CiceroD

My Biology Professor bemoans how hard it is to get taxonomy into the heads of us students I guess that they overlook the fact that it was simpler when everyone studied Latin

Think Alabama with a cooler climate. Ouch! well maybe your right

I am genuinely surprised DecimusCaesar. Although now I think about that it makes sense. The castles would get far more attention. though maybe the area around Bath has a higher per capita rate of Rome enthusiasts. Ursus, how many Civil War fanatics do you know. I feel like I'm up to my armpits in them. It doesnt help that I'm sort of close to Gettysburg

Looking back at the polls for where everyone is from I am actually quite surprised at the results. As History Buffs we are ceratinly a distinct breed. But I always assumed that most would follow subjects of their nations past. looking around me (In the States) feel awash in WWII and Civil War buffs and therefore felt really weird I always assumed that there would be far more British and other European Romanophiles. considering that they live in lands with a memory of Roman rule. so In a nutshell Im asking (to other Americans) Am I right that we Romanophiles are in the minority? (and to Members from the rest of the Earth) What topic occupy most of your History buffs?

That is truly in dispute. the Wikipedia page for 'Decline of the Roman Empire' is a great resource though.

As far far as I see it Modern Western Civilization and its democracies have a few legs up on the Ancient Roman Republic. Firstly as far as The United States and most Commonwealth Nations are concerned there is no aristocracy (at least no Official one). Even in Britain and the european countries that do have an Aristocracy, it's not likely to cause the same social upheavals that destroyed the Roman Republic. Secondly we have a media. The constant comedical (is that a word? ) depictions of modern politicians as buffoonish and sleazy serves a good purpose. It reminds us that no one, no single person is greater than the state. while others in The United States have bemoaned the fact that they now vote against someone and not for them, It greatly comforts me. Lastly, In the modern world we have fully proffesional armies that are paid well, are not directly led by their commanders in chief, and their officers are regularly moved to new assignments. Personally I am more frightened by people's apathy towards political issues I think that we are charting a new course in history given how unique modern western society is.

What Ive always wondered about the great thermae is How did they circulate water in the pools? Woudn't they have to constantly add fresh water while draining some? If they didn't that water would get nasty quick with a hundred bathers in at a time!

Dont worry Augusta; Im not Tiberius bashing. He was a good deal better then his successor! Do you think that the story of his end concerning Macro and the Pillow is accurate?

Was Delphi an actual city-state or was it just the compound for the Oracle? From All Ive heard it sounds like an ancient Greek Theme Park!

Kosmo, I dont know too much on the end of the empire. but I do know that laws can be and are ignored routinely. Augustus passed many laws trying to curb spending to no avail. and the US tried to outlaw booze to no avail! And I also know that depriciation of Roman coins was a problem to the end of the western empire.

Hey Augusta! Are you sticking up for poor Tiberius because he's your "son" Hmmm?

I vote yes Simply because if it is a question of supply Carthage would've controlled the vital supply lanes and access to reinforcements. "An Army Marches on its Stomach" Napoleon

Im wondering if anyone else is thinking about going in a toga? I will if someone else will

I dont know where you are getting this Numa. Do you mean late imperial armies? Do you mean pre Marian legions?

Pittsburg does make a lot of sense logistically, but what can we do there?

so it seems to be pretty set that we are going to have two meetings

Exactly my point. A Republican government would have spared Rome the depredations of Nero and Caligula. But As the constitution was set up, designed for the little city-state Rome once was, it was ill equiped to hear the concerns of citizens especially at a distance from Rome. eg Comitia meetings could be hijacked by only one faction and direct democracy of the comitia meant that Roman Colonists could not participate. So the inability of Rome to "start from the drawing board" politically reflected their inability to change . Doesnt the War of the Allies (The Social War) illustrate this? Gaius Graccus tried to raise this issue and was killed over it unfairness to fellow Italics Marius tried to settle a few of the foederati like the roman soldiers But Rome wouldnt have it Marius goes into exile and the Italics rebel and Rome ultimately was forced to grant them all citizenship anyway

I, myself (as my namesake) am a true Republican even though I voted no. Obviously, Emperors are not an ideal political setup. But their Republic was too complex to be efficient when their was a strong political divide. for example everyone could veto everyone else (Im exagerrating). Yes a Republic is the BEST POSSIBLE system but not their Secondly, I recognise that the opposition was not based entirely on tradition but also upon avarice. But to my mind there is a difference between social change and true social reform. of course all societies change and must make new laws to adapt. But true social reform for the benefit of the people, such as FDR's New Deal or the Constitutional Convention is nearly unheard of In Ancient Rome. The closest that they had (that I know of personally) is the founding of the institution of Tribunes. But the much vaunted plebian secession from the city occured in 493 B.C.E! It was therefore already part of their sacrosanct tradition.

I voted no, at least no under the system they had as I see it, had reformers such as Tiberius Graccus had been listened to (yes I'm assuming that the Gracchi had pure motives) at an earlier date. The Republic could have been spared its ultimate fall. However it proved that tradition was soo central that any reform constituted an attack on the state. So of course less honorable characters such as Cataline, Marius, Clodius, and Caesar came to the front. These who were prepared to break laws to get their power sadly the noble senators didnt see the futility in ruling against the will of the people

I know already with E-mail Historians are sweating bullets. We truly live in a brave new world, one where there is no hardcopy of people's correspondence They find that the letters of historical figures are most telling about who they were as people. So historians in the future might have ultra-realistic holograms of their politicians. and yet they will only see their public face. such a pity

oh cool you already have a system worked out. I feel dumb now

I agree with Cato. I think we need some way of electing the location other than going around in circles. my humble proposition is... On this thread it appears that Primus Pilus, Cato, and Ursus are the senior members. why not let them be our 'Senate'. These three elder statesmen can work up simple yes or no motions that can be put before the 'comitia' posted on this thread. We can then E-mail in our votes. Hopefully this third Triumvirate will work out without civil war! so, does anyone second me?

HAHA, Ive heard Bush called King George II But for some reason I really dont worry. For example No Roman Emperor would ever let himself be called a "Stupid monkey-man" in public. as I routinely do to Bush. As long as we see our politicians put comedically in place, I think we'll be fine. In two years he'll be sent packing, build a dumb presidential library that no one cares about, and be replaced with another (but hopefully not as big a) moron. "The soul of a republic is that no man is larger than the state"- My high school civics teacher

The joy of her writing makes up for the few historical inaccuracies at least to me (Thats saying a lot Im a stickler for historical details) what do you guys think?

not to be picky but this is what I said and you yourself quoted liberty was not equality equality was worked into the roman myth by neoclassisists