#jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Things I look for in history books:

🟩 Green flags - probably solid 🟩

Has the book been published recently? Old books can still be useful, but it's good to have more current scholarship when you can.

The author is either a historian (usually a professor somewhere), or in a closely related field. Or if not, they clearly state that they are not a historian, and encourage you to check out more scholarly sources as well.

The author cites their sources often. Not just in the bibliography, I mean footnotes/endnotes at least a few times per page, so you can tell where specific ideas came from. (Introductions and conclusions don't need so many citations.)

They include both ancient and recent sources.

They talk about archaeology, coins and other physical items, not just book sources.

They talk about the gaps in our knowledge, and where historians disagree.

They talk about how historians' views have evolved over time. Including biases like sexism, Eurocentrism, biased source materials, and how each generation's current events influenced their views of history.

The author clearly distinguishes between what's in the historical record, versus what the author thinks or speculates. You should be able to tell what's evidence, and what's just their opinion.

(I personally like authors who are opinionated, and self-aware enough to acknowledge when they're being biased, more than those who try to be perfectly objective. The book is usually more fun that way. But that's just my personal taste.)

Extra special green flag if the author talks about scholars who disagree with their perspective and shows the reader where they can read those other viewpoints.

There's a "further reading" section where they recommend books and articles to learn more.

🟨 Yellow flags - be cautious, and check the book against more reliable ones 🟨

No citations or references, or references only listed at the end of a chapter or book.

The author is not a historian, classicist or in a related field, and does not make this clear in the text.

When you look up the book, you don't find any other historians recommending or citing it, and it's not because the book is very new.

Ancient sources like Suetonius are taken at face value, without considering those sources' bias or historical context.

You spot errors the author or editor really should've caught.

🟥 Red flags - beware of propaganda or bullshit 🟥

The author has a politically charged career (e.g. controversial radio host, politician or activist) and historical figures in the book seem to fit the same political paradigm the author uses for current events.

Most historians think the book is crap.

Historical figures portrayed as entirely heroic or villainous.

Historical peoples are portrayed as generally stupid, dirty, or uncaring.

The author romanticizes history or argues there has been a "cultural decline" since then. Author may seem weirdly angry or bitter about modern culture considering that this is supposed to be a history book.

The author treats "moral decline" or "degeneracy" as actual cultural forces that shape history. These and the previous point are often reactionary dogwhistles.

The author attributes complex problems to a single bad group of people. This, too, is often a cover for conspiracy theories, xenophobia, antisemitism, or other reactionary thinking. It can happen with both left-wing and right-wing authors. Real history is the product of many interacting forces, even random chance.

The author attempts to justify awful things like genocide, imperialism, slavery, or rape. Explaining why they happened is fine, but trying to present them as good or "not that bad" is a problem.

Stereotypes for an entire nation or culture's personality and values. While some generalizations may be unavoidable when you have limited space to explain something, groups of people should not be treated as monoliths.

The author seems to project modern politics onto much earlier eras. Sometimes, mentioning a few similarities can help illustrate a point, but the author should also point out the limits of those parallels. Assigning historical figures to modern political ideologies is usually misleading, and at worst, it can be outright propaganda.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Big theory" books like Guns, Germs and Steel often resort to cherry-picking and making errors because it's incredibly hard for one author to understand all the relevant evidence. Others, like 1421, may attempt to overturn the historical consensus but end up misusing some very sparse or ambiguous data. Look up historians' reviews to see if there's anything in books like this, or if they've been discredited.

There are severe factual errors like Roman emperors being placed out of order, Cleopatra building the pyramids, or an army winning a battle it actually lost.

When in doubt, my favorite trick is to try to read two books on the same subject, by two authors with different views. By comparing where they agree and disagree, you can more easily overcome their biases, and get a fuller picture.

(Disclaimer - I'm not a historian or literary analyst; these are just my personal rules of thumb. But I figured they might be handy for others trying to evaluate books. Feel free to add points you think I missed or got wrong.)

#jlrrt essays #historiography #media literacy #critical thinking

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

A TV series about the early Roman emperors, except:

It's a comedy.

It starts with Julius Caesar (who keeps correcting the narrator that he's a dictator, not an emperor, as if it makes any difference).

The narrator skips over military campaigns like the Gallic War and Claudius' conquest of Britain in favor of "Haha check out Augustus' shitty poetry" and "Caesar once tried to overthrow the republic with a wardrobe malfunction."

You can tell the narrator gets bored of certain emperors because he keeps going off on tangents about Julius and Augustus after they're supposed to be dead.

The characters get frustrated because they're trying to act out a serious drama but nooo the narrator would rather gossip and it's only 50% in chronological order.

Some of the characters start pointing out things the narrator says that are physically impossible, don't make logical sense, or which their enemies made up.

Tiberius storms out partway through his episode and the rest of the narrative has him played by a sock puppet voiced by Caligula doing a falsetto.

Caligula attempts to sic the Praetorian guards on the narrator for making up filthy lies about him. Like, he's still a huge dick, just not in the way the narrator claims.

