Paul’s remark about Methuselah and lunar months made me think of the general problem of English teachers who don’t know Greek culture attempting to teach mythology.
Some oddments to illustrate with Greek and others:
1. the lunar calendar. Remember the myth of the Danaids, the 50 daughters of Danaus. Here’s a Wiki which is pretty accurate and not bad. Danaid myth In essence, what you’re dealing with is at least conceivably a myth of an IndoEuropean takeover of a pre-Greek lunar cult. There are 50 weeks in the lunar year. You may perhaps envision a mother-goddess worship site, a priest, or ‘king,’ and his priestesses. There does seem to be a recurring theme in the myths that men who marry priestesses become ‘year-kings’ and are sacrificed by the women for the fertility of the spring planting. And in this case, they needed to overcome the 50 priestesses who had their own idea about the situation, and decided to have a mega-fertile crop…except for one, who, another legend said, weakened, because her husband was handsome and very nice. And she is the one who carries the bloodline forward into the IndoEuropean age. For more on this culture, Mary Renault’s The King Must Die.
2. Things in the picture aren’t composition: they’re often message. You see a lady with a dove flying about. That ain’t no lady: that’s Venus/Aphrodite. The dove is her messenger.
You know that mystery picture where you look at a black goblet in a white space and rearranging it in your head shows you two profiled faces instead? Egyptian art is like that, particularly the 3-d art, like sculpture. Ie, look at the vacant space and see what shape it forms. I wish I had a ready example, but you may find that the shadow cast by a piece does the same as the goblet.
Supporters of Napoleon did the same sort of thing: the sword cane is a fairly common gentleman’s weapon of the post-Napoleonic era, but if you hold some cane-knobs up to the light, the Little Emperor’s shadow shows on the wall. My brother has one of those.
3. Roman stories. The twins Romulus and Remus are what you call Divine Twins in Greco-Roman stories, one god-sired, one not, one immortal, one not, quite usually. This theme is something Romans have in common with the Spartans of southern Greece, who, incidentally, were Wave B IndoEuropean, ie, IndoEuropeans who arrived hundreds of years after the Wave A folk: read: two separate periods of hardship in the north forcing people to migrate south. The Roman core culture was also Wave B IndoEuropean, but the Romans have many stories telling how they incorporated the local cultures: they started as an outlaw city, accepting fugitives from other peoples, and at first had no women, until they kidnapped some, and then had to negotiate with them to stay. Out of that deal, Roman women got the right to divorce, own property, and do everything a man could do except hold office and vote.
The Spartans—were a warrior culture with very strong women’s rights. The Romans—ditto: viz the story which explains they first kidnapped their mates, then had to bargain with them to stay.
The Spartans—wore red cloaks to battle; ditto the Romans.
The Spartans—venerated the divine twins Castor and Pollux; the Romans had Romulus and Remus, and also venerated Castor and Pollux. You could swear by Castor casually, in vexation, a genteel Ooooh, goodness me!, but you should not swear by the other. That is for men only, and it is not polite for them, either.
The Spartans—also venerated twin serpents: ditto the Romans, symbols which are often painted, rarely mentioned.
The Spartans—made a cult of duty and endurance: ditto the Romans, who valued it in both genders.
The Spartans—had a council called the gerousia (group of old men); the Romans had the senatus (same meaning.)
The Spartans—had two kings at all times; the Romans had a legend how they lost one of their kings to fratricide.
Being a Sabine woman had its benefits, after all.
From my Roman history classes, the Senate originally was an advisory body to the consuls. Nowhere did they have the individual power that a lot of people think they had, vis-a-vis a United States Senator. As the Republic moved toward the Empire, the Senate became pretty much an old-boys’ club, because they were more and more irrelevant to the emperors, who chose to do what they wanted and damn the Senate.
The Roman standard that had the letters SPQR “Senatus Populusque Romana” showed that the Senate was held in higher esteem than the population. Only the tribunes had the right to veto any law the Senate voted upon, and that veto was final, iirc. Oh, my Roman history books are in the next room and it’s a pain to pull the desk out of the doorway (don’t ask), find the books in all of the boxes, and then put the desk back…..
