The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Up Yours, Caesar! Options
cheekyme 🎭
Posted: Saturday, October 19, 2019 2:24:49 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/5/2017
Posts: 33
Neurons: 375,626
I can understand the phrase, but why …? Why would anyone want to bid the Romans such a bitter farewell? Where does this idiom come from? When they left a chaos began ....
thar
Posted: Saturday, October 19, 2019 2:38:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 21,936
Neurons: 89,026
They were invaders who held power by slaughtering anyone who rose up against them! By that logic, most of Africa should be grateful to the colonising Europeans because when they left there was often chaos.


And in fact it may have been chaos in Rome, but elsewhere life didn't collapse. It changed, but the 'Dark Ages' that historians used to believe were a return to anarchy and primitive ways have been shown to be anything but a lost time. That was just the pro-classical bias of the historians.

The cultures just weren't as obsessed with writing it all down as the Romans were, or interested in living in towns with great stone buildings and underfloor heating, but they had their own societies that were amazing in their own ways. And they didn't have to live under the ***** Romans any more. Amazing colourful art, epic literature, a country that became so well-managed and prosperous that Europeans were queuing up to invade it...

England has statues of Boadicea, not Caesar!










[image not available]



Or, to quote the famous line by Caesar,
"Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!"

cheekyme 🎭
Posted: Saturday, October 19, 2019 3:25:06 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/5/2017
Posts: 33
Neurons: 375,626
I totally agree, but … weren’t the bloody Viking raids far worse than the Roman rules? Have Britons ever before suffer that much? After Romans arrived, they would often mix with locals, trade etc. Perhaps the underfloor heating was not a thing for the local tribes, but taking dirty water away, since Romans liked cleanness, was quite a beneficial achievement. Anglo-Saxons were just farmers. Up Yours, Caesar! We now have our muddy tracks back?
taurine
Posted: Saturday, October 19, 2019 4:55:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 2,411
Neurons: 155,554
Location: South Dublin, Ireland
Maybe it has actually nothing to do with Roman Empire at all. There is a cocktail called a Caesar (or, Bloody Caesar, if you prefer). It contains Worcestershire sauce...

Were I king, I should cut off the nobles for their lands;
And my more having would be as a sauce
To make me hunger more.
-Shakespeare.

A certain Swift wrote a little more mildly while considering a sauce, namely, 'Fine oranges, sauce for your veal,
Are charming when squeezed in a pot of brown ale.'

In the result, the phrase 'Up Yours, Caesar' can be used while raising up a toast drinking a cocktail.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Sunday, October 20, 2019 2:28:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,804
Neurons: 11,558
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
cheekyme 🎭 wrote:
I totally agree, but … weren’t the bloody Viking raids far worse than the Roman rules? Have Britons ever before suffer that much? After Romans arrived, they would often mix with locals, trade etc. Perhaps the underfloor heating was not a thing for the local tribes, but taking dirty water away, since Romans liked cleanness, was quite a beneficial achievement. Anglo-Saxons were just farmers. Up Yours, Caesar! We now have our muddy tracks back?


No the Viking raids were no where near as bloody as the Roman conquest of Britain, in one battle alone the defeat of Boudica it is claimed there were 80,000 dead tribal people no Viking raid came close to that. The Druids were the priestly class of the Brythonic people in Britain and the Romans wiped them out, the Vikings raided churches but never killed every Christian priest in the lands of Britain.
cheekyme 🎭
Posted: Sunday, October 20, 2019 2:42:29 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/5/2017
Posts: 33
Neurons: 375,626
taurine wrote:
Maybe it has actually nothing to do with Roman Empire at all. There is a cocktail called a Caesar (or, Bloody Caesar, if you prefer). It contains Worcestershire sauce...

Were I king, I should cut off the nobles for their lands;
And my more having would be as a sauce
To make me hunger more.
-Shakespeare.