Claudius just wants to teach the audience cool facts about the Etruscans but the narrator talks over him.

Nero is actually a Korean boy band singer who keeps trying to explain to people he's a musician, not the emperor, and isn't sure what he's doing in ancient Rome. No one listens.

Galba is played by Rob Halford, the "stately homo of heavy metal."

Galba, Otho and Vitellius have to share an episode, and even then the narrator half-asses it and leaves with 10 minutes of runtime to fill, at which point the characters (including the dead ones) break into the production studio and reveal the narrator is Suetonius.

#jlrrt speaks #suetonius #that prince of gossips <3 #the twelve caesars #just roman memes #the twelve caesars is a comedy #jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Today I am thinking about weaving.

I can knit and crochet, but those crafts didn't exist in Roman times. Any historically accurate Roman cloth must be woven. So when a little potholder loom jumped into my shopping basket for 50 cents, it felt like a sign I should learn.

One potholder that was 50% yarn and 50% weird gaps later, I looked up a tutorial, and realized why the damn thing was 50 cents. I needed a better, more adaptable loom. And, because I am a cheapskate and slightly loony, I decided to make one instead of buying it.

So, how does this thing work?

First, you string the warp threads up and down, around the pegs. Here, I made a zigzag shape. Then, you use a needle or shuttle to weave more yarn over and under the warp, horizontally, back and forth. This produces woven fabric.

Some looms weave from the top, some from the bottom. This Greek urn shows two weavers working from the top. The left weaver uses a rod to compact the woven fabric upward, keeping it even and sturdy. The right weaver is passing an oval-shaped shuttle through the warp threads to form another row.

Most Roman looms would have looked like this, with the finished cloth at the top. Unlike my looms, these are warp-weighted. That means you keep the warp yarns taut by hanging weights at the bottom, rather than through a bottom row of pegs.

Warp-weighted looms also have a big advantage over my little potholder loom: you can easily create multiple sheds.

A "shed" is a temporary gap between lifted strands and non-lifted strands. Instead of having to go over and under each strand individually, you raise the entire shed, then pull the shuttle or needle straight through. This saves lots of time! Then, to weave the next row, you close the shed, lift up a different set of threads to create a new shed, and send the shuttle/needle through the other direction.

On a warp-weighted loom, the sheds are opened by loops called heddles (H), which are attached to a heddle rod (G). When the rod is down, shed (1) is open (middle diagram). When you pull the rod up, shed (1) closes and shed (2) opens instead (right diagram). Most warp-weighted looms also have a pair of forks you can rest the heddle rod on, to free your hands.

Here, there are three heddle rods and sets of forks, the heddles are white, and the warp thread is red. This gives you four different sheds, and the potential to weave very complex patterns indeed. Not bad for a device invented over 6500 years ago!

I liked the multiple heddle-rod design so much, I tried incorporating it into my DIY loom, too. I've tested both yarn and paperclips as heddles:

I actually got both sheds and heddle-rods working, too. Which is pretty cool for a lap loom - every other lap loom I found only has one shed, so you have to go over-under the individual threads on alternate rows.* More time-consuming. However, the sheds here are narrow, and I'll need a smaller and smoother shuttle to pass through them smoothly. This wouldn't be an issue on a warp-weighted loom, where the warp hangs freely downward, and can move more flexibly with the heddles.

Anyway. I may get a "real" loom at some point, but I wanted to build one first, and I think it gave me more appreciation for just how resourceful ancient weavers were. They created technology, clothing, and artwork out of very basic materials, and civilization depended on these skills.

Now, I need to go finish the...whatever the hell it will be. Big thanks to Wikipedia and to the lovely Youtubers who make this craft easier to learn. I think it'll be a lot of fun.

(*Edit - found out a rotating heddle bar can make two sheds on a lap loom! Exciting!!)

#jlrrt essays #weaving #textiles

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Times Caligula was probably fucking with people

I have a pet theory that at least some of Caligula's "madness" was really him being a huge troll and screwing with people, and that several incidents the ancient historians take seriously were shitty jokes taken out of context. From Suetonius, Gaius:

Wandering into emperor Tiberius' bedroom at night with a dagger, thinking, "Eh..." and wandering back out. (12)

Chucking money into crowds to make people scramble for it. (18, 26)

Telling people "I'm gonna fuck the moon." (22)

Getting into arguments with a statue of Jupiter. (22)

Constantly pranking his uncle Claudius. (23)

[Caligula's daughter violently attacks her playmates] Caligula: "Yep, she's definitely mine." (25)

Promising an exciting gladiator show and then swapping in old shitty fighters at the last second. (26)

Reminding people "I could kill you whenever I like." (29, 32)

Grumbling about how the empire was too peaceful and there was nothing heroic left for him to do. (31)

"Everyone reads Homer. I should ban him and see what happens." (34)

Leading an army to the coast, making them gather seashells as "spoils of war," then telling them "Treat yourselves!" on the tiny monetary bonus he awarded them. (46)

Practicing goofy faces in his mirror to freak people out. (50)

