Skarr

Well, as someone here pointed out, our vision of what the arena was like is heavily influenced by Hollywood, at least for the layperson who is not familiar with Rome or its culture. Gladiators were like athletes and some of them were like the baseball heroes of our time and typically, most of them were skilled in their art and put on a good display of fighting, when called for. The typical gladiator may have fought two or three times a year, maybe more. I think the better you were, the fewer the fights. Like the typical Roman soldier, gladiators lived on a mostly vegetarian diet and I guess meat (pork for the most part) was a luxury, probably served on special occasions. Condemned slaves were often used in the arena as 'fodder' for skilled gladiators to despatch, as they would be poorly armed compared to the gladiators they would face. This was a form of execution and if anyone survived, it was up to the public to spare his life. I'm familiar with the games during the Republic, when it was practically unheard of to witness combats to the death. For most owners of gladiatorial schools, it was a sheer waste of money, effort and years of training to have a gladiator fight to the death. Of course, injuries could happen and death could result from a serious wound, despite prompt treatment. This would be more of an accident than anything else. Gladiators earned money on each fight, with the lion's share going to the owner / lanista. However, they would get to keep any personal gifts / tips from their fan base. I guess some of the tips were also in kind as there are accounts of Roman matrons seeking the company of gladiators - who knows, maybe they just wanted to see them up close. These are more in the category of rumors than actual fact. I'm sure there were affairs going on but again, we have no hard evidence in the form of an actual anecdote that has been corroborated by several sources. Some of the gladiators were, of course, civilians and not slaves. I seriously doubt that there were any of the nobility though, as gladiators were bound to the school and although some of them may have had visiting privileges (if their families were in the city), the majority of them would have been confined to the premises of the school and would have been subject to a rigorous daily routine - wake up, eat, train, eat, train, sleep. There may have been a free period in the afternoon when they would be allowed to hang out in the courtyard or play dice or do nothing. The lanista would always be around and for all practical purposes, they were like prisoners of the school and were bound by its rules. On the bloody aspect, I doubt we would have seen much blood, except for a few nicks and cuts as a result of the fights. Again, in later periods, things may have been different as there are accounts of mass combat and slaughter during spectacles hosted by Nero / Commodus. However, I doubt they would have used highly trained gladiators (think racehorses - would you put your prize stallion to death after one race ?. Prisoners and condemned slaves (in the case of Nero, Christians maybe ?) would have been used.

Yeah. Well, I guess cutting it would be a real problem, especially if they used thick links to forge the chain. Modern equipment would do the job fine but for the ancient armies seeking to cross a chain under water, forget it ! If they could bring enough mass to it, they could attempt to break it but may also run the risk of cracking their hulls. I'm sure some would have tried and probably sank pretty fast, if you had spiky protuberances or something like that from the chain that would pierce a ship's hull. Another way I think a chain can be used is to have several of your own ships push the chain forward, catching the enemy by surprise as they seek to avoid contact with the chain and explose their flanks to attack. Everybody always tries to catch the enemy broadside to gain the upper hand and then shoot the hell out of her with arrows flaming with grease cloth on fire. That, and a few lobbed wooden barrels of oil lobbed on deck soon after the arrows land would be enough to set decks ablaze and as they surface from below to escape the smoke, you cut them down. Seems like most of the ancient battle tactics were simple and pretty brutal, as little or no quarter was given in battle. People like to imagine a chivalric battle fought with rules. However, in real battles, it was kill or be killed and any means was allowed, as long as the end result was victory. To the victor lay not only the spoils but also all the glories of war and its horrors. Well, a triumph in Rome would wash away the guilt of spilling your enemy's blood, as the triumphal procession was a purification rite. The Romans were not great on sea like the Phoenicians and other great sea faring nations like Greece. Athens and its ships dominated the Aegean for centuries. The pirates also had their own sway over the Mediterannean spawning great pirate kings and others who were a thorn in Rome's flesh as they willingly made treaties with Rome's enemies for a fee. They were also treacherous and as Spartacus found out, could be re-sold to the highest bidder. I wonder if there are some articles or links on further information on the great chain, as I find the concept quite fascinating.

