barca

I'm not sure that I fully understand the context of all this. This process of crucifixion seems totally different from the crucifying of criminals. The first a ritual of honor; the second a form of humiliating punishment. As I understand, the crosses that were used for criminals didn't look at all like the crucifixes we see today. Interesting how the Christians turned the tables and converted a humiliating punishment into a badge of honor, by copying the Romans. Am I understanding this correctly? Please feel free to elaborate, and correct me if I am mistaken. Also, can you cite some sources on this?

Otium, or leisured scholarship was one of the things that distinguished roman aristocrats from barbarians and the lower classes. Such scholarship included literature, philosophy, history, and to a limited extent science. conservatives held on to this notion in the late empire, but it was eventually replaced by religious studies of Christianity. The early Christians did borrow a lot of ideas from Greco-Roman philosophy, but eventually Christians tended to move away from traditional Classical scholarship. There was the dream where Jerome was admonished for studying too much Cicero. So where are we now. In the western world modern conservatives tend to be Christian. To many of them studying the classics would seem like a waste of time. They tend to study busyness, marketing, or other disciplines that are more work-related. On the other hand individuals who study the Classics tend to be more liberal in their inclination. Studying Ovid for example would seem liberating for someone brought up in a repressed environment. So here is my question. what is the modern day equivalent of otium? What sort of learning identifies contemporary individuals as part of the established higher order in modern western society?

In the 3rd century, the entire province of Dacia was left in the hands of the Goths.

What were the main differences between the Qin/Han crossbow and the Greek Gastrophetes? Power? Range? Speed of reloading? Trigger Mechanism? Was the Han crossbow powerful enough to go through the Scutum and pierce the armor?

Although I wouldn't want this discussion to degenerate into a right vs left political argument, I find it interesting that many of the modern "conservative" pundits think that these ideas came from the Bible, and that the US government is based primarily on Judeao-Christian principles. I brought this up on a previous thread: http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/10509-judeo-christian-vs-greco-roman-influences-and-the-american-revol/page__hl__%2Bfounding+%2Bfathers And here's a good book that supports the notion of the Greco-Roman world contributing to our form of government: http://www.amazon.com/Greeks-Romans-Bearing-Gifts-Ancients/dp/0742556247

One of the things that Julian didn't realize is that even in the height of Classical Rome, many elites and many philosophers didn't really believe in the pagan gods, but they didn't openly express their disbelief. The advances in Greco-Roman philosophy made the gods appear very non-spiritual and archaic. The God of Judaeism ws more spiritual in nature and was more compatible with the God of nature. Whatever concerns he had about Christianity for its inferior intellectual appeal, didn't necessitate going back to paganism, which waas already dying out. He was attempting to ressurect a dead religion.

There were still great Roman writers and thinkers in the late Roman period. Boethius is a good example. They did find solutions to the Hunnic invasions; ultimatelly the Huns were defeated. If you look at the military of Belisarius, it is clear that the Roman army had adapted to changing conditions. They had upgraded their horse archers, for example, along Hunnic lines.

There wasn't much innovation during the early middle ages. It was only as the West gradually rediscovered its Classical heritage in the high middle ages and culminating in the Renaissance that significant advances began to occur. First Western Europe became more Greco-Roman again. Rediscovering the ancient scholars led to a more critical form of thinking which eventually led to scientific thinking. For example Skeptic Philosophy of Sextus Empiricus gave individuals willingness to question previously held truths and search for new answers. Individuals such as Francis Bacon changed the way that people looked at the world, eventually resulting in a period of major scientific advancements. We also should not discount the increased communication between East and West. How successful would the West have been without acquiring gunpowder from China?

Why wasn't there another Plutarch in the Middle Ages? Someone to write parallel lives comparing great Romans to their eventual germanic masters. Were any of the germanic warlords worthy of such comparisons? Theodoric the Ostrogoth? Charlemagne the Frank? Or should we look to the modern era and compare Caesar to Frederick the Great, Bismarck, or even Hitler?

I understand your point, but why did it have to take so long for Europe to emerge from the so-called "dark ages"? There was no dark age when the Hellenistic Empires fell to the Romans. In fact Roman rule gave them a political stability that the Greeks never experienced before. There were certainly advances in philosophy, literature, art, and medicine (Galen) under Roman rule. The Germanic tribes lived side by side with the Romans for hundeds of years. You would think that they would have acquired some Romaness, just as the Romans aquired Greekness, but when the Germans finally took over the Western side of the empire they didn't have the same effect that the Romans had on the Greeks. What legacy did the Germans leave us? Well finally in the 19th century Germany became a world class power thanks to Bismark. What did this lead to? 2 world wars and a lot of death and destruction.

