WotWotius

Yes, that is correct. Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought on Roman Imperialism. The first dictates that Rome's territorial expansion was merely for defensive purposes - i.e. once Rome absorