So, I'm enrolled in this junior level Roman Empire class at the local state university and I'm kind of disappointed.
First off, the class is taught by a professor who mostly teaches art history. So we look at a lot of slides of Roman architecture and statuary. Not my main interests, but fair game I suppose.
Second off, the professor is both a Christian and an expert in the middle ages. He spends a lot of time going off on tangents that involve the history of the papacy. A little bit more annoying, but he announced at the beginning of the class that a running motif of the class would be the "transformation of the Rome of the Caesars into the Rome of the popes", so, again, fair game I suppose. I could have withdrawn in time and gotten my money back.
But, whatever. He's an engaging speaker, erudite and articulate and obviously knows a lot of stuff (even if a lot of it doesn't seem to have much to do with the Roman Empire), but here's my question:
A lot of the discussion of the emperors seems to be taken from I, Claudius. And, yes, I know Graves did his homework, but I thought a lot of this stuff had been debunked as anti-imperial, pro-senatorial propaganda. Stuff like: Livia bumped everybody off to get her son on the throne, Tiberius was a homicidal maniac who murdered little boys who wouldn't put out, etc., etc. This I find to be extremely annoying. It'd be like taking a class on the War of the Roses and using Shakespeare as a textbook.
I'd like to stress again that this is a junior level course at a creditable (granted, commuter) state university. Do I have a legitimate gripe?
|
Classics major here. Not, admittedly, specializing in Roman history, but I think I'm familiar enough to weigh in, and I see several problems.
First, if your teacher is actually using I, Claudius as a source, then that is a big problem. It's a novel, so Graves very reasonably takes artistic license. Not exactly secondary source scholarship for a history class.
What I figure is happening is that you are learning all the stories that Graves uses but not necessarily putting them in context. These episodes that you mention are in fact found in ancient sources. Graves particularly used Tacitus and Suetonius. I don't think you can make the blanket statement that this has all been "debunked as anti-imperial, pro-senatorial propaganda," but there is certainly reason to discredit many of the details, for a variety of reasons. And that is to me the problem with your class. Part of history is dealing with the primary sources. I don't agree with your Shakespeare allusion totally because Tacitus and Suetonius are extremely important sources, but you can't read them like you would a history textbook. You aren't learning why these ancient sources may or may not be correct.
In short, I would criticize your class as not teaching you how to critique an ancient source. No ancient history (and one could probably argue modern history) is completely without bias, and part of the modern historian's job is understanding and dealing with that.
|
I majored in Ancient History and wrote my thesis on Julius Caesar. I have taught the Augustan Age and the Julio-Claudians in the past.
Calandra has given you really constructive feedback. I agree that Suetonius and Tacitus are far too important to be eclipse with a work of fiction such as I, Claudius. I personally dislike the book and have only used it grudgingly since my first reading in high school.
Robert Graves gives up a lot of accuracy, as he does not use the sources accurately and twists history for dramatic purposes, especially in his depiction of Claudius and the events leading up to, and including, his reign.
I really recommend buying a copy of Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars and Tactitus' The Annals to read yourself. Keep in mind that Suetonius was unreliable as he failed to consistently validate his evidence and enjoyed the scandalous behaviour of the imperial family a bit too much. Tacitus' view was coloured by the reign of Domitian and he is heavily critical of the imperial family abusing its position and power.
Calandra also mentioned studying the primary sources. You cannot ignore the primary sources! There is a lot of epigraphical and numismatic evidence that is invaluable to your understanding of the period. Suetonius and Tacitus are not primary sources. Suetonius was born in c. AD 70 and Tacitus was born in c. AD 56. Both near the end of the Julio-Claudian period. Still, Calandra is right, these are two vitally important sources and should be studied closely for this period of history.
I would also recommend Cassius Dio's Roman History as a useful source. Most his work has been broken up into sections as he wrote around 80 books (Penguin has begun publishing these again and they are cheaper then the Loeb editions). However, he was born around a century after these events and that has to be taken into consideration.
There are loads of primary sources from the Augustan Age and the period of the Julio-Claudians. Each of these can assist you in your study of Claudius and the Julio-Claudians. Augustus was a master of public promotion and Claudius mimicked this tactic. Some statues of Claudius depict him as full of body and dressed in armour similar to the statue Augustus of Prima Porta.
