Ursus

People were still honoring their ancestors and local spirits in the privacy of their own homes well after the conversion of Constantine. After a death penalty was proscribed for this, it gradually died out - or was absorbed in popular Catholicism/Orthodoxy. However, it's difficult to state exactly when the last remnants were snuffed out.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/gallic-sack-of-rome.php Livy goes into more detail (Livy loves detail, it seems). Fabius, the leader of three Roman envoys sent to negotiate with the Gauls over excursions into Etruria, violated what passed for "international law" at the time and incited violence at a diplomatic meeting. Incensed, the Gauls stormed to Rome and demanded that Fabius be handed over for his crimes. It was a reasonable request. Unfortunately the Romans refused to admit they were in the wrong, and did not hand over Fabius. The result was the infamous sacking of Rome. Rome's subjects took the opportunity to break away, and it was fifty years before order was restored.

I'm going to say the Roman nobles of the early Republic (can't remember their names right now) who bungled the diplomatic talks between the Celts and Etruscans, and ultimately resulted in the Celts sacking Rome. It set Rome back at least 50 years.

Stigmata. The Da Vinci code. The Gospel of Thomas. It seems like an interest in Gnostic Christianity is resurging. I wonder, as mainstream Protestantism continues to whither and die, will Gnosticism take up some of the slack?

Caesar = hairy.

I too have read this book. While not being the expert on archaeology that Pantagathus is, I found it generally informative and interesting. I would also recommend "The World of the Celts" by Simon James. I have also read "The Celts" by Peter Ellis, but I do not recommend this book as the author clearly has an agenda.

Indeed. I was giving everyone a friendly warning not to turn it into another vs thread. If we start having detailed discussions about the Roman Fleet versus the Japanese armada, I will close the thread without further comment.

Definitely political correctness at its worse. Everything points to a Semitic origin. I think the question is irrelevant anyway. Romans did not seem obsessed with ethnic distinctions. Nor did the vast majority of Roman inhabitants ever get to see the emperor close enough to judge his skin color.

But you know, the Dominate was a time when someone of parvenu background could work their way through the ranks of the military and become Primus Pilus, and from there quite possibly become a governor or regional military commander. Under the Principate with it's quasi-aristocratic values, the top posts were always reserved for the leading Senators and Equestrians. The military of the Dominate afforded a certain social mobility to the common man, which I believe largely offsets the increased regality of the imperial court.

As I've always understood it, "Greek" is an ethnic or at least geographical designation. "Hellenic," on the other hand, is a purely cultural term to which anyone of the right mentality can claim allegiance.

It was closed because 1) it was drifting 2) It's a topic that has been done to death. These X versus Y threads usually are both. In the future please don't start a thread on the exact same topic as a thread that was just closed by a mod. Common sense would seem to suggest that if a thread was closed by the mod, the mod doesn't want it reopened within a few hours.

Augustus had tried to rule as "Princeps" from his sense of auctoritas, a nebulous social and spiritual authority. It was always a fiction ... how to hold the powers of the king without the actual title. Augustus was smooth enough to pull it off, though I don't think many of his successors were. The title of Dominus with its pomp and ceremony seems more than anything a simple break from the facade of the Augustan system. It acknowledged the head of state now had more than token spiritual authority, and was an attempt to remedy the vague limits implied by the title of Princeps. Recent research by such people as Prof. Heather indicates the late empire was as robust and healthy as any other time in Roman history. Whether or not we like the touch of Oriental authority of the Dominate is a matter of taste, but it may not be fair to paint it as a "decline." It's a system that worked adequately until the Goths came pouring through - and even then the East did quite well. In my own personal opinion, the Dominate was more logically and rationally organized than the Principate.

Fellows, The question was about the Roman navy. It's not about whether the Japanese Navy or Dark Age Norse Navy could defeat the Roman fleet. Thanks.

Let's not bring religion into this particular thread.

Happy B-day.

I can't speak well about the details of military tactics. But on the subject of morality I'd do whatever it would take to survive. If making loud noises and rude gestures did not scare off an enemy intent to kill me, I'd resort to more effective means.

Egos? Around here? I hadn't noticed. I'll close the thread simply because it's starting to drift. Scottish pikemen? Did any of you actually read the Senatus Consultatem on the top of the forum?

Because the the threads in question were starting to become rather ridiculous. Romans versus Native Americans, Romans versus Mongols, Romans versus Han Chinese, etc. As this is a Romanophile site anything that falls outside the Roman Empire is off topic (which includes Native Americans, Mongols and Han Chinese). A Hellenic phalanx is reasonably related to the Roman Empire, so such a thread is on topic. However, as Germanicus said, old timers know the particular subject has been done to death around here. Even the hardcore military buffs were growing tired of it. You are welcome here, but please abide by the forum guidelines. Thank you.

In the Later empire, the commanders of the defensive installations were given the title of praefectus, who served under the Dux of the province. Perhaps someone can give more detailed information.

I suppose I am in a minority, but I like Caesar's direct and simple style to the moralism of several people on that list.

Good. Perhaps we can begin preliminary discussions now. More involved discussions can begin after the book has been published. I'm also open to discussions of the historical and archaeological analysis of Authorian legend insofar as Arthur is theorized as a late Celto-Roman warlord. Althought that might best be a separate topic.

The thing of it is, a Roman developed something like a working steam engine in the reign of Tiberius 1700 years before an Englishman did the same thing. But it was put to use opening and closing the massive doors of a temple rather than agricultural or industrial production. And the invention was forgotten ... Prof. Eugene Weber in a televised lecture insinuated that the Romans were as capable of anyone as developing technology, but the conservative cultural values of the early empire did not know how, or did not want to know, how to apply those advances for maximum effect. Professor Heather who recently visited our forums provides evidence that the late empire was productive and technologically advanced (for ancient Europe). Of course, the late empire was a time of change, when the landed aristocracy and their values had taken backseat to a new militaristic order.

All well and fine, but I think I shall move it to the Media forum.

A majority of people in the poll pinned to the top of the forum answered that "Celt" was the culture they would most like to see discussed on this forum. We've had a few debates off and on about the Celts, but I was hoping we could get to something more involved and ongoing. Especially with some of the later generation additions to the forum, like Pertinax and Pantagathus, who have a good interest and knowledge base in the subject, it might prove fruitful. As this is a Romanophile forum, I was hoping the emphasis would not be on the Celts in their own right, but their relations to the Roman world and particularly how they were influenced by Romanization after conquest. Southern Gaul and Northern Italy were so Romanzied as to leave only a few traces of Celtic heritage. I'm not sure how much research has been done on Roman Spain but it seems Romanization was about as efficient as in Gaul. It would seem to me then that Roman Britain would be the focus of the discussion. As Roman Britain is also an oustanding example of a military province, this could interest military buffs. The discussion would focus on 1) History and Politics from Caesar's "invasion" to Honorius leaving the island to its own devices 2) Culture, language and religion - the mix of Roman and Celt into something truly "Celto-Roman" 3) The role of the Roman legions in Romanization Not coincidently, a new book on Roman Britain is scheduled to be released in late April. It looks comprehensive and I have pre-ordered it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/050005140...glance&n=283155

I'm not sure if the professor is around anymore. In any event, his expertise is the later Roman Empire and this questions falls well outside his domain.