This text, “Rome” by Miles Mathis, argues that Roman history, particularly the origins and figures like Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, has been misrepresented by mainstream historical narratives, which Mathis claims are influenced by Phoenician interests. Mathis, a former top Latin student, revisits Roman history with a critical eye, suggesting that the Romans themselves were Phoenicians and that this truth has been deliberately obscured.
He reinterprets the founding of Rome, questioning the traditional stories of Romulus and Remus and Aeneas. Mathis posits that Aeneas’ son Ascanius was actually the son of Dido, the Phoenician queen of Carthage. He believes this was intentionally hidden by writers like Virgil and Livy to conceal the Phoenician ancestry of Rome’s elite. This theory is further supported by an addendum about Ovid’s account of Dido’s sister, Anna Perenna, which Mathis argues is a fabricated persona to obscure Dido’s survival and connection to Ascanius.
The author then examines Julius Caesar, scrutinizing his depictions on coins and sculptures, which he believes reveal a Jewish or Phoenician appearance, particularly the nose. He challenges conventional explanations for Caesar’s lineage and the destruction of Alba Longa. Mathis also proposes that the name “Caesar” originates from a Phoenician word for elephant. He delves into Caesar’s family ties, suggesting that the conflict between the gens Julia and gens Cornelia was a struggle between Phoenician factions, with figures like Marius, Sulla, Brutus, and Cassius being linked to these groups. Mathis casts doubt on Caesar’s military conquests in Gaul, suggesting they were largely plundering expeditions. He also questions the narrative of Caesar’s involvement in Egypt and his relationship with Cleopatra, asserting that Cleopatra, like the Ptolemies, had Phoenician ties, evidenced by her speaking Hebrew and the use of a phoenix symbol on her coins.
Mathis further argues that Caesar’s assassination was faked, citing weak motivations presented by mainstream historians and the absence of adequate guards. He suggests Caesar retired to a life of pleasure or a relationship with Nicomedes, given his alleged homosexuality. The timing of Caesar’s will, naming Octavian and Brutus as heirs, is also presented as evidence of a staged death.
The text concludes by questioning the demise of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, suggesting their deaths, along with that of Caesarion, were also faked to consolidate Octavian’s power. Mathis points to Phoenician symbols (purple sails) and locations (Ptolemais in Phoenicia) as evidence of their continued influence. He criticizes historical accounts by authors like Plutarch and Josephus, labeling them as fiction created by Phoenician masters. The addendum to the assassination section connects the Ides of March to Anna Perenna, further emphasizing the hidden Phoenician lineage.
Here is a list of subjects, names, references, locations, companies, etc., marked with double square brackets:
Rome by Miles Mathis is dedicated to his Latin teacher, Pina Jardine. The author, a former top Latin student, achieved national recognition in JCL events in 1979-80, excelling in grammar, reading comprehension, and decathlon. He double majored in Latin and philosophy, with a minor in history, graduating summa cum laude. Mathis revisits Roman history, a topic he had previously avoided due to its personal significance, alongside Mark Twain and Noam Chomsky. He posits that the Romans were Phoenicians, a theory he intends to further explore.
The traditional founding date of Rome is 753BC, with the myth of Romulus and Remus. The Aeneid by Vergil traces Rome’s origins to Aeneas, whose son Ascanius (also known as Julus) is linked to the gens Julia, and thus to Gaius Julius Caesar. The first emperors were Julio-Claudians. Aeneas hailed from Troy, and was a cousin of the priest Laocoön. His great-uncle was Laomedon, father of Priam, King of Troy. Aeneas allegedly married his cousin Creusa, one of Priam’s daughters, but Mathis finds no evidence for this. Creusa is described as a ghost in the story.
Livy presents an alternative story where Ascanius appears later, with his mother being an Italian named Lavinia. Mathis notes that Aeneas had a lover named Dido, queen of Carthage, who was Phoenician. He controversially suggests Ascanius was Dido’s son, a claim he believes has been deliberately suppressed to hide the Phoenician origins of Rome’s ruling families. Mathis argues that Vergil’s primary motive in writing The Aeneid was to bury this idea. The encounter with Dido is central to The Aeneid, with Juno and Venus intervening. Juno was the goddess/overseer of Carthage, and Venus was Aeneas’ mother. Juno had previously lost the judgment of Paris to Venus, who offered Helen.
