Ursus

Good point. When the Pope crowned Charles the Great as "Holy Roman Emperor" didn't the regime in Constantinople bristle, considering itself the only rightful Roman government?

Um, well Rome has roughly three major divisions in its history according to the type of government. The first period was the monarchy when Rome was ruled by a series of semi-legendary kings. When the kings were expelled and the government was in the hands of electred magistrates and the Senate, Rome became a Republic. The Republic is sometimes divided into early republic ( the conquest of Italy) , middle republic (the Punic Wars and such), and late republic (the era of warlords from Sulla to Octavian). The Republic officially ended when Augustus took the stage as Princeps (or emperor). This was a pseudo-monarchy. It was also at this time Rome reached its full expansion and controlled most of North Africa, the Near East, and large stretches of Europe. The Empire is sometimes divided into the Principate and the Dominate. The Principate is the first 200 years or so when Roman government and culture were still fairly peaceful and noteworthy. The Dominate is the later stages of the empire when corruption and absolutism in government becomes endemic and the culture starts evolving into what would become the Medieval period.

I don't have much in the way of messengers because they eat memory I can't spare. But you guys are free to e-mail me at ursinepagan@yahoo.com

I always found this interesting. I don't wish to single you out, but to ask a general question: Why do people think American television and movies are somehow documentary of the culture? I've met a lot of foreign exchange students who come over expecting everybody to be the rich and beautiful creatures living lives of luxury that they see on American TV. Then they get over here and they see most Americans are anything but what they see depicted on TV. The reason most Americans watch TV and Movies with beautiful, rich people is because most of them aren't rich and beautiful but secretely want to be. American media isn't a documentary. It's a fantasy. Most of our women do NOT look like the women on "Baywatch"...

The Republic used to contract private companies into collecting taxes (tax farmers) and they had a habit for fleecing the citizens. During the empire this practice was phased out. But Rome still "exploited" the provinces for their monetary and natural resources. It's important to note the Empire didn't really have much in the way of a centralized monetary policy. They relied on local methods of collecting taxes that had existed long before the Romans came, and the Romans merely employed the local elites as middle men.

A nice site, despite some typos. Unlike some Celtic sites, it actually makes mention of the fact that some Celts seemed to have gotten along quite well under Roman rule.

It probably will, but we can try to enjoy it before then. ;-) The US is what some political scientists call a hegemon (from the Greek word meaning leader, or something equivalent). That means its the single most influential actor on the stage, but it can't completely dominate the scene by itself. Therefore it's not an empire in the traditional sense of the word. But it is the 800 lb gorilla that can make a lot of noise when it throws its weight around. I really don't think American hegemony would be extensive as it is if it weren't for British imperialism spreading the anglosphere across the the globe. We built upon their solid foundation, as the above article suggests. We lead because the world often lets us lead. Our government promotes global business and a stable world economy. This is what most businesses and governments in the Western world want. In other words, most of the countries that matter (i.e., the rich ones) will ultimately get behind us because its good for business. The presence of some skeptics in Western countries to American led global business doesn't negate that. Even China, an 800 lb gorilla in training, wants access to Western and particularly American markets. Everyone wants to make money, and Americans know how to make money. That's why there is no real opposition, despite people on the far right and far left who are skeptical about the merits of global capitalism. The main people who don't like it sufficiently enough to use force against it are religious conservatives in other cultures who see global capitalism as a theat to their tribal identity. Of course, Islamic fundamentalists are spearheading the initiative, and that's where I imagine the American hegemony is going to get a few bloody noses for the next 100 hundred years.

Cool. What shall our book of the month be? it doesn't have to be historical or non ficiton, either. I've been meaning to read Jack Whyte's book on a Romanized King Arthur.

Welcome to the site, Cleopatra. Feel free to start a thread on Asatru/heathenism if you wish.

Well, I did say "alleged" negatives. ;-) For my own part, the relative social tolerance and relative religious tolerance are two of the first things that attracted me to the Romans. For all the talk of the evil empire, they seemed to have had less prejudices than we moderns do. Two things seemed to stand out in Roman society: gender and class. The first was very much a fact in the early republic, but as time went on women achieved a certain degree of liberation, at least if they were in the upper classes. So that leaves us with social class as the main source of "prejudice" in Roman society. And the Romans did sneer at anyone who wasn't culturally Roman, but this was balanced by the fact that they were more willing than many societies, past or present, to turn a non-citizen into a citizen. After 212, all adult freeborn males in the empire functioned effectively as citizens. So again, what we are left with is "class distinction", of which Romans were truly obsessed. But, in theory at least, the classes that had the greater share of honor and privledges also had the greater share of duties and responsibilities to the State, which seems "fair" in a way that modern egalitarian sympathies won't admit. I'm forced to conclude the Romans, whatever their faults, were a lot more tolerant and accepting than modern cultures are in many instances.