Overall you have access to useful sources that can be used to supplement your studies of I, Claudius. If you are concerned that you are not receiving a well-rounded education (and you paid for the course), I would be voicing my concern. If you have any questions or need any further assistance, I am more than happy to help.
Chubbs is on the ball - I am an Classics and Ancient History major... My focus unfortunately revolves around the Peloponnesian War so I am not going to be much help when it comes to Roman Politics.
Do your best to get as close to the primary sources as possible... The primary sources are your best friend even when they exaggerate or are not "accurate" (looking at you Herodotus).
Thank you for everybody's feedback.
We are not using Graves as a textbook. Nor are we using Suetonius nor Tacitus. But the stories that are being bandied about in class are definitely drawn from the latter two.
My thinking about this all started when I was speaking to a student during the class break and I mentioned that I had read in a more up-to-date (well, at least 20th century) text that Livia might not have been as terrible a person as she's made out to be in the texts listed above. (This reminded me of the bad rep that Richard III had in English folklore and why I compared it to Shakespeare). She brought this up with the professor and he made some comment about "revisionist history."
Anyway, I can understand the cultural importance of these stories. Even if they aren't literally true, they have colored how the next 2000ish years of people viewed the emperors which can bleed out into all kinds of literature and it is important for a cultured person to know them. I'm just not sure if retelling them as if they were undisputed truth is actually a legitimate way to teach an upper level history class on the subject.
EDIT: And it sounds like you agree with me.
|
|
Thank you for everybody's feedback... She brought this up with the professor and he made some comment about "revisionist history."... I'm just not sure if retelling them as if they were undisputed truth is actually a legitimate way to teach an upper level history class on the subject.
History is constantly revised and new evidence can also bring about changes in our understanding of the past. The sites of Pompeii and Herculaneum have changed our perception of life in Roman towns and theories have been revised over the last 50 years.
There is a lot we do not know for certain in history, especially ancient history, and new interpretations occur all the time. If new evidence is uncovered, this can drastically change our perceptions of ancient times. We need to be careful not to interpret evidence from solely a modern perspective.
You really need to go back to the ancient sources and incorporate them into your studies. If your professor wants to remain ignorant of them, you should not. Reading through Suetonius and Tacitus will add greater detail and understanding to your study of the period. Modern historians will help with perspective and offer arguments based on evidence.
I would never teach Ancient History without relying on sources. My students receive loads of primary and secondary source material to supplement their study of specific topics. If I teach the Persian Wars and the Rise of the Athenian Empire, I give out copies of Herodotus, Plutarch and Thucydides.
However, to throw everything out as undisputed truth is just doing wrong by your students. However, in this case, it sounds like you need to take on some extra reading for yourself and your own knowledge.
|
Man you have been sooo dudded. Complain and complain like hell.
For the record I have my Honours in Ancient History focusing on the Late Roman Republic/Early Empire. I am also a teacher at High School in New South Wales Australia and I teach Ancient History for the Higher School Certificate (the final leaving exam at the end of school).
The stuff that Chubbs McGee has been talking about is the stuff we teach in High School. We use Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Cassius Dio et al (or Herodotus, Thucydides etc depending on topic) as well as more modern sources, always pointing out how important it is to know the source well. Who they were, why they wrote and who they were writing for. And not just the ancient authors but also coins, archaeology, architecture and modern historians.
If you are not doing this sort of close study at University level then you are being let down. If you are not doing this sort of close study at University level and you paid for it then you are being ripped off.
Complain and complain like hell.
Man you have been sooo dudded. Complain and complain like hell.
.....
Complain and complain like hell.
I've already read The Twelve Caesars and a bunch of Livy for recreational reading. I've also read a bunch of more modern historians (Michael Grant seems to be the guy that keeps popping up in used book stores).
I probably won't get to any of the other stuff that's been mentioned (thanks for the recommendations, though) because I've already glutted myself on ancient Rome and my attention span will probably move on (right now I'm reading Eric Williams's From Columbus to Castro: A History of the Caribbean).
I was just interested in what others thought. To be honest, although I'm picking on this one professor, it's a problem that I've had with this whole school. When I was actually college age, I attended UMass Boston where I took some upper level history classes before I dropped out. Now I am in my early 30s and the company I work for offers a tuition reimbursement plan, so I thought I'd waste their money and try to get me some schooling and am attending UNH Manchester. So far, I've found that freshman level courses at UMass were much more difficult/stimulating than junior level courses at UNH.
