this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
63 points (94.4% liked)

Rough Roman Memes

893 readers
20 users here now

A place to meme about the glorious ROMAN EMPIRE (and Roman Republic, and Roman Kingdom)! Byzantines tolerated! The HRE is not.

RULES:

  1. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bigotry, etc. The past may be bigoted, but we are not.

  2. Memes must be Rome-related, not just the title. It can be about Rome, or using Roman aesthetics, or both, but the meme itself needs to have Roman themes.

  3. Follow Lemmy.world rules.

Not sure where to start on Roman history?

A quick memetic primer on Republican Rome

A quick memetic primer on Imperial Rome

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Like I said,

Nowadays the problem is much reduced, and historians are generally more open to acknowledging the GSM identity or possible identity of historical figures.

As for Elagabalus specifically, Dio is one of the more reliable ancient historians, and does not assert that most of Elagabalus's behavior was private. Quite the contrary. Only a few accusations - such as the lurid and questionable claims about private religious ceremonies - are claimed to have been performed in secret. Most of the accused actions, such as the demand to be called a lady and not a lord to one of their male favorites, were purportedly done in public, which would make contradicting Dio's account much easier for any readers - especially as Dio was writing for an elite audience which would have likely had connections amongst Senators and Equestrians who would have had opportunity to see or at least rumormonger in Elagabalus's circle whilst alive.

[โ€“] cysgbi@lemmy.wtf 4 points 3 weeks ago

Cassius Dio is the most reliable source because we have crap sources for the period. The fact is that there are good reasons not to take his stuff on this particular topic at face value, and we don't have the other sources that might contradict him. I wouldn't criticise a historian (or a student) for reading it as just more transphobic invective, even if I personally think there's something to it as LGBT history.

As to the privacy, that's how I read these bits of Dio, he is quite coy about what is happening in the palace vs outside of it. Maybe I'm too skeptical.