This long article on the Roman Senate is a good starting point, though it doesn’t include modern scholarship.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Senatus.html
Actually it worked like this: the senate chose the consuls as their ‘representatives,’ from the body of qualified individuals. There were elections, but they were OF persons who were qualified (through having held the Sequence of Popularly Elected Officers, literally starting with Street Department of a district of Rome, all the way up to the national offices. SO in one sense they were acting as an appointed executive OF the senate.
OTOH, once the ’emperors’ came in—the actual word was Princeps, or First Citizen—since the original ’emperor’ was NOT noble, ie, not a patrician (I’ll explain in a minute) he was NOT qualified to sit in the senate. Not even to enter it. He took instead the office of tribunus plebis, or people’s representative. The tribuni plebis were created back when the common folk went on strike against the city back in early days, and though for religious reasons the tribunes couldn’t cross the sacred threshold, they were permitted to sit at the door of the senate (with the senators’ children) and if they disapproved a measure, either one of them could yell out Veto! (I forbid!) and void the legislation. That was one power. The other was that there was a death penalty for attempting to prevent a tribune getting to a senate meeting: the person of the tribune became ‘sacrosanct’, ie, divinely protected, in that instance, meaning that he could order the summary execution of anyone trying to abduct or restrain him, and he had a guard to enforce it.
So—–when Augustus wanted to figure how to rule, he just took that power: declared himself tribunus plebis (at first there were 2) —and therefore had the power to veto; he had the power of a tribune’s bodyguard; and he additionally was granted by the senate the power somewhat like the senatus-consultum, the senatorial decree. An imperial decree, the Edictum, had the force of law until vetoed by the Senate, and it was valid for something like 6 months, after which it had to be passed and confirmed by the Senate or it died.
So our president actually has MORE power than a Roman emperor did.
And I could wish ALL our federal decisions by the IRS, the DOD, and such, etc, had to be passed and ratified by OUR elected senate in 6 months or die.
As to why the first emperor was a commoner: he was a man of 2, not 3 names. He was born Caius Julius Caesar’s nephew, child of his sister Julia and a commoner of equestrian rank, ie, he was middle-class. Since social class comes from the father only, not the mother, he was born with only 2 names, as Gaius Octavius. The family, while well to do, had performed nothing to give them the third name, and were not noble by ancestry. So though he was ADOPTED by Julius Caesar, and given the name Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus, he couldn’t change what he was born: he lacked the RELIGIOUS power of a noble, and always would. He had to rule as a common man.
You could, btw, be a CONSUL without being a patrician; you just weren’t senatorial. Marcus ANtonius was a man of two names, too: a commoner, and given to a very coarse frat-boy sense of humor that really set the senate off: they hated Mark Antony. But Octavius paid proper court to the Senate, and they were, by contrast to Antony—in LOVE with Octavius, and very, very relieved to have him, and to make him as legitimate as they could figure how to do…partly because their choice WAS Mark Antony.
Dr. Daley did teach all of the above in Roman Republic and Roman Empire classes (they were a year apart, and I took them in reverse order). I just didn’t want to make my comment a long drawn-out dissertation on the power of each office. BTW, I’m still looking for that paper I wrote for him during my senior year, which discussed the source of authority that G.J.Caesar used to cross the Rubicon without violating Roman law. As a proconsul, he was forbidden to bring his army out of his province (Gaul), but as a former consul, he was allowed to have an army in Italy. I’m sorry, that was 38 years ago, and I haven’t looked at the paper since I got it back. I do remember the grade, though, I got an A-, even though he disagreed with some of my opinions.
“Ilia jacta est!”
It is agreed by all ancient historians that it was highly illegal for Caesar to cross the Rubicon and enter Italy with his army. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been such a big deal, or even worth mentioning in the first place. As a proconsul currently holding imperium only in Gaul, he couldn’t legally exercise imperium in Italy. A former consul had no inherent right to exercise imperium in Italy or anywhere else, without it being specifically awarded to him by the senate.
