Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

[Laura]

JC had close friends who were Gauls.

 

[mkrnhr]

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?

Of course, there were Gauls in his army (as well as the very efficient Germanic cavalry) and some Gallic nobles were his friends and allies. The book can be found online. For example: http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.mb.txt

 

[Meager1]

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.

Ok, I`m sorry for posting it, and making noise.
I just wondered why it was coming out now, and why those Treaties had never been mentioned elsewhere, but then of course they wouldn`t have been mentioned, if they never existed.
Thank you for responding.

 

[Corvus]

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.

Thanks for explanation.

Of course, there were Gauls in his army (as well as the very efficient Germanic cavalry) and some Gallic nobles were his friends and allies. The book can be found online

They were auxiliaries as always when it came to people from new incorporated lands and allies, or were mercenaries. Cavalry was the most suitable because Romans did not have many of it. And probably they were the first to be sent in to break the ice and bleed because they were not Romans. They were "allies" in the formal sense but looked as barbarians, slaves and inferiors. This was not the case probably with Caesar who had respect towards them because he was not an usual roman.

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.

I do not doubt it from what was was discovered about him here so far but nothing is the same after killing when it comes to living with that.

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.

Politics as usual, those kings thought they could use Rome for their advantage so those rival tribes could be subjugated so they could get space for their expansion but the things did not end up as expected as usually happens because Romans decided to stick around(in the end they invited them) and they were naive thinking nothing comes without price so yesterdays allies become today s enemies. It was common thing and self interest as usual. From Roman side it was engineering divide et impera as in Greece where they used for conquest of Greece mostly Greeks that were their allies(Achaean and Aetolian league against Macedonians and Sparta, then Aetolians rebeled with the support of Seleucid s and when dealt with the Achaean s were left alone and rebelled, and Corinth was razed to ground and people enslaved). And by the time they saw what was happening and that greedy blindness subsided when they were left alone without their enemies they got new more stronger enemy, and Macedonian tyrant was replaced by another more powerful Roman tyrant while before that they were praised as liberators of Greece from Macedonian and Spartan tyranny and promised they are there to bring peace and not self interest(at least that is what is told from one sided roman sources). Same thing all over again. Gauls were like Germans more interested in fighting each others(easy prey) because it is part of their culture and identity like with all northern people, maybe even more expressed in their culture then with others when it comes to Aryans and their genes.

 

[dia6olo]

A question for Laura or anyone who may have some insight...

Is there any evidence the Romans used crucifixion as punishment?

It appears there isn't any archaeological evidence, yet we have literally all current Roman literature contradicting the archaeology.

We have the Spartacus story with the 6000 crucified along the Apian Way, it seems to me highly unlikely the Romans would go through the trouble of building & erecting 6000 crosses for what were at the end of the day slaves? Decapitation with their heads stuck on pikes seems more plausible? Also, bearing in mind the Roman tropaeum which was very sacred to the Romans & was for all intense and purpose a cross, it would further make it highly unlikely would it not?

From my understanding it appears pretty much all ancient civilizations represented the sun, as a cross, and the sun as a God, making it highly unlikely it would be used as a form of punishment and depicting a slave/peasant as a God?

Anyway, I figured Laura would be the right person to ask, having read a lot of the root material we have on Rome...

 

[Laura]

A question for Laura or anyone who may have some insight...

Is there any evidence the Romans used crucifixion as punishment?

It appears there isn't any archaeological evidence, yet we have literally all current Roman literature contradicting the archaeology.

We have the Spartacus story with the 6000 crucified along the Apian Way, it seems to me highly unlikely the Romans would go through the trouble of building & erecting 6000 crosses for what were at the end of the day slaves? Decapitation with their heads stuck on pikes seems more plausible? Also, bearing in mind the Roman tropaeum which was very sacred to the Romans & was for all intense and purpose a cross, it would further make it highly unlikely would it not?

What kind of archaeological evidence would you be looking for? I mean, a wooden post stuck in the ground with a body on it? No doubt they would collect them up after a time and pile and burn them.

