Ursus

Also, Graves is infamous in the pagan community for inserting his poetic imaginings as fact. Not so much "I, Claudius" as it is clearly fiction, but he's written "scholarly" work that has been heavily criticized.

Hotel California - Eagles (US).

There is a certain amount of convergence in Western society. However, it's far from being a one world culture. Sinic and Islamic cultures grow increasingly different from us, violently so.

They were technically separate classes. But those equestrians who did not hold imperial office and were only local notables probably differed from decuriones only by their amount of wealth and their dress.

Because the Romans respected ancient religions, and Judaism was an ancient religion. Christianity, on the other hand, seemingly sprang up overnight among the Greek speaking proletariat. The Romans didn't know quite what to make of it ... but the "counter-culture" mentality exemplified by many Christians fed their worst fears.

I recently reviewed The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180-395 by Potter. It's a bit ... academic .... but I still found it useful. It gives a broad picture of the subject.

Assume for a moment the empire could have survived long enough into modern times to witness a feminist revolution, wherein women could assume all the government posts heretofore reserved for men. What would a female Senator be called? Senatrix? How about a female procurator? Vicarious? Comes? Dux? Consul? Praetorian prefect? etc.

Broadly speaking,

This is an interesting topic in its own right, Lost Warrior. Despite Oracles and Auspices, magic was never central to the Greco-Roman worldview the way it was in some cultures (e.g. Egypt). "Sorcery" and "witchcraft" is something that could be frowned upon, especially if it had a political element. Trying to predict the Emperor's astrological fate was a dicey thing, even before Christianity. Once I came a across a reference in Ancient Grece - a death penalty for so-called witches. I'm not sure what the context was though ... possibly someone ticked off the local rulers with alleged sorcery. Nonetheless it's obvious some people practiced what they thought as sorcery and witchcraft. There are plenty of "curse tablets" found wherein a supplicant entreats the gods and spirits to seek revenge on someone for a wide variety of offenses.

:-) Thank you, Pertinax. To the rest: "feminist" is decidely in quotes as it wasn't an organized movement. It's more like the late Republic had seen so many elite males dead, elite females stepped in to fill the void. There followed a general relaxing of certain mores that were prevalent during the earlier republic, which allowed women (at least those with some wealth and influence) a greater freedom. This topic would make for an interesting essay. Hmm...

The above work is highly dependant on the following: Garnsey, Peter & Saller, Richard. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. University of California Press. Los Angeles, California. 1987. An interesting work by the way

I recommend reading the relevant chapters of Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Jerome Carcopino. Great Stuff.

... but back to the original topic ... Garnsey & Saller. The Roman Empire Thus, under the Republic the distinction between citizen and non may have been critical. But after Augustus it gradually lessened in importance until Caracalla made it irrelevant.

Social Hierarchy of the Principate I. Imperial Family - A. The Princeps - B. Other members of the Imperial family and their palace courtiers (Classes II - VI are collectively known as honestiores, the aristocratic classes that could not receive corporal punishment and enjoyed other legal privileges) II. Praetorian prefect (equestrian order with rank of eminetissimus) III. Senatorial order. - A: Praefectus Urbi (senior senator in Rome, Augustus' deputy for urban affairs) - B: Senatorial Legates -- 1) Senators of Consular rank serving as overall provincial commanders (note: Senators with Consular ancestors were often referred as nobiles, who were more prestigious than newcomers to the Senate) -- 2) Senators with rank of praetor serving as legion commanders to Consular legates C) Non-office holding Senators IV. Equestrian Order - A: Rank of eminetissimus given to praetorian prefects who came to outrank Senators (see above) - B: Rank of perfectissimus given to other senior office-holding equestrians, such as prefect of Egypt - C: Rank of egregius given to the equestrian procurators of minor provinces and imperial estates (note: sub-classes 1-3 are often referred to as the equestrian nobility (equestrias nobilitas) D: Non-office holding equestrians (merchants and local notables) V. Decoriones - (local officials) - A. Duoviri iuridicundo - two senior local magistrates - B. Aediles - public works officers - C. Quaestores - financial officers - D. Censitor - record keeper - E. Curiales - non-office holding town councilor VI. Veterans. While veterans were composed of commoners and non-citizens, upon honorable discharge they were given the status of honestiores. Some found their way into the decurion class. A veteran who achieved the rank of primus pilus could be elected into the equestrian order - and from there into the equestrian nobility. (Classes VII - VIII are collectively know as humiliores) VII. Freepeople - A: Augustales - wealthy freedmen who organized the imperial cult, and financed related projects on public festivals and building projects (elected by the town councils) - B: appiritores - lictors, scribes and other staff members of Roman officials - C. Urban freemen -- 1) wealthy -- 2) poor D: rural dwellers (uneducated provincials who often were ignorant of Latin and Greek) C. recently manumitted slaves VIII. Slaves A: Educated slaves serving as appendages of imperial government B: household (domestic slaves), sometimes acting as procurators of estates for wealthy freemen C: labor intensive slaves (agriculture, mining)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't barbarians always account for about half of the Roman army ever since at least the early Principate? The only thing that changed is that by the later empire the generalissimos were increasingly of babarian stock rather than traditional Roman landowners.

What's interesting to me is that Roman patriarchy is a function mostly of the Republic. After the civil wars of the late Republic exterminated much of the leading males, women came into their own. There was something of a minor "feminist" revolution giving them greater freedom and status.

Very good point, he's certainly up there. I would say Plato was also a major influence. In fact, most of Western intellectual thought stands in Plato's shadow ... for better or for worse.

The posts about the fiction author's books have been split and moved to the media folder.

I bought a book once where four so-called experts ranked the world's 1000 most influential people. At the top of the list was not a political leader or military officer, but Johann Gutenberg.

Main weakness? Not my area of expertise, but I agree "bad leadership" was a big one. More to the point, it was the social system that produced that leadership. Up until the Dominate it was assumed the military commanders would be the educated and wealthy landowners, regardless of their inherent military expertise. Look at all the incompetent louts that fell before Hannibal. Nonetheless the legions were so well-trained, well-equiped, and thoughtfully guided by experienced Centurions they could overpower most enemies, especially if those enemies were a bunch of disorganized barbarian tribalists. I do fine the new order of things under the Dominate quite interesting, the separation of civil and military command, the granting of military leadership to often illiterate but more experienced field commanders.

Sorry, I was never a Western fan.

*bump* An old topic that deserves more consideration.

I recommend the Adkins and Adkins Handbook as a basic survey and intro.

Ammanius Marcellinus records that in the early 370's, a group of officials were contemplating the successor to Imperator Valens. A tripod was constructed, and the gods invoked. The Tripod spelled out "TH - E - O -D". And there the seance stopped, for everyone assumed it meant "Theodorus" a well-educated official from Gallic aristocracy. Unfortunately, it was not Theodorus, but Theodosius who followed Valens. The officials, finding themselves on the wrong side of history, did not die peaceful deaths. Let that be a lesson: don't trust strange ouija boards.

This is probably the most debated topic on UNRV. Opinions are sharply divided. There seems to be little of a middle ground though; most people either strongly admire or strongly loathe him. On a personal level, I've always admired this "bit of a polymath" as Germanicus puts it. Not only a gifted general, but a gifted writer and orator as well, and good with the ladies. Heh. Caesar is one of those rare men who is uniquely suited to exploit the time period he lived in. Of all his great talents, choosing a worthy successor ranks among the top. I feel Augustus was the more capable of the two in a political sense, and I probably have more in common with Augustus' coldly calculating strategic vision than Caesar's bravado...