Ursus

"Romulus" means Little Rome, which is rather too convenient to be a real person. As for "Remus" J.P. Mallory has this to say in his In Search of the Indo_Europeans:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6406

Having just returned from Baltimore, I offer the following suggestion for those opposed to New York. The Walters Art Museum has a fine collection of Greco-Roman and other ancient relics. Admission is absolutely free thanks to grants from the city. I found some of the items breathtaking. Nearby are many fine restaurants and pubs that cater to all types of tastes and financial sensibilities (my favorite is this little Irish pub called O'Shea's ...). There is a great hotel within walking distance of the museum. There is also within walking distance an outstanding Basilica for those into neoclassical architecture. Baltimore is also famous for its Inner Harbor for those who appreciate fish and ships (personally I don't, but whatever). If you get bored of Baltimore, DC is within driving distance. I'm not sure if the 2007 American meet is salvageable, but perhaps 2008 for those interested?

Please do so. I thought I got them all, but apparently not.

Roman Architecture Rome on Five Denarii a Day. Empire of Pleasures (Hey, Mr. Dalby, can I get an autographed copy? ) Oh, that Meier biography on Caesar that MPC recommends.

Hot stuff! I just now placed an order for this one -- thanks for the recommendation, MPC! I have read this book, O' Cloudy Libidinous one, and I believe you shall enjoy it. My review is on the site if you are interested. As for listing 5 books, it would require more research. And perhaps some reenacting.

I posted a review of a book relevant to this group in the libri folder. I hope Viggen doesn't mind me not going through the usual channels. I felt, since I was the one to propose the group, I had to produce something immediately. My previous two attempts to furnish book reviews for this group failed due to the boorish nature of the tomes under study.

