Ursus

In the West, after Rome lost its political importance and became only symbolic, I would say Africa was the most important for its grain supplies. When the Vandals captured Africa the Western Empire was truly done for.

The Greeks and Romans considered circumcision barbaric, they mocked the Jewish prohibition on pork (which Romans considered a delicacy), and did not respect the commandment pertaining to the Sabbath. Most especially, the Jewish refual to worship the pagan gods of Greco-Roman civic life was viewed as unpatriotic. The availability of "kosher" food in Roman communities is also somewhat in doubt. A Jew who was a slave would have had to struggle very hard to retain his identity if his master were not sympathetic to his slaves' religion. There are examples of slaves of Jewish persuasion making offerings to local pagan gods, so it is likely that many Jews without money or power lost their particular religious identity. However, Jewish communities were common enough throughout the empire in the East, and the Jews who were not slaves managed to retain their identity through the medium of the synagogue. It seems that Greeks and Jews were more likely to come to blows than Jews and Romans due to a variety of factors. A Jew did serve as the equestrian procurator of Egypt. There are instances of Greek and Roman aristocrats converting to Judaism. In the sum of things it seems Romans and Jews simply did business with each other where it was mutually profitable to do so, despite whatever other alienation between the two may have existed.

Over 1900 registered members and only 15 votes? Nonetheless the small sample we have here is still useful. It more or less confirms my impressions of why people come to this site and what they want out of it.

"To hear the pagans of Athens explain it at a recent ceremony outside a 1,800-year-old temple, Zeus-worship would fit right in on an average American college campus. While celebrating the nuptials of Zeus and Hera, high priest Kostas Stathopoulos intoned, "Our message is world peace and an ecological way of life in which everyone has the right to an education." The only things they didn't include were universal health care and a commitment to fight homelessness." This is along the lines of what I was saying in the "revived greek religion" thread - a lot of the Greeks pretending to revive ancient cults really aren't per se. There is more politics than history at work. I don't blame the author of the editorial for sneering. My own opinion of the hipppy side of modern neopaganism is not much better.

History is made by great personas, so one cannot separate Caesar's place in Roman politics from his particular ambitious persona. Same with most of the figures of the late republic and the emperors. It's a study of not only the politics of someone, but their character as well.

I don't think Primus Pilus gets enough recognition for his historical outlines. They are very concise yet informative overviews.

Humor me and satiate my curiousity. There was a brief discussion in the Patrician folder about the areas of main interest as revealed by the most read book reviews. I am interested in the leading topics that brought people to this site, and especially the topics that might interest people as far as book reviews and articles.

One way to test his claim: nail him to a big piece of wood and let him hang there till he dies. If he comes back to life after 3 days, I guess we'll take him at his word. If he doesn't come back from the dead, then no harm really done.

A virgin girl asks her boyfriend to come over Friday night and have dinner with her parents. Since this is such a big event, the girl announces to her boyfriend that after dinner, she would like to go out and make love for the first time. * * * * * * * * * Well, the boy is ecstatic, but he has never had sex before, so he takes a trip to the pharmacist to get some condoms. He tells the pharmacist it's his first time and the pharmacist helps the boy for about an hour. He tells the boy everything there is to know about condoms and sex. * * * * * * * * * At the register, the pharmacist asks the boy how many condoms he'd like to buy, a 3-pack, 10-pack, or family pack. The boy insists on the family pack because he thinks he will be rather busy, it being his first time and all. * * * * * * * * * That night, the boy shows up at the girl's parents house and meets his girlfriend at the door. "Oh, I'm so excited for you to meet my parents, come on in!" * * * * * * * * * The boy goes inside and is taken to the dinner table where the girl's parents are seated. The boy quickly offers to say grace and bows his head. * * * * * * * * * A minute passes, and the boy is still deep in prayer, with his head down. * * * * * * * * * 10 minutes pass, and still no movement from the boy. * * * * * * * * * Finally, after 20 minutes with his head down, the girlfriend leans over and whispers to the boyfriend, "I had no idea you were this religious." * * * * * * * * The boy turns, and whispers back, "I had no idea your father was a pharmacist." * * * * * * * * *

Yeah, yeah ... but I still get Nephele as a courtesan.

