New Statuette
I just received a small statue of Julius Caesar (above). The detail is good--the boots, pteruges and other features are impressive.
Note the eagle emblem on the breastplate and staff. The eagle was the symbol of ancient Rome.
Unlike others for sale, this statuette is not colored. I prefer the white version, as it looks stunning near the table lamp.
By now I have a fairly good collection of sculptures or art objects, besides dinosaur figures.
Previously I obtained sculptures of Augustus Caesar who, with Julius, marked the end of the Roman Republic.
posted by starman at 6:40 AM
26 Comments:
I agree; that picture is better. I've read and studied about the Roman civilization for quite a while. It was when I read that Classic Illustrated version of Caesar's commentaries while in the 3rd grade that I first became interested in the ancient Roman culture. I had been reading about the Greeks before that. As we know, those two cultures were similar, though not completely identical.
So you read Caesar's commentaries as far back as third grade? You must've been one smart pupil! I assume btw you read it on your own; surely it wasn't a class assignment. :)
I also had some interest in ancient civilization while in elementary school.
True, Roman civilization differed somewhat from that of Greece. As my western civ teacher once said, the main contribution of the Greeks was cultural, whereas the main Roman achievement was political.
April 17, 2018
I read Caesar's commentaries on my own. Your western civ teacher was right; the Greeks excelled at making cultural achievements. The Romans had some philosophers, but the Greeks had a lot more. Greek philosophers came up with a lot more philosophical concepts than the Roman philosophers. There were some Roman stoic philosophers, but it was the Greeks who started stoicism. Greek philosophers had a wider variety of ideas. The Romans had some impressive literary figures, but the Greeks had a lot more. I like Virgil's Aeneid; it is a good literary work, but Homer's Iliad and Odyssey impress me more. I have read plays by many ancient Greek playwrights, such as Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus, and Aristophanes. I like a few of the Roman plays (for example, those written by Plautus), but I like a lot more of the Greek ones.
I took a lot of philosophy courses in college. As I've mentioned, I received a B.A. in philosophy from Hendrix College and then did graduate work in philosophy at the University of Florida at Gainesville. While I was at Hendrix College, I took a course in ancient philosophy. The works of Plato and Aristotle were the main aspects of that course. While I was a graduate student at the University of Florida, I took a couple of seminars on the philosophy of Aristotle. I also had a graduate course in which various Greek philosophers' works were read. That included the pre-Socratics, such as Thales, Anaximander, Empedocles, Heraclitus, and Parmenides. While in high school, I had read Plato's Dialogues, along with some works of Aristotle and the pre-Socratics.
I’m not very familiar with Euripides, but I’ve seen works which quoted him.
I’ve long viewed Roman history, particularly the time of Julius Caesar, as relevant to the US today.
April 18, 2018
I thought I'd add a close up of the eagles on the chest and staff.
April 18, 2018
I'm glad that you added the close up of the eagles. You're right; studying Roman history is quite relevant to the U.S. today. There are parallels between the time of Julius Caesar and the current situation in the U.S.
Julius Caesar realized the republic was obsolete. It was ingrained in the minds of the Roman people but it had to go. Unfortunately while Caesar was right he went too far too fast. Openly dumping the republic caused conservatives to assassinate him.
April 19, 2018
Caesar is relevant to the US today in part because our own republic is failing. Trump is hastening its failure. His tax cuts may be popular but they'll drown us in red ink.
April 19, 2018
Hey Starman, sorry for the long absence, I was sick and even took two days off work for sick leave ( Can you believe that 14-16 year old Vane now has a full time job as an external auditor?) anyways, I found by coincidence a picture of an Egyptian paratrooper resting with a PKM!! I always thought we transitioned from DP-28 to RPD... Plus a picture of an Mi-8 with rocket pods AND Saggers on top of the rocket pods (one sagger missile per side).
I was also under the impression that we used the Mi-8s the same way the syrians are using it ...dropping barrel bombs/ unguided munitions.
Plus, do you think the Mig 19s were much better than the 21s against the F-4s and Mirages? The F-4 was more of a fat flying duck but Mirages were a serious threat due to their maneuverability + armament compared to the Mig 21 which is basically a flying dart and once a mig 21 has an enemy plane on its tail its basically game over...
Hi AdhamS, sorry to hear you were sick. (My health is OK.) I hope you're doing good as an external auditor. :)
I read that Egyptian copters used rockets early in the war but after the enemy crossed the canal, many dropped napalm. One copter, btw, got close to Dayan. As gomig and I once said, the crew should've tried to take him out with a machinegun, instead of dropping a bomb.
I don't think the EAF had many MIG-19s, and those it had seem to have achieved little.
The MIG-19 had serious drawbacks, like maintenance problems. Like the MIG-23, it was "bad handling." In fact one book said the Farmer (code name for MIG-19) was "acutely difficult and dangerous to fly."
That was a shame because the MIG-19 had key advantages. It had better endurance than the MIG-21 and it was better armed. I believe the MIG-19 had two 30mm guns. Probably the best dogfighting variant of the MIG-21, the MIG-21F-13, had just one 30mm gun. Others had a single 23mm gun, or none.
The MIG-21 could turn fairly well, so it could evade an enemy on its tail. One problem, though, was poor cockpit visibility. Many pilots probably didn't even see the enemy until it was too late...
April 22, 2018
It seems the early MIG-19 variants had 23mm guns and the MIG-19S had THREE 30mm guns.
April 22, 2018
If I am right I think the Mirage 3 had a better turn rate and was more of a threat than the F-4 Phantoms- without the more advanced AA missiles it had the phantoms would be a much easier target.