Mathis proposes that Juno’s agreement to let Aeneas leave Carthage was contingent on her line also having a role in Rome’s founding, through Dido as Ascanius’ mother. He suggests the coupling in the cave was meant to produce a child for Juno’s lineage. The fiery death of Dido is presented as a means to obscure any pregnancy. Mathis believes Phoenicians have intentionally hidden their history and influence, prospering in the shadows since the Persian Empire (around 550BC). They allegedly avoid admitting their continuous role as traders, bankers, shippers, and smiths.
The text criticizes the notion that Rome was socialist or democratic, stating that rulers used lies of justice and fairness, with writers creating patriotic narratives. The Aeneid is portrayed as a fictional work to protect the perception of Rome as an independent nation with local roots, and to frame Troy’s links as anti-Greek, an enemy of Rome. The author compares Rome’s break from Carthage and Greece to the American Revolution’s supposed break from England, suggesting a similar underlying connection.
An addendum from October 10, 2021, citing Ovid, introduces Dido’s sister, Anna Perenna. Anna fled Carthage to Malta after Dido’s death, then went to Italy, where she met Aeneas and Lavinia. Mathis suggests Anna and Dido are the same person, a trick to make Ascanius’ mother Phoenician. He calls this an “old Shakespearean head trick or bed trick.” He connects Anna’s transformation into a river nymph and Aeneas’ burial near the river to their reunion as deities.
Mathis then analyzes Julius Caesar’s image on coins and sculptures, claiming he looks “very Jewish,” notably his nose. He discusses the Tusculum sculpture and the Green Caesar sculpture, noting the detail and lack of attempt to hide a “Jewish look.” He proposes that noses on sculptures were intentionally altered to hide Phoenician features.
Wikipedia is criticized for presenting Caesar as descended from the Albans of Alba Longa, a claim Mathis finds lacking archaeological evidence and logically flawed due to the destruction of Alba Longa by Tullus Hostilius. He suggests Wikipedia’s misdirection points to continued Phoenician influence. The name “Caesar” is linked to a Phoenician word for elephant, “Caesai,” explaining the elephants on Caesar’s coins.
Mathis disputes Wikipedia’s claim that Caesar’s family was not politically influential, citing his uncle Marius, a seven-time consul and “third founder of Rome” after defeating the Cimbri in 101BC. He notes that Sulla did not purge Marius’ family. The conflict between gens Julia and gens Cornelia is highlighted, linking Sulla, Scipios, Lentuli, and Rufini to the Cornelii and potential Phoenician red hair. Mathis speculates Brutus and Cassius were connected to gens Cornelia, possibly through Brutus’ adopted father Caepio and his mother Servilia.
The text explores Caesar’s alleged affair with Servilia, mother of Brutus, suggesting it as a motive for Brutus’ hostility or as a Cornelian espionage plot. Caesar’s defeat of Metellus Scipio, a supporter of Pompey, in 46BC is seen as further evidence of the Julian-Cornelian conflict. Augustus’ dynasty is described as integrating the Cornelii. Caesar’s wife Cornelia and daughter Julia’s attempts to solidify his line are mentioned. Octavian’s adoption by Caesar is examined, noting his gens Octavia origins and the name’s connection to “red.” Atia, Octavian’s mother and Caesar’s niece, solidified the Julian blood connection.
Caesar’s marriage to Cornelia, daughter of Cinna, is presented as a reason he was spared by Sulla in 82BC. His appointment as a priest of Jupiter at 16 is mentioned, suggesting a potential inclination towards clergy. His alleged gay relationship with Nicomedes, King of Bithynia, is cited, with songs referring to Caesar as the “queen of Bithynia.” Mathis draws parallels to figures like J. Edgar Hoover, Hitler, and Lawrence of Arabia.