On this site, Spittle, the Byzantine East is generally considered a continuation of the Roman Empire. Granted only a few members have it as their primary interest, but we nonetheless give such topics whatever respect they deserve. To that end, if you have something relevant to say on the topic, by all means share. If you have no interest, go elsewhere. If you want to be snarky, take it to the arena.

The interaction between Islamic and Byzantine worlds is a valid enough topic for the post-Roman/Byzantine forum, so let us move it there.

I think this thread is quickly evolving out of the realm of historical debate and into the realm of polemics on current events. If it continues it will have to be moved to the AfterHours forum.

How about everyone keep the argument academic and less snarky? Consider this an official warning. Further offenses will result in sending this thread to rot in Tartarus and the offending parties placed on moderated status. And I would find that a shame because it is otherwise a fascinating thread.

...

I had shark once and didn't think much of it. I'll stick with chicken.

Fascinating ....

That Cicero loved his country (or, rather his particular idea of what his country should be) I do not argue. And the romantic in me appreciates that a "new man" could rise with the power of pure eloquence to lofty heights usually reserved for the bluest blue bloods. But ... his lofty Stoic ideals (which, by the way, bore the hell out of me) seem to be often at odds with the pragmatic turn coat policies of his politics. I view him as basically a sniveling politician, masked by a grandiloquent rhetoric that has given birth to a partially false notion of him as an avatar of virtue. I think his best use was as a witness to history. Thanks to his letters and his musings we know more about the Late Republic than any other stage of Roman history. He also modeled Classical Latin into what it was.

Most people will approach the question from a strictly politico-military perspective. The discussion then becomes an argument over whether an increasingly dysfunctional city-state oligarchy defended by a citizens militia is better than an increasingly tyrannical pseudo-monarchy backed by professional soldiers. Another perspective might be a socio-cultural one. Which paradigm better laid the foundations for what we call Western Civilization? Certainly both epochs have their triumphs. But it was under the empire an ever increasing segment of the population began to assimilate into what we now call the Greco-Roman heritage. This to me is what gives credence to the empire over the Republic. Rome gradually spread out from a city-state ruled by a small clique of oligarchic families into a cultural ideal encompassing a wider spectrum of people. As a Modern Westerner with the benefit of hindsight this is what is most meaningful to me.

My experiences in the pagan community has led me to believe this is unfortunately true some of the time. However, it would be an incorrect generalization to apply to everybody. The "Reconstruction" or "Revival" of lost religions is a fascinating topic in its own right. Some of those undertaking the attempt do have social, political and personal agendas that are far from a genuine respect for whatever deities they claim to honor. However, again, to apply this to all is a bit unfair. I think Hellenic and especially Roman paganism are actually suited to the modern world, albeit with a few concessions (animal sacrifice would probably never pass current social taboo, not to mention paganism will never be a State religion again). It is not as though it is a completely alien mindset as Western Culture is saturated with those respective myths. I see no reason why it would be any more of an anachronism than a post Vatican II Catholic Church. Why not? Do you think the Romans of the mid first century could ever imagine a small heretical Jewish cult would evolve and effectively own the Roman State 3 centuries hence?

Save for his new love, I don't think that anyone worships Ursus. Heretic.

Nice review. :-)

I tend to review books I really like (to recommend them to people) or really despise (to warn people away). Books that are just kind of mediocre but not truly offensive I seldom take the time to review. *shrugs*

Yeah, you have a point. If I have to make a choice between Christianity and Islam, I'll take Christianity hands down. But to be very blunt, I'd like to see the power of all militant monotheists over the state curtailed. This sort of thing shouldn't happen in Western democracies - especially in a European Union that likes to bill itself as oh-so-much-more socially progressive than the States.

I just said I had a copy of Cameron's book. I mentioned nothing about the quality. But since you mentioned it, I didn't think much of Cameron's book, which is why I didn't bother reviewing it for the site.