Invites three terrified senators to the palace in the dead of night. Jumps out from behind a curtain and does a song and dance number in drag. Refuses to explain. Leaves. (54)

Does not actually make his horse consul, but pampers it so much people said he wanted to. (55)

Taunts the praetorian guards with so many "sissy" jokes they get fed up and shank him. (56, 58)

When people heard he was dead they thought he was pulling a stunt. (60)

#i left out the really dark/gory stuff. reader beware if you look these up! #also take everything suetonius says with a truckload of salt. many of these stories are probably false #still funny tho #suetonius #caligula #jlrrt reads #jlrrt essays #the twelve caesars is a comedy

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Reasons why I cannot take the Roman government seriously:

At any given moment there were ten dudes, any one of whom could shut down government business indefinitely, no reason needed, by vetoing everything

These guys were so annoying the Romans had to make it illegal to touch them or else they all would've been beaten to death with chairs

At least one of them was beaten to death with chairs anyway

They had not one but two Top Romans, who could also veto each other's bills, and who had to trade off leadership every month by trading a bundle of sticks back and forth

The two Top Romans were whoever got the most votes, and second-most votes, so you'd often end up with two guys who hated each other having to co-parent a country

On at least two occasions this led to an army getting annihilated

You could also shut down the government by claiming you saw lightning or weird birds

Commanders tried to get approval from special chickens before entering a battle

Their first king either ascended to godhood or got shanked by a mob of angry senators. The Romans weren't quite sure which.

There were NO slander or libel laws. Are you on trial? Accuse your opponent of necromancy and incest all you like!

Their priests were all elected politicians, none of whom had any real priest training, many of whom weren't even religious

Sometimes the calendar got up to four months out of whack before they remembered to fix it

At one point they paved over a shrine in the forum with a big black slab, forgot why they put the slab there, and made up spooky stories about it being cursed

#sometimes i wonder how these people conquered anything #just roman memes #jlrrt speaks #jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Some notes to myself for writing gay Roman dudes, based on details from Roman Homosexuality by Craig Williams. Not intended as authoritative, but I thought it might be useful for other writers:

Class matters. Are they both freeborn? Slaves? Is one a slave or freedman? This will play a big role not just in the power dynamics between them, but also in what their peers would consider socially acceptable.

Age matters. The Romans judged adult men more harshly for acting "effeminate" than they did for adolescent boys.

Yes, adult/teen relationships were a thing in ancient Rome. Not specifically a male/male thing; girls were usually married off as teens, too. But if (like me) you'd rather not write that, there's plenty of evidence for relationships between adult men (or between two teens), too. There were at least a few triads and other non-monogamous living arrangements, too.

Roman men wouldn't think of themselves as gay, bi or straight. They could certainly have preferences for one gender or another, but that wouldn't have any social consequences. There was no need to "come out" as being attracted to men; everybody knew that sometimes dudes were just hot.

On the other hand, performing masculinity was a big deal. There was a lot of pressure for men to act assertive, sexually dominant, self-controlled, and to get married and have kids. This could be compatible with also having sex with men - as long as you were the "man" in the relationship (excuse the heteronormative phrase). But more "effeminate" partner(s) would be looked down upon.

The Romans cared a lot about who topped or bottomed. This had consequences for a man's reputation. It could be interesting to explore how your characters react to these pressures, how they view themselves, and how they talk to their partners about it.

Sometimes falling in love was seen as unmanly. Roman masculinity demanded that men exercise control of their desires, and a man who seemed too emotional might get mocked or seen as weak. This might make for a neat internal conflict if a character cares way more than he's "supposed to" about his partner.

For consenting adult men, the "dangers" of a romantic/sexual relationship were low. This was not 1960s America; there were no cops busting down gay bars. A man who was seen as effeminate could get mocked, slandered, or passed over for promotion, and he might not be allowed to work as a lawyer. But he wouldn't have been ostracized, and almost certainly wouldn't face criminal charges. Numerous men were called "effeminate" but had successful careers. Wealth, family connections, or a strong military record could also shield a man from stigma to some extent. (Cf. Caesar getting called the "Queen of Bithynia" throughout his career.)

The concept of male/male marriage was understood and talked about. We have some limited (and maybe false?) stories of it happening, and it was never legally recognized. But our Roman sources claimed it happened sometimes, so Roman characters could theoretically consider doing it, too.

The strongest sexual stigmas appear to have been reserved for cunnilingus, fellators and female adulterers, not for effeminate men, and not for male/male couples.

Not all Romans had the same attitudes. Rome was super diverse in the 200 BCE-200 CE period. There were many ethnicities, languages, and religions in Rome itself, and people traveled a lot. Opinions also varied from more conservative to more open-minded Romans, between social classes and professions, and different schools of philosophy. Individuals developed their own opinions, too. So you have a lot of flexibility as a writer for what Roman characters might believe, and what their social circles and daily life might look like.

There was a general shift in the 300s CE toward prudishness. Laws got stricter, both toward homosexuality and toward non-married heterosexual affairs.

