Gaius Octavius

Not fair. You haven't given Protestants, Jews and Moslems credit for pagan holdovers.

PERHAPS, the Italian city states and the then developing Western European nations along with Russia might have continued to nibble away at the Empire. Since the Empire did not have the power to maintain control over reconquered territories before the fall in 1453, it is hard for me to think that they could ever have returned to the status of the Early Empire, which they would have had to do. Yet, had the Empire decayed, and the other Europeans taken possession, the entire world would be completely different today. Perhaps, the so-called Dark Ages might never have come about and science and technology might have advanced more quickly. It would not have been sufficient for the Empire to simply recover militarily. The entire system would have had to have been rejuvenated. The power of the magnates had to have been broken. War lords overcome. And most importantly, the allegience of the people restored.

Is it the case that a Roman general or emperor who was celebrating a triumph painted his face blue? If so, what was the meaning for this coloration?

Welcome. Throw some red meat in your next post.

Welcome to the OK Corral :2guns:

Rameses, that is what all are saying (and having a little fun).

P.P., your commentary was well thought out, to the point, factual and concise. It boiled all the twaddle on the thread down to something usable. I am sure that my pseudo- enemy will agree with me on this. M.P.C., maybe I learned something sans your harrasment, but because of your harrasment. Do I get your absolution now?

M. P. Cato, by Iupiter you are the best at obfuscation. I'm going to commend you and Cicero to Bush when the Democrats take over the Comitia and the Senate. Yes, I am one of those who does not take umbrage, unless necessary. In all kindness, logic and clarity are not your strong points. I shall get a P. M. off to you as soon as I sober up. You drove me to drink. Well, the Yankees didn't help, they almost lost. Can we make Derek a God? Now, I double dare you to tell me that the triumvirate of Derek, Bernie and Mariano are lacking! :sniper:

Pentagathus, I misbegot that picture! Of course, I should have known, the Romans did it first! Sorry! Sorry! Docoflove, you can add the wine bag and the Latin alphabet to your by-line. Just try writing with those Greek or Cyrillic glyphs if you are left handed. You are driving me coo-coo trying to think of things to add.

It saddens me to have to report a possible wine heresy! Some exceptionally expensive restaurant in NYC (Daniele's) is serving wine from a bag! As the wine is extruded, no air gets into the bag thus keeping the wine fresh and tasty, if one does not do the proper thing right away. Can keep for weeks! It seems that if a cork is not of the highest quality, it will kill wine. Something about wine in boxes not being too bad! Oh, Lord Bacchus, what is this world coming to? What would the Romans think!

If the romans formed square with spears then the charge wouldn't connect - if they had any sense - it would simply wheel away frustrated. However, as you correctly state, a square formation is essentially immobile and therefore a sitting target for missile fire. Before too long, enough casualties would have broken the defensive value of the square and the survivors might not survive much longer. If they stay, they continue to be whittled down. If they flee, the cavalry are at their backs. This was the problem Rome had when facing eastern horse-archers. They just just didn't fight fair So, we are in agreement.

In the good old U.S. of A, not only is ressurection taught, but also being re-born. Two up. Two down.

Leaving aside the Hollywood idea that Christians were thrown to the lions for their private beliefs, the Christians living in Rome did cotton to many pagan beliefs and rituals for which there is absolutely no precedent in the gospels. The belief that saints intercede on behalf of mortals is one such belief. There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus or even Paul that would support this fantasy, but there it was a fantasy that many pagans had. How do you explain the veneration of saints among (many) Christians if you do not think it originated in paganism? Obviously, there could only be one explanation. Paganism! But since Catholics seem to be the errant knaves in this thread, in addition to the Bible, may one mix in Sacred Tradition? True. There are much better reasons to deny the existence of gods and saints. What is your proof? Where are your creditable evidences? (Sound familiar?) Lord! Give me a loaf of bread! The court waits on your pleasure. :notworthy:

I apologize for the understatement You gentlemen don't mean a word of that. It was fun anyway. I apologize for being so flippant. :1eye:

Not in any meaningful sense of the term. O.K. How meaningful do you want? It did matter a great deal. As a result of free speech, men like Verres were successfully prosecuted. That's a system that's working, and it was that very feature of the free republic that the triumvirs destroyed. Ever hear of a plebe prosecuting a governor? Give me a break. The little cups that canvassers used to spread around are hardly bribes. We don't have a detailed record of campaign finances, but we do have a pretty good sense of who was tried in the courts for bribery, and the incidence of bribery was astonishingly low. I believe that it was you who earlier said that large sums were expended in elections. I wonder how much the plebes spent on their campaigns for consul or quaestor. If one weren't a good boy, one no longer was a client. In addition to that little cup (probably filled with a few as), does the fear of losing ones patron count as a bribe? That isn't a proper object of government--it is quite frankly wishful thinking. No government will please all the people all the time. What matters is that the government conform to the rule of law. The triumvirs did not. If the laws are just, they will serve the ENTIRE nation all the time. Except for the criminals, of course. Serving the entire nation is not a proper object of government! Rats! I didn't know that. You're ranting. Give some evidence for your case. What is the EVIDENCE that the senates in the provincial towns did not provide the government services which the people--who alone had the power to legislate--decreed by law? What is the EVIDENCE that 95% of the magistrates of the Roman republic were meritless? Take a look at the surviving list of magistrates of the republic--for how many of them do you have some evidence of incompetence and for how many do you have ZERO evidence of incompetence? And if you have ZERO evidence of incompetence, by what authority do you second guess the judgment of the people of Rome? Ranting? My good man! Are you maintaing that the poloi legislated? That a yokel could become a politician?What, then, was the point of these senates composed of local elites? Let us speak now of ranting. Would you please be kind enough to review my last three sentences (ex the period blunder) and determine if your last three have anything at all to do with mine or even relate to my 'supposed facts', which you seem to be countering? Now I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what the Senate could and couldn't do at various points in Roman history. Sulla did not fix the gluttony of the Senate. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He succeeded in ousting the tyranny of the Marians, and he set himself up as a tyrant. The Senate was as helpless in this civil war as is a senate in any civil war. Nor did the triumvirate contain the "gluttony of the senate": almost all of the opposition to the triumvirs were on constitutional matters because there was a real constitutional debate happening in the aftermath of Sulla. If you think otherwise, provide the names and dates of the legislation that support your interepretation; otherwise, admit you're wrong. At VARIOUS points? Oh, dear me! Have I once again blundered? Didn't Sulla whack a few senators? Well, I guess that they were all guilty of some peccadillo. I DO know that the senate couldn't stop Sulla. I agree with you that the gluttony of the senate wasn't satiated, that's what I'm saying. Needed another Sulla. One tyrant succeding another is refreshing. "...helpless in this civil war as is a senate in any civil war." Something like the U.S. Senate in the U.S. Civil War. I will admit (and I am not being sarcastic now), that you know more about Rome than I ever will. Back to my repartee. You provide your creditable evidences first. Then I'll hammer away. A fact here and there, on either of our parts, could never be conclusive. As I've repeatedly claimed on this very thread, I'm not claiming the Republic was a libertarian utopia. I'm claiming that the instability normally said to be characteristic of the republic was in fact more characteristic of the triumvirate. The republic was not a free state, but it was a freer state than the states that followed it--from the Caesars of the first century to the Kaisars and Tsars of the 19th. For all their freedom and prospertiy, republics are astonishingly rare in the history of the world, and in my view, the republican constitution is one of the greatest legacies that Rome left to the world. Now, (I hope that you are sitting), I entirely agree with your last paragraph as written! Nonetheless, my emphasis has been on corruption. My whole point is this: The people of Rome were probably more free in 1 AUC than they or any other people have been until the 19th or 20th century. Plutocracy has always reigned - and still does. I still love you (in the philosophical sense). Keep hammering at me; maybe I'll learn! Did you get a private message from me?

Ave P.P. and M.P.C.: Once again, because things are similar (remember your geometry?), that does not make them equal. If I am not, once again, in error, the early Christians did not cotton to pagan beliefs. Seems that they were fed to the lions on that account. I am not trying to proselytize, but rather to inform (asssuming that I am correct). Personally, I feel that the most of today's preachers are nothing but a pack of racketeers. From this, it does not follow that God or saints do not exist.

