Ursus

The Vatican took over the college of Pontiffs and usurped it for itself; the Pope still calls himself a Pontifex, an ancient title of a pagan official who decided when bridges could be built over the sacred river of the Tiber. The hierarchy and subdivions of the church seem to parallel the later administration of the empire (e.g., diocese). Finally the Catholic Church inherited the Roman legalistic mentality which defined much of Roman culture, including the old pagan religion.

The Principate: * managed to end the worst excesses of corruption in Roman provincial administration from the Republican tax farmers * allowed provincials a greater share in the Roman empire, at least if they were rich or willing to serve in the legions * Bring the military and economic resources of three continents under one strong leader, which inspired the greatest stretch of relative peace and stability in the Western world * encouraged a cosmopolitan atmosphere of trade and cultural exchange, the likes of which wouldn't be seen again in the Western world until the last 150 years of our time * Finally brought all of Italy into a united political and economic infrastructure * Cultivated the refinement of infrastructure in the provinces, and of art and culture in Rome itself * Brought a clear definition of hierarchy and social orders to imperial society As Favonius says, the main weakness was lack of an established method of finding quality people to fill the top spot.

There are a number of free programs available that can remove most of the more common spyware. http://www.download.com/Spyware-Center/200...tml?tag=nav_dir I use ad aware which seems to work fine.

Dr. Who?

Indeed. Although we all know that Caesar would of course win.

My expertise with Latin is elementary, so I really can't attest to the linguistic background of the terms. However, if Lemures means "shades" it's easy to see why. The Lemures were the souls of the discontented who haunted the deepest shadows and blackest night and came out on certain times of the year to cause harm. The Inferi was a term for the gods of the underworld, not resident souls of the underworld. Yes, there was an underworld but it wasn't the underworld of the Greek myth. The Manes lived in graves and in tombs and in natural settings and were fundamentally attached to the world of the living.

Bright spots for the future? Sure. "The Simpsons" will still be on television a century from now.

Ok. Favonius is added to the "loyal" list, and Flavius is added to the list of potential subversives. This will come in handy if we ever have a proscription around here.

I also like Virgil's answer, too. The last 200 or 300 years of Roman paganism saw a massive shift from the traditional gods of the city-state to Greco-Oriental cults promising Saviors and pleasant afterlives. It was at least in part a response to the insecurities and chaos of the times. The only thing that set Christianity apart from the rest of these Greco-Oriental soteriological cults was its exclusionary monotheism. (mod's note: since variations of this topic occur regularly, I am pinning this thread in the hopes all future discussions of the topic will be directed here).

Professor Eugene Weber pointed this out as well... Personally I'd like to see more research on the validity of the theory. The Great Wall was built to regulate trade, not be an impassable barrier to barbarians. In any event I think the exploding Germanic population would have found its way into Roman territory, with or without incentive from the Huns.

I have two minds about it. On one hand, Christianity didn't emerge over night. It has its intellectual and spiritual roots early in the Hellenistic world, at least as far back as Plato if not before. If you want to fault Christianity, you should fault some of the people like Plato who laid the groundwork for it (Nietzsche and Rand go into greater depth about this). On the other hand, Christianity as an institution shifted resources of an already fragile empire into a sector of society that was not terribly productive. I'm going to be a moderate about this and say it may have been a factor, but was only one factor among many. Certainly the Byzantine Christians were able to hold together a great empire for a number of years.

While Romans had always had major State festivals to gods like Jupiter and Mars, nearer and dearer to most Roman families were a simple household based religion based around local and familial spirits. These local and familial demons were the mainstay of Roman religion throughout all stages of its history, from archaic origins to the Christian era. The worship of these spirits is what truly defines Roman religion, and what really separates it from the sister religion of Greek paganism. continue to the full article of the Roman Domestic Cult

I have an honors degree in political science. I answer phones and e-mail for a living. I encourage people to have a liberal arts degree because it aids in their understanding of the world and their intellectual refinement, but it's essentially useless as far as real-world business is concerned. Outside of narrow academic or technical fields, how you present yourself to your superiors is more important than the degree you have. If you really want to get paid to write all day about history, I suggest going into some media concern like an archaeology magazine.

Then you are free to inquire about the topic at a Medieval military forum.

You may also wish to check out ads and notices in "Archaeology" magazine or its website.

Hail, Germanicus. You have earned this promotion, fellow praetor. I'm sure we'll get along famously. Together we shall keep a watchful eye out for forum barbarians. Ave! Yeah, that's probably a good idea, Flavius.