The story of Crassus and the Spartacus slaves seems to me to be the first mention of the activity and that may have been something that Sulla brought back from the East. Supposedly, it was a Persian thing and the point was to terrify people. Sticking heads on pikes wasn't all that terrifying since there was a lot of that going on during the Sulla/Marius civil wars, and mostly involving the nobility. Cutting the head off was a quick way to die. I think Crassus wanted to drag it out.

The tropaeum itself wasn't sacred, only if the objects hung on it were dedicated to a god. And the objects hung/displayed on it were generally "trophies".

From my understanding it appears pretty much all ancient civilizations represented the sun, as a cross, and the sun as a God, making it highly unlikely it would be used as a form of punishment and depicting a slave/peasant as a God?

Anyway, I figured Laura would be the right person to ask, having read a lot of the root material we have on Rome...

I wouldn't rely on that "ancients represented the sun as a cross" as a reason for no crucifixions. That's reading more into a couple sticks of wood than is there. A sun representation would have been a quartered circle which they would not have related to a cross just as it would not have been connected, in their minds, to a tropaeum.

 

[Laura]

Odds 'n ends from the net:

Wikipedia snips:

In his Histories, ix.120–122, the Greek writer Herodotus describes the execution of a Persian general at the hands of Athenians in about 479 BC: "They nailed him to a plank and hung him up ... this Artayctes who suffered death by crucifixion."

Alexander the Great is reputed to have crucified 2000 survivors from his siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre, as well as the doctor who unsuccessfully treated Alexander's friend Hephaestion. Some historians have also conjectured that Alexander crucified Callisthenes, his official historian and biographer (and Aristotle's great nephew), for objecting to Alexander's adoption of the Persian ceremony of royal adoration.

Crucifixion was used among the Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. In the year 337, Emperor Constantine I abolished it in the Roman Empire out of veneration for Jesus, the most famous victim of crucifixion.

Ancient Greek has two verbs for crucify: ana-stauro (ἀνασταυρόω), from stauros, "stake", and apo-tumpanizo (ἀποτυμπανίζω) "crucify on a plank." together with anaskolopizo (ἀνασκολοπίζω "impale"). In earlier pre-Roman Greek texts anastauro usually means "impale."

The gibbet on which crucifixion was carried out could be of many shapes. Josephus describes multiple tortures and positions of crucifixion during the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus crucified the rebels; and Seneca the Younger recounts: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet."

The length of time required to reach death could range from hours to days depending on method, the victim's health, and the environment.

There is an ancient record of one person who survived a crucifixion that was intended to be lethal, but that was interrupted. Josephus recounts: "I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered." Josephus gives no details of the method or duration of the crucifixion of his three friends before their reprieve.

The fact is that it was the Romans doing the crucifying since Rabbinic law limited capital punishment to just 4 methods of execution: stoning, burning, strangulation, and decapitation. Nevertheless, the Jewish king Alexander Jannaeus (103 BC to 76 BC) crucified 800 rebels, said to be Pharisees, in the middle of Jerusalem

Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refers to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus. This was discovered in Jerusalem in 1968. It is not necessarily surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.

The hypothesis that the Ancient Roman custom of crucifixion may have developed out of a primitive custom of arbori suspendere—hanging on an arbor infelix ("inauspicious tree") dedicated to the gods of the nether world—is rejected by William A. Oldfather, who shows that this form of execution (the supplicium more maiorum, punishment in accordance with the custom of our ancestors) consisted of suspending someone from a tree, not dedicated to any particular gods, and flogging him to death. A cruel prelude was occasionally scourging, which would cause the condemned to lose a large amount of blood, and approach a state of shock. The convict then usually had to carry the horizontal beam (patibulum in Latin) to the place of execution, but not necessarily the whole cross. Plautus and Plutarch are the two main sources for accounts of criminals carrying their own patibulum to the upright stipes.

Crucifixion was used for slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state. It was considered a most shameful and disgraceful way to die. Condemned Roman citizens were usually exempt from crucifixion except for major crimes against the state, such as high treason. Under ancient Roman penal practice, crucifixion was also a means of exhibiting the criminal's low social status. It was the most dishonourable death imaginable, originally reserved for slaves, hence still called "supplicium servile" by Seneca, later extended to citizens of the lower classes (humiliores).