Half a century ago, my fellow debauchees and I would go to Sheepshead Bay (Brooklyn, N.Y.) and eat clams and oysters -raw, without any sauce - (the only way), by the barrel. One didn't have to mortgage the farm for one oyster in those days. It seems that only Italians and my 'educated' Irish friends ate the things then. Like squaddies, we swilled beer by the gallons. Probably Rheingold from a tap. Never tried scallops or mussels raw. Mussels, only at home, were baked and the swill of choice was burgandy or barberone (imported from Kali4kneeya) - half and half with cream soda - and a lemon twist. My father used to bake and pick at the brains of a sheep's head, wine as above. I am sure that it was his Roman blood. Was there a connection between the denarius and oysters?

Whenever I read about legions, they are composed of 'X' thousands of men neatly comprised of 'Y' men per cohort. Multiply by 10 and, viola, that's a legion plus the cavalry. If I am not in error, the legion had engineers, doctors, armorers, food and ammunition carriers, legate guards, etc. How were these set into the legion? As units, if so what were they called and how were they accounted for?

The Senate was a tyranny from its very outset. What is the point of 'freedom of speech' if it doesn't matter? The 'vast' sums spent on elections were more properly called bribes. One optimate vying against another. If one of the objects of government is to serve the ENTIRE nation, then the Republic failed. The Senate served its interests and not those of the nation as a whole. This was the case also in the senates of the cities. The number of people who climbed the 'ladder', on merit alone, were exceptionally few. The Empire, when it was effective. did little if anything for 95% of the people. When ineffective, this mass suffered more. The result for the people was the same. How many times would the gluttony of the Senate have had to have been 'fixed' by a Sulla or triumvirate before it got the idea? The Senate was not acting in the nation's interest. If freedom or liberty are to be the contrasts between the two forms, then, in my opinion, these only leached into some societies during the 19th and 20th centuries. Can one say that if the Republic had continued that Rome would exist today?

They are not considered Gods by Christians themselves, to call them such would be blasphemy, but one can't deny they bare a striking resemblance. this link has a list of Patron Saints, Saints which are seen to have greater influence over specific occupations or areas (and are endorsed to have such by the Papacy) when prayed to. It also depends on ones definition of a god. If you define a god as a being that is immortal, and more powerfull than a mere human and possibly involved or interested in human afffairs, a saint certainly qualifies. The Romans prayed to their spirits and ancestors, but did not consider them gods. An orange and a tangerine bear a 'striking resemblance', but they are not the same because of this resemblance. It is not only the Papacy that commends saints, but also the Orthodox Churches and some Protestant Churches. 'Saint' means 'holy'. Saints are defined as 'beings' who are in heaven with God and as such, may influence human affairs. Their souls are immortal, if one believes. Angels are immortal and holy. One may find similarities with pagan 'beings' but there is not an equality. Saints may not act independently of God as pagan 'beings' or gods can. The Christian God is not merely defined as immortal and powerful, but rather immortal, all powerful, all knowing, unique, etc. Saints do not have these attributes. A saint or an angel is powerful and immortal, subject to the will of God.

Sts Cyril & Methodius converted a number of Slav peoples to Christianity in the mid 800's. I assume that many of these Slavs were within the Empire (Bulgarians, Macedionians). I can't cite it, so take this for what it is worth: Paganism continued to be practiced in remote places for quite a while thereafter. Saints are not considered gods or spirits by Christians. They are believed to be in heaven and are prayed to because it is believed that they may intercede with God on the suppliants behalf. Originally, saints were proclaimed as such by acclamation of the people. 'The voice of the people is the voice of God.' The setting of Christian celebrations to coincide with pagan celebrations may have simply been a matter of practicality.

Have you ever read Aristophanes' Birds? Nope! Right now I am wandering through 'Bleak House' and rcovering from falling out of bed, whacking my head on a dumb bell and getting a 1" gash on the noggin for my efforts. You're making my life so much easier. Thanks! I'll cheat anyway. 'Cloud Cuckooland', aye! Sounds interesting. Have to get at it - soon. P. S. Pentagathus, no umbrage taken. Had it been so, you should have experienced my deadly venom. :fish:

"Cities of the Plain"? What is that about?

My Dear Kosmo: How many times could Mehmet impale Radu? Or are you speaking of the 'Biblical' sense?

Pertinax, that thread is a gem. I wish that there were one forum where this subject could be posted on.