Ursus

If one wants to trust wikipedia (yeah, I know ....) they do have an interesting article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

I think only a fundamentalist religeous nut would. Does that make Plato and Aristotle religious nuts? Somewhat off topic, but Plato at least is not without critics in this regard. Christianity, after it broke from its Jewish roots, certainly evolved in forms inspired by Platonic thought.

If I'm reading this right, you're basically giving me two options here: 1) I live in the present, thus I have a different moral code than those Ancient Romans. My moral code is based on centuries of "progress" and therefor I view the outlook of the Romans as unenlightened at best, inhumane at worst. Those Romans are simply not to be admired because they are so far divorced from everything we moderns understand as decency. 2) I live in the present and am a product of centuries of "progress." My moral code is vastly different than the Romans. Nonetheless I can't judge the people of the past by present moral codes. I can assert a certain temporal relativism, and say whatever happened in the past may not be desirable from a modern standpoint, but may have been excusable within the context of the harsh and ignorant realities of the past. To which PP may have added a third option: History simply is. Whatever subjective moral codes we impose upon the march of history are beside the point. (Nietzsche would applaud, I believe) I'll simply add there is a fourth option, though admittedly it will be in the minority opinion. The fourth option does not posit the rigid dichotomy between past moral codes and present moral codes you assume, provided someone in the present honestly internalizes much of the past. There are plenty of old school pagans that find much in the Roman world view to internalize and genuflect and cannot, or will not, draw an inseparable barrier between then and now. Thus it's not a question of "judging" Ancient Rome. If anything, the modern world is judged by the standards set by the Romans.

I'm not sure if Christianity had much to do with it. Christianity once seriously debated whether or not grown women had souls. Whether or not a newborn or a fetus had a soul is something I don't think they worried about until later. Ever since the age of Augustus, social conservatives worried about the declining Roman birth rate. Perhaps the answers lie there, in the general willingness of the government to have more Romans born into the world to be soldiers, farmers and tax payers.

Whatever actually caused death, it was an excrutiating and very public death, which was the point. Now I've read it was reserved for slaves and traitors, the lowest of the low. But I've read conflicting things. Pirates were wont to be crucified, for instance. Any clarification on exactly who got the treatment and under what circumstances? Also, I've read the practice actually originated in Persia or other Mid-east countries, which Rome merely adopted (possibly through Punic intermediaries)? Any clarification on that?

I'm not a sports fan. But it seems to me baseball had its heyday during the age of radio. When television became the medium, football became more popular.

I can't answer all your questions, but I'd say there are several broad things Rome had that worked to its advantage. First was simple geography. Rome was on the main trading route between the Greek south and Etruscan north of Italy, with access to the Tiber river. It was bound to profit from this and the interaction between those two great civilizations. It was also situated nicely near the middle of the commercial and cultural melting pot of the Mediterranean in general. Second was dogged determination of Romans to always recover from defeat. It's not that the Romans were invincible. They suffered more humiliating defeats in battle than many people want to admit. But after every defeat they picked themselves up and came back stronger than ever. With that attitude, how could they lose in the long run? Third was the ability of Rome to incorporate other peoples and their skills into an imperial network. The military alliances with subject peoples meant Rome had a nearly unlimited amount of manpower from which to draw. They could suffer all those defeats and still have enough troops left over to do the job. They could also incorporate the best methods of their enemies - such as the Spanish short sword or Celtic armor - into their own ranks and use them more effectively than their enemies. Fourth was the strategy of "divide and conquer" which Rome applied successfully to its enemies, especially the Celts. The Romans themselves also believed their greatness was destiny, the result of their intense religious devotions and the divine favor it supposedly brought. This of course is purely subjective -- but it's what they believed and what they acted upon, and people who feel that divinity is on their side can often accomplish great things out of pure fanaticism.

China is interesting. Unfortunately, it has so little to do with Roman history that it is considered off topic even on the forum peregrini. Sorry. I moved it to the afterhours lounge.

Hard to say for sure, but we are pretty sure Aphrodite is a Hellenized version of Astarte. Certainly even before Roman conquest the Mediterranean was a rich melting pot, and gods are often commodities like any other to be exchanged by trading societies.

Supposedly the adherents of the cult would take on an ecstatic euphoria where the god would obliterate all boundaries - between male and female, man and animal, mortal and god. While in this state the cult adherents were rumored to commit atrocities, ranging from eating raw animal flesh to committing nocturnal murders. Even if the claims were exaggerated, doubtless the cult was a rowdy bunch whose mores offended conservative Romans. More to the point, the cult was a private arrangement that had nothing to do with the venerable State sanctioned religion. In this private cult there were certain arrangements that defied conventional Roman sensibilities. For instance, powerful men would have to submit their lives and fortunes to the lower class, rural women who were often the clergy of Bacchus. The Roman Senate had little tolerance for what they saw as social perversions and severely restricted the cult. At some point in the empire, the cult as a counter-culture, revolutionary and "subversive" movement practically ceased to exist. Instead the Roman well-to-do had reasonably quiet celebrations of Bacchus as the god of wine in furtherance of a feel-good Roman imperial pride. Bacchus was turned from a demonic god into an excuse for the establishment to toast their own success. The Roman Empire at its height was so grand that it managed to subvert the subversive god.

