Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

[l apprenti de forgeron]

I started re-read the Session of 2 February of 2003 and maybe if Alexander is Abraham could be a link of some kind between Cleopatra and the Perseid family, but I do not know. kore was the last living member of the Perseid family as such. Perhaps they changed their name and location, as a family-group of the 4th way, that then link in a future with Caesar?. So, again, I do not know. But yes know that all this is fascinating!. Well, I hope that make some sense what I said.

 

[Laura]

As for the battle of Actium, the great myth of the battle of Romans against the evil demon Queen of Egypt, was a propaganda coup. Syme's book is worth reading just for his analysis of that event.

I`m just throwing out some recent teaching on the legal term of..Casus Omissus.. or simple term of Clan Mother, by [Meredith Quinn - International Legal Adviser, of the Dakota Empire, registered with the United Nations.] I find it interesting/curious, that any part of this topic is being mentioned as old knowledge of the Dakota, or even more curious, why all of this would be coming out now?

Good question. Because most of it is a load of claptrap.

.. on the "Original religion" of the American Indians; <snip>

Who wrote the above? Hansen only wrote about legends of a "white prophet" which the Mormons assumed to be Jesus. Such legends exist in many places, mostly about the "white teachers" (plural) and may relate to interactions with Phoenicians.

To begin, JULIUS CAESAR was not Italian, but Greek as all Roman Leaders were.

RHOMAIKOS is their proper ethnic identity, who were Greek Royalty that escaped their own country, while the common people were taking over their nation.

Load of nonsense.

In fact, the whole thing is so much nonsense that it is "not even wrong" and 1) is insulting to the seriousness of this thread and 2) is not even worth the time it takes to point out all the errors.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

To begin, JULIUS CAESAR was not Italian, but Greek as all Roman Leaders were.

RHOMAIKOS is their proper ethnic identity, who were Greek Royalty that escaped their own country, while the common people were taking over their nation.

Load of nonsense.

In fact, the whole thing is so much nonsense that it is "not even wrong" and 1) is insulting to the seriousness of this thread and 2) is not even worth the time it takes to point out all the errors.

In my mind resonated the connection between Caesar and "Greek royalty" or the Perseid family (not the rest of the note). Sorry if I generated noise.

 

[Eboard10]

To begin, JULIUS CAESAR was not Italian, but Greek as all Roman Leaders were.

RHOMAIKOS is their proper ethnic identity, who were Greek Royalty that escaped their own country, while the common people were taking over their nation.

Load of nonsense.

In fact, the whole thing is so much nonsense that it is "not even wrong" and 1) is insulting to the seriousness of this thread and 2) is not even worth the time it takes to point out all the errors.

Was about to say the same. Did Meredith Quinn provide any source for the above statement?

The Rhomaikos fled to Rome and became the Ruling class there, but they had also signed a Treaty appr...ox. 1000yrs prior to cesears time. She made Him Honour the terms of that Treaty.

Where did she get that from? I doubt there ever existed a treaty that lasted 1000 years at that time.

 

[Laura]

What astonishes me is the amount of energy that gets put into reading nonsense and the lack of interest in going to the original documents and useful analyses of same. Geeze, you should at least know what is known before you start reading hare-brained theories created by people who obviously haven't done their homework.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting the academics up as the know-alls - far from it. I AM advocating learning what IS thought in the mainstream and WHY they think it, and WHAT it is based on with some perspicacity. It is so easy to misinterpret stuff when you have no control over your material. And control, in this sense, relates to many very good tools of analysis that have been developed in various disciplines that can really help you to understand what you are reading.

That Meredith Quinn nonsense is just jaw-droppingly ignorant.

 

[Corvus]

I just wanted to made comment on the recent article about Caesar, it was good as always are articles on sott. net, but think it was little subjective when it comes to conquest of Gaul. They were doing "fine"(like said it was a common thing in those times and it has to do with their culture and blood), before Romans and did not need intervention, Caesar intervened not for helping but because of gaining influence in Rome through conquests and establishing power base, he wanted to help his people by conquering another people. Like said it was a common thing in those times but for some people who have some internal development and compassion not so common. There is no real difference when saying he was there to help them coming with swords then today s us policy saying they bring freedom when they bring slavery and subjugation and US people see it good as long as they get benefits from it until they start to also feel consequences of pathology and greed of ruling class on them like it is today. They are all fine with murdering those people abroad like those children by drones and everything is fine until their children suffer also, thanks to having some subjective special viewing and egocentricity view of themselves that is common to most people. Mob will always praise you when the have freedom to do so but when screwed a little they ll forget you very fast.

