Ursus

During the Republic, provincial governors seemed to have been advised informally by their circle of associates, both Roman and provincial natives. The Empire did see some professionalization. In the early empire, educated Greek slaves and freedmen did a lot of the legwork. Toward the later empire, military and civilian power was formally divided for the first time in Roman history, and a background in law seems to have been a mark of success for high office in the civil service. I don't see any evidence that it was as formalized as China. I have seen it said that a professional bureaucracy is one of the reasons why China endured and Rome didn't, and it does seem to have a ring of truth. On the other hand, an entrenched bureaucracy schooled in archaic texts isn't necessarily the most innovative or forward thinking social force, and perhaps China stagnated in later centuries because of it.

I think Ghandi's principles worked because his targets were themselves rather civilized as empires go. Try those same principles against The Waffen SS or Imperial Japanese, and he and his hordes most likely would have been machine gunned without compunction. I just don't see Ghandi as a moral authority. I think he was a nutcase that got lucky because his opponent, the ailing British Empire, was the least oppressive and most restrained compared to other powers at the time. As far as Ghandi's plans for a post-Independence India, I saw an interview with him once when a reporter asked him that question. He basically stared at the ground and mumbled something about India being a confederation of peaceful villages. Most likely he would be aghast at a rising military power that shares stealth fighter technology with the Russians.

I am not sure if and when book and DVD reviews will commence again, as the dominus of the forum has other concerns, these days .... I thought I would share my last review for the site. It was written last fall, before the new season of Spartacus came out. May someone find it of worth .... *** Spartacus: Gods of the Arena diverts from its titular lead character, and instead charts the social rise and moral fall of the House of Batiatus several years prior to the first season. Contained within six episodes are enough gore, sex and slow-motion special effects to assault the senses into submission. Despite what might be perceived as excess in that regard, this prequel nonetheless weaves some of our favorite supporting characters into an enjoyable tale of ambition, vengeance and passion. I've been leery of prequels ever since George Lucas ruined my childhood with the recent filth he tried to pass off as Star Wars. But the producers of Spartacus: Blood and Sand had little choice. Lead actor (and now, sadly, late actor) Andy Whitfield was unavailable for the planned second season due to a bout with cancer. Meanwhile, the fans wanted new stories, and the remaining actors under contract wanted employment. The practical solution was thus to rewind the saga several years. Hence, Gods of the Arena. And it works. Mostly. Lentulus Batiatus is the grandson of the first lanista in Capua. When his overbearing father moves out of town into semi-retirement, Batiatus takes over the family ludus. His ambition exceeds the grasp of his lowly social status; poor Batiatus secretly yearns for a career in Roman politics. But with the gladiator school as his only means of social currency, he and his scheming wife Lucretia seek to make a name for themselves on the local scene by playing to the crowd with their gruesome spectacles. In this he is aided by a dear friend and fellow lanista, Solonius. He also has the support of Gannicus, his current champion, and Oenomaus, a former champion. Viewers of the first season know that Solonius is Batiatus's rival several years hence, while Oenomaus is the school's trainer rather than a serving gladiator. Meanwhile, Gannicus the Celt must give way to Crixus the Gaul, a lowly slave laborer who is destined to become the new champion (and rival of the future Spartacus). Batiatus is opposed by Tullius, a shady Capuan noble, and his toady, Vettius, a rival lanista. Lentulus' plans are also stymied by the return of his own father, an old-fashioned sort who views his son's unorthodox means of of social climbing with disdain. That the paterfamilias disapproves of his son's marriage with a lowborn wife is also a continuing source of tension within the family. Prequels are subject to anticlimax because we ultimately know which characters must survive to see their future selves. But watching how and why their past characters evolve into their assigned roles of the first season is where the tension and enjoyment lie. Or one might be entertained (if not overwhelmed) by the visual feast on parade. Violence punctuates every second scene, with blood splattering and limbs flying. Sex punctuates the remaining half of the scenes - there is no end of pretty naked people of both genders and sexual orientations. Interestingly, scenes of sex and violence are often juxtaposed next to each other - lust and combat locked in montage, suggesting that both activities are borne of the same primal urge. The acting is sufficient. I have no real complaints, surprisingly, given that most of the cast could be mistaken at first glance for bimbos and himbos. In particular, Jack Hannah and Lucy Lawless stand out for the venomous air in which they portray their characters. Their performances are in what large measure made the first seasons, and the same is true here. One wonders if the series will be able to survive solid footing without the interaction between them (as the events of the first season finale placed their continued presence into question). But through it all, I believe the most striking thing about this incarnation of Spartacus is the dialogue. It is both high brow and low brow at once. Imagine if an English poet liberally laced his verses with the F word, and you have a picture of how the characters speak. But what matters is that they speak to the heart. Emotions are always running high, words drip with passion and menace. The main problem with the series are twofold, both of which have been alluded to above. The first is excess. Does Lucretia really need a hot lesbian friend (many men are probably enthusiastically nodding their heads ...)? Do we need so much violence and profanity, even in a series about professional killers? The other is the curse of foresight common to prequels. The chess pieces are moving into predetermined positions, and you can hear them moving across the board. But what matters is if you have fun along the way. Is Gods of the Arena as good as the first season? Not quite. But it is an enjoyable experience? Yes, if you let yourself be guiltlessly carried away in the fantasy. And it is all we have till the new season rolls out in early 2012. Make your offerings to the gods, for the arena beckons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17034637 Ireland has plenty of ancient settlements and monuments. But on a visit to Achill Island, off the far west coast - up a mountain and in the middle of a bog - sits a different kind of monument that locals are calling Achill-henge.

