caesar novus

That's pretty interesting. I'm sure they have their hands full for a hundred years already, but wanted to suggest some sites for future searching. I'm thinking of Italian military zones. They may be strategic now for the same reasons as for the Romans, but would I be right to guess many are currently falling into disuse? Also some may be relatively undeveloped/undisturbed compared to privately held land. For example there is a large forested conical hill in SE Capri that is fenced off for the military (maybe radar or transmitters?). I don't know the name, but its directly in from the Faraglioni rocks where boats zoom thru a natural arch. It just feels like a site for one of the supposed 6 imperial villas on Capri, being a prominent spot between the Villa Jovis and the other one now supposedly replaced by the current Certosa. You can circle it on one of the most beautiful walking trails on earth, branching off Via Tragera. Also it looks possibly free of historical dwellings.... the Swedish doctor Axel Munthe reported in his 1880's book "The History of San Michele" that Capri residents working on their home foundations would find and systematically destroy many Roman artifacts (erotic mosaics, etc) due to the bad reputation of Tiberious with respect to Christianity. Well, if not there maybe other coastal military sites...

Villa Jovis of Augustus and the actual headquarters of Tiberius is on a promontory on the island of Capri, Italy with one of the most outrageously beautiful settings on earth (and sublime food, nowdays): http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=villa+jovis Hadrians Villa near Tivoli, Italy is almost a city of palaces. To get a different set of photos, overtype "hadrians" with "adriana" (or whatever you like; it's just a dynamic sampling from a universe of tourist's photos): http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=hadrians+villa Diocletians Palace on the waterfront of Split, Croatia was actually his incomprehensibly vast retirement home. Apply a little imagination to filter out it's later updates and busy commercialism. http://www.flickr.com/search/show/?q=diocletians+palace

Yes, for example the most charismatic John Kennedy seems to have been a pretty bad president. Some say even his main accomplishment in winning the Cuban missile crises was a actually a loss because his concession to USSR that the US would forever work to prevent Castro's overthrow by any third party, which would have likely been attempted umpteen times by now. Touching on the religious issues raised by your dictionary, some of the charismatic US presidents may have been chosen for their perceived religiosity as much as for charm. Put aside those on the right, which tend to be religious and charmless. On the left, the candidate pool tends more towards charm and agnosticism. The strange thing is that successful candidates on the left seem to be favored for their plausible religious connections. Even if it is not one favored by the majority, like JFK's catholicism, and Obama's loony church of racism. Bill Clinton was another standout from the candidate pool of the left in having Baptist associations (don't ask then why not Hillary, having the charm of fingernails scraping a blackboard).

I've been knocked out by the visual quality of high def TV documentaries on a big screen for covering Roman Empire sites and monuments. I have thought to myself that it can seem better than when I have actually visited in person, and recently have even heard others mention that. Maybe because in person you have glare and noisy people pushing in the way, etc... let alone the fact you may be mentally and financially exhausted getting to Ephesus or where ever. It's remarkable that even documentaries that are mostly junk can have bewitching moments in HD, and now with a digital signal you can often back up and freeze on bits and pieces still in the decode buffer where they caught the coolest thing in just half a second of broadcast. Examples are History channel shows (caution, just their mention may induce projectile vomiting) Cities of the Underworld or Naked Archeologist. At least they have a sense of humor about exaggeration and innuendo so you know it is with a wink to bring in the bill paying demographic. If not content to mine the channels of TV documentaries over years, you can sometimes target big pools of photos with appropriate keywords, and start a machine gun slideshow. Try it on someplace you have been - sometimes they do justice to a place that took pretty miserable logistics for you to experience in person. Like flicker.com or google image search or ? Is it crazy to switch one's focus to new media rather than personal experience for Roman sites and monuments? I would never consider this for older (ntsc) TV, even with big screens, which just show a cartoon-like image that can't really spring to life. Maybe makes more sense for someone who has initial experience, especially of the more convenient sites. Then they can sort of "translate" media to reality for the harder to get to places (will save wear and tear on the sites also).

I have a question that maybe belongs in another thread (these forum categories have names that leave me eternally confused). What really is Fascism? Is it just an extreme on the left-right spectrum? Can Roman Republic or Empire be placed there (or maybe on a 2D spectrum?). Some (Yale or Princeton) professor wrote a book defining fascism in the most complicated way that seemed to fail Occam's razor - something about a consensus that democracy cannot work and heads have to be whacked (democraticly deciding against democracy?). Hitler put the Z into nazi party by adding national SOCIALIST workers party. He hated communists, but maybe as a family squabble because they were competing for the same anti-establishment demographic. Yes, he had his socialist brownshirts slaughtered at one point, but he was very reluctant to do so (delaying execution of the top guy for long) and apparently activated operation longknives only after false reports of an uprising planted by Goering and Himmler. So he was Fascist, but somehow aspired to be a national socialist rather than internationalist? I guess it's hard to tell how he would have organized the economy absent the special cases needed during war.

I heard a recognized expert of Roman-era Jewish archeology speak about some of the misconceptions common in TV documentaries. Some comments tread on sensitive ground and won't likely be so blatantly stated in normal channels of print or other media. I'll attempt to pass some on here, while not being specific about the source because I'll probably mangle the points (so judge for yourself). Claims of Christ family tombs and ossuaries (eg James): These were for the rich; in the very unlikely event the Christ family had one, it would not be in Jerusalem but more likely Nazareth. James was poor and hated pretentions of the rich anyway. Ossuaries were used in several regions of the world, but for wealthy Jews it was a fashion specifically borrowed from the Roman crematory urns which were identical in form (although used differently - for non crematory reburial). Similarly, the Jewish rock cut tombs were earlier borrowed from the Greeks, not for reasons of ideology, but as a form of upwardly mobile fashion items. (OK, archeologists can really only guess about "why", but they have suggestive evidence) Jesus resurrection: If Jesus had not risen from divine causes, the body would anyway be very likely to disappear from the tomb in a couple days. The tomb was just provided to solve a temporary catch22 of Jewish law where bodies have to be buried within 24 hours of death, but not during a sabbath. Jesus died a few hours before a 24 hour sabbath, so was was hurriedly lent a tomb by a nonfamily member who had to ask the Romans permission to intervene. These tombs were normally strictly for one family and already had capacity problems that required assembly-line reburial of older remains. So it would be expected that the rich owners of the tomb might rebury a "visitor" in a middle class trench type grave after having done the favor for compliance with those 2 laws.

Yeah, but keep the blame on managerialism before capitalism. Capitalism would have the owners rejecting excessive deals for management through their own financial interest, and it is puzzling why their wishes fail to get transmitted via the board of directors that they vote in. In the US, some say it is rigged because companies almost exclusively claim the shareholder-unfriendly state of Delaware as a regulatory home, sort of a flag of convenience like Liberia is for ships. Also too few vote their shares; in the US almost everybody is a shareholder but often through intermediaries such as with pensions. Management culture used to err in the opposite extreme. Instead of being hyper-responsive to financial opportunities, they were stagnant and refused to unleash the power of their capital and employees. When this was kicked loose by the so-called takeover raiders (1980's?), the press reviled them as greedy and layoff creators. But that was the stick that brought better health to business and actually to workers as well. Later (1990's) it was turbocharged by a carrot approach to attract and bait managers to even further achievement. Every such experiment that works will be pushed to test it's limits, and it was unfortunate this limit wasn't detected in more normal times. But unfortunately the aftermath of Asia's 1997 crash led to huge global distortions that enabled the western world to defy gravity for the next decade. Overreacting in a defensive way, China was a "pusher" of funds and the US (plus UK etc) was the "junkie" debtor: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12972083 I'm suggesting it was an unfortunate collision of 2 cycles of excess that could have been expected to sort themselves out in the normal way capitalism turns colliding self interests into solutions bearable to each side. But the confluence of cycles let things go way overboard. Over regulation of capitalism may be the worst response. It's crazy to think similar bonus system would go on, when it's very structure offers zero to folks in the rest of the cycle (eg. "underwater" options). Regulation has been among root causes of some of this, like Clinton-era restrictive terms for Asian bailouts and government mandates pushing mortgage money to sketchy borrowers. Allow flexibility and unclog the channels of counterbalancing self interest that keep things in line. There used to be famous "turnaround" CEO's who would go from one dying company to another and revive them, but the current populist outrage wouldn't allow enticing those experts with enough compensation.

Boo hoo, I'm gonna miss this years "Culture Week" in Italy the third week in April. I can't read the language in http://www.beniculturali.it/sala/dettaglio...,cs&Id=2958 but I assume it is the usual case where all state run museums and archeology sites are free. Can be useful to "mop up" some of the places lower on your priority list. For example maybe you didn't visit the remote vilas outside of Pompei that are included in the same ticket, but never get around to them due to the large package admission. Not sure what it covers, but has been useful for me in sampling a bunch of museums that were in general unlikely to justify admission, but had a few rewarding surprises. I guess all Euro and especially Pound denominated prices are in freefall to those exchanging from US$ anyway.

Might not be all authentic. There is a small museum in Rome that opens your eyes to a lot of mischief that has been done to Roman statues. I don't know how widespread it was, but they show many examples of statues that were revised due to the fashion of the times a few hundred years ago. They show shaded areas where perhaps 20% of it was altered so that a rich owner could upgrade his marble to the contemporary idea of the most prized god or whatever.

Could go to Alexandria instead - convenient via metro with an interesting colonial historical area and pleasant ambiance for casual eating or even better for overnight base. Also nice is Georgetown (see the historic canal) and Dupont circle area with it's many embassies that you will soon be surrendering to I briefly lived in Manassas when young, and for some reason didn't resonate at all with the physical battlefield site or the Monticello complex, even though the history interests me. Monticello architecture seemed pokey and bland, and the battlefield site seemed vacant, so you may want to pre-charge your young one with the historical significance beforehand. I did groove on the more palladian-correct Jefferson Memorial where I loved to watch sunrise over the blooming cherry trees before the crowds came. One of my favorite lesser known attractions is http://dc.about.com/od/historichomes/a/Hillwood.htm which is sort of a mini Russian winter palace, which has reopened recently and dropped the need for reservations. A lesser known Smithsonian that might interest a kid more is the little underground one on African Art. Both of these are more bold and flamboyant than you may expect. What used to be the holy grail of all air and space museums in the country has been transformed and moved from Maryland to Dulles. Maybe now it is a slick, conventional museum comparable to the Smithsonian mall one. But the original one was a working restoral warehouse of the most amazing world aircraft thru history, and even let you mess with the planes. I thought it was crazy, but followed their request to rub my hand over the B29 Enola Gay to test effectiveness of different protective coatings. And I was the only one in the tour group who took them up on an offer to climb into a fighter cockpit, even though I was on crutches with a cast. Those were the days, in the holy of holies... I might consider some of the military museums just to the south. There seems to be a new Marine museum there, but most interesting to me might be an Army Museum that has the famous tanks thru history and artillery, etc. Seems to be curated by that really fat interesting guy that is always on the WW2 TV documentaries... i found by googling earlier, as well as possible Naval air museum.

Agreed, not only due to their threat to Roman homeland, but the stories of child sacrifice in Carthage are supremely outrageous if true (?)

There is a clause in the treasure law or whatever that says the British Museum owns it if of great historical value. I was talking about the Hoxne Hoard of 15000 Roman coins (500 gold), which in the early 90's went to the Museum forever, and only this year is curator Catherine Johns expecting to publish a catalog of them. But I guess she published something about them earlier, and the finder did get a big compensation check before dying. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encycl...vent/hoxne.html http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highl...oxne_hoard.aspx

