Ursus

http://www.mesasoftware.com/merrychristmas.htm

Still why so persistent. He had no male heir to pass on his religous beliefs to. To later enfore his ideals on the Empire once Julian was no longer around so why bother? He didn't like Christianity for whatever reason and wanted to do as much damage to it as possible while he drew breath. I think if he had lived longer his policies would have done quite a bit of damage. But don't you think if he had survived the Persian expedition he would have appointed and groomed an heir? There were still plenty of pagan sympathizers at this point, especially among the intellectual class.

New insights? Nothing definite. Just speculation that tries to fit the facts. That is most likely all you will ever have given the paucity of confirmed details. Christopher S. Mackay opines that around the time of Servius Tullius, the army in their form of the Centuriate Assembly seems to have usurped the powers of the older citizen's assembly (curia). If the army had forced a King on the Romans over the objections of the civilian assembly, there would have been obvious problems with that King's legitimacy. Furthermore, if this king were foreign there would be other problems. That Rome passed under the Etruscan shadow is generally conceded thanks to the archaeological evidence. The last kings were thought to be Etruscans. However, in 524 BCE the Etruscans were defeated by the Greeks at Cumae, stopping Etruscan expansion. They were then on guard from militant Greeks and Latins. It seems likely that the expulsion of the Etruscan king from Rome coincided with the waning of Etruscan power at the hands of the Greeks and the Latin. If furthermore that Etruscan king had legitimacy problems in Rome due to how he was elected, it is easy to see how a conspiracy of powerful Roman nobles could have persuaded the general populace to rise in revolt to expel a weak foreign king. But the details are not well known and probably never will be. What we have is a charming legend about the rape of a virtuous woman, which while probably a historical fiction nonetheless tells us much about how the Romans saw themselves.

Christianity and Islam prove that today's fringe groups can be tomorrow's majority.

He tried to stem the tide of Christianity on two fronts: 1)banishing the Christians from teaching the classics, which would have left them on the cultural fringes 2) making paganism more like Christianity on a theological, administrative and charitable level I think it might have worked if his policies had had more time to take hold. I'm just as glad it didn't .... I cringe when I picture a "pagan" bishop extolling his flock to hand out alms to the poor. It's just not paganism. I did a short review for an excellent book on Julian, which others may find of interest: http://www.unrv.com/book-review/last-pagan.php As a mod's note, I am moving this from post-Roman history to the imperial subfolder. Julian was still well within imperial Roman history and thus doesn't deserve to be on the post-Roman folder.

I for one have always appreciated women studies, provided it didn't degenerate into pomo babble. I tried getting something going on here a long time ago but it didn't pan out. Unfortunately, I have little knowledge of the subject. You are the perfect person to spearhead the topic with Livia, Augusta. Just set the example and others will follow. PS - Some of the Byzantines around here like Tobias could give you great insights into the infamous Byzantine Empresses.

Serious political scientists use the term "hegemony" rather than "imperialism" to describe US international influence.

Everyone gets in a funk. At least you have a money in your pocket. Take your time and feed your inner self.

One thing I had meant to ask out resident blanagamist ... why did you choose "carnal(is)" as an appelation? Does it genuflect certain personal predilections?

I think it would have been cool if they had used the woodpecker, Mars' lesser known animal sigil ...

Good to know the series has some life left in it. I shall await the DVD. So, Pan, the Bond girls are still hot?

I have some sympathy for those who pointed out the hypocrisy of the government's war against nicotine. I remember sitting through endless government subsidized lectures in school on the dangers of smoking. And yet the government gives subsidies to tobacco farmers in North Carolina. What a charade. And yet ... I am a non smoker and have zero tolerance for people and their chemical addictions. I consider it weakness. I am supervisor/trainer for my company, and my staff/new hires are always begging for extra smoke breaks to cope with the stress of my training classes. I feel like telling them they are one step removed from being pathetic crack addicts, but that would probably get me fired.