A certain Swift wrote a little more mildly while considering a sauce, namely, 'Fine oranges, sauce for your veal,
Are charming when squeezed in a pot of brown ale.'

In the result, the phrase 'Up Yours, Caesar' can be used while raising up a toast drinking a cocktail.


I do like the idea of the toast; perhaps not to wish somebody the best of luck, though. On the other hand, it might be an excellent justification for a good laugh, and to clink glasses of course. Might go well with Caesar salad too, but this Caesar was a Mexican citizen, so maybe not after all.
cheekyme 🎭
Posted: Sunday, October 20, 2019 3:10:23 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/5/2017
Posts: 33
Neurons: 375,626
Sarrriesfan wrote:
cheekyme 🎭 wrote:
I totally agree, but … weren’t the bloody Viking raids far worse than the Roman rules? Have Britons ever before suffer that much? After Romans arrived, they would often mix with locals, trade etc. Perhaps the underfloor heating was not a thing for the local tribes, but taking dirty water away, since Romans liked cleanness, was quite a beneficial achievement. Anglo-Saxons were just farmers. Up Yours, Caesar! We now have our muddy tracks back?


No the Viking raids were no where near as bloody as the Roman conquest of Britain, in one battle alone the defeat of Boudica it is claimed there were 80,000 dead tribal people no Viking raid came close to that. The Druids were the priestly class of the Brythonic people in Britain and the Romans wiped them out, the Vikings raided churches but never killed every Christian priest in the lands of Britain.


That is true, I guess, but the Vikings would normally show less mercy during their raids, I believe. I am not so sure about sparing women living under vows, but I will look into it. As far as I know, but I may be wrong, the Vikings were not interested in taking prisoners and could be extremely brutal in torturing people.

PS. Druids were not that quick to build roads, were they or places to spend a penny.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Sunday, October 20, 2019 3:31:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,804
Neurons: 11,558
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
cheekyme 🎭 wrote:
Sarrriesfan wrote:
cheekyme 🎭 wrote:
I totally agree, but … weren’t the bloody Viking raids far worse than the Roman rules? Have Britons ever before suffer that much? After Romans arrived, they would often mix with locals, trade etc. Perhaps the underfloor heating was not a thing for the local tribes, but taking dirty water away, since Romans liked cleanness, was quite a beneficial achievement. Anglo-Saxons were just farmers. Up Yours, Caesar! We now have our muddy tracks back?


No the Viking raids were no where near as bloody as the Roman conquest of Britain, in one battle alone the defeat of Boudica it is claimed there were 80,000 dead tribal people no Viking raid came close to that. The Druids were the priestly class of the Brythonic people in Britain and the Romans wiped them out, the Vikings raided churches but never killed every Christian priest in the lands of Britain.


That is true, I guess, but the Vikings would normally show less mercy during their raids, I believe. I am not so sure about sparing women living under vows, but I will look into it. As far as I know, but I may be wrong, the Vikings were not interested in taking prisoners and could be extremely brutal in torturing people.

PS. Druids were not that quick to build roads, were they or places to spend a penny.


The Vikings were slavers they did not just torture people who could be used in their economy for no reason, just like the Romans before them. Frankly to claim the Vikings were more bloody than the Romans is a huge misreading of history the games held at the opening of the Flavian amphitheatre known as the Coliseum today , lasted 100 days including gladiatorial fights, executions and animal fights. The Vikings never did anything as bloody as the destruction of Carthage or the conquest of Gaul.
No they did not spare holy people just were never as successful at killing Christian priests and monks (many of whom were men) as the Roman war machine.
The word Thrall comes from the Norse “Thræl” for slave.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/thrall
Quote:
2.
a. One, such as a slave or serf, who is held in bondage.
b. One who is in the power of another or under the sway of an influence.
tr.v. thralled, thrall·ing, thralls Archaic
To enslave.
[Middle English, slave, slavery, from Old English thrǣl, slave, bondman, from Old Norse thrǣll.]