I guess this is what you would bring with you during a time travel to the past, right ? Well, here goes.. I'd take buckets of nickels, dimes and quarters (passing them off as denarii), engage a number of slaves as bodyguards (you can't have too many if you ask me), find a peaceful corner (from your study of history and especially geography - far away from all scenes of battle, routes that the legions took, etc.) and set yourself up in style in a remote country villa. Send your slaves for provisions to the city. During festivals, the only time Rome was safe as people would be merry, feasting, drinking and doing other things, I would sneak into the city and enjoy the races, fights, etc. and then get back quick (with bodyguards) back to your luxurious villa. Money talks, even in ancient times. Considering that most people got by well on a few hundred denarii a year, a few thousand nickels would sure come in handy.

While Caesar was certainly no modern suave kind of politician, he did believe in the ancient laws of Rome and he held its rites sacred, especially those concerning a man's status, his dignitas. In his case, he believed that he had the absolute right to the highest offices that Rome had to offer to his family. He was, after all, a Julius, one of the most ancient patrician families. Caesar's family also had almost divine attributes, with speculation that the Julius name was based on the sons of Iulus, who was Aeneas's son, with Aphrodite being his grand mother. The common people were superstitious and probably expected celebrations and feasts, an excuse to take the day off, feast, drink and relax from the drudgery of daily living. I'm sure that the Roman peace was largely a question of keeping the mob in constant check through a daily diet of free entertainment - chariot races, gladiatorial combat, mime shows, free baths, parks and libraries, etc. etc. The Roman citizen wanted not only bread for free but also wanted some entertainment. Caesar bribed his way to the top and he had some powerful backers like Crassus, who provided him with a stiff bankroll. It was Caesar's charm, his way with people and his powerful oratory, his empathy with the common people that he knew well, having grown up in the Subura, that ultimately distinguished from his other less worthy opponents at the time. In other words, no one could deny Caesar anything. If Caesar wanted something, he had it. He was truly a man with God like influence in Rome and a glance, a nod, a look from Caesar was enough to set people off. Caesar, for his part, did indulge the public in his later years, wearing elaborate robes and while he may have thought that he was merely pandering to them, many of his enemies saw this as a legitimate act of treason. To desire kingship was an offence punishable by death or exile, if it could be proven.

If you want to read a fictional account of the times, with the climax of the novel taking place during the sack of Corinth by Mummius, do read "Woman of Stone". I reviewed it earlier and you can read this here on the unrv.com site or at another review site [http://greatebooks.blogspot.com] The author, Debra Tash, has done a fair amount of research and she has scenes of Corinth, including the famous temple of Aphrodite, before the sacking of the fair city by an avaricious Roman consul. Corinth was nothing but pure and simple robbery by Mummius and a lot of innocent people were butchered needlessly.

Some tempting suggestions here that are evocative of the Roman decadence that writers, artists and even Hollywood likes to slander. On the subject of the ancient Romans and their enjoyment of life's pleasures, here's my take on it. The Romans knew how to enjoy their brief moments away from the bustle of the city, while they relaxed in luxurious villas out in the country, with an army of slaves in attendance. Ah ! It must have been good to be noble, rich and privileged. The casual luxury that a few select families of Rome enjoyed, however, came at a great price. For most, food consisted of a piece of bread and some vegetable or grain slop you called soup. The Roman soldier lived on a diet of corn and occasionally, very occasionally, meat. In the city, it was different as Rome was vibrant and complex. Sausage shops, bakeries and all kinds of short eat take out kind of places were the norm in the crowded streets, as cooking was banned in most insulae. People would take off at work around 3 pm, go home via the public baths after soaking for an hour or two (one copper coin - one 'as' - was enough for a bath), maybe visit the library (within the bathhouse, if it was big as most of them had libraries, exercise areas and even a row of fast food joints serving sausage rolls, various kinds of vegetables grilled and fish, if you could afford it, as fish was very expensive. These shops were the famed thermopolium. Romans had a lot of choices in terms of entertainment. There were not only the public baths but the Circus didn't charge much for admission and chariot races were always exciting. There were also public theater performances, mime shows and various mock and real fights put on by different gladiatorial schools. Also, plenty of bars and 'clubs' or rather, colleges. Groups of people would join and form a 'college', which could be to learn something or focus on one specific activity, for which the members of the 'collegia' need a meeting place - with free drinks for the members. Some of the colleges had rich sponsors who would foot their bills (borrowed from someone else - Rome had a fairly fluid credit system, quite advanced for their times). Free bread, free games, a few coppers to buy beer or wine, what more could the average citizen in Rome want ? Each consul in Rome sought to please the public or the 'mob' and later, each Emperor tried to win the public's hearts. If I had a time machine, I would go back to around the beginning of the reign of Augustus and get the hell back to the present before the old man pops off. Hindsight is always good.

