Ursus

This is an absolutely extraordinary break through.

I've never seen a Nicolas Cage movie I could enjoy...

The "Illyrians" were all one person. I'm not sure if it was the former member you were talking about. No way to tell. It doesn't matter, PP can ban any IP address that gets to be annoying.

I'm a dog person myself. :-)

It is important to correct a misconception. The Egyptians were not obsessed with death. That we think so is a function of modern archaeology, which interprets Ancient Egypt through surviving artifacts. Most of the artifacts that have survived are religious and funerary in nature, which colors perceptions of Egyptian mentality. The religious and funerary buildings so synonymous with Egypt were built to last, and often placed in the desert where they were well preserved by the barren wasteland. By contrast, the items of everyday Egyptian life were built of less durable materials and much has been lost over the centuries. full article available at the Religion of Egypt page...

My favorite non historical movie is the original "Godfather". Great acting, great scenes. And I love the theme -- the Sicilian-American immigrants are ruthlessly excluded from Anglo dominated American society, and create their own little secret societies to attain power and wealth. My favorite TV shows are actually post-modern cartoons that savagely mock modern culture. I loved "the Simpsons" before it got old. I liked "South Park" before they let their success get to their heads. And I love "Family Guy".

"Spartacus" It's not terribly accurate, and it's another entry in the Rome-as-Evil-Empire genre. But the performances and direction are top notch. It also gave a nice feel of Rome. The gladiator trader (Peter Ustenov's character) even had a lararium (religious shrine) in the corner of his villa, which I thought was nice detail. Modern Hollywood just doesn't know how to make a classic like that anymore. It's all about special effects...

My remarks weren't necessarily directed toward your latest post, Peter. Having reread this thread tonight, I just noticed a general trend in some of the replies, and I didn't want to see the thread head off in that direction away from the original subject.

This thread has been mostly civil despite the provocative nature of the topic. I would like to commend the members on their maturity and civility. However, I understand that faith is a private thing and held dear for those so inclined. Overtly disparaging some one else's faith is not in the best interests of the site. Let's keep the topic confined to the academic and historical merits (if any) of the original thesis.

Here ya go, Longbow. I found this and thought of you: http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/

Just to add more color to this, I'll throw in what Tom Holland has to say in his book _Rubicon_. He claims the most important conquest for Roman political life wasn't even a conquest in traditional military terms. The King of Pergamum died, leaving his kingdom to the Romans in his will. This was Rome's first province in Asia, and their first real taste of Oriental wealth. The scramble for the wealth of Pergamum upset Roman society on two fronts. 1) Before Pergamum, Rome's "foreign policy" in the East was essentially to loot and rape a province, and leave whatever was left run by a puppet ruler who would have to pay the occasional tribute. Eastern provinces were never subject to direct Roman taxation or direct Roman administration. The wealth of Pergamum changed that. The Gracchi brothers (see below) pushed threw a bill that subject Pergamum to direct taxation under the auspices of Roman tax farmers. In Holland's words the "lid was off the honeypot" and this now served as the model for Roman foriegn policy in the remainder of the Republican era. Conquered provinces would thenceforth be subject to direct Roman taxation. Rome would drawn further into its imperial mode. 2) Tiberius Gracchus needed funds for his political platform. Pergamum represented a windfall. Tiberius demanded the wealth of Pergamum be used to fund reforms for the people. The conservative senators disagreed, and had him killed. Gaius avenged his brother's murder by pushing through the bill that subject Pergamum to direct taxation. This considerably upped the ante in the struggle between the Optimates and the Populares and helped set the stage for the warlords of the late Republic. So Pergamum helped initiate these interlocking trends in foreign and domestic policy that would take Rome from Republic to Empire. And all because the king left his country to the Romans in his will. :-)

If you get rid of the monarchy you could always be the 51st state .

I never paid much attention to the ranking system, quite frankly. Of our 500 members, 20-30 post with any regularity and after a while you know who has something worth while to say. Having said that, if we are to have a ranking system, a political rather than a military system would probably be more meaningful. And I like the "triumverate" model for our three admins. So which one is Caesar, which is Pompeii, and which is Crassus?

Working the evening shift sometimes sucks. I missed it. I'm sure they will repeat it sooner or later though. So, it was worth watching, I take it?

I'd like to point out that homosexuality per se was not considered wrong by the Romans. It was wrong if it were conducted in certain ways that broke social taboos. The extreme effeminate nature displayed by the two emperors mentioned was of course against social taboos. Then there was everything else they did in the fields of politics and religion that broke social taboos and got them finally killed. But sexual relations between males were not in and of themselves considered wrong by Roman culture, and some of the cruder derogatory comments about homosexual acts as insinuated by this thread is not something most Romans would themselves internalize.

I hate to be different, but I would say the conquest of Italy ... What if Rome had remained under the Etruscan thumb, or was conquered by Samnites or some other Italic people?

Hmm. Well the Rennaisance in Western Europe does owe a little to the Byzantine Greeks who migrated there around the fall of Consantinople and helped jumpstart the process. Their contributions are somewhat overlooked (I don't think its revised history, it's just an ignored aspect of history). So if what Scanderberg posted is true (and it seems the jury is still out) it would be another link in the chain of indirect Byzantine contributions to Western Europe.

Do you have any former pop culture stars running for office? That's starting to become the future of American politics.

Gee, I feel like I do in real world elections where I don't entirely agree with either of the two main factions, even if I lean one way. In my opinion the entrenched Senatorial oligarchy had to go to make a functioning empire. I'm not sure how much of a populare I am, though. When it comes to lifestyle, religion and economics I certainly don't consider myself a radical. That's why I like Augustus. He may have been fairly "radical" in coming to power but once in power he tried to restore some of old traditions of Rome. The main difference is that those traditions were open to a wider pool of contestants from the provinces rather than just a narrow band of Consular families from Rome. Augustus actually sharpened the class distinctions, but the "new men" from the provinces now had a stake in the Roman class system Thanks to Augustus and some of his more reasonable successors, Rome slowly became a cultural ideal rather than just a town on the Tiber. If the narrow minded Senatorial oligarchy had had their way I think Rome would have been regarded as just another imperial parasite and oppressor rather than a lasting influence on Western civilization. It might have even collapsed long before it ultimately did, and we most likely wouldn't be here now singing odes to its glory. Anyway, I voted "not sure." I'm not sure if the Optimate/Populare distinction is entirely meaningful to imperial politics.

Sulla, for reasons already stated.

Just was. I was fairly bored with life while growing up, and found history, etc, to be much more interesting than most of the stuff I was expected to care about. In fact, I can't understand people who aren't interested in their past. I know a lot of people whose idea of "history" is who won a national football game five years ago, or what was the biggest selling musical album last year. I think they are sad creatures.

If you go to yahoo and search its "groups" you can probably find several e-mail list servers on those subjects. I can't vouch for their quality though as yahoo groups sometimes suck.

Welcome. People who discuss Roman houses are fine by me. The general population and their interests can be too pedestrian for my tastes. Nice pic. Hail to the foam born one.

Uh, well, heh ... when I read _Roman Sex_ the book took its pictographical survey mostly from the houses of pompei. All those colorful frescoes and phallus symbols... I don't know, it's a book you might want to look into, especially in answering the first question.

Unless you've ever watched "Xena" where you can have Vikings, Julius Caesar and Dark Age greeks all at once. ;-)