There's a difference between having prejudiced characters, and a prejudiced narrative. You might also choose not to talk about prejudice in your story if you don't want to. It's your story, after all.

(Please correct me if I got something really wrong. Not all scholars agree with Williams' conclusions, but I haven't had time to read others yet.)

#jlrrt speaks #writing #craig williams #roman homosexuality #the romans would have been SO bad about top/bottom discourse... #actually. is that where we got it from? is it their fault?? #jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Filmmakers are really sleeping on the potential of portraying Caesar and Cleopatra's affair as a black comedy:

14-year-old King Ptolemy accidentally makes 52-year-old Julius Caesar cry by handing him a severed head as a "Welcome to Egypt!" present

Caesar is now in the incredibly awkward position of trying to get a teenage king to kiss and make up with his sister/wife instead of warring against her

Oh yeah Caesar you just walked into a civil war and now you're surrounded by 500,000+ Egyptians who want you dead WHOOPS

Said sister/wife pops out of laundry bag and immediately wins Caesar's favor by being A) a responsible adult, b) literally Cleopatra, and C) the only person in this country that isn't trying to kill him or hand him severed heads

She's still trying to murder her brother-husband though let's not get too wild lol

Anyway Caesar and Cleopatra sleep together and her 14-year-old brother-husband finds out the next morning and hits the fucking roof

Congratulations Caesar you found the one way to make this situation so much worse

I don't want to know how many complexes that poor child must have

Ptolemy sics his army on the Romans but claims to know nothing about it. Caesar is not fooled but humors him because 1) the kid is 14 and 2) Caesar is still trying to get Ptolemy and Cleopatra to be a normal non-murdery couple. Even though he's still sleeping with Cleo. Yeah.

Cleo and Ptolemy react about as well as you would if you were told to marry your sibling

Ptolemy sends his army after Caesar and now the 4,000 Romans have to hold out against the entire Egyptian army and 500,000+ furious Alexandrians

Did I mention Caesar is also asking Cleo's family for money

Yeah he needs it to pay for the other civil war he's procrastinating on

His enemies still have an army. Caesar's just ignoring them.

Caesar is still trying not to strangle a small child, and won't let Ptolemy or Cleo kill each other in front of him, so the three of them just. Live together for a while. Along with Cleo's 15-year-old sister Arsinoe, who is also trying to kill Caesar and Cleopatra, and her other brother Ptolemy, who's 11 and just trying not to die.

Dinner that night is so horribly awkward that Arsinoe and her tutor yeet outta there and take over the Egyptian army

Caesar now has to Go To Work™️(War) every day and try not to get killed by a teenage girl and a schoolteacher

Said teenage girl is shockingly good at fighting and in one battle Caesar gets beat so bad he has to jump off a boat and swim to shore and loses his Favorite Red Cape

Caesar comes home that night looking like a wet rat and has to explain why the Library of Alexandria is on fire and stop Cleopatra and Ptolemy from trying to shank each other again

Forget the movie. I want a whole sitcom dedicated to the sheer absurdity of this situation.

Various bullcrap ensues, Caesar gets rescued by the son of Mithridates (THAT Mithridates) of all people, Cleo's brother-husband turns up dead and Arsinoe is captured, and Caesar takes a much-needed vacation with Cleo. For several months. Then strolls back into Italy to discover Rome is on fire, people thought he was dead, and oh yeah there's still a ROMAN CIVIL WAR going on

Oops

#this is why i love history #absolute Most Caesar Moment of all time #cleopatra is the only person who comes out of this looking even slightly good #don't worry she still kills arsinoe and ptolemy number two later tho <3 #cleopatra #julius caesar #ancient rome #roman history #siege of alexandria #just roman memes #jlrrt speaks #jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Common Misconceptions About the End of the Roman Republic

Julius Caesar was not born by Caesarean section. Romans only performed that procedure on dead mothers, and Caesar's mother definitely lived another 40+ years.

Julius Caesar was almost certainly not Marcus Brutus' father. He was only 15 years older than Brutus, and Servilia was married to someone else.

Caesar's electoral campaign for 59 BCE was funded by his intended co-consul, Lucius Lucceius, not by Crassus. Although Crassus probably loaned Caesar money at other times.

It is not clear whether Caesar and Pompey used armed intimidation to get their legislation passed in 59 BCE, as neither of them had an army at this time, no contemporary source charges Caesar with political violence during his consulship, and only some of their proposed bills actually passed. See Robert Morstein-Marx's Julius Caesar and the Roman People for more.

Caesar was not an ideologue or demagogue, nor was his legislation particularly radical or populist. He was neither a "voice of the working man" nor a fascist. However, the methods he used to get what he wanted, and his refusal to back down at critical moments, were controversial and sometimes illegal.

Caesar was probably not behind the Vettius affair, considering that Vettius had previously attempted to get Caesar killed.

Caesar was also almost certainly not a member of the Catilinarian conspiracy; in fact, he assisted Cicero's investigation of it.

