Ursus

I read Cunliff's _Ancient Celts_ and loved it, actually. Pantagathus reviewed it in our book section. Also read Simon James _World of the Celts_ which was quite good.

In the Episode, Caesar says the position is "magistrate of the lower Aventine." I was thinking possibly the position was of a vicomagister, but that didn't exist until Augustus. But given the way the show plays with historical liberties, perhaps this is what they had (wrongfully) in mind.

In general I agree heartily agree with you. But there are exceptions. Peter Heather was easy to read, and Tom Holland was pure pleasure.

I think what I object to is revisionism for revision sakes. Either trying to distort history to conform to some pre-conceived socio-political agenda, or else just cynically trying to make a name for oneself by being different. I witnessed both during my four years of college, and it left me with a deep suspicion of some of the creatures who live in the ivory tower. If however piling evidence suggests a previous notion is simply wrong, then so be it. "Revision" is perhaps better termed "correction" in such instances. I again have to mention Peter Heather, whose Anti-Gibbons scholarship interested me in the Late Empire. As Cato alluded to in another thread a while ago, the academic world is not quite as entrenched in the Post-Marxist leftist deconstructionist revisionism it used to be. I see revisionism taking other forms, though. Celtic Nationalism and New Age fantasy both distort modern discussions about Ancient Celts, for instance. This is more than just 'every generation seeing things in a new light.'

The day before, on March 17th, I shall salute your impending anniversary by saying a quick prayer over a mug of Green Beer.

Name your favorite books on the Celts and Germans.

I live on the edge of Appalachia here in western PA. If the locals have a dialect, I would call it "hick" moreso than Elizabethan.

Yeah, I get a kick out of the original Roman calendar, with it being essentially lunar, and the full moon sacred to Jupiter. One doesn't often equate the moon with Jupiter, especially in this day and age of neopagan lunar goddesses. But I much prefer the more rational solar calendar left to us by Caesar and Pope Gregory.

For the most part, yes. The Princeps had direct oversight of the governors in the imperial provinces, and could still legally intervene in the Senatorial provincials. Thus they served at his pleasure and could be easily removed for corruption or incompetence. But we must remember that communication being what it was, it took a long time for orders to travel back and forth between Rome and the provinces. Thus the personality of the governor was still a key factor in the lives of the provincials. But legally speaking there was now a direct oversight of the provincial governors in the personage of the Princeps, and aside from some of the more worthless Princeps like Tiberius, the Princeps kept what eyes they could on the governors as governors were potential rivals. The cornerstone of the Principate is that rather than exploitation, provincial government was a partnership between Roman authorities and the local elite to maintain stability and prosperity. "... whether or not one was happy in the Antonine Age would seem to depend largely on one's position in society. On the whole, the upper classes, the men of property, were united in support of the system, and one need not be a Marxist to recognize that lawyers and, one might add, administrators thought 'in terms of the interests and of the class to which they themselves and their clients belonged.' This is shocking only to those who think that most people ever behave differently. Horizontal stratification of society was more important than regional divisons. Of nationalism in the modern sense there is little trace. Rome was the common fatherland (communis patria) of the propertied classes, and of all those engaged in imperial service, while even those who felt no great sentiment of loyalty to Rome might look on the emperor or on the local governor as their protector against local and immediate oppression." -- Colin Wells, _The Roman Empire_ I believe that is the larger cultural trend that contains the issues of direct taxation and such you mentioned.

