Ursus

Sam Neill is wonderful! He has so much more talent than was manifest in that insipid "Jurassic Park" film. I think the acting all around is wonderful. My one exception is the guy that played the Duke of Buckingham. It seemed a bit two dimensional. All in all I think this show is shaping up to be better than HBO's "Rome." The acting is better across the board. The sets and scenery look better. The writing is more fast paced. And, for me at least, the women are better looking and more likely to remove their clothing. The details of this era are fuzzy to me, but the show does seem to follow the general historical outline as I know it. In that sense I think it is also superior to "Rome" and the liberties that show took. Apparently the show has been picked up for a second season. Wonderful. Now ... I want to see a prequel set during the War of the Roses.

This is why I've become anti-philosophical to some extent in the last few years. The more developed the worldview, the harder is falls when it is finally shattered. When I was in my early twenties I studied a lot of religions and philosophies, and none of them seemed a a good map to "reality." I prefer to keep to a very few general principles and go through life with a practical eye on a case by case basis. Make the Map as you go along, I suppose.

I am told by many people in real life that I have no personality. I thus should not have anything to conflict with others.

It's good for what it is. Great costumes and scenery. Intrigue and sex. It is watchable. I can't comment on the historical veracity. I watch it purely for entertainment and it is adequate on that level.

This thread is getting on my nerves. I am locking it. Well, here's the deal, you annoying little bloodsucking insect: it's not what you think. It's what the mods think. While MPC goes out of his way to be an extremely confrontational polemicist, and does not seem to get the point that this place is a learning experience and not a debating club, you are just downright annoying and offensive. I'm tired of your antics. I'm tired of you arguing with the mods when you do something wrong and we take action. I'm putting you on mod status just because I can. So there.

My Christian upbringing was nominal at best, so I left it with a minimum of rancor. I can understand why people with a more serious upbringing could feel betrayed.

Good luck with your period.

I think anything is relevant as long as it fits in with our timeframe of Augustus to roughly the Severans. I need to do something myself besides planning, and shall as soon as work permits. I am tempted to say let's do something along the lines of a concerted effort - a compendium. However, everytime I suggest something along those lines it meets with disaster - people not able to meet their deadlines, etc.

When Flavius first posted this I had no idea it would evolve into a gun control debate. I am in shock and awe. Never saw that one coming. [Arena Bound]

Well, hello. Welcome.

What do you mean? Are you referring to the Crusades? Or something else? Not quite. The question was how did Catholicism become the dominant form of Christianity in Europe. I was making a slight jibe to the fact that Catholicism didn't exactly win peacefully in the "marketplace of ideas" - it won by exterminating competing strands of Christianity. I'm not commenting on whether or not Catholicism is the "correct" version of Christianity, only that it was willing to use force to proclaim itself as such.

Ursus is a not a butler at parties. He stands in the corner awkwardly pretending to look interested at surrounding events, until he either finds something that arouses his interest or goes home in boredom. So, where are the dancing girls?

The propensity of the True Believers to remove any religion other than their own may have played a role.

A brilliant review to grace our front page!

1) My favorite book on history & politics: Rubicon by Tom Holland. Covers everybody's favorite topic - the Fall of the Republic - in a prose more reminiscent of creative fiction than historical analysis. Simply delightful as the Roman Republic and its personalities come to life. And to think this guy used to write Vampire novels. 2) My favorite book on the legions: The Roman Soldier by G. R. Watson I am not a military man, and discussion of pre-industrial martial tactics means about as much to me as a discussion on Etruscan augury would mean to most of you people. But this book looks at the Roman soldier from a humanistic perspective - what he felt and experienced from recruitment to discharge. A wonderful cultural study of the soul behind the scutum and gladius. 3) My favorite book on culture and daily life: Handbook to life in Ancient Rome by Adkins and Adkins. A wonderful general survey on all aspects of Roman civilization by two professional archaeologists. A handy reference guide for those in the know, or a nice intro to those not in the know. 4) My favorite media presentation of Rome: "Rome" 1st season DVD by HBO-BBC. I hear the second season was a bad soap opera. Too bad. The first season, whatever its faults, was a triumph. British acting, American production, Italian scenery - you can't beat the combo. A more or less serious attempt to look at Pagan Rome. Hail Posca! 5) My favorite guilty pleasure on Rome: Roman Sex by John. R. Clark. Two of my favorite subjects - Sex and Ancient Rome - dovetail nicely in this study. Wonderful illustrations. The sexuality of pre-Christian civilization is beyond the ken of most moderns. A fascinating look at an oft overlooked aspect of our cultural forebears.

5 books to understand Greco-Roman polytheism. 1) James B. Rives. Religion in the Roman Empire. Rives offers a comprehensive yet easily understandable look at what he calls

Until we get to Sassanid Persia, how many of Rome's opponents used heavy armor? Some of the Celtic warriors even fought naked if we are to believe the sources. Seems to me a good thrust from a short sword is all it would take against such foes.

Religious usurpation and absorbtion is nothing new, though. It is often theorized that the cults of the Olympians like Zeus displaced an older set of deities; the survival of offcolor cults in Classical Greece such as Hekate are then supposedly the remains of an older, chthonic religion that was incorporated into the new Olympian religion. The Celtic tribes in Britain may have absorbed the practices of an older, megalithic people into their own religions. Etc. And in historical times we can see how the Romans modified Celtic cults to their needs, or how the Ptolemaic regime deliberately cultivated a synthesis between Hellenic and Kemetic cults. While on one level the cynical modification of native religion for imperial control offends purist sensibilities, on another level it allows remnants of the previous culture to survive in the face of change.

I never liked how the old board merged successive responses. I prefer the current set up. ^_^

Still can't log in from work. They use IE 6. I'm not going to push it because I'm not supposed to be logging in from work anyway. As for PMs, the issue there seems to have been resolved. Has anything changed with any of these problems?

Keep in mind the classical writers may not have fully understood what they were seeing in reference to alien cultures. Also keep in mind they may not have exercised all due objectivity, either. With a lot of areas of life, we have an archaeological record to match against the classical writers (which often validates their assertions, but which sometimes does not). Obviously there is little in the way of sexual archaeology to use as further evidence. In any event, "homosexuality" is a modern construct. In most cultures in the ancient world, men stuck their phalli where they saw fit, and if there were taboos they revolved around perceptions of social class and power, not gender per se. A man, whatever his true proclivities, was still expected to marry a woman, father children, and adhere to the basic familial and cultural patterns of his society. The modern homosexual identity movement is not something they would have understood.

Posidonius: "The Gaulish men prefer to have sex with each other." Aristotle: The Celts "openly held in honor passionate friendship (synousia) between male." Diodorus Siculus: "Although the Gauls have lovely women, they scarcely pay attention to them, but strangely crave male embraces (arrenon epiplokas). Resting on the ground on beasts' skins, they are accustomed to roll about with bedfellows (parakoitois) on either side."

There are some classical references to Celtic men enjoying each other, and sleeping with boys. But then the Celts were portrayed by the Classical writers in general as a very promiscuous and lusty people, given to passions

I have a degree, but it has no relevance to Classical Studies. In fact, now that I'm in the real world it doesn't seem to have much relevance for anything. While I'm honored to be amongst many holders of Ph.Ds and professional degrees (and a scholar like Mr. Dalby), I'm just some guy who read a fair number of Romanophile books relative to the general population.

Nothing. They just sit there collecting dust. Gives people the impression we have 2100 members when in reality maybe 3% of them are active.