That HNN article is at a knee-jerk level, scooping up disjointed mudslinging statements along with only some silly positive statements just for pretence of balance. Here is a more adult assessment, about equally hostile, but at least taking responsiblity for their judgements: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstate...ory_id=12931660 Securitywise, the Bush1/Clinton/Bush2/Obama alternation may reflect a good cop / bad cop kind of approach which can be very effective in dealing with tough advisaries. I believe the electorate unconciously applies this. The "good" cop drips with empathy and focuses good intentions or at least good potential out of his subject. Contrary to widespread Christian or new age beliefs, there is an age old demographic for which this emboldens ruthless and unreasonable acts. Next they get handed to the "bad" cop (actually a tough love cop with hard exterior) who shocks the transgressors with realworld limits and consequences. This throws them back in the arms of good cop, where constructive negotiation can proceed (easier treatment due to circumstances or revealing associates or the body or repayment). That is the concept; spare me the obvious observations where this was done incompetently or where the issue was misunderstood. But the hostile press overlooks the buildup of embolded action and rhetoric by adversaries under Clinton, and the quiet unwinding after Iraq invasion such as with Libyan nuclear program. Yeah, there is a P.R. cost. Similarly in financials, it was the "nurturing" Clinton approach which by law forced Ginnie/Freddie to throw mortgage money at hopeless deadbeats. Bush tried to reform this, but was outvoted (same for immigration reform). Bush was a terrible communicator about his constructive acts. Anyway, Bush is inherently a type that is viscerally disliked by many and time will have to tell about a lot of things. Understand that he is a Cultural Conservative vs. a Philosophical Conservative. Anyone might be swayed or at least have grudging respect for the logic of a philosophic point, but culture is pretty ingrained. By "Cultural", I don't mean the slavish regression to the past like some Euro conservative movements, but an ideology that still respects many principles whose logic may be hard to appreciate, but they seemed to allow Darwinian survival of societies. Conservatism has to be split in this way, because it's philosophical principles may take a lifetime to accept thru the hard knocks of dealing with real human nature vs the wishful thinking that you are born with and experience with a mother. Churchill said "To be conservative at 20 is heartless and to be a liberal at 60 is plain idiocy". For "logical" conservativism to survive this problem at the voter box, it has to have some young "cultural" support, even if is something weird brought along by natural selection like a platypus with doubtful appendages. I think cultural conservatism is bad tasting medicine with bad side effects, but is a needed part of life occasionally. The western world can rejoice all it wants at eliminating cultural conservatism and being nurturing to the (culturally conservative) world, but it will likely kill needed elements of philosophical conservatism and implode like the Roman world. P.S. Some bad things thing Bush did to gain populist support may have great counter effects. He defied ideology and the mantle of responsiblity to giveaway selective trade protection and expensive medicine coverage. This was normally the knee-jerk position of the opposing "mommy" party, but gave them cover to rise to a more nuanced and responsible position. Sounds trivial, but I sense much of the old deadlocked paradigm may have been shattered and allowing Obama's "change" slogan. That slogan sounds weirdly plausible, because even though he comes from one of the most thoroughly corrupt regional gov'ts in the country and instead of reforming it just sidled up to unsavory characters in the pursuit of street cred, I think he lacks much ideology of any kind and can at least entertain the practical good.

Agree, but with a slightly different spin. Issue wasn't only monotheism (Rome wasn't likely to become Jewish), but the taming of a religion that threatened to be transformational of politics and culture if not co-opted. Mono or poly theisms can each be the usual political and social lubricants to an existing order, or at least relatively neutral. But a religion having ideological vitality to the point of being a threat likely will have single (mono) loyalty. After all, couldn't many of the Christians executions be revoked if they would simply give lip service to the additional gods? Self interest and forces of history may have led Romans to institutionalize Christianity (or the like) and marginalize Christian mystics, but here's a half baked brainstorm suggesting their wise foresight, possibly trying to delay the advent of ideological kooks like Stalin or Pol Pot. I've noticed how radical atheistic left movements often seem to be infused with Christian ideals, and are really advocating a subset of these (like equality) taken to their literal "damn the consequences" extreme. Basically the religion they reject may have left them feeling perversely sanctioned for a fractured reinvention. Was recently surprised to see a well argued non Christian case in "Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare" that he brought about mass murder of his own people not on the basis of Stalinism that French taught him (he preferred examples of French revolution beheadings) or even on the brutality of SE Asian war, but on the very principles of Th. Buddhism, such as how individuals and their material wants don't matter. He was atheist, but had culturally infused some of it's principles as a dysfunctional response to... [omitting pre western historical reasons for Khmer territorial paranoia and bipolar switches between brutality and mellowness]. Anyway, another kook running amok empowered by (cultural basis of) the transformational religion they reject. Not even an individual personality issue, because Pol Pot was claimed to be a bland non-entity whose associates did much dirty work without direction. Back to your #1 - the vitality and technical prowess of Iberian explorers may have their roots back in Diamond's geographical theory in "Guns, Germs, and Steel, the fates of human societies". Geography modulates food production potential, which lets the tech-saavy crowd out societies less productive of food. #2 Never thought of Protestant being a product of middle class interests, but maybe that helps explain lack of Islamic reformation. There seem to be elements of Protestantism that aren't strictly spiritual but give a basis of contract law, etc. #3 Agree for WW1, although the Anglo countries didn't strictly have to participate. Could agree for WW2 Japan and the unopposed early victories of Hitler like Austria and Czech. But was expansion to France and Russia inevitable? The Army opposed the early plans for this and looked poised to get rid of Hitler, until a last minute change from an unpromising to an ingenius French invasion plan was made, and it's success made opposition politically untenable. By the way, the excellent 13-part documentary series on "Hitler's Bodyguard" has me thinking of the Romans all the time. Covers 40 attempts on his life, and especially the power struggles in the pre-war years somehow bring to life the pressures the Roman emperors must have faced, many of them meeting with assassination. There was a time Hitler was a bluffing underdog and did much of his own thuggish dirty work under high personal risk. The detailing of this brings understanding of a dog-eat-dog world of political survival that I couldn't earlier relate to just from Roman chronicles.