Uzbekistan has the right idea: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/14/146864189/calling-it-alien-uzbek-government-cancels-valentines-day

Very well. The dedication of the Altar of Peace, whose internal art thoughtfully records the moment in "snapshot." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomaAraPacis_ProcessioneSudParticolare.jpg

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133693152/the-dark-origins-of-valentines-day?ps=cprs

Hamlet in 6.5 minutes

The comparative peace and cultural enlightenment from Augustus to Hadrian - and particularly exemplified by the two aforementioned emperors who bookmark that period .

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/10/146588988/discovering-the-mysteries-of-rice-krispyhenge

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/20/145339541/coriolanus-a-peoples-hero-turns-on-his-own I definitely want to see it when it comes out.

The favor of the gods. Too popular a character to kill off. The theme of the season is Vengeance. So, in the season finale, as Spartacus no doubt gets his vengeance against Glaber, I am sure Lucretia will no doubt get her vengeance against Ilithyia for locking the door which blocked her escape.

I saw an advance copy of the first episode. Below are vague spoilers. Skip if you don't want to know. * * * The new fellow playing Spartacus fills in nicely for what he has to do, which is mainly show anger and remorse. And flex his muscles for the ladies. I think he'll do fine. Lucretia, as you must know by now, survives. She has post traumatic stress disorder, and so walks around looking lost and hopeless. She also lacks Quintus Batiatus off of whom she usually played. So, she is not nearly the firebrand she was. The episode kind of lacked a little something without her prancing about, but I'm all for the change in her character arc, which is logical given the events of the last episode of the previous season. The energy void abdicated by Lucretia and Quintus are filled by Glaber and Ilithyia. They work well together as villians. They move into the house of Batiatus, supposedly because the gladiator barracks can house Glaber's legion, but I think it's simply because the production team can recycle the set. There is a secondary villian duo, in the form a young politico-soldier, and his sister. They are rivals to Glaber in the race to defeat Spartacus and gain martial glory. It is also hinted in the first episode this brother-sister pair might be engaged in incest. If it pans out that they are incestuous, I'm not sure what viewers are going to think of a brother-sister pairing. Yuck. Speaking of sex .... The sex and violence have been amplified, if that is possible. And they often occur in tandem with each other. The first episode had a very graphic encounter at a brothel. The violence is also becoming a bit comical, as when Spartacus and 3 of his comrades hold off an entire legionary detachment. * * * * It will be a year before the DVD for the full season is released, so I guess I'll see you then!

