph through the Ages

Triumphs survive in the many victory parade celebrations that are still held and commemorated. Mary Beard writes that the last parade of looted art throughout the streets of Europe was Napoleon’s plunder of Italian art and procession through Paris in 1798. Perhaps a more well-known example is the New York City Victory Parade in 1946, following the conclusion of World War II. Thankfully, the display of captives has fallen off thanks to the U.N. and the Geneva Conventions.

Montgomery, Alabama. World War I Victory
Paulger, Stanley. World War I victory parade for the 167th Infantry regiment on Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, Alabama. 1919. Alabama Dept. of Archives and History. CC-PD-OLD. Image Public [email protected] Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Montgomery_Alabama_WWI_parade.jpg

A Roman Triumph
Rubens, Peter Paul. A Roman Triumph. National Gallery, 1630. PD-US PD-ART. Image Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rubens-roman-triumph.jpg#/media/File:Rubens-roman-triumph.jpg

Bibliografie

Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Bellori, Giovanni Pietro. Roman Triumphal Arches. 1690.

Diodorus Siculus. The Library of History Vol. II, Book IV. Translated by C. H. Oldfather for the Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933.

Fasti Triumphales in Inscriptiones latinae liberae rei publicae. Translated and edited by Attilio Degrassi, 1957. On view at the Capitoline Museum in Rome.

Flory, Marleen B. “The Integration of Women into the Roman Triumph” in Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte Bd. 47, H. 4 (Oct 1998): 489-494.

Livy. Ab Urbe Condita. An English Translation Translated by William Heinemann,. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press London, Ltd. 1919.

Panvinio, Onofrio. On Circus Games/On Triumphs. 1600.

Plutarch. Lives. Translated by John Dryden. Modern Library: 1942.

Polybius. Thatcher, Oliver J. ed., The Library of Original Sources (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), Vol. III: The Roman World, pp. 166-193

Potter, David. Ancient Rome: A New History. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2009.

Suetonius. Lives of the 12 Caesars vol. II. Translated by J. C. Rolfe for the Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, revised 1998.

Tactitus, Annale. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.1.i.html

Versnel, H. S. Triumphus: An Inquiry Into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Further Reading

Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Potter, David. Ancient Rome: A New History. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2009.

Versnel, H. S. Triumphus: An Inquiry Into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.


Augustan Age

Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.

Augustan Age, one of the most illustrious periods in Latin literary history, from approximately 43 bc to ad 18 together with the preceding Ciceronian period (q.v.), it forms the Golden Age (q.v.) of Latin literature. Marked by civil peace and prosperity, the age reached its highest literary expression in poetry, a polished and sophisticated verse generally addressed to a patron or to the emperor Augustus and dealing with themes of patriotism, love, and nature. One decade alone, 29 to 19 bc , saw the publication of Virgil’s Georgics and the completion of the Aeneis the appearance of Horace’s Odes, Books I–III, and Epistles, Book I the elegies (Books I–III) of Sextus Propertius, a member of a group of promising young poets under the patronage of Gaius Maecenas and Books I–II of the elegies of Tibullus, who was under the patronage of Messalla. During those 10 years also, Livy began his monumental history of Rome, and another historian, Pollio, was writing his important but lost history of recent events. Ovid, the author of Metamorphoses, a mythological history of the world from the creation to the Augustan Age, was the last great writer of the Golden Age his death in exile in ad 17 marked the close of the period.

By extension, the name Augustan Age also is applied to a “classical” period in the literature of any nation, especially to the 18th century in England and, less frequently, to the 17th century—the age of Corneille, Racine, and Molière—in France. Some critics prefer to limit the English Augustan Age to a period covered by the reign of Queen Anne (1702–14), when writers such as Alexander Pope, Joseph Addison, Sir Richard Steele, John Gay, and Matthew Prior flourished. Others, however, would extend it backward to include John Dryden and forward to take in Samuel Johnson.


ResoluteReader

The fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of Imperial Rome remains the central story that underpins all attempts to understand later-day Roman history.

