Mommsen Puns

>In every respect the period we are looking at was a poor and insignificant one, but particularly so with regard to the Emperors. Only an exceptionally small number of important men can be recorded in the era from Vespasian to Diocletian, with the possible exception of Hadrian and Aurelian, although we know very little about the latter. Otherwise all the Emperors were ineffectual and dreadfully mediocre, exerting the barest modicum of personal influence on the course of history. If we were to exchange the infamies of a man such as Commodus with those of Caracalla, we would still conclude that the historical process would have been exactly the same. It is most regrettable that in both ancient and modern times many historians have seen it as their scholarly duty to perch like bluebottles on such unwholesome matter. At best, the sole exceptions to this assessment would be Trajan and Pius, of whom the former was very courageous and the latter very good. Since, however, they were no more than very courageous and very good, they too failed to make any lasting mark on the course of events.

A History of Rome Under the Emperors, Mommsen

I recently received a copy of Mommsen's History of Rome and I'm wondering how well it has aged. In my experience one has to be a bit cautious when dealing with older books like this as new information is always coming to light that can decidedly prove older conclusions as erroneous. I am only seventy pages into the book as of yet but I know from sources like Mary Beard that much about the regal period of Rome is simply unknown a fact that Mommsen himself has acknowledged on more than one occasion. I'd definitely appreciate some thoughts on the matter as a quick Google search didn't turn up anything directly relating to how well or indeed how poorly this book has aged.

This man was a giant in the field of Rome during the late 19th century. How relevant is he still? If he is, what did he write and is it still worth reading?

I’m reading SPQR, a Roman history by classicist Mary Beard, and I love it. I come into it after reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789), by Edward Gibbon, and The History of Rome (1854-56), by Theodor Mommsen. I knew they were likely out of date as pure history, and I'm enjoying Beard's more rigorous historical account.

I still recommend Gibbon and Mommsen, though, and I wanted to explain why. Both Gibbon and Mommsen are great storytellers and very revealing of the mindset of their respective times and countries — Gibbon at the onset of the British Empire, Mommsen at the onset of the Prussian Empire. Both looked to Rome for a model, but drew very different lessons.

Gibbon, living in a country with a history of internal religious conflict, admired the iron rule of great pagan emperors like Marcus Aurelius, and sought the continued separation of church and state and strong rulers chosen by merit. Aurelius and his four predecessors were all chosen by merit and adopted by the previous emperor.

Mommsen, on the other hand, living in a “Germany” with a long history of division into small states, was more interested in the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of Julius Caesar. Mommsen did not mourn the Republic, admiring the strong ruler who could create an empire out of bloody factional chaos. Yet both Gibbon and Mommsen interpreted history for their own purposes, with an agenda that rendered their tales suspect.

Beard does a great job of separating legend from fact. She also tries to look at the life of ordinary people, including many slaves, although that’s not easy when there were no biographies written about them. She points out that for ordinary people during the 200+ years the empire was at its height, it did not seem to matter much who was emperor.

It does not seem clear to her that the bad emperors were as bad as advertised (usually to justify their assassination), or the great emperors as great as advertised (lauded by their chosen successors), or that any emperors were even as important as advertised (by Roman historians who often had their own agendas). Beard has the modern skepticism of the Great Man Theory of History previously accepted without question by ancient Roman historians and many 18th and 19th century historians. I'm just getting to the part where Beard looks at how the empire *really* ran, almost regardless of who was emperor -- a study of the Roman bureaucracy.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

The nurse asked the rabbit, “what is your blood type?”

“I am probably a type O” said the rabbit.

The doctor says it terminal.

Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB

Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"

I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual

So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes

r/unclejokes for dirty jokes

r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC

r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes

Punchline !

Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub

Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat

Mentos

(I will see myself out)

Do your worst!

How the hell am I suppose to know when it’s raining in Sweden?

Mathematical puns makes me number

We told her she can lean on us for support. Although, we are going to have to change her driver's license, her height is going down by a foot. I don't want to go too far out on a limb here but it better not be a hack job.

Ants don’t even have the concept fathers, let alone a good dad joke. Keep r/ants out of my r/dadjokes.

But no, seriously. I understand rule 7 is great to have intelligent discussion, but sometimes it feels like 1 in 10 posts here is someone getting upset about the jokes on this sub. Let the mods deal with it, they regulate the sub.

They were cooked in Greece.

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

He lost May

Now that I listen to albums, I hardly ever leave the house.

Said if she ever hosts a gender reveal party, when it comes time to pop the balloon she'll spray everyone with water.

Gender is fluid.

Don't you know a good pun is its own reword?