Ursus

I have to say my interest in the Roman legions extends mostly to their peaceful activities, as the outposts of Roman civilization in far flung sectors. The finer aspects of Roman military science don't appeal to me.

People should ask Theo Van Gogh his opinion of that.

Hmmm. I once watched a three hour movie on the battle of Gettysburg that tried to be as historically acurate as possible. And it darn near put me to sleep. On the other hand, "Sparatacus" took liberties with Roman history, but was one of the best movies I've ever seen. As long as movies don't try to pass off fiction as history, I can live with a few liberties. The trouble is I don't think modern Hollywood is worth much. Usually the actors are pretty to look at but not much else, the scripts and dialogue are mindless and cliche, and the fight scenes look like something out of the WWF. Movies try to draw in the younger crowd who only care about pretty people, silly action, and trite love scenes.

The Roman Soldier This book was first written in 1969, and for that reason I'm sure there are more up-to-date treatises of the Roman military. The reason I was attached to this particular treatment of the subject was its focus. ...to the full review of The Roman Soldier

I find these pictures breathtaking. Can you imagine being a primitive ancient tribal society and watching a whole army of these shiny soldiers marching toward your village?

This is unbelievable. I can't go into any forum - any - without seeing people's comments on the Bush reelection. On forums that have absolutely nothing to do with American politics! I come here to discuss the Roman Empire, not listen to people tell me that I'm a terrorist. Can we at least keep the political comments confined to the "after hours" lounge?

Is it worth $50 bucks, though?

I think the Republic as it existed simply wasn't able to deal with the stresses of empire and was doomed to fall sooner or later under external and internal pressures. It's hard for me to pinpoint one individual above the rest. One warlord or another would have eventually ended it. Tom Holland makes the point that Pergamum gave the Romans their first real taste of empire. SO maybe the king who died and left Pergamum in his will to the Romans did more than anybody to topple the provincial Republic. :-)

As far as EU expansion, I don't see most Europeans going out of their way to embrace Islamic countries - they seem to feel they have enough Islamic peoples swelling their own internal ranks as it is. And I think the much maligned country of Israel has a better chance of becoming the 51st state before becoming a formal member of Europe. Heck, a lot of Western Europeans don't want anything to do with the former Communist nations of the East. The Roman Empire was mostly a partnership between Roman elites and provincial elites, with the Roman Army cementing the deal. The EU's democratic and rather bureacratized government falls outside those parameters. The closest thing today is probably the American hegemonic influence. During the Cold War and even beyond, the US backed local elites in areas of interest, and the local elites in return generally recognized American superiority in international affairs. Through military, economic and "cultural" influence, the US exerted a profound interest well outside its borders. This is not too far off from how the Romans ran their empire. The British are even to the Americans what the Greeks were to the Romans.

Can you military buffs tell me all the animals the Romans used as standards in the legion? The eagle was the legion standard, but various units within it used other animals like the bear or wolf? What were all the animals used? Thanks.

They bathed. :-) http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/baths.html

I rather agree with primuspilus I don't really see an economic connection between the Roman Empire and its successor states. The greatest legacy is of course cultural. Professor Eugene Weber pointed out that the dividing line between Catholic Europe and Protestant Europe is roughly the same line between the Roman Empire and the unconquered Germanic territories, respectively. And of course the Orthodox countries lay in the shadow of Byzantium. So there are visible long term effects of imperial rule.

Actually, from what I've read the army as a whole was the last bastion of paganism. Most military establishments are conservative and bound by tradition. This is especially true if most of the recruits come from rural areas, which tend towards conservatism for their own reasons. My readings also indicate Mithraism was mostly confined to the officer corps and imperial administrators. The grunts of the army would not likely been initiated into the Mithraic mysteries, and would not likely used him as a bridge to Christ. [both of the above statements are based on many works, but largely _The Roman Soldier_ by G.R. Watson, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1969.] I rather agree with the sentiments that the Christian perception of Roman persecution is rather overplayed. The Druids among the Celtic pagan types have a much better basis for grumbling about Roman opposition.

A lot of these spammers are automated programs. You can get around that by having a forum that requires users to automatically enter certain numerical codes to register. I don't remember entirely, but I don't think that was part of the registration process here.

I'm not an expert in the matter, either. Some of the stuff is too heady for my tastes. What I appreciate about the Romans is the way they approached philosophy. They were less interested in the abstract, metaphysical aspects of philosophy and were more concerned with the ethical side of it. Stoic and Epicurean ethics seemed to be the most popular, but some people followed Aristotle. My interest in Aristotle stems primarily from his musings on ethics. Maybe a better question is: what set of ethics does everyone here follow? Christian? Humanist? etc.

Stoic philosophy doesn't appeal to me anyway. Taken to an extreme, it's an extremely lifeless and repressive system. Marcus Aurelius nearly put me to sleep, honestly. Aristotle is much more my speed.

Does anyone take any inspiration from any of the classical philosophers? I find Aristotle's ethics a rational guide to life and have taken some inspiration from them.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it's important to stipulate the Consuls were technically elected by the Comitia Centuriata. If the theme of the thread is how best to model a modern national government on Republican Rome, it would have to take into account such things. The government of Rome would be rather meaningless without taking the social orders into account. Any modern society attempting to reflect Rome would have to be divied up into various social orders relating to economic power.

I think the very fact that Republican system crumbled was illustrative of the fact it didn't work when applied to an imperial setting. It may have worked when Rome was a backwater city-state, but not as the center of a vast empire. Having executive power divided between two candidates, who are elected anuually, and who are severely constrained by the "advice" of the Senate makes for very weak executive power. When you're fighting enemies of the empire, you need a strong leader in charge of imperial resources. Once Pompei was finally given full command of the Mediterranean, he defeated the pirate menace quite easily. It's a point in favor of strong executive leadership. People have bemoaned the warlords and the death of the Republic for 2000 years, but I really don't see an alternative. Maybe if the Republic had been open to change, it could have reformed itself under imperial pressures and survived. But Conservative Rome wasn't open to change on that level, and could only be reformed at the hands of an imperial warlord. In contemporary terms, what if people elected two American presidents who shared executive powers. What if Kerry and Bush were both presidents during a war on terror, who had to argue not only with the Senate but with each other? I think it would be a disaster for national security.

I suppose I'm one myself. But in mixed company I prefer to talk of it only from a historical/academic perspective. I'll save more personal reflections for crowds that are more receptive to it. I find myself a little out of touch with the greater "pagan" community, honestly. Some of these people are a little... out there. I've found I prefer general Romanophile communities. Whether we're Christians of various sorts, pagans or various sorts, or agnostics, we can all find something in Rome to appreciate.

Actually there were some appreciable differences between Greek religion and Roman religion. For one thing, the Romans often saw the Olympian gods in a slightly different light than the Greeks. For another thing, Roman religion has an almost Confucian reverence of ancestors and local spirits that you don't really find to the same extent in Greek religion.

I answered "a little bit of everything." I tend to pay a bit more attention to religious and cultural studies, but I try not to ignore any of the other areas. Although I will admit I once read a survey of the Roman economy which bored the heck out of me, and I haven't read anything on the Roman economy since.

Let's see exactly why people become Romanophiles!

I just want you guys to know the archaeology forum is half the reason I hang around here. It's a significant resource to my cultural and religious studies.

Well, that