ASCLEPIADES

Salve, SF Strictly speaking, villa was simply any kind of isolated rural house, in opposition from those gathered together in the cities. Here comes Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber II, cp. LXII, sec III: Alter consul Aemilius in Sabinis bellum gessit. Et ibi, quia hostis moenibus se tenebat, uastati agri sunt. Incendiis deinde non uillarum modo sed etiam uicorum quibus frequenter habitabatur Sabini exciti... "The other consul, Aemilius, conducted a campaign amongst the Sabines. There, too, as the enemy kept behind their walls, their fields were laid waste. The burning not only of scattered homesteads but also of villages with numerous populations roused the Sabines to action..." (at CCLXXXIV AUC / 470 BC) (Villarum, is the genitive plural of villa).

Salve, Maryv. That pseudo-etymology seems to have been a popular misconception some time ago. Soccage was British feudalism in its purest form; land for military service. From the Medieval English Law, "a tenure of land held by the tenant in performance of specified services or by payment of rent, and not requiring military service". It is contrasted with other forms of tenure including serjeanty (the farmer paid no rent but had to perform some personal/official service on behalf of his lord, including in times of war) and frankalmoin (some form of religious service). The statute of Quia Emptores (1290) established that socage tenure passed automatically from one generation to the next. As feudalism declined socage tenure increased until it became the normal form of tenure in England. In 1660, the Statute of Tenures ended the remaining forms of military service and all free tenures were converted into socage. 'Free and Common Soccage' was offered to British subjects in exchange for coming to the Colonies ; consequently, it was one of the main American Colonists quarrels against George III government for reserving those lands west from the Appalachian Mountains "to the Indians". The word socage (socagge is its archaic form) came from Middle English sokage (circa 1275

Not me, unfortunately. Rome's and Romanian Fall and decline is a quite complex issue that would get us out and far from this thread's original question. Briefly: It's HUMAN farming (as a whole) which was and is responsible for the destruction of croplands and desertification of the soil, but also for feeding us all from the Neolithic on. There's a current trend among scholars to attribute ecological degradation a more important role in civilizations' collapse than previously thought; there are some nice threads on this same issue here at UNRV. Rapa Nui (Easter Island) should be the best example; Anasazi culture would be another. Ecological degradation was probably a major factor in the collapse of many cultures, from the Indus Valley to Mesoamerica. Now, the problem with the Roman Fall & Decline is always the same; something "fell and declined", but exactly what? We should define this before selecting from the myriad potential explanations about the "how" to discuss on.

"Brian" seems to be more religious than tolerant. Christies plans to auction this piece at early 2009. For better or for worse, business is crystal clear; Bank of Iberia owned the statue, Christies bought it.

Salve, Amici If you're reading this thread, you should be reading this one too

Basically, almost all that spread Greek culture (Sophocles, Socrates, Phidias, Aristophanes and so on) came from the petty turf warf period, not from the imposed unity periods, no matter if the imposers were Roman, Persian or Macedonian.

Formam aedificiorum urbis novam excogitavit et ut ante insulas ac domos porticus essent, de quarum solariis incendia arcerentur; easque sumptu suo exstruxit. "He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments he erected porches, from the flat roofs of which fires could be fought; and these he put up at his own cost". In the view of any firefighter, the value of a porch with a flat roof is that it would be a good platform to work from (or gain access through a window) while not being immediately susceptible to the conflagration if the fire were contained inside of the building. But I wonder about the word

Salve, D From The Independent, Hadrian waltz out of New Iberia: "... The 7-foot-tall, full length statue of the Roman emperor Hadrian... Carved in 127 A.D. ... the statue is the only extant full length portrait of the emperor in the United States. It was removed from Rome in 1820 by the 4th Earl of Darnley, and brought to Coban Hall in Kent, England. From there, it came into the possession of New Orleans collector Wilson J. Raker, until it was sold at auction by Sothby and Co. in 1957. IberiaBank purchased the statue for $3,000. Its worth today is speculated anywhere from $300,000 to nearly $1 million... New Iberia historian Paul Schwing, at first the statue was inside the bank.

Salve, Lady N. Wow. Quite cleaver observation.

As far as I know, "silla" is no Latin word. We know you know Latin but, did you really read what I wrote?? the Silla was an anecdotic note which I used to talk about the existing word in Latin "Sella" which then I used to explain the confusion it could bring to ancient latin speakers.... My post was focused on Sella, not Silla. Men, I don't think it was that hard to understand... Huh... sorry; now I get it. (at last!)

Glad you found it useful, K

And in another related thead, just check out Suetonius on the Insulae status under Nero

Here comes a Hittite text that seems to have definitely made more sense to modern prevalent ethos. This is the earliest surviving peace treaty in World's History, the Ramesses (II) / Hattusili (III) eternal treaty, aka the Kadesh treaty, currently most commonly dated to 1258 BC (21st year of Ramesses' reign), here in a clay copy of the lost original silver tablet at the Istanbul Archeological Museum (Bilingual version). A replica of the Treaty is on display at the United Nations Headquarters, at the entrance to the Security Council chamber. The Hittite version begins as follows: "It is concluded that Reamasesa-Mai-amana , the Great King, the king (of the land of Egypt) with Hattusili, the Great King, the king of the land of Hatti, his brother, for the land of Egypt and the land of Hatti, in order to establish a good peace and a good fraternity forever among them".

