View previous topic | View next topic

History

Page 3 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Spud McLaren
645294.  Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:50 pm Reply with quote

mckeonj wrote:
Musing on this and other matters; I came upon an idea for an interesting thread with an unpithy title;
Mistranslations and misunderstandings we are stuck with and cannot now be corrected.
We who are about to die salute you - gladiators did not say that
Any more?


Sticking with gladiators, I have it on authority that the "thumbs-up = let him live, thumbs-down = kill him" signs from the spectator-of-honour is a case of Hollywood getting it wrong, and that the signs actually meant "thumbs-up = ram yer sword up him, thumbs-down = stick your sword in the ground, he should live".

 
Ian Dunn
645295.  Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:56 pm Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
Sticking with gladiators, I have it on authority that the "thumbs-up = let him live, thumbs-down = kill him" signs from the spectator-of-honour is a case of Hollywood getting it wrong, and that the signs actually meant "thumbs-up = ram yer sword up him, thumbs-down = stick your sword in the ground, he should live".


Yes, this appeared in Series B. Emperors order the death of a gladiator by sticking their thumb up. The order for the gladiator was a clenched fist (the thumb safe inside).

 
Celebaelin
645304.  Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:13 pm Reply with quote

When it was covered on the show the two signs mentioned were

Thumbs up = death
Thumb clasped inside fingers = mercy

I think the two signs had latin names but I can't remember them as given on the programme, the article linked to below explains in some detail but it is the authors informed opinion as the available accounts seem contradictory.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/journals/AJP/13/2/Pollice_Verso*.html

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Images/Roman/Texts/secondary/journals/AJP/13/2/Pollice_Verso*/88a.jpg

The (very large) image linked to above almost certainly shows the missio or mercy signal, the thumb can be seen but is across the fingers making a clenched fist. The article suggests that an extended thumb pointing downwards was the sign for death (the audience would apparently wave handkerchiefs if they sought mercy for a gladiator).

 
Curious Danny
645489.  Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:55 am Reply with quote

The whole image of gladiators as sacrificial entertainment is wrong - they had much more in common with today's boxers and were highly trained athletes - nobody wanted to see a gladiator fight end in a few well-aimed fatal chops

 
bobwilson
645677.  Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:29 pm Reply with quote

And there were female gladiators

 
Curious Danny
645808.  Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:10 am Reply with quote

yeah but they were aristocratic thrill-seekers more than anything

 
exnihilo
647151.  Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:30 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
I don't know when it began but I do know when history ended - 1945, when America became "top nation". I know this is true because I read it in a history book - 1066 and all that.


Oh, dear me, no. History, according to Messrs. Sellars and Yeatman, ended in 1918, with the conclusion of the Great War.

 
Zebra57
661167.  Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:02 pm Reply with quote

The whole list of English monarchs is littered with inconsistency. One could argue that "History" is only interpretation of evidence. Historic "fact" is often hard to support.

All the Richards were arguably bad.

Richard the Lionheart ordered the mass murder of Jews in York and bankrupted the country by going on crusade.

Richard 11 conned the people following the Peasants's Revolt in 1381 and exacted murderous revenge on anyone suspected of being against him.

Richard 111 could be the subject on a whole entry in his own right. However he certainly was not the hunchback portrayed by the Bard.

Why Matilda and Louis are not included in lists is strange as they were effectively rulers of the country for longer than Edward V or Jane Grey.

 
bobwilson
661173.  Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:30 pm Reply with quote

exnihilo wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
I don't know when it began but I do know when history ended - 1945, when America became "top nation". I know this is true because I read it in a history book - 1066 and all that.


Oh, dear me, no. History, according to Messrs. Sellars and Yeatman, ended in 1918, with the conclusion of the Great War.


Not according to my S&Y. Is this a moment of schism? Is there another text?

In my Sellars/Yeatman history came to a full stop in 1945 when America became top nation.

 
bobwilson
661174.  Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:33 pm Reply with quote

Curious Danny wrote:
yeah but they were aristocratic thrill-seekers more than anything


Er - no they weren't - or at least not in the main.