The "first triumvirate" was not an official group in the same way the second triumvirate was, nor did it overwhelmingly dominate Roman politics. Most of the triumvirs' legislation failed after the first half of 59 BCE, and most of their electoral candidates were unsuccessful.

Caesar didn't conquer all of Gaul, since the Romans already ruled the southern coast and Cisalpine Gaul.

Caesar landed on Britain, twice, but did not conquer it.

The Gauls were not "savages," but a diverse and sophisticated collection of tribes with their own agriculture, political systems, artwork, trade networks and more.

Caesar's Gallic Commentaries are mostly reliable for concrete events and dates, but less so for distances, troop numbers, and people's motivations. The Civil War Commentaries are even more biased.

There was probably no serious threat of Caesar being prosecuted if he entered Rome without imperium. His conquest of Gaul had been highly popular (with the Romans) and his laws had been repeatedly upheld by the Senate. See Morstein-Marx again.

Caesar did not go to war "against the Senate" or "against the republic." The Caesarian and Pompeian factions in the Senate were roughly equal in size, and the overwhelming majority of senators preferred peace over either one.

Caesar did not say "The die is cast" or any variant of it while crossing the Rubicon. He had already sent troops into Italy, and the Senate had begun military action against him over a month before.

The civil war of 49 BCE was caused by a mutual breakdown between Caesar, Pompey, and other factions in the Senate, not solely by one man.

Caesar and Pompey's falling-out was not caused by the death of Crassus or Caesar's daughter Julia, which happened years before any evidence of a rift appeared.

Most of the Pompeians were not fighting "for the republic," and Cicero expected a dictatorship to occur no matter which side won.

Caesar was not the first dictator of Rome, or even its first dictator for life; the first dictator for life was Lucius Cornelius Sulla in 82 BCE.

Caesar also wasn't the first Roman general to march on Rome. That's Sulla again, or possibly Coriolanus if you believe he was real.

There is no evidence that Roman armies considered themselves more loyal to their commanders than to the republic until very, very late in Caesar's civil war, when we first hear of soldiers calling themselves "Caesarians" in Spain. Caesar, Pompey, Marius, and Sulla all had to argue their political legitimacy to their troops before they could make them fight other Romans. See Erich Gruen's Last Generation of the Roman Republic for details.

Caesar was killed in the Theater of Pompey; the Senate house had been burned down years before.

Caesar's last words are unknown, although classical sources suggest "Kai su, teknon?" (You too, my son?), "Casca, what are you doing?" "Why, this is violence!" and silence as possibilities.

Caesar is not usually categorized as an emperor by modern sources, but some ancient writers like Suetonius did.

Augustus was not born in August, but in September.

Octavian never went by Octavian. First he was Gaius Octavius (Thurinus), then Gaius Julius Caesar (Octavianus), then added "Divi Filius" and "Augustus" and eventually replaced the first two words with "Imperator."

Cleopatra probably was not killed by a snakebite. She had much more reliable and less painful poisons available.

Cleopatra was not the last pharaoh of Egypt. The last native Egyptian pharaoh was Nectanebo II, the last Ptolemaic pharaoh was Caesarion (Ptolemy XV), and the last Roman emperor recognized as pharaoh was Maximinus Daza.

Augustus' reputation as a coward comes from his enemies. He fought numerous battles throughout his career, including the two he was accused of ducking, Mutina and Philippi. (He fought in the second confrontation for each one.)

Augustus didn't declare himself ruler of Rome. Although he was de facto the ruler, he was officially just "the first citizen" (princeps), a concept that long predated him.

Although initially patricians were the aristocratic class, by the late republic they made up only a minority of the aristocracy; the rest were wealthy plebeian families.

The Senate could not pass laws on its own during the late republic; its legislation had to be ratified by the People's Assembly.

The Roman government was not as democratic as most modern republics, with much less of the population represented, but it did have some popular influence on government policy, and public demonstrations and protests were common.

Roman politicians do not fit into modern political movements like socialism, fascism, or liberalism, or into stable parties like democrats or republicans. Roman politics was driven mainly by personal alliances and rivalries rather than by ideologies.

Although the "Roman empire" is sometimes used to refer to the period when Rome had emperors, Rome had an empire-like system of provinces, conquest, and tribute as early as after the First Punic War in 241 BCE. Julius Caesar and Augustus initiated a change in how Rome was governed, but they did not create Roman imperialism.

Roman women played an active role in politics, particularly in coordinating marriage alliances, communication networks, advocating on behalf of their families, public protests, and diplomatic negotiations behind the scenes.

The late republic was very ethnically and religiously diverse, with many Roman citizens descended from Greeks, Africans, Gauls, Jews, Iberians, and other groups. Mixed marriages and multilingualism were common.

Romans did not categorize sexuality by gender attraction, and most Roman men would not have identified as what we now call heterosexual. See Roman Homosexuality by Craig Williams for details.

Most famous Roman monuments, like Trajan's column and the Colosseum, date to after republican times. During Cicero's era the city was mostly brick and wood.

Historians do not agree on why, or when exactly, the republic "fell." Not all of them believe it was "doomed," either. It's likely that many connected factors, and random chance, played a part.

