Ursus

To be honest, the ethics folder is a bit of a hold over from the days when we had one or two personalities especially dedicated to "deconstructing" Roman civilization. I'm glad to see Primus Pilus has expanded its scope. I applaud the decision. Furthermore, this lets us keep the Imperium folder as a strictly historical and political folder. I suppose someday when I get bored I'll comb the Imperium folder and transfer all relevant threads to the humanities folder.

If I say, then I probably greatly annoy anyone from those states. But it seems to me there are always several states that score in the bottum rung of GDP, education scores, and the like. They suck up far more of the federal budget than they contribute.

Bwahahahaha!!

I think the Red flag-waving revolutionaries of the 20th century taught us that organized atheism isn't necessarily more logical or moral than organized religion.

No. In fact, not only should we be not adding more states to the Union, we should be expelling states who are a constant drain to the federal treasury. Time to cut our losses.

I've long advocated a "daily life and culture" folder which would be a catch all for everything from gladiator fights to Latin threads. Archaeology would fall under such an umbrella.

Most of us on this forum - American and non-American alike - grow tired of seeing threads supposedly on Ancient Rome degenerate into commentaries on US foreign policy. While most old hands are aware of the rules, it does seem the aforementioned rule has not been clearly spelled out in the forum guidelines. Newer members may therefor not be totally clear on the rules. However, you will be happy to know I just officially added it to the forum guidelines. May the discussion on Ancient Rome resume in earnest.

Addendum: All posts touching contemporary politics would best be made in the "afterhours" forum. If a post on Ancient Rome or related areas starts evolving into a commentary on modern politics, it would be best to make a new thread in the afterhours forum.

Hard to imagine as one of the central cultural traits of Rome was for the politicos to gain prominence through honor and glory, the most potent expression of which was military victory. But it is very true that some of the politicos made lousy generals. Reading between the lines on Livy's history of the Second Punic War, it seems Hannibal was not quite the super genius he's made out to be, it's merely that most of the Roman politicians at the time were not the brightest military leaders.

I think the world would be a better place if I ruled it. Does anyone want to proclaim me god-king on earth?

Well, it's a good start. I shall sign up now.

To not share the majority religion can be sometimes annoying and alienating. I speak from experience. To not share religion at all must be even more so. But most of us here live in post-Enlightenment Western democracies. Our "oppression" is slight compared to what other people around the world experience. For instance, people in pre-invasion Afghanistan. I just respectfully submit if the old man wants to hold a crusade on the excesses of organized religion, there might be spots in the world more deserving of it than Italy. A few centuries ago it might have been a different story, but (a hardline Pope notwithstanding) the Church is not a monster.

True, the Neoplatonists saw human sexuality as a distraction from the liberation of the soul into the higher godhead (another reason I don't care for their philosophy). But they still didn't have the amazing list of sexual restrictions as brought forth by the authors of Leviticus. A strict reading of Hebrew sexual ethics says that for a man to ejaculate anywhere but inside the womb of his wife is sinful. While all cultures have sexual taboos, few to none were so restrictive as the Hebrews. And while Christianity abandoned many aspects of Hebrew tribal law - for instance, the dietary restrictions - it did keep the sexual restrictions.

What, you don't like being called "Jopfa"? BTW, congrats on being a blog owning equestrian.

Very well. I accept your suggestion. I have read Michael Grant's The Etruscans and found it highly informative, if somewhat bland at times. (Though judging by what Pantagathus has written on Etruscans in the Forum Peregrini, Grant's research on the subject is somewhat out of date.)

And that's pretty much the essence of New Age "paganism."

As I understand it, Artorious is a corruption of Art-Ursus, Art being an old Celtic word for bear and Ursus being the Latin. The combined Celtic-Latin would make sense for a Celto-Roman warlord who was dubbed "the bear of Brittania."

The problem is that those doing the revision often have agendas or prejudices themselves. They seek not so much to correct history and offer an objective assessment, but to replace one biased view of history with their own. This is the sin of many a postmodern academic.