_http://www.orlutheran.com/html/crucify.html

The Romans did not invent crucifixion as a method of execution, though it seems that they perfected it. On the basis of the writings of the Greek author Herodotus, it seems that the Persians were the first to use crucifixion (Herodotus 1:128.2; 3:125.3; 3:132.2; 3:159.1). For example, Herodotus tells us that King Darius (mentioned in the Bible) had 3000 Babylonians crucified in about 519 B.C. (4:43.2,7; 6:30.1; 7:194.1). The sources reveal that, two centuries later, Alexander the Great also used crucifixion in his conquests. For example in his History of Alexander, Curtius Rufus tells us that Alexander had 2000 citizens of Tyre crucified after he had conquered that city (4:4.17). The Romans eventually conquered the Greeks (Carthaginians) and it was from them that the Romans probably learned crucifixion. However, as the Romans themselves were fond of noting, crucifixion was also used by many "barbarian" peoples, such as Indians, the Assyrians, the Scythians, and the Celts. It was also later used by the Germans and the Britains (For the exact sources, see Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 22-23).

We moderns still recoil with horror when we hear of Christ's crucifixion. But what did the ancients think of crucifixion? They considered it to be the most shameful, the most painful, and the most abhorrent of all executions. The Roman statesman Cicero called it "the most cruel and disgusting penalty" (Verrem 2:5.165) and "the most extreme penalty" (Verrem 2:5.168). The Jewish historian Josephus, who certainly witnessed enough crucifixions himself, called it "the most wretched of deaths." The Roman jurist Julius Paulus listed crucifixion in first place as the worst of all capital punishments, listing it ahead of death by burning, death by beheading, or death by the wild beasts. And from Seneca we have this quotation, which is one of the most unique descriptions of a crucifixion in non-Biblical literature:

Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man by found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly wounds on shoulders and chest, and drawing the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? He would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross (Dialogue 3:2.2).

The ancients considered death by crucifixion to be not just any execution, but the most obscene, the most disgraceful, the most horrific execution known to man.

How common was crucifixion in the ancient world? Quite common, at least among the Romans.

Though Roman law usually spared Roman citizens from being crucified, they used crucifixion especially against rebellious foreigners, military enemies, violent criminals, robbers, and slaves. In fact slaves were so routinely crucified that crucifixion become known as the "slaves' punishment" (servile supplicium; see Valerius Maximus 2:7.12). Appian tells us that when the slave rebellion of Spartacus was crushed, the Roman general Crassus had six thousand of the slave prisoners crucified along a stretch of the Appian Way, the main road leading into Rome (Bella Civilia 1:120). As an example of crucifying rebellious foreigners, Josephus tells us that when the Romans were besieging Jerusalem in 70 A.D. the Roman general Titus, at one point, crucified five hundred or more Jews a day. In fact, so many Jews were crucified outside of the walls that "there was not enough room for the crosses and not enough crosses for the bodies" (Wars of the Jews 5:11.1).

How was crucifixion actually carried out? The first thing we learn from the sources is that there was great variety in the way crucifixions were done. The main thing was to expose the victim to the utmost indignity. The Romans appear to have followed the same procedure in most cases, but even they departed from this at times. Seneca points to this reality when he writes in one place, "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet" (Dialogue 6:20.3).

The last bit just above suggests that being nailed to a post or tied to it most often did NOT include the cross-shaped configuration.

The spolia opima ("rich spoils") were the armor, arms, and other effects that an ancient Roman general stripped from the body of an opposing commander slain in single combat. The spolia opima were regarded as the most honorable of the several kinds of war trophies a commander could obtain, including enemy military standards and the peaks of warships.

Here's a tropaion on a coin minted by Brutus and Cassius in 42, two years after the assassination of Caesar. Almost looks like they are bragging and it's Caesar "on the cross/tropaeum".

You see it all there including the prows of ships.

The ceremony of the spolia opima was a ritual of state religion that was supposed to emulate the archaic ceremonies carried out by the founder Romulus. The victor affixed the stripped armor to the trunk of an oak tree, carried it himself in a procession to the Capitoline, and dedicated it at the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius.

Other Trhpaea suggest that the idea was that the "tree" represented a man and it was "dressed" with his arms (booty). See this one from Trajan's column.