Suggested sources for learning more:

SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, by Mary Beard

Cato the Younger: Life and Death at the End of the Roman Republic, by Fred Drogula

Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician, by Anthony Everitt

Augustus: First Emperor of Rome, by Adrian Goldsworthy

Julius Caesar and the Roman People, by Robert Morstein-Marx

Historia Civilis

The History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan

Everything on my recommendations page

#putting all these in one place for convenience. may add more as i think of them #jlrrt essays #historiography

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

In every age there have been people trying to help others and make society better, people who were doing what they were taught was normal, and people who went out of their way to be cruel.

Reading historical texts can help you learn to recognize the kind ones, the ordinary ones, and the cruel ones by their choices, without being misled by their words. Sometimes cruel people rationalize hurting others by framing it in attractive, progressive language. Sometimes kind people explain themselves badly or use outdated words. And a lot of folks did things because it was normal for their time and they were just trying to get by, just like most of us are forced to participate in unfair social systems today.

When you start looking beyond the words, beyond your own cultural values, and at people's backgrounds, personal situations, and intentions, you won't just understand historical figures better. You'll understand modern people better, too.

#also a great reason to read classic literature and books from other cultures! #jlrrt essays #history

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

I'll never be over the Servilia Love Letter Incident.

Caesar and Cato arguing in the Senate over whether to execute the Catilinarians, one of whom is literally staying in Caesar's house. Caesar gets caught passing notes. Cato grabbing it from Caesar's hands and reading it out loud only to reveal Caesar's sleeping with Cato's sister, who's also wife of next year's consul, who's so mortified he basically crawls under a rock for the rest of his life and might've died. Cato screeching at Caesar "Take it you drunkard!" (which is 100% projection) and accusing Caesar of being part of the conspiracy. Cato's buddy trying to get Caesar added to Cicero's "execute" list, and Cicero telling the buddy to cut it out. Caesar storming out and nearly getting stabbed by an angry mob 19 years early for a crime he didn't do, and Cicero telling everybody to Calm Their Tits, nobody's getting killed today, well except for the conspirators of course, you should totally execute them.

Also next time Caesar tries to make a speech in public, Cato attempts to fucking deck him. Nobody tries to bring charges because Cato's kind of terrifying.

Caesar still keeps sleeping with Cato's sister.

#incredible #why does EVERYTHING caesar touches turn into drama #julius caesar #cato the younger #cicero #just roman memes #servilia #jlrrt speaks #cato causing problems #jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

I think it could be useful to bring back "rhetorical skill" as a concept when we talk about modern discourse, politics and sociology. People who are good with words get treated differently: we assume they're more intelligent, more credible, and more confident. We grant them more trust and respect. Meanwhile, those who are less articulate (kids, language learners, folks with certain disabilities, anyone whose dialect isn't "standard") are assumed to be immature or "simple" thinkers - their opinions aren't worth considering.

But wordsmithing can be used for good or evil. It can be used to make complex topics easy to understand, or to make bullshit sound real. A skilled writer can change your opinion without you noticing. It's not just "you are not immune to propaganda" - most of us have an innate bias to mistake eloquence for authority.

I was reminded of this by Roman examples, like how Cicero's voice is so powerful we're still not sure how much we know about his era is objectively true, and how much is what he wants us to believe. Or when Caesar makes his actions look justified (to Roman audiences) in the Gallic Commentaries by presenting real events, but in a carefully slanted way. The Romans had a whole industry for teaching politicians how to speak effectively. Because most people aren't good at it without a lot of practice, and I think it could be helpful for us to remember that.

Sometimes people misspeak. Sometimes they just aren't explaining themselves clearly, or their words have been taken out of context. I've been able to avoid a lot of fights by asking someone to clarify what they meant instead of assuming they were clueless or a jerk.

Words are hard.

#jlrrt essays #oratory #rhetoric #my life got much more chill when i started assuming most people mean well but aren't very good at communicating

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Feeling grateful for my mom today. 10 years ago I came out to her and she had no idea what asexual/aromantic meant, but she said, "Are you happy? Do your friends support you? Oh, you have friends like that, wonderful! As long as you're happy, I'm happy for you."

Just instinctive kindness, even toward something she didn't understand. Looking at the unknown with empathy instead of fear or annoyance or "Ugh, kids these days." That's the sort of person I want to be, too.

(She also got kicked out of a church 50 years ago for supporting gay rights. But I only found out about this later, in passing, because she didn't think what she did was anything special - just basic human decency.)

You won't always know the right words to say, or the current issues, or the answers to those issues. We're all ignorant or mistaken sometimes. But you can always try to be kind, and that alone can take you pretty damn far.

#about jlrrt #jlrrt essays #homophobia mention #positivity #kindness

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

The "Caesar maybe sleeps with King Nicomedes" and "Caesar gets captured by pirates" stories feel almost like they're responding to each other:

Both take place near the start of his career, perhaps even in the same year.

Both are dramatic and likely embellished (though connected to real events), to the point of feeling like fiction.

