Ursus

If addition to his province over foreigners, if the Praetor Urbanis was away for some reason the Praetor Peregrinus would exercise the function of both offices, which could include leading armies and convening the Senate if the Consuls were also away. Being a praetor of either strip was of course the stepping stone to the Consulship or provincial administration.

I'll just echo what Phil wrote. His deep seated desire for fame was at odds with his frumpy Stoical lecturing. A great lawyer, a great Latin speaker. A great Roman? Eh...

More importantly, it's the day the great Vespasian became emperor. Happy Vespacian Day!

I lost my mind a long time ago.

The various Greco-Oriental mystery cults, taken as a collective entity, were the competitors to Christianity.

Well, that's just sad an entire faith is denigrated because a few extremists have misused it. If it were done to any other faith - say, Islam - there would be hell to pay from the legions of self-confessed multicultural activists. Saying all Germanic polytheists are Nazis is like saying all Roman pagans follow Mussolini's politics. It's stupid. You know, I'm trying to be polite, Leg, but I just can quite agree with some of your cultural posts. They don't seem to have much basis in fact. Toodles.

Oh, I was a bit perplexed that the Germanic gods are exactly the same as the Scandinavians. I'm just wondering where the origin is. Like which culture influenced which, the Germans or the Scandinavians? All the Germanic tribes were descended from a proto-Germanic culture, which was itself an offshot of the proto-Indo-European culture. They have things in common because they have a common root. They're not exactly the same, though. Differences arose as tribes diverged. I believe Loki who plays such a central role in Scandanavian lore is absent from the Continental traditions.

I'm a Carnegie Mellon alum--you from near Pittsburgh Ursus? I'm in the very southwest of the Commonwealh, along the Maryland border. Pittsburgh is the closest big town, I suppose. I was a Dickinson Alum near Harrisburg, not that I'm especially proud of the fact (they call it "Drinkinson" for a reason).

I'm moving this thread to the afterhours lounge. As long as it stays civil you may interject modern political commentary.

All Germanic tribes practiced a polytheist faith as near as we can tell. What do you mean by influence?

A while back some kid wondered if they could quote discussions on these forums as sources for their papers. I suppose now that we have a bona fide scholar, maybe they actually can.

I suppose an FAQ might not be uncalled for. Or at least some sort of welcome page. What do the Triumvirs think?

BC and AD don't really offend me, but at the same time I'm not quite Christian and can't really identify with the birth of Christ as the seminal event of Western history. BCE and CE are silly - but until something better comes along I'll use them. And honestly, I'd prefer if we dated everything from Ab Urbe Condita.

What mother could say no to such an educational gift? Free books and free maps. It's not like we're subverting youth. :-)

Viggin has asked we discuss the Germans more. I'm not an expert on the political or military history of the German tribes, but I can offer the basics of their religion. Intro The various German tribes practiced a form of polytheism and animism. While the religion differed from tribe to tribe, they held many things in common. The Germanic tribes apparently were heir to a vast oral tradition of myths and legends as comprehensive as Greco-Roman mythology. Most of this has unfortunately been lost. What we know of Germanic religion comes from the few myths recorded by Christian monks, the biased and incomplete accounts of Roman historians, and sporadic archaeological remains. Something of Germanic religion also survived in the various fairy tales and folklore of the Germanic nations. The Germans were similar in religion and culture to the Celtic tribes. Around the regions of the Rhine they blended into each other to the extent that Caesar had difficulties distinguishing between the two. Caesar simply decided that everyone on one side of the Rhine would be considered Germans, though the true picture is more complicated. Regardless, our principle source for Germanic indigenous religion comes from Iceland. Iceland was the last Germanic nation to be converted to Christianity. It was there a Christian monk recorded the fading myths. It was there the religion survived best in folklore. And it was there where the religion experienced a rebirth in the 20th century. In 1972 the government of Iceland recognized Germanic polytheism as a bona fide religion. From there Germanic polytheism spread into Germanic and English speaking countries around the world. Of all the reconstructionist pagan religions, Germanic polytheism is the most widespread and successful. This is due in no large part to those of Germanic extraction exploring their heritage and finding something of worth in the pre-Christian traditions. Germanic polytheism is also a victim of politics. Ever since the Romantic movements of the 19th century, there were nascent groups exploring a

Nietzsche said some things I can appreciate. But I consider myself a classical pagan more than anything. And that's why I like it, man.