 

[dia6olo]

Thanks Laura very much appreciated :)

 

[dia6olo]

I came across this very refreshing take on Julius Caesar from a fellow by the title of jackjackkiwi on HubPages :)

Julius Caesar Leadership Traits - A Revolution​

Caesar's Leadership

These days we know exactly what we want in a leader. They have to share our ideas, be persistent, and have people like us in mind no matter what they do. If they do not possess these qualities, we do not elect them. This was not the case thousands of years ago. You had a leader and you did what they said. In many cases they didn’t care about the people. They didn’t care about you. Then came a man called Julius Caesar. He was noticeably different and he didn’t just have himself in mind. Julius Caesar revolutionized leadership to the point that he is a hero because he gained his nation power and authority, he made laws and policies fair, and he brought his people happiness and prosperity. His policies and actions were unprecedented in his time. This made him stand out as a true leader, and the best one the world had ever known.

Power and Respect

When it comes to nations, power is everything. If nobody respects your nation you are practically not a nation at all. Now every leader knows this, but it is hard to achieve respect and authority. As Caesar rose in the ranks of the Roman government he knew that to prove himself he had to prove his nation. With his army, he conquered Gaulic tribes one after another. James Barker said, “Gual was Caesar’s proving ground as an extremely talented general, far superior to either Pompey or Crassus.” During these battles with one of Rome’s enemies he often fought on foot with his soldiers, earning their respect. Throughout his life he captured more land and expanded Rome’s empire. He then gave the land to his veterans to farm, providing food for Rome. He constantly outmaneuvered and defeated his enemies, earning his reputation as a powerful general. But even the best fighters must know when to hold back. Caesar made Egypt his ally by solving some of their “internal” problems, causing more power for Rome. Julius Caesar's leadership led to many doors being opened for Rome.


Social Reforms

Before Caesar, the poor were poor and the rich were rich. If you were poor you did what the rich said and paid what the rich charged for services and goods. Nobody dared to change the system until Caesar came along. He imposed more taxes on the rich than the poor, something that had never happened before. He also made some huge land holders give up small amounts to veterans and citizens that needed it. These new policies made the nation fairer and surprisingly earned the respect from some of the wealthy. Caesar imposed rent controls on the huge tenant houses that the rich owned, making rents affordable to the poor. Although these actions seemed fair, some of the extremely rich were furious because of their greed. They wanted to charge huge amounts for the goods they sold and wished that everyone would have the same tax, no matter how poor you were. Some historians say that this is why they ended up killing him, because he was fair. Graham Morris summarizes Caesars leadership through reforms by saying “ As a man he could be all things to men, and during those times of Roman expansion one has to admit that if anyone was going to take-up the reins of power it was better to have a man of Caesars ambitions, tempered with a farseeing need for reforms, and who’s tolerance and statesmanship was better than most of his compromise.”

Advertising Himself as a Good Guy

Throughout his rule over Rome Caesar wished to reach out to everyone he could. During his rise to power he offered free money and grain to all that needed it, making him very popular. Julius Caesar's leadership caused him to know how important it was to keep his citizens happy. Even if he was the best ruler the world had seen, it wouldn’t have made a difference if all citizens didn’t like him. So, he paid huge sums of money to promote gladiatorial games to advertise himself as a politician. These games provided entertainment for all Romans, not just the wealthy. Also Caesar felt like if someone risked their life for his country, they should be rewarded. Veterans that fought by his side were rewarded with land and sometimes money. The land was then farmed and Rome got new food supplies. This sent the message that if you were courageous you would receive gifts. These gifts made soldiers fight even harder, resulting in easy and quick wins. Also the men learned to respect Julius Caesar's leadership.