In fact, after the midterm examination in this Roman History class (which was an essay assignment, not a test), the class was subjected to a half-hour lecture on the proper use of grammar. I was a little aghast, to be honest, but I presume that it must've been necessary.
Pretty pathetic, huh?
EDIT: I probably won't complain. If it's necessary for the professor to discuss correct English grammar in a junior-level course, what's the point in complaining about not using better sources?
|
|
So, I'm enrolled in this junior level Roman Empire class at the local state university and I'm kind of disappointed.
First off, the class is taught by a professor who mostly teaches art history. So we look at a lot of slides of Roman architecture and statuary. Not my main interests, but fair game I suppose.
Second off, the professor is both a Christian and an expert in the middle ages. He spends a lot of time going off on tangents that involve the history of the papacy. A little bit more annoying, but he announced at the beginning of the class that a running motif of the class would be the "transformation of the Rome of the Caesars into the Rome of the popes", so, again, fair game I suppose. I could have withdrawn in time and gotten my money back.
But, whatever. He's an engaging speaker, erudite and articulate and obviously knows a lot of stuff (even if a lot of it doesn't seem to have much to do with the Roman Empire), but here's my question:
A lot of the discussion of the emperors seems to be taken from I, Claudius. And, yes, I know Graves did his homework, but I thought a lot of this stuff had been debunked as anti-imperial, pro-senatorial propaganda. Stuff like: Livia bumped everybody off to get her son on the throne, Tiberius was a homicidal maniac who murdered little boys who wouldn't put out, etc., etc. This I find to be extremely annoying. It'd be like taking a class on the War of the Roses and using Shakespeare as a textbook.
I'd like to stress again that this is a junior level course at a creditable (granted, commuter) state university. Do I have a legitimate gripe?
I cant really Say - Its seems a little vague.
The Evolution of Latin
Even something as simple as the Development of Roman Latin into Papal Latin involves a user defines interpretation of the Language. Medieval Latin Prayers to God for Mercy and forgiveness would have been interpreted in Roman Times as a Slave begging his Owner for Mercy. Basically The Language of Medieval Latin takes on the tone of a Slave's Relationship to his Master (where Christian Latin developed - amongst the Roman slaves and dispossessed poor). In Roman Times, that is merely one of many tiers of Linguistic Protocol. Senators would have spoken of other things beyond the language of Medieval latin - linguistic concepts of inuendo and metaphor. Merchants on the Other hand spoke a Latin more in keeping with international Trade - a quasi Greek blended latin that allowed them to refer to more than just that limited by Latin. - S.R. Meaney
This explains why Christian Latin has limits in the way it translates Roman Latin. If I refer to you as Poseidon's Prostitute - I may be suggesting that you spend too much time sailing your pleasure yacht, Or prefer the Ocean to the land or city, or worse, spend time in the company of Sexually degenerate sailors.
|
|
Well if you are only doing it because the company pays for it, that's a little different.
Proper grammar is always an issue and teachers like me who were never very good at English anyway don't help.
I'd complain not because of poor sources, but a poor use of sources and historical method.
As for Grant, he's a bit like Carl Sagan, popular, populariser, prolific and not that well regarded by his peers in the field. That's not saying that his writing is bad or inaccurate, just that there seems to be a certain snobishness from other historians.
|
|
While I would be hesitant to judge a college based on just one class, my suspicion is that this is kind of a crappy college. The professor may just be teaching at a level the students can handle.
The way I see it, you have 2 choices: take the credits and run (and know you are getting more from your own reading than from the class), or try to pick the professor's brain a bit more, maybe by discussing various sources in office hours. It could be illuminating. And it could satisfy your (more accurately, MY) curiosity as to whether the prof is deliberately dumbing down the coursework or really doesn't know any better. (Third answer: his training in art history may have emphasized the popular legends over actual facts, since the former are more likely to influence cultural output.)
We are not using Graves as a textbook. Nor are we using Suetonius nor Tacitus. But the stories that are being bandied about in class are definitely drawn from the latter two.Reading Suetonius is like reading a trashy newspaper.
I am intrigued, what texts did you use?
