Ursus

I'm not an expert on the Persian, Mongol or Dutch empires (The Dutch had an empire...?) so I can't compare. The prevailing view is that Rome was highly successful in Romanizing the Western half of its empire. The Eastern half had its own cultures, of course. Lately there has been some questioning as to how Romanized the West really was .... though I think the limits are more a matter for Britain than on the Continent. Common sense tells me that since most of Western Europe owes Rome a debt in language, law, religion and architecture, it was highly successful.

Personally I do think one does need to look at the confluence of cultural achievements. Mesopotamia and Egypt were the foundation cultures that started writing and basic math, not to mention monumental architecture. The Phoenicians developed the alphabet. The Greeks refined many sciences and started their own intellectual pursuits. And then comes Rome, whose chief contributions were in engineering, both in material and political/legal terms, an empire of three continents and the longest stretch of relative peace in Western history. I too get annoyed at Western post-colonial guilt at its own heritage and the downplaying of the classics. It's a self-flagellation that needs to end. But I do agree that the legacy of Roman greatness did owe something to surrounding cultures who were there first.

I have no desire to leave the solar system. We need to take better care of the home we have. The US can cooperate with Japan and Europe to defray the costs of the space program - if it so freaking important to "humanity" then let "humanity" share the costs.

I think you need to clarify something: The Romans generally had nothing but contempt for non-Romans. However, the other side of that is that they were more willing than most cultures before or since to let non-Romans become Romans. During the Republic, the Latin subjects had control of their own internal affairs. During the empire, service in the military and homage to the imperial cult was all that many provincials needed to become Roman citizens themselves. I'm not sure if that is tolerance, but it was a liberal naturalization policy for the ancient world. One area where I really see "tolerance" is the area of religion. The Romans were so superstitious they felt they had to go out of their way to respect every god they encountered, lest they invite that deity's wrath on themselves. If the establishment cracked down on a cult, it was not for religious reasons, but because they were perceived as a socio-political threat.

I'd say a good place to start is to look at the "federal" arrangements Rome made with the Latin cities, and how they remained loyal to Rome even with Hannibal at the gates.

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/roman-soldier.php Watson claimed he couldn't find much evidence for Christians in the imperial legions until the time of Costantine. Presumably they kept to themselves for fear of alienation. Many of the soldiers also came from the hinterlands of the empire, who were among the last to be converted. I believe the rank and file among the army were one of the last holdouts of Paganism even after Constantine.

Actually, to many contemporaries he was in some sense divine, the precursor of the Hellenistic god-kings. And to the original poster, perhaps that would be an interesting angle. The concept of the Hero was an archaic atavism that yielded to the Hellenistic concept of the ruler cult.

I think modern science is rather indebted to Aristotle, as MPC notes, and requires little faith. As far as ethics, ontology, cosmology, theology, eschatology .... I have little use for either of them, especially Plato. But I'm not a practicing Christian, and how Christians from the High Churches view the matter is their own affair.

What do we call Nephele these days? What is the feminine of Legatus?

Interesting reading. Sometimes I do wonder what the authorities would have done had they discovered the Vestals in bed with each other.

He was a ruthless gangster in the in the power struggle following Caesar's murder. After securing power, he ruled with more restraint, with an eye to refined peace. He was what he needed to be or could afford to be depending on the circumstances, but always with a calculating mind. He was a sickly child, and his physique not the best. I surmise accounts of his good looks are probably exaggerated.

I had the sorceress pegged as a future legate from the beginning, it was only a matter of time.

I'm sure the DVD will be out by Christmas for those that can't see it.

This game is starting to get on my nerves. Having the resources and armed forces of Italy divided between 3 great Houses is nonsense. Having the Senate assign missions which the Houses are free to accept or deny is nonsense. The Player should be allowed to play the Senate and plot the grand stategy of the empire, while delineating campaigns to the magistrates or warlords. The graphics and audio are incredible, including some suprisingly good opera like music, but I don't like the premise. And the larger the armies, the harder it is to control on the battlefield.

Actually I believe it does, at least in this context. Celtic is usually defined as a cultural and linguistic term, not a racial one. You can have people of the same "race" practice different cultures. I think how people lived is more important a component of historical identity than their exact DNA strands.

I actually saw this. It was most interesting. Using Iron Age mirrors it was impossible to set moving ships alight. The Myth of Archimedes and his solar death ray was busted!

I'm just happy if they know Caesar was some dude from ancient Rome, and not the inventor of a type of salad.

Actually, at the moment I'm using Opera. If I highlight something in fast reply and then click on the "quote" function, it will place both quote tags at the end and return a "false" value. In other words , instead of (quote) message (/quote) it gives me message (quote) false (/quote)

The quote function in quick reply doesn't seem to work properly for me. Also, the "new messages" feature is misfiring - 0 new messages when I in fact have one.

Oh, yeah, nothing better than seeing a bunch of shirtless fat guys standing around scratching their asses and farting.

The general population talks about reality TV. We talk about archaeology and scholarly tomes. So I'm going to vote "no.".

Have a beer this blessed day. Have a beer any day, for that matter.

This is honestly an excellent idea for this forum! (although I don't think Scooby-doo qualifies as educational TV). I shall pin it, and others may add to it as necessary.

Excavations of the village that housed the pyramid workers suggest the village housed between 20,000 and 30,000 men. Not all of these worked on the pyramid; it included support units such as bakers, doctors, security, administrators - and relatives of the workers. Archaeologists think several thousand workers were organized into labor gangs of 2000 people, and these gangs were rotated throughout the year. The exact construction methods are not known, but most likely they used ramps to move materials into position. There is no doubt that the popular image of 100,000 Hebrew slaves building the pyramids at whip point is a myth (and don't even get me started on New Age extraterrestrial theories).

It was good as costume drama/ light *or*. I think some of the historical details may be a bit off, but I'm not an expert in the area.