Ursus

Whatever its origin it soon became the theorum of Republican government. The Senate and the People, as opposed to the rule of the king. Romans hated kings, following their experience and susbequent overthrow of the Etruscan monarchies. They preferred an oligarchy of political elites tempered by public elections. I don't see any connection with tatoos.

From what I have read, HBO linked up with the BBC to do a mini-series on Rome. Unfortunately I don't get HBO, even with illegal cable hookups. I think ABC is also doing a mini-series as well. Both series are about the latter days of the Roman Republic.

Well, during the Early Republic they largely stayed at home. However, as we progress into imperial times they become considerably liberated, especially in the upper classes. They are able to move about and partake of many aspects of society. One book I read even suggested that Roman women in the imperial era were as free as any women ever up until the feminist revolutions of this century. Read Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Jerome Carcopina for more info.

The latest issue of National Geographic contains an article on the burgeoning field of archaeology regarding the pre-Roman Empire Italic people. Their artifacts are increasingly unearthed, and their cultures and rituals are still discernable in the Italian countryside beneath a thin guise of Catholicism. http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/05...ure3/index.html

Well, I'm a pagan myself, and whether we're talking about Christmas, Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, Yule or Solstice, I think we should just ban December all together. The only thing I like about this time of the year is the egg nog

Um. Well, I'm not sure anything held together by military conquest can truly be considered legitimate. I don't think that's even the point, though, to be blunt. Given the time and place, you conquer or are conquered. What matters is how well you govern, and what legacy you leave. On both accounts I think the Romans have a better record than many imperial powers that came before or after. If Rome's Italian allies wanted to overthrow Rome, they could have sided with Hannibal. But they didn't. They saw Rome as the least of all possible evils. Enough said.

*warm fuzzy feeling*

If you guys get the "History Channel" they sometimes run a two hour documentary on the Arthurian legend. You should watch it, it's as informative as any scholarly book on the subject. For the record, it's most likely Athur is a confusion of several different figures. However, there is fairly credible evidence to suggest a Romano-Celtic calvary warlord temporarily halted the encroaching Saxon hoardes in the decades following the Roman withdrawl from Britain.

Or at least his publicist.

Lower class Romans would have spoken vulgar Latin, from whence the Romance languages originated. Upper class Romans would have spoken Classical Latin amongst themselves, such as in the halls of the Senate. Political leaders, military officers, and merchants would have used Greek in dealing with the citizens of the East. However, lower class Romans could barely speak Classical (upper class) Latin, let alone Greek. I'm sure, as someone said, soldiers stationed in a foreign country can pick up enough phrases to survive ("How do I get to the local brothel, and how much do they charge?"), but it's very doubtful they would have been fluent in it.

Languages tend to evolve over time. With the collapse of central power in the Western empire, the vulgar forms of Latin achieved regional dialects which then gradually evolved into the Romance languages. The verb endings in modern day Spanish are pretty similar to Latin. English, that supposedly Germanic language, has a great deal of Latin influence thanks to Norman French... Classical Latin died out as a spoken language because it was always an artificial language used by the educated elites. Uneducated Romans didn't even fully understand it. The grammar is complex, to say the least.

Well, I think a lot of us are doing what we can, thanks. To be blunt, there already seems to be a preponderance in this forum on the Roman military, and on battles real or hypothetical. IMHO, the "my empire can beat up your empire" line of discussion is getting a bit hackneyed.

The legend of King Arthur is probably a composite of several different figures, historical and mythological. But there does seem to have been a Romano-Celtic war chieftan who won several temporary victories against Saxon invaders in the decades after the Roman withdrawl from Britannia.

I agree with the assertions that empire in the Roman sense is a somewhat outdated and perhaps self-defeating concept. However, I believe the Western world needs a rebirth of its identiy as well as stronger ties among the nations and peoples that comprise that civilization. In America, there's a not-so-subtle debate about whether the country should be Christian or secular in identity. In Western Europe , it generally seems the debate has been decided in the favor of secularism -although it's a nihilistic, postmodern form of secularism that's not very appealing. In former Communist countries it seems like nationalism and Orthodox Christianity have some influence... I think a greater appreciation to our Greco-Roman roots and their values would be a nice compromise among these contrasting forces. I don't suggest that our Greco-Roman forebears are the end of everything, but they make a suitable beginning to the question of who we were/are, and what really unites us on an intellectual level if not a political one.

Yeah, I tried reading it. Just couldn't get into it. The writing style threw me off. A lot of other people seem to like it, though. *shrugs* To anyone who wants to read about the fall of the Republic, I suggest Rubicon by Tom Holland. It's by a historical scholar, but his writing style almost enlivens it to the level of a novel. It's the flip side of McCullough, who is novelist trying to write like a historian. Rubicon covers the social wars to the death of Augustus. Sometimes it goes into greater detail than I would have liked, but on the whole it is a quick and very entertaining (not to mention informative) read.

It's no better or worse than anything else in human society - economics, politics, science, art, etc. These things are just tools with a specific purpose behind them . Some people will always misuse a given tool. I don't think that necessarily means we should ban the tool in question.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is Latin to be a national language but not replace any existing language? What do you mean exactly? In any event, educated people and classics geeks will always cherish Latin, but I don't see it spreading on a popular level. Most of the average Americans I know can barely speak proper English, let alone Latin.

I guess the most important conquest to me was Hellas, given that I love the cultural fusion. Although trade from the East exercised Hellenic influences on Rome since the beginning.

Maybe a researcher for some type of educational oriented media.

http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php...nt=romanpersons Julius Caesar was my #1, followed by Augustus. :-)

I guess I should answer my own question. To me it was preserving Hellenic civilization, and gradually refining it in such a way that it made it more accessible to what would become Western Europe.

What do you think was Rome's single greatest contribution to Western history?

Thanks. :-) I also usually put my reviews directly on the Amazon.website for the given book.

Latin Via Ovid: A First Course Norman Goldman, Jacob E. Nyenhuis Those Romanophiles lacking proper schooling in Latin must take the pains to teach themselves the language. There are dozens of Latin textbooks in circulation. How is one to decide among them for the best tool in self-study... ...read the full review of Latin via Ovid

"Alexander" is bombing at the theatres. Hollywood may be less enthusiastic about classical epics.