FA+
Shop
837
Views
Views
20
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 904 x 1280
File Size 234.7 kB
Report this content
More from Saara
I've wanted to draw this for some time -- a portrait of a real Roman emperor -- but I had no idea how long it would take me once started. The first challenge was the toga. I had a rough idea how one was worn, but not why it looked how it did on statuary or in paintings. There were illustrations online, but no two seemed to describe exactly the same technique of draping a simply sheet over the body. Very likely there *were* different different styles, because togas do look different from one Roman to another. After that, I tackled the likeness of Vespasian -- an emperor who is depicted on numerous coins, so that averaged together probably give a very accurate representation of the real man. He was also the Roman emperor who seemed most likeable as a man Finally, there was the background. Most Hollywood sets do no justice to Roman interior decor. Roman homes were dark and cramped, even well-to-do-ones. The colours and painted filigree would probably seem claustrophobic to our taste. In the end, I just sketched in something more or less inoffensive, but not highly accurate.
So what is going on here? The emperor is Vespasian, who ruled the Roman world for about ten years, following the suicide of Nero and a series a small, sharp civil wars that Roman historians called "The Year of the Four Emperors." His father was a tax-collector rather than a noble, and this shaped Vespasian's reign. He was a pragmatic man, not given to airs or luxuries. He was apt to hld an audience in the palace garden, sitting on a bench in his slippers, the guards dismissed. This struck me as an emperor it was possible to relate to. So I've drawn a hypothetical visit of Saara Mar & Friend to Vespasians' palace on the Palatine Hill. It was Augustus' old palace, but the old man saw no reason not to use a perfectly good palace and build a new one. The visit is hypothetical because even in Saara's reality there is no such thing as time-travel in this sense. But I still had to draw it.
So what is going on here? The emperor is Vespasian, who ruled the Roman world for about ten years, following the suicide of Nero and a series a small, sharp civil wars that Roman historians called "The Year of the Four Emperors." His father was a tax-collector rather than a noble, and this shaped Vespasian's reign. He was a pragmatic man, not given to airs or luxuries. He was apt to hld an audience in the palace garden, sitting on a bench in his slippers, the guards dismissed. This struck me as an emperor it was possible to relate to. So I've drawn a hypothetical visit of Saara Mar & Friend to Vespasians' palace on the Palatine Hill. It was Augustus' old palace, but the old man saw no reason not to use a perfectly good palace and build a new one. The visit is hypothetical because even in Saara's reality there is no such thing as time-travel in this sense. But I still had to draw it.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 904 x 1280px
File Size 234.7 kB
Well, in the classic "City at the Edge of Tomorrow", Kirk & Spock travel back in time to prevent McCoy from messing up history (caused us to lose WWII and then the Enterprise timeline never took place.) .Spock stood out because of his ears, and when a policeman asked about his ears, Kirk babbled an odd story that made Spock doubt Kirk's sanity (something about getting his ears caught in a threshing machine and a missionary did what he could in plastic surgery...and so on.), but it bought them time.
He was a tough old general who tried to undo the damage, cared about other Romans, and fought the best in a nasty civil war. You DO NOT LIKE HIM if you're Jewish, because he decided that there had been one revolt in Israel too many. He died with a sense of humor, carbon monoxide poisoning from a brazier in his room, Eheu! Deus fiam. Probably my favorite, after Claudius.
Ironically, Jewish religious types run the value of some of Vespasian's and Titus's coins up so that coin collectors can't afford them. Both father and son issued coins commemorating the fall of Jerusalem, showing a Jewish captive (and palm tree) kneeling before the figure of a Roman solider. They cost thousands of dollars, though I don't think they were exceptionally rare. Unfortunately, it isn't only coin collectors who want them...
I nearly had one, once. But I had the coin checked and it turned out to be a forgery of some sort. The curious thing is that it may have been forged as long ago as the 18th. century, which is interesting in itself. But I wasn't willing to pay the seller's price for it. Even as a 200 year old fake it wasn't worth that much.
To be fair to his memory, the Jews in his day were sometimes a nasty, stiff-necked, disputatious lot, whose intolerance of other ethnic groups sometimes led to civic disorder. Riots between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria were notorious. (With plenty of fault to be found on both sides.) And there had been several serious uprisings in Judea before 69AD. For that matter, the destruction of the temple by Titus was still not the end of it -- there was another huge uprising under somebody named Bar Kochba (or something) in Hadrian's time, 75 or 80 years later. Uprisings usually included massacres of resident foreigners, especially Romans.
I'm very fond of Claudius too, but he was probably a different man than the one portrayed by Robert Graves. Graves flatly states that Claudius didn't like gladiatorial games, but the record shows otherwise -- he revelled in them. He drank too much and gambled compulsively. On the other hand, it was bookish and shrewder than his contemporaries like to admit.
