Ursus

You look nice in a towel.

An eagle may soar, but a weasel will never get sucked into a jet engine. - Anon

I'm not sure what is going to happen with the UNRV American meet. I'm not exactly getting a lot of feedback on it. Some of the people in the West wanted a meeting at Las Vegas. One of the chief proponents of the Vegas meeting - Favonius - isn't even around much anymore. We decided to let the Westerners organize their own events, but I haven't seen any talk in this direction. Either everyone out West is too busy or just not interested. However it is, it's not this Pennsylvanian's problem. That leaves the Eastern meeting, with either DC or New York. I have reservations about DC, while MPC finds NYC too expensive. Pantagathus can go either way. PP seems to favor the DC option. Others have not really voiced their opinion, aside from the people living in NYC who naturally favor their own turf. I now have a significant other who is not exactly a history buff, and can't promise I'll make it. I will then bow out as de facto organizer and someone else can take over. Wherever the meeting is ultimately decided, I will try to make it - but if not, que sera sera. It seems that regardless of what happens, GO is organizing a NYC meet. Even some British members have expressed interest in coming to NYC. Perhaps that could be the focus, but it is up to the rest of you.

Do any of the newcomers want to add to the discussion? Edgewaters, perhaps? This was my poor attempt to provide a broad outline of an unfamiliar topic. I am honestly interested in learning more about the "Celts" or whatever term one wants to apply to the collective Iron Age tribes of Western Europe.

I don't see what your particular religion or lack thereof has anything to do with this conversation. All I said was that I was more interested in modern scholarship than primary sources like Eusebius, as people like Eusebius were anything but objective witnesses to history. Sorry if I was misunderstood.

It's up to the Triumviri, RtG. It largely depends on if such topics receive the activity to justify a new subfolder. I think a Near East subfolder in the future wouldn't be a bad idea if activity in that area increases.

Indeed.

I was looking more along the lines of modern research, not primary sources which can be rather biased when it comes to this subject. Anyway, don't let me derail this discussion with talk of my possible research.

I am afraid there are very few historians who have the creative writing skills of Tom Holland (whose first literary achievement was, I believe, a vampire novel) That being said, some academics are a lot more down-to-earth than others. You may wish to read H.H. Scullard's _a History of the Roman World_ which takes you from the archaeological pre-history of Rome to the aftermath of the Punic Wars. It was written specifically as an introduction, and while "academic" the prose is simple and fast paced enough to be read without nodding off.

It was good too see Walter Burkert, the world's foremost scholar on Greek religion, mentioned. Those educated on Greco- Roman paganism have long known that Pythagoras' mystical cult was opposed (to put it politely) to mainstream religion and culture. But now that he is stripped of his mathematical credentials, what is left of him? A Hellenic David Koresh. Truly interesting.

Outside DC in early summer.

Sorry about the American-centric link. I had no idea. Oh, well. And yes, Augusta, I can verify the female cast are lovelies. When it comes to males I am no judge, but they seem athletic and virile.

So what is the bottom line? Is the series still salvageable?

So what have we all decided, if anything? What is the bottom line? Is "Celt" still useful to describe these iron age tribes, or is it more trouble than it is worth, requiring other descriptors?

What makes you say so? I'm a clean-cut, white bred rustic and so is my girlfriend - at least we are externally.

Thank you for the reference, Jasminia. I've been contemplating some research into Catholicism.

http://www.sho.com/site/announcements/060120tudors.do I am looking forward to this. Since it's not Roman history, I don't care if it is more soap opera than history. Should be a lot of fun.

I'll have to do more research, G.O. These were just bits of info I came across in reference to other things. Possibly MPC would know off the top of his head.