I think you mean the horse, Incitatus, not Cinnicinatus, who was a distinguished consul some centuries before and who was one of Rome's greatest senators and consuls in the Republic. Caligula's jest about his horse was to show the senate how much he regarded the office of consul. I think this is one of the interpretations I read about this story, which is apocryphal at best and is based on hearsay. I'm speculating here but here is my version of what might have happened : Caligula (addressing the senate) : So, conscript fathers, if there is no other business for this senate, we will adjourn until our next meeting on the morrow. Senator in the front : (shouting) What do you mean by no more business, Caligula? How about nominating someone for consul, seeing that the office has been vacant these past two months? Senator (to other senators): Maybe Caesar spends a lot of time riding? Laughter all around as Caesar turns and glares at the senator. Senator (hastily): I meant riding your favorite horse, Caesar, the one you call Incitatus, a gift from our friends in Britain. Caesar ( staring for a while and then breaking out into laughter, joined by others imitating him) : Perhaps I should nominate Incitatus for consul. Would that satisfy you? This time, it's the others in the senate who laugh, except for the few 'boni' who are insulted and are determined to spread a malicious rumor that Caligula wanted Incitatus to be nominated for consul and had, in fact, proposed it in the senate.

I guess the main problem is association of the word with an action of sorts. In this case, Rome's buildings, especially the Colosseum, had a number of vomitoria, which were simply passages of ingress / egress within a stadium, so that you could go directly to your seat from above or below, depending on where you exited the vomitorium. People didn't vomit here, they just went to their seats. On the other hand, vomiting was not considered a foul habit but was often done in a bathroom, after the guest excused himself. Of course, there were the wilder parties where people would seek the assistance of their slaves, not deigning to leave the couch, in case they missed something important that the Emperor said. By then, it had become a custom to attend parties accompanied by a number of slaves to attend to your personal needs - from grooming, to sanitary to other needs. For one nobleman to meet another, there were a number of slaves who would bar your way unless you knew the master or mistress well and their staff knew it. Where there is a lot of drink, power and women, there are bound to be excesses. Nero's lavish feasts and before him, Caligula's feasts, were decadent displays of power. I'm sure it was all about the power and the flaunting of women and other public displays were probably to show the common herd how 'godly' they were, by sporting openly for their pleasure in ostentatious displays that were meant to dazzle. I think there were more suckers then and a good salesman could probably make a real buck. If you consider how many could actually read, the average salesman of today could easily be on par with the best of the Romans. However, he would still have a hard time in the field, as controlling the legions and ensuring that Rome's military might was felt throughout the world was something reserved only for the Romans. Generals like Pompey, Caesar and others were hard, merciless men who wouldn't have thought twice about killing people on the spot, if they believed they would benefit from it. Those hard decisions have no relevance in modern society and by comparison, our modern leaders, the best of them, would have regarded the real Caesar as an utter barbarian when it came to making decisions. Someone, on another thread, asked us why we are fascinated with the Romans. I think the answer lies in the casual brutality they were capable of and at the same time, their sense of law, order and the way they developed their army, their administrative abilities and the sheer imagination they displayed in their various buildings and monuments, etc.. This contradictory mix that was part of their nature makes us admire them as well as be repelled by their insensibility to things we take it for granted. Like infanticide or slavery or some other forms of humiliation, as there were degrees of slavery too, each incredibly harsher from the other. Sometimes, I think the only difference is a degree of less horror in your daily life. The most brutal horror film you've ever seen would be a picnic compared to the daily existence / life of some of the slaves and professions that were filled in by slaves or people of no mark. Day in and day out, people led a life of sheer torture by the minute and the only release was an equally painful death. By comparison, our worst criminal today lives in a five star hotel.

Boston, MA. A great place to visit, full of history and if you like seafood, this is the place to sample some of the best that New England has to offer.

He is a radio 'shock jock' or disc jockey. I have never heard Tim Shaw of Kerrang! Radio, so I can't be sure of the similarities but the two draw comparisons from media types. As for Stern. I can take him or leave him. Some days I find him quite humorous, and others I find him totally revolting, but thats the nature of his show. Its what he is trying to do and he is quite good at it. I haven't heard him on satellite... I'd imagine he's quite outrageous without FCC public airway restrictions? I think Stern is one of those guys who pretends he's a knight in shining armor in his private life and this in turn leads him to believe that he can say anything on the air and it gives him a free for all license. I'm all for freedom and all that but you can't have it both ways and if you're virtuous as you claim in your private life, that's fine but you don't need to keep throwing it everyone's face, as if you were unique in that respect. It's what is expected in most relationships. I think Stern is an ok guy if you're new to radio and you may find him amusing for a while. After some time though, it wears off and it's time to move on. I'm not sure that I'll be willing to shell out subscription money each month to listen to Stern though. I guess that may be reserved for his more die hard fans out there. He tries to do something different each day but there's only so much you can do, I guess. It's quite a testament to his skill that he has managed to pull this off for so long and I guess, he's a pretty talented guy in his own way. I did like his movie a lot, "Private Parts".

The first episode of the "Rome" series shows a section of the battle, where the Centurion, Lucius Vorenus, blows a whistle to rotate fresh men to the front of the line where they stab at the rushing, disorganized enemy who throw themselves at the wall of shields again and again, to be stabbed and repulsed. I guess the Romans fought in a mechanical fashion and their discipline, training helped them achieve their workman like precision during battle as they stabbed and thrust their way into the enemy. The History Channel had a recreation of one of their battles in Britain, where they defeated a superior force by using a wedge formation to drive their way in through the masses of enemy warriors and trapped them against their own cattle carts. The battle ended in a general massacre, as the enemy had nowhere to flee to and were butchered by the Romans.

That was an excellent review by Ursus. I think the Republican Romans were extremely conservative and it was more in the upper strata of society, particularly the old patrician families. They were pretty straight laced and any wildness, especially among the women, was a sign of weakness and lack of control by the paterfamilias, who exercised supreme control over the family, including slaves. However, there were more liberal families as well, including bold women like Fulvia, Clodia and others. Clodia was singled out by Cicero out of personal reasons, no doubt for the hatred he bore her brother, but I'm sure there were many of her class and station who were quite forward in their desires, their opinions and the way they conducted themselves in public. Most Roman women wore the grey stola, cocooning themselves in yards of wool and also wore a veil, when they were out in public. With Rome's expanding empire in the Late Republic and as a ton of stuff started to come in to Rome, new clothes, new fashions were all the rage and women like Clodia no longer were confined to the gray robes of their mothers but began to wear daring dresses, using a lot of color too and make up / cosmetics, a lot of which was imported from Egypt. Alexandria was like Paris to the Roman ladies and most of the cosmetics, perfumes and other fashions were imported from Egypt. After all, Egyptian women were much more free and could move about the city unescorted and even take up professions that were exclusively male in most parts of the world like medicine, architecture, etc. There were also quite a few Egyptian women scholars who worked in the great library at Alexandria and women could own property, slaves, etc. Some of these attitudes must have come over to Rome, especially when Cleopatra visited. Although Cleopatra stayed in a villa outside of the sacred boundary or the pomerium, as Caesar's guest, she was certainly much sought after by all the Roman elite, especially the women, who were curious to meet her and possibly, learn about the mysterious land of Egypt. The Egyptians were also much more liberated when it came to sexuality and saw this as another aspect of life, of living, no more different than eating or drinking. It will certainly be difficult to speculate how 'liberated' Rome really became during the Late Republic but contact with more liberal cultures from the East and also the barbarians, must have changed the social perceptions a lot. There is a lot of confusion, especially with regard to the barbarians. Some of them were extremely chaste and their women were virtuous and devoted only to their husbands. Yet, on the other hand, there were other tribes where group marriages were common and sexual activity was practised openly and without the modern Judaeo Christian concepts of shame that are associated with such displays. Even Caesar commented on these variances in his commentaries and I think he, like other Romans, were at a loss to characterize their behavior.

Speaking about acting, no one said it better than Shakespeare in Hamlet. In a sense, Hamlet himself is a supreme actor in his own life, creating a dramatic persona of his own, in order to deceive his errant mother, his evil uncle and others like R & G, who also 'pretend'. Hamlet's speech to the actors before they perform for his uncle is one of the most brilliant speeches and the 'to be or not to be' speech is a real 'tour de force', possibly the litmus test for any Shakespearean actor. Of all the actors that I have heard doing this speech - Burton, Gielgud, Olivier, Redgrave, Scofield and then later, Branagh and Gibson, each brought their own interpretation to this grand speech. Burton made it fiery, Olivier very reflective, Scofield - elegant, even poignant and Redgrave, quite grand. Gielgud was one of the very best, as he has a remarkable voice. Branagh was pedestrian and Gibson, laughable. There was another actor (I forget his name even - recent, modern version of Hamlet) - quite horrible. I think US actors are brilliant in certain kinds of roles. However, for Shakespeare or anything which required crips, clear dialogue, give me a British actor any day. Look at Kevin McKidd in "Rome". He did a marvelous job and so did Ray Stevenson, in their key roles for the series.

Very well. I accept your suggestion. I have read Michael Grant's The Etruscans and found it highly informative, if somewhat bland at times. (Though judging by what Pantagathus has written on Etruscans in the Forum Peregrini, Grant's research on the subject is somewhat out of date.) This quite true, Ursus. The information on the Etruscans is somewhat scanty and is a real challenge in terms of understanding their culture, as a lot of it is speculative and is based on interpretation of tomb art and other descriptions that have survived. Some of the accounts may also have been overly biased and there is a lot of controversy especially with regard to the way the Romans viewed their social behavior. Rome so thoroughly absorbed them that in a few centuries, it was almost impossible to classify Etruscan separately as they became so Romanized and Rome did borrow a number of their innovations, including the all famous arch, the practice of using lictors and even their triumph, which was an ancient Etruscan purification ceremony for kings after victory in battle. Of course, the ancient triumphal ceremony was extremely simple and involved a circular route as moving in a circle was symbolic of purification. I think the display of enemy spoils, trophies, captives etc. were added by the Romans later on. Of course, there is also the science of haruspicy, which was another Etruscan practice that was later adopted by the Romans, focused on examination of the liver of certain animals that were sacrificed as to their color, condition, etc. I'm looking for a good book on the Etruscans to research (apart from the work published by Grant). In case you know of any, please post.

Well, I guess that any post about religion is bound to attract controversy as everyone views this differently, bringing into mind the point I made about this being so personal and unique as it is tied to the meaning of existence itself and in a way seeks to answer the fundamental questions. Each and every thinking human being must have wondered about their own existence and the world around at some point. I think it is an inevitable by product of thought, of self awareness, of everything that distinguishes our species from the rest of the living species that inhabits this planet. Awareness of oneself and one's mortality are in a way dependent on other questions - namely the why or how of it all? How is this universe possible? How and why are we here? These are the great mysteries that religion sought to address, to give meaning to one's life and Virgil, I think you make a good point in that while religion should not interfere with statehood, it may perhaps be difficult or impossible to keep this an entirely private affair. To that existence, I may have unwittingly postulated an Utopian ideal that may be nothing short of a pipe dream and I concede that point to you, especially as regards the communal aspects. As a student of ancient societies and the evolution of civilization, I think the gregarious aspect of human contact cannot be ignored. We were not built to survive on our own and lead solitary lives. The existence of shamans and mystical type of persons in every tribe or group attests to the fact that most groups depended on a special person, one who could interpret signs and other things which were not understood. Part healer, part magician and part priest, this is how religion would have evolved, to satisfy basic human needs, channel some mysteries and funnel expression through mystical experiences, which often required everyone in a tribe to participate. I think this reinforced the sense of belonging, to preserve identity and also keep the group united. Symbols played a big role in such societies and so did myths, which sought to explain compex topics such as creation of the Earth, of the creatures in it and specific acts which possibly served as a kind of moral map, to tame the wild passions of man and promote harmony in the group. The first laws were preservatory in nature, the injunctions not to kill, not to steal and not to harm one another or another's property. These were basic survival rules that were necessary to keep the group together as one unit. Later, as societies grew much larger, the sense of mystery also deepened and simple ritual had to evolve into more complex beliefs, with a structured approach that led to the formalization of religion. To the ancient mind, the power of nature and its forces were mysterious, unpredictable and any disaster of scale was viewed as a divine act of revenge for the failings of humans. Therefore, it is natural to speculate that atheism is a more modern approach and while atheists may rely on science to explain some of life's mysteries, on the other hand, science itself has barely scratched the surface and has only uncovered more mysteries. It seems that the deeper you dig, the more questions are unresolved. To my mind, there are no easy solutions in sight and perhaps there aren't any. Life's true mysteries are very much out there and the current religions do not explain it and neither does science. Atheism makes no sense to me as you cannot deny the existence of something you have no knowledge of. Well, bottom line - I'm thoroughly confused and am not ashamed to admit it either. I'm as ignorant as the rest and claim to no special knowledge. However, I'm far from misanthropic and rather, I'm the complete opposite as I truly believe in individuals, in the inherent power of each and every human being, as we are all unique. Each of us has an entire universe within us and I have respect for everyone, as that potential exists in everyone. I'm not cynical either but quite the opposite. I'm filled with hope and I do hope that someone, some day, will figure this out and will be gracious enough to share his or her insight. The key word here is share not preach. Lastly, I'm not condescending and the reason for this long post is my desire to share my views frankly and openly. If it offended anyone or seemed condescending, I apologize as that was not my intention.

Most of the world's religions are old and out dated, based on archaic and arcane concepts and a world view that was limited at best and they did not have the complex vision of the world that the modern human being has in terms of the Earth, space, the ecology, environment and the global consequences of our actions and its long term effects on generations to come. Most of the religions evolved due to political reasons and when I say political, it is in the context of giving legitimacy to rule, a divine blessing or sanction as it were, of the leader's right to rule, to chastise, to punish and to generally do whatever is necessary for the 'good' of the state. Certain religions (Buddhism as an example) sought to placate the endless questioning of the humans to know their purpose, their reason for existence and were more mystical, philosophical and sought to address the needs of the individual, not the state. Christianity, Islam etc. were more aimed at providing rulers and the state a divine shoulder to lean on or point to, whenever their actions were questioned. Religion was no longer aimed at just one individual but at the masses and therefore, common ritual, group participation and rigid adherence to principles and beliefs without question became the norm. The final arbiters were only those who were members of the privileged club and this continues today in some form with the Pope and others and in the case of Islam, the mullahs and for Judaism, the rabbis. I realize that there are many variations again and am generalizing. In my mind, these religions have no place in our modern world view and I believe that faith or religion is purely a matter of the individual. A single and unique, direct contract between a human being and his belief in what is termed god, the divine, a higher power whatever. This is a private affair and should be pursued in the confines of one's own private 'worship' (like your daily exercise routine or something of that nature). Yet, we have these hangovers from the past, where organizations and groups use these ancient religions and as Primus rightly points out, have 'bastardized' these to suit their own purposes. In time, I believe that most religions will fade into obscurity and while there are many who will fight for the survival of their particular brand of worship or faith etc., most of the religions are nothing but ancient dinosaurs and the morphing is going on as we speak. The weak, the ignorant and the less than strong minded will continue to be a prey to the attractions and the 'salvation' promised by certain religions but ultimately, it is important to realize that every human being's salvation depends on himself or herself and the responsible manner in which they choose to conduct themselves. If people had to wait for religion to tell them this simple fact in this day and age, then they are already deluded and religion then becomes a crutch or something that people use as a convenience, nothing more than that. Genuine faith requires no labels, no contracts, no membership and no publicity. It is a private matter between one individual and his or her god and that's it. Here's my 2 c on this topic.

