Ursus

Why, thank you, sorceress. You indeed work powerful magic.

Sin-nerella peach, eh? Yeah, sounds about right for the bellydancing sorceress. Do me, please. I think you know by name by now ...?

I've seen my own views become slightly modified as I do more research on my own, and learn from others. I have learned much from the "core members" of this site, even if I don't always agree with them, and that is why I stick around.

Would any of the recent members care to add to this old discussion?

Yes, I honestly don't understand why we keep seeing this question. Persia was the world's greatest empire at the time with untold wealth to plunder, and whose recent invasions needed avenging in the eyes of many Greeks. Italy was a collection of small hilltop villages involved in little else than the Western Mediterranean trading routs.

In my reading, not quite either. I suppose you should define "true Christian" and "bloody tyrant." He was an opportunistic heir to the world of Diocletian, who acted with some keen vision and strategy, but was as ruthless as his position demanded. Initially, Christ may have meant little more to him than just another Solar deity whom he could supplicate for victory. As time progressed he helped to define what "true Christian" would mean for the empire. A complicated individual who can't be fit neatly into a narrow category. But a fascinating subject for study, and if anyone finds good sources I am unaware of, please let me know.

I actually meant what I said. A newcomer who tried to derail a discussion on the new Hannibal film has been placed on temporary moderated status. Let this serve as a reminder.

I'll leave it to the discretion of the other mods since I can't make a fair call.

I currently have too many problems with my computer to attempt to download audio programs. But ... what I saw visually was basically some musings about cute pagan-derived folk festivals in the former Soviet empire, coupled next to an examination of various New Ages practices. Both were blended into some sort of statement about environmentalism and post Cold War identity politics. I don't think any of this is really on topic for the forum. Not being able to download I can't tell for sure, though. Is there any mention of historical pagan practices from the cultures of the Roman Empire?

The ensuing discussion on the broader dimensions of culturally derived standards of feminine beauty and its depiction on media has been interesting and articulate - but I believe it might be better to transport that discussion to another forum as it is beginning to overshadow the more topical item of Cleopatra's coin.

As of this writing the Hellenes are in the lead (with their own subfolder, which actually does not witness as much activity as its leading position on the poll would suggest). The Celts are second. Perhaps we could lump in the Germans and other "native" peoples of non Mediterranean Europe with the Celts to form a large group, as edgewater suggested. These groups are most keenly discussed when our dedicated UK contigent discuss Roman Britain. Finally, the Semitic peoples are in third, stemming apparently from the fascination of the war with Hannibal. Thoughtful musings on any of the above are always appreciated.

Hail and Welcome, edgewaters. Feel free to start any threads on those topics.

The world tree is a common enough symbol in mythology - the tree and its branches and roots as a symbol of the enfolding cosmos. Turning it upside down might mean an inversion of the natural progression of the cosmos, somehow related to sacred significance of the site?

Perhaps something stemming from their shared proto-Indo-European past? A belief that warriors could take on the persona of animals like wolves and bears for battle.

Apotheosis is not G. Octavius' style. He would be content merely to extort taxes from the locals and flirt with their women.

There is a thread on it in the Libri sub-folder. As PP says, it is readable and informative, and provides a good background to those who don't already have it. But the central thesis is sensational and ultimately never proven, a cynical attempt to give the book an edge it otherwise wouldn't have. My own personal opinion, but I believe the Germans were victims too ... if not of Hitler than of the Versaille Treaty.

Everyone Patrician and above who are not themselves entering.

In a WWII buff as well, and I never heard of it either. So don't feel bad, PP, we must live under similar rocks.

Just to add to PNS's excellent summary, it should be noted that to a conservative and pious society like the Romans, the weight of tradition coupled with the moral authority or the Senate and the magistrates was often its own law. E.G. The Senate, controlled usually by the finest families in Rome, had become accustomed to dealing with matters of finance and foreign policy. The moral weight of this august body and the sheer tradition of their power meant their decrees in these areas, while not techincally laws, were rarely ignored. A magistrate armed with the senatus consultatum ultimatum had the full authority of tradition and morality to do what was necessary to defend the State. When one went outside the moral authority of the Senate and/or bypassed tradition - as the Gracchi did - there was usually trouble.

Indeed he does, as well as the teu that carried over into proto-Germanic cultures and became Tyr, and the god that would become Indra in the Vedic religion. Linguistically, the gods have to be the same, stemming from the same source. Culturally, however, the sky gods became paramount only in the Greek and Latin races. When the Greeks took the Shining Sky Father of the Indo-Europeans into Greece, they came into contact with weather gods of West Asia, as well as kingly gods of the Near East. Both cultures exerted an influence on the myth and cult of dewos. And thus Zeus was born. This is why the Greek Zeus is different and more important than the Germanic Tyr or the Vedic Indra.

In the Western world, I don't think charity for the poor became a widespread concern until the arrival of Christianity, which was a major factor in why so many people were attracted to the religion. Nonetheless the Achaemenids seem to have been rather lax with local cultures, not unlike the Romans. The Sassanids seemed less hands-off, but far more efficient in at channeling economic power into military might.

I assume by "Persian Empire" you mean the Achaemenid dynasty, and not the later Parthian and Sassanid regimes? If so ... Not my area of expertise, but what I know impresses me. The greatest superstate this side of China is how it has been described. Held together by excellent communication network as well as a sensible policy of relative regional autonomy. I am not sure how "oppressive" it was. Cyrus the Great issued what is usually considered the world's first declaration of human rights. Local cultures and religions were not molested - the central government demanded little more than tribute and soldiers. I believe they also outlawed slavery? When Islam took over they actually praised the wisdom and humanity of Persian administration - not something you hear often from Muslims in relation to People Not of the Precious Book. As far as influence, it seems a lot of its practices were simply continued once Alexander took over. The imperial court of the later Roman Empire also seems to have been influenced by Persia. The Persian army, as far as I have read, were composed mostly of lightly armored archers who tried to drown their enemies in arrows from a distance. The Greeks had heavier arms and armor, and in close combat made mince meat of the Persian archers. The Greeks also employed better tactics, making the most of their rugged terrain. As far as Empires go, the Achaemenids seem to have been sensible, humane rulers with a vision for administration.

I suggest combining activities to save time. sleep and/or rest + go out into the garden and play in the dirt == sleep in the dirt. have a pot of tea + take a walk = drink tea while walking eat + play with Bella the Feline = eat Bella the Feline (in a playful manner)

I explored LaVeyan Satanism before coming to Paganism. Like Nephele I thought those 11 rules made good sense. La Vey basically combined Nietzsche with Rand and added the the theatrics of the Devil concept to make a "new" philosophy of rational hedonism. Rational hedonism is not such a bad guide to life. There are certainly worse. I don't like most of the LeVeyans I have met, though. Most of them are pretentious as hell, and if you have an inkling at all toward a belief in deity they think you are insanely stupid.

I think the essence of any essay is a sound idea, backed by adequate research, and conveyed with suitable prose. It's common sense to suggest anyone seeking to furnish a revolutionary reassessment of established theories must submit the strongest case possible to be taken seriously. If one succeeds at a sweeping revision, then one is a visionary. If one fails, then one is a hack. I love praising visionaries as much as I love reviling hacks.