Both stories have probably been molded, through rumors and retellings, with the purpose of telling us what sort of person Caesar is. Convenient for propaganda purposes, either positive or negative.

Both have parallels to the stories about Caesar's interactions with Sulla, as if reinforcing those themes.

If you want to portray Caesar as fearless, responsible, a natural leader, and one who keeps his promises, you'll find that both in the pirate story and in his refusal to divorce Cornelia at Sulla's insistence.

But if you want to portray Caesar as a loose cannon, unmanly, with monarchist leanings and easily corrupted by the allure of power - you'll find that in the Nicomedes story, and also in how Sulla criticized Caesar for dressing too flashy, while Caesar supposedly called Sulla a fool for stepping down from the dictatorship.

And all of these stories can make it easy to overlook that, up until his conquest of Gaul, Caesar just wasn't very important in Roman politics. His aedileship, though splashy, probably wasn't unusual by aedile standards; and his consulship was controversial, but he was still third fiddle to Pompey and Crassus, and the first triumvirate's legal initiatives and electoral candidates lost as often as they won.

There were politically relevant stories from Caesar's early career, like prosecuting Dolabella for extortion and his participation in the siege of Mytilene. But we don't hear about those as often, because pirates and sex scandals are more fun.

I'm sure the man himself had a big personality, but it's difficult to tell fact from legend. Much of it is doubtless Caesar's own spin: he would've liked you to think he was never scared of those pirates. And much of it is slander from his enemies (Caesar did not get involved in seven different conspiracies to overthrow the republic before he even became consul, Suetonius).

These two particular tales, Nicomedes and the pirates, stand out to me. They feel like different threads of propaganda where you can practically feel the storytellers' opposing motives, to lionize Caesar or humiliate him. In the version of the pirate story where Caesar slit the pirates' throats before crucifying them (as a "mercy," sparing them torture), I have to wonder if that's a later addition from after 49 BCE, when Caesar was making much of his mercy toward defeated enemies.

But I think we can get some sense of his personality, in between these distorted threads. He was charming, flashy, very extroverted, and had a high opinion of himself. And he was always prepared to act on his own, contradict authority, and use unorthodox (even illegal) methods to get what he wanted. As for what he wanted, I think Sallust put it best: "a great command, an army, a new war where his virtus [excellence, strength] could shine."

But whether all that was normal aristocratic ambition, and Caesar would've just been another (very successful) politician if not for the split with Pompey in 50 BCE; or if, like Cato thought, you think he was only ever out for himself, republic be damned - I think the historians are still arguing that one, and perhaps they always will.

#btw you can find the pirate and nicomedes stories in suetonius and plutarch's biographies of caesar toward the start #sallust's sketch of caesar is in bellum catilinae near the end #you may have gathered that i have pretty complicated thoughts on caesar myself #but setting morality aside? he's always entertaining #julius caesar #historiography #jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Things I watch out for when considering if a Roman history blog/community/media might have fascist leanings:

"Ironic" jokes that demean groups of people. These are often a cover for normalizing real prejudice against those groups.

Various dogwhistles and hate symbols. Also, check out the early warning signs of fascism.

Glorification of the military or the empire's size. It's one thing to be interested in a subject, but fascists tend to ignore the many problems of Rome's military and government, like corruption, mistreatment of veterans, abuse toward non-Roman people, and the occasional genocide.

Justifying historical oppression or abuse. This is different from merely explaining or trying to understand something. In case someone simply worded something poorly, I look at their additional posts or ask for clarification. If there's a pattern of downplaying/excusing oppression, that's a bad sign.

Power fantasies. Does a person (or community) seem to identify with the conquerors and overlords, because of their power? A person making jokes about Cicero's shitty poetry, or Augustus wearing platform shoes, is probably here for a different reason than someone talking about "putting the barbarians in their place."

Ignoring women's experiences, queer history, slaves and working-class experiences, and cultural diversity. At best this could just be a newbie who hasn't gotten around to those topics yet, which is fine. Learning takes time. But if a community, historian, or professionally published work makes Rome look like it's composed solely of rich white cishet guys...there is a problem.

Flattening history into Romans vs. outsiders. "Us vs. them" themes, also seen as "civilization vs. barbarians," or "virtue vs. moral decline/degeneracy," is endemic to bigoted worldviews. Not only is it demeaning toward other cultures, it also erases how multicultural and changeable Roman identity was over time.

Also, any modern person who seriously attributes Rome's fall to "moral decline" or "degeneracy" is either deeply ignorant or using a dogwhistle for homophobia, antisemitism and racism. Also, using "barbarian" or "savage" unironically.

Be extra alert for antisemitism. Shit like justifying Hadrian's actions, bringing up Jews when discussing Roman debt problems, or idolizing Vespasian or Titus. The Romans did a lot of bad shit in Judaea, and sometimes those stories attract antisemites today.

Use of the past to justify present-day harm or anger. Fascists and racists tend to get attached to "tradition" or "the good old ways" - or what they think is tradition - believing that this makes their bigotry more "normal" instead of "bizarre, hateful and reactionary." But just because something was common in the ancient world doesn't mean it's a good idea today.