I nearly had one, once. But I had the coin checked and it turned out to be a forgery of some sort. The curious thing is that it may have been forged as long ago as the 18th. century, which is interesting in itself. But I wasn't willing to pay the seller's price for it. Even as a 200 year old fake it wasn't worth that much.
To be fair to his memory, the Jews in his day were sometimes a nasty, stiff-necked, disputatious lot, whose intolerance of other ethnic groups sometimes led to civic disorder. Riots between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria were notorious. (With plenty of fault to be found on both sides.) And there had been several serious uprisings in Judea before 69AD. For that matter, the destruction of the temple by Titus was still not the end of it -- there was another huge uprising under somebody named Bar Kochba (or something) in Hadrian's time, 75 or 80 years later. Uprisings usually included massacres of resident foreigners, especially Romans.
I'm very fond of Claudius too, but he was probably a different man than the one portrayed by Robert Graves. Graves flatly states that Claudius didn't like gladiatorial games, but the record shows otherwise -- he revelled in them. He drank too much and gambled compulsively. On the other hand, it was bookish and shrewder than his contemporaries like to admit.
Bar Coaba who was vouched for by rabbi Akiba. After the dust had settled, the Romans, blaming Akiba for starting the mess (otherwise Bar Coaba could not have gotten going), decided mere death was too good for him -and tortured and mutilated him to death ! In fact, they dumped his mangled body on a market table to be sold as food !
Miraculously two men carried off the body across the desert to a cave. Tho it was midnight, it was bright day in the vicinity of the two men and their burden. They enetered the cave and placed the body on a fine bed in a well-appointed room. They placed the sheets over it. As they left, the cave entrance closed up and left a solid wall. It has not been discovered to this day.
Miraculously two men carried off the body across the desert to a cave. Tho it was midnight, it was bright day in the vicinity of the two men and their burden. They enetered the cave and placed the body on a fine bed in a well-appointed room. They placed the sheets over it. As they left, the cave entrance closed up and left a solid wall. It has not been discovered to this day.
Rome's big fire was in 64 AD, several years before the destruction of Jerusalem. I don't see the connection. The idea that Nero caused the fire seems to have been a later invention of Roman historians who bore Nero a grudge -- the emperor was in Greece at the time of the fire. He may actually have been playing the fiddle, though ... though it would have been a lyre. He was in Greece to preform for games, or something like that. It also seems to be a fib that he blamed Christians. It's unlikely that Nero had the foggiest idea what a Christian was. If he had heard of them, he'd have thought them a sub-cult of Jews, which in 64 AD is probably accurate.
For most of the period from about 90 AD to 180 AD, Rome didn't do too badly in the leadership department. The period of the "good" emperors -- also called the Antoninines or "adoptive" emperors -- was Gibbon's choice of mankinds happiest age.
It had its warts, though... plagues, wars, uprisings, barbarians... but little of it was government's fault.
It had its warts, though... plagues, wars, uprisings, barbarians... but little of it was government's fault.
According to you - unless my memory is playing tricks again- Saara has an immense lifepsan and could have been in Rome at the time of Vespasian.
During the early period, there was a definite Royal family, but they had no connections with the later Merovingians, Carolingians, etc. I've found very suspect genealogies. Including one that traced the kings of England and certain presidents of the US back to ancient Rome, the Herodians, the Ptolemies,the Pharaohs of Egypt -and the Serpent Men of Venus !! Aliens that infused violence, cruelty and sadism into earth humanity.
During the early period, there was a definite Royal family, but they had no connections with the later Merovingians, Carolingians, etc. I've found very suspect genealogies. Including one that traced the kings of England and certain presidents of the US back to ancient Rome, the Herodians, the Ptolemies,the Pharaohs of Egypt -and the Serpent Men of Venus !! Aliens that infused violence, cruelty and sadism into earth humanity.
Saara's kind do naturally live for over 2,000 years, so she could easily have known Vespasian herself. However, Saara is young. She was born on June 10th, by our calendar, in 1732, making her a mere 283 years old! She "discovered" Earth on 5 April 1970, six days before the lift-off of Apollo 13 ... which was why they didn't have to go through a harrowing experience when one of there oxygen tanks exploded, and why the entire Apollo 13 spacecraft and it's lander are on display at the Smithsonian today.
Royal families are created by systems of patrilineal descent, and primogeniture, and are no more valid than matrilneal descent, or descent through younger children. As far as percentage of DNQ goes, you yourself might be as related to the king of someplace as the actual king. I have talked at least one Englishman into acknowledging me as the pretender to the British throne. (In jest, anyway.)
