Ursus

1) Only for Pagan fanatics. I'm a pagan sympathizer, but not a fanatic. As far as the establishment was concerned, Rome had a divine mission to civilize the world and it didn't really matter which particular set of divinities was guiding it. The version of Christianity which triumphed was a very Roman one thanks to Constantine. Besides which, the very Christian Eastern Empire prospered for quite a while. 2) Both halves of the empire endured for some time after this. The political split was merely recognizing a cultural reality that had existed for 400 years. 3) Alaric the Christian conducted a rather civilized sacking. Only the Senate House was burned in symbolic protest. At this point Rome was no longer the effective political center of the empire anyway. 4) This was the final straw from the political unity of the Western Empire, and a plausible answer. But if the Byzantines are considered Roman, then the empire endured for some time. 5) Merely a formal recognition that the East was Greek, not Latin. 6) Probably the turning point for the Eastern empire. It endured as a shadow, but it still nonetheless endured ... 7) The final coup de grace for the Eastern Empire, and another plausible answer. 8) It was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire, and can't be considered a continuation of the Roman Empire - not anymore than Tsarist Russia can be considered a "Third Rome" despite it's claims. 9) Only in the minds of weird Protestant cults who believe the European Union is a new evil empire. In the sum, then, we are narrowed to 4 or 7. The answer depends on how you define Roman and whether or not the Byzantines fall under that definition.

There was a temple to "Hercules of the Muses" in Rome. Strange that Hercules would be connected to the Muses ... But that's all I can find. To the extent that the Romans acknowledged the Muses, they seem to be borrowed wholesale from the Greeks. Rome not being an overly artistic society, I don't think anyone outside a small band of Greek-educated literati really cared.

I find myself in rare agreement with something RW said, namely that no list of Christian persecutions is complete without adding the violence against Christians by rival Christian authorities. In any case, from everything I've read, whether Pagan or Christian, the establishment only wanted the masses to pay lip service to whatever the state religion happened to be at the time. Much of the worse violence was instigated by locals and fanatical footsoldiers, not by those at the top who simply wanted a token conformity to the imperial ideal.

Or for the simple fact "the other side" often did not practice literacy.

Happy Birthday, Scriptor!

Hmmm. Had I been a lower class Italian or a provincial looking for citizenship, I probably would have joined to look for my meal ticket. If however I had been an Italian of any wealth I think I would have deserted the legions and gone into trade, as many Italians did in the post Civil Wars booming Roman economy. Or possibly If I had been a man of letters I'd see about becoming a bureaucrat/sycophant in the imperial service. Yeah, I'm not quite the military type. Sleeping in close quarters with a bunch of rugged, smelly men is not my idea of fun, no matter how loyal to the regime I may be.

Hail to the Imperator!

If I have sympathy for the whining of any precious socio-identity group, it would be the Native Americans. Of course, I am biased, as some of my own ancestors were among them. And while organized religion is not without its many faults and vices (and crimes), I think completely dismissing the sensitivities arising there from is a bit bigoted. Really, "scientific progress" has become about as amorphous a battle cry as "the will of God." It means different things to different people and can be used by sophists to justify a lot of rotten things. I think if it were my pile of bones, after I had been duly poked and prodded by the eggheads, I'd like to be given a decent burial. I would offer no less to the poor prehistoric slob they have interred in whatever cooler.

There is a side to the story most people don't know. A Heathen (Germanic polytheist) group in North America claimed the skeleton was of Eurasian stock. They further claimed this was proof that Caucasians had visited North America long before Columbus (or even Lief Erikson). They wanted to give the skeleton a Heathen religious burial. They tried to sue the government to perform DNA tests on the skeleton to prove exactly where it came from, and to bury it according to Germanic polytheist rites if indeed it originated in Northern Europe. The Native Americans, meanwhile, claimed the skeleton as one of their own and wanted to claim burial rights to it. They accused the Heathen group of having a racialist agenda (which may be exaggerated, but the Heathen group in particular does seem to have some kind of ethnic conscious). The Heathen group in turn claimed the Native Americans were playing the politically correct, "evil white male" card. The government, meanwhile, was astonished to find itself in a battle between angry Native Americans and a religious group they had never heard of before. They tried to stall and find a compromise ... The Heathen group, being rather small and underfunded, bowed out of the contest first. The Native Americans, who had more clout and money, remained. Apparently though the government has pushed them out as well. I just hope they eventually rebury the poor pile of bones, wherever it came from.

Sheer coldbloodedness? Really, the Celts and Germans fought as individuals for matters of honor and status. For the Hellenistic types, being a warrior was a cultural imperative for arete. For mercenary cultures, it was about money and booty. For the Romans after Marius, it was geopolitics.