So the British Museum isn't taking possession for umpteen years of cataloging? I heard a lecture by a B.M. lady who was in charge of publishing the findings on one of the most major finds of Roman coins in Britain, and IIRC she hadn't gotten around to doing so after many years. Showed photos of the guy who had discovered them, who was long since dead. Had intriguing things to say about evidence about the ebb and flow of Christianity in Britain, based on frequency of CHI RHO (sp?) symbols found, which I imagine may or may not be known by scholars due to her tardiness. That motivated me to seek out more info, such as on this forum.

I wonder if a recessionary springtime will be an ideal time to visit Roman sites. I went there a few weeks after the 9/11 disruption, and the lack of crowds gave you so much flexibility. Hotel space was always available at last minute, and negotiable at a fraction of usual price. You could stopover at Pompeii with a bunch of luggage and they had plenty of room to store it free. etc, etc... best Italian visit I ever had.

Seems like the Romans saw no great drawback to having 2 or even more co-leaders, for the military or even civil side once in a while. How is this possible... it is such a textbook recipe for disaster nowdays to have split accountability. How was this done effectively? I guess the generals sometimes alternated days and the emperors tended to have different subregions and maybe a primary guy for breaking tie votes? I can see some advantages, but also deep, deep dysfunctionality. I had 2 co-bosses myself in a joint venture, and they could play the ambiguity like not taking the hard, unpopular decision that needed to be made (leave it to the other guy, who leaves it to the other guy...). Misery, paralysis and fog.

A surname just tracks one side of the family, or maybe not even that very accurately. With the advent of easy self-service DNA testing that can be related to geographical regions, I wondered what the typical DNA profile was for a modern descendant of Roman Republicans. I am talking about services like decodeme.com and I refer to the Republic because the Empire probably brought in a wide mix of genes. They do this seperately for male and female ancestory by looking at only some weird genes that are cloned to the same sex children, and not mixed by the parents. Amazingly they can ID the last unique mutation, guess it's date, and relate it to approximate geographical location. I believe if you are lucky you have a recent mutation (don't worry, just in junk genes that doesn't cause a problem but serves as a flag) that relates to a time and place only about twice as old as Roman era. In my case there was a false alarm about Sardinian maternal ancestory. But that mitochondrial flag was so extremely old that that it it had spread all around since women emerged from caves. The male y group flag was recent and exactly agreed with the 6+ centuries of marriage records I have, which (sigh) pretty much work against Roman regional heritage on either side. I may be explaining this poorly, but it is facinating about what can be done in some cases, maybe for Italy or maybe not. BTW females lack their fathers Y-chromosome flags, so may want to get a mouth swab of a brother or father. I believe National Geographic will do the male and female test seperately at half price each. Males needn't do this because they do inherit the female mitochondrials. P.S. an example of some Italian gene flags is in the middle of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogr...y_ethnic_groups ...or lost somewhere in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_...tDNA.29_testing

I resonate to the response of Rome to Hannibal's crushing and almost total victory.... implacable denial of defeat by the forces against you! Not mindless bravado, but a quiet steely determinism to take every step to better your situation, however modest. I am in awe of how Rome could do this, apparently not just from the top down, but as a society.

Maybe the Constantine era Romans were wise to have a more inclusive idea of Christmas that reached out to pagan sun worshippers, war mongers, and the like. They set it to the winter solstice in the 10th ("dec") month of Romulas, which would now be December 22 if the changeover to gregorian calendar hadn't knocked it askew. ... because that is when the sun turns toward strength. I realize the materialistic side of Christmas has spread to secular, buddhist, confucian etc. worlds, but what about the spiritual side? When that gregorian calendar change delinked Christmas from the solstice we saw the rise of secular renaissance and enlightenment movements that put a squeeze on mankind's natural religious nature, which then came out in fringe ways such as from hippie sun worship to kwanzaa. Why not take a lesson from Halloween, which thrives in a synthesis of the pagan and Christian ("all hallows eve"). Reset Christmas to Dec 22 and encourage bonfire parties at stonehenge-like sundial structures around sunset. Pay tribute to Constantine's war god by throwing straw filled replicas of your enemies into the fire. The Christian intellegensia can continue to put the focus on the "true" spirit of Christmas, but meanwhile there is a socially binding ideology for the rest