Sure the Mirage III was more maneuverable than the Phantom, and was used primarily as an interceptor whereas the F-4 was for bombing. After Egypt got the F-4, Sadat asked an Egyptian pilot what he thought of it. “Excellent bird but it maneuvers like a loaded truck, Mr. President,” he replied.
April 22, 2018
What about the Mig-17s? How did they fare against the IAF? I am pretty sure as well that I would rather fly a Mig-19 with more than one 23mm gun or THREE 30mm guns (if we ever had those in the first place) than flying a MIG 21 with terrible AA missiles and barely any ammo in my single gun ...thats if I even have a gun!
Perhaps a MIG 21 would be a better choice if it had more ammo or at least better AA missiles...and that was proven when Libyan MIG-23s faced Egyptian Mig-21s in air to air battles...
http://osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/126-1-167.shtml
First, concerning the article: Egypt didn't get any MIG-23s in 1972 (although the Soviets promised delivery around then, and Sadat was angry when none came). Cairo didn't get the MIG-23 until about 1974-75. Also, the article failed to distinguish between the MIG-23 and the MIG-25 (Foxbat).
Cooper's books include interesting accounts of MIG-17s in combat (air to air and air to ground). The Egyptians loaned some MIG-17s to Syria in '73 and they fought pretty hard. Iraq also had some there. There is one story of a MIG-17 getting behind a Phantom and turning it into a "big orange ball." The MIG-17 was well-armed, with IIRC two 23mm and one 37mm gun, but it was subsonic, with limited range and payload.
Yeah in terms of firepower the MIG-19S appears to have been much better than the MIG-21. I guess maintanence issues and handling problems just led to its abandonment. What a shame. They should've had engineers fix the problems--if that were possible.
The EAF MIG-21 had an advantage over the LAF MIG-23--maneuverability. The MIG-23 was designed to intercept bombers not engage in dogfights.
Aoril 23, 2018
Yes, I know Egypt didnt get any 23s, but I thought it was interesting report prior to '73 and the assurance of IDF/IAF superiority. Its like going through your dad's diary you know? haha,
I think the Egyptians used MIG-17s for air defense in that case or bombing runs....Alright, now here is a question for ya; if you were forced to intercept a Mirage 3 (lone wolf) and you had to pick one plane (Mig-23s are strictly forbidden), which one would you choose and why? I would be shocked if you chose the Su-7 haha!
I assume you mean a plane in the EAF inventory c 1973......I’d pick either the MIG-21F-13 or the MIG-17. The former was the variant best suited for dogfighting. As for the MIG-17, it had excellent maneuverability and better firepower than any 21. After two Syrian MIG-17 pilots mistakenly landed in Israel, the IAF used the MIGs for mock combat with Mirages (called Shahaks by the Israelis). An Israeli pilot, Henken, showed just how formidable a MIG-17 could be. Given a good pilot, it “could tear a Shahak apart.”
Of course the slower speed of a MIG-17 could make intercepting, as opposed to dogfighting, difficult. The EAF used it mainly for ground attack missions.
Oh by the way, a SU-7 had two 30mm guns so maybe I might pick it..lol just kidding. :)
April 23, 2018
I see, sorry for disappearing for a while got sick, luckily my next session with the shrink is this coming Thursday...anyways..what do you think of the A-4 Skyhawk?
Always great to see you here. :)You have to see a shrink again...hope the issue is no worse than OCD.
The A-4 Skyhawk was a good attack plane—good payload capacity, well armed—but it proved more vulnerable to air defenses than other jets. Just over half of Israel’s jet losses in ‘73 were A-4s. Over 50 were lost, far more than Phantom and Mirage losses. According to Cooper, ARAB MIGs volume 6, by about the third day of the war, the morale of the Skyhawk pilots was near the breaking point.
April 30, 2018
Nah, unrelated to my mental health....the shrink session is a regular thing..btw, how did the MIG-15s and 17s fair with the Egyptians?
Lemme see if I can find a picture of that Mi-8 with rocket pods AND SAGGERS (2)!
EAF MIG-17s accomplished some things in '73, and not only in Egypt. Some were on loan to Syria.
The first mission of the MIG-17s was to strike HAWK batteries. They probably disrupted most of them, at least temporarily, but (according to the recollections of one pilot, in PHOENIX OVER THE NILE) two MIG-17s were lost). Later they attacked other targets.
One interesting account, in Cooper's volume 6, is about two MIG-17s that raided an Israeli position on October 14 1973. One hit an ammunition dump, causing a detonation column and dart soot. The attacker's wingman flew into this mess and was blinded when his jet was coated by it. His superior advised him to bail out but he managed to land safely.
The MIG-17 squadron in Syria was very busy and is said to have hit at least one Israeli jet as well as ground targets.
May 1, 2018
I'd like to add that the account of the October 14 strike contradicts what is written in other books--that EAF strikes achieved nothing on the 14th.
May 1, 2018
That is interesting...thought that raid was carried by the Syrian air force somewhere near the Golan. That Account is mentioned in Pheonix over the Nile right?
In other accounts that say it achieved nothing....as in literally nothing no IDF casualties?
Cooper’s books on ARAB MIGs contain information I haven’t seen in PHOENIX OVER THE NILE, or other works. In addition, Cooper corrects what he says are errors in older accounts. I don’t recall reading the story of the EAF MIG-17 hitting the ammo dump on October 14 before I saw volume 6. As far as I’m aware, none of the other accounts mention any EAF success on the 14th. Of course other books say the EAF launched air strikes before the armor attacked, but they say the strikes achieved nothing or aren’t specific about what was struck. For example PHOENIX OVER THE NILE says Egyptian jets “blasted” Israeli positions but doesn’t say what was actually hit.
May 1, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home