The question that was posed for the essay was: “Which imperium did Julius Caesar use when he crossed the Rubicon? Consular or proconsular? Discuss and defend your answer”
He may not have had the legal foundation for crossing the Rubicon with his army, but Caesar was a man of bold actions. I believe, but am not sure, that his army was larger than the armies based in Italy, much more mobile, and moved more quickly than anyone anticipated. After all, crossing the river was a surprise move in itself, and as quickly as Caesar marched on Rome, I would presume that everyone was caught flatfooted.
Anyway, I’m not an ancient historian, I’m only 60, but regardless of the legality, Caesar was recognized as a power after he crossed the Rubicon. He was forceful enough in his personality that he was able to convince the Senate to appoint him dictator-for-life. As we know, the dictator originally was appointed by the Senate in time of emergency. The term was 6 months, and the dictator had no restriction on the exercise of power. After the 6 month term, the dictator stepped down, and could not be held liable for any actions he took during the dictatorship. Caesar, becoming dictator-for-life, would have had the same power and would be immune from prosecution for any “misuse” of power, outranking even the consuls. That is why Brutus agreed to the assassination, because he feared the centralization of power in one man, rather than in the Senate and people of Rome.
The twin snakes go back to Ophiuchius, also known as Aesclepius, the original snake oil doctor. Supposedly many of his good cures came from snakes, and he always had a couple around. Eventually they became a symbol of medical treatment on the caduceus. Not sure how Mercury managed to snag that symbol as well, though.
“Snake Oil” had nothing to do with reptiles! It’s a corruption of “Seneca” oil. The Seneca, or Onondaga, were from western New York state, and their oil was raw crude petroleum. Remember where the first well was drilled? Pennsylvania!
The breadth of your knowledge is reflected in the depth of your fiction.
Just astonishing.
Phil Brown
Damn right!!!
😉 Thanks.
The Greeks had ‘house snakes’ tended and fed by the lady of the house…the behavior of the snake was counted prophetic. Mind, this is an earthquake-prone country. The failure of the snake to come and feed was a bad omen.
Aesclepius, god of healing, had a snake, probably of the house snake, whatever species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamenis_lineatus is the sort…a colubrid of Italy, some of which have venom that bothers us.
The earth mother of Greece had two snakes, one in each hand.
Hermes had the twin snakes on his winged staff. The cadeuceus, used today by the medical profession, was the staff used by the herald-god to part the curtain between the world of the living and the world of the dead: he was the psychopompos, or soul-leader, who showed up to get the dead safely to the kingdom of Hades.
To complicate matters, he was not the god of healing. That job belonged to Apollo, the sun, and the archer-god. The ‘bronze arrows of Apollo’ mentioned in the instance of swamps and malarial outbreaks—were, yes, mosquitoes. Not stupid, those ancient Greeks.
Should you wonder how a nice kid from Oklahoma ends up knowing all this crazy stuff: I was a Latin-Greek major with a French minor, and my areas of specialty were, in a Master’s program in Classics, ethnology of the Bronze Age Greeks as revealed in myth, Roman Law in the transition between Republic and Empire, and the dreaded comparative philology of the IndoEuropean languages. OTOH, I NEVER became a specialist. I knew a guy who specialized in the coinage of 4th Century BC Athens, and that convinced me that I had to go over the wall and get out of there.
Seriously, my ethnology project got me funding for my masters, but money wasn’t there for me to continue. My Latin prof, bless him, accosted me at the final cocktail party and swore he’d like to try to get me funding, because he didn’t want to lose me, but I told him I already had a job lined up, teaching, and I was packed and all. I liked Dr. Rowell. he and Dr. Oliver could have taught at Hogwarts. So could Dr. Poltney. I think he’d have been teaching something obscure, like anatomy of extinct creatures. There was one other I’m sure would have been the Dark Arts guy, but I was fortunate enough not to take that class: half of his students were on tranquilizers.
