Ursus

First of all, let's use "homosexual" rather than "homo." Sounds less derogatory. Don't want to get all PC, but... Second, what we're talking about in this context is bisexuality, not homosexuality. While it's true Roman society would not have much use for a full blown homosexual, bisexuality was far more condoned and common. Thirdly, bisexuality was fairly common among Roman upper class males (though not to the extent it was in Greece), so it's not entirely out of question. To say so-and-so Joe Roman was bisexual was not inherently slander, not to the Romans. It was in context and degree where problems arose among the Romans. I think you're taking the rampant distaste for same-sex acts of later monotheist society and projecting them backward onto a pagan society that didn't quite share them. "Every woman's man and every man's woman" .... that quote pretty much sums the heart of the matter ... it was not that Caesar slept with both genders that was the problem, it was that he was (allegedly) excessively promiscuous with both genders. He was (allegedly) a slave to his hormones, in other words, something Republican scruples didn't tolerate in Roman men. Your memory is pretty good, actually. In male-to-male pairings, the social superior had to take the, um, top position, while the social inferior had to take the bottom position. Sexuality was an extension of power to the Romans, thus the more socially powerful person had to be in the more poweful position. If this were reversed, if the social superior let himself be passive for the social inferior, it was considered unmanly and he could be mocked. Also, the bit about Roman men not loving their wives too much is also correct. Can't remember where, but the fact that Pompeii was openly affectionate with his wife was mocked by his peers. Marriage in upper class Rome was not about love, it was about familial politics. If a man fell under his wife's affections too much, he was considered henpecked, under her spell. For a Roman male to be overly influenced by his wife was considered unmanly.

Liked Casablanca, and that's about the only thing from Bogart I can watch. Schindler's list was done well, but I'm not close to the subject matter. Gone With the Wind ... not a Civil War buff. Oh, I forgot one from my list .... best independent movie --- the Blair Witch Project.

I think the question that started the thread is a little ...off. Why did the Romans honor their gods? Well, why did anyone from ancient society honor their gods? Why do people today follow the divinity of their understanding? It's because for better or for worse, for right or for wrong, like it or not, they simply believe. If we want to get into the more specific nature of Roman religion, I believe what I offered earlier was an accurate and fairly objective summary. The Romans had a religion because they thought it would propitiate gods and spirits they believed controlled their lives. One may find that naive or demonic, but as a matter of historical and cultural record it is what the Romans themselves believed. If we want to get into a broader question of why people come to believe in the unprovable and develop religion in the first place, I believe that question lies far outside the scope of this site. Let's not go down that road. Let's just take it as a given that most cultures develop some sort of religion and work from there.

Gibbon was somewhat long winded, and he wrote entire chapters which are now outdated. A scholar by the name of Moses Hadas went through Gibbon and edited the work. He presents the central thrust of Gibbon's work with out any of the superfluous trimming. Much easier for the general public to read.

... to two of our regulars, Demson and Fafnir. May you have many more.

Well, he "reorganized" the Constitution in such a way that we have to call Rome a Principate rather than a Republic. Then he also presided over a tremendous revival in all aspects of Roman culture that had been declining with generations of civil war. From the provincial perspective, his reign markes the slow start of the shift from Rome the City to Rome as a cultural and world spanning ideal. He codified the various social orders in which there was a definite place for local elites. And in the field of religion he marks the start of the infamous imperial cult, with the deification of himself and Caesar, or rather their divine essence (genius). Basically, all aspects of Roman life were impacted and changed by his rule. Except, I suppose, for the "morals" of the day, which never returned to the romanticized austerity of the early Republic. But he is the Founder of the Empire, the Father of the Fatherland.

To the degree that the Greeks on the mainland were even aware of the Italic peoples, they regarded them as rustics who posed little threat. The later Rise of Rome was a total shock to the Greek pysche, and writers like Polybius had to grapple with it. Alexander wanted the riches of the East and its potent politico-religious traditions. These are things that the Latin towns could not afford him. Then too the rallying cry of revenge against Persia for the invasions of Greece was something that held his armies together, a cohesive force that would not have existed if he had marched West. Simply put, he had every reason for attacking Persia and almost none for attacking Italy. Alexander was not so great a strategic genius that he could look three hundred years into the future and see the almost miraculous conquest of the Mediterranean by Rome.

