Ursus

Fors juvat audentes.

I'm not the best person to ask about military history, though. :-/ But I agree with you it's an interesting slice of history.

I think the Delian League is one of the great "what if's" of history. What if this Athenian led federation had endured and became the principle player in the East rather than Alexander and his successors? Aside from that, there might be an interesting discussion on the relation of democray to imperialism. Is imperialism something repugnant to democracies, or is it something demanded by democracies? Trying to have this discussion without it falling prey to to modern politics would be a challenge.

Thought I'd share a quote from the book I just read.

Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History Christopher S. Mackay Many scholars these days have an agenda, but Mackay is very up front about his. In his introduction, Mackay explains he seeks to present a nuts-and-bolts, no-nonsense introduction to Roman history. He refers to his approach as "traditional" insofar as it internalizes the conventional sources and view points. By "traditional" we of course mean European males at the top of their particular socio-economic ladder, who seemed to act without regard to modern sensibilities concerning wealth and power. The author acknowledges that the new focus in modern scholarship is a revisionist agenda designed to either illuminate heretofore unsung segments of Roman culture, or radically overturn prevailing assumptions of Roman civilization. Mackay feels this new revisionist focus should "complement rather than supplant" the traditional scholarship. It is the author's intention that his readers have the core understandings of "traditional" Roman history before availing themselves of ever-expanding alternative viewpoints.... to the full review of Ancient Rome: A Military and Political History by Christopher S. Mackay

Really? Hmmm. Have I been unknowingly hobnobbing with professionals all this time? Really, who is out there behind the mask? Flavius! I bet you're not really some Catholic High School kid, but a professor emeritus at Cambridge. Who else ...?

The most obvious that comes to mind is a Byzantine subforum under Post-Roman.

Nor, really, did I ever assert it otherwise, Phil. My opinions are merely my opinions. Perhaps this is merely a problem of miscommunication, but you seem to be making a lot of assumptions here. You are, furthemore, adopting what appears to be a rather lecturing tone in many of your posts, as if you're on some mission to teach a new version of history, or to teach a new historical paradigm, to us kids on these forums. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to find the posturing a bit grating.

The thing of it is though, I really don't think it matters what we believe. What matters is what the people at the time believed and how they acted upon it. At the end of the day many people found cause to desert Antony, and Augustus' propoganda seems to have been fairly effective to that end among the roman camp. ;-) Even allowing for Augustan exaggeration, I still feel comfortable he won at Actium. Those on these forums berating the fall of the Republic to the despotism of the Empire would probably have twice the cannon fodder if Antony and Cleopatra had won at Actium ... though we can never know for certain.

*warm fuzzy feeling*

He did this? Was it for the Aegyptians? Well, in Egypt, Cleopatra claimed to be Isis, and Antony claimed to be Osiris. The Hellenistic equivalents of these were Demeter (or Aphrodite) and Dionysus, respectively, which both rulers promoted among their Greek subjects. Antony seems to have been very fond of drink and wild parties, something associated with the god Dionysus. His behaviour scandalized more conservative Romans. But most Romans up to that point only claim to have a patron deity, they didn't claim to actually be the deity. In the Hellenistic east claiming to be a reincarnation of a god for political purposes was not at all uncommon, and this is probably what Antony was aiming at. He and Cleopatra wanted to rule the entire east as god-monarchs on earth in the tradition of the old Pharoahs. But there are indications that Antony had gone over the edge and actually believed himself an Olympian on Earth. Augustus certainly promoted whatever evidence there was of this for his own ends in an attempt to slander Antony as a debased and power mad Oriental. And it worked, judging by how many people deserted Antony. Again, Augustus chose Apollo as his patron deity (or, if Augustus didn't really believe in Homeric gods, he chose Apollo as his "mascot" or his symbol of his new order). Apollo represents order, tradition, sobriety, restraint - the antithesis of Dionysian excess in which Antony was steeped.

sorry, but i thought it is time for a little (just a little) change cheers viggen If that's the case, I might have to steal your former quote, then. I've become increasingly avarice since my recent raise. :pimp:

Interesting, topic, Neos. Thank you. I don't know as much as about the Seleucids as I do about Ptolemaic Egypt. But Michael Grant paints an interesting portrait of it in one of his books. There was a short thread a while ago touching on the Seleucids. If I can find it I am merging it with this one into one meta-discussion. Keep up the interesting discussion. edit: done. Another topic on the Selucids has been merged with this one.

If the Democrats had run him he'd probably be president. But do you think the left-wing of the modern Democractic Party is going to nominate a career military officer? No. Might as well ask Republicans to nominate an Atheist.

Whatever tickles your fancy, Neos. :-) Feel free to start a thread on the Forum Peregrini at anything that comes to mind. And thanks, btw!

We are of course all indebted to the Big 3 for starting this little project, for their ongoing contributions, and not least of all for paying for the site. Hail Triumvirs! :notworthy: But every member who duly contributes is part of what makes our happy little community so special. So now everyone just join in a big group hug, and let us sing kum bah ya until we all feel a warm fuzzy. :wub:

And the winner is ... Celts. Any of you Romano-British fans want to start something ongoing? Runner up: The Greeks. Anyone want to take this topic on?

:punk:

Only if you get what you pay for. These days American colleges seem to be more centers of socio-political indoctrination than education per se. I had quite a few worthless classes along these lines. I'd like a refund, please. I've become fairly cynical about higher education. In my company if one has a college degree, one is considered management material and is promoted faster than those without a four year degree. But no one really cares where you went to school, what you studied, or what your grade point average is. I've gotten further on work ethic and personality. My advice to the youngins on the thread: unless you plan to attend graduate school, don't take higher education incredibly seriously. In the real world, how one presents oneself to one's superiors matters more than one's academic credentials per se.

Either that, or if they really want to enshrine the quasi-socialist ideals they encourage in others, they can agree to live on a much lower standing of living (i.e., no unecessary comforts). Then tuition could be reduced and more students could afford university. And maybe I could get a refund on the money I already shelled in.

Now that I have been duly acknowledged as cool, I wonder if there will be a marked increase in comely females seeking my attention.

Not at all. In fact, allow me to extend you a very hearty welcome to the UNRV Temple.

Hmmm. My main problem with my professors is that so many of them derided the socio-economic system that gave them their cushy, cloistered lives in the first place. Oh well.

Different people have different reasons. I see them as our cultural forebears, so alike and yet so different from we moderns. I assume you share to some extent in Romanophilia as you're here and you've named yourself after one of the better imperatores?

I'd like to write an in-depth article about this someday, unless someone beats me to it. Essentially, the version of Christianity supervised by Constantine and most of the Bishops became "mainstream" Christianity, sometimes called "Paulist Christianity" since it owes so much to Paul. Other sects of Christianity, like the Gnostics and Donatists, were eventually considered "heresies" and snuffed out. As far as Paulist Christianity goes, most of the ancient centers were in the Greek speaking East, aside from the notable center of Rome in the West. Rome and the Eastern centers were separated by language, but they also started to grow apart in theological principles and doctrines of Church organization. At some point we can speak of Paulist Christianity splitting into the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic. Yes, the Roman Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox) are heirs to ancient Christianity. They were around before Protestants, Mormons, etc. The churches even existed as an underground movement before the Bible was codified, something they enjoy pointing out to the newer churches.