I thought I'd make this announcement as some people, especially newer people, are getting this confused. To reply to a topic, you either hit "fast reply" or "reply" depending on your proclivities. Be careful not to hit the "report a post" link. This does not add to the public discussion; rather, it sends a private message to the moderators. You should not be hitting "report a link" unless you actually find something offensive in the post you wish to privately bring to a mod's attention. Thanks for reading. -- Ursus

I think the main problem is how to effectively marshall the resources of an entire empire under one executive authority, while maintaining some type of Republican government. To be honest, the executive authority would have to change dramatically. If this were not to devolve into autocracy, it would still need radical overhauls from the old system of two consuls elected annually. Perhaps one consul elected every 5 or 10 years. But however it is, there has to be one warlord at the top with command of the entire armies to deal with imperial wide threats, as Pompei demonstrated with the Cicilian pirates. But what to stop this super-consul from evolving into King or Autocrat? Most likely he would have to be elected by, and responsible to, the Senate, which would take power away from the Assembly of Centuries. The Senate itself would have to change to admit elites from the provinces. Since the conservatives in the Republic were adamantally opposed to this, I'm not sure how this could be done under the Republic. Basically, the Republic would have to evolve from a municipal government into a truly imperial affair. But since the diehards of the Republic fought change with tooth and nail, I'm still skeptical the Republic could have peacefully evolved and survived into the Empire.

Some of the Amazon.com reviews say Grant is overly sympathetic to Cleopatra in an attempt to reverse Augustan slander. For those who have read it, what are your thoughts on that? I'm considering buying the book, but I do dislike overly-revisionist accounts.

By the way, this could be an interesting discussion, but it really has nothing to do with Rome specifically, so I split the topic and sent it to afterhours lounge where it can have a certain latitude.

Since we're off the religion folder and on the afterhours folder, I can interject a few personal thoughts. My thoughts on Jesus as a pagan are similar to Valerius' - he was a Jew, speaking to a Jewish audience, trying to reform Jewish law. Which is nice, but as a Gentile I don't care that much. Modern Christianity seems to have more to do with Saul of Tarsus than with Christ. However, I think the plaintiff in this "trial" doth protest too much. Is the Italian government forcing him to be Catholic? How is his life, liberty or property threatened by his Catholic neighbors? He was a former seminary student who decided he could no longer believe in his former faith. Well, that's tough, but it's no one's problem but his own. Some ex-Christians are like insecure females who break up with their boyfriends - they can't learn to let go and move on. They spend the rest of their lives being ill-spirited drama queens.

I agree with Skarr that religion should be a private affair, a concern of individuals and closed communities rather than the state. However, I don't agree that religion is a dinosaur on its last legs. That's only true of certain religions like mainstream Protestantism. The truth is the world at large is becoming more religious, and new religions are being invented every generation. We aren't evolving to a world depicted in "Star Trek" where organized religion is a thing of the past and everyone lives under the peaceful aegis of science. We're actually evolving to a world more like the crusades, only with high tech weapons. Objectively speaking, whatever notorious ills organized religion brings, it also brings some traits most people find desirable. A sense of identity and purpose. A support structure. Religious groups are often more efficient and more genuinely concerned about providing charitable and social services to their members than the State. Some of the major religions like the Catholic Church are more efficient at providing basic social services liked education and hospitals. Really, if there is a dinosaur waiting to die I think it's the modern Nation-State as we know it, which was always an artificial construction. As the modern nation-state increasingly fails to deliver identity and social services to its people, it most likely will be replaced by supra-national organizations. Religion will be one of them. Despite what Nietzsche said, "God" is not dead. At least not outside of postmodern university towns in the US. Cheers.

To be honest, I'm not much for philosophy. There are aspects of the Peripatetics and the Stoa that I can enjoy. But at the end of the day I find philosophy a rather lifeless and overly complicated venture. I'd rather go for the traditional values of the Roman aristocracy - dignitas, virtu, auctoritas, gravitas, pietas, etc. Building a good name by one's devotion and service to the community. Commanding respect (and perhaps power) through reputation and honor. Glory and praise for deeds well accomplished. Being a loyal member of a community that actually deserves respect and service. That's what I get out of Romanatis.