I've disturbed a lot of people over the years. I just get tired of seeing the same arguments ad infinitum. Especially when more than one person around here seems to take the issue so darn personally. Virgil and I are not the only ones who feel this way, we're just more prone to expressing our views in public. In any event, no one's trying to put a stop to this, unlike some of the tired threads on the Legion folder. We're merely saying we're sitting on the sidelines. So for those so inclined, have at it! If you have something to teach our eager young students on the forum, by all means go for it.

What we need around here to garner publicity is a duly elected representative to serve as an ambassador of UNRV. To that end I announce the first annual Mr./Ms. UNRV contest. The five admins/mods will serve as a panel of judges. Contestants will be judged on the following criteria: 1) How they look in evening wear 2) How they look in swimwear 3) A special talent they can demonstrate 4) How they answer the following three questions: a) If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be, and why? What do you believe is the ultimate nature of reality, space, time and the universe? Answer in four sentences or less. c) How would you make the world a better place? The winner's photograph will be plastered on the front page. The winner will also receive a free gift of hair gel. The winner will serve as the good will ambassador for UNRV and will represent UNRV in an official capacity for the duration of their term. The winner will also have to hug and congratulate next year's winner. A runner-up will be chosen. In the event that the winner cannot perform his/her duties, or suddenly dies of spontaneous combustion, the runner-up will assume the winner's duties. Bribes will be duly considered.

I have some sort of overpriced document. It's writtten in Latin, and I don't understand every word. I do, however, have the goodwill and respect of my superiors which seems to count for more in the real world.

I'd participate, but I'm rather burned out on the Late Republic/Caesar threads. My only suggestion is that whoever is playing Cleopatra in this exercise of yours stay true to character and try to seduce the leading players.

Never read it, but you can't be a pagan without hearing about it, eventually. I think the author's point is that a god is simply anything that becomes of overwhelming importance to a person. In the modern era, American pop culture has become something of its own religion. For instance, most people I know under 25 believe the most important thing in life is following their favorite music band. Pop culture icons have become gods to many people, even if they otherwise profess atheism.

Horses? The oats go in one end and out the other. That's about all I know.

I'll give you a nice shiny new quarter for all those worthless, rusted old coins ...

The militant atheism of some of the people around here is probably rubbing you the wrong way. I find it a bit over the top, myself. (Maybe they were abused by priests. Or maybe they just need an axe to grind). Nonetheless they are right in one thing: you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof rests on those who make the assertions. No one has to disprove the Bible - those who demand others believe in it have the burden to prove that is it correct. As far as the Bible being historically accurate, I believe the results are mixed at best. For one thing, there is little evidence that large numbers of Hebrews were ever held captive in Egypt. And in any event the Egyptians did not use foreign slaves to build pyramids - they conscripted their own native population during the non-farming months. That puts the whole story of Exodus in doubt. That 's not to say the rest of the Bible doesn't hold a powerful spiritual reality for those so inclined, merely that mythology is best read allegorically, not literally.

Americans who get The Discovery Channel may be aware of a program called "mythbusters." These two geeks and their crew test urban myths using ingenious methods. Most of the urban myths turn out to be false, of course. Last night they tested the old Legend that Archimedes fashioned some type of big mirror to focus the sun's rays and burn incoming Roman ships. Yes, the infamous Archimedes death ray! A challenge was issued to various engineering teams (including a team from MIT) to see if they could fashion some device that could burn a mockup of a Roman vessel at a 150 feet. Using modern mirrors, the MIT team was able to do it. However, when confining themselves to Iron Age bronze mirrors, it could not be done under simulated circumstances. For one thing, the solar death ray simply didn't work every time there was cloud cover. For another thing, to start a fire the solar rays would have to be focused on a particular part of a ship for a considerable length of time, and if the Roman ships were moving (which they would have been) this would have been near impossible. Anyway, very interesting how they set this up and disspelled this myth.

As for me, I think Weird Al Yankovic is the true genius of modern music! And Jessica Simpson is far from being a genius of any sort, but I'd rather see her shake her booty on stage than 60 year old British rock stars.

It was indeed novel to see Hollywood treating an ancient religion with an ounce of respect. However, the exact manner of veneration performed by Maximus may be Hollywood invention, as I can't find much in the primary texts that attest to whatever he did on screen. "Great Mother, Great Father" ... ? Still, we've come along way from the Roman movies made in the fifties and sixties.

It's called a library.

I think this thread has gone on long enough. Those that wish may sign the petition (for all the good it will do). Those that don't can move on.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting over 90% of deaths in human history are attributed to religious violence? Disease, starvation, accidents, old age and non-religious violence account for the other 10%?

Yes Like Saul of Tarsus, known to Christians as St. Paul. I also came across a reference that a Jew of Alexandria managed to become the equestrian prefect of Egypt, one of the highest honors in the empire. Some upper class Hellenized Jews were more than willing to become clients and citizens of Rome. Unfortunately this attitude was not shared by a majority of their rebellious peers, and the Hebrews as a whole were never fully assimilated into the Greco-Roman world.