rome for landing page.jpg

The True Context
Of Ancient History

'The composition of the oligarchy of government therefore emerges as the dominant theme of political history...'
Syme, Sir Ronald, The Roman Revolution, Preface

If ancient Rome was indeed controlled by an oligarchy, and that oligarchy controlled all publishing, that changes the way ancient history should be researched.

loebimage.jpg
Historical investigation is the rigorous and independent minded investigation of our past that is not glued to traditions, beliefs, and faith claims. The ability to be open-minded and let the evidence reveal what it will is of paramount importance, no matter how uncomfortable the results may be. Sometimes that means going against preconceptions and the consensus.
The evidence presented on this site points to ancient Rome being run by an oligarchy, with very little hope of truthful information being presented forthrightly in anything that was written as it all came from an oligarchy who shared hidden motives. There were no specific rules regarding who could publish written works for the public within the Roman Empire, both historical and religious. However, realistically the only people that had the means to do so were those of the elite class. That limits who could have written any literature for public use, including the early Christian scripture.

Although the study of history today is an official science, the methods used in mainstream academia have only marginally improved since Roman times. The ancient authors wrote comments portraying how they were supposedly studying the work of other ancient historians.

The information on this site, and in my book, presents evidence from primary, and respected, secondary sources, showing that the elite authors carefully crafted their histories and religious texts to include very important information that could not be seen from a superficial reading.

The primary texts present complex literary elements, including:

Isopsephy 

The practice of adding up the number values of the letters in a word to form a single number, i.e. 666 or 616
Gematria: assigning a numerical value to a name, word or phrase according to an alphanumerical cipher.

The use of multiple names to refer to one individual. An example is as follows: 

The distinguished Roman senator of the first century, Gaius Calpurnius Piso (known for the Pisonian Conspiracy against Emperor Nero), and his wife Arria the Younger are referred to by multiple names, including - Titia Flavia Sabina, who had married Gaius Calpurnius Piso (35-65 C.E.) of the house of Calpurnii, who was also recorded as Caesenni Paeti - Ref: An inscription presents t
he name ‘Paetus’, in regards to the marriage of Flavia Sabina (Arria the Younger), as a name used by the Pisone family - Flaviae T(iti) [f(iliae)]/Sabinae/Caesenni Paeti (uxori) Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 14, 02830; although the name on the inscription looks to have been connected to the wrong Piso family member. Also see - Syme, Sir Ronald. 1969: Domitius Corbulo, Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 60, 27-39; Pliny., Ep. 3.16.7.
 
Titia Flavia Sabina is also recorded as Arria the Younger, wife of Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus (Gaius Calpurnius Piso) - Ref: Tacitus, Annals, 16.22, 34; Juvenal, 5.36; Satria Galla (Titia Flavia Sabina/Arria the Younger), is recorded as the wife of Calpurnius Piso - Ref: Tacitus, Annals, 15.59; Caecinia Arria is another name recorded for Titia Flavia Sabina/Arria the Younger - Ref: Tacitus, Annals, 16.34, note 69. And Livia Cornelia Orestilla - Ref: Dio Cassius, Roman History, 59.8.7; Kajava, Mika. 1984: The Name of Cornelia Orestina/Orestilla, Arctos, Vol. 18. She is recorded as the second wife of Emperor Caligula (12 - 41 C.E.) in 36 or 37 C.E., previously married to Gaius Calpurnius Piso. - Ref: Suetonius, Caligula, 25.1

 

Vowel exchanging in names to create new names for one individual: 

A simple example to demonstrate this is in regards to the daughter of Gaius Calpurnius Piso and Arria the Younger, mentioned above. In history, their daughter is recorded as 'Fannia'. Her name would have been Flavia Arria, the feminine form of the name Flavius and Arria combined. The 'F' in 'Flavia' was used as an initial and left in front of her Arria name and the 'r's in her name were exchanged for 'n's, which created the name 'Fannia' (F.Annia).​ - Ref: information regarding a 'C. Fannius', a barrister who wrote the biographies of Nero's victims, is given in the 'Prosopographia Imperii Romani' (Edmund Groag in Prosopographia Imperii Romani, No. 2, F116). In there it reads:

"C. Fannius (v, 5). Barrister who wrote biographies of Nero's victims.

Supposed a relative of Fannia, the daughter of the Patavine (P. [Publius] Clodius) Thrasea Paetus by his marriage with Arria, the daughter of A. [Aulus] Caecina Paetus (suff. 37) [T. Flavius Sabinus I]."

The late Sir Ronald Syme, regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome, who researched this information, stated in his paper 'People in Pliny':​ "Why she should be called 'Fannia', no clue." Logically, a Roman daughter would take the name of her mother, which in this case would be Arria.

 

In his publication, Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta, Syme gave ten ways to decipher fictitious names. Contained in a chapter called 'Bogus Names', he stated:

IX. Perverted names. "
One example is clear. Using Suetonius, the author changed 'Mummia' to 'Memmia'. That is a mere trifle in the devices of the HA...One trick is to modify the shape of familiar names..." - Ref: Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta. Clarendon Press. page 8.)



Very often, a historian will be frustrated by the fact that vital information about an important individual or event was not provided by an ancient author. This becomes even more puzzling because the ancient author chose to write about certain important individuals or events in the first place.

 

One very important reason appears to be the case with genealogical information. By leaving out important details, or providing them in a non-forthright way, the ancient Roman authors made it appear that certain individuals were not of 'royal blood', but still managed to become the emperor of Rome. An example of this being the case is in regard to Emperor Vespasian, who is presented in the ancient histories available to us as a military man who had "risen" to become Emperor, but that looks to be false.

 

We can argue that presenting Emperor Vespasian as a commoner would logically have given ordinary soldiers the hope that they too could perhaps one day, possibly, become emperor. The reality, however, was that Vespasian was already a royal, as this genealogy shows. Other genealogies that will be added to this website will show that all the Roman emperors and historians were related to each other and were members of the elite/aristocracy.

The information you will find on this site is not based on ideology, wishful thinking, or emotion. It is based not only on relevant scholarship and any consensus of experts in the field but also on the reading of primary texts, most easily accessed via the Loeb Classical Library. Using empirical evidence to draw conclusions and taking a scientific and well-reasoned approach towards this work is essential at all times. Another statement by the late Sir Ronald Syme is as follows:

 

'The written record has little more to disclose than the families of Seneca and Agricola or the pedigree of the Antonine emperors. One has recourse to inscriptions and the study of nomenclature' - Syme, Sir Ronald. 1979: Roman Papers, Vol. 2, Page 52