Anthony Everitt's biography has at its heart the individual who personifies the historical transformation. Octavian, the man who became Caesar Augustus, was adopted posthumously by his great uncle, Julius Caesar. His adopted name gave him enormous gravitas in the years immediately following Caesar's murder, as did the enormous wealth that came with it. But Octavian was not an outsider to wealth and privileged. This was no upstart from the fields, or slave made good, Octavian was a Roman, and he fought to ensure the continuation of Rome.

The story of Octavian and his transformation into Augustus brings into play many of the great figures of Roman history. There is of course Julius Caesar, and Augustus' great rival, Mark Anthony. There is also Cleopatra, and to a lesser extent other wives and mistresses. Everitt also introduces many of the poets who were part of Augustus' circle. Though occasionally I felt lack of material meant that Everitt strays a little from his topic, delighting, on occasion, in salubrious detail. (Did we really need that Horace poem on his wet dream)?

That aside this is a useful and readable account of the period. A nice summary of Anthony and Cleopatra the stories of Augustus' limitations as a military commander and the genius of those (Agrippa in particular) who laid the basis for Rome's Empire.

Whether named Octavian or Augustus, the subject of this biography is far from the fair minded ruler that some later Emperors claimed to wish to emulate. He was ruthless and violent. Whether or not he had Cleopatra murdered as some suggest, he certainly made sure her heirs were killed. Octavian was given "a personality makeover" even while alive. Stories were spread to convince the rest of the world that "the young revolutionary whose career had been founded on illegality and violence a respectable, conservative pedigree."

At the core of this book is this notion of revolution. To what extent did Augustus revolutionise Rome? There is no doubt that both Augustus and the other two members of his Triumvir engaged in a vicious, brutal fight to ensure they gained power. The destruction of much of the old Roman ruling class and the absorption of their wealth and land into the new Roman state seems, on the surface, revolutionary. Yet there seems more continuity in other respects. Roman remained a society based on slavery, and its political institutions, at least at a senate and regional level seemed very similar. And there was little between Augustus and his main rival Anthony, as Everitt comments, the "choice was simply between two kinds of autocracy: tidy and efficient, or laid-back and rowdy."

The Marxist historian of Rome, Neil Faulkner, has a different analysis. Rather than the revolutionary Augustus, he sees a stabilising force:

"Caesar’s brief rule in 45 to 44 BC was also ‘absolutist’-it was, in effect, that of a military dictator governing against the opposition of much of the ruling class but with strong popular backing. Caesarism was a form of what Marxists call ‘Bonapartism’. It arises when a clash of class forces produces chronic instability but no clear outcome-when there is no revolutionary class able to seize power for itself and remodel society in its own image. In such circumstances, revolutionary leadership can be ‘deflected’-it may devolve on ‘strongmen’ who lift themselves above the warring factions, building support by promising popular reform and a restoration of order, and maintaining power by balancing between evenly matched class forces. Caesar, the imperialist warlord and popular reformer, provided ‘deflected’ leadership to the Roman Revolution, and, once in power, ‘Bonapartist’ leadership to the fractured Roman state. His immediate successor, Octavian-Augustus (30 BC to AD 14), who became the first emperor, led a conservative reaction which largely restored the unity of a Roman ruling class that was now purged, enlarged and more open to recruitment from below. It was this that distinguished Caesar from Augustus, not that one was a democrat and the other an absolutist."

The "Roman Revolution" had begun some years earlier and Augustus was, in large part, consolidating earlier change. But it was less a revolution and more, in Faulkner's words, of "a struggle between aristocratic factions over the future of empire". By strengthening the Roman state, expanding and developing it, Augustus was making it into the system that could govern most of the known world. In this context Augustus was less of a revolutionary and more the figure who ensured that change became permanent.

It might be suggested that this is a minor part of Everitt's book. But it does get to the heart of who Augustus was. While much of the biography is readable and fascinating and an excellent introduction to Roman history, I felt the core argument lacked strength and undermined the viability of the whole work. That said, this is a complicated period that has challenged all those who have tried to understand those turbulent Roman years. While I don't agree with all of Everitt's conclusions, his book is an excellent introduction and will give readers a useful over-view of the subject.

Related Reviews


Augustan Roman Triumph - History

Jerusalem fell. No matter how zealous they were, or how determined they were, those barbaric Jews should never even dreamed of challenging the absolute right of Roman rule.

