Historical Accuracy of Cultural Sensitivity?

Jun 2015
121
United States
#41
Fortunately I don't listen to idiots.

So I think I'm ok, online outrage or sensationalism floats over my head.

I was born in the 80's then into the 90's, my generation was raised to not give a *"*$&%. :D



Unless I go on a tangent, it'd be better for you to just google it.

Basically after the ancient age of Greece i.e Agamemnon and the Mycenae, when they went into decline barbarians from the north migrated and invaded south into Greece known as the Dorians and the Ionians.

They displaced the local Greeks and a lot of the classical Greek states we know are from their origin, Sparta being one of them.

There have been two Sparta's, Sparta in the time of the Mycenae and then they were replaced with Dorian's who gave us Lycurgus and the Sparta we know of today.

In fact and this is quite a twisted fate but the Helots who the Spartans kept as serfs and abused throughout their time under their authority are actually said to be the captured original inhabitants of Sparta before the Dorian's invaded, they and their offspring were born into helot status forever more.
Wow, that is poor fate. We never learned about that in World History. :lol:
 
Jun 2015
121
United States
#42
Most people like Lonesome Dove the best but I actually think Comanche Moon is the best book I have ever read, of any book, ever, because (and I don't know if this was intentional by the author) it simultaneously gives you the view that some traits are largely due to circumstance and some traits are common to all people at all times. The way it does this, is, as I mentioned, the story is in parallel, mainly between whites and native americans in texas in the middle 1800's. In each group you have people who are brave and honest and hardworking and in each group you have people who are lazy and dishonest and immoral. The story get's it's effect from telling both groups side by side. It really is my favorite book I've ever read.

(the other books in the series have some elements of multiple plot lines, but, not to the degree that Comanche Moon does).
I will definitely look into that- it sounds pretty interesting. I've read a few books that give multiple viewpoints. Ben Kane's Eagle's of Rome series is really good at telling sides. It jumps between the Roman perspective and the German barbarian perspective of the events leading up to, during, and after the Battle of Teutoburg.

I think I might try something like that and the book you're talking about with my novel- that would probably be my best bet. Thank you so much again!
 

Robert165

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,265
North Georgia
#43
I will definitely look into that- it sounds pretty interesting. I've read a few books that give multiple viewpoints. Ben Kane's Eagle's of Rome series is really good at telling sides. It jumps between the Roman perspective and the German barbarian perspective of the events leading up to, during, and after the Battle of Teutoburg.

I think I might try something like that and the book you're talking about with my novel- that would probably be my best bet. Thank you so much again!
Great, I've heard of Eagle's of Rome before (I think) so I'll put it on my reading list.
 
Feb 2013
4,243
Coastal Florida
#44
I'm not sure I get the problem in this thread. Unless a character is depicted as a monkey because he's from Africa (or some other racist trope), I'm not sure what anyone would have to complain about.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2015
121
United States
#46
I'm not sure I get the problem in this thread. Unless a character is depicted as a monkey because he's from Africa (or some other racist trope), I'm not sure what anyone would have to complain about.
I had been concerned because I had found a lot of research articles praising Septimius Severus as being the first African emperor, but historically, he was kind of a bad guy- and I wasn't sure if exploiting this side of him would get people angry.
 
Sep 2012
905
Prague, Czech Republic
#47
I had been concerned because I had found a lot of research articles praising Septimius Severus as being the first African emperor, but historically, he was kind of a bad guy- and I wasn't sure if exploiting this side of him would get people angry.

Does Severus really have a reputation as being a 'bad guy'? My knowledge of the standard reputations of the emperors is very outdated, as it comes from Gibbon, but I seem to recall Severus being presented in a fairly positive light. A bit uncouth, maybe, but on the whole an importany statesman whose primary failing was in allowing his sons to succeed him.
 
Jun 2015
121
United States
#48
Does Severus really have a reputation as being a 'bad guy'? My knowledge of the standard reputations of the emperors is very outdated, as it comes from Gibbon, but I seem to recall Severus being presented in a fairly positive light. A bit uncouth, maybe, but on the whole an importany statesman whose primary failing was in allowing his sons to succeed him.
Maybe the uncouthness is what I was thinking off. I was reading that he was fair, but he could sometimes be pretty harsh and severe with his punishments, he had a hard time trusting people and would often cut them off, and overall he seemed to produce a bad line. Supposedly, his whole dynasty was a little messy. From what I read, he was rather cynial and didn't care much for any religion, and put a lot of hard laws down on Jews and Christians especially. He was keen on stopping out conspiracies, to the point of having those he suspected plotting against him killed. He achieved a lot of victories, but he sounds like he was a pretty harsh leader, driving his no matter what (which I guess could be a good thing, but I'm looking at character here). He was also supposedly a paranoid, and he never really seemed to trust anyone.
Severus wasn't the best when it came to certain things, but the Roman people held him in high reguard after his death because of how good he was compared to his sons and most of the later emperors.
Especially when it came to Albinus' revolt- he put to death many senators, noble men, and even commoners to death for it- a number of whom were innocent and had no part in the revolt- without a trial. He also had a man named Cincius Severus put to death on a false claim that he had attempted to poinson him, and he killed the man he had sent to kill Commodus after he began to fear that he would kill him, too. He was also said to let himself become consumed by battle fury, and would sometimes strike down and kill both Roman soldiers, civilians, and villagers.
In his older years he seemed to have mellowed out, but he was still paranoid. He did a lot of good things though, and compared to the likes of Nero and Caligula, Commodus and Elagabalus, he was a thousand times better.
When I said he was a bad guy, I was looking more at his personal attributes. In my novel, I want to portray a bit more background with him, and figure out his motives behind things. But I'm not yet sure if I should exploit his poaranoia or if I should look for other motives. I personally think his paranoia led to a lot of his actions, so that might be the reason why he seems so bad- at least to me. Sorry if I used the wrong wording.
(I read this from the Historia Augusta; I saved the link from a while ago.)
 
Apr 2018
726
France
#49
I had been concerned because I had found a lot of research articles praising Septimius Severus as being the first African emperor, but historically, he was kind of a bad guy- and I wasn't sure if exploiting this side of him would get people angry.
I think that there are a lot of wrong considerations about Septimius Severus. Partly according to Gibbon, partly due to Cassius Dio.

But his empire was rich in achievements. Northern Mesopotamia was annexed definitively and there was a great expansion also in the Limes Tripolitanus, with a stable expansion of the Roman Empire to the south, creating new fertile lands starting from nothing.

Personally, his empire was not particularly oppressive and the trades in the empire may have known the apex just under its empire.

His "fault" was to initiate the spiral that gave too much power to the army. But this was bound to the fact that he took the power with the army and he was trying to avoid (in his way) that this could happen again. But other than that (and other than having left the empire to his sons), I do not see why we should call him "bad guy".
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions