Ursus

Really, you didn't miss anything. I think everything has been said that can be said ...

Viggin, From what I have read, the language of the Franks blended with the Vulgar Latin in use in the area. The Frankish language influenced vocabulary and pronounciation, but the grammar of Vulgar Latin was more or less retained. The reason that Frankish language merely blended rather than taking over completely is because most of the Germanic peoples still used the former Roman bureaucrats to run things. Latin was also the language of the new religion.

I think the obsession with the application of language and its alleged morality (or lack thereof), and the attempts to redefine the application of language so as not to offend those whom it allegedly oppresses, is rather politically correct in nature, don't you? Anyway, another poster on here once asked us to get away from using the term

He simply adhered to a particular approach to history most of the rest of us did not share. I welcomed him when he first arrived, but his tone became increasingly "politically correct" as time went on. When I disagreed with his attempt to dictate politically correct language use to us, he made some backhanded comment about my intellect. Primus Pilus issued him a friendly warning for it. At that point he decided to leave. This sort of thing happens once in a while on this forum. It's no big deal. Life goes on. :-)

With one exception though ... Divi Fulius was an earlier (and excellent)member of the site under another name. Which is why he is a Patrician even though he seems new.

I'm tempted to say it initially meant the latter. The very nature of the Centuriate Assembly suggests Roman civilization viewed itself in terms of an armed camp, and citizens were prized mostly to the extent they could contribute to military efforts. The central Roman virtue - virtu, manliness, - is usually translated as strength and bravery in battle. There are parallels in other Indo-European cultures. In some Germanic tribes, if one threw down one's shield and cowardly ran away in battle, they were no longer entitled to sit on the popular assemblies of the tribe. Clearly the true mark of an individual was his capacity to wage war for the community. The Struggle of the Orders and the various initiatives of the Plebians (the grunts of the citizens' militia) gave way to a broader concept of "the people" and "The Republic." In fact, the central weapon of the Plebian struggles was their simple refusal not to go to war for the community unless they got their way.

Can we not appreciate both men for their respective abilities, as well as simply being interesting characters in their own right, regardless of their politics? Despite our love for Roman history and politics, I don't think anyone on this board takes the politics of the late Republic as personally as you do, Cato. Perhaps we therefor approach the subject matter from a different perspective.

Tom Holland. Rubicon.

This has given me an altogether different idea. (And I don't mean to hijack the thread, P. Clodius) What if we have an opinion piece every month, or every two weeks? You know, like an editorial page in a newspaper? People can post their subjective opinions on a topic related to Roman history. Since it is an opinion piece, we could allow them a certain leeway in expressing themselves, so long as it doesn't get too out of hand.

I'll just be happy if moderate Islam prevails over fanatical Islam.

I'm sure I'll probably take some hits for this, but I decided at some point ago I simply don't care about places where people fight over gods I don't follow and lands I feel no connection to. Israel-Palestine, North Ireland, Kashmir, African civil wars. Bleh. I'm a firm believer that one has to pick one's causes carefully, and I've decided none of the above are mine.

"Metics could not own land in Athenian territory without special permission, but they enjoyed legal rights in Athenian courts that other foreigners lacked. In return, Metics paid taxes and served in the army when called upon." --- Thomas Martin. _Ancient Greece_ It should be noted that - outside of Athens - the arts and crafts and mundane trades had a very secondary place in Greek culture. War and politics were considered the proper professions for the male citizen. With the duly designated citizens controlling war and politics, trade and arts/crafts were taken up by the metics. The Metics could become very rich then, but they did not have full legal or political status in their polis, they had to pay taxes, and in an emergency they had to serve in the military alongside the citizens.

... and while having the effect of making a great site even better, there are certain personal rewards for contributions - i.e., a fast track to promotion. Equestrians - get their own blogs, among other things Patricians - eligible to partake in the monthly free book give away, have their own forum where their advice is solicited by the powers that be On this site we adhere to the central Roman value that service to the community is the greatest virtue, and rewarded with honor and glory.

Within the context of Ancient Greek cultural values, I would say yes. To be paramount in anything and everything was the Greek way.

Yes, but "the people" were the people only insofar as they were part of the regimented military machine. In other words, the connotation of "the people" is not the people in an abstract or idealistic republican sense. The sense is "the people are the soldiers of the Senate, let's send them out to plunder." SPQR - The Roman Senate and its plundering army! See what I'm getting at?

Being neither a hardcore military buff nor an expert in Latin, the following was new to me. If it's not new to you, then peachy. But in reading Mackay's _Ancient Rome _, I did read one thing I at least hadn't come across before. SPQR - Senatus populusque romana. Usually translated as "The Senate and the People of Rome." The standard of Republic government. However, Mackay claims populus doesn't really mean "people." In the oldest definitions, it meant "army." Or more specifically, the people assembled as the army, under the division of the various socio-economic classes that constituted the army in its political role - i.e., the Centuriate Assembly. The latin verb populari means "to plunder," and the noun derives from the verb. Thus SPQR wouldn't mean "The Senate and the People of Rome" - it would really mean "The Senate and the Army of Rome" or perhaps more accurately "The Senate and the Centuriate Assembly of Rome." Kind of puts a different spin on the old Republican formula. The People were the People only insofar as they were part of the old citizen's militia.

Hail, P. Clodius! Thank you for that contribution. Food for thought.