For the record, the texts are:
Chronicle of the Roman Emperors by Chris Scarre
and
Penguin (I think) Historical Atlas to Ancient Rome also by Chris Scarre
The texts are pretty lame compared to what I've used in other junior level classes at other schools.
I have come to the conclusion that Celestial Healer is correct and that the whole college is lame.
|
Well I never did Classical Studies but I've always been interested. (I took a couple courses as an undergrad.) I have been, however, a professor of English and am currently a Dean and in that capacity I do have a comment.
The study of history, whether in Social Sciences or Humanities, is still steadfastly among the Liberal Arts.
Thus, you ain't suppose to be studying this stuff -- at least at the Undergrad level -- to become some expert on Roman History. You're supposed to be studying it to develop a learning of how to analyze sources, make an argument, articulate, critically observe, challenge others' arguments, create your own opinions, network complex and ambiguous information... you get the idea.
Everything in that professor's syllabus, everything, should be based on the purpose of a Liberal Arts education. Anything he does that doesn't, anything, should be questioned.
There's nothing that's automatically wrong with using Graves or Shakespeare or, heck, even Michener, as sources in a lower division history course. Of course, if this professor were in my department I'd make sure he taught the difference between primary and secondary sources -- cuz students need to develop the ability to judge sources (see purpose of LA education).
The prof can teach mostly Roman architecture and statuary. The prof can teach "transformation of the Rome of the Caesars into the Rome of the popes." Feel free to look at not only the title but also the summary of the course. But, like you said, prof explained it on the first day and you could've withdrawn.
The only problem I necessarily see is whehter he's preaching his own opinions -- which will never help the student later in life, or if he's getting his students to develop their own opinions -- which is vital for the student later in life.
Well I never did Classical Studies but I've always been interested. (I took a couple courses as an undergrad.) I have been, however, a professor of English and am currently a Dean and in that capacity I do have a comment.
The study of history, whether in Social Sciences or Humanities, is still steadfastly among the Liberal Arts.
Thus, you ain't suppose to be studying this stuff -- at least at the Undergrad level -- to become some expert on Roman History. You're supposed to be studying it to develop a learning of how to analyze sources, make an argument, articulate, critically observe, challenge others' arguments, create your own opinions, network complex and ambiguous information... you get the idea.
At the school I previously attended, I took a freshman or sophomore seminar on Greek mythology. For that class we read: Homer, Hesiod, The Metamorphoses, one of the big three Athenian tragedians (I've read so many I can't remember which one we read in class--Ajax? Medea?), etc. etc.
That's what I expect a collegiate classics course to be like. I don't think I ever took an ancient history course there, but I took plenty of other history courses and they were all much more substantive than this course I am taking now.
I think what I am taking from this thread is that I have to get one of my friends that lives in Massachusetts let me put my name on their mailbox so that I will qualify for in-state tuition in the UMass system.
|
|
Thus, you ain't suppose to be studying this stuff -- at least at the Undergrad level -- to become some expert on Roman History. You're supposed to be studying it to develop a learning of how to analyze sources, make an argument, articulate, critically observe, challenge others' arguments, create your own opinions, network complex and ambiguous information... you get the idea.
I find that comment slightly odd. I assumed that learning this stuff was to get a good grip on your subject and learn to analyse, make arguments and so on. A guy teaching history using "I, Claudius" is arguably not meeting the description of the course, which is Ancient History, not 20th Century Literature (albeit historical fiction in this instance).
Thus, you ain't suppose to be studying this stuff -- at least at the Undergrad level -- to become some expert on Roman History. You're supposed to be studying it to develop a learning of how to analyze sources, make an argument, articulate, critically observe, challenge others' arguments, create your own opinions, network complex and ambiguous information... you get the idea.I find that comment slightly odd. I assumed that learning this stuff was to get a good grip on your subject and learn to analyse, make arguments and so on.
Imagine there's a continuum with "Complete Ignorance" on one side and "Becoming an Expert" on another. "Getting a Good Grip" is probably somewhere in the middle.
|
|
Well, I did a modular undergraduate course myself which had historical elements. As an undergrad you aren't going to get PhD level knowledge as you are covering broad areas relatively shallowly, and not really doing research. That I can understand. But there is also the element of learning-for-learning's-sake in any academic study, rather than the slightly utilitarian view that you are instead learning to analyse - i.e. the analysis is important as well as the learning how to do the analysis, otherwise why don't we all just go to business school? So it seems strange to me where a work of 20th century fiction should be key to a history course, unless (for example) it was to illustrate the current perception versus original sources and historical views. Which this doesn't sound like. Not that I'm "having a go" at anyone - I'm just curious as to what university learning is for, in other people's opinions.