(mod note: merged two similar topics) So ... this was a good idea, Scan. Didn't mean to let it die. You guys want to resurrect the Book Club and give it another go?

(mod note: merged two similar topics) I'd want something that is both more or less historically accurate, and something that impresses and entertains on a visual level.

Depends on the quality of your local library. You'd know better than I would. But the amazon prices aren't too bad, and you can usually find cheap used copies on amazon as well. Then I'll leave you in the hands of primus pilus and the others, as that area is not quite my forte. Although _Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome_ does have a section on the military with a bibliography for more in depth study.

Oh ... Yeah, that changes things dramatically. *sheepish grin* Thanks for pointing that out.

*bumping this thread up to give it attention*

I don't know if the original poster is still around, but I think this would be an excellent topic of discussion, since we spent so much time discussing the alleged negatives of Roman society.

Germanicus:

Yes, the basic idea was that all gods were real, or at least that "foreign" gods were local flavors of "native" gods. In any event, gods supposedly had the power to harm you if offended, or benefit you if propitiated. Thus, to the pious Roman, the whole point of religion was to incur favor with the gods, or at least to avert disfavor, through the correct observance of rituals and sacrifices. Thus gods of other people were often incorporated into the network of State cults to incur their favor. This especially happened during war. The Romans would offer sacrifices to the gods of their enemies, promising those gods that if they favored the Romans rather than the native people, the Romans would "move" the gods back to Rome and give them temples and honors. The Romans incorporated several gods of defeated enemies this way. As for Isis and Mithras, those gods were just very popular with certain sects of society because they promised certain benefits. Since polytheism means you can honor many gods at once, people obviously honored whatever gods they thought could bring them honor and favor. Now as to original poster, I can't deny this religious tolerance and religious plurality had a certain effect of smoothing relations among a multi-cultural empire, which was generally in the government's favor to promote. But to assert that this was the only or main driving force of Roman religious incorporation is not entirely accurate. Evidence suggests the majority of Romans were simply pious polytheists who honored the gods they thought could help them in their often trying lives.

Sounds like an exercise in postmodern cynicism. No offense, just not my cup of tea. ;-) Uh, Romanization of foreign icons? Two things come to mind: In occupied Egypt, Roman Emperors were portrayed as Pharaohs using the traditional religious art that adorned the ubiquitous temples. The Romans weren't the first to do this mind you, the Ptolemies had been doing it for some 300 years prior. In the Greco-Roman era Egyptian art and architecture took on some Mediterranean flavors, but there was still a heavy native influence, of course, designed to appeal to the native subjects. In the Celtic lands of the Western Empire, Celtic gods were often identified with Roman ones, and the images set up in the Romano-Celtic temples were thus Romanized. The native Celtic representations, to the extent they had any, were of a different style. I don't want to say they were primitive, but they were stylized and often animalistic. The temples themselves were of a unique architectural design that was not wholly Roman.

I would have picked law and government too, if I had lived in continental Europe. But living in the Anglosphere with its Anglo-Saxon common law traditions, I've never experienced Roman legal codes first hand. Excellent point.

What the above posters have said has merit, take it to heart. But consider what some historians have said (I'm going to paraphrase Eugene Weber here): The Roman Empire was simply too darn big, with too many unproductive areas sucking the life out of productive areas. It was bound to fall. Instead of asking why it fell, we should ask why it held together for as long as it did. After all, the Romans held together their vast empire with an army that was scarcely bigger than what Medieval France had at its disposal. So we should consider how the Romans got so much bang for their buck, so to speak. Only then can we understand how and why the house of cards finally collapsed.

Was attempting to move some very old threads from "the Roman Empire" forum to either one of the new folders where might get a new lease on life, or else to the graveyard where they could rest in peace. However, every topic located after about the fifth page seems to have just disappeared in the process of moving. I can't locate them. Old threads don't move well.

"Handbook to life in Ancient Rome" by Adkins and Adkins. "Handbook to life in Ancient Greece" by Adkins and Adkins. "Handbook to life in Ancient Egypt" by Rosalie David. Each book gives you a sound intro to the respective culture, and offers a suggested bibliography at the end of each topic where you can do more in-depth study. I'm less well versed with other cultures, but "The Etruscans" my Michael Grant is good. I could recommend a few very basic books on the Celts if you're interested.

Maybe it's just a bunch of gibberish designed to sound vaguely Germanic? I don't think "Gladiator" is a movie you want to look to for historical accuracy.

I would have to say the roads. My state government, with all its modern technology, can't make a road half so fine as the Romans.