Peter Heather, author of "Fall of the Roman Empire," one of the "New School" historians, offered a comment in his introduction that still lives with me. How to interpret history is of course one of the big questions of academia. Every generation views history through its own lenses, and if a particular world view is in vogue everything tends to be subordinated to that view. In the 18th century European nationalism and imperialism colored perceptions of archeology and cultural studies. Later, Marx and Freud was all the rage. In the last half of the 20th century and until very recently, “postmodernism” was the orthodoxy. The very idea that people may be held hostage to their subjective analysis is of course a legacy of postmodern studies. Peter Heather offers what I consider the best option to analyzing data: take the jurist’s approach. Let’s get all the different views on the table. Let’s then keep in mind most people have an agenda (deliberate or not) that may color their testimony. After sifting through all the evidence, let’s then try to form the most objective picture we can get and render a verdict. Now granted Peter Heather is not himself free from his own agenda. He wants, like any academic, to make a name for himself, and he does so by offering a somewhat revisionist assessment of the Late Empire (Rome’s internal vices were overstated, the empire fell because of barbarians). But Heather at least offers a lot of evidence for his views, and regardless I find the central thrust of his approach to history sound. When we look at the primary sources, we do have to be somewhat conscious of their agendas. Tacitus’ moralizing anti-imperial worldview means we have to take some of his “history” with a grain of salt. When pagans slander Christians, or when Christians slander Pagans, we again have to allow for exaggeration. Livy’s histories of early Rome is colored by local legends Etc., ad naseum. I’d say the primary sources have to be weighed against each other where they contradict, and then collectively weighed against the archaeological background. Once all the evidence is presented, one can begin to get an objective data. Historians like Scullard seem to do this well without themselves having an obvious axe to grind. And their prose is mercifully to the point. That is why I enjoy them. Most of the New School historians are all too aware of the biases of the primary sources, but they merely seek to replace those biases with whatever own particular axe they have to grind. The language of modern academia is also plagued with ridiculous jargon. All in all I find the Old School approach to be the most relatively objective. When I first was interested in Roman history, I went to my small and impoverished local library, which could not afford newer books. Most of their texts on Roman history were written in first half of the 20th century. But aside from a general Judeo-Christian bias against “weird” pagan religions, they seemed straightforward enough and I devoured them.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - -- built a gatehouse at the crossroads to charge a toll when Robert Frost comes passing through. -- Ursus, after a particularly cynical week.

You strike me as a rooster, but only Madam Pertinax could validate the tendency for bedroom perfectionism.

Perhaps a valid point. Too bad you didn't expound on it into something resembling a full length review that could grace our front page.

... rubber ducky ...? (Is this a word association game?)

In the West, the town administration was modeled on the original Roman republican government when Rome was nothing more than a city-state. The local elite were known as decuriones, or curiales. They met at a local Senate called an ordo or curia. There were two chief magistrates. Beneath them were various lesser magistrates to deal with the census, upkeep of public buildings, and so forth. A class of wealthy freedman called the augustales, supervised by the ordo, were in charge of the imperial cult. In the East, local government depended on the ancient culture involved (village life in Egypt was different than, say, a town in Turkey). But in Greece proper, there was usually a council of local elites called a boule. An equestrian prefect or procurator was usually in charge of the state-run industries and the Princep's private estates.

Having the read the bat description, I can say some things clicked. I am so not a social person. But I like getting my way. The Elephant comes out when I have a specific purpose in mind. I lose all my introversion and go for the jugular.

"Spartacus" where Olivier's Crassus addresses the Senate and the army before the showdown with the rebels. He certainly had a commanding presence, and this has subconsciously feeded my impressions of the gravitas a Roman patrician must have genuflected.

Despite the handle, I am not in fact a bear but an Elephant. Thanks for the test, Carnal. Amazing how accurate a silly internet quiz can be.

And not to mention the term is essentially meaningless these days, given the variety of strange postmodern groups that have usurped it. :bash:

He switched the official language of the empire from Latin to Greek. He also reorganized the government and the army - until then, it had largely retained the outline left by the Late Roman Empire (Dominate). One wonders if the Eastern, Greek-speaking Empire was ever truly Roman. As I wrote in my "Romanization at a Glance" article the core of the Roman Empire was the western Mediterranean, and the Greek east had never been fully integrated. But after Heraclius it seems to gain a critical mass and start evolving considerably.

Had it not been 70 years into the future relative to the timeline, I could see a legatus Lucius Vorennus urging a hesitant Pilate to crucify a Nazerene heretic for the good of the empire, while a newly promoted Titus Pollo is the centurion who infamously pierces said Nazarene with a spear during the crucifixion. But seriously, if there is a third season I do hope the political and religious intrigue of Judea is a minor sideshow at best.

The best thing we can say about Tiberius is that he did not do anything to drastically change the Pax Romana left by Augustus. But I wonder what makes him a good administrator, though? He seemed incapable of making really important decisions. He did not manage his provincial legates unless they proved themselves extremely incompetent. He seems to have wanted the Senate to make more decisions on its own, but complained if they took directions he didn't like - and then when they subsequently referred matters to him out of fear, he suggested they were sycophants. Not a leader blessed with vision and charisma.

I always did wonder why you weren't devoted to Poseidon, but I figured you had your reasons. Congratulations. I don't think the Earth Shaker has many followers these days, but quality over quantity, I say, and he certainly has quality in the likes of you, my friend.

Under the Triumviri, actually (and their duly designated legates). But we honor the Consul for financing the forthcoming writing contest and for his other savory contributions to the imperium. Just don't kill Cato, G. Octavius. While he clings to outdated Republican scruples, he is perhaps the most active patrician around. The Senate would seem empty without him.

Interesting response, Edgewaters. Glad you have joined our forum.