Ursus

Were I an oppressed Plebian, certainly I would draw courage were two such shining champions at the helm.

What cultures really interest you and deserve discussion on the forum Peregrini? (They must be related to the Roman Empire. Aztecs do not count, nor does China despite the Silk Trade)

If a legion of Populares commanded by Caesar fought a Legion of Optimates commanded by Cato --- ... oh, never mind.

One deity I should have also mentioned was Epona, the Celtic horse Goddess honored by western Cavalry. Romano-Celt pagans may want to take note: http://www.epona.net/

No need to debate the afterlife, fellows. I am building a secret moonbase where the remnants of humanity can live out the coming apocalypse in peace and comfort. I can assure you a place in the lunar haven upon receipt of a deposit of $10,000 into my bank account.

I have no idea what the Original Poster was referring to. However, I'll comment on Spartacus the Movie. Douglas's over idealized version of Spartacus is cheesy. However, this is more than offset by wonderful performances from Ustinov and Olivier, and most everyone else. The central problem I have with the movie is that it's just another in a long line of Evil Empire depictions, and the prologue to that effect was way over-the-top.

It's a great conversation, but I think I'll split the topic for convenience sake.

The most negative aspect of Caesar's Gallic war ... is that it didn't save him 15% or more in car insurance.

As far as I can tell the two were very different cults, though being Oriental they had superficial things in common, and one could belong to both cults.

An excellent compromise.

You guys can keep the cheese and football. I'll take the olive oil skinned beauties.

Introduction The religion of the early Roman soldier was not distinguishable from the religion of the average citizen as Republican soldiers were recruits or conscripts who returned to civilian life after their tour of duty. By the time of the empire the legions had become a professional fighting force, the chief appendage of the ever-expansive Roman State. ...to the full article of the Cults Of The Imperial Legions

And Opera, fine clothes, fast cars, and olive-oil skinned beauties.

If you peruse the "Tartarus" folder you may notice a decided increase in the number of troll posts that are sent there. As a moderator I believe flood control is a good thing, especially with the influx of sometimes questionable people.

I don't think you can blame Augustus for mysticism and foreign cults. He tried his best to stem the tide of Graeco-Oriental savior religions.

As I said, you are making questionable assumptions. I believe there are only a handfull of people here who hold formal academic degrees in classics or history. Most of us are nothing but fairly well-read amateurs when it comes to the subject. Debate is encouraged. Antagonistic behavior per se is not. As a matter of course, off topic threads are diverted to the afterhours lounge. As you are recent to the forums you may not be aware of all the policies. My statement was merely to clarify the normal lay of affairs.

I don't quite agree with your opinion, but I'm only going to give you "heat" over two things: 1) Your opening paragraph makes some questionable assumptions and is a tad condescending. That attitude is not going to win respect, much less friendship. 2) I'd prefer if we kept modern day politics out of these threads as much as possible. They have a way of degenerating quite quickly. Commentary on modern politics, even if it does have Roman history as a pretext, would be best made on the Afterhours lounge. Cheers and Joy. -- Ursus

Well certainly the Roman and Italian Senators were not always eager to accept provincials as their peers, but the opposition to new blood was not as iron clad as it had been in the Republic. Most probably because many of the Italian Senators were themselves new men in a sense, having gained their positions with the extermination of many leading Roman families during the civil war. It was also precarious to argue against more provincials in government when a provincial managed to be elected imperator by the armies. Yes, the Roman Empire was a function of the rich, but it was a function of the rich throughout the empire rather than solely at Rome. Roman law enshrined the property rights of the provincial notables, who were very much free to become Senators and Equestrians. The Empire was a contract between the imperial government and the local notables for mutual profit. The Republic was much more one sided in its imperial administration, outside of Italy at least. And my point was that yes, while there was one man rule, the strong man in charge was assisted ably by many junior officers. The expanded Equestrian and Senatorial base resulting from the influx of rich provincials gave the emperors a pool of talent from which to gather imperial functionaries, e.g., Africans could serve as governors of Britain. I agree there was an instability in the imperial system, mostly resulting from the procedures regarding the transfer of power from one Princeps to the next. However, when we look at the revolts and the civil wars, it seems like most of them were contesting a Princeps or candidate for Princeps with one of their own. The revolt was not against imperial rule itself, but who should lead it, showing the provincial elite had a stake in the imperial order. However, as you say the Crisis of the Third Century was a bit different.

There is not necessarily a dichotomy between the conspirators

I must say, Pertinax, you bring some unique specialties to this forum. And as someone who sees sick relatives take expensive drugs until they rattle, I have a growing appreciation for "natural healing."

"There is no crime for those have Christ," declared Shenoute, a fifth-century Egyptian abbot. For Shenoute and those like him, the call from Christ to promote, defend and preserve the new religion outweighed any other consideration and justified any means. "Violence" whether of the margins or of the center , cannot be understood without reference to the values, motives and self-preservations of its authors, explains Michael Gaddis, the book

I for one don't see the Republic as some shining vision of purity and virtue. Consider provincials who were denied access to the Roman ruling circles by the ultra-conservative oligarchy, or who were taxed to death by Republican publicani. The figurative death of the Republic and the literal death of many of its oligarchic families in the civil wars were probably the greatest sighs of relief they ever knew. It was only with the death of the Republic and many of its leading families that Italians and provincials had a real stake in matters of the empire. This turned Rome from the stronghold of a parasitic clique of families into the center of a broader ideal, a collaboration between the leading classes of Rome and the provincials. Indeed, the distinction between Romans and provincials became gradually meaningless, at least in the upper classes. I also don't consider the Republic a lean, efficient military machine. The Cicilian pirates ruled the Mediterranean and humiliated Rome before Pompeii finally showed what the Roman state could do when its resources were combined under a strong warlord. To be blunt, the Principate saved the Empire. Republican sympathizers bemoan the loss of collegial magistrates to effective one man rule, but it seems to be forgotten that the one man rule was supported by an incredibly expanded base of junior officials from all over the empire. Furthermore, one man rule was open to people outside of Rome, something unthinkable in the Republic. But I suppose this is an old argument that will never be resolved. On the more specific and initial topic of whether or not Caesar set into motion the forces that toppled the empire, I believe others have adequately echoed my own sentiments. However, I'd like to stress only the political unity of the Empire fell. The cultural realities of the empire evolved and endured in some fashion, an empire that Caesar helped set in motion. Ave Caesar.

The farming religion isn't my forte, but one primary source that may help you is : On Agriculture

My sources don't give a date for the disuse of the cult. In general, though, most of the cults of ancient Italian agricultural deities faded into obscurity by the late Republic as Rome lost its agricultural character. I suspect Augustus had no specific reverence for these cults, it was merely a part of his plan to appear as though he were restoring the lost traditions of the early Republic. To the extent Augustus had sincere religious sympathies, they were reserved for the Hellenized gods of the Julian clan and his own imperial cult.

Congratulations on equestrian status.