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here. Your post is a little muddled and perhaps you need to rephrase your point as I just don't get your drift. Coming to the original question - "What would the world be like without Christianity?" I think one cannot isolate one factor and compare its influence on the world and how mankind would have evolved. Obviously, there would no real effect as we would possibly have some other form of 'religion' or 'religions'. Such questions do not lend itself to intelligent debate, in my opinion, as there are too many other considerations and life is a complex phenomenon and while religion attempts to 'explain' some of life's mysteries, it falls way short when compared to the wealth of knowledge that is available to the average person in the late 20th century. I think people are slowly beginning to realize the archaic theories / models on which most religion is based and what passes for 'fact' in religion is nothing more than a metaphor or myth which only modern sensibilities can readily grasp. All religions are based on a core system of beliefs and I think the lines between them are blurring and to me, the myths propagated by Christianity are no different, on one level, than those that are propagated by other religions. However, behind the various veils under which the true core beliefs of every religion are shrouded under, the enlightened mind invariably finds a commonality in the perceptions or aims of every religion, which is to promote humanity, knowledge, caring, compassion and respect for one another and other values. Stripped of ritual, arcane knowledge and other archaic 'convictions', all religions seem to be a way for humans to know their own selves and to respect one another. In that sense, belonging to any one particular religion, in my opinion, is irrelevant and even unnecessary. In time, all religions will fuse into one universal religion which will be fact and truth based, as opposed to looking to someone like a 'priest' or a book for answers. After all, no book or even science can ever answer the fundamental questions - why are we here? why do we exist at all? why does the world exist ? is there a god? if so, who created that god or was it self created, etc. etc. These are all questions that have no answers since they are human questions, part of our self awareness as a species and if anyone could answer them, they would have already been answered by now as these questions have remained as part of human consciousness for thousands of years.

Talking about the history of the 'dole' - this is a fascinating subject in of itself and possibly, the major reason for this is more economic than anything else, although it was used as a powerful political tool throughout Rome's history. During the time of the Gracchi, the Roman world had undergone profound changes with the formation of a professional standing army and the widespread influence that Rome began to command throughout the Region from various conquests in Macedonia, Greece, Spain, parts of Numidia and even stretching up to Pontus. Rome was seeking to form alliances with all sorts of people and there was not only a huge influx of slaves from the various conquests into Rome but also the landless poor who began to pour into the city from all corners of Italy, seeking work. The soldier, after sixteen years of service, returned home to find himself without land as vast tracts of land began to get seized, appropriated or consolidated into giant farms that were dependent upon slave labor. The population in the city began to rapidly expand with the influx of all these people and the overcrowding, unemployment etc. meant rapidly deteriorating conditions that could lead to riots if the populace were not fed and in later periods, not only fed but also entertained. What began as a welfare measure to ease the pain of all these people soon became a well established right with Sicily and Egypt becoming very important to Rome's survival as a city. After all, people had to be fed and the average Roman 'citizen' was basically poor and unemployed or perhaps, employed only sporadically.