The pirate story is deemed faked, a common trope for making “Phoenicians” look tough, compared to stories of Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, and Jack London. Caesar’s election as tribune at 29 and quaestor at 30 are noted, along with conflicting accounts of his wealth. His marriage to Pompeia, granddaughter of Sulla, and his election as Pontifex Maximus at 36 are discussed. His governorship of Western Spain and subsequent consulship in 60BC are seen as rewards for his Phoenician background and ambition, supported by Pompey and Crassus forming the First Triumvirate.
Caesar’s governorship of Illyricum, Transalpine Gaul, and Cisalpine Gaul is described as a means to enrich himself and pay back Pompey and Crassus. The deaths of Crassus and Julia (Caesar’s daughter and Pompey’s wife) broke the First Triumvirate, leading Pompey to marry Cornelia Metella, a Scipio and political opponent of Caesar.
Mathis doubts the scale of Caesar’s conquests in Gaul, suggesting it was pillaging rather than genuine warfare against local tribes. He speculates that any serious fighting was against Phoenician cousins controlling trading centers. He also disputes the narrative of Caesar conquering Egypt at Cleopatra’s request, stating Egypt had been Phoenician-ruled since Alexander. Cleopatra’s ability to speak Hebrew is highlighted as evidence of her Phoenician ties. The financial distress of Ptolemy XII and Pompey’s role in reinstating him are mentioned. Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIII’s co-rule and subsequent conflict with Pompey are described, leading to Pompey’s flight to Egypt and eventual murder.
Mathis describes Cleopatra as an “average Jewish girl” with a large nose, similar to Caesar’s appearance. He identifies the phoenix symbol on her coins as Phoenician, not an eagle. He argues that Hebrew was the Phoenician language at the time.
The author criticizes the notion of dictators being “appointed,” as in the case of Caesar, Hitler, and Mussolini, calling it “Nazi fiction.” He states that Caesar took power through a military coup. The timing of Caesar’s will, made shortly before his assassination, is questioned, as is his decision to adopt Octavian over his alleged son with Cleopatra, Caesarion. Mathis reiterates his belief in Caesar’s homosexuality and the possibility of an Alexander-Hephestion dynamic with Octavian. Mark Antony’s testimony about Octavian’s heir status through “sexual favors” is cited.
An addendum links the Ides of March assassination date to Anna Perenna’s festival. Mathis reasserts that Caesar’s assassination was faked, citing weak motivations for the conspiracy at Wikipedia and the implausible absence of guards. The location of the murder in the Senate, at the base of the Curia of Pompey, in the Theater of Pompey, is seen as ironic fiction. The dreams of Calpurnia and the warning from the soothsayer Spurinna (whose name is linked to “spurious” or fake) are interpreted as clues to the staged event. Mathis suggests Caesar may have retired to Capri or reunited with Nicomedes.
The actions of Mark Antony and Brutus and Cassius after the alleged assassination are described, leading to the Battle of Philippi. Mathis questions the accounts of Brutus’ and Cassius’ deaths, suggesting they likely escaped. He revisits Cleopatra’s story, doubting the claim that she proposed Caesarion as heir. The naval battle at Actium and the presence of purple sails on Cleopatra’s ships are again linked to Phoenicians. The survival of Cleopatra’s children, including Cleopatra Selene, who became queen of Numidia and Mauretania (Punic colonies), is seen as further evidence of Phoenician assimilation into Rome.
The text criticizes Plutarch as a propaganda writer for his “Phoenician masters.” Josephus, whose real name was Yosef ben Matityahu, is presented as a potential ancestor of Benjamin Netanyahu and a “prominent Phoenician” serving his masters. The author views wars, including those between Jews and Romans, as manufactured for profit.
In a final note, writer Ursula K. Le Guin is mentioned as admitting Lavinia was a creation of Vergil, suggesting Aeneas and Dido were based on real historical persons. Le Guin is identified as Phoenician and Jewish through both her father’s and mother’s lines. Her family is linked to Berkeley and figures like Robert Oppenheimer.