1st century AD Under Caesar and Augustus the oversight of public games did in fact pass to the praetors, leaving the aediles as little more than prosecutors of certain public laws having to do with the market and common good. Thus the 12 Principate praetors oversaw the public games, oversaw certain special duties such as the treasury and the food supply, and finally presided over the legal system In the Principate after serving as praetor in Rome, they subsequently served either as: 1) governors of Senatorial provinces - the Mediterranean provinces which did not require a full legion 2) commanders of full legions in Imperial (border) provinces, who reported to the provincial governor who was himself a former Consul.

Used in what, exactly? I honestly don't know what to think about the whole concept of beauty. I only know what elicits my interests. Physically, I do seem to go for a generally slender but healthy appearance, with a certain amount of leg length, breast size and hip ratio catching my attention. But beyond the purely physical, personality and intelligence are quite captivating. And if I were Antony, what would it matter what Cleopatra looked like? She could be the ugliest and fattest woman in the world, but I would still use her for the wealth of Egypt. Once securely established on the Pharoah's throne, Cleo could meet with a fortuitous accident, and I could sit any half attractive lass on my lap I wanted. Beauty is only skin deep, but power is eternal.

According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, law schools didn't appear until the 1st century CE. Before then, memorizing the law of the Twelve Tables and studying rhetoric and philosophy seems to have sufficed...

When the Plebians began making in roads into the Consular elections, the office of praetor was added to keep the balance of power in favor of the patricians. The praetor originally had the same duties as a Consul - convene the assemblies, administer justice, lead armies into battle, etc - except he was considered junior to the Consuls, and was essentially the fill-in for the Consuls when they were away campaigning. Gradually the praetor seemed to concentrate more on the administration of the legal system than anything else, and it is this capacity he is most remembered. Two praetors were instituted - one for the city and one for foreigners. Other praetors were soon added to serve as governors for the new overseas territories. Eventually one had to serve as a praetor before one could be elected as Consul. In the Principate, the number of Praetors was now up to 12. They still presided over the legal system, but also could be found with certain financial duties. The office was by then designed to be a stepping stone to either provincial governership in a Senatorial province or commander of a legion in an imperial province. I'm not sure if Praetors were still around for the Late Empire ....? If they were, the nature of their duties must have changed dramatically by then.

I do believe there was major study a few years back on "beauty." Data was compiled from people of various cultural and religious backgrounds, to ensure there was no one cultural bias. The data suggested there was a genetic, not a culturally derived, predisposition to attractiveness. The dimensions of the body suggest to an observer who is and who is not healthy, and therefore potentially compatible as a mate for offspring, and thus attractive. Most men preferred women that had an hourglass shape - with hips in a certain ratio to waist, and breasts a certain size, and legs a certain length - because it all suggests a healthy, fertile female capable of bearing children. Women preferred men who were reasonably tall and well-built as they would give healthy children and be able to defend them. If you believe in the theory of evolution, and that human beings are essentially animals who had to learn how to survive and propogate in the wild, this all makes perfect sense. If you have a more "creationist" view of things this might not match your beliefs. If you are idealistic (especially of the PC variety) and believe attraction should be solely mental and spiritual, this theory may even be offensive. One thing the theory may not take into account though is homosexuality. Since homosexual couples can't reproduce, they have no evolutionary need to perceive and genuflect "attractiveness." But that is a whole another issue entirely, I suppose. EDIT: I see Cato posted a link that briefly mentions the above.

Yeah, G.O, all this has me wondering how to apply hot, colored wax to courtesan love rituals.

That is a hard question to answer without a large essay. The people who concentrate on the Late Empire have opened my eyes to how Romanatis was still practiced in the transition from paganism to Christianity. I have come to view Constantine and his successors with less hostility. People like Pantagathus, Pertinax and Andrew Dalby offer archaeological and quotidian elements to Romanatis. In particular, I became interested in how Romanatis could fuse with various cultures - such as those practiced by the Celts and Punics, and not just the Greeks. And then people like yourself ensure there is no end of analysis to the transition from Republic to Empire, and everything that thrust onto the Roman character. I'm not sure if my views have radically changed, but I do see things in a broader perspective at least.