Ursus

I'm certainly not an expert on Byzantium. But I think the Christian schism of 1054 was merely a formalization of a process that had been brewing for centuries due to cultural differences between the Greek east and Latin West. While the Byzantines did call themselves Romans, their civilization seems too different from the Pagan, Latin west to reasonably be equated with old Rome. I would say the Roman Empire split apart when Constantine helped legitimize a new faith and anchored his new empire in the east with a new capitol. Then within 100-200 years from that point, the Western empire ceased to function as a united geopolitical reality, while the Eastern Empire began consolidating itself into something of a new civilization. So I would place the turning point with Constantine when the empire as it had been known changed forever. Just my opinion. *shrugs* Certainly I'm biased since everything after the ascension of Constantine is not completely germane to my own particular interests in the Roman Empire.

The architecture of Washington DC is the closest I've been to Greece or Rome.

This has been an interesting discussion and I even managed to learn one or two things. Thanks, guys.

This isn't my area of expertise, but from what I've read: Celtic is a general catch all phrase for people who had related languages, religions and culture. Within that very broad range of people there were some significant differences. It's a bit like using "Romance languages" to lump in Italians, Spanish and French with one another. The various Celtic tribes were similar to the various Germanic tribes, and there were areas around the Rhine where the two civilizations graded into each other. While a few Celtic tribes were on their way to developing literacy, elected government and urban civilization when the Romans came, generally they were a rural and illiterate society presided over by a tribal aristocracy and chieftan. And in Britain and some parts of Gaul, the Druids were perhaps the real power. It seems like the Celtic society basically lived around show and display, social status in other words. They were as concerned about honor as Romans, but they had different ideas about honor. They were always fighting and arguing to prove their worth. The Celtic nobles lived to accumulate wealth and display it. They traded extensively with the Mediterranean for such high status items as wine and Greek vases. When trade failed, they resorted to raiding and pillaging. The Celtic nobles would then redistribute some of these items in the form of gifts to his retainers, and his retainers would thus be in debt to the noble. In this way the Celtic noble had many clients indebted to him, and there is a parallel to Roman society with the patron-client social bonds. Celtic women were noted for having more rights than their Greek and Roman counterparts. They would speak their mind, and even fight sometimes on the battlefield. If we are to believe some of the classical writers, they were considerably free with their sexuality

It sounds great. Fine British acting. American production values. It's a winning combination. I wonder if my local PBS station will carry it, as they often do piggy back BBC productions.

I have not seen the movie nor intend to. I've heard the basic story countless times, and not sure how novel another experience would be even with the addition of authentic language and graphic violence. However, I do have a question for those that have studied the whole event in greater detail than I. Would Jesus really have been executed via crucifixion? I was under the impression the Romans doled out that humiliating death only to slaves and traitors - the lowest of the low. Jesus was not a slave nor was he, from the Roman standpoint, a traitor. He would be at best just another annoying religious zealot in a land known for them (from the Roman perspective). If he had been executed, would it have not been through whatever means Jewish law used at the time?

You guys from Michigan, huh? I work for the company that does reservations for Michigan state park camping, as well as a lot of other service contracts for a lot of other State governments. But, you'll forgive me for saying this and nothing personal against you guys, I've found the Michigan people to be the worst of the lot when they call in to our company's customer service line. They seem to be fanatics when it comes to their summer recreation facilities. I think everyone in our company wants to drop a nuclear bomb on Grand Haven and Ludington, we're so fed up with it. Anyway, I don't consider myself militantly anti-Christian. But some of us here do practice different religions and we're not always going to agree with the Church's official view of history. It's as simple as that.

Invidiated? Sounds close to the Latin word for "jealous." You mean ... envied? Some Romans probably envied the Greeks. Others were probably sincere in their belief that Greek cultural values undermined traditional Roman concepts of virtus.

Distinguished Senators, Our glorious culture started as a small town on the Tiber. Now we find ourselves the capitol of a the largest empire in the known world. Our ancestors, may the gods bless their wisdom, overthrew the corrupt foreign monarchy and gave us the virtues of Republican government. Our Republic served us well for centuries while we matured in the cradle of central Italy. Now we find ourselves at the threshhold of history. Our Republic finds itself ill equipped to handle the duties of an Empire that extends far beyond the fields of Italy. We can not have a glorified municipal government controlling the nations of the earth. Men like Pompei and Julius Caeser have demonstrated what can be done when the resources of the empire are marshalled under one man. But do we want a king? No! That wuld be an insult to our ancestors and to our Republic. Do we want a dictator for life? No! That is a king in all but name. We have to find a middle ground between the Republic of the past and the strong man government to which our future is precariously sliding. Our institutions need reformed. I propose the following: - All freeborn and lawful abiding inhabitants of the empire are granted Roman citizenship with all the rights and duties thereof. Provincials will have the right to elect assemblies to advise the resident proconsular authority appointed by the Roman Senate. They will be subject to full taxes and military service. - All men from the provinces of sufficient wealth and status shall partake of the Roman Senate and Imperial affairs. - The office of Consul shall be invested in one, rather than two men, and he shall hold full imperium. Furthermore, the consul shall hold office for five years rather than one. Furthermore, the Consul shall be directly appointed by the Roman Senate rather than elected by the tribes and assemblies. Furthermore, great fathers of the Roman state, I would be more than happy to serve as the first Consul of the New Order...