The Seleucid realm was largely the center of the former Persian Empire. There was a standing army of 70,000, supplemented by mercenaries. There were effectively two capitals to administer the vast realm: Antioch on the Syrian end, and Selucia on the Babylonian end. Alexander was more interested in military glory and self-deification than in spreading Hellenism. The Greek colonies he founded were basically to serve as strategic military and commercial centers. The upper class natives would have been sufficiently well versed in Greek language and culture to serve their new Greco-Macedonian masters. But its doubtful how much the people, particularly in the lower classes and agricultural regions, really believed in Hellenism. They after all had a culture that was far older than Greece's. Hellenism was basically a function of poor Greeks back home immigrating to Seleucid cities to find new opportunities. The native population of Seleucid were from diverse and very ancient cultures. The only thing holding them together were a string of Greek colonies founded at strategic points. But the cities were linked by a road system that rivaled that built by Rome in the West (the Seleucids merely built upon an impressive network left by the former Persian Empire). International trade flourished between these cities, and the Seleucid monarchs were very, very rich. But most of this wealth was channeled into various wars to keep Seleucid together, and to keep rival powers out. In the end it didn't work. Unlike Ptolemaic Egypt there was simply no central culture to unite the people. Seleucid grew weaker and more fragmentary until finally Rome annexed what was left of it. Rome administered the various provinces largely from the colonies that Greece had built. Seleucid is basically a failed experiment in a multi-racial, multi-cultural state. The only thing that kept it together as long as it did was economics. The Latin West was economically and culturally poorer than the Seleucid realm, but it seems the Romans were far better at integrating diverse peoples into an imperial network.

Hmmm. Well, since I'm already expecting a shipment of books from Amazon, you can feel free to take this one, Skarr. If you give it the thumbs up, I'll read it on my own some day. If you give it the thumbs down then I won't even bother. :-)

"What is started is already half finished" ... a looser translation, but one that sounds better to the English ear. :-)

My own philosophy is that while Rome is certainly not above criticism and certainly not perfect, anyone finding Rome irredeemable can find another site. Whether its politically correct activists deriding the evils of white male Europeans, or whether its militant monotheists seeing the devil in the works of Pagn Rome -- or whether its just some troll looking for attention - the rest of us don't need a moral lecture.

Caesar was smart, but pushed too far and too fast and got himself killed for it. I would say Octavian was shrewder given his "conservatism." The System he left certainly had its problems, but he was otherwise the grand architect of Romanatis until Constantine and Theodosius.

I would be interested and would make the time, unless someone else really wants to read it.

Well, some guy invented a steam engine in the reign of Tiberius, but as Moonlapse alludes to it was only put to use opening the doors of some temple. (Behold, the gods move the doors!)

I recommend the abridged version, but it is interesting reading.

Really? It's making its rounds all across online journals everywhere.

I admit to sending two or three threads from that area into the graveyard. Those threads either outlived their usefulness and/or were besotted with horrible spelling/typing mistakes by the thread initiator.

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=37384 I scored as Hadrian...

Isis worship, which was very popular, may have contributed to the cult of the Virgin Mary.

The values expressed in Christianity are indeed at odds with the Heroic values of earlier pagan times (eg, Homer). This indeed probably did have an effect on Roman society. However, my problem with this thread is that my studies in philosophy and religion lead me to a blunt conclusion. There isn't anything in Christianity that isn't in a variety of pagan cults and Greek philosophy. Particularly the neoplatonics. The only thing that Christianity did differently is say that their God was the only god and that their way was the only way ( something they inherited from the Hebraic influence). The problem thus is that if some pagan cults and Greek Philosphers were saying things very close to Christianity centuries before Christianity, do we blame Christians for the Fall of Rome? It seems to me the world was gradually shifting in that direction for a long time. Christianity was the fulfilment of this shift rather than its instigator. It was a symptom of Roman decline rather than a cause. Methinks if the empire had been more stable and prosperous, Christianity would have been simply one cult among many rather than the new universal religion.

PS .... mod's note .... this thread will be retained for reference for anyone who wants info on the topic. But if you wish to discuss it further , please start a new topic so we don't have to scroll down through that mammoth first post. Thank you. Thread locked.

Of all the things you've ever written on this site, I am on the strongest agreement with this sentiment. However, quite a few of us have been discussing topics related to Paganism and Christianity for a while now. Granted most of them haven't attracted large crowds, but they are on this board if you want to look back. I encourage - I have formally requested - articles on Paganism and Christianity be submittted to this forum. If you have something to contribute, please do so.

I point out that no matter the violence inflicted on Gaul by Caesar (and the number of killed and captured may very well be exaggerated), within two generations of Gaul's conquest there were many Gaullish elites serving as Equestrians and Senators in Rome .... many naming themselves after Julius Caesar. Genocidal, racist cultures generally aren't so accomodating. *shrugs* It seems the Roman way was to use whatever violence was necessary to subdue the enemy, but once pacified to admit the enemy as allies and citizens. I really don't see the problem here ... ruthless in war, generous in peace. It kept the empire together for centuries.

I came over a year ago. I liked the look of the site (thanks, Moonlapse) the bits on Roman archaeology (thanks, Viggen) and the essays on Roman history (thanks, Primus Pilus). When I got here there were not many regular posters, and most of the conversations revolved around the same military topics. I was a tad bored and might have left eventually. But we gradually did get new people and the conversation expanded in scope. Every wave of new people brings good and bad, but usually more good than bad.