The great poet Virgil had made this point clear in his Aeneid nearly a century ago. Those who question the rule of the Empire will vanquish! Fools! How dare they shame our Gods! We privileged them to be a self-governed section, and this is how these arrogant fools repay the favor? Our Gods will not allow such disgrace! If their temples do not honour our Gods, then let them burn! Let this be an example for all!

In 66 the Jews declared independence from the Roman Empire. This action infuriated the emperor Roman legions led by Titus Flavius were sent to punish the Jews. After four years Titus's army sacked the city of Jerusalem, putting an end to the bitter rebellion. Titus burned the Jewish Holy Temple of Solomon and brought back to Rome the most sacred relics in Jewish faith: the Menorah, the seven-branched golden candelabrum that represented the nation of Israel. It demonstrated the idea that the nation of Israel would accomplish its goals by setting an example for other nations, not by force, hence the term "a light unto the nations".

Now, ironically, the Menorah lay in the hands of the Romans, taken by force.

This war deserved a celebration. Romans loved seeing the Triumph, where the victorious Roman army marched in the city to show off the loot and captives.
Now Titus could parade the city with his soldiers and his spoils of war, to show the fellow Romans how valiant he had been, and how successful this war was. To have a triumph granted by the Roman Senate, all he needed was to face 5,000 enemies of a foreign nation he captured 50,000. Even more importantly, this war protected the honor of the Empire this war ensured the supremecy of Roman power. If this would not get him a Triumph, nothing would.

Of course, the Triumph of Titus was one of the greatest triumphs ever held.

Roman Senators, spoils of war (including the Menorah) and captured Jewish generals lead the parade but that was but a minor part of what the citizens of Rome came for. They came out to cheer for their valiant sons and brothers, the shining future of the empire. "Here comes Titus the Imperator!" Citizens cried out as the great man's chariot finally appeared from Campus Martius. Clothed in toga made of purple silk, crowned with wreath embroidered in laurel, proudly, there rode Titus, the pride of Rome! The smile! The gestures! Citizens cried to cheer for him!
"io triumph", "Io Triumph"! Welcome back! Valiant sons of Rome!

The appearance of Titus and his soldiers marked the peak of the parade. Musicians blew their horns, dancers showed their moves, commoners cheered and yelled, and children chased after the chariots: this procession absorbed everyone everyone loved this celebration.

The Temple of Jupiter lay in front of the procession. Here the procession marched into a complete stop, and Titus offered two giant white bulls to Jupiter, thanking the God for watching over Rome. In addition to the appeasement and the show of gratitude, Titus also asked for a favor from Jupiter: the soldiers justly and honorably protected the Empire by plunging into the river of blood and guilt only Jupiter could cleanse them and purify them.

After the purification and sacrifice, the last of the rituals began. For the Roman citizens it was merely a performance, yet for the captured generals it marked the end of their lives.

O great Jupiter, here we present you the leaders of the enemies of state! Those who dare to offend you must not live. Off, off with their heads!

The Colloseum side of the ceiling contains this inscription: "Senatus Populusque Romanus Divo Tito Divi Vespasiani Filio Vespasiano Augusto", or, "the Roman Senate and People to Deified Titus, Vespasian Augustus, son of Deified Vespasian". The Senate and people honoured Titus by dedicating this triumphal arch to him.

The two relief panels on the side of the passageway make up the core of this arch. The first relief shows the spoils of war from the Temple of Solomon: The Menorah, the Altar, the trumpets, and the placards. What is remarkable about this relief is its depth and perspective. The spoils procession, heading towards a honourary arch, is lead by the Altar and followed by the Menorah, but the arch is much smaller in size compared to the Menorah hence the arch must appear from a distance. The Menorah party is also considerably larger than the Altar carriers. As a result, the Menorah appears much closer to the observer, and this generates a sense of realism in the procession.

The second relief shows Titus in his quadriga, a royal chariot drawn by four horses, riding with the winged goddess of victory on his shoulders. Similar to the first relief, Titus also appears closer to the observer. Together the two reliefs complete the core of Titus' triumph procession. Furthermore, this imaginary procession faced in the actual direction of the real triumph procession, proceeding from the Colloseum to the Palatine Hills through Via Sacra.