Well, I did a modular undergraduate course myself which had historical elements. As an undergrad you aren't going to get PhD level knowledge as you are covering broad areas relatively shallowly, and not really doing research. That I can understand. But there is also the element of learning-for-learning's-sake in any academic study, rather than the slightly utilitarian view that you are instead learning to analyse - i.e. the analysis is important as well as the learning how to do the analysis, otherwise why don't we all just go to business school? So it seems strange to me where a work of 20th century fiction should be key to a history course, unless (for example) it was to illustrate the current perception versus original sources and historical views. Which this doesn't sound like. Not that I'm "having a go" at anyone - I'm just curious as to what university learning is for, in other people's opinions.
If you're referring to I, Claudius, then I'd like to state again that we are not reading that.
If you're referring to something else, then never mind.
...one of the big three Athenian tragediansEuripides
Actually, I think it was Ajax by Sophocles. I have read, outside of class, all three of them and I think I liked Euripides best.
See how the Greeks have threadjacked the Romans?
|
|
I find (Ray's) comment slightly odd. I assumed that learning this stuff was to get a good grip on your subject and learn to analyse, make arguments and so on. A guy teaching history using "I, Claudius" is arguably not meeting the description of the course, which is Ancient History, not 20th Century Literature (albeit historical fiction in this instance).
Sure: Math, Chemistry, Lit, Anthropology -- whatever -- same purpose if it's among the Liberal Arts.
Think of the Liberal Arts this way, when someone asks you "What do we need to know all this crap for?", the answer should go something like this: "You're right, knowing that Shakespeare was born in 1564 and that Puck is a hobgoblin and Calibon is a Cambion is all pretty durned useless. On the other hand, being able to read something difficult and understand it, figure it out and come up with your own opinions of it, then articulate your ideas creatively and logically -- THAT's something you gotta be able to do. So, we'll read and learn all this crap so you'll get better at those skills."
It's the same thing in this Roman History class. The purpose, fundamentally, is to develop the students' Liberal Arts intelligence. Maybe, maybe, a couple of those students will go on to get grad degrees in Classical Studies and have careers in "Roman History." But, um, let's just say "not many" of them. For all the rest, the value of the course has to do with the purpose of the Liberal Arts.
---------------
I should note that there is also a fundamental purpose of Humanities and Social Sciences (where we find History) that is about learning that other people live differently, have different values, cultures, etc, etc. And that that is equal to the pupose of developing intellect.
|
|
Well, I did a modular undergraduate course myself which had historical elements. As an undergrad you aren't going to get PhD level knowledge as you are covering broad areas relatively shallowly, and not really doing research. That I can understand. But there is also the element of learning-for-learning's-sake in any academic study, rather than the slightly utilitarian view that you are instead learning to analyse - i.e. the analysis is important as well as the learning how to do the analysis, otherwise why don't we all just go to business school? So it seems strange to me where a work of 20th century fiction should be key to a history course, unless (for example) it was to illustrate the current perception versus original sources and historical views. Which this doesn't sound like. Not that I'm "having a go" at anyone - I'm just curious as to what university learning is for, in other people's opinions.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your post, here.
Regarding what texts should be used consider this as well, if you're a professor and you're teaching a course then you're qualified to choose the texts and have the prerogative to teach the ones you enjoy and feel most comfortable with.
As Dean the last thing I wanna do is tell my instructor not to teach a particular text. That's not even about micromanaging; it's about trust and professionalism.
I'll use myself as an example: I pretty regularly teach Shakespeare's Richard III and Henry V. Cuz I like it. And when I do I spend a large amount of time going over English Feudal history from Edward III all the way to Henry Tudor LONG before we get to Shakespeare.
Now, let's say my student signs up for my English Lit course and gets hit with my syllabus that seems like a History course for the first half of the semester -- and I've certainly had students ask me about this! Should the Provost (my superior) come to me and challenge my coursework? Or should we instead work together to make sure the course title and summary is explained clearly? I argue that the instructor is able enough to make the decision of texts.