Congratulations!

http://www.heraldsco...-years.16330802 THE discovery of a Stone Age temple on Orkney looks set to rewrite the archeological records of ancient Britain with evidence emerging it was built centuries before Stonehenge. Archeologists have so far found undisturbed artefacts including wall decorations, pigments and paint pots, which are already increasing their understanding of the Neolithic people. Experts believe the huge outer wall suggests the site was not domestic, while the layout of the buildings has reinforced the view it might have been a major religious site. Archaeologists think the temple was built 500 years before Stonehenge, regarded as the centre of Stone Age Britain. However, only 10% of the site at Ness of Brodgar has been excavated and it could be years before the scale and age of the discovery is fully understood. It sits close to the existing Ring of Brodgar stone circles and the standing stones of Stenness, near to the town of Stromness. The uncovered wall around the edges of the site was built with 10,000 tonnes of quarried rock and may have been up to 10 ft high. Thermal technology also indicates the site could cover the same area as five football pitches, with some parts potentially older than Stonehenge, in south-west England, by as much as 800 years. Charcoal samples from beneath the wall indicate it was built around 3200 BC. A 30mm high figurine with a head, body and two eyes, and called the "Brodgar Boy", was also unearthed in the rubble of one of the structures. About 18 months ago, a remarkable rock coloured red, orange and yellow was unearthed. This is the first discovery in Britain of evidence that Neolithic peoples used paint to decorate their buildings. Project manager Nick Card said the discoveries are unparalleled in British prehistory and that the complexity of finds is changing the "whole vision of what the landscape was 5000 years ago." He said it was of "a scale that almost relates to the classical period in the Mediterranean with walled enclosure and precincts". Mr Card added: "It's a huge discovery; in terms of scale and complexity there really is nothing else quite like it. "At first we thought it was a settlement but the scale and complexity within the buildings makes you think along the lines of a temple precinct. It's something you would associate with the classical world." Archeologist Julian Richards, who has written several books on Stonehenge, added: "The indication is that building was taking place when Stonehenge was still, relatively speaking, insignificant. We have tended to think we know how things were in the Neolithic period, then something like this turns that on its head."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSRIKoDybvs&feature=related

I don't see anybody except the most financially endowed Universities and the most hardcore Romanophilies buying something that expensive. What is the point of producing something like that?

I'll let the moderators answer directly, but in general, it is a Roman history forum. I find the subject quite fascinating. Can it not be tailored to an exclusively Roman experience?

A stripped down version of this "complexity" argument can be found in political science. It's called Imperial Overstretch. Very simply, empires fall when they reach the point where the costs of maintaining an empire outweigh the benefits. It's been applied to every empire from Rome to the Soviet Union, and of course plenty of people are applying it to current American hegemony. As an a priori assumption the logic of the theory seems inescapable to me. When businesses take in less revenue than they spend, they go bankrupt. When empires spend more on preservation than they accumulate from their conquered territories, they collapse. Simple. The question is how to apply the theory. Businesses have solid and verifiable accounting principles to determine bankruptcy. The science of determining balance sheets for economic, cultural and political capital within an imperial international relations system is not as precise. The danger to me seems in turning the concept of imperial overstretch into a kind of Hegelian deterministic historical force, which I don't think it is meant to be. I think the main reasons the western Roman empire fell are a dynamic between constant internal disorders and invasions by external powers. Did this dynamic occur within a greater framework of Imperial Overstretch (or decreased returns in complexity)? I am not sure. It is an interesting theory, however.

... Is this an essay question for school?

He finalized Diocletian's reforms and helped formalize the shift of the political power to the East. He was also a sound military tactician as far as this amateur can tell. I believe he certainly deserves his place in the Roman pantheon of significant emperors. But his "greatness" has to be understood in geopolitical terms, not the slavish praises heaped on him by a sycophantic Church.

First scene. Warning: Extreme violence, gore, laughable 300 style slow motions effects, and ridiculously in-shape shirtless actors. http://tv.ign.com/articles/121/1214256p1.html

Swimsuit competition?

I think the first point is all that is really needed. He should have spent less time on his philosophical meditations and more attention finding a worthy heir.