Ursus

"If the Gauls get to run around naked in blue makeup, why can't I"?

And there is also apatheistic - they may be a god or gods, but you simply don't care one way or another. I was an apatheist for a long time.

I think there is some truth to what you say, Calledora, and that's why in another thread I said I think the Romans have as much to teach us as we could teach them.

Well, we're approaching 500 registered members, and maybe 20 of them post with any regularity. So just because someone becomes a registered member doesn't mean they'll become a valued member, know what I mean? ;-) Having a forum specifically set aside for questions by "guests" is not a bad idea. But I'd prefer it to be its own specific area, designed solely for that purpose, and not connected in any way with the regular member forums. It would be easier to moderate that way. Call it the Guest Room, or whatever.

Numerous times throughout the site I've seen the topic of the Roman legacy versus the Germanic legacy. Here is a nice forum to discuss it. Here is a link that will serve as a nice backdrop: encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Germanic_tribe The Germanic tribes were either absorbed by the empire or overran the empire, depending on which scholar you ask. But one thing is clear: with the collapse of central Roman authority in the West, various Germanic tribes and their successor kingdoms sprouted everywhere. The Germans internalized to some extent the tradition of Roman imperial government and Roman law, and eventually the new Roman religion of Christianity. Thus the Germanic tribes in continental Europe helped to pass down the Roman legacy. Indeed, in one way or another, whether as friend or foe, they had been subject to the Roman legacy for generations. However, the further away we get from Rome itself, the less of an influence we find. This is particularly true in the lands that would become Britain, where the Germans retained their tribal common laws as opposed to Roman legal codes. The people of Britain, who were only partially Romanized to begin with, were closer to the Germanic culture. Under German occupation they became more Germanized then they had ever been Romanized. This is why England and its former colonies arguably owe as much in law and government, culture and language to the German heritage as they do to the Roman. As a side note, UCLA professor Eugene Weber has pointed out the line between Protestant and Catholic Europe is roughly the same as between the Roman Empire and the unconquered German territories, evidence that cultural legacies dictate religious development. To what extent did Rome influence the various Germanic tribes? To what extent did the various Germanic tribes influence the decaying Roman empire? And how should we rate the impact of each group on the development of Western culture?

Germanicus' Book Review: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=ST...ST&f=10&t=1477& I do intend to read the book sometime, Germanicus. Thanks for alerting me to it with your review.

I'm sure Greek influence was a factor. But I also think societies just tend to change, particularly once they become rich centers of a multicultural world. I look at the sexual mores of the USA pre-World War II when it was still something of an isolated, naive young country. Then I look at the sexual mores of today where it's the most influential nation and exports its pop culture around the planet. It's as different as night and day. A lot happened in 60 years. Things change. I think Rome was changed by the empire it created for itself.

It was also easier for the imperial court to flee by sea at Ravenna, which was a prudent concern by that time.

True, Akhenaton may have had the first monotheistic cult, but it was dismantled upon his death. It was a fleeting blip on the Egyptian radar, whereas the other monotheistic cults started taking roots in their respective cultures.

I guess we're on opposite sides of the fence. :-) But, hey, we still both love Rome, even if its different versions of Rome.

Heh, P. Clodius. Don't know if I'm especially pro -populares. I'm just pro-empire, and the empire could no longer be ruled effectively by a glorified municipal government. ;-)

Was Caesar justified in his march on Rome? Yes he had good reason to march on Rome. No he was attepting to conquer it and become king. Are these two options mutually exclusive with respect to the question? To put it in another way - if Caesar wanted to be King all along, was he not justified in that? The Republic has always been a bit romanticized for my tastes. The "freedoms" of the Republic were largely the freedoms of a parochial band of Roman oligarchs. The government of the republic was simply not equipped to deal with the reality of empire. I abhor the absolutism of the later empire, but I really do think some type of profound system change was necessary, concentrating more resources of the state in a man of vision and will. Given how firmly the Senatorial oligarchy was entrenched, it simply wasn't possible for change to come about except by military coup.

These days with advances in biochemistry, psychology, and information science there are probably easier ways of extracting info than through prolonged torture sessions. Although inflicting pain on "enemies of the state" might still be entertaining on a primal level. :-)

I read a lot, mostly on ancient cultures and religions. I am a very good customer of Amazon.com and some book clubs. :-) I listen to music, mostly classical and neo-classical. I do like classic rock/pop, though. I've been known to draw, but I can't be considered an expert. I play computer games when I have the time and money. I love the outdoors, wildlife and animals. I have an online journal which I use to keep in touch with a few friends. That's where I get a lot of the quizzes and internet links I post here - they get passed around the circle of online journals.

Excellent review, Germanicus. Our Book review forum is really starting to come alive with member contributions.

Hmmm. Well as you know the Greeks believed the shades of mortals went to dwell in the underworld. The Romans, despite their adoption of Greek mythology, believed ancestral spirits returned to the family line and became part of the various tutelary demons they honored in their homes. Some mystical schools held out the possibility of reincarnation or transmigration of souls. I really don't know what to believe. I suppose I'll find out when I get there. :-)

I can't march in step. But would love to see one in action.

Roman bloodshed and persecution are often overstated by Rome's enemies. I'd have to watch the documentary myself and check its sources, but it's possible. Recently it's come to light that gladiatorial games rarely ended in death. A lot of stereotypes are now seen as exaggerations as archaeological evidence comes to light. It makes you wonder just how accurate "history" really is. Everyone has an agenda.

Well, it did take them a while to get to that level. And education and administrative skills would be more important in their capacity than youth and physical prowess. So they probably were a little older. Maybe someone will have more a definite answer.

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1246&

I don't even know what you're going on about, quite frankly.

When about 17 years of age, Roman boys discarded the childhood toga for the toga of adult males. They then went to the Capitol and made sacrifices to Jupiter (king of the Gods) and Juventas (god of youth). When a youth trimmed his beard for the first time, the clippings were usually offered to the family gods, and there was some kind of family festival. Happy Birthday. ;-)

Roman Sex: 100 BC

On the subject of Hellenistic knowledge, Greek philosophers like the Stoics were preaching universal brotherhood and austere ethics centuries before Christ. I suppose it depends on what you define as "Humanitarian." If you think violence is abhorrent and the Arena Games were the low mark of human civilization, Christ and his message of peace and brotherhood wins out over imperial Rome. On the other hand, I don't think declaring other religions and other gods as evil illusions of the devil to be very humane. From the perspective of religious tolerance, Pagan Rome was ahead of Christianity. The ancient Egyptians had a religious and ethical system called ma'at, which is basically divine order, peace, and justice. The ancient Germans had a concept of honor and peace called frith.

What do you guys do for fun?