Excuses like being "barbarians" was often used in those times. Romans also raped and pillaged and crucified those who opposed so that is also very "civilized", not mentioning genocide of Carthage that was razed to the ground, here comes and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, who was later killed for being Populares politician and also trying to help poor people. Gallic tribes that asked for help were those who were in danger from other stronger tribes so they asked help for sake of survival from bigger bully on the block who was more then ready to size the chance - Rome. And saying that it brought economic prosperity to Gaul is stretching it to far because those aristocrats and landowners Romans and common Romans were those who benefited the most. At the battle of Alesia Gauls were ready to sacrifice their children and women to have enough food through siege for men while Caesar also let them all die so his soldier would not starve and he could achieve victory. What would he do if he was on another side of fence, just steadily watch when others invade? Here comes that subjectivity into play.

And when it comes to Rome military it was a revolution in warfare that could deal easily with all those common military strategies like phalanxes due to mobility and professionalism. In those times in Hellenistic and tribal armies there were always few units that were professional and Romans with Gaius Marius reforms made all their army professional giving up their wealth based republic army based on hastati, princeps and triarii. Does not count much if you have many slaves or people under command and only few soldiers. If you had roman army behind your back in those times it was not so hard thing to achieve victory if having two neurons and some cunning es(which was becoming less and less Roman because of enlistment of people from conquered lands who did the all fighting in zenith of empire and later empire) even when in very numerous disadvantage. Other nations tried to copy roman military style with little success. But when it comes to Gauls and Germanic tribes they were more individualistic fighters, did not wear armor because they seen it as sign of weakness, at least majority. But they adapted ambushes where their supremacy in non organized hand to hand and strength(which became dominant way in medieval age) come into play and Romans were often defeated like in Teutoburg forest. With time more and more Germans in later empire were incorporated in military which was probably and one cause of it s downfall because of their allegiance and coming of horse archery steppe people in Europe for which roman tactics did not know how to deal(not mentioning population reduction due to comets that had probably major impact on population resource). Also from survived sources it is clear that Gauls and other tribal people were the one of most famous gladiators in Colosseum. Nothing is white and black in the end.

 

[Laura]

I agree, Corvinus, but I passed it through editing anyway because I realized how complex it would have to become in order to make those issues clear and the article really wasn't about them. Plus, as a general overview, it did hit the high spots. There is some evidence that Caesar's view of the situation wasn't far off.

 

[LQB]

Nothing is white and black in the end.

I agree and also with what you pointed out. The treatment of Caesar/Gaul was way over-simplified. But I think it would still be fair to say that regardless on the intents of all the players, the Gallic people as a whole fared better for at least some period post-conquest. From what I've read of Caesar/Gaul (and I've only scratched the surface), his behavior was something more than just a bloody conqueror in the tradition of Roman conquests.

 

[luke wilson]

Hopefully this isn't a dumb question, but regarding Caesar and Gaul, I know Caesar wrote material about his experience in Gaul and other material can be read from a Roman perspective, what I am wondering, is there material that can be read from a Gaulish perspective to see what in general they thought of Caesar and his Roman conquest?

Reading the article on SOTT, I particularly didn't like how the author described the Gaulish experience. It rang to close to what Corvinus said, especially when you parallel with conquests of today by the current super powers upon the lesser nations. However, I suppose life has somewhat improved for those conquered, it just depends on how you look at it. Using myself as an example, I hail from a former British colony. Thanks to the horror unleashed upon my home country I now have the privilege of being where I am i.e. a part of a global society, enjoying the benefits of modern technology etc. If I was to take the narrative given to me, without this conquest, for all intents and purpose, I wouldn't have access to such technology and wouldn't enjoy the benefits of the modern global economic system which 'obviously' doesn't come for free. Sure, there are those who are well and truly living in poverty due to such conquests but I have heard it said the poverty experienced now is better than what would have been experienced had the benefits of the 'west' not been taken global. So maybe there is a point to what the author said in the article. On the other side of the coin, much can be said about the horrors visited upon those conquered, not only in terms of bloodshed but also in terms of lost cultural heritage, lost communities, lost bonds most of which are shattered for eternity in that the original people and there traditions just cease to exist, they get eaten up by a much larger imperial empire and become a 'citizen' where they can enjoy benefits bestowed upon said citizens.