Sure... In Athens there had come to be a divide between the business classes and the lower classes. The business classes supported Rome, the lower classes did not. A philosopher named Aristion led the lower classes in revolution in attempt to "restore democracy." The pro-Roman business classes fled, and Aristion started forging alliances with Mithridates who was waging his own war on Rome. Sulla arrived in Greece with five legions and immediately besieged Athens. The response of the oh-so-intellectual Athenians was to compose rude songs about Sulla. They compared his face to a mulberry bush topped with oatmeal. In response, Sulla found the groves where the classical philosophers used to lecture to their students, and he chopped them down. At this point, Athenian ambassadors met with Sulla and droned on for some time about the lost glory of their city. Sulla reminded them he had not come to Athens to listen to a history lecture, and dismissed them rudely. Sulla of course stormed the city, killed the democrats, and burned and plundered. He made a temporary peace with Mithridates, and then restored the pro-business, pro-Roman puppet government in Athens. Sulla rounded up the columns of the Temple of Zeus and shipped them back to Rome. He also shipped off Olympic Athletes. And for the final touch, he totally plundered all the books of the Athenian libraries and shipped them back to Rome. The Athenians lost all those philosophical tomes they so enjoyed to read.

Christianity aside, the larger picture is that "traditional" segments of the European population are declining due to low birth rates, while "non traditional" segments are rising due to high birth rates and immigration. The declining "traditional" segments of Europe are by and large increasingly secular, and the "non-traditional" segments of Europe tend to be more religious, especially Islamic. How one views this is up to one's own biases. Certainly there are those who see the numbers of Caucasian Christians in Europe declining in favor of non-Caucasian Islamic types, and are quite concerned with how this will impact the culture of Europe about a 100 years from now if relative statistics remain constant. There are those who indeed suggest Europeans need to get down with Jesus and "be fruitful and multiply" or their grandchildren might be bowing before a version of Islam inspired by Al Queda. I'm not sure if I agree with this assessment. But certainly demographic changes have a long term impact on cultures. North America is itself experiencing changes in ethnicity and religion. The WASP majority that ruled America for two hundred years will be a thing of the past. Is this good or bad? It's up to your perspective. But it's naive to suggest that there won't be significant changes that will greatly influence all those who live there. Same with Europe. The shrinking numbers of Caucasian Christians to "other" types may be good or bad depending on your perspective, but it

Polytheist cultures have a habit of borrowing each other's gods. Polytheism is basically a set of related cults of various gods, who are linked to each other loosely through the agency of mythology and epic poetry. In Greece, gods from the Indo-Europeans and Orientals collided with with the gods of whatever native peoples were already living there. Poets like Homer and Hesiod developed an epic oral tradition that related these gods to each other by seeing Zeus the chief god as the Father or Brother of all the other gods.

The Pax Romana established by Augustus and lasting until the Crisis of the Third Century is probably the longest stretch of prosperity and relative peace the Western world has ever known. Truly a golden age if there ever was one. As to mythology Roman Myth tells how after Jupiter overthrew his father as king of the Gods, Saturn lived on earth and taught men agriculture and other useful things. Such is the basis of the Saturnalia celebrations.

A man of contradictions. Supposedly a conservative in sympathy, he used rather radical means to achieve power. Certainly his private life was not conservative by Roman standards! His conservative goals were unraveled by the radical methods he used. To be sure, the Republic needed something. Sulla streamlined the cursus honorum, and his senatorial reforms were interesting. But being "conservative," his refoms simply did not address the major issue of the time - the fact that Rome was no longer a city-state, but a growing empire. But do I like Sulla on a personal level? Sure. A most interesting character. I derived a few chuckles out of Tom Holland's portrait of him. His handling of the pretentious Athenian philosophers during the wars in the East was priceless.

Caesar's good points? * generally brilliant military commander. It's been pointed out that sometimes he bit off more than he could chew and his troops had to bail him out, but even in such instances his leadership inspired his troops. * suave politician. Except, I suppose, for that bit at the end when he ticked off enough people to inspire assassination. In retrospect, not such a good idea. * One of the greatest orators and authors (and propagandists) of the age, not far behind Cicero in some people's estimation. Not nearly as hypocritical or as insipid as Cicero, either. * Good with the ladies. And, if we are to believe the stories, with the men as well. * Knew how to pick clever and insightful people to succeed him. Augustus lovers may say Caesar was the opening act for Octavian's grand number. * Accomplished all this despite having a disability (The Falling Sickness, as Shakespeare put it). A poster boy for how people can overcome disadvantages. His bad points? Well, others like to point out his megalomania and his "war crimes." And , oh yes, ending that dysfunctional morass some people grandiloquently call a Republic. Aside from that, I believe his greatest flaw was his legendary sex drive which his opponents used against him, and which Cleopatra was able to use to ensnare him. So many otherwise great men are led around by their penis. Tragic, really. That's why I have more respect for Augustus at the end of the day, he was seemingly immune to such things. But nonetheless, it would not be amiss to insert an "Ave Caesar!" at this point. As to the original poster, I hope this whole thread has been sufficiently educational. If you peruse through this forum you'll probably find an encyclopedia's worth of entries on the merits and demerits of this particular Roman.

Yes. I'm not sure of any military meaning, but under the empire they were the third class, behind Senators and Equestrians. The Decurions were town counselors. They were part of the local elite who pumped in money to the public treasury, and in return they were effectively the local puppet rulers under the Roman governors. In the beginning of the empire, many local elites voluntarily became decurions as it was the first step in the higher social ladder. Later, many local elites decided the financial burden wasn't worth the perks; the empire had to force local elites to become decurions.

What scares me are the religious fundamentalists trying to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure I've live to see an American or European city damaged by a "dirty" bomb or biochemical agent.