tflex

I think it's more remarkable that people are willing to discard or discredit a belief that has lasted 2000 years because some author decided to write his own version of the story 2000 years later without a shred of evidence to prove it.

Just wondering how come the 'Emperors List' does not have info on most of the Emperors especially the late Emperors. Is their a lack of historical data on those particular Emperors? or is admin still in the process of updating the profiles? I did notice though that well documneted Emperors like Marcus Aurelius and Commodus have no links to them.

The commandment does not presuppose that there are other gods. It just presupposes that people worship other gods but does not acknowledge their existance. The bible or the old testament is very clear that there is only one god in existance and thats Yahweh, it's certainly been consistent for the last 2000 years. During ancient times and indeed 2000 years ago their was a culture of paganism and that was the predominant religion at the time. There are many instances in the bible were the Jews would fall into that trap of worshiping pagan gods but by the time Islam was born, paganism had all but died out so they did not have to deal with that threat to the extent that Jews and Christians did. Remeber monotheism was still a fairly new concept at the time and was still evolving. Peoples beliefs evolve but the text itself has never evolved or changed in the last 2000 years.

Biggest reason they could not worship Yahweh is the first commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." This would have been simply unacceptable for pagan Rome. To worship Yahweh whole heartedly would require the worshiper to renounce all other gods. But I think they did fear the Jewish god and therefore respected him.

It's all fiction, there are no facts. As a Christian I think it's rather offensive but thats my own opinion. Although for anybody to say the story is backed up by facts is just completely false. The author fictionalized and perverted a very sensitive issue to make lots of money, and thats just the way capitalism works. I think Sony made a good PR move but I don't think they really care.

Roman imperialism started long before any of the civil wars. The civil wars were a consequence of imperialism. I think you may be getting Imperialism confused with the Imperial period. While they are derrived from the same word, they have two completely different meanings. You're right. The civil wars were the consequences of an artificial republic that was truly corrupt and hypocritical.

Roman Imperialism ended over 100 years of bloody civil war under the republic.

How did this get so complicated. Latin is a different language than Italian though there are similarities. Inside Italy there are many different dialects for example Sicilian, Venetian, Pugliese etc. Italian is a language that has it's own dialects though it originally evolved from Latin, the same way as other languages evolved to become a language on their own, such as English or Arabic.

AS PP already mentioned, the Imperial State did fall. The society and culture might have evolved over time like any other civilization but Rome's power and domination declined and collapsed and that cannot be denied. No one is arguing that Rome, the state and government itself did not fall, I am arguing that Roman civilization, and culture and society did not fall, it evolved. The two are different. Sorry I misunderstood then. Looking at the poll, I'm surprised that so far nobody has voted for the 'Civilization of the Roman Soldier'. I think maybe it's not as well documented as the other causes.

Cato, are you trying to say you agree with me, because if you are its a cause for celebration that you finally came back down to earth. AS PP already mentioned, the Imperial State did fall. The society and culture might have evolved over time like any other civilization but Rome's power and domination declined and collapsed and that cannot be denied.

Polybius remarked that one of the major reasons for the rapid rise of Rome was its internal stability. If he's right, the contrapositive must also be true: that Rome would fall (yes FALL) once it was destabilized. Only Rome could defeat Rome; and it did. Failure of succession to the throne definately played a role in Rome's collapse but it was not a primary cause. Economic decline led to an increasing number of bad emperors and political infighting which in turn put more pressure on a weak system of succession. But when Rome was economically sound in the early empire, the system was also weak but Rome still managed to fend off its enemies. Therefore, the system of succession was a secondary cause. The dying economy was the primary cause internally and mass migration was the primary cause externally for the empires eventual fall.

HAIL Pamela Anderson!!!!

Rome the 'Empire' most definately fell. If you ask that same average Roman on the street if the empire had failed compared to it's earlier days, I'm pretty sure he will say yes. We have the benefit of hindsight so we know it collapsed. The second most important reason would have to be economic decline, throughout it's history Rome relied heavily on the loot that was plundered from various invasions which helped finance their army, city construction etc. I think there mistake was not relying enough on Roman agriculture which was heavily taxed, they simply were not self sufficient. As far as the system of succession, there was one in place, the emperor would name his heir, it didn't work well but I don't think that was one of the major factors for Rome's collapse. Mass Migration did not exist on the same level that it did in terms of massive barbarinan activity from the east during the republic or the early empire, unfortunately in the late empire it did.

There were many problems that led to Rome's collapse but I think mass migration has to be the biggest contributor. Rome simply could not keep up with it's rapidly increasing enemies. The weaker Roman army could no longer control an enemy that was constantly multiplying through migration. They would defeat a band of barbarians on one day and the next day another band would appear somewhere else to challenge them. The process was endless and the weakened empire was doomed.

I don't think modern christianity is a hindrence to science, other religions might be but not christianity. The only time it might obstruct scientific advancement is when experimentation might be considered inhumane eg. human experimentation, animal cruelty etc. In these cases, sure I agree with you, without christianity science would be better off but it would also be highly immoral.

He is, IMO, the largest of life characters. His place in history is well deserved. He is as unstoppable in history as he was in life. Agreed, all you have to do is look throught this forum and you will find everytime Julius Caesar is mentioned the posts increase and everyone wants to give their opinion good or bad, ofcourse the good outnumber the bad. Caesar is most definately larger than life.

The triumvirate, therefore, was a true oligarchy (ruling over many with oligarchical ambitions). Tflex, you really hate the patricians and love the plebeians? I hate some patricians and love some plebians. Do you hate the plebians?

In my opinion "Oligarchy" when it applies to the rule of the patricians in the Roman senate, it should be translated this way: My own definition: Rule by a powerful and corrupt few for the sole purpose of advancing their own wealth at the expense of the powerless and the unfortunate. I think thats a more accurate translation when it comes to the patricians.

I'm Christian. My parents told me I was a Catholic but I consider myself just a Christian, I personally don't care much for denominations.

Whats the closest modern language to Latin? Is it Spanish, French, Italian etc.

It seems to me if Europe really wanted to be united they should adopt one common language and there is no need to invent a so called new "European Language" when there is already one that exists. Why not just go back to Latin, it's a proven language and if it's structure is superb they should reinstate it as an offical language of Europe. Also is the modern Latin used in the Catholic church the same as the classical Latin used by the Romans?

Latin was widely used in europe for many centuries even after the fall of the Roman empire. Why did it eventually die out and give way to the romance languages? By which period was latin all but forgotten? and what are the specific reasons for it's replacement by the other languages, was it not practical enough? If somebody can help me, I'm not an expert on languages.

Tacitus was obviously wrong, Augustus used his wealth and power to end a bloody civil war which started due to the actions of a few immoral idiots. After he became emperor, he used his power to bring about peace and stability to the empire, something that was lacking before his reign. For a Roman, Augustus was conservative and morally sound, he cetainly used his power more responsibly than the senate and definately was no tyrant. Tacitus was biased for good reason, he was obviously always concerned about the limitless power of the emperors and wanted more balance with the senate. So it is perfectly natural for him to be skeptical of Augustus's morality but highly inaccurate.

He's a non-english speaker though. There's problem of communication, you'd have to get a priest as translator. Even then, Caesar would think he's communicating with a bunch of chimps! He would recognize his adopted name though and I think that would be enough for Caesar to pass his judgement. If I was Cato, I would start running.

I would go to the Library of Alexandria and stuff my bag with all the scrolls. Also If Caesar could fit in my bag, I would bring him along just to show him what Cato has been writing about him in the UNRV forum.