With the advice and consent of the Senate (that is to say the administration and senior members), the Praetor issues the following edict: De ea re ita censuerant Debates about the comparative strengths of military units and individuals (e.g., this military unit versus that military unit, or this general versus that general) will be tolerated with one caveat - it has to be related somehow to the Roman Empire. The Legion versus the Hellenistic phalanx is acceptable. The Legion versus a Celtic raiding party or a Germanic war band is acceptable. The early Republican legion versus the late Byzantine army is acceptable. What is not acceptable is something outside the scope of Roman history. Chinese armies and Mongol hordes do not concern us. Medieval armies a la Charlemagne or William the Conqueror do not concern us. Natives from Oceania, the Americas, and sub-Saharan Africa do not concern us. Elves and Orcs and Hobbits do not concern us. The Legions did not fight these forces, and therefor do not concern us as Romanophiles. Threads started along these lines will be sent to the Underworld. Those who continually violate the prohibition can be censured if necessary. We hope you find this a reasonable compromise. We do not like impeding the ethusiasm of our citizens, but we felt it necessary to discourage some of the more off-topic discussions on this forum. Any questions regarding this can be directed to the forum moderators. Censuerunt

While some people on this site are very well-read, I don't think anyone here (with the exception of the visiting Oxford Professor) have academic credentials. You probably shouldn't be using this site to reference papers. Though you can use it to get an idea. For instance, PP's ongoing summary of Roman history is a brilliant crash course to anyone new to the subject.

An acquaintance of mine (Kallistos, who registered for this forum but is unfortunately too busy to participate) compares modern efforts of Reconstructionism to Judaism. Judaism is an ancient faith living in a modern world. How different sects of Judaism balance tradition with modern sensibilities has led to three basics groups of Jews. The Orthodox of course make as few concessions as possible to the modern world. But even they have had to adapt the loss of their ancient Temple State. The Reform have done away with quite a bit of the ancient heritage that simply doesn't fit in with the modern world. Nonetheless there is still a tie to the ancient heritage that defines them as Jewish. And then the "Conservatives" are the moderates who try to chart a middle course. As small as it is, the Reconstructionist community is nonetheless bitterly divided about how to reconstruct these religions, and the divisions can be likened to the sects of Judaism. The most liberal of Reconstructionists are willing to sacrifice quite a bit of the ancient understandings like the Reform Jews. In practice many liberal reconstructionists are former Wiccans or former liberal Christians who have a strong New Age bend. A lot of them seem to practice their religion as some sort of political protest against conventional society (convention defined as Judeo-Christianity and consumerism), but that's just my biased observation. The most hardcore Reconstructionists are like the Orthodox Jews and are sticklers for historical details. Some are activity seeking to rebuild Iron Age socio-political communities in which to practice their ancient faiths. You thus have Celtic and Germanic pagans who are trying to rebuild tribal structures. You have Egyptian pagans who follow the lead of someone who calls herself a Pharoah. And then you have Nova Romans, who want to believe that their internet society is the heir to the Roman Republic. This stuff is not my cup of tea, but different strokes for different blokes. And then you have people in the middle like myself, so-called moderates, who try to remain true to an ancient legacy while still living fully in the modern world. It can be a difficult balancing act, but a rewarding one for those so inclined. Anyway, the point is pagan Reconstructionism is not a monolithic entity and people disagree about exactly how much of the past is relevant to the modern world.

Islam will be the largest religion on earth. In some parts of Europe Islam will comprise 25-30% of the population. Whether European society assimilates Islam or whether Islam assimilates Europe will be one of the great questions of the future. Whatever the ultimate answer, I see the matter as a thorny issue which will bedevil an already shaky European Union and prevent them from assuming the world spotlight they might otherwise have. Mainstream Christianity will continue to wither in the face of competition from other religions and from secularism. It will be replaced by two competing strands

I await the dvd if there is one.

Personally I am thankful for two - yes, count 'em - two days off from work with pay. Yay! And, no, I'm not going to be one of those fools out there on 6:am on Black Friday trying to find a DVD player for $20. Hope you all have a safe and fun holiday. Since I have a four day weekend I'll try to finish this book review.

I'd recommend changing Elysium to "sepulchra" or something suitably Latin as the former is rather Greek.

I confess. I did it. I have it. My drab livingroom needed something to perk it up. And it's such a wonderful conversation piece.

This was split from the vestal virgins thread as it evolved to other topics. re: sacrifice. There were in ancient times peoples and cults who objected to animal sacrifice. Albeit most of them were fringe mystical movements. Nonetheless, there is a precendent for preferring bloodless sacrifice to blood sacrfice. As most reconstructionists practice in private at home or in small groups, the viability of animal sacrifice is not always apparent. To find someone who knows how to prepare an animal and then lawfully dispose of the remains - it doesn't really work unless you have a farmer in the group who lives outback away from people. Then if course there is the bad press that results from animal sacrifice, with the usual accusations of Satanism and so forth. Then there is simply the cost. Who pays for it all? In the old days the state provided everything, and the meat was given to those in attendence - mostly the urban poor, for whom animal sacrifice was about the only time they ever tasted meat. I daresay there was an element of welfare mixed in with the communal religious activities. Now that there is no longer a state that is willing to fund the festivals, and because the novelty of eating meat is lost to a world where anyone can order a burger at McDonald's, animal sacrifice doesn't quite have the ring it used to.