Ursus

The Cherokees and four other tribes were referred to by the European/Americans as the "Five Civilized Tribes." They were civilized in the eyes of the Caucasians because they had adopted some European ways (The Cherokees adopted an alphabet, for instance) and had relatively peaceful relations with the Whites. Not that it did them much good in the end. As far as AmerIndians being peaceful, remember the Aztecs sacrificed prisoners of war to their gods.

Military history is not my forte either, but this seems a rather astute observation. Interesting article, Cadrail.

Another excellent article.

Excellent article. I immensely enjoyed it, and agreed with your assessment. Agrippa was the perfect lieutenant - someone who could get the job done and enjoy power without stealing the Leader's glory.

Yep. I live and grew up in the Bible Belt (the rural, Appalachian areas of Pennsylvania). Most of my classmates went to church twice a week and looked for the Second Coming around every corner. They were High and Holy about their religion. And yet most of these same kids were not above drugs, drinking, very casual sex, petty theft, vandalism, gossip, cheating on tests, and generally acting like jerks to everyone else. Amazing how so-called religious people can be very selective of the dogmas they follow! They seem to be especially selective when they are young and libidinous, and then perhaps take their religion a bit more seriously when they become too old for the swinging party scene. They get the best of both worlds: live it up when they are young, then repent when they are old and still manage to get in heaven (or so they want to believe). But my whole point is that in the modern West, I do believe there is a gradual slide between "religious" and "secular." Someone may declare a certain religious affiliation on an official form, but who knows to what degree they really internalize it.

Two articles thus far, with at least one more on the way. My thanks. I shall read them in-depth later this weekend when I can enjoy them. I have ordered a perfect book for this topic and am awaiting shipment by amazon!

Is there a rigid dichotomy between "religious" and "secular" or is it a gradual continuum? I know many people that would officially claim allegiance to some religion or another because it is part of their familial heritage, and yet the only time they are manifestly religious is during important holidays. My own mother was raised Lutheran and had me baptised in the faith, yet she only attends church at Easter & Christmas at most. My college roomate was Jewish but he seemed to be Jewish only during High Holy Days. Etc.

There's really not a word for it, except may "infidel." I'm trying to school myself to reply "Unbeliever," when asked, since it's probably closer to the truth than either "Atheist" or "Agnostic." What about simply "Secular"?

The 3rd century crisis is more of a transitional period. I personally don't include it with the Principate. I think it is a fascinating topic in its own right, especially the reign of Aurelian. But I don't think it will be part of the focus group, which ends with the fall of the Severans.

A woman tries to persuade the Islamic world to have better sex http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/25/...talk/index.html

It would be difficult for me to discuss the personal aspects of religion on a site where the majority don't share them, and perhaps find my sentiments silly or even demonic. When we discuss religion on this site outside of a purely historical framework it tends to go badly. With all due respect, then, I choose not to. As for the high number of polytheists on the site, remember we have lurkers who have never participated in a discussion. Also, people from "New Age" religions, which are in fact fairly plentiful these days, sometimes allege their practices as ancient or traditional when in fact they are not.

From what I understand, in both Celtic and Germanic society, the bear was a symbol of power. Certain warrior groups were thought to take on the spirit of the bear through ecstatic religious rituals and/or pyschotropic drugs. The warriors were then "beserkers" in battle, behaving with the fury and strength of wild animals. Even if that hadn't survived in Celtic society by Arthur's time, the bear is obviously a powerful animal and thus a condign symbol of power to any warrior. The standard bearer for the Roman legions wore a bear skin, if I remember correctly. Perhaps the symbol of the bear is a very ancient Indo-European understanding.

I will agree with Northern Neil that Caesar's actions deliberately provoked a response from jealous and alienated Senators. (And walking into the Senate without a full army of bodyguards was just stupid - truly the great man was slipping). I also heartily agree with The Augusta that the Senatorial conspiracy did not seem to have a plan for Rome beyond Caesar's death - and thus whatever side of the debate you fall in, their "victory" over Caesar seems rather hollow. I think the lack of vision of Caesar's opponents is a damning enough commentary of republican forces by itself. However, if Caesar himself had a vision for Rome beyond his moderate reforms, he did not seem to articulate it. Conquering Parthia was all well and good if he had managed to achieve it, but what we have done when he found himself like Alexander without more worlds to conquer? Rome needed a shrewd administrator more than a military hero. We have that in Augustus. On a socio-political level it was Augustus more than Caesar that ended the Republic by laying the groundwork for a new society (but one that was rooted nominally in the traditions of the previous generations). Thus with perfect hindsight I think everything worked out for the best. Caesar became one of the world's most tragic figures, and to many of the people at the time a god as well. Caesar's politically more capable heir came to the fore and was father of the Empire as we have come to understand it. Thus the Darling of Venus had to fall to give rise to the Son of Apollo. And while Dante places Brutus and Cassius on the lowest levels of hell alongside Judas, perhaps Augustus owes a strange debt to the assassins.