The last generation has seen some interesting questions posed about the Roman Empire. What were the real reasons (not those posed by Gibbon’s rhetoric) the Western Empire fell? Did the Empire really fall, or did it merely evolve? How worse or better were the lives of citizens after it collapsed? Et cetera. Now, in the age of post-colonial destruction, the ultimate question rears its grim visage: just how “Roman” was the Roman Empire? The answer, whatever it may ultimately be, shall certainly cast its shadow over all future Romanophile studies. Richard Hingley in his Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire seems to gleefully open this Pandora’s Box of difficult questions. One might not expect an Archaeology lecturer at Durham University to instigate a revolution. Nonetheless, the deed is done. To be fair, Hingley, like any good modern scholar, stands on the shoulders of generations of research and theoretical musings crafted meticulously by others. But if others were left to forge the weapons, Hingley is the archer that fires the opening salvo in what most likely will be a very interesting conflict of identity and heritage. Our current intellectual epoch seeks to confront the problems imposed by European civilizations’ previous attempts to impose themselves on other cultures. The whithers and wherefores, the failures and triumphs, are debated ad nauseum. Then, to make the exercise of some relevance to the modern world, the same arguments are applied to perceived American hegemony. All of the aforementioned has amalgamated into a discourse of globalization, the power dynamics between an imperial authority and its subject cultures. But what does this have to do with Rome? Current theory holds we cannot, try as though we might, escape our own biases. We project our parochial agendas and contemporary understandings on the past, whether we wish to or not. Ronald Syme famously did so when his landmark Roman Revolution assessed the rise of the Principate with an eye to the one party dictatorships spreading through Europe in the 1930’s. More recently, Karl Galinsky saw the beneficial side of Augustus’ res publica and compared it to the Pax Americana. Perhaps though the most egregious example is to be found in the bygone glory days of the British Crown. The explosion of classical studies occurred in Britain at roughly the same time British influence penetrated the high seas. Entire generations of well-educated military and civil officials from London were reared on the classics. They saw - could not help but see - a direct parallel between Virgil’s “empire without end” and their own empire on which the sun never set. The latter found a certain justification in the precedent set by the former. We have come then full circle. As British imperialism has receded and American hegemony is openly challenged everywhere, the quintessential imperial state of Western Civilization is now busily poked and prodded. The British tried to make British out of Indians, and Americans seek to Americanize Iraqis. How, then, did Romans try to Romanize their neighbors? What were their means, their ends, and what successes or failures did they have? One first has to define Roman identity. In Hingley’s words, Roman identity could be “inherited, achieved or awarded.” On one front Roman identity was forged by a certain educational process, where Latin language and literature (and the values expressed therein) were grafted to those literate enough to appreciate them. A far more visible component of identities was material in nature: art, architecture, urban planning, dress and cuisine, and “consumer goods.” All these elements conglomerate to give us the picture of men in togas living in a luxurious villa in a well-planned town, surrounded by Hellenistic art and pottery, and quoting Virgil at the drop of a hat. At heart is the concept of humanitas, a process whereby a human becomes fully cultured and rational. The Greeks believed they possessed humanitas while the Barbarians, by definition, did not. The Romans justified their conquests by claiming they were doling out Greek humanitas liberally to the barbarians – in effect, bringing the benefits of civilization to savages. It was under the Augustan regime that Rome’s allegedly divine mission to foment humanitas reached its most articulated version. And it was under Augustus, not coincidentally, that the Imperium expanded at its most rapid pace. “Empire without end” – a world destined to emulate Roman culture. Hingley is an archeologist, and the last generation or two has seen archeological evidence challenging the assumption of a monolithic Greaco-Roman cultural landscape paying homage to classical humanitas. Through material remains it is now suggested the Empire was not a singular civilization, but a patchwork of civilizations: Roman Britain and Roman Gaul, Roman Spain and Roman Africa, Roman Italy and Roman Greece. Cultures were not absorbed wholesale into the Imperium Romanorum. Rather, they negotiated power relations with the central authority. New identities were forged in which local cultures displayed their own versions of Romantis, as evidenced by various literary and material artifacts. Furthermore – and this is where it really becomes interesting – within those patchworks of civilizations, Romanization differed markedly across social classes. Archaeology had in bygone times focused on the material remains of the elite, but new discoveries now focus on the lower classes, and the results are quite intriguing. The local elites, as the junior partners of the central authorities, were the most likely to adopt Roman culture to secure their power bases. The local elites, however, are by definition a distinct minority. The poor, and especially the rural poor, were not especially apt to reflect Romanatis. This is especially true the further one departs from Italy, such as in the northwestern sector of Europe. The poor were most likely illiterate: they could not appreciate Greco-Roman literature and its sensibilities. The works of Plato and Cicero were lost on them. Nor could they afford all the material components that defined Roman culture. Between the elite and the poor stood various middle classes, of which soldiers and skilled laborers are the chief examples. The relations these groups had between their native cultures and Roman culture were complex and multifaceted. Many soldiers most likely became with familiar in Latin in the performance of their duties, but this did not necessarily mean they internalized all the values associated with Latin literature. Skilled laborers could afford many Roman luxury goods, and perhaps chose to acquire them in the tried art of conspicuous consumption. It does not follow though that by consuming Roman goods, one internalized the deeper pathos of Roman values (just as Europeans can consume American products without absorbing American political and religious ideas). Romanization is therefore a slippery concept. Indeed, Hingley eschews the very term. There was an incredibly complex set of negotiations between Rome, and those peoples whose geography and wealth placed them in contact with Roman power. Nonetheless how much Rome imposed itself on others is actually up for debate. How “Roman” was the Roman Empire forged by Augustus? If large stretches of the Imperium were simply not Roman at the core, then the division of the Empire and the sudden collapse of its western part can be seen in a new and powerful light. More to the heart of we moderns, it raises questions of identity and heritage. How much do we owe to Rome? Many Westerners look to Germanic or Celtic cultures (whether real or romanticized) rather than to Rome for inspiration. They now possibly have a much firmer basis to do so. Hingley’s prose is intelligent, but the nature of the work means it is sometimes mired in the technical jargon of post-colonial intellectualism. Nonetheless this was a very quick read. Part of that owes to the work’s brevity: there are 120 pages of text, and the remaining 100 pages or so are extensive notes. The author hopes this will be merely the opening act of a sustained dialogue. The author invites dissenting views if it serves to establish an intelligent discourse. I for one am waiting for the inevitable counter strike of arguments, for while the ideas are intriguing they have to be established as wholly convincing. Clearly we shall be sorting this mess out for some time to come. But Hingley has done a service to us by raising these questions. We owe it to ourselves to rationally analyze the benefits of proposed globalization – whether ancient or modern. (minor editing thanks to the suggestions of docoflove)

This is getting off topic, but Holy Trinities, even if they were not called as such, were fairly common in pre-Christian religions.

Well, technically speaking, Minerva formed along with Jupiter and Juno a sort of holy trinity in Rome. They were called the Capitoline Triad, and they were the official patrons of the Republic. Even after the Republic expired, they were still officially patrons of Rome, and every good sized city in the empire seems to have had a temple to the three. Minerva was thus important. However, her martial aspects were deemphasized because, as you say, the Romans placed great importance on Mars the war god. Minerva was more the goddess of artisans and skilled labor in Rome.

Poseidon had cult generally throughout Greece, but especiallyat Korinthos, where the Isthmian Games were celebrated in his honour every four years.

Athene was the city protectress of many a polis, including Sparta. The Athenians were different only in the high degree to which they honored her. Hephaistos was also popular in Athens, and indeed had few cult followings elsewhere. Corinth was home to a large temple to Aphrodite, which may have housed "sacred prostitutes" depending on the source. Aphrodite also had a cult center at Cyprus. Zeus has an important cult center in Olympia (whence derives the Olympic games) and had an oracle at Dodona. Hera was popular in Argos and Samos Artemis had a massive temple in Ephesis. Apollo had his cult at Delos and Delphi.

I don't care to get into semantics about what constitutes "race" and "racism." But I pose a question: is there not a difference between the following assertions: 1) Our culture is superior. All other cultures are beyond redemption. We can ignore them, exploit them, or destroy them as we see fit. 2) Our culture is superior. However, other people may, through a wide variety of means, be allowed to share in that culture and become part of that culture themselves. Perhaps "manifest destiny" is something out of favor today. But Europe is Europe because the Romans were not afraid to bring their culture to Iron Age tribes living in hillforts.

