A question about Claudius' Estruscan history

[Hiero of Syracuse]

So, I've been researching various historical figures and I understand that at somepoint in Claudius' life he composed a twenty volume series on Etruscan history for the Library of Rome, and I've been wondering if his works were 'wide-spread' or what I mean by that is if it had multiple copies, and I might as well ask if any works or essays of the Etruscans history available along Judea or Arabia during the sixth century.

[G-Megas-Doux]

The works became lost a few centuries later. Currently no copy has been found in existance. I think the main batch were lost in a fire or a sacking of Rome but he may have sent copys elsewhere. If they were at Alexandria in Egypt they may have been destroyed there at a later date suffering a similar fate like the one I just mentioned.

[Hiero of Syracuse]

Thank you, and by chance do you think some man could of had possession of this knoweldge and shared it along the trade routes, I'll cut to the chase why I made this topic and was wondering by chance when Mohammud was under his uncle's wing and traveling Arabia and it's surrounding regions do you think by chance he picked this knoweldge up.

The knoweldge I'm asking is that according to a research book I've read Ancient Rome by Robert Payne, Etruscan woman were described as outspoken and I was wondering when The Qu'ran was being revealed to Mohammud, do you think it was a form of cleptoammesia, which is described as pulling information from your subconcious thoughts and mistakening them for your own.

I want to avoid a heated debate, I was just hoping to put a new prespective out there, that the so-called equality of the Etruscan woman were perhaps barrowed.

Now that I've revealed that, do you think that the topic should merge with a similar topic in the Ethos subforum?

[motiv-8]

The knoweldge I'm asking is that according to a research book I've read Ancient Rome by Robert Payne, Etruscan woman were described as outspoken and I was wondering when The Qu'ran was being revealed to Mohammud, do you think it was a form of cleptoammesia, which is described as pulling information from your subconcious thoughts and mistakening them for your own.

Say what? How does the beginning of that sentence have anything to do with the end?

Seriously, if you're going to make the errant attempt to prescribe a psychological condition on a figure living over a thousand years ago with little concrete evidence, the one most considered by scholars is epilepsy.

[Hiero of Syracuse]

Sorry, I worded that poorly, but the connection is that when the prophet was traveling with his uncle, the information during his younger days resurfaced years later as his own thoughts.
It's just out of wild curiousity.

And by Cleptommesia I mean Cyptomnesia.

[G-Megas-Doux]

No if it existed, it would have been in Egypt, specifically Alexandria which had been occupied by the Sassanid’s before Mohamed had his experience and went to Mecca. It would have been lost likely before then as it was not considered important. One major time could have been was when Diocletian had to besiege Alexandria in the 3rd Century, he had been put to such exertion that people had to beg to prevent him from massacring the entire inhabitancies. What you are saying is coincidence. At other times the Early Christian heresies were quite destructive off Pagan works, even in Alexandria. What we know of the Etruscans is less than what we know about the Ocean floor.

[SigniferOne]

No if it existed, it would have been in Egypt, specifically Alexandria which had been occupied by the Sassanid’s before Mohamed had his experience and went to Mecca. It would have been lost likely before then as it was not considered important.

Really, whom was it not considered important by? A lot of Roman historians relied upon it as a scholarly work on which to base their early histories of Rome from. For example Tacitus, who had a substantial difference of opinion on Early Rome from Livy.

What we know of the Etruscans is less than what we know about the Ocean floor.

That's funny we know quite a lot about the Etruscans, mainly from Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, from scattered mentions in other historians, from fragments of Claudius' history which have survived, and from a vast mass of archeological remains. In addition we know a ton about their paintings, their sculpture, their artistic developments throughout 700-800 hundred years, and even their survivals into the Imperial period.

[Hiero of Syracuse]

Well, that puts an end to that, well thanks for answering to my curiousity.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

FYI, much of what we know is in fact a result of archaeological excavations, not of old Roman sources. It's perhaps quite right to believe that Claudius was the last, or one of the last men in Rome to have any knowledge of Etruscan history and culture. After that we do have obscure mentions here, as well as the later burning of religious records, but all that is quite obscure and we don't know for sure if anyone still used them or understood what was written in them. The Liber Linteus itself was probably sold for gold once their new owners no longer took interest in Etruscan gadgets.

[G-Megas-Doux]

When Claudius originally wrote his work he was not considered of sufficient intelligence to be worth the read. Livy has been considered to be prone to exaggeration or changing of the facts or knowledge to suit his purposes. The work acquired more of a following when he became an Emperor but in the 3rd and 4th Centuries would have been forgotten by most. I would not confuse what we think we know with what we know to be true. Everything posted in this thread might be incorrect, just because the current thinking says it is true does not mean it is true.

I said that to our knowledge we cannot find the work anywhere the last record of anyone knowing of the work was before Muhammad. I offered potential not definitive explanations. I would doubt that Muhammad would have read the work, currently there is not enough evidence to support the question, but if someone were to spend thirty years looking for it and then produce a work then hats off to them.

[SigniferOne]

When Claudius originally wrote his work he was not considered of sufficient intelligence to be worth the read.

Sources?

Everything I've read, especially from enthusiastic scholars like Livy himself, points to the contrary.

Livy has been considered to be prone to exaggeration or changing of the facts or knowledge to suit his purposes.

Never dishonestly, and certainly never egregiously.

I would doubt that Muhammad would have read the work

That we could agree upon.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Sources?

Everything I've read, especially from enthusiastic scholars like Livy himself, points to the contrary.


Never dishonestly, and certainly never egregiously.


That we could agree upon.

I will read my books and provide a source when they are to hand which they are not at the moment.

Livy was known to describe early Republican armies to have fought in the style Polybius describes when talking about the Legions of Scipio. The historical research shows that they fought more like hoplites. (I will provide the source when that is to hand also)

I felt this requires quick response but I will provide the sources when I can.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Sig,

Do you really believe Rome was founded by Aeneas?

[SigniferOne]

Sig,

Do you really believe Rome was founded by Aeneas?

No, but neither did Livy, expressing scholarly doubt yet conveying it, couched in mythological idiom. However I do believe that Romulus or someone like Romulus founded the city of Rome, as born out by the archeological evidence. The more time goes by the more does the entire post-Romulean history get fleshed out with facts and corroborating evidence (eg. the painting of Servius Tullius).

[G-Megas-Doux]

Evidence for people considering Claudius a fool.

Suetonius, The Twenlve Caesars. Penguin Classics, translated by Robert Graves, revised and Introduction and notes by J.B. Rives

DIVVS CLAVDIVS: page 179 "Even after coming of age he remained under the supervision of a tutor, about whom he later wrote, 'The man was a barbarian, an ex-transport officer who had been assigned the task of pushing me savagely whatever I might do.'" If they did not think him mentally subnormal they would have treated him like Germannicus the older brother, or with less poor distinction. This is a quick quote but please read the book it shows opinions from Augustus and Livia. Whilst he was honoured by the Equstrians whos rank he was counted under this should certainly be a show of his marked disfavour. He was practicly disowned by other members of his family who counted him as an heir only in the third degree. Whilst Claudius may have been intelligent it was certainly the norm throughout his life to consider him a fool. Even during his reign his decissions at court were ridiculed but not to his face. I do not include everyone in my statement about reading his work because people read ignorent pieces of work all the time. What I do contend was that he would not have been considered in the same league as Livy at the time of his work or any other Roman scholar.

Now as to Livy, the book is The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy, publisher is Thames and Hudson. On page nine it referrs to the sources that are used in the book, it referrs to Livy being less reliable (in context for what the works are used for).

A better source would be an article in Britannica 2009,

"The preoccupation with character and the desire to write history that would reveal the effects of character outweighed for Livy the need for scholarly accuracy. He showed little if any awareness of the antiquarian research of his own and earlier generations; nor did he seriously compare and criticize the different histories and their discrepancies that were available to him. For the most part he is content to take an earlier version (from Polybius or a similar author) and to reshape it so as to construct moral episodes that bring out the character of the leading figures. Livy's descriptions of the capture of Veii and the expulsion of the Gauls from Rome in the 4th century BC by Marcus Furius Camillus are designed to illustrate his piety; the crossing of the Alps shows up the resourceful intrepidity of Hannibal. Unfortunately, it is not known how Livy dealt with the much greater complexity of contemporary history, but the account of Cicero's death contains the same emphasis on character displayed by surviving books."

