Demson

I remember how unrv started out. It was a fansite for RV made by Viggen. I still don't quite understand how it ended up as today's encyclopedia and for what reason, but I'm happy with it all the same.

Personally I see what would become the Celtic 'culture' as the continuation of an phenomenon that happened when metalworking techniques became avaible to humankind. I've studied the Celts and Romans in comparison to each and it's really quite remarkable how similar they were. Almost every trait possessed by the Celts were also possessed by the Romans. The Romans possessed other traits too however, which is why I say they ended up dominating the Celts. Consider the Celts grew to become a major part of the Roman empire (well, except near the Hadrian and Antonine) after their leadership was dealt with, and it makes sense. It's said the Roman and Celtic cultures were rivals; I say they complemented each other. Then again, I'm generally not taken very seriousily, hahah

Inspiration.

The gladiatrix.

Sorry Lacertus. It was a joke The plan for me was to enlist for a few years and then work as bodyguard to build up a small fortune. I imagined living fairly simplistic and spartan, using my income to invest. I don't have much family, even less friends. So it would be an ideal lifestyle. Eventually, when it's time to build a family, I would look for a different career, something with plenty of family time. I'm having second thoughts though. It's not that I don't want to go down that path, it's that I wouldn't be able to stay in touch with a very close friend. I really can't accustom to the thought of having to go without her. So I'm looking for another career path, one with future as well as the oppertunity to stay in touch. Problem is I don't have the financial backing for an extensive education, so I have to do something where I can learn and develop as I go.

What was your original premise exactly? What made them different from other cultures? Or what made Roman, Roman? If so - that's answered by summing up the events the Romans dealt with throughout history. The oppression by foreign kings, the creation of the republic, the conquest of other tribes, the sack of Rome, the conquest of the penisuela, the Punic wars, the greek wars, the gaulic conquest, etc. I'm really not sure from what angle you're coming from. Why is the discussion we had so far off-topic?

I'm considering to migrate to Russia and become a Bearded Intelligentsia

That makes sense. And as the Romans happened to be the best at being the better, it's especially true for Romans.

Believe it or not, the notion that western and northern Europeans lived as neanderthalers before the Romans came is quite widespread. I agree that the Romans considered few other cultures to be civilised. But the Celtic, Germanic, Iberian societies were great civilisations in their own right. There might be a link between the decline of slavery and the decline of the Empire. The empire was an agricultural society unified by urban administration and power. Rome seem to have prospered after wars, when there were spoils and slaves to support urban life. But when the slaves ran out, and serfdom came into play... The Empire disintigrated and the feudal age began.

Wasn't it mostly about freedom from foreign oppression? IE freedom from another community? The republic was also found on the idea of freedom from a monarch. Rulers were to be rulers because of merit rather than bloodline. For allot of Emperors, this was true I think.

Perhaps it was used for the rampart/archers cover of the walls. I don't know anything about Roman engineering though. You might want to try to contact a university specialised in archeology with it.

Interesting how the majority of the settlements are near the coast or waterways. It kind of shows how important the Mediterranean was to the classical civilisations. Seafaring was the most effective and efficient mode of transport until the steam age. It's central sea access is part of what made Rome's italy so great, in my opinion. But I'm rambling

General Roman history, though I'm trying to 'specialise' in the Roman-Celtic relationship. There are allot of Roman historians, and a few Celtic ones too. The whole Roman-Celtic area seems to be pretty oppertunity rich. Celtic historians tend to see of the Romanisation from a Celtic viewpoint, and Roman historians share the same supiority complexes. I have the fortune of being (reasonably) unbiassed with this, since I maintain a pretty simple viewpoint on them; they were from two completely different era's. Who knows, maybe one day I'll write a book on it. /points at his weblog.

I understand the point fully. My point was that if you want to define a Roman, you might want to consider what the Romans thought of the matter themselves. Citizenship doesn't automatically mean people thought of themselves as Romans in a cultural sense. I know plenty of people who have Dutch nationality but consider themselves to be Morrocan, or German, or Japanese. The hoplites of Greece acted to futher the glory of their city to prove their city state's superiority as well. A Celtic 'freemen' followed a noblemen to prove his valour and honour and perhaps earn the right to take care of his nobleman's cattle, making him a bondsman. When a bondsman earned enough cattle, he could futher elivate himself to noblemen by leasing his cattle to freemen, making them his bondsman. As nobleman, he leads the freemen and bondsman of his tribe so that they can prove their valour and honour. Romans had certain charactaristics, but it wasn't the uniqueness of their traits that made them Roman. Rather the whole combination of those traits and more importantly, their success with those traits. The sense of nationalism and teamwork is the first trait I think of when speaking of Romans. Of course, other classical cultures had this sense too but as I'm 'specialising' in the Celtic-Roman relationships I tend to look at Romans in that light. Celts were highly individual, Romans were much more collective. I guess it means different things to different people. Could you please elaborate?

So far that link has been a really good read. Very insightful. I have yet to detect revisionisme. It's pretty obvious that the Celts did indeed practise human sacrifise. Am I happy to live in the 21-st century. It will be a worthwhile past time in Roma Victor though.