Salve, Caton Your link was broken, so I reposted it. Gratiam habeo for such useful tip; just remember it's a "limited preview" format.

While it may not be definitive, depending of course on Dionysius' source(s), it clearly suggests a direct relationship with the Greek rather than Carthaginian system. Dionysius, also being Greek, may have had his own suggestive interpretation here as well. Well, from this specific quotation I would understand that Dionysius was not suggesting a Greek origin for the consular office, but discussing on the translation of the Latin word "consul" to Greek.

Salve, I. Here comes Titus Flavius Josephus Ioudaike Archaiologia, Liber XII cp. VI: ... there came one of the Jews into the midst of them, and sacrificed...(he) ran upon him violently... and slew both the man himself that sacrificed... He also overthrew the idol altar, and cried out, "If," said he," any one be zealous for the laws of his country, and for the worship of God, let him follow me"... Many others did the same also, and fled with their children and wives into the desert, and dwelt in caves... So (he) got a great army about him, and overthrew their idol altars, and slew those that broke the laws, even all that he could get under his power; for many of them were dispersed among the nations round about them for fear of him. He also commanded that those boys which were not yet circumcised should be circumcised now..." I understand how all these can be seen as tyrannical and guilty for provoking a civil war; only problem I see is that we're talking here about the Maccabean revolt of the first Hasmoneans at the II century BC, not the I century AD zealots. ("He" is Mattathias). The main difference between both groups would be that the first one did win and the latter didn't. Their methods seem quite similar to me.

Nothing to do with Rome at all. Salve, Amici. We agree, C. Not every supranational entity is an Empire. The egalitarian condition among the EU members makes their status analogous to that of many ancient cities' leagues (ie. in Greece or in Etruria); but hardly that of the Delian League, as it was an Athenian "empire". Across all its long history, the proud Rome always considered itself equal to no one. Previous to World War II, European history was a contest for ruling the World; any idea of European "unity" basically implied general conquest (ie, Napoleon). Now, that was an idea that would have been easily understood by any Roman. The EU is fundamentally a by-product of the Cold War, once the ruling superpowers were European countries no more. BTW, the EU egalitarian condition (In varietate concordia) precludes considering it as an Empire. As far as I know, the EU members don't pretend their collective dominance over any other country.

Salve, Amici. Here comes Caius Suetonius T. on the status of the Insulae at the time of the Great fire (DCCCXVII AUC / 64 BC): De Vitae Caesarum, Vita Neronis, cp. XXII, sec I): Formam aedificiorum urbis novam excogitavit et ut ante insulas ac domos porticus essent, de quarum solariis incendia arcerentur; easque sumptu suo exstruxit. "He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments he erected porches, from the flat roofs of which fires could be fought;and these he put up at his own cost". & ibid, cp. XXXVIII, sec II: Tunc praeter immensum numerum insularum domus priscorum ducum arserunt . "At that time, besides an immense number of dwellings, the houses of leaders of old were burned," & ibid, cp. XLIV, sec II: Partem etiam census omnes ordines conferre iussit et insuper inquilinos privatarum aedium atque insularum pensionem annuam repraesentare fisco. He also required all classes to contribute a part of their incomes, and all tenants of private houses and apartments to pay a year's rent at once to the privy purse.

Anything on the cultural or technological side?

Salve, NN. I'm really not sure if the primary source of the following is reliable, but here it comes from en.Wikipedia's article on "Sino-Roman relations" (sic): "At the formerly coastal site of

Another critical admirer of the Megalopolitan was John Adams; from his A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States (1787), Vol I, Letter XXX-XXXI : "Thus, my dear Sir, you see that Polybius's opinion of different orders, checks, and balances, in a commonwealth, is very different from that of Mr. Turgot. The Roman constitution formed the noblest people, and the greatest power, that has ever existed. But if all the powers of the consuls, senate, and people, had been centered in a single assembly of the people, collectively or representatively, will any man pretend to believe that they would have been long free, or ever great? The distribution of power was however never accurately or judiciously made in that constitution: the executive was never sufficiently separated from the legislative, nor had these powers a controul upon each other defined with sufficient accuracy: the executive had not power to interpose and decide between the people and the senate. As we advance in this correspondence, we may see cause to differ widely from the judgment or Polybius, "that it is impossible to invent a more perfect system of government." We may be convinced that the constitution of England, if its balance is seen to play, in practice, according to the principles of its theory

Salve U; excellent reading indeed. Even if Niccolo's object of study were T. Livius' first ten books, I think he had relied more on Polybius for his analysis. For example, check on Book I, cp. V: "To whom can the guardianship of Liberty more safely be confided, to the Nobles or to the People?... The Laced