"In the Republic only dictators were allowed to carry axes in Rome, and so the fasces was normally a bundle of rods carried on the left shoulders of the lictors. " -- _Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome__ Adkins and Adkins The axe was a symbol of the magistrate's power of life and death, and was thus suitable only for foreigners (outside the city) or during times of extreme duress when a dictator was in office. During times of peace, the axe would have threatened a citizen's liberty and citizen's right to appeal to a Roman magistrate. As for the number 12 .... I can't find anything concrete. 12 seems to be an archetypical number among the Ancients, though. 12 signs of the Zodiac, 12 gods of Olympus, etc.

It sucked.

The current trend in academics seems to be to study and embrace "the other" in culture. Greco-Roman society is far too Dead White Male to carry currency with younder legions of angry young deconstructionists who want to fight The Establishment.

About 7 years ago I was a student supervisor for the Dickinson College Library in Carlisle, PA. We had an agreement with the nearby War College where they could borrow our books and vice versa. I remember lieutenant colonels coming in to check out the classics. I hadn't really given it much thought till I saw this post.

The Civil War does seem the era of choice for Americans. I never much cared for American history, personally. The only modern history I enjoy is WWII. Jack Higgens novels got me hooked as a kid.

Anime?

There is no Santa Claus??

If I were surrounded by Romanophiles in real life I wouldn't spend so much time on this site.

Well, Roman history is usually divided according to the flavor of the government at the time. Broadly, it is divided into the Regal Period, the Republic, and the Empire. The Regal period is when Rome was ruled by mythological and semi-legendary kings. The Republic is usually subdivided into earlier and later periods. The early period of the Republic - from the overthrow of the Etruscan kings to the sack by the Gauls - is colored by legend. The Middle Republic - from the recovery of the Gaulish sack to roughly the time of the Gracchi - is the area of Rome's expansion through the Mediterranean. The Late Republic - beginning with roughly the Gracchi and ending with Augustus' supremacy - is the most well documented era of Roman history we have - and because of its monumental events and personalities, usually the most popular. The Empire is often divided between the early empire (The Principate), from Augustus to the Severans. After the death of the Severan dynasty begins a period of military anarchy some call the Crisis of the Third Century. After the crisis, the empire became reorganized by Diocletian and Constantine into what became known as the Dominate. The Byzantines are the survival of the Christianized Eastern Empire until their destruction by Turks in 1453. The only other possible scheme I have seen for dividing Roman history is using Constantine's reign to separate Pagan Rome from Christian Rome.

The sensibilities of the modern world would impugn most things in Roman history, not just this. I am not disagreeing with your overall assessment of the Council of Nicea. But if we start using (post)modern values as a benchmark to judge the Romans, what would be left to us? Different times, different standards, different realities.

That's because you aren't in on the little secret that we Legates and Triumvirs discovered recently: the world is actually run by a secret cabal of Mithraic conspirators. Their architecture is everywhere, and their headquarters is at NASA. I am sure Queen Elizabeth is part of the conspiracy, and that is how she intends to take over the US. Most likely Diana was killed in an "accident" because she objected to the master plan.

Waldenbooks was having a clearance sale as I was passing by. This large book, which I think is usually $30 +, was marked down to $5. I also noted the name of the Publisher and had to smile. Hermes had left me a lucky present. This is one of those coffee table books, if somewhat larger than normal. It gives a brief but decent treatment of all major areas of Roman civilization: the history, the personalities, the provinces, the military, philosophy, art, architecture, literature and poetry. Being a book for generalists, it sacrifices depth for breadth. But it gives a nice survey. It's very visual and has some beautiful pics. This is the kind of book you'd want to see in a high school library. I'd give it to an ethusiastic high school student to see if it piques their deeper interest in the subject. Of course, it's main purpose is to have it on display somewhere in your sitting room so guests can peruse it. Your perfect chance to convert your friends into Romanophiles.

I honestly forget the exact details of his rendering, sorry. I think the introduction was basically to try to put a new spin on a very old topic. Either he couldn't manage proving it, or had no intention to (i.e., the intro was a cynical way of grabbing one's attention). The rest of the book is actually an informative and enjoyable read, as P. Clodius alludes. However, for someone already well educated on the topic, such as yourself, there is probably no reason to buy it.