Virgil61

I'm a veteran of the old usenet flame wars from several years ago so I've seen some pretty vicious stuff including people calling other peoples workplace, home or law enforcement among other things. You're right though, discussion boards where a lot of usenet posters went to in order to avoid the anarchy of ,do get out of hand quickly--even the history ones. The credit at UNRV goes to the administrators and mods who keep a tight ship, keep us all in line and the focus on Rome where it should be.

By the time of the Principate I'd argue that service in the Legions was a pretty good deal for a provincal, where the tough training and battle was offset by decent pay and access to plunder and various goodies each commander must have given his troops to keep them loyal and happy. It's telling that standards for entry were high, you don't maintain high standards if you can't fill the slots so apparently there wasn't usually a shortage of volunteers during much of the Principate. The number of legions was limited after Augustus and kept to around 25-30 depending on the era. At aorund 6,000 per legion that's only 150,000 to 180,000 men in a population of around 45 million (using UNRV numbers in 14 AD) containing nearly 5 million citizens. Consider also that the citizen population was constantly being expanded creating more recruiting grounds. To get to your point I doubt there was much abstaining going on. While the leadership down to centurians was allowed to marry I've read about a number of camp followers located at permanent legion postings that indicate more than just trade involved. While technically not able to marry I can imagine there were a lot of unofficial households happening.

I think everyone seems to be in agreement that sources should be scrutinzed and not accepted at face value. Historians like Polybius, Thucydides and Tacitus earn our respect every generation by thier attempts at sourcing thier materials correctly and attempts at analysis. While I wouldn't go as far as Cato to put Tacitus in the same boat as Solzehnitsyn's history of political persecution, I can still appreciate the pressures and constaints he worked under. This subject of analyzing ancient historians is the concern of historiography; the methodologies, biases, principles and intent that historians use to write history. Someday, among the other requests for new forums, one on the historiography of the Roman Era might be a good idea. Whether it would sustain much traiffic I don't know, but approaches to history (Classical, Marixist, Annales, Revisionism, Modernist, scrutinization of sources, etc) might attract some historians or talented amateurs (aren't we all?) to the forum. I've only got a BA in History but I know that historiography is probably the single most revelatory history class I've ever taken. It's a bit more sophisticated analysis than how many nails were in a typical Roman army caligae but I think we've got the necessary talent on this forum. I know, you're getting a dozen requests for new forums, just a thought.

From Pliny the Elder's Natural History writing in Chapter 1 on "The Two Mauritanias": While Scipio

That was my vote for the worst of the jobs outlined perhaps only surpassed by the technical qualifications required to be a castrato (insert uncomfortable laugh here).

The Worst Jobs in History.

Offered without comment. http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4362613

Didn't one of the Pliny's claim Polybius sailed the coast of Africa?

It's not a question of whether there were socialists or marxists in ancient Rome, it's a question of analysis and interpretation of the political, social and economic structure. We see things through our own biases which generally fall under a liberal framework (in the old meaning of the word) with neo-classical economic thinking. Nothing wrong with that at all, but there are other methods to analyze something. Sometimes they're wrong of course, but there's nothing bad about challenging accepted mores. It's a limited analogy, but think of it as holding an object at a different angle and viewing it from there. I'm no marxist (unless we're talking Groucho), but marxist historical analysis isn't something to be disgarded outright. E.P. Thompson wrote a work called the 'The Making of the English Working Class'. It's a seminal work and while it can and is criticised, it's also very insightful. Eric Hobsbawm is another great historian who's written in the marxist vein, his "Age of..." trilogy is something anyone interested in 19th century Europe should read, whether they agree with him or not. I see no reason why the same analysis can't be tried on Rome, certainly in regards to cultural and social history, and certainly no reason not to read it as long as the approach is serious.

I'm sure I've made at least one house payment for Jeff Bezos...well, considering his wealth, perhaps at least a partial house payment.

It's spelled Dook. Virgil UNC-Chapel Hill Alum

Yeah, wait till you hit 40.

Spartan, the blue quoted portions are difficult to read. Maybe I'm the only one with that problem.

No, take your own advice and read it again, the course is on History and Fictional treatment, unless you consider the other sources listed in addition to Shakespeare, such as Grant, Gelzer and Plutarch as fiction. Be that as it may, it's an extension program, big deal. Still leaves Penn. An undergrad course: http://www.lcsc.edu/elmartin/courses/world...nti(fall04).htm An introduction to classical history course: www.undergrad.nova.edu/coursewizard/getsyllabi.cfm?syllabusID=F87CF6E6-D27F-474E-91BC-FF6864D09872 I got halfway down the google column. The point is made that at least some history instructors if not just classicists, seem to feel there's some validation to exposure to his POV. http://www.romansociety.org/webjrs05.htm Gerald Erickson UMinn. It's on the book, of course that's probably not good enough. All I did was list the book as a recommendation, you piped up with an attack on the author. We? Leave those decisions to the moderators. You don't like the book because it disses Cato the Younger, disagrees violently with your POV and it gets under your skin. Don't feign some 'We normally keep a tight leash argument' on me. You're POV is part and parcel the polar opposite of Parenti's and We put up with it. I'll stand by my recommendation to read the book, if you have a problem with that contact the moderators.

A very quick google search shows the book to be on the syllabus of at least two courses on the classics at UCLA and Penn, a review by at least one journal on ancient Rome and an endorsement by a classical historian at Minnesota. Not conclusive perhaps, but at least the equal of many secondary sources we've used here on UNRV. Regarding 'comparing Parenti to Gibbon' what part of "including, but not limited to", an all-inclusive phrase, eluded you? Edit: Thank you for breaking this off Viggen. I'm not particularly interested in arguing Parenti's validity with anyone; read him or not, I could care less I'm satisfied with my own position.