There's a lot of anger and bitterness in fascist communities in general, in fact. Many people fall into the "alt-right pipeline" because their personal lives are deeply troubled, and those places give them someone to blame and feel superior to. If hanging out in a community seems to be making you angrier, more suspicious, or looking down on certain kinds of people, think carefully about whether this is a good community to be in.

And finally...fascists aren't all that interested in history. They care about their myth of good guys vs. evil outsiders, and they warp history to fit into that narrative. They might like the aesthetics, or symbols, or idolize a few famous dudes or battles. But rarely do they know, or care, about how Roman society worked, or how it changed over time, or anything less "glorious." Rarely do they actually want to learn or put in effort. My favorite example of "fascist laziness" is Mussolini's terrible film about Scipio Africanus, in which you can see telephone wires and the extras wearing wristwatches.

Feel free to add to this list. I am not an expert at spotting this stuff, and I probably missed some things. But I figured this might be a good starting point for others, too. Don't use this list to make "callouts" or harass people - it's usually more effective to block, avoid, and report extremists than to give them more visibility.

Conversely, a great way to protect yourself from falling into the alt-right pipeline is to learn more about how diverse the Roman world was! Check out studies of ancient women, disabilities, queer people, and decolonizing the classics! Not only will they broaden your horizons, they're also fascinating in their own right.

#jlrrt speaks #ancient rome #roman history #racism #the alt-right pipeline #fascism #bigotry #things to whack racists with #jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Notes on Africans in republican Rome, from Gruen's "Romans and Others":

Rome had a significant population of Black and African-descended people, across a wide array of professions. For any work set after ~250 BCE, there should definitely be Black people in Rome.

Most African Romans were probably originally slaves, either bought through the slave trade, or taken as prisoners of war.

Slavery was not specifically associated with African people, or with any particular ethnic group. The high rate of manumission in cities lead to many Africans holding Roman citizenship.

Roman beauty standards favored light skin, but otherwise the Romans seem to have considered skin color irrelevant.

Intermarriage was common, and busts survive of wealthy Romans with more African facial features, indicating a degree of social mobility.

The Romans did stereotype ethnic groups, but prejudice doesn't appear to have been harsher toward Africans than toward Gauls, Germans, Iberians or Greeks, and there are positive portrayals of Africans in the works of Plautus, Diodorus, Seneca the Younger, Lucian and Philostratus.

The most famous African Romans are Terence the playwright, the emperor Septimius Severus, and Saint Augustine.

Also, Gruen doesn't discuss this, but Roman Africa was actually one of the wealthiest provinces in the empire, had its own Romance language, and many people immigrated there for a better life!

(Erich Gruen, “Romans and Others,” in A Companion to the Roman Republic, ed. Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx)

(Gruen does use some language that is now outdated or uncomfortable; I will forgive him on account of him being 89, and his overall conclusions are meant to correct racist ideas.)

#things to whack racists with #african romans #erich gruen #jlrrt reads #a companion to the roman republic #Roman diversity #jlrrt essays

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

I love Ronald Syme's theory that Agrippa married Attica in 37 BCE, because it suggests:

That at the age of 26, Octavian was on wife #3 while Agrippa was either like, "No thanks," or "Gaius, how are you finding the time?"

That Mark Antony probably discovered Agrippa still wasn't married during negotiations for the Treaty of Tarentum.

That in between calling Octavian a leg-shaving fruitcake and trying to feed him to pirates, Antony found time to play matchmaker for Octavian's best friend. It is not clear whether Agrippa wanted him to do this.

That Agrippa had to explain to Octavian why Antony kept dragging him away from the negotiating table to meet girls.

Which means Octavian - and likely Octavia - would've been consulted on the girls Antony was proposing for Agrippa, all while Antony was Octavian's brother-in-law and Octavia was trying to get them back together (as triumvirs). And Antony still hadn't decided whether to save Octavian's ass or let Sextus Pompey wreck him.

That suddenly Agrippa's love life (or lack thereof) was a matter of national diplomacy.

That Agrippa's marriage thus took on a weird parallel to Octavia marrying Antony for the Treaty of Brundisium - or almost did, because apparently he told Antony "Not a senatorial family." Even though that would've increased Agrippa's political influence.

(I am getting the impression that Agrippa did not want to get involved in political/interpersonal drama more than he had to. Or he might not have wanted to be obliged to any families other than Octavian's.)

(Was Antony hoping to flip Agrippa to his side with cute girls or a marriage alliance?? Sorry Ant...)

Mark Antony decided the next best option was Atticus' daughter - Atticus, best friend of Cicero, whom Antony and Octavian had killed.

That must have been one hell of an awkward wedding party.

We don't know much about Attica's feelings, but Agrippa and Atticus actually became great friends, perhaps because they could commiserate over their other friends being absolutely bananas.

#marcus agrippa #mark antony #octavian #octavia the younger #titus pomponius atticus #jlrrt essays #just roman memes #pomponia attica