There are several biographies of female gladiators - not aristocratic. I know of one aristrocratic purported female gladiator.

 
exnihilo
661222.  Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:58 am Reply with quote

Bob, given that it was published in 1930, they'd be remarkably prescient to have got the Second World War right to such a degree. Don't know what you've got, but it's definitely the Great War.

 
exnihilo
661228.  Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:01 am Reply with quote

Zebra57 wrote:
The whole list of English monarchs is littered with inconsistency. One could argue that "History" is only interpretation of evidence. Historic "fact" is often hard to support.

All the Richards were arguably bad.

Richard the Lionheart ordered the mass murder of Jews in York and bankrupted the country by going on crusade.

Richard 11 conned the people following the Peasants's Revolt in 1381 and exacted murderous revenge on anyone suspected of being against him.

Richard 111 could be the subject on a whole entry in his own right. However he certainly was not the hunchback portrayed by the Bard.

Why Matilda and Louis are not included in lists is strange as they were effectively rulers of the country for longer than Edward V or Jane Grey.


It depends entirely on which lists. Though, in fairness for the rest of it, most historians prefer not to deal in such simplistic generalisations as "he was a bad lot" or "he was a good egg". Each of those monarchs had much to commend him, each had flaws, much the same as the rest of us, theirs are magnified because of their position and how much more people are likely to write down "king did something awful today" than they are "king did nothing today, but did it nicely".

 
CB27
661414.  Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:09 pm Reply with quote

There were 111 Richards?

Going back to why some people are included and others not, Matilda is not usually included because Stephen was king prior to her short rule and after, and she was never actually crowned or proclaimed. Jane is a slightly different matter because she did have a proclemation, but Parliament later revoked this proclemation on the basis thnat it was coerced (ignoring other times when this was also the case).

 
exnihilo
661418.  Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:19 pm Reply with quote

A great many people are routinely not included in king lists and for a variety of reasons. Another one is Philip II of Spain who was crowned King of England and Ireland and ruled jointly with Mary I throughout her reign, but he's seldom listed.

What actually makes one monarch is a thorny issue, Matilda's claim on the throne is perfectly valid for the time, but she lacked the wherewithal to make good on it in the long term. The coronation aspect is significant for her because until the time of Edward I no-one was considered a legitimate monarch until the act of anointing had taken place. Edward is significant as the first king in English history to be acclaimed as monarch the moment his father died, despite being some hundreds of miles away on crusade - this was the pattern ever after, the principle summed up in "the king is dead, long live the king".* Had that maxim been in place, Stephen's claim could not possibly have trumped hers as she was the only living heir of Henry I, and he was a usurper, but to the victor went the spoils despite Henry I having specifically named his daughter as his heir.


* usurpations, civil wars, etc notwithstanding, check your policy documents for full details.

 
CB27
661427.  Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:43 pm Reply with quote

Another question:

Who became King of England after the battle of Hastings?

Klaxon for William.

The real answer is Edgar Ętheling who was originally meant to take over as king after the death of Edward the Confessor, but was too young and powerless to stop Harold from seizing the throne. After the death of Harold the Witanagemot chose Edgar as the new king and he actually reigned for a few weeks before his nobles gave him up to William.

He led an interesting life full of failures, at times trying to garner support for himself as king, then other claimants (including William's sons) and always seemed to choose the losing side, including at one time spending time with Malcolm of Scotland. He was given castles and land near the border of Normany by Philip I of France, but when he sailed with his men to his new lands his ships were caught in a storm and were wrecked off the English coast, where most of his men were hunted down by the Normans.

He eventually made some peace with the Normans and accepted a life under their rule, and even did a stint in the first crusade, but little is known of his later life as he became an unknown citizen in England, probably childless. His sister had married Malcolm III of Scotland, and their daughter Edith married Henry I and took on the Norman name Matilda, which she passed on to her daughter - the aforementioned Matilda of England :)

 

Page 3 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group