He Was Just Plain Different

Many people just assume that Julius Caesar was just like all the other rulers of his time. They think that he was a ruthless leader that only cared about power and his own welfare. I am here to prove to you that it was not like that at all. In fact, Julius Caesar was the exact opposite of that description. How many leaders do you know that fight with their soldiers without a horse, only a sword in hand? If risking your own life for some dirty soldiers is not enough proof to show that he cared for others I don’t know what is. Every other Roman general slaughtered his captured enemies but Caesar offered forgiveness in return for recruitment. Never had soldier’s life’s been spared like that. People respected that he didn’t despise who he fought against, but rather just wanted his nation and citizens to be safe and prosperous. You would think that after being declared dictator for life that you would stop trying so hard, but Julius worked even harder. He started reforms with energy and creativity that all Romans benefited from. Caesar was obsessed with making the nation achieve his full potential, and by the time he died Rome was better than it ever had been. Frankly I think that he cared about his nation far more than he valued his own life. That says a ton about Julius Caesar's Leadership.

In Conclusion

Scullard, H. described Caesar as “Urbane, cultured and courteous, he possessed a will of steel and an intensity of intellect”. Before Julius Caesar leaders were just meant to be followed with no questions asked. Caesar changed the way leaders act and revolutionized what being a leader truly is. Even after his death his policies were passed on through the generations and improved Rome to the very end. He is the reason why today leaders show the interest of the people and not only themselves. His heroism affects us as a nation everyday, whether we know it or not. Even modern leaders could learn a thing or two from Julius Caesar today. After all, in a world where the people choose their leaders, you got to be able to lead. It’s as simple as that.

 

[JGeropoulas]

I thought I'd post this paragraph from an article I posted elsewhere (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33636.new.html#new) because it concerns Anthony, Lepidus and Octavian. I haven't read this thread studiously, so I'm curious if the episode described below is congruent with all the other research y'all done here.

Ancient Rome had a rule called “proscription” that allowed the government to execute and then confiscate the assets of anyone found guilty of “crimes against the state.” After the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, three men, Mark Anthony, Lepidus, and Caesar’s adopted son Octavian, formed a group they called the Second Triumvirate and divided the Empire between them. But two rivals, Brutus and Cassius, formed an army with which they planned to take the Empire for themselves. The Triumvirate needed money to fund an army of its own, and decided the best way to raise it was by kicking the proscription process into overdrive. They drew up a list of several hundred wealthy Romans, accused them of crimes, executed them and took their property.

 

[JGeropoulas]

I came across this very refreshing take on Julius Caesar from a fellow by the title of jackjackkiwi on HubPages :)

Julius Caesar Leadership Traits - A Revolution​

Caesar's Leadership

These days we know exactly what we want in a leader. They have to share our ideas, be persistent, and have people like us in mind no matter what they do. If they do not possess these qualities, we do not elect them. This was not the case thousands of years ago. You had a leader and you did what they said. In many cases they didn’t care about the people. They didn’t care about you. Then came a man called Julius Caesar. He was noticeably different and he didn’t just have himself in mind. Julius Caesar revolutionized leadership to the point that he is a hero because he gained his nation power and authority, he made laws and policies fair, and he brought his people happiness and prosperity. His policies and actions were unprecedented in his time. This made him stand out as a true leader, and the best one the world had ever known.

<snip>

Even modern leaders could learn a thing or two from Julius Caesar today. After all, in a world where the people choose their leaders, you got to be able to lead. It’s as simple as that.

Unfortunately, most of our modern leaders in America "learn a thing or two from" the University of Chicago's School of Political Science--a hotbed of Machiavellian philosophy (and neighbor to the university's School of Law which produced Obama). For example, about 20 key positions in George W. Bush's administration were filled by graduates of UC's School of Political Science.

According to a graduate who endured the school's near-religious indoctrination unscathed, "the Bible of Chicago’s Neo-Con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli’s The Prince. We students had to know our Machiavelli by heart and rote at the University of Chicago."

One of the most revered quotes committed to memory comes from Chapter XVIII of that book: "Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived."

_http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Boyle_Neo-Cons.htm

 

[Laura]

I thought I'd post this paragraph from an article I posted elsewhere (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33636.new.html#new) because it concerns Anthony, Lepidus and Octavian. I haven't read this thread studiously, so I'm curious if the episode described below is congruent with all the other research y'all done here.

