Ursus

Let's make a distinction between Far Eastern and Hellenized Near Eastern religions. The original poster seemed to be asking about Far Eastern religions. Mithraism, and Caracalla's interest in Serapis, would be along the lines of hellenized Near Eastern religions.

I do believe Buddhism penetrated the outer reaches of the Empire in the Hellenistic East. That's not to say there were large numbers of Buddhists or other Far East religions in the empire.

I find something in the Roman soul that is appealing to me.

What exactly is it you want to know? Roman paganism included cults of many foreign (though to some degree Romanized) deities. Isis, Mithras, Dionysus, Jupiter Dolchenus, etc. A great book is "Cults of the Roman Empire" by Robert Turcan.

Oh, pshaw. My opinion is gospel. Or at least, that's my opinion.

Perhaps something to consider: The Augustan Peace was won only after many years of strife and conquest. Peace ultimately comes at the point of a sword, the well wishes of pacifists not withstanding. Bush may be incompetent, corrupt and a posturing sockpuppet for neoconservative interests. But every radical jihadist bombed to smithereens under his watch preserves the liberty of Western Ciivlization, as far as I am concerned.

Yes, this is one of my favorite movies, and the sound track is magnificent.

This assumes, perhaps mistakenly, there was a dichotomy between the the two at this point.

Interesting. I may check this one out. I read something previously by Wells and enjoyed his style.

You know. everyone says they want to be Senator, Consul, Proconsul, Censor when they grow up. No one ever says "I want to be Emperor Commodus' passive boyfriend when I grow up."

I thought the TNT version sucked. The movie is a classic because of its performances, but Douglas's overly idealized Spartacus seems a bit naive in retrospect.

Modern politics go to the Afterhours lounge.

Suffice it to say that back then, men not only worshipped goats, they borrowed their mating habits. Oh, come now. They didn't worship goats per se, just gods that looked like them....

History and Philosophy of the Site Salvete! Welcome to the United Nations of Roma Victrix (Victorious Rome)! UNRV had its humble beginnings with the simple intention of being an ancillary resource guide for an online roleplaying game called Roma Victor. Since then, UNRV has greatly expanded beyond its original mandate to become the internet's premier Romanophile site. The site itself is now fully independent of its modest origin and is its own special entity with the intention of providing both an introductory history of the Roman world and as a gathering place for people of like minds and similar interests. In a manner befitting to Rome, it continues to grow and expand, evolving in depth and breadth. At UNRV, Romanophiles from around the world discuss what the little village on the Tiber means to them. Every topic germane to the Roman world is discussed by our enthusiastic membership: from politics and history, to religion and humanities, to the march of the Legions. The legacy of Rome from the legendary Founding to the sack of Constantinople, from the Forum to far-flung provinces, is contained herein. Our members come from diverse backgrounds with equally broad interests. Some are curious passers-by with a specific question to be addressed. Many are well-read layman who have maintained an abiding interest in their favorite era of history. A few are even respected scholars and authors in their field of study. All are valued provided they adhere to basic standards of conduct. The UNRV administration and membership as a whole bids you welcome and encourages you to become an active participant of the community...

Revision takes two forms: 1) New Age tofu eaters who ascribe everything under the sun to Celts 2) Modern day Celtic nationalists who confuse ethnicity with culture, and see in the Celts something of a long lost uber race. These two groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The revision goes too far, agreed. But Celtic contributions have been overlooked, I think. Unlike the Germans, the Celts were worth conquering because of the relative level of civilization. Yes, their great downfall was the disunity of the various tribes. I don't think any serious scholar will give you an argument. Part of the reason is that the tribes closest to Rome were easily and sometimes almost willingly assimilated. In the very early empire there were more Senators from Gallia Narbonesis than Greece. That is a testament to how willing and how capable some of the Celtics tribes were to enjoy the fruits of classical society.

For the empire to work, I believe the provincial aristocrats had to have some positive incentive to become a part of it. The passing of the old Aristocracy from Rome to encompass a larger segment - first Italy, then the provinces - is nothing to eschew in my book. Did the commons lose out? I suppose in some ways. But remember in the late empire a commoner who showed talent in the military could rise quickly in the ranks, and from there to considerable posts in the civilian administration. There were forms of social advancement after the Fall of the Republic - in the form of administrative and military channels rather than the citizens' assembly.

The boy probably had just spilled some vodka on his belly button and Putin was lapping it up.

I've always found the taboos of the cult rather strange given the fact that Jupiter was the god of victorious generals. The taboos don't match the personality and provinces of the god behind it. Oh, well. Roman paganism was never a tidy afffair. :-)

Actually, I meant all the book reviews done by Patricians and Equestrians, whether full length or abridged. I know there is a now a link to "leading contributors" with their reviews, but making a subforum here would still be conveneint.

Hey, maybe we need a subfolder to house all the book reviews?

I believe a recent poll concluded that the majority of site members were Christian of some stripe or another, followed by Agnostics and then Pagans. The Pagans may seem a majority only because they tend to be active and out spoken.

Did you see the price tag on some of these books? Gods above...

Chronicle of the Roman Emperors by Chris Skarre is one of those books imminently grounded in scholarship, but not presented as a scholarly work per se. It is designed to be an intelligent survey for the general reader concerning the personalities and political history of the men who ruled Rome from Augustus to the fall of the West. The history of the emperors is comparatively brief, as one might expect, but does a great service in highlighting the major events and foibles of the subject under study. Visually the book is beautiful; sculptures of the emperors, and photographs and illustrations of their public works, offers an enjoyable aesthetic experience. The prose is intelligent but free of academic jargon. It is fast paced, and the Chronicles read as a page turner. Skarre frequently comments on the primary sources used in his studies of these individuals. He is not afraid to comment on what should be treated as fact and what should be treated as propaganda or gossip. Interestingly, Skarre details all the various titles assumed by an emperor and the dates they received them. For someone new to Roman political history, this work would make a lively introduction of the imperial era. For old hands, it makes a convenient annotated historical outline which can be enjoyed if nothing else for the photographs and illustrations. It is a charming work and makes the perfect item to grace your coffee table.

Wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I should have spoken up much sooner, but truth be told I was avoiding this latest incarnation of the "ethnic purity" phenomenon. ;-)

Large portions of this thread have drifted decidedly off topic. At the moment I feel too lazy to amputate the offending portions. So how about a friendly reminder to take modern politics/sociology to the Afterhours lounge?