I feel the same way, which I why I proposed this focus group. I understand the Late Republic is - rightfully - a critical area of inquiry beloved by many Romanophiles. But I don't want other areas of Roman history drowned by endless threads dedicated to whether Caesar was a hero or villian. To me, and I am sure to you as well, Caesar was a prologue rather than the summit of Roman history.

Comparisons between different figures of Roman history are fine for this forum. Once we start comparing them to 20th century dictators, the thread needs to be moved somewhere else. I suppose the Universal History folder would be the appropriate venue.

Excellent post, Caldrail. I've always had an interest in the Arthurian legends. I think the idea of Arthur simply being a romanticized post-Roman warlord is most credible. I read somewhere (can't remember where) "Arthur" is a corruption of Art-Ursus - which is Celtic and Latin for "bear." Thus "Arthur" is not a man's name but a title - The Bear of Britain, a Celto-Roman warlord fighting Saxon hordes. That he was a warlord and not a king is highly reasonable given the times.

I like intelligent articles, but I've never asked people to write dissertations with a long list of footnotes. A general bibliography would suffice.

It starts with Henry VIII. Wolsey is already the chief minister, and Henry's marriage with Catherine of Aragon is already failing. The French are invading Italy. The Duke of Buckingham is plotting treason.

Agreed on all fronts. But I think this thread is starting to travel outside the confines of historical discussions. I have taken the liberty of deleting some of the more off-topic posts. NN, in your initial question you asked why cultures "happily" allowed their native religions to be wiped out. I'm not sure how "happy" the process was. The new Imperial Christian government had to proscribe the death penalty to deter Roman pagans from honoring their ancestors inside the privacy of their own homes! But Catholicism at least has an amazing ability to merge with the native religions. In some cases if the local demi-god on the hill was thought to give fertility to the fields, he could be easily replaced by a similar Christian saint if the chapel were built right over the pagan shrine on the same hill. I suppose to a lot of peasants it was all the same, as long the perceived supernatural benefactions were the same. Did you know that even in modern times, there are some Latin American Indians who view the Virgin Mary in terms of some Aztec fertility goddess? Are those Indians Catholic, Pagan - or both?

Well, Southern Gaul was very Romanized. But in general I agree with you Cato - the legions in Britain and Northern Gaul could have been put to better use. If the Romans had kept their expansion confined to the Mediterranean areas they would have been better off in the long run.

I didn't detect any overt message in it. I think the mark of a good story is that all dimensions are shown, and the individual reader can read into it what they want. As for me, my favorite quote is from Titus Pullo. After Vorennus's scouting party crosses the Rubicon, and Vorennus complains the Republic is under attack and he is traitor, Pullo responds that the sky still stands and the earth remains. Yes. Life goes on - it may be a different dance but you still have to dance. For me the politics was a backdrop that effected the characters' personal lives and their relations with each other. The center of the show was not in fact the historical figures, but the two Roman everymen - LV and TP. At the end of Season 1, LV's involvement in politics and wars deprives him of everything he holds dear - his family and his dignity. At the end of Season 1, TP finds he is to give up his wild ways and find meaning by settling down with his lovely slave girl.

It should also be noted that if it weren't for Aurelian, the Empire would have been split into Three sectors in the middle of 3rd century. And again, the reasons for the split are illuminating: one imperial center was not sufficient to govern so large an area, especially with at least two fronts of fighting. It was not large enough to give all the provincial elites a fair share of the imperial pie. And there were appreciable regional differences involved - not only betwen East and West, but within the West between the highly Romanized areas of Italy and North Africa on one hand, and the less Romanized areas of Britain and northern Gaul on the other.

Some suggestions on topics: * General historical overviews * Specific political topics (e.g., the legate system of governing the provinces) * Biographies * Culture and Daily Life issues (may need to be posted in Roman Humanities folders) * The legions during the Principate (post in Legion folder) * Book reviews regarding the principate (mail to Primus Pilus, will be posted in Libri folder) * The provinces and allied cultures during the Principate (may need to be posted in the Forum Peregrini) One thing I personally am especially interested in is Romanization during the Principate. This topic blends quite a few of the items above. If we ever have another essay contest, I might have to enter with an essay on it.

I think the best thing is for those interested to simply write on whatever topic compells them (and again, anything within the timeframe is relevant). They can post them as they become available. All I am trying to achieve is for us to beef up the site's articles, reviews and discussions for this era. The Late Republic needs no such encouragement. The other eras of history may need a little infusion to be competitive. Other people can be team leaders for the early Republic or Byzantine eras.

Happy B-day!