I'm inclined to believe that Spartacus was a Roman soldier, perhaps an optio or maybe even a centurion as he understood Roman battle tactics really well and was a fine general, defeating the Romans in several battles. However, whether he was a Thracian or a Roman is a moot point. As someone suggested, his adoption of the Thracian style of fighting in the arena may have led people to believe he was a Thracian. I think that his hatred of Rome and Romans stemmed from the fact that he was probably not Roman but a foreigner who had been recruited into the army and perhaps enslaved / sold for insubordination or some other kind of offence. Maybe he was a skilled fighter and much respected in the legion and rather than put him to death for an offence, the commanding officer may have decided to profit from his skills by selling him to a gladiatorial school in Capua. In any case, I think there is no doubt that the rebellion of the slaves began at one of the schools in Capua run by one Lentulus Batiatus and seizing weapons, these slaves overpowered their guards and escaped to Vesuvius. Spartacus may have been the one who incited them to rebel and perhaps coordinated the attack against the guards, establishing a clear superiority / leadership over the others from the very start.

One thing to be noted about Egypt is that Egyptian women enjoyed a higher degree of freedom than the Greek women who were settled in Alexandria after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander. Even traditional male professions such as the practice of medecine was open to Egyptian women and there were not only women physicians but also scholars of repute, as many of them worked in the great library of Alexandria. Women also owned property and slaves of their own and could move about freely around the city. I think the Romans saw the cult of Isis as a dangerous replacement to their own religions and felt threatened, as Ursus points out, since it strengthened the power of women, something the Romans always feared. It is easy to see why Christianity was readily embraced by the Romans as the unifying religion across the Empire as it was a completely male dominated religion and these cults (Isis, Magna Mater, etc.) were either forced to go underground or be acceptable only a suitably "virtuous" form, like the worship of Mary and the infant Jesus. In any case, all of these are theories and no one really knows how these cults spread or what exactly their influence was in those times.

The Romans were no doubt superb engineers. However, they also freely borrowed / integrated ideas from other sources and adapted things easily into their overall framework. The famous arch, for example, which was the most significant structural design that was incorporated into all their buildings was Etruscan in origin. The widespread use of this in various buildings and monuments by the Romans is testimony to the genius of the Romans in recognizing what really worked. I think they were a highly practical people, from the way their religious practices were conducted to the way their overall society was structured.

I agree with Porcius Cato regarding the manner of his death, which is what I understand happened. Cato could not brook Caesar and would have acted in the manner described, it is consistent with what I've read, especially with regard to his views of the afterlife. I think he was influenced by theories on the survival of the soul after the physical body ceased to exist and believed that his spirit would live on forever and he therefore welcomed death with open arms.

Pothinus is a real slimy creature, isn't he? I think one of the best lines was "He was a consul of Rome!" - That line says it all and marks the difference between how Egyptians and Romans regarded their enemies. Caesar was justifiably apalled because Pompey was not only a colleague and a man who was respected by many in Rome, including his enemies but also due to his personal relationship as he did love Julia, a fact that was well known to many, including, of course, Caesar.

I also like Tacitus, Plutarch, Livy, Juvenal and other ancient writers (of course, translations). Gibbon's work is no doubt extensive and even monumental in terms of its scope but I can't say that I agree with all of his romanticized conclusions on the reasons for the decline. I think Dr. Perkins has a better thesis on the reasons for the fall and you may want to check out his book, which I found quite fascinating.

People are always amazed by the Huns and the impact they've had on the decline of the Roman Empire in the West. I think the Huns were successful because of their fierceness in battle and the skill of their horsemen as they could shoot arrows on the fly and ride with speed, cutting down their opposition before they could deploy defensive formations. Attila is often demonized and painted as an uncultured uncouth barbarian but the facts seem to indicate that he was quite cultured and possibly even well read. He did receive some sort of education according to some sources and did spend time in Rome, where he admired the various monuments and the fine objects / artifacts he saw. He was particularly impressed by the baths and sought to rebuild / recreate some of the luxuries that most Romans were accustomed to and surrounded himself with fine objects. However, the Huns were restless and did not create permanent settlements as it was alien to their way of thinking and their way of life, living on the open steppes where tall grasses would stretch from end to end, from horizon to horizon, as it were. They did not see much value in settling in one place and building a city and creating monuments etc. I guess their mind set was similar to that of the nomadic peoples who still live on today in the vast Saharan desert. Most of them live day to day and the concept of creating something for future generations to enjoy was something they didn't think about.