I doubt very much than any lineage that claims to go back to Roman times is in the least credible. No official records were kept for over a thousand years, and family legends are more often than not outright lies. Julius Caesar claimed the Julian clan was related to the goddess Venus. How likely was that?
With British royalty, we do have records going all the way back to William the Conqueror. And what they show us is that the relationship of Elizabeth II to even the Tudors is so remote as to be nearly fictional. Between William and Edward III is pretty solid, but the usurpation of Henry IV in 1399, the crown passed to a mere cousin. Then during the War of the Roses, it passed between the houses of Lancaster and York, which were also only distantly related to the royal Plantagenet line. Finally, the crown was seized by Henry Tudor, who become Henry VII. He was both illegitimate and descended through a female line that went back generations before there was any connection. After that, there are Scots and Germans and all manner of adulterants in the Royal brew...
Royal families are created by systems of patrilineal descent, and primogeniture, and are no more valid than matrilneal descent, or descent through younger children. As far as percentage of DNQ goes, you yourself might be as related to the king of someplace as the actual king. I have talked at least one Englishman into acknowledging me as the pretender to the British throne. (In jest, anyway.)
I doubt very much than any lineage that claims to go back to Roman times is in the least credible. No official records were kept for over a thousand years, and family legends are more often than not outright lies. Julius Caesar claimed the Julian clan was related to the goddess Venus. How likely was that?
With British royalty, we do have records going all the way back to William the Conqueror. And what they show us is that the relationship of Elizabeth II to even the Tudors is so remote as to be nearly fictional. Between William and Edward III is pretty solid, but the usurpation of Henry IV in 1399, the crown passed to a mere cousin. Then during the War of the Roses, it passed between the houses of Lancaster and York, which were also only distantly related to the royal Plantagenet line. Finally, the crown was seized by Henry Tudor, who become Henry VII. He was both illegitimate and descended through a female line that went back generations before there was any connection. After that, there are Scots and Germans and all manner of adulterants in the Royal brew...
William I the Conqueror (II of Normandy) married Maud, a descendant of Alfred through a daughter that wed a count of Flanders. Alfred descended from Egbert who ruled Wessex,and 2 other kingdoms, thus establishing the original England (capital Winchester). Egbert was the son of the king of Kent and thereby is an enigma.
HOW did the king of Kent father the king of Wessex ? The kings of Wessex all claimed to be desvended from Cerdic (c.500), but the genealogy is muddled, with a lot of alliterative names app. invented just to bridge the large gap. I thus start my chart at the closing years of the 8th century. The French lines push things back to c.640 before which records become conjevctural.(St.Arnold whose descent, tho noble, is NOT described.). IF we can trust Welsh genealogy, they can push it back to the 4th century or earlier.
But names like Cerdic, Tegid and his son,Padarn of the Red Robe, St. Arnold.... they didn't keep personal journels....
HOW did the king of Kent father the king of Wessex ? The kings of Wessex all claimed to be desvended from Cerdic (c.500), but the genealogy is muddled, with a lot of alliterative names app. invented just to bridge the large gap. I thus start my chart at the closing years of the 8th century. The French lines push things back to c.640 before which records become conjevctural.(St.Arnold whose descent, tho noble, is NOT described.). IF we can trust Welsh genealogy, they can push it back to the 4th century or earlier.
But names like Cerdic, Tegid and his son,Padarn of the Red Robe, St. Arnold.... they didn't keep personal journels....
Heh, just another "emergency emperor", who actually did his job
Romans were paranoid about single person getting too much power, least a family. (yes, it's not widely known fact, that self-esteem of Empire was "Res publica" - public , "open" ruling , and it WAS "Res publica Roma" until 27 BC ) Normally republic was ruled by two consuls, although there were emergency cases, when single person was chosen as supreme commander . The imperor's office at its foundation represented an amalgamation of different offices of the old Roman republic, including princeps senatus, censor, consul and pontifex maximus. Yet, ideology of "public ruling" in offices stayed in place, pre-27BC state was sometimes referred as "old republic". Heh, now, see analogy with Episode III of "starwars"?
Romans were paranoid about single person getting too much power, least a family. (yes, it's not widely known fact, that self-esteem of Empire was "Res publica" - public , "open" ruling , and it WAS "Res publica Roma" until 27 BC ) Normally republic was ruled by two consuls, although there were emergency cases, when single person was chosen as supreme commander . The imperor's office at its foundation represented an amalgamation of different offices of the old Roman republic, including princeps senatus, censor, consul and pontifex maximus. Yet, ideology of "public ruling" in offices stayed in place, pre-27BC state was sometimes referred as "old republic". Heh, now, see analogy with Episode III of "starwars"?
Comments