This is a quote from the article on Livy written by Robert Maxwell Ogilvie

Professor of Humanity, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Editor of A Commentary on Livy, Books 1–5.

[SigniferOne]

Evidence for people considering Claudius a fool.

I am well aware that people considered him as a fool in his early years, because he stuttered and had a very diffident (shy) personality. However once he was accidentally thrust into absolute power he wielded it with absolute success. I suggest you read some modern monographs on Claudius.

This is a quick quote but please read the book it shows opinions from Augustus and Livia.

Perhaps you should also quote the opinions on Claudius from Cicero, or Cato the Censor as well.

What I do contend was that he would not have been considered in the same league as Livy

Yet Livy considered him in a scholar, in a letter where he encouraged him to write more historical works.

Here is how he was considered as a historian:

Suetonius, Claudius, 42: "At last he even wrote historical works in Greek, twenty books of Etruscan History and eight of Carthaginian. Because of these works there was added to the old Museum at Alexandria a new one called after his name, and it was provided that in the one his Etruscan History should be read each year from beginning to end, and in the other his Carthaginian, by various readers in turn, in the manner of public recitations."

A better source would be an article in Britannica 2009,

How is that "a better source"? The people who would be writing that entry were human beings, just like everybody else. Nor are they particularly Livian scholars. Here is a whole book, by a Livian scholar, aimed precisely at refuting that view:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fFew1038_6sC&pg=PP1

[G-Megas-Doux]

I am well aware that people considered him as a fool in his early years, because he stuttered and had a very diffident (shy) personality. However once he was accidentally thrust into absolute power he wielded it with absolute success. I suggest you read some modern monographs on Claudius.

Yes I too am aware of the other scholars and the modern opinions however the subject of the Etruscans was not a widely popular one at the time of publication only after his rise to the Participate, I would not count brown nosing to the Emperor as thinking him clever, in fact the assumption he would not see it as intended flattery for his intervention in various cases they wished him to side upon is an insult to his intelligence. There was criticism of his decisions in the law courts as well in the chapter. Were the modern views of Claudius available between the death of Claudius and the birth of Muhammad? I actually think that Claudius had a successful reign but our opinions on his ability were not what were in question or on the point.

Perhaps you should also quote the opinions on Claudius from Cicero, or Cato the Censor as well.


Yet Livy considered him in a scholar, in a letter where he encouraged him to write more historical works.

Here is how he was considered as a historian:

Suetonius, Claudius, 42: "At last he even wrote historical works in Greek, twenty books of Etruscan History and eight of Carthaginian. Because of these works there was added to the old Museum at Alexandria a new one called after his name, and it was provided that in the one his Etruscan History should be read each year from beginning to end, and in the other his Carthaginian, by various readers in turn, in the manner of public recitations."



How is that "a better source"? The people who would be writing that entry were human beings, just like everybody else. Nor are they particularly Livian scholars. Here is a whole book, by a Livian scholar, aimed precisely at refuting that view:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fFew1038_6sC&pg=PP1

Yes and so was Livy a human being. It was a better source then the first one I posted. I have no wish to type out the whole of the book which is why I did not type it.

As we both agree to the point of this thread in the first place, discussions on generalised examples origionaly given for the purpose of colour to the explanation should be left alone when you full well know what the point was, let the thread die. I have no wish to spend the next several weeks turning this into a post, counter post on the source semantics of the discussion. It is beneath the point. Pick an argument elsewhere.

Professor of Humanity, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Editor of A Commentary on Livy, Books 1–5.
This was the only article he contributed on. I would say that he would have been chosen for this because of a knowledge of Livy. Just because you dont like where I found the source does not mean it can be bad because it was in a general referrance.

[Stalins Ghost]

I am well aware that people considered him as a fool in his early years, because he stuttered and had a very diffident (shy) personality. However once he was accidentally thrust into absolute power he wielded it with absolute success. I suggest you read some modern monographs on Claudius.

Yup, very much agreed. History has been unfairly unkind to Claudius. Some failings aside, Claudius was probably the best Julio-Claudian after Augustus.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Ahhh Suetonius, best fable writer of all of Rome!