Though I don't especially care for him, I'd have to say Plato.

The National Review is not a magazine I always agree with, but they made the point that international Islam needs to grow the hell up. It's behaving like a romper room of homicidal juveniles. Until it does grow up, no it won't stop killing people for the most trivial of offenses. America is imperialistic, but, really, so what else is new? Has there been any power on earth that has not tried to influence the flow of history? Would I rather have a McDonald's in Afghanistan or a Taliban-run Mosque in my backyard? And would people be more incensed if Mohammed had been potrayed as Ronald McDonald rather than a bomb throwing terrorist?

Is the influence of the media creating a more violent society? Well, I wanted to throw sharp objects at Dan Rather, so I suppose it does. Age: Old enough to know better and too young to care Gender: Hey, don't oppress me with your gender politics Occupation: I occupy space in a three dimensional universe

An argument which creeps up repeatedly in these forums, and in which I particular seem to be embroiled, is how to interpret history. In your introduction to Fall of the Roman Empire , you note there has been a marked tendency in the last generation to apply contemporary theories of literary deconstruction to the social sciences. This has brought into question if the traditional sources can ever have a definite veracity outside of alleged prejudices and agendas of the authors

I'm going to ignore some of the subsequent banter and address the original topic, assuming anyone still cares. Yes, I do believe that is a fair list up top, and they are all interconnected, really. With the boom of the Roman economy following the civil wars, the elites of the native cultures in the Western Mediterranean were fairly easily assimilated into Roman culture as decurions, equestrians, and senators. At the same time, while Italians deserted the legions to become traders and merchants, the lower classes of the native peoples became legion troops for a hope of citizenship and land. Meanwhile, the Varrus disaster notwithstanding, the barbarian tribes on the border entered into a complex trading and military relationship with Rome. As PP said, it wasn't a paradise, but it was a time when the Western Mediterranean became Romanized. The East was a separate entity and didn't partake much of the Senatorial class until philhellenic Imperators like Hadrian, but nontheless it largely accepted Roman hegemony. Good times all around. A nice time to be alive, at least if you were rich.

Most of the people I meet in life are examples of what NOT to do, and I appreciate them only from that standpoint ...

I don't think there is any group so special that someone should go to jail for verbally stepping on their toes. It would be like me suggesting all Christians and Muslims should be jailed because their holy texts bad mouth paganism.

The one problem I have with the theory is this: Sacrifice means "to make sacred." You are taking something valuable and ritually consecrating it to divinity. Food is valuable because it is scarce (especially in pre-Industrial societies), and thus makes a fitting offering. Gold and silver and other precious metals are valuable, and thus make suitable offerings. But as far as human sacrifice, what kind of humans would be sacrificed? Criminals? Criminals are like the trash of society, and not very "valuable" things to offer. Prisoners of war? I suppose if they were exceptional warriors they might be considered valuable, but then there is a question of why would you mutilate a precious offering to a deity? I'm not saying human sacrifice never happened. Obviously it's been recorded in Roman and other cultures. But I do think when a body if found mutilated in a bog, it's just a case of some poor slob or criminal who was disposed of by the powers that be.

While not being a prude, I think this thread can quickly go in directions that would not be suitable for some members. No offense, but I'm going to lock it. You may continue the discussion on private messengers.

I think the only time the admins/mods put their foot down about old threads was some of the nonsense that used to happen on the Legion folder. As far as some of the other topics, I find them a little worn out and personally don't participate in them, but they're not going to be closed if people still want to discuss them. If someone starts a thread that has been discussed before, we simply merge the topics and take it from there.

So ... 1 1/2 months later ... how are the reviews coming?

I do believe so. I remember replying in that thread it was hard for me to pick one province, but I could say without reservation there was an imperial core of lands immediately bordering the Mediterranean, while those beyond the Mediterranean were peripheral at best. Italy, Africa, Spain and southern Gaul was the Empire in a real sense of the word, contributing not only grain and taxes but imperial functionaries and soldiers. The Hellenistic East was richer on the whole, but culturally distinct and slow to send its people to the Senate - especially Egypt. Britannia and northern Gaul were never fully Romanized and probably cost more to keep than they ever contributed.

Michael Grant gives a basic survey in _From Alexander to Cleopatra_

The Chinese had noodles, but Europeans invented pasta independently. I believe the Etruscans may have invented it and passed it on to the Romans, but I can't remember the source which spells this out... What, no fruit?

Excellent review, Virgil. This book was already on my to read list, and now its been moved to the top.