Caesar wiped all that away at a stroke though, basing his political power on his military force. His armies were loyal to him and were prepared to kill and wipe out other roman armies to protect him. The strong man won. A few senators were no match for him. Well, they certainly got the better of them on the ides of March. Caesar's main downfall was that he was concilliatory towards his former enemies, never thinking that they would exact revenge. He was honest about the fact that he wanted to be in charge. Augustus on the other hand was more of a plotter and a schemer, maintaining that veneer of a republic, pretending that others had some say, but ultimatelly he was an uncompromising despot.

Has anyone seen this movie? http://www.thehungergamesmovie.com/ The roman names, the gladiatorial combat, the decadent city dwellers, and the hard working impoverished provincials, all feed into the general public's perception of ancient Rome. That's where the similarities end. To me it seemed more analogous to modern reality shows such as Survivor. Anyone else have any thoughts?

In Goldworthy's book about Julius Caesar, he descirbes a scene where Caesar found out that his wife was having an affair. DId he take out out on the street and have her stoned to death? No, he simply divorced her. That may have just been Caesar who was remarkably conciliatory in many situations where others would let their passions get the better of them.

The Romans were no more sexist than any other people of their age. Take the Sassanids, for example: In Procopius' Persian Wars there was a letter from Theodora to the beleaguered Persians where she was offering a treaty, with strict assurances stating that her husband would never do anything without her consent. The Persian leader used this letter as a means of rallying his troops, stating "what kind of empire is this that is run by a woman?"

I may have gone off on a separate tangent when referring to the old south. We live in a much more peaceful world today. The Romans on the other hand, even during the Pax Romana, were not always far from a violent outburst of some sort. We don't punish people for failure to make an oath or pledge of allegiance because we live in a relatively secure world. Romans were constantly on guard against barbarian invaders, usurpers, etc. They depended on the stability of the Roman State to protect them from the violent world out there. When Christians refused to worship or offer sacrifices to the Roman gods or to the Roman emperors that was considered treason. Such worship was evidence of a person

It seems to me that from the standpoint of the Roman Magistrate it would be the same as refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance. In the USA all schoolchildren are expected to do this. I don't know of any who have refused, and I don't know if there would be any consequences for doing so. In the old postbellum south there were many southerners who were philosophically opposed to the very idea of a pledge of allegiance, since they did not choose to be part of the Union in the first place, but it was easier to go along with it than to fight the Federal Government.

As I recall they enjoyed tossing them into an pit with wild beasts. Burning them alive was also popular.

I came across the following quote that is attributed to Socrates, but there appears to be some uncertainty about it's origin. Does anyone know with certainty? "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers" Socrates Source: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L. Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277 .This passage was very popular in the 1960s and its essence was used by the Mayor of Amsterdam, Gijsbert van Hall, following a street demonstration in 1966, as reported by The New York Times, April 3, 1966, p. 16.This use prompted Malcolm S. Forbes to write an editorial on youth.Forbes, April 15, 1966, p. 11. In that same issue, under the heading Side Lines, pp. 56, is a summary of the efforts of researchers and scholars to confirm the wording of Socrates, or Plato, but without success. Evidently, the quotation is spurious.

You may be right, but how can we really know how much more competent the 3rd century leaders were? As you pointed out, the 3rd century is one of the most poorly documented periods. I agree that 5th century leaders such as Honorius were disgraceful, but there were also competent leaders such as Constantius and Majorian who tried to restore order, but ultimately failed.

As bad as things were, there was no imminent end to the empire on the horizon as there was in the 5th century. It was only after the crisis and "recovery" that things really fell beyond repair.

We all know that the Ostrogoths occupied Italy for a while prior to the bloody reconquest by the Eastern Empire. What happened to them after their final defeat? The Visigoths founded the Kingdom of Spain. The Franks founded France. Anglo-Saxons, England. Was there any place that the Ostrogoths finally ended up as kingdom, or were they just absorbed by other barbarian kingdoms?

And I know individuals in the workplace who have mastered the fine art of avoiding work. Funny how things haven't changed.

I just started reading Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus and I found this related paragraph: And so Marcius, who was by nature exceedingly fond of warlike feats, began at once, from his very boyhood, to handle arms. And since he thought that adventitious weapons were of little avail to such as did not have their natural and native armour developed and prepared for service, he so practised himself in every sort of combat that he was not only nimble of foot, but had also such a weight in grapplings and wrestlings that an enemy found it hard to extricate himself. At any rate, those who from time to time contended with him in feats of courage and valour, laid the blame for their inferiority upon his strength of body, which was inflexible and shrank from no hardship. So he took it upon himself to learn these martial arts, suggesting that it wasn't common practice.

Here's my opinion: I would say no, it didn't appeal to the common people. New non-mainsream philosophies or religions seem to appeal to those people who have everything but are bored or feel unfullfilled in their lives. For example Buddha came from the aristocracy and turned himself away from the materialism of the world. The common people are less interested in spiritual fullfillment and more interested acquiring those things that they don't have, whether it is money, prestige, power, or whatever.