My favorite quotes from Member sigs: Viggen: "Money does not smell." Amen. I think Vespasian is my favorite Roman after Caesar and Augustus. In fact, I'm beginning to like Vespasian more since I identify with his sense of humor and his pragmatism. Money does not smell, indeed. Primus Pilus: "If Caesar were alive you'd be chained to an oar." Oh, how I wish Caesar were alive and some of the rabble of the modern world would eat their just deserts. Cato: "He harms the good who spares the wicked." Bravo! Forgiveness and mercy are overrated. You don't leave an enemy alive to fight another day. And I'm still trying to decipher Tobias' new sig. I guess you have to be an Aussie.

In honor of upcoming

I tend to see history as a clash of wills. On a macro level we have cultures and states exerting their influence on one another. On a micro level we have individual actors vying for supremacy. What interests me is when an individual can gain the weight of a culture, or at least a large part of it, behind him and drive history with the weight of a locomotive. I see your analysis of the Republic as an apt one. The function of the Republican elite was to compete with each other over auctoritas. This was tolerated and encouraged because what benefited an individual actor, benefited the culture as a whole, e.g., military conquest. It was also tolerated because there were social mechanisms in place that regulated and modified the pursuit of auctoritas. The Republican system divided the magistracies among various actors and placed an annual limit on the exercise of their power. Then too there was the overwhelming sense of pietas. No matter how much glory someone had, they still had to obey their elders, their fathers, their colleagues, the gods, and the whole sweep of Roman tradition. Their star could shine brightly but they could only still be one star among many. The acquisitions of the Republic destabilized the arrangement. It gave the ambitious greater resources to overthrow their rivals. Furthermore, it brought in new blood. In the old Republic it was the same set of families that played the game. As the various wars started killing them off, new actors were brought into the game who were not as committed to the old rules of the game. Caesar came from an old family, but one that had spent quite some time in obscurity. When his finally got a taste of real power, he wasn't about to play by the gentlemen's rules set forth by the Establishment. And he used the ever expanding resources of the Republic to get his way. Of course, it got him killed. Augustus fixed the mistake by pretending to play by the old rules of piety even as he increased his own Auctoritas to new heights. That's why he was the smoothest politician in Roman history. I suppose the central question was whether or not men like Caesar were justified in taking their own ambition, their own auctoritas, over the pious traditions of the past. Caesar seemed to feel the Republic of his day was no longer worthy of Piety, and he wasn't about to sacrifice one iota of his own glory to defer to the traditions of a society that were in his view dysfunctional. If the Republic was truly dysfunctional, was that his fault in not respecting it or wanting to honor it? But I don't feel that Caesar or Augustus were bare naked meglomaniacs ought to smash tradition just for the sake of making themselves king. What they wanted was a new Roman society, one suited for a new age that was capable of inspiring a new sense of piety from its subjects. That they would stand at the forefront of this new society and receive the brunt of the new piety is of course self-serving, but such is the Roman way, for auctoritas and pietas are always tethered to each other.

Interesting thoughts, Phil25. And welcome to the forum, btw.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/social-war.php The Italian allies were called socii, associates or allies. The Social War is something of a misnomer. It would be better called in English the Allied War. The Italian allies long had control over their own internal affairs. But when it came to war, foreign policy and dividing the spoils of Empire, the Patricians of Rome acted unilaterally. The Italians revolted. They revolted not against Romanization, but to have a greater political and economic share in its spoils. They set up a separatist government that was the mirror image of Rome. L. Julius Caesar decided the most practical thing to do was simply to grant full citizenship to most of the rebels (an expedient and progressive reform, setting the fine example that future Caesars would follow). Fighting did continue in some quarters. But the Italian Socii basically won on a political level if not a military one. In the ancient world to vote actually meant being physically present. The Italian allied now had the right to vote in Roman affairs, but they had to physically travel to Rome to do it. An expensive proposition. Fortunately for them the politicians at Rome were willing to pay for the traveling expenses of Italian clients who would vote favorably on their proposals. Sulla made a name for himself in the war, so that takes us into the war with Mithridates.

The problem though is that you can't expect completely objective observations from commentators whose culture was usually at war with the culture they were observing. The other problem is that there are certain internal cultural biases. If a Greek or Roman commentator holds to a very Stoic view of things with its dim view of human emotion and pleasures of the flesh, should we trust him if he says the Celts lived for bloodthirst and drunkeness? Given the penchant for frumpy moralism from Stoics like Cicero, I'd be careful about taking their views at face value.

I don't mean to stifle discussion, but the topic is the Holy Roman Empire. If people want to debate the Byzantines and their merits or lack thereof, there is about 12 other threads on this forum for doing just that. Thanks.

Congratulations, Spurious.