There was in early Rome a temple of "Sol et Luna" - Sun and Moon. This sol must have been akin to the Greek helios - a primitive solar deity, and not especially important except to rustic peasants in their seasonal rites. The evidence of this cult outside Rome is minimal, and was overtaken in imperial times by Oriental solar worship (Sol Invictus). Some, known from votive dedications in the native, pre-Latin languages. Jupiter as sky god and Mars as war god seem to have been widespread. Some Italic tribes knew Hercules and the Dioscuri. Female deities comparable to Juno, Venus, Diana and Ceres are widespread. Italic religions seem to have been very similar to Roman religion in cult and practice, and were therefore easily assimilated by the Romans.

Not that it really matters, but Lawless played Xena the Warrior Princess.

I generally enjoy the standard biographies of "great men in social context." If the individual and society in question are interesting enough in their own right, then I'll find the book interesting enough to at least finish. I prefer when historians allow the facts to speak for themselves. I consider myself smart enough to form my own conclusions of those facts, and most people here are smart enough to do the same. When a historian proposes some sweeping new assessment of a well-known figure, they better have an extremely articulate argument backed up by solid research. When they propose a revision that is not supported, they come across as hacks who cynically attempted a new angel in a desperate attempt to sell books. This was my problem with Everitt - his introduction asserts Augustus allowed Livia to poison him in order to provide a peaceful transition for Tiberius. An intriguing idea, and it gets a hook in you, demanding you to read more. The rest of the book, however, does not really build upon that hypothesis at all. Consequently I dismissed the author as a con man. Goldsworthy's Caesar did not have anything new, as has been stated. Geltzer managed to say the same thing in half the words. But Goldsworthy's prose is easier to follow, and his attention to military matters more precise, so I suppose it does a service in that regard. I too would love to see some biographies on lesser known figures, like Sejanus.

Both. The Greeks and Romans had the same Indo-European origins, and it is not therefore surprising certain things were already in common. The Indo-European Deus becomes Zeus in Greece and Jupiter in Rome. Westa the hearth goddess becomes Hestia in Greece and Vesta in Rome. But after they split, things diverged a bit. Because of their geography and maritime contacts, the Greeks were considerably influenced by West Asian/Near Eastern influences. New cults were added, existing cults took on different flavors. An amazing body of folk lore, later called mythology, developed. This influence was then channeled back to Rome during contact with the Hellenic and Etruscan civilizations. The Romans, however, emphasized aspects of the gods they found most useful to their society.

The Romans "imported" deities from the neighbors, but they often emphasised different aspects of the god than those assigned by the surrounding civilizations. Apollo was many things to the Greeks, and one of the most important deities. To the Romans, however, he was chiefly a god of healing. It was in this aspect his cult was brought to Rome during a time of plague. Apollo was not even so much a god of oracles, as the Sybilline prophecies were housed in the temple of Jupiter before Augustus. Indeed, Apollo come to prominence in Roman society only when Augustus declared him his patron deity and symbol of his new order, and built for Apollo a splendid new temple which then housed the Sybilline prophecies, and instituted the "secular games." Indeed: http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-domestic-cult.php The Roman Republic's "holy trinity" of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva seems to be modeled on an earlier "holy trinity" of comparable Etruscan deities. In the Hellenic world there are less direct examples of said trinities. The Roman reverence for augury also has few Greek parallels, and is generally deemed to be an Etruscan influence.

It was a double edged sword. The Romans had a healthy contempt for non-Romans. At the same time, they were rather generous in granting citizenship to provincials. The clasical authors had some snide comments to say about those tall, fair eyed and fair haired barbarians to the North, but those Barbarians were becoming equites and Senators within a few generations of Caesar. After Caracalla, the distinction between "Roman" and "non-Roman" is less meaningful then the distinction between social class. Were they? The Romans adopted foriegn cults all the time, albeit with some modifications. The only religions prosecuted by the state were ones that were perceived to exist outside the bounds of acceptable social conventions.

Having officially Come of Age, Lost Warrior now spends her free time worshipping her naked body with oils and scents. We can rest assured this is one Mystery our enterprising archaeologist, Pantagathus, shall judiciously investigate.

Ursus, you've just earned yourself an instant hippification! Even more frightening, a RHYMING hippification! Your name anagrams into... Jaemes J. Ember-Ray Jaemes J. Ember-Ray Did not go to work today; And smelling like a warm cheese tray, He hitched a ride to Monterey. -- Nephele I wasn't born anyway near the Summer Of Love. I was born the year Star Wars first arrived. I am Darth Ursus!

Why do I hear the theme song to "Terminator" playing?

What is your very good reason? The pungent smell of body odor mixed with pot that seems to accompany many of them?

We're having one of coolest Springs on record. I'm getting ready for a new Ice Age. Give me a club and a bear skin outfit - I'm moving into the nearest cave.

For moderator options: "Moving threads" where it gives an option: Do you wish to leave a link indicating thread has moved? Can we set the default to "no" rather than "yes"?