Paul H., I accept my chastening. I was trying for a more tongue in cheek approach, which FAILed. In my defense, there was indeed stuff marketed as real Snake Oil:
http://bluebook.state.or.us/facts/scenic/tm/tm15a.htm
Makes sense that Hermes would have snagged the cad(e)uceus, if his job was to escort souls back and forth. Who better than a healer, or the symbol of a healer, to have power over life and death, who stays and who goes?
Sorry, no chastisement meant–just trying to correct a common misperception. Certainly the name “Snake Oil” would attract more attention of the curious, better marketing gimmick. Back in the day all kinds of strange stuff was tried as “miracle cures for what ails you”. Radium “charged” water, for example. I suppose raw petroleum would have been rare enough to have been tried.
There are places where raw crude seeps out of the ground. I’ve seen it on the road from Ojai to Santa Paula. I suppose it would have at the La Brea tar pits in LA too, but the city must have taken steps to make sure it doesn’t overflow.
In Roman history you always have to specify WHEN you are talking about. Rome was around for a long, long time and all its institutions changed considerably over time.
If you took a Roman citizen from, say, 500BC and transported him through time to 400AD, he would think he was in a completely different country, with completely different social and political structures, culture, dress, language and religion.
Whenever I hear someone say that the Romans did things in such-and-such a way, I always want to ask, “In which century?”. The same with the Roman army. You can easily get the impression today that there was a specific way that the army fought, that there were specific types of armor, etc. The reality is that things were constantly changing. Things were different not only in different times, but in different parts of the empire, as Rome grew.
It’s the same with medieval history. If you really want to irritate a professor of medieval history these days, just start talking about ‘feudalism’ or ‘the feudal system’.
The modern scholarly understanding is that there was no such thing.
Firstly, because if you asked anyone in medieval times about the feudal system, they wouldn’t even know what you were talking about. It’s a later concept that didn’t exist in medieval times. There was no ‘system’ as such. There was just the way things were done.
Secondly, the way things were done varied considerably in both place and time. ‘Feudal’ relationships were very practical, and often depended on particular circumstances and particular individuals. There was nothing fixed or systematic about them.
Thirdly, the very meaning of terms like “fief”, “vassal”, “liege”, etc. have been shown to be different from what is commonly understood.
But so deeply is the idea of ‘the feudal system’ ingrained in public awareness and the school system, that modern academics despair of ever getting this across to the public.
Here is an excellent introductory article about this:
The F-Word – The Problem with Feudalism
http://historymedren.about.com/od/feudalism/a/feudalism.htm
…and another useful link:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1i.asp#Feudalism
Interesting!
interesting, that in fact what we think of as “feudalism” and the manorial system in England was a hangover from Romano british farming with slaves. according to Michael Wood, anyway. the anglo saxons had big estates with slaves and smaller independant farmers – but due to economic pressures during the wars with the danes, many of these independent farmers effectively became bankrupt and to survive became tied labour … but the areas under danish rule escaped this, and so the eastern part of england tended to have more free peasants, and a much more independent attitude … hence all sorts of things that arose in the later medieval period … religious and political … Wat Tyler from essex … the Lollards … etc etc ….