Ancient Rome had a rule called “proscription” that allowed the government to execute and then confiscate the assets of anyone found guilty of “crimes against the state.” After the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, three men, Mark Anthony, Lepidus, and Caesar’s adopted son Octavian, formed a group they called the Second Triumvirate and divided the Empire between them. But two rivals, Brutus and Cassius, formed an army with which they planned to take the Empire for themselves. The Triumvirate needed money to fund an army of its own, and decided the best way to raise it was by kicking the proscription process into overdrive. They drew up a list of several hundred wealthy Romans, accused them of crimes, executed them and took their property.

It's not entirely true or untrue. That's really how things were done back then. Rome acquired its wealth by conquest and booty. The elite "took possession" of most of that: land, slaves, gold, silver, treasures, etc., and that's where the country's money resided: almost exclusively in the hands of less than 1% of the population. Not much different from today at all.

However, it is a rather cynical and simplistic view of things to say that the triumvirate just decided to proscribe others for money. That is partly true, but the main reason for the proscriptions was to basically annihilate the Republican oligarchs, the political opposition. Yeah, wealth redistribution came in handy, and WAS an aim, but not the primary one.

 

[dia6olo]

I came across this very refreshing take on Julius Caesar from a fellow by the title of jackjackkiwi on HubPages :)

Julius Caesar Leadership Traits - A Revolution​

Caesar's Leadership

These days we know exactly what we want in a leader. They have to share our ideas, be persistent, and have people like us in mind no matter what they do. If they do not possess these qualities, we do not elect them. This was not the case thousands of years ago. You had a leader and you did what they said. In many cases they didn’t care about the people. They didn’t care about you. Then came a man called Julius Caesar. He was noticeably different and he didn’t just have himself in mind. Julius Caesar revolutionized leadership to the point that he is a hero because he gained his nation power and authority, he made laws and policies fair, and he brought his people happiness and prosperity. His policies and actions were unprecedented in his time. This made him stand out as a true leader, and the best one the world had ever known.

<snip>

Even modern leaders could learn a thing or two from Julius Caesar today. After all, in a world where the people choose their leaders, you got to be able to lead. It’s as simple as that.

Unfortunately, most of our modern leaders in America "learn a thing or two from" the University of Chicago's School of Political Science--a hotbed of Machiavellian philosophy (and neighbor to the university's School of Law which produced Obama). For example, about 20 key positions in George W. Bush's administration were filled by graduates of UC's School of Political Science.

According to a graduate who endured the school's near-religious indoctrination unscathed, "the Bible of Chicago’s Neo-Con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli’s The Prince. We students had to know our Machiavelli by heart and rote at the University of Chicago."

One of the most revered quotes committed to memory comes from Chapter XVIII of that book: "Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived."

_http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Boyle_Neo-Cons.htm

I agree, my take on it is that the modern politician, especially the high ranking ones are nothing but mere puppets.
In Roman republic time the powers that be were the government, the decision makers the string pullers. They were accountable even if no one had the powers to do anything about it, at least not until Julius Caesar came along.

I feel today that the governments/presidents are nothing but a buffer/middle man for the real string pullers, we go from one government to another then back again because we are not happy with their policies not realising it doesn't matter who you elect, it doesn't change the string pullers!

I suspect the modern politician starts his career with good intentions, good policy ideas for the masses as a whole, but soon realises as he/she moves up the ladder that instead of having more power to implement good policies that they are somewhat strangled with what they can do by the real string pullers.

 

[dia6olo]

A question for Laura or anyone who may have some insight...

Is there any evidence the Romans used crucifixion as punishment?

It appears there isn't any archaeological evidence, yet we have literally all current Roman literature contradicting the archaeology.

We have the Spartacus story with the 6000 crucified along the Apian Way, it seems to me highly unlikely the Romans would go through the trouble of building & erecting 6000 crosses for what were at the end of the day slaves? Decapitation with their heads stuck on pikes seems more plausible? Also, bearing in mind the Roman tropaeum which was very sacred to the Romans & was for all intense and purpose a cross, it would further make it highly unlikely would it not?

What kind of archaeological evidence would you be looking for? I mean, a wooden post stuck in the ground with a body on it? No doubt they would collect them up after a time and pile and burn them.