Romany
Posted: Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:28:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,050
Neurons: 54,579
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Just as we have discovered that the Victorian assessment of the centuries after the Romans left as "Dark" ages was wildly incorrect; so our previous ideas of "Vikings" has also undergone a change.

The rise of technology has opened up gates which were closed before - DNA evidence alone gives us another way of looking at post-Roman Britain. Inter-marriage between the different settlements took place throughout these centuries. No-one's denying that Northern tribes arrived and grabbed land for themselves through violence- but archaelogical evidence has divulged that there was trading among the different groups - and that Hollywood has been at least party responsible for the image so many people have of a country terrorised and subdued over centuries by inhuman torturers and "Wild Men".

One of the reasons I find this a great time to be alive is because of the rise of technology which has changed so many of our ideas about Britain's history!
thar
Posted: Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:38:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 21,936
Neurons: 89,026
Although I did listen to something recently about the Danelaw where they said you can clearly see the boundary in the type of artefacts found. In the east you have Danish-style brooches - they don't know whether they were worn by Norse women or more likely became the fashion among the English women. And outside the Danelaw you have Anglo-Saxon styles. There was no wall, no war, the laws were pretty similar, the people were the same, but some things just didn't cross. You got Anglo-Saxon money in the Danelaw but not the other way round. When it began and ended nothing changed materially for the people just going about their daily lives and paying their taxes - but while it existed there does appear to have been a real boundary that some trade just did not cross, because the fashion did not cross.


Quote:
The cultural legacy left by the migrating Danish Viking population is also now well
attested in the archaeological record. Traditionally, Scandinavian cultural traits have proved
difficult to identify in rural settlement and burial archaeology (Hadley & Richards 2000).
The national recording of metal-detector finds has, however, led to the creation of
an entirely new archaeological dataset for Viking Age England, adding dramatically to
our understanding of the Viking settlements. The number of ninth- and tenth-century
metalwork items now identified as diagnostically Scandinavian is considerable. Close to

500 single finds (as distinct from site finds and material deposited in hoards) of late
ninth- and early tenth-century date have been identified, predominantly from the Danelaw
region. Hundreds more objects have been identified as ‘Anglo-Scandinavian’: local Danelaw
products made in imitation of Scandinavian items (Kershaw 2013). As these are items that
were a) lost in the Viking period, b) recovered by a metal-detectorist and c) reported to
the relevant recording bodies, this number will reflect just a tiny fraction—conservatively
estimated to be 1–5%—of the number of items originally in circulation (Kershaw 2013:
246).
The diagnostically Scandinavian metalwork comprises three main artefact groups: nonelite male and, in particular, female dress fittings (Leahy & Paterson 2001; Kershaw 2009,
2013); silver and weights associated with bullion exchange (Kershaw forthcoming); and
amulets with iconography drawn from pagan Scandinavian mythology (Pestell 2013). The
striking feature of the metalwork is its ‘Scandinavian-ness’. Thus, the female brooch styles,
represented by more than 125 finds from the Danelaw, are not found elsewhere in England,
but have direct parallels in finds from Scandinavia, particularly Viking Age Denmark. The
bullion-related finds, comprising ingots and hack-silver as well as weights, relate to the
Scandinavian practice of a metal-weight economy, a means of exchange not practised by
the coin-using Anglo-Saxons. Rather than representing the transfer of isolated objects, this
material reflects the import of distinctive Scandinavian cultural traits related to fundamental
social norms: female costume, economic practice, and religious belief and expression.