Indeed. There was Rome of the settlers, Rome of the kings, subdivided by affiliation—the Etruscans, etc; Rome of the neo-Republic, Rome in the Greek Colonial Mess, ROme of the Gallic Invasion, Rome of the First, then Second Punic Wars, and then the neo-Empire, which was actually under the Republic—as Rome found itself tangled in Old Punic Politics, not to mention installment 2 of the Greek Colonial Mess, and either had to watch the Med boil up another would be conqueror, in the post-Alexander period (see: Ptolemy, Antiochus, Mithridates of Pontus, not to mention, eventually Diviciacus, Dumnorix, descendants of the Old Gallic Invasion that had resulted in a band of Gauls bouncing their way across Europe and settling in Gallacia in Asia Minor), but in the middle of all that, insert the internal Italian Civil Rights question, as Italians demanded Roman citizenship after supporting Rome during the Punic Wars—they finally got in but were fiercely gerrymandered into political irrelevance—which set up a political division that ultimately came to blows in the Marius-Sulla Civil War. Marius, a commoner supporting the democratization of the government and the military, married into the lordly god-descended Julians; Sulla stood for the traditions and senatorial power. They took turns taking over the City and the government. Then in a real-life Romeo and Juliet situation, Marius’ nephew Julius Caesar, of a noble but poor house, married Sulla’s niece [I think she was] Cornelia. This did not make peace. It made war. Sulla, in power at the time, hounded young Julius into outlawry, he spent a malaria-ridden period hiding for his life in the marshes near Rome, refusing to divorce Cornelia. He finally was caught, and had to go through with the divorce or be murdered. Time passed. The old guard passed: Marius, Julia (Marius’ wife), and Sulla. And, apparently, Cornelia. Julius spent his time either away at college or off in military service. Then we have the rise of Pompey, an officer from the Spanish Wars, and Crassus, the richest man in Rome, and the Spartacus rebellion, which was the end result of the big plantation system backed by 2 things—the Roman unwillingness to kill surrendered soldiers OR leave them in their own countries; and the far-too-much-money attitudes of people like Crassus, who ran small farmers out, got big plantations, and had FAR too many slaves (read POWs) working them. It all exploded. The concern of Joe Average Roman was ‘enough of war, enough of being scared of uprisings, enough of being murdered in our beds by rampaging soldiers, rebelling slaves, and enough of unstable, constantly violent government.’ This set up the mentality for two nasty conflicts, basically an extension of the Marian/Sullan wars, as Julius (a Marian) took over from Pompey (a Sullan) and then was assassinated by Sullans—then Julius’ heirs had it out (Octavius versus Mark Antony)—and Rome was finally at peace. And yes, a WHOLE lot of social, political, worldview, and attitudinal changes took place in this period, and we’ve just now arrived in the Roman Empire.
(Back to the original blog post’s topic, not to be contrary, but because I’m curious.)
So, we have a marked similarity between the Romans and the Spartans. But the Romans speak Latin, not Greek. There were Greek colonies in Italy and Sicily. The Latins and other Italians and the Greeks (both Italians and Greeks had local dialects) traded back and forth across the sea, besides colonies. They had to have had a mix of good and bad relations as neighbors on their own or each other’s peninsulas. So, but, do those similarities stem from lots of good trade, a group of stalwart Spartans walks into a bar (or a bath) (or a brothel) (hey, I don’t know, I wasn’t there, okay? :grins: ) and the Romans and Spartans all have a grand time, decide they’re great buddies, boyfriends, girlfriends, what have you, and the next thing you know, aside from a few babies, you have Spartan ideas in Roman traditions? Or did these Spartans decide the grass looked greener over there (and the companionship was better) and again, you get the mix? Or Romans get those Spartans through marriage or slaves or the village crafter (or wine-seller) (or village idiot) (noisy neighbors) …and the ideas stick? — Or was there a contemporary third source? Or an older common lineage that kept the ideas, but not the language intact? — Not that I expect anyone to come up with a definitive answer, since no one else has a handy time machine either. Not even a handy accident that throws some hapless guy into Middle Ages Roman rule right before the fall….
And why, for that matter, since the Romans liked much that was Greek and much that was Etruscan, didn’t they go whole hog and the result was something not quite Latin, Greek, or Etruscan, but a blend of the three? People tend to stay with their own language, but if you get a mix where people get along so well and the numbers are roughly equal, wouldn’t you expect a mixed language as the result? (Not that they liked each other so much that there were places like that, but the possibility.) Instead, Latin completely subsumed Etruscan in Italy, and non-Latin Italic dialects or languages more or less merged into Roman Latin, but the Greek colonies in Italy didn’t hold over. Then later, the Romans took Greece into the Empire. …But the Romans were willing to let people under Roman rule keep their native language, even though those absorbed Latin words/ideas over time.