Those of who want to argue Christianity as the cause of Rome's downfall have to read two sources: Decline and fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons The Discourses on Livy by Machiavelli They both view, in different ways, Christianity as diluting the Pagan valor and spirit that infused old Rome. I don't totally agree with it, but they are both interesting reading. I'm not saying the conversion to Christianity didn't have some effect. But the spread of Christianity is probably more of a symptom of cultural upheaval than a cause. Honestly, the educated Roman elite

The educated Romans would have been immersed in Hellenic culture. But most Romans weren't educated. I can

I like their social values. Romans have the reputation for being a bloody set of genocidal maniacs who fabricated an EVIL EMPIRE - you even see that myth from people on here who should know better. But I find the Roman Way to be honorable and moral. Among those social values I see: - A relative religious tolerance - A relative lack of modern notions and preoccupations with race and ethnicity - A practical nature that emphasizes actions and deeds over abstract speculation - A concern for law and order, and social harmony - A respect for tradition and history that still allows innovation and adaptation - A strong sense of civic duty and social virtue - An emphasis on honor and glory, and one's proper standing in the community These are all things which I strongly internalize and which I would love to foster in modern society.

I think it's a great idea. I'm so tired of seeing a bazillion threads on military minutae and searching for the few threads that are on broader topics. This reorganization will eradicate that problem. But I am having massive problems replying to old threads. It's eating my responses. I hope it doesn't eat this one. *crosses fingers*

Colin Wells The Roman Empire (Second Edition) Wells offers a general survey of the Roman Empire from the rise of Augusts to the reign of Caracalla. The book is novel in adopting an alternating view between center-periphery relations. That is to say, one chapter will adhere to the traditional focus of Roman history by exploring the political machinations of the imperial court as well as the major military initiatives of the legions during a given time frame. The successive chapter, however, will attempt to provide a broader view of Roman society by highlighting the social and economic affairs of the provinces during the same time frame.... ...read the full review of The Roman Empire by Collin Wells

I'm fairly happy with the system utilized by the modern US. More or less free market, but with some government controls to prevent, among other things, a replay of 1929.

The Romans tried to outlaw fighting as a way of life in the conquered Celtic and Germanic territories. The conquered tribalist societies often rebelled merely to assert their right to fight. I think Rome was rather mild compared to its neighbors. if they occasionally cracked down violently to supress a rebellion, well boo hoo. And yes, the Christian and Jewish sources who have colored perceptions of Roman history are not exactly the most objective people.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

You could argue what primuspilus was hinting at, which is that Christianity gave the empire a certain identity, an ecclesiastical cohesion, and much needed charity in dark times. And this worked as long as everyone was on the same page of Christianity. When different conceptions of Christianity were formulated, there were however problems... Gibbons wrote much on Christianity's impact on Rome. Unfortunately for you he takes the exact opposite stance in regards to the religion's usefullness.

But I'm told the female lead is mighty fine in her leather outfit. Reading the description primuspilus gave, I'm a bit disappointed. But nonetheless, taking Arthur out of his medieval Christian guise is a step in the right direction. I'm also told there are scenes in the movie revolving around the native pagan beliefs of the Britons and Sarmatians which is dealt with in a manner not totally mocking. That is a rare thing for Hollywood.

Historical fiction.

Death to All Enemies of the Empire!!!!! Sorry, needed to get that out of my system. And pride was, to the Romans, everything. So, from that perspective, it was necessary.

I think the Romans were no more violent than the people that surrounded them. In comparison to some, they were a great deal less violent. The Celts used to cut people's heads off for religious and ornamental reasons. The Germanic hordes used to throw children in the air and run them threw with spears as they fell back to earth. The Romans were often in awe of their barbarian opponents; for the Romans may not have always fought for the most noble of reasons, but they generally didn't declare war just for the sheer heck of it. Roman foreign policy was among the most liberal of the ancient world. The conquered peoples were generally allowed to run their own affairs, and the local elites became citizens and even Senators. Romans didn't resort to violence unless they were teaching a lesson to a rebellious foe. They were implacable and ruthless enemies in battle, but that's how they won wars. We should judge conquerers by how they manage the peace, and from that standpoint Rome is rather enlightened as empires go. I've heard the comparison to facism before and I just don't buy it one bit. True, they had a rather hardcore sense of civic duty to the State, which sometimes runs afoul of citizens of modern liberal democracies. The first Consul sentencing his own sons to death for conspiring against the Republic I think perfectly demonstrats the steel of the Roman soul. If we don't understand and appreciate that steel, I don't think we can understand and appreciate the Romans and their empire.

Stalin and Mao both killed more of their own people than Hitler. By far if the estimates are accurate. I'm not really sure why the wide span of the Roman Empire is being compared to the twelve year reign of a genocidal maniac.

Romans in Space? The Star Trek franchise did something like that with the Romulans. I'm not a big Star Trek fan, just saying someone thought of it before.

This is interesting. But I wonder, if Spartacus and his cronies were merely well-paid athletes, why did they revolt?