Now, I'm not in a History department of course, I'm in Lit -- but if I were the Assoc. Dean of History and one of my instructors felt that Michener's Texas would make a good addition to his syllabus I'm fine with that.
Now, if students started coming to me saying the prof is promoting his own opinions (in an undergrad course!) on Texas history, I'd have to ask that prof about it and see if it were true. That would be a concern.
|
|
Sorry about the seeming Threadjack, Duddlebug, I guess my point is that it doesn't matter to me (necessarily) what texts y'all are covering or even the "running motif of the class" as much as it is about the observation that it seems as if your prof is more interested in giving you his own opinions on Roman History as if knowing his opinions could ever help his students.
|
|
...one of the big three Athenian tragedians
Euripides
Actually, I think it was Ajax by Sophocles. I have read, outside of class, all three of them and I think I liked Euripides best.
Medea is Euripides, that's my favorite -- that's the one I jumped on.
I don't know Ajax but you're right, I just jumped over to Wikipedia and Sophocles wrote it. Cool.
See how the Greeks have threadjacked the Romans?
LOL.
The Greeks alway win.
My best friend likes to say that if it weren't for the Greeks we'd be talking to our horses.
I always have to disagree with him.
If it weren't for the Greeks we'd be listening to our horses!
|
|
LOL.
The Greeks alway win.
My best friend likes to say that if it weren't for the Greeks we'd be talking to our horses.
I always have to disagree with him.
If it weren't for the Greeks we'd be listening to our horses!
Well, the horses seem sometimes more interesting than some people I know, but otherwise ... :)
Every university hassome superior and some lesser professors. It's always wise to reconnoiter your major's department. Chat with upperclassmen and graduate students and identify which staff teach the most worthwhile courses. Few things are more frustrating than signing up for a class only to discover that the instructor isn't very good.
...one of the big three Athenian tragediansEuripidesActually, I think it was Ajax by Sophocles. I have read, outside of class, all three of them and I think I liked Euripides best.
See how the Greeks have threadjacked the Romans?
Its because Greek history is epic and Roman history is a soap opera.
I going to suggest a Podcast - do not use this podcast as a basis of your eduction, it is a broad over view of Roman history and while it is well researched and the Podcaster uses the primary sources, always go to the primary sources your self. On itunes it is Mike Duncans The History of Rome. (link to his blog). The sound quality improves after the first few.
|
|
Its because Greek history is epic and Roman history is a soap opera.
How dare you, you heathen :) (spoken by a true Romanophile)
However the History of the Roman Imperial Family, once they had one of course, is in parts so bizarre that no studio exec would ever consider such story lines even for the most dreadful TV soap.
I can also attest to the worth of the "History of Rome" podcast. You won't find huge amounts of detail or in depth discussion of the source material but it is a great overview.
|
|
I'm just curious as to what university learning is for, in other people's opinions.
Well, assuming you mean "college" learning instead of "university" learning, I'd steadfastly reiterate my earlier post of "Purpose of a Liberal Arts Education."
....Learning-for-learning's-sake in any academic study (is an element), rather than the slightly utilitarian view that you are instead learning to analyse - otherwise why don't we all just go to business school?
Absolutely, indeed a key element is learning for learning's sake, but we take a Liberal Arts major based on personal interest: one likes Chemistry; one likes Classical studies; one likes Psychology -- and so we take courses to learn for learning's sake -- about the major we're interested in.
But that's not what College is For! ....
"Why don't we all become business majors?" you ask, because we don't all want careers in business!
Here's the breakdown:
Pre Professional degrees: business, accounting, pre-law, hospitality, engineering, nursing, etc., prepare you only for that specific career. That's the University concept, pre professional undergrad degrees and Masters and Doctorate degrees -- all for specific careers.
Liberal Arts degrees -- College degrees: Classical Studies, Chemistry, Psychology, Literature, Anthropolgy, Biology, etc., .
That's why the PURPOSE OF A LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION is fundamentally vital to any course in the Liberal Arts.
So, as provost or dean or even prof, I have no idea what these Chem majors or Anth majors or Lit majors or Classical Studies majors are gonna do after they get their Bachelor's. But I better as hell be confident that they can analyze on their own, communicate & argue & articulate well, network ideas, etc., etc.
And, oh yeah, they have a "good grip" on a subject that they're interested in, you know, they learned it for learning's sake.
Hope that helps.
