Which has zero to do with what I’m asking about.  I’m asking about Caesar’s which have almost no presence in the historical record.

BTW CT, see my post #1. There are NO Caesars who are not at least tertiarily recorded in Roman History, even those who were leaders for a matter of months. That would be the only reason why they left a small historical footprint; they didn’t last long enough to have done anything to record as they were deposed and assassinated.

Cap’t Jack

Also, if you want it from the horses mouth, if that’s the issue here in “who said what” read Seutonius’s Lives of the Twelve Caesars” to start. He was born during Nero’s Emperorship and knew another chronicler well, Pliny the Younger. And before these guys, Livy who recorded life before the empire began. This should dispell the notion of “I heard and they said” about the emperors at least. We do have the names of those who did the recording and you can be the judge about their deification. Hell, we even have examples of their visages on coins struck during their reigns.

Cap’t Jack

Thevillageatheist - 09 December 2012 03:31 PM

Did I miss the boat? I thought Coldheart was pointing out how a particular argument is used erroneously in a specific religious debate used to defend the existence of Jesus. Whether actual Caesars exist or not is irrelevant. Is he not questioning the assumed certainty that there existed great leaders whom history didn’t record? I made up the teapot example on the fly. Perhaps, I should have said, “clay tablets” instead. The point is that the supposed saying implies certain knowledge about what is agreed to be absent by the person he was arguing with. Change the word Caesar to “rumors” instead.

Then I missed the boat entirely assuming that he was asking about the existence of conclusive evidence on each Caesar. This is getting confusing. And there are no major leaders that scholars didn’t record or they wouldn’t have been major players in early civilizations, as they all could record their own histories either via pictographs or cuneiform. Are you arguing semantics or evidence of absence to make your point about the historical Jesus or are we discussing something entirely non historical? If so then I’m waaaaay off base.

Cap’t Jack

He has to be the one to confirm whether I understood his argument or not. If not, then at least I contributed to something meaningful I hope.

He has to be the one to confirm whether I understood his argument or not. If not, then at least I contributed to something meaningful I hope.

Same here, I hope as well. It’s probably as clear as mud by now.

Cap’t Jack

I’m way off base too.  It might be that I really don’t care if there was a Jesus or even a Julius Caesar.  It made a nice story when Cleopatra entered the drama.  I love the history stories found in our literature, or our maps as a reference to how we plan to implement the present time.

I was taught that history keeps us from repeating our mistakes.  But do we really care about doing the right thing when it comes to a growing federal government?  Americans have no interest is checking our actions to make certain we haven’t done something before that worked out poorly and we should take care before repeating our actions.  Having a nation where the population controls the legislation should be a
responsibility we take seriously.  Is there a division within our House or Senate where our actions are recorded and labeled a failure or success?

Anyone in D.C. tracing the actions of any Legislator to determine if he/she made good judgment or terrible mistakes?  Is there anyone in charge of global warming or the value of the American dollar?  Could it be that the marriages of gays has a higher priority or end of life choices must be removed from the voice of the people? 

I was personally shocked at the actions of the Republican Party wanting a 20 foot wall to be built to keep Mexicans out.  These are issues that need to be researched.  If it cannot be done by Secular Humanists, who will take the responsibility?  I do not want any branch of any Christian faith to get their hands on these issues.  I think we are heading for another Civil war.  We need some strong leadership and if any leader is interested in this stuff wants to be called Kaiser, Caesar or Cardinal, let him rise up and show his leadership credentials….

I’ve heard comparisons to Julius Caesar, the Buddha (which he is doubted as an historical character, if not myth than at least legend) and Confucius (which he is also being doubted as of late) but never these unnamed Caesar’s. The obvious suggestion is this: Drill them for the name of the Caesar’s and if they cannot provide any names then they are full of shit.

I second your vote to label most/some/all of the Caesars as full of shit!

There are Caesars and there are Caesars, you know.  Suetonius wrote of the Caesars who were related in some sense (sometimes by adoption, or as in-laws).  “Caesar” became a title later in the empire, no familial relation required.  After Diocletian’s reorganization of the empire, the Caesar became a kind of junior emperor to the Augustus (the emperor) of the West or East.

But we know enough about them, I think, except perhaps Romulus Augustulus.  Things were falling apart badly in the west when he is said to have ruled.

It seems a rather silly comparison, though.

There are Caesars and there are Caesars, you know.  Suetonius wrote of the Caesars who were related in some sense (sometimes by adoption, or as in-laws).  “Caesar” became a title later in the empire, no familial relation required.  After Diocletian’s reorganization of the empire, the Caesar became a kind of junior emperor to the Augustus (the emperor) of the West or East.

But we know enough about them, I think, except perhaps Romulus Augustulus.  Things were falling apart badly in the west when he is said to have ruled.

It seems a rather silly comparison, though.

 Signature 
“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

You know your Caesars then. BTW, and I’m certain you know this, Romulus was a chid who ruled only 10 months so there’s not much
to say about his impact on the demise of the empire. Some historians even count him out and use the fall in the reign of his oredessor, Nepos. In fact Gibbon doesn’t even give him a footnote. He’s more interested in Justinian.

Cap’t Jack

Coldheart Tucker - 09 December 2012 07:47 AM

I’m asking about Caesar’s which have almost no presence in the historical record.

  Since you used the possessive apostrophe, “Caesar’s”, what object or person which belongs to Caesar is it about which you are curious?

Occam

That’s SUCCESSOR. Goddamned iPad anyway.

Scott Mayers - 09 December 2012 04:28 PM

Thevillageatheist - 09 December 2012 03:31 PM

Did I miss the boat? I thought Coldheart was pointing out how a particular argument is used erroneously in a specific religious debate used to defend the existence of Jesus. Whether actual Caesars exist or not is irrelevant. Is he not questioning the assumed certainty that there existed great leaders whom history didn’t record? I made up the teapot example on the fly. Perhaps, I should have said, “clay tablets” instead. The point is that the supposed saying implies certain knowledge about what is agreed to be absent by the person he was arguing with. Change the word Caesar to “rumors” instead.

Then I missed the boat entirely assuming that he was asking about the existence of conclusive evidence on each Caesar. This is getting confusing. And there are no major leaders that scholars didn’t record or they wouldn’t have been major players in early civilizations, as they all could record their own histories either via pictographs or cuneiform. Are you arguing semantics or evidence of absence to make your point about the historical Jesus or are we discussing something entirely non historical? If so then I’m waaaaay off base.

Cap’t Jack

He has to be the one to confirm whether I understood his argument or not. If not, then at least I contributed to something meaningful I hope.

You got it.