Explanation: The Roman Emperor Diocletian, after becoming Emperor, demanded that everyone treat him as a living god. This, while having precedent in Hellenic parts of the Empire, and in Persia, was deeply abnormal and offensive to traditional Roman norms, which regarded the Emperor as a magistrate appointed by the Senate and People, merely 'First Amongst Equals' and 'First Citizen'.
Traditional incarnations of the Roman 'Imperial Cult' were deeply linked with traditional Roman religion, in which one would pay religious respects to one's household's ancestors (the manes et lares). As the Emperor was seen as 'Pater Patriae', Father of the Fatherland, paying respect to dead Emperors was seen as wholly natural and appropriate, the way one might respect their actual father or grandfather - to pay such respect to living Emperors, unthinkable and sacrilegious.
However, the Hellenic eastern half of the Empire had essentially always worshipped Emperors (and sometimes lesser officials as well) as living gods, even though such practice did not previously receive recognition from the Imperial apparatus. As such, Diocletian's delusions of godhood were not a major change for a good proportion of the Imperial population.
Explanation: 69 AD (nice) was known as the Year of the Four Emperors, due to there being, well, four Emperors inside of a year. The Emperor Galba assumed power when Nero was ousted by the Senate in 68 AD, but he was overthrown by Otho - Otho, in turn, was defeated by Vitellius, and Vitellius was quickly destroyed by Vespasian, who went on to have a stable reign.
Year of the Five Emperors (193–197): Roman war of succession between the generals Septimius Severus, Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus following the assassination of Commodus (AD 192) and the subsequent murders of Pertinax and Didius Julianus (AD 193). Severus was victorious and founded the Severan dynasty.
I always thought this would have been a natural point to do Gladiator 2. Maximus died delusional, thinking that a republic would rise at the death of Commodus, only for Rome to fall into civil war
Explanation: Caesar (yes, THE Caesar) is said to have wept at a statue of Alexander the Great, because, at 33 (the same age Alexander had died at), Caesar had no great accomplishments to his name, and felt that he was pathetic by comparison.
Caesar would later become one of the most influential individuals in world history.
Always remember - it's not too late. You aren't a failure.
A roman calling a byzantine emperor, who is likely greek, “barbarian” is ironic, considering the word “barbarian” is greek for “anyone who doesnt speak greek”.
Romans were always fond of using their enemies' tools against them!
I remember an incident in which the Roman Emperor Claudius apologized to the Senate for using a 'barbarian' Greek word in front of them, because the word had no Latin equivalent.
Explanation: The Roman Empire had two prominent 'successors' after it fell - the Holy Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire was a continuation in name only - it was formed over 300 years after the fall of Rome, had no continuation of Roman institutions, and had its only real link in the approval of the Pope - who, in turn, only sought to legitimize the polity because the Byzantine Empire was being run by a woman at the time, and because the Byzantines didn't recognize the Pope's ultimate spiritual authority.
The Byzantine Empire was a continuation in more than name - the term 'Byzantine' is only a term of modern convenience. The Byzantines regarded themselves as simply the Roman Empire - 'Basileía Romaíon' ('The Roman Kingdom'). But even though there was technically unbroken continuity from the Eastern Roman Empire of Late Antiquity, the Byzantines had very little in common with the Roman Empire of old - regarding their rulers as monarchs, Latin as a 'barbarian tongue', Christianity as the main identifier of 'Romanness', violation of traditional Roman norms, and controlling only the old Greek portions of the former Roman Empire. In the European West, they were simply known as the Kingdom or Empire of the Greeks.
I only recognize ONE brutal pre-modern Imperial autocracy, and that is the Roman Empire of antiquity!
Explanation: Later in life, the Roman senator Cato the Elder began ending every speech he made with "Ceterum (autem) censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" ("Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed"), regardless of how far the topic of the speech was from Carthage or foreign affairs. He did this because... well, he was pushing for Carthage to be destroyed. He got his wish, eventually, in the Third Punic War, in which the extremely powerful Roman Republic brutally crushed Carthage, which had been reduced to a city-state bullied by its neighbors, already a shadow of its former glory.
I have some cousins from South Carolina and Georgia.
It’s so frustrating to talk anything tangentially related to the American Civil War with them, and they ALWAYS wheel out the War of Northern Aggression bit.
Explanation: Vercingetorix was a Gallic leader who rallied the tribes of Gaul to oppose Caesar's conquest.
Problem is, he rallied the tribes of Gaul after Caesar had already been conquering them for several years. A bit late, and against one of the best military minds in history, Vercingetorix was pretty soundly defeated.
Explanation: Romans had a weird relationship with peace. Unlike many warlike cultures, they did not glorify war simply as a means of destroying outgroups and enriching the in-group (though they certainly destroyed many others and enriched themselves in the process, such was not the stated rationale of Roman wars, generally). Instead, the Romans envisioned their rule as bringing peace to far-off lands, who would be better under their (undoubtedly enlightened!) rule.
The fact that Rome spent less than 20 years of their ~1000 year existence at peace seems to have been a minor detail.
This outlook has some strange (and interesting) effects within Roman culture - Roman culture often adapted the personalities and mythologies of the Greek gods to their own, but in the case of the gods of war, Ares (Greek) and Mars (Romans), there was a very notable difference. Ares was a brute, an agent of chaos, a destroyer; all the things the Greeks saw war as. Whereas the Roman Mars was a protector, a god of forests and agriculture in addition to war (though really, almost all Roman gods were also gods of agriculture), a god of discipline and order; all the things Romans saw war as meant for.
Or in the words of a Roman poet...
Roman, remember by your strength to rule Earth’s peoples—for your arts are to be these: To pacify, to impose the rule of law, To spare the conquered, battle down the proud.
Of course, while how nations view themselves is important to how they act, it also is often very far from the whole truth. The Romans were certainly also as treacherous and opportunistic as they come - constructing treaties with Catch-22s and forcing impossible conditions in negotiations in order to press their military advantages against weaker neighbors, conquer, and thoroughly loot them!
Maybe he should have chosen a piece of stilton or at least some old cheddar then? That emmental wont get him very far in terms of sharpness I am afraid. However, with it’s mild taste and stringy melt it will serve him well if he decides to gratinate anything :P
Saltier than Carthage (if it had been salted)
Hot