Do the Romulans use roman numbers, or are they decimal based (from Star Trek)?
I wonder if Rome would have been successful if it was named after Remus rather than Romulus?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or Aeneas.
I can hear Hannibal now, "Oh look, it's the Anal Empire, I'm so scared."
Or Aeneas.
I can hear Hannibal now, "Oh look, it's the Anal Empire, I'm so scared."
Hannibal would have still lost...useless t@~* he was... The Anal empire would have shat all over him.
Hannibal would have still lost...useless t~~$ he was... The Anal empire would have shat all over him.Or Aeneas.
I can hear Hannibal now, "Oh look, it's the Anal Empire, I'm so scared."
I don't know. You're probably right, but we have no idea what kind of morale bonus the Carthaginians would have gotten from all the tee-heeing at Hannibal's jokes. Or what kind of penalties the Aeneans would have had to take. See kender taunt.
What's up with the Hannibal hate, btw?
I walked away from Livy with some serious distaste for Scipio Africanus, but it was a couple of years ago and I don't remember why.
What's up with the Hannibal hate, btw?
I walked away from Livy with some serious distaste for Scipio Africanus, but it was a couple of years ago and I don't remember why.
He achieved nothing... Wasted the resources of the Spanish part of the Carthaginian "Empire" on a pointless failure of a campaign. When he could have made it impossible for Carthage to be destroyed.
That and Scipio rocks!
The Romans all seemed like a bunch of jerks to me.
|
|
Yeah the Romans were jerks, however look at their perception of the outside world. These Celts kept coming out of the wood works. They kept human heads as trophies and hung them over their doors. These crazy barbarians attacked naked. Bleached blond with spiked hair standing up wildly. Yeah I think I would be a little insular and defensive too.
What's up with the Hannibal hate, btw?
I walked away from Livy with some serious distaste for Scipio Africanus, but it was a couple of years ago and I don't remember why.
He achieved nothing... Wasted the resources of the Spanish part of the Carthaginian "Empire" on a pointless failure of a campaign. When he could have made it impossible for Carthage to be destroyed.
That and Scipio rocks!
Feh on your Scipio. Hannibal gets major points for annhilating his foes using novel tactics left Rome weeping. He loses a lot of points(and his life btw) for not knowing how to use his victories.
There was a quote I read once, but I can't remember to whom it was attributed, but it was one of the Roman scholars... It said something to the effect that some peoples were meant to build, others to craft art, and others to rule the former (the obvious meaning being that there was some sort of manifest destiny to the Roman Empire). Anyone remember who it was that said this?
There was a quote I read once, but I can't remember to whom it was attributed, but it was one of the Roman scholars... It said something to the effect that some peoples were meant to build, others to craft art, and others to rule the former (the obvious meaning being that there was some sort of manifest destiny to the Roman Empire). Anyone remember who it was that said this?
I also remember reading that quote, but neither can I remember the proper reference.
Interestingly, I did find it >hijacked< by an obscure German Jewish political philosopher whose views were elitist.
|
There was a quote I read once, but I can't remember to whom it was attributed, but it was one of the Roman scholars... It said something to the effect that some peoples were meant to build, others to craft art, and others to rule the former (the obvious meaning being that there was some sort of manifest destiny to the Roman Empire). Anyone remember who it was that said this?
Sounds a lot like Plato.
|
|
[Feh on your Scipio. Hannibal gets major points for annhilating his foes using novel tactics left Rome weeping. He loses a lot of points(and his life btw) for not knowing how to use his victories.
I remember a quote, "One may know how to gain a victory, and not know how to use it!" I think it is attributed to Hamilicar Barca.
|
|
He achieved nothing... Wasted the resources of the Spanish part of the Carthaginian "Empire" on a pointless failure of a campaign. When he could have made it impossible for Carthage to be destroyed.
That and Scipio rocks!
I have to agree, Scipio does rock!
The Dwarf is right. Hannibal was also a risk taker and probably crossed the Alps for fame as much as gaining a tactical advantage against the Romans.
Hannibal also jeopardised his troops by having no supply line and taking them not only into hostile terrain, but also hostile territory. The journrey over the Alps almost broke his forces.
Also, the much talked about elephants were useless as well. He would have been better leaving them at home. They crossed the Alps and then... died.
Elephant+Alps is almost like Wookiees+Endor!