Nightmare in Split, Croatia? What is the latest status of this proposal? I think this is one of the most underappreciated Roman sites around, due to it's veneer of post Roman modifications and trinket shops. But if you have a few ounces of imagination, it's stunning essence as the worlds largest private residence speaks volumes. Especially the rightmost quadrant of the palace and also the basement is in good Roman shape. Maybe I was blown away because I happened to arrive at a quiet, evocative dawn, and with low expectations. It must be one of the most derided disappointments in the tourist forums, because they expect Versailles but get busy shops and occupied apartments. Maybe construction could be done tastfully replacing only the most recent rennovations inside, but please don't nuke older stuff! Even the understatement of the building is amazing... such audacity to build something so vast just for one persons retirement.

I think I will have to ban alcohol from that university when I revive the empire there. If you come up with Somalian/Ethiopian appearance for a Greek/Macedonian, wouldn't a sober mind suspect a bit of stylization by the ancient painters? She and all her ancestors were supposed to speak Greek, and she was said the first one to be able to mumble a bit in Egyptian. She may have a trace of local blood in her family tree, but this wikipedia diagram makes it look about as tight/inbred/incestuous as it gets. She is shown at the bottom as CleoVII, apparently the product of several brother-sister pairings:

Such videos are sponsored by embedded commercials (I guess this is just starting in youtube). Even when the sponsor is intnl (such as in hulu case), it is apparently handled by a national branch who balks at paying for expensive bandwidth not directed to their potential customers. Anyway, I concur with the critique of the original post. Such portentious melodrama... sort of like the way a Hitler or Napoleon documentary would have been done years ago - a cartoon morality tale. I just saw documentaries on the latter 2 done in an adult matter-of-fact way, and just wish they could do the Roman Era in a similar way. The real story is so amazing and dramatic if you can just hear it instead of being prodded with overwrought music and graphics. One alternative is to find a free podcast of a university course on Rome. I found one terrible one from UC Berkeley (which simply lambasted Rome as politically incorrect), but there must be more. I know of some good ones that are redistributed at high cost (TTC, TMS). And some free ones by questionable amateur historians.

Hmmmph, I heard an interesting talk by author of "Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church" touching on how Roman it is in spirit and function. And how Protestant types of Christianity, although they may appear to be going "back to basics" of Roman era Christianity, actually tend toward a quite modern mold of Utopianism that Roman citizens might find alien. So I guess any Roman or Constantine influence may be largely found Catholic or Orthodox branches of Christianity. Just brainstorming about macro issues, like relations of religion to government or to individual. Author Crocker seemed to say the way the Catholic church does an ambiguous dance between itself and sinning people or governments (accepting yet prodding... the inquisition never being the norm) ia actually an effective way of dealing with problems evolved from long Roman experience (of worse ways of handling). "Sin" may be furiously condemned, but clear cut cases with victims are already dealt with in secular gov't, and as you go out in the spectrum of semi-victimless "sin" the softer approach maybe being wise. Contrast this with the last few hundred years, where Protestestants or Marxists or even recent environmental extremists sought to get full government enforcement of not only the obvious crimes with victims, but a whole spectum of "sin" that is probably bad, or possibly bad, or maybe only speculatively bad. This even backfired, as close legal binding of Protestant church with state led to loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the public... same with Marxist states. So maybe the old Romans peering down from heaven or where-ever are shaking their heads thinking the world has gone off track from the gift of their civilization. Just as we have modified their row toilets to dysfunctional follow-ons like the low flow toilet, we have also gone from their modulated handling of sin to over/under correction. I'm sure they would admit their heritage could be improved upon, but we may still have not completely returned from the dark ages digressions. Let's face every problem by first thinking how the Romans would handle it, and only improve on it when and if it really makes sense (grin)!

I wonder whether Roman floor mosaics had symbolic meaning or was essentially decorative. I mean besides the banal "celebration of X" when you see picture of X, but something more philosophical or political such as you might find in renaissance art. For some reason the braided border lines jump out to me as more intricate than needed for decorative whimsey. Of course I know their swastikas don't relate to 20th century meanings. Some of the mosaics seem almost ugly but still riveting somehow. Maybe some are a carryover or a contrast to other traditions like the Greek.