When a traveler walks under the arch, he could look up into the vault and find the carving of Titus riding on an eagle. The sacred eagle is the messenger sent by the Gods. It would carry Titus to Heaven, where the deceased emperor shall continue to watch over the people from above.

Although the arch today seems to have survived two thousand years of wear and tear, and it may appear in a great shape, it actually is not. The first major reconstruction came during the Middle Ages when the Frangipani family, then ruler of Rome, incorporated the arch into their city wall. Huge holes were punched into the wall to make places for beams. Later the wall was taken down and the arch was saved, though in quite a mess. Miraculously, the reliefs were preserved in great condition.

My own research had shown that the seven-branched golden Menorah was the core relic for Jewish faith. The Holy Book prohibited the remake of seven-branched holy Menorah with any material, yet Professor Michael and Debra both told me the holy Menorah had nine branches.

Confused, I looked up more information: the Menorah in Solomon's Temple was originally seven branched, but in re-dedication of the Temple the new Menorah had nine branches. Legend has it that the candles of Menorah lasted eight days, even though supposedly they were meant to last for only one day. So the new Menorah had nine branches, where one central branch was used to light the other eight. The name of the central branch is Shamash, name for the Jewish God of Sun.

Macadam, Alta. "Blue Guide: Rome". A&C Black: 2003.

Steves, Rick. "Rick Steves' Italy 2004". Avalon Travel Publishing, 2003

Yarden, Leon. "The spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus : a re-investigation". Stockholm, 1991

Zaho, "The History of the Roman Triumph". Honors Summer Italian Packet 1, University of Washington Copy Center, 2003

The UW KnowledgeWorks software used to create this site was developed by the The Program for Educational Transformation Through Technology at the University of Washington.


Augustus&apos work with the senate

Augustus’ revitalisation of the senate highlighted how Augustus maintained a prevalent auctoritas of the senate, despite revoking his official powers in 23 BC. Augustus’ auctoritas and work with the senate over the senate was delineated through his statement, “I excelled all in auctoritas,” which commented on how Augustus was able to pass laws himself through several ways. Augustus’ 𠆊uctoritas’ that Augustus explained referenced to how he utilised his Tribunicia potestas (from 23 BC onwards) in order to present bills to the people.

This was clear through how Augustus could take action through judicial decisions, which was especially evident through his treatment of the Aediles as their traditional functions were taken away gradually. For instance, Cassius Dio ( Roman History, page 375), had explained that “In this same year. the praetors and the tribunes performed the aediles&apos duties,” which essentially referred to the role of the aediles from 22 BC- 6 AD.


Augustus and the Legions

Augustus, like the imperator generals before him, garnered the bulk of his political strength from the Roman armies. Loyalty of the various legions in the Late Republic had always been mainly to their individual generals, as opposed to the Senate, or Rome itself. As Augustus emerged the victor in the final civil war to end the Republic, the situation for him was no different, and the settlement of the military issue was of paramount importance.

Soon after his return from Egypt, and the official ascension as Augustus, the issue was at the top of a long list of reforms. According to his own 'Res Gestae' Augustus quickly dismissed as many as 300,000 troops from active service. In this however, he seemingly didn't show preferential treatment to his own armies, but allowed any who wished to retire the right to do so, while keeping the willing men from both his and Antony's troops as part of a new standing army. The remaining legions, some 150,000 men strong, were organized into 28 total legions and spread throughout the empire. This new professional army would be paid a salary directly by the emperor, ensuring loyalty to Augustus, and after 6 AD, payments were to come from a new public treasury (the aerarium militare). Those troops which had been retired from service were given the customary grants of land, but after 14 BC, Augustus instituted a retirement pension for the legions, granting cash payments in lieu of land rewards.

Further organizing the legions as a professional army, the military became an actual career choice for Italian and provincial citizens alike. Terms of service were originally instituted at 16 years to qualify for retirement packages, but this was later extended to 20 years. In so doing, the concept of massive conscripts in times of war, thereby taking citizens from other necessary occupations, was mostly avoided. As an added benefit, this new professional career allowed the common poor new opportunities without being reliant solely on the state welfare system. Though spoils of war could still be shared among the troops, soldiers could now look forward to regular pay without commanders forcing a campaign simply to provide looting opportunities.