A number of features suggest that this material results from large-scale Scandinavian
settlement, rather than from trade or the local production of artefacts of Scandinavian
appearance. First, as with the name data, the metalwork repertoire is extremely diverse,
reflecting most of the types and sub-types current in Scandinavia, with particularly close
parallels with southern Scandinavia: Viking Age Denmark (Kershaw 2013). This suggests
that such metalwork was, in general, likely to have arrived in the possession of settlers
from Scandinavia, over an extended settlement period. This is further supported by the
distribution of Scandinavian imports within the Danelaw, which is widespread, diffuse and
almost exclusively rural (Figure 3). While metal-detecting is largely confined to rural areas,
excavations in Danelaw towns such as Thetford, Norwich, Lincoln and York have yielded
only a modest number of comparable items, suggesting a genuine paucity of Scandinavian
metalwork in urban environments (Kershaw forthcoming). Such patterning is at odds with
a scenario in which such material reached England primarily via trade (in which case we
might expect to see items clustered in towns), but it is entirely consistent with the presence
in rural areas of well-populated Scandinavian communities. Combined with the place-name
evidence discussed above, the case for sizeable Scandinavian settlement in the Danelaw
countryside is strong.
Scandinavian cultural influence in the Danelaw was thus pervasive, and can only truly be
explained by the presence of substantial numbers of settlers from Scandinavia speaking Old
Norse, retaining their traditional dress and preserving their distinctive economic system.
Chronological data available for the small finds suggests that these distinctive practices were
maintained into the early decades of the tenth century; that is, for at least two generations
(Kershaw 2013, forthcoming). Dating the coining of Scandinavian place-names is far less
precise, but there are clear linguistic grounds for believing that -by names, and others, were partially coined during the tenth century (Abrams & Parsons 2004: 399–400, 404). The
evidence for a female Scandinavian presence, in both the name data and metalwork, is
especially striking, and points to the migration of family groups, rather than simply a male
military elite.

Putting a precise figure on the number of Danish Viking settlers remains challenging.
An interpretation of the genetic data in the PoBI study suggests that they cannot have
contributed more than 40% to the contemporary lowland British population (this being the
probable upper bound of the identified ‘Anglo-Saxon’ admixture). Allowing for a genuine
Anglo-Saxon genetic component, the Danish Viking component must be significantly less.
At the same time, the heavy influence of Old Norse on place-names in England, the linguistic
impact of Old Norse on English, and the emerging archaeological evidence for imported
Scandinavian metalwork argues stroongly for the presence of a sizeable Norse-speaking,
Scandinavian migrant population.
We offer two methods of roughly estimating an absolute number of settlers: one on the
basis of single find artefacts, and one on population proportions. In order to account for the
uncertainty of our input variables, we used Caladis: a probabilistic calculator that performs
calculations using probability distributions, rather than simply point estimates (Johnston
et al. 2014). Figure 4 provides a summary of the input data, settings, calculations and
results. For the proportional approach, an estimate of the total Viking Age population of the
‘core’ Danelaw was based on numbers derived from the 1086 Domesday Book (Broadberry
et al. 2010), and scaled, according to extremes of ninth–tenth century population growth
estimates, to between 30–100% of the 1086 estimates (Richards 2000: 94). The core
Danelaw is defined here as Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk (see the distribution
C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016
1678
Debate
The ‘People of the British Isles’ project and Viking settlement in England
shown in Figure 3). The estimated genetic proportion (AS) of the total population P that
was introduced in the PoBI ‘Anglo-Saxon’ admixture event is 10–40% (Leslie et al. 2015),
and the Danish Viking contribution to AS (V) is 10–50%, the upper bound indicating that
Danes at most equalled the genetic input of the Anglo-Saxons. Both methods, which are
broadly independent of each other, indicate the probable number of original migrants to be
in the region of 20 000–35 000 over the course of the settlement period, a number of the
same order as that estimated for the contemporaneous Scandinavian settlement of Iceland



source https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a4c/5dba342577158a33410cfafaf0eae3e8540c.pdf

Although this paper argues more it was about migration of Norse families, the experts I heard talking were saying it was probably a fashion among the Anglo-Saxon women to take up Norse style jewellery, so migration of culture as well as people.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.