The story of Crassus and the Spartacus slaves seems to me to be the first mention of the activity and that may have been something that Sulla brought back from the East. Supposedly, it was a Persian thing and the point was to terrify people. Sticking heads on pikes wasn't all that terrifying since there was a lot of that going on during the Sulla/Marius civil wars, and mostly involving the nobility. Cutting the head off was a quick way to die. I think Crassus wanted to drag it out.

The tropaeum itself wasn't sacred, only if the objects hung on it were dedicated to a god. And the objects hung/displayed on it were generally "trophies".

From my understanding it appears pretty much all ancient civilizations represented the sun, as a cross, and the sun as a God, making it highly unlikely it would be used as a form of punishment and depicting a slave/peasant as a God?

Anyway, I figured Laura would be the right person to ask, having read a lot of the root material we have on Rome...

I wouldn't rely on that "ancients represented the sun as a cross" as a reason for no crucifixions. That's reading more into a couple sticks of wood than is there. A sun representation would have been a quartered circle which they would not have related to a cross just as it would not have been connected, in their minds, to a tropaeum.

I realise that when I first asked the above question "Is there any evidence the Romans used crucifixion as punishment?" (A) I didn't explain the question very well and (B) I didn't realise there were many forms of ancient crucifixion.

Having come across articles and YouTube clips claiming there's no evidence the Romans used crucifixion was the reason for the question. However, I was thinking conventional crucifixion and was also thinking, is there any written Roman mention of crucifixion before Jesus's time.

I came across an article which seems very well researched showing that indeed the Romans did use conventional crucifixion.

The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the "torture stake"

As is widely known, the Watchtower Society insists that Jesus did not die on a two-beamed cross but on a single-timber "torture stake". I agree with most people that this issue is pretty pointless and amounts only to a historical curiosity. As most Christians of faith would say, "It doesn't matter what he died on; it matters that he died for us". The purpose of this discussion is not to detract from that theological issue but instead to show that this subject is yet another instance of the Society's intellectual dishonesty and failure to represent the sources they quote. It will also provide a fairly interesting survey of what is historically known about the most heinous form of capital punishment in the Roman world.
The principal argument the Society furnishes is a linguistic one: that the Greek terms stauros and xulon and the Latin term crux (which translates stauros in the Latin Vulgate) did not mean "cross" in the first century. If the words used by the Bible writers referred only to a simple single-timber stake, then Jesus would not have died on a stake that had a crossbeam. So where Christendom get the idea that Jesus was put to death on a cross? The Society claims that the early Catholic church imported the cross symbol from neighboring pagan religions as part of its apostasy from original apostolic Christianity and their use of the cross in worship led them to claim that Jesus had in fact died on one. Of course, if Jesus did die on a cross (or was believed to have done so by the earliest Christians), then the use of the cross symbol by later Christians is certainly intelligible. The following quotation from the Society's literature is quite typical...... The article is pretty long, it can be read here http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/crossfacts.htm

Another interesting line I came across from the same article: "his image was set up on a cross (in crucem)," so that the spectators looked at as if Celsus himself was "affixed to a patibulum (patibulo adfixus)"

A number of other references to the two-timbered cross (or at least, hanging from a patibulum) can be found in the literature. Clodius Licinus (first century BC) refers to the executioner who would "bind [the victims] to the patibulum (ad patibulos); thus bound they are carried around and then nailed to the cross (cruci defiguntur)" (Roman History, 3; cited in TLL, p. 707 for "patibulum"). Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79) referred to the yearly crucifixion of dogs near the temple of Juventas, making them "affixed to a furca" (furca fixi) (Historia Naturalis, 29.14.57). Another Roman writer who somewhat later alluded to the patibulum to which prisoners are nailed was Lucius Apuleius (AD 123-170), who made four references to the patibulum in his Asinus Aureus: (1) The captain Lamachus stuck his hand through a large keyhole to jimmy the door open, but Chryseros grabbed a big nail and hammered it through Lamachus' hand, pinning him to the door, and left him "nailed there like poor wretch on a crossbeam (patibulatum)" (4.10); (2) In pondering over the kind of execution to give their prisoner, a group of thieves discussed whether to burn her, throw her to beasts, or "hang her from a crossbeam (patibulo suffigi)" (4.31), so that (3) "she shall remain on the crossbeam (patibuli), while dogs and vultures drag out her innermost bowels" (4.32), but it was decided that she "should not be crucified (cruces), nor burned nor thrown to beasts" (6.31). This last text uses crux "crucifixion" interchangeably with patibulum suffigere "to hang from a crossbeam". Still later, the third-century Historia Augusta relates that when Emperor Celsus was killed by a woman named Galliena, "his image was set up on a cross (in crucem)," so that the spectators looked at as if Celsus himself was "affixed to a patibulum (patibulo adfixus)" (29.4). Finally, the Latin Vulgate translates the Hebrew terms for "gallows" and "hanging" with patibulum in Esther 2:23, 6:4 (affigi patibulo), 7:10, 9:13 (patibulis suspendantur), and 16:18.