Prior to Caesar, life in Gaul for the common people was a very uncertain thing. Local tribal attack resulting in rape, death, pillage, slavery, and starvation was a constant threat and common occurrence.

Caesar brought the Gallic tribal wars and raids to an end in favor of a stability that normalized trade relations with the Empire and promised a much greater measure of security for the people. He granted Roman citizenship to many of his allies and bestowed clemency on many of his enemies. The improved economy raised the living standards of the Gallic people.

Another thing I would like to say, Caesar was just 1 man, at the head of a very big army, I am sure most of the Gauls only knew of him through whispers and didn't actually interact nor talk to him. There actual experience of the Romans probably involved dealing with the average roman soldier and/or captain of the various units in the army plus whatever bureaucracy was in place. I just say as the whole Rome thing seems to parallel our modern life, so for example, I don't personally deal with the CEO of my company, the message I get as an employee that emanates from that vantage point sounds good/pleasing but when it's put into practise and I have to deal with my own personal manager, then all of a sudden blood, sweat and tears ensue. So in short, it would be nice to know the Gaulish perspective, not the perspective that has emanated from some position so far removed from the actual reality made manifest.

 

[Laura]

Luke, have you read Caesar's commentaries? How many bios of him have you read? Have you read Mommsen's History of Rome? Parenti's book about Caesar?

 

[luke wilson]

I have read Parenti's book plus Joseph Atwill's (though this one is not about Caesar but rather christianity and I have read the criticisms). I haven't read his personal commentaries yet. Regarding his autobiography, I haven't read any paperback books but read articles from the web, checked youtube videos etc.

I will read more before asking silly questions, I was hoping to read something Gaulish.

 

[Laura]

I have read Parenti's book plus Joseph Atwill's (though this one is not about Caesar but rather christianity and I have read the criticisms). I haven't read his personal commentaries yet. Regarding his autobiography, I haven't read any paperback books but read articles from the web, checked youtube videos etc.

I will read more before asking silly questions, I was hoping to read something Gaulish.

There is nothing. They didn't read or write.

 

[luke wilson]

I have read Parenti's book plus Joseph Atwill's (though this one is not about Caesar but rather christianity and I have read the criticisms). I haven't read his personal commentaries yet. Regarding his autobiography, I haven't read any paperback books but read articles from the web, checked youtube videos etc.

I will read more before asking silly questions, I was hoping to read something Gaulish.

There is nothing. They didn't read or write.

Thanks for letting me know. I will endeavour to read the words from the man himself in this case.

 

[mkrnhr]

I've read the Gallic Wars by J.C two nights ago and it's a very good read. What appears is that Gallic tribe chiefs were either crazy or they didn't know what they wanted (apart killing each other tribes and stealing their lands). Some tribes have been freed from slavery by J.C. only to turn on him because they wanted more power. The roman army facilitated the inter-tribal wars in the benefit of Rome, wars that would have been waged in any case. I see it more as an engineering work where you deviate a river's flow for you benefit rather than letting it flow on its own.

 

[luke wilson]

I've read the Gallic Wars by J.C two nights ago and it's a very good read. What appears is that Gallic tribe chiefs were either crazy or they didn't know what they wanted (apart killing each other tribes and stealing their lands). Some tribes have been freed from slavery by J.C. only to turn on him because they wanted more power. The roman army facilitated the inter-tribal wars in the benefit of Rome, wars that would have been waged in any case. I see it more as an engineering work where you deviate a river's flow for you benefit rather than letting it flow on its own.

Did he say how he knew what he knew about the Gauls? Were there Gauls working with the army as interpretors and such who could speak both languages etc?

They spoke different languages right?