What I’m getting at is, aside from, why do we see traditions (like Spartan habits) borrowed so far into Roman tradition, yet we don’t see more Greek language borrowed / merged into Latin? We don’t see too many (known) borrowings of Etruscan vocabulary or grammar into Latin. If I understand right, the Etruscans weren’t conquered, they were on mostly good terms with the Latins, and over time, they merged into, assimilated into, Latin culture, so much so that Etruscan is mostly undeciphered, without enough to adequately translate it, despite much effort.
So, why don’t we see the development of a lingua franca, a trade pidgin, or a blend, a mélange, a stew, where we have Latin and Etruscan and Greek, instead of one or the other? Chauvinism? Live and let live? Not as much in common as they thought? Did something develop in some town or colony, and later die out or get reabsorbed?
On the other hand, I suppose over time, we do get that blend, Latinized Gaul, then invading Franks, and we get Old French (and a host of others, some of which also still survive). Romanized Britain…gets pushed mostly back to the Continent when the Anglo-Saxons (invade? settle? are invited in as mercenaries?) … and later are partially subsumed themselves by the Norman French, producing Anglo-Norman Middle English.
For that matter, we have that current actual lingua franca throughout the Mediterranean, a sort of creole or pidgin, a trade language, but not a primary language because everyone “goes home at the end of the day” and speaks his/her native language.
I suppose I drifted into theories of language origin and change, from a question about how Greek traditions were borrowed into Roman life.
…If it all collapsed tomorrow, don’t you just bet that a few thousand years later, linguists would wonder how in blazes English words are found all over the planet, or how Japanese and English might borrow from each other? Assorted quandaries like that. Would they then conclude English was somehow close to the common original global language? Or would the idea of a worldwide trade economy, exploration and colonization (and empires) back and forth, world travel and communications, occur to those future linguists? Would enough trace be left to notice?
It’s probably only a slew of half-baked questions, but I’m curious.
The problem is that Sparta planted very few colonies, and I think the only clear case in Italy was Taranto, at the very bottom of the boot.[*] The oldest Greek colony in mainland Italy — and the one closest to Rome — was Cumae (from which the Etruscans and later the Romans derived their alphabets), which was established by settlers from the island of Euboea, which is nowhere near Sparta. So I don’t think you can really postulate any sort of direct influence of Sparta on Rome.
[*] The fact that Taranto went on to develop a quasi-democratic republican form of government suggests that its culture diverged from that of Sparta, even if it retained some ties to the mother city.
Off topic, but cool NTL. http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/08/visualizing-the-cosmos-a-flight-through-the-universe-by-the-sloan-digital-sky-survey?utm_source=Feedburner%3A+Frontpage+Partial+RSS+Feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torcom%2FFrontpage_Partial+%28Tor.com+Frontpage+Partial+-+Blog+and+Stories%29
Sorry about the long link, but watch the vid in full screen. Too cool.
The main difference between Rome and Sparta is that Roman culture was very INclusive and Spartan culture was very EXclusive.
People who were conquered by the Romans soon became Romans themselves – citizens with equal rights in every way to the original Romans. Even slaves were routinely freed, and their children became full Roman citizens.
Sparta was a very Nazi-like country, if I can use that anachronism. The division between Spartans and Helots (slaves) was totally rigid. Spartans considered themselves as a kind of ‘master race’, had a theory about breeding people for perfection (which was actually a source of inspiration to the Nazis), and there was no way that slaves or conquered cities could better their situation. They remained inferiors.
The inclusiveness, openness, and rule of law in Roman society was the real reason that Rome became so great and powerful.
There is a wonderful speech by the Emperor Claudius to the Senate on this subject, recorded by the historian Tacitus. The occasion was an application by Gauls from the areas conquered by Caesar to become members of the Roman Senate.
Roman history amply shows that the speech of Claudius was not just fine words, but really expressed the long-term inclusive approach of Roman rule.
All this brings to mind similarities with the USA, and current debates both in the US and Europe about illegal immigrants, etc.
GreenWyvern and Peter both, thank you.
Inclusion, or at least “live and let live” are much preferable.
It seems to me that when we (the US) have excluded people, within or nearby our own country, or as a general policy against “Them,” that we’ve had to unlearn that exclusion, sometimes painfully so.
