How to be a Roman emperor(the-tls.co.uk)
the-tls.co.uk
How to be a Roman emperor
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/how-to-be-a-roman-emperor-essay-mary-beard/
8 comments
There used to be a really good but infrequently produced podcast called "Ancient Rome Refactored" and I was going to link to it here but I suddenly can't find it.
I don't think I'd want to be a Roman emperor. Senator maybe, but that big a target on your back has to keep you up at night.
Being an emperor sounds cool, but your life expectancy once you become emperor was not very high.
Interesting perspective here.
For further reading, I highly recommend Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius. They show the thoughts and practical advice of someone who took very seriously the responsibility of being a Roman Emperor.
For further reading, I highly recommend Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius. They show the thoughts and practical advice of someone who took very seriously the responsibility of being a Roman Emperor.
You can download a free high-quality epub at Standard Ebooks: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/marcus-aurelius/meditation...
"When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly" certainly sounds like Graves' fictional C-Cl-Cl-Claudius had the right idea.
I love Mary Beard and highly recommend her SPQR, which is a Roman history more or less with the midpoint as the fall of the Republic and transition to Empire... a very apt piece of history in the current political climate.
I would be happy to hear suggestions of other historian writers to broaden my perspectives.
> it was the first time I realized that disagreement about historical method might be important (rather than something you dutifully nodded to at the beginning of an essay, before moving on regardless)
Now that is something that should be taken and applied everywhere. Realizing the value of disagreement respecting the differences of opinion, and taking action to not just have an obligatory sense of doing so but actually making the effort. These days it seems everybody is right and whoever disagrees is a fool or worse. (and everyone else is silent)
I would be happy to hear suggestions of other historian writers to broaden my perspectives.
> it was the first time I realized that disagreement about historical method might be important (rather than something you dutifully nodded to at the beginning of an essay, before moving on regardless)
Now that is something that should be taken and applied everywhere. Realizing the value of disagreement respecting the differences of opinion, and taking action to not just have an obligatory sense of doing so but actually making the effort. These days it seems everybody is right and whoever disagrees is a fool or worse. (and everyone else is silent)
If you enjoy podcasts, then Mike Duncan's History of Rome is an excellent piece of work. Similarly, his book "Storm Before the Storm" is very good, focusing on the events that began the collapse of the Roman Republic: Sulla, and his civil wars. If you enjoy biographies then Adrian Goldsworthy's books "Caesar" and "Augustus" are very good as well.
I can't wait for Mike to come back and finish the revolutions podcast. He's been MIA since april. I know he's busy with his book, but common man, throw us a bone. I miss you mike.
I'm generally fine with the planned breaks, but every time I wonder when it's coming back this time I remember this is the last revolution he's covering.
Tom Holland is great. Really applies a stylistic flare to historic records, with some liberties taken in pursuit of creative narrative, but still keeping grounded and acknowledging when something is mostly deduction due to insufficiently preserved materials.
Seconded, his book “Rubicon” is what got me thoroughly hooked on Roman history.
Twelve Caesars (De vita Caesarum) by Suetonius is a fun read!
Caesar's biography by Adrian Goldsworthy is excellent, but quite extensive.
I found the Cicero Trilogy (Imperium, Lustrum, Dictator) by Robert Harris very enjoyable. They are novels, not 'history books', but well researched and told.
I'd also recommend Anthony Everitt's biographies. He has books on Cicero, Augustus, Hadrian and an overall Roman history called, The Rise of Rome.
Since this is HN I'd like to share something one of my friends just put together. He's used an ML module and research on the ethnic backgrounds and physical attributes of various Roman emperors as well as multiple photos of various statues to generate near-photorealistic renders of them.
https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/1286704635370143745
It's super neat and he's releasing low res versions under Creative Commons, so I'm looking forward to seeing these in different textbooks and stuff like that in the coming years.
https://twitter.com/dvoshart/status/1286704635370143745
It's super neat and he's releasing low res versions under Creative Commons, so I'm looking forward to seeing these in different textbooks and stuff like that in the coming years.
Statues of Augustus don't actually depict Augustus. Did this practice change for later emperors?
I've not heard that before, who did they depict?
No one we know. Quoting from SPQR:
> One of his [Augustus'] most significant and lasting innovations was to flood the Roman world with his portrait: heads stamped on the small change in people's pockets, life-size or larger statues in marble and bronze standing in public squares and temples, miniatures embossed or engraved on rings, gems and dining room silverware. This was on a vastly bigger scale than anything of the sort before.
> about 250 statues, not to mention images on jewels and gems, found right across Roman territories and beyond, from Spain to Turkey and Sudan, show Augustus in many different guises, from heroic conqueror to pious priest.
> These all have such similar facial features that standard models must have been sent out from Rome, in a coordinated attempt to spread the emperor's image to his subjects. They all adopt an idealising, youthful style that echoes the classical art of fifth-century BCE Athens and makes a glaring and loaded contrast with the craggy, elderly, wrinkled, exaggerated 'realism' that is characteristic of the portraits of the Roman elite in the earlier part of the first century BCE. They were all intended to bring a far-flung population, most of whom would never see the man himself, face to face with their ruler. And yet they almost certainly look nothing like the real Augustus at all. Not only do they fail to match up with the one surviving written description of his features, which -- trustworthy or not -- prefers to stress his unkempt hair, his bad teeth and the platform shoes which, like many autocrats since, he used to disguise his short stature; they also look almost exactly the same throughout his life, so that at the age of seventy-plus he was still being portrayed as a perfect young man.
The point of the statue is to make the viewer feel respect and awe, not to accurately depict the man's appearance. Compare Oliver Cromwell's unusual official portrait showing him as he actually appeared, warts and all.
> One of his [Augustus'] most significant and lasting innovations was to flood the Roman world with his portrait: heads stamped on the small change in people's pockets, life-size or larger statues in marble and bronze standing in public squares and temples, miniatures embossed or engraved on rings, gems and dining room silverware. This was on a vastly bigger scale than anything of the sort before.
> about 250 statues, not to mention images on jewels and gems, found right across Roman territories and beyond, from Spain to Turkey and Sudan, show Augustus in many different guises, from heroic conqueror to pious priest.
> These all have such similar facial features that standard models must have been sent out from Rome, in a coordinated attempt to spread the emperor's image to his subjects. They all adopt an idealising, youthful style that echoes the classical art of fifth-century BCE Athens and makes a glaring and loaded contrast with the craggy, elderly, wrinkled, exaggerated 'realism' that is characteristic of the portraits of the Roman elite in the earlier part of the first century BCE. They were all intended to bring a far-flung population, most of whom would never see the man himself, face to face with their ruler. And yet they almost certainly look nothing like the real Augustus at all. Not only do they fail to match up with the one surviving written description of his features, which -- trustworthy or not -- prefers to stress his unkempt hair, his bad teeth and the platform shoes which, like many autocrats since, he used to disguise his short stature; they also look almost exactly the same throughout his life, so that at the age of seventy-plus he was still being portrayed as a perfect young man.
The point of the statue is to make the viewer feel respect and awe, not to accurately depict the man's appearance. Compare Oliver Cromwell's unusual official portrait showing him as he actually appeared, warts and all.
Interesting, thanks!
[deleted]
Sounds like the ancient equivalent of texting while driving or using your phone at a movie theater :)