You yourself mentioned that Parenti's book was controversial; since you did not indicate the nature of that controversy, I'm happy to fill in the blanks. You filled in no blanks on any controversy, you merely choose to attack the author. Not being a classical historian has never stopped praise or at least acknowledgement of the arguments of many writers of Roman history, including, but not limited to Gibbon and Dodge.

Since it's my suggestion and this isn't a discussion thread but a request for suggestions why don't you either suggest a read or keep your commentary about my suggestions to yourself.

I hadn't been following this thread on the Greatest Roman Figure. Now that I have it looks to have already degenerated into a Caesar argument.

Ya' think? Here an excerpt from one couch-commando (in the military forum): "Why the friends of the left blow themsleves up near schools and children is beyond me, I suppose the left and terrorists have a common thread - they like to exterminate babies and children." Close enough to Northern Idaho that I'm not suprised. I'm originally from Eastern Oregon Globlinus--Arlington/Boardman/Hermiston/Heppner area so it's actually an interesting forum to me. Do you go to Gonzaga by any chance?

Christian Meiers "Caesar" is quite a decent bio of JC. It's very rich in political detail, less so in military aspects of Caesar's life. I'd be curious to get your take on Michael Parenti's contraversial bio, "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" as well. I liked it, you may or may not, but even if you feel like throwing the damn thing across the room it's a fairly stimulating and needed (in my opinion) different look at Roman history in a field where sometimes very stodgy conservative views have had wide reign. I've read "Following Hadrian: A Second Century Journey Through the Roman Empire". It's part biography and part historical novel. Not my first choice, it's flawed but well written, interesting and gives a flavor of his times. I've read bio's of Augustus and Constantine but it's been so many years I can't remember the exact names which may be a comment on their quality--or just bad memory.

This one's from a while back. I overstated it of course, you're right Polybius isn't Thucydides. Polybius was in a more complicated situation. But he was closer to him in spirit than most ancient historians, especially in light of his special situation and his pro-Roman proclivities are transparent enough to any intelligent reader then or now. His criticisms of other historians are instructive. He repeatedly assails them for conjecture and unwillingness to confirm sources. He criticises Sosylus for his conjectures on the proceedings of the Roman Senate after Saguntum, something which he would have little knowledge of. In the Penguin translation it reads "a brave man meets one stronger than himself". Either way I think his point was that everyone finds his match. Minucius despised Fabius, that is until he came to understand just how correct his strategy was at that time. Here's are accounts of his epiphany: From Appian's History of Rome: '''Thus did Fabius save Minucius from a great disaster, bearing him no malice for his slander. Then Minucius, recognizing his own want of experience, laid down his command and delivered his part of the army to Fabius, who held to the belief that the only time for a skillful captain to fight is when it is necessary." From Plutarch's Life of Fabius: "Minucius (addressing Fabius) said, "You have this day, O dictator, obtained two victories; one by your valor and conduct over Hannibal, and another by your wisdom and goodness over your colleague; by one victory you preserved, and by the other instructed us; and when we were already suffering one shameful defeat from Hannibal, by another welcome one from you we were restored to honor and safety. I can address you by no nobler name than that of a kind father, though a father's beneficence falls short of that I have received from you. From a father I individually received the gift of life; to you I owe its preservation not for myself only, but for all these who are under me." After this, he threw himself into the arms of the dictator; and in the same manner the soldiers of each army embraced one another with gladness and tears of joy."" The decimation of allied territory is the single most valid argument for seeking an engagement. Strong as that argument is, it's not enough to force one to waste one's army against someone who might be considered a genius at warfare. Impossible because of various levels of training within that army. No matter what the Roman populace wanted a good commander knows his limitations as well as the strengths of the enemy. Paullus fits that bill, Varro doesn't. The better question is why did Paullus--who had more military experience in Macedonia (I think it was there) instinctively know it wouldn't work rather than Varro--with little experience think it would. Paullus disagreed, but like a good soldier fought and stood his ground, Varro fled the field. No matter what his intent, Varro comes off second-best in history for that point alone. There's no question about it, Roman cohesion and stubborn defiance against such an enemy is a large part of the story of the Punic War. Opinions, everyone's got 'em, especially here at UNRV!

Chapel Hill is an excellent school with a great national rep but the history program is as difficult to get into as an Ivy League school especially if you're from out of state because of the small number of students (as an alumni I know this from first-hand accounts). If you're interested in UNC then I'd try Duke as well. This site or this one might help you make your decision.

Once Upon A Time in the West is my favorite Leone. Bronson playing the good guy against Henry Fonda's bad guy. Apparenty Fonda enjoyed watching people's shocked reaction to his playing against his usual squeaky clean type, especially the scene where he shoots a little boy who could identify him.

The show isn't much different really except for the four letter words and the whole crew seems on a bit of a high. George Takei (Sulu on Star Trek) of all people, is the guest announcer this week and he's been excellent. Quite a find--very funny, intelligent and witty. Of course Howard's been ranting about the FCC and corporate radio like ClearChannel folding under pressure.

I'm a big follower of Orwell's writings, especially his excellent essays and reviews. His essays on early Brit post-cards (I forgot their exact name), reviews of popular boys novels and other 'proletariat' lit shows he certainly appreciated well-written pulp and wasn't ashamed of it. My own guilty pleasure is a radio host here called Howard Stern. Hated and loathed by some and loved by others I honestly enjoy listening to his show.