And it seems to be a lesson humanity has to learn repeatedly. If we’re ever going to survive as a species though, on or off this planet, it seems we’d darn well better learn inclusiveness, tolerance, and acceptance, even celebration, of differences.
It’s very interesting that Claudius chose that as his criticism of Greek law and customary attitudes.
But as a practical matter, there would need to be representatives to govern the territory, including representatives sent to Rome. If a territory was to become an equal member, it would need Senate representation.
(That reminds me that US territories *do* get representatives in Congress and the Senate as a step toward entry into the union.)
BlueCatShip, the Roman Senate was never a representative body, like the US Senate, even at the height of the Republic.
But the US founding fathers were certainly very much inspired by Rome. That’s the reason the US has a Senate, and the center of US government is called ‘Capitol Hill’ – named after one of the seven hills of Rome, which was the center of Roman government.
It’s interesting how ideas about Rome have changed over time. In the 18th and 19th century people tended to have an extremely positive view of ancient Rome — but then, in those times all educated people learned Latin and read Latin literature.
Livy’s history of Rome from its foundation up to his own time is perhaps the most uplifting and inspiring work of history that I’ve ever read.
Dr. Samuel Johnson, who knew Latin literature and history like the back of his hand, said “Greece appears to me to be the fountain of knowledge; Rome of elegance.”
Elegance is not a word that most people today would associate with Rome, but it’s true.
These days people get most of their ideas about history from movies. And almost all historical movies, about any period of history, are extremely inaccurate. Any fact learned from a movie should be considered wrong until proved otherwise.
Athens, on the other hand, has a totally positive press these days, which is just as unjustified. If you want to know about the aggressive military policies of Athens, read up about the Delian League, sometimes known as the Athenian Empire.
For example, the fate of the city of Melos, which was offered the alternative of surrendering and becoming a subordinate state to Athens or being destroyed. They refused to surrender, and after a siege the city was taken. The Athenians killed all the adult males, enslaved all the women and children, and re-populated the city with Athenian colonists.
The original purpose of the Delian League was supposed to be for Athens to provide protection for smaller cities against the Persians. However, joining it wasn’t optional, and cities that refused to pay for ‘protection’ were made to see reason by the Athenian army. Later, Athens decided that since there was actually no threat from the Persians any more, the vast sums of money contributed by other cities could be used by Athens for any purpose they liked. Protests by other members of the League were laughed off, the money was brought to Athens from Delos, a number of leading Athenian politicians suddenly appeared to become very wealthy, and the remaining money was used for building the Parthenon and for such trinkets as 40ft high statues of ivory and gold.
In understanding the Roman Senate, understanding the clans helps—because in the earliest days, much of government was abut the clans, extended ‘families’ often with subfamilies. [You have to be careful of the word ‘familia’ in Latin, since it really means ‘household,’ or sometimes, depending on context just ‘the household staff’ or ‘the household slaves’ as opposed to those outside. It arguably had a sort of a warm-fuzzy about the word, since paterfamilias meant ‘head of household’, and when used in that context definitely meant people born to the house, including what we would call the family, and the household servants.
The reason Rome had no prison system was that the clans disciplined their own, and this could involve a ticket to go study (and live)in Greece or Egypt for the next thirty years, or, in some cases, the invitation to commit suicide and save the clan an untidy situation. The paterfamilias was also the family lawyer and might go to the Senate to fight the charges, but prior to that, the paterfamilias would ask, sternly, for the truth. If the Julians or Cornelians were about to put their clan’s reputation and honor on the line—sometimes the case would be settled ‘out of court’ with reparations, an apology, or assurances the matter would be ‘handled.’
Rome had no divorce court, either: either party could end a marriage by saying ‘I divorce you,” three times and setting the belongings of the wife on the curb. Of course, since the husband also had to return the dowry and deal socially with her offended clan, this was usually settled short of that, with the families agreeing, the wife going home with her property, and probably marrying again. Children always stayed with the father, but it would be stupid not to respect the maternal clan as well.