At the time of Augustus and through to the mid 1st century AD, it's been estimated that the legions were composed of up to 70% Italian recruits. As time went by and the placement of legions, which were always on the frontiers, was established for long periods, the legions became less reliant on men from the Italian peninsula. Under Claudius and Nero, the number of Italian recruits dropped to just fewer than 50%, and that number continued to decline over the next century. By the time of Hadrian, Italians made up only 1% of the total legion compliments. Under Augustus, however, provincial non citizens also had military opportunities in the restructured auxilia. Though the auxilia was still mostly an 'as needed' operation in the early empire, it's been estimated that auxilia soldiers represented at least an equal number of active soldiers to that of the citizen army. The status, however, was ever evolving and it wouldn't be long before they were really a permanent part of the standing army. Auxiliaries could also receive regular pay from the treasury, though at a lesser amount, had similar terms of service and had access to variable retirement benefits. The chief of these benefits could be the rewarding of citizenship, on the non-citizen provincial and his family, making them eligible for all the perks of being a 'Roman'.

To command his legions, Augustus, and each successive emperor, also turned to those closest to them. No longer was command bestowed through the Senatorial hierarchy, but the practice of choosing the best was still sadly ignored. Having close relations to or being an intimate member of the emperors' inner circle usually carried more merit than one's actual battlefield capability. Under Augustus, the bulk of this duty fell to his close friend Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, his stepsons Tiberius and Drusus (along with his son Germanicus), and even later his grandsons Gaius and Lucius Caesar. In the early empire, unrelated but successful men like Marcus Licinius Crassus (grandson of the first triumvir) created problems for Augustus.

Many generals still viewed military service in the old Republican fashion, where success should be met with triumphs and personal rewards. In the case of Crassus, his exceptional success in the Balkans very early in Augustus' tenure highlighted the potential for disaster. Crassus' demand of a triumph as well as the spolia opima (or ultimate spoils) could've potentially placed the loyalty of the men serving him in serious doubt. During the principate, the legions were to be loyal to the emperor himself and not the Legates who served him. Augustus did possibly grant the triumph but Crassus seems to have been quickly removed from service and essentially disappears from the historical record afterward. Another of Augustus' early governors, C. Cornelius Gallus the prefect of Egypt, lauded himself with rewards. Statues erected with glorifying inscriptions resulting from victories over neighboring tribes and revolting provincials, were a source of both anger and distrust for Augustus. Gallus' behavior led ultimately to his own suicide (by 26 BC), certainly under pressure from Rome.

As the new constitutional arrangements of Augustus began to alter the fabric of Roman government, it was imperative that this Republican military ideology cease to exist. From the incident with Crassus onward, the emperor was solely responsible for the victories of men in the field. If a triumph was due, it was the emperor who received it. Even Agrippa the close confidant of Augustus, perhaps understanding this fundamental change in philosophy more than any other, refused all such personal honors and allowed Augustus to celebrate Agrippa's victories as if they were truly his own. Of course, the emperor, at least in the case of those who were strong enough to pull it off, was exempt from blame in the case of military disaster and these could be blamed entirely on the commanders. Still, the life of a legate could be one of supreme honor, respect and wealth. They simply had to understand the new rules and forego the honors of the Republican era. The emperor further solidified the legions as his own, by ensuring that each legionary swear a personal oath of loyalty directly to him. Essentially the emperor was not only the source of the soldier's pay, but he was truly the commander-in-chief and patron. In the case of Augustus, it didn't hurt that he was considered a living god.


1. Brutal Memorial

Augustus revered his great-uncle and adoptive father, Julius Caesar, even long after the legendary general’s death. He was so committed to Caesar’s memory, in fact, that he once ordered an absolutely horrific sacrifice to be held on the Ides of March, the anniversary of Caesar’s assassination (today we’d call it March 15th, but the Romans had a flair for the dramatic). 300 prisoners taken from the recent Perusine War were killed on the altar of Caesar in Rome, all to show how much the emperor respected the man who set the foundation for his rule.

HBO


Kyk die video: Roman Patronage System (Oktober 2021).