On the other side of the argument you have a scholar who says Jesus did not die on cross.

The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.
He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole"........ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7849852/Jesus-did-not-die-on-cross-says-scholar.html

In reality it's irrelevant as his argument is against the conventional cross being used and more so to us as none of it probably happened anyway.

On a side note, I have just finished reading Stefan Weinstocks DIVUS JULIUS, fascinating read!

The amount of religion and cults that were going on was staggering, it's amazing they ever got anything done!

What fascinated me was the descriptions of the various cults, I found myself regularly thinking we have something like that in the abrahamic religions.

We have the right of asylum which had been planned by Caesar for the temple of the Clementia Caesaris which was also extended to Caesars statues. Although it existed in many Greek temples I couldn't help but think how the church also adopted it.

"Brutus' head was sent to Rome to be cast at the feet of Caesars statue, and this was done by Dolabella with Trebonius' head at Caesars statue at Smyrna" I don't know why but the first thing that popped into my head are The skull of St. Peter and the skull of St. Paul claimed to reside in the Basilica of St. John Lateran

 

[Laura]

Yes, it does get more interesting.

Two nights ago I picked up my Syme's "Tacitus" again... and read two or three pages until I came to a reference to a Julius Sabinus... tonight, I looked it up on wikipedia, though I'm going to dig into the sources soon:

Julius Sabinus was an aristocratic Gaul of the Lingones at the time of the Batavian rebellion of AD 69. He attempted to take advantage of the turmoil in Rome after the death of Nero to set up an independent Gaulish state. After his defeat he was hidden for many years by his wife Epponina.

The story of the couple, with emphasis on the loyalty of Epponina (known as "Éponine"), became popular in France during the 18th and 19th centuries.

He was a Roman officer, naturalized, as indicated by his name. He claimed to be the great-grandson of Julius Caesar on the grounds that his great-grandmother had been Caesar's lover during the Gallic war.[1]

In AD 69, benefiting from the period of disorders which shook the Roman Empire and the rebellion started on the Rhine by the Batavians, he started a revolt in Belgian Gaul. However, his badly organised forces were easily defeated by the Sequani who were still faithful to Rome. Following his defeat, he faked his own death by telling his servants that he intended to kill himself. He then burned down the villa in which he was staying. He went into hiding in a nearby cellar, known only to his wife Epponina and a few faithful servants.

Following the failure of the revolt, the territory of Lingons was detached from Belgian Gaul, and was placed under the direct monitoring of the Roman army of the Rhine. It formed thus part of Roman province of Germania Superior.

Epponina then lived a double-life for many years as his widow, while also on one occasion even visiting Rome with Sabinus disguised as a slave. She even gave birth to two sons by her "deceased" husband.

Eventually, the deception became too obvious to continue unnoticed. In AD 78 Sabinus and Epponina were arrested and taken to Rome to be questioned by the emperor Vespasian. Her pleas for her husband were ignored. She then berated Vespasian to such an extent that he ordered her execution along with her husband. Plutarch later wrote that "In the whole of his reign no darker deed than this, none more odious in the sight of heaven, was committed."[2]

Their sons were separated, one sent to Delphi and the other to Egypt.

Tacitus, Histories 4.55
Plutarch, On Lovers.

On the opposite page there was a mention of the alleged "miracles" of Vespasian. Indeed, the Flavians have a lot to account for, and Atwill is onto something, but I'm finding an almost continuous thread connecting things not just something made up by the Flavians and Josephus.