Ursus

Christianity as a legitimate, organized, codified religion didn't exist until the church councils of the fourth century. Yes, it existed before then, but as something of an underground movement, with various flavors deemed "heretical" by the mainstream church. The point is that while Xtianity existed before its creeds were articulated by council, it's guide was Tradition. Solo Scriptura doesn't make sense therefore from the perspective of the high churches. I personally don't really care one way or another. Just summarizing the arguments.

_Rome: A Political and Military History_ by James McKay is good for a beginner.

Yes, this is indeed interesting. Thank you, and please post more.

I had it done in two days. The author's prose was conducive to page turning. What I left out of the "official" review is that if there is one part that tends to drag, it would be the last chapter. Also, I noticed at least two typographical mistakes. But these are minor and I omitted them since the book was a gift from the publisher.

Is this guy good?

There are those scholars who deny any provable direct link between the Persian Mitra and the Roman Mithras.

Nah, it's because you're an evil Decepticon!

Gelzer refrains from psychoanalysis. Although his prose is not what I would call engaging.

The scholae replaced the praetorians in 312 under Constantine. They were formally commanded by the Master of Offices. They were elite troops of mostly Germanic background.

Having seen hardcore Trekkies in action ... I have no doubt that 100 years from now there will be a Star Trek religion and Nimoy will have a statue next to Shatner and Roddenberry.

Does the Southern Venus wear Daisy Dukes?

Is Goldsworthy's treatment better than Geltzer's Caesar: Politican and Statesman? Geltzer's work seems exhaustive, though rather dry and uninspiring. I suppose what I am asking is: does Goldworthy give us a fresh look at a subject that has already been well explored?

Terrrorist = Oppressed Third Worlder fighting the evil hegemony of First World Nations

If sufficiently large numbers of people infiltrate into a given culture, the question is will they assimilate into the culture or will they assimilate the culture to them? I'm not some hard die-hard paleoconservative bemoaning the loss of some pristine WASP culture. But there is cause for concern. Especially from the growing numbers of increasingly militant Muslims who seem to see nothing good in Western society.

Salve!

I will move this to the Afterhours Lounge. It is not completely spam in my book, but not quite topical either.

I believe Rome's real "conquest" was in the accomodation of subject peoples. The propertied classes could become part of the ruling hierarchy, and the military veterans were granted citizenship. Everywhere a Roman "consumer culture" sprouted. And then of course there was the later grant of nearly universal citizenship. Turning subjects into citizens and junior partners of the commonwealth in which they had a vested interest is something that few empires before or since have done so well - or even had the inclination to do. Really, if Rome were just another expansionist state that conquered, collected taxes, roughed up the locals, and then collapsed, why would I care about it any more than the Assyrian Empire, of the Golden Horde? For me it's not about which group of soldiers killed another bunch of soldiers on some desolate battlefield - it's about culture, identity, civilization. If Rome hadn't turned other people into Romans and laid a critical building block for what most of us call "Western Civilization" I really wouldn't care. Rome was great because it allowed other people to share in its riches and glory. It allowed other people to define (to some extent) what meant to be Roman...

The Union of Naughty Romanophile Vixens. Or at least I can dream.

Indeed. I could stand being infested with maggots and having flies crawl out my manhood. But to have baldness on top of that would be disconcerting.

People are allowed to their opinions. If someone's favorite era is the "Caesar era", that's fine. If someone's favorite era isn't the Caesar period, that's fine too. But we're not going to to have a rehash of the tired arguments on this particular thread. You all dig it?

Maybe we need a separate folder to stuff these ad nauseum topics. Casear versus Alexander, legion versus phalanx, what caused the fall of Rome, the Adams Family versus the Munsters, etc. I dunno.

Can they promise me that the Egyptians won't some day do to Pagan treasures what the Afghans let happen to the Buddhist statues? If not, then let the "stolen" items in Western hands.

I wish people would stop comparing us to the Romans. One, it's becoming a worn out cliche. Two, the Romans had more class than we do.

Michael Grant seems to think the only thing that kept the Seleucids together was a string of Hellenic colonies at strategic points, and a large army. The upper class natives were willing to learn Greek, especially in places like Syria, to communicate with their new masters. But the rest of the natives would have none of it - they had their own culture, language and religion. Hellenization was a function of poor Greeks back home founding new colonies on the aforementioned strategic sites. Grant says that the Hellenes, unlike the Romans, were not interested in spreading their culture among the natives and actually practiced a kind of separatism. Neither Alexander nor his successors in the area were acting as agents of Hellenism - they merely wanted glory, conquest and riches.

As a Pagan I've always loved pointing out how the date of Christmas was an appropriation from the commemoration of the temple of Sol Invictus. Nonetheless in the interests of objectivity, I feel must point out something. The High Churches would argue that everything said by Christ and his early compatriots have to be understood in the light of Holy Tradition to which these Churches claim (naturally) to be the guardians. Since Christianity existed 300 years before the words of Christ and his disciples were codified (i.e. the New Testament), the traditions of the Church not recorded on paper are integral to the Christian experience. While any one person can err on their interpretation of Christ