Ursus

I was hoping for a larger response, but am looking forward to the two proposed works listed here.

I always thought "the Byzantines" should have their own subfolder under the Imperium section, to compliment the Republic and Empire subfolders. The rest of the "post-Roman" studies (Medieval and Rennaisance) could be easily combined with the Universal Studies folder. But our now absent Imperator didn't seem to like the idea. *shrugs* Anyway, I'm biased as I rarely go into the post-Roman folder.

Splendid. I assume this means we will eventually have four more of your book reviews gracing our front page.

Sounds exquisite, Nephele. Right now though, with my employment situation and various other personal concerns, I can't commit myself. But perhaps a little later in the year.

True. Keeping people is a problem. But then people have real lives. Our dear friend Germanicus, for instance, a former legate, is pursuing some private vocations which seem to bring him much happiness, and we wish him the best. On the whole I am very pleased with the "core membership" of the site. The site has grown quite a bit in the almost 3 years I have been here, and I suspect the core membership will continue to grow slowly but surely in the next 3. Another thing to consider is that very active internet sites tend to be overrun with trolls, fools and contentious twits. We mods try to lay down the hammer and scare away such people. I think most of us would rather have 30 well behaved members than 300 maniacs.

Very Well. Moved to Trajan's Market

Antony's figure is discolored somewhat by Augustan propoganda. However, even with that, it's hard to see what kind of program he had for Rome beyond being a self-indulgent Hellenistic style god-king. As for whether or not he was "handsome and dashing" and "loved" Cleopatra is beside the point. They needed each other for their mutual bid to power.

Indeed, I know of no site specifically for philosophy and literature. But as this site continues to grow, and as we get more people interested in the humanities it can become a subfora, as PP mentioned.

Now that Moon has updated the forum, and the "report" link is well away from the "respond" link, I think we can unpin this.

Gee. If I had these opportunities, I might have conceived of secondary education as more than a useless post-industrial babysitting exercise. Of course, I must admit Pennsylvania doesn't offer many opportunities for Roman excursions.

Indeed. Most Epicureans did not deny the existence of divinity - merely its active involvement in the affairs of humanity. I guess that makes them "apatheists" - people who are indifferent to the existence of the supernatural, as they believe it exerts no influence over human affairs, and consequently is not worth worrying about. I think the trend in Late Antiquity was not Atheism per se but to pantheism. What was under attack was the belief of a multiplicity of anthropomorphic gods who were tied to cities and nations, and who interceded in human affairs for the sake of offerings and sacrifices. Some people found this conception of divinity a useless superstition. The response was to dispose (more or less) with the gods of traditional mythology and conceive the universe itself as divine. The Stoics reconceived Zeus as not the head of a divine family who ruled the cosmos, but the breath of fire that animated the cosmos itself. The Neoplatonists conceived of a reality as operating at various levels, but the ultimate source of reality was the true divinity. And these groups replaced the superstitions of the common people with a more high brow superstition which they labeled as philosophy.

No takers? Very well. Let me go on record then as saying what I admire most about Ancient Greece is the aesthetic qualities which went on to influence the Romans (either directly, or through Etruscan middelmen). The art, architecture, literature and mythology is breathtaking, and the Roman empire would have been much poorer without it.

While trying to be conversant in all areas of Roman history, I nonetheless had the Augustan Age as my first love when I first came to this site. Almost 3 years later, though I have learned many new things, it is still where my heart resides. I was wondering if we could launch an informal focus group on the Principate, whose job would be to provide book reviews and "scholarly" articles on the era from post-Actium to roughly the fall of the Severans. Politics, military, biographies, culture and daily life - anything is fair game. If anyone is interested, reply here.

Maybe Dell is the way to go, then. I am using a seven year old Gateway, and thinking of getting something else.

I agree, Caldrail. I've always said that from my own studies on the subject, the Greek East was a different cultural entity and was never really fully integrated with the Latin West to begin with.

I bet that guy is a hit with the ladies. "Let me take you back to my place, baby. I can show you barf bags from all over the world!"

I do wish you luck. I'm sure we;ll be calling you professor. My birthday is actually the day after that. When I have a drink I'll toast your success.

Am I the only one that is apathetic to American hegemony? I look at the mindless postmodern culture America is exporting to the world and I feel cold. Numb. Alienated. Bored. Unimpressed. Uninspired. Underwhelmed. If this an empire, then they don't make empires like they used to. The Romans might appreciate our military superiority, but I think they would laugh at our alleged culture. But then I look at the so-called alternatives that are competing with American influence. Sino-fascism. Islamo-fascism. No thanks. I prefer boredom and alienation to totalitarianism and theocracy. I am not the most patriotic citizen but I'll take it over that crap. And with all due respect to our European friends, I find their namby-pamby post-Colonial bureaucratic self-loathing rather uninspiring as well. Maybe I just don't belong in this age. I don't know. It seems like the soul has gone out of the human race, and all our cultures are empty artifices.

Happy Birthday, Zeke. We would have baked you a cake, but you drop in so infrequently these days we never know when to expect you.

And if one lights incense to the imperial genius of the divine Julius, one is satisfying both requirements. With all due respect to the aforementioned Carpenter and his pithy sayings, of course. Anyway... ... not being much of a military man I can't comment too much in detail about the tactics of pre-industrial warfare. I will however restate what I said in my review of the Conquest of Gaul: he seems to have routinely gotten himself into trouble, and owed his hide to the bravery of his troops. But then Caesar knew how to command his troops and inspire them to great acts of courage and daring, so it evens out. He also understood the psychology and cultural values of his opponents and exploited them with effect. When all is said and done, he got the job done. Case closed.

Parthian Persia was capable of fending of Roman invasions, but not as adept as invading Roman territory itself. The Sassanids were far more capable of organizing Persia's economic and military clout, and presenting a threat to Rome's borders. This required a permanent presence in the East. At the same time, the pressure on the Germanic frontiers in the West became greater. One headquarters was simply not sufficient to deal with the threats. By the later empire, there was an increase in provincial citizens clamoring for a share in the imperial pie. Two imperial governments meant two troughs to dish out resources, titles and favors. Then there was also the cultural split ... I think all the factors worked in confluence. But clearly the most important was the first. For that matter, I don't think the empire was ever really united, except in loosest terms. The "split" had existed informally since at the least the days of the Late Republic with Antony and Octavian, and then Augustus and Agrippa, commanding the respective halves.

Anything would be a mere convention, but some variation of the above seems to be the norm. I think the Celtic sack of Rome is a turning point - not only in history, but in the historical sources. When the Celts sacked Rome a lot of Roman records disappeared. Consequently a lot of the history of the early era is colored with fables and myths. It makes sense to refer to this era as the Early Republic. From the post-sack recovery to the Punic Wars might make a good middle. And the Gracchi to Actium definitely gives us the much vaunted late Republic.

Caligula's horse.

The tribes living closest to the Mediterranean were sucked into the "consumer culture" of classical society. That did tend to soften their banditry lifestyles and make them allies and trading partners rather than enemies. But consider this: for the Celts, fighting was all about the individual. A way to gain honor through a display of courage - and bring home booty! They never had the firm, cold blooded, geopolitical committment to war that the Romans had. When the Romans first encountered the Celts, they were terrified of these tall, colorful, smelly people who made insane charges. The Romans fled, and the Celts cut them down as they retreated. But the Romans soon learned that if they held their ranks, the Celts could be worn down with superior Roman organization and tactics. Caesar remarked the Celts gave up the fight quickly if it became obvious victory was not attainable. Victory to the Celt was about honor and booty, not geopolitical goals - and if honor and booty was not to be had easily it wasn't worth fighting. I think there was always a certain cultural disparity between the Romans and Celts when it came to warfare. What changed between the sack of Rome and the conquest of Gaul is that the Romans had finally learned to match their strengths against the enemy's weakness. The Celts were good for quick raiding and sacking. For prolonged geopolitical conflict, not as much. Once the Romans realized this, the Celts were doomed.

Every family had its "patron" deities - deities whom they especially revered and under whose protection and guidance they placed themselves. Anyone could claim to have a dream or sign or omen from a god saying such and such. But if the butcher down the street claims his patron came to him in his dreams, does anyone except the butcher's family and his close friends really care? Does it make history and the official annals of the state? Not likely. If however the resident dictator for life claims a relationship with Venus, people are going to take more notice. If the reigning princeps claims Apollo as a patron, people are going to take more notice. If some general or another ends up on the right side of the civil war and claims "the invincible sun" had a hand in his success, people are going to take notice (especially if it becomes an official state cult). GO is right to say some educated people prefered the mandates of Hellenistic philosophy to personal gods. But nonetheless a lot of other people in the educated circles still professed a belief in personal gods. One thing I must say though is that a life changing vision from a god was a rare thing for the common person. There were only a few off-color cults like that of Pythagoras who claimed to have unlimited mystical access to deities and daemons. They were considered outside of the mainstream (to put it diplomatically). But scholarship often obsesses with these mystics and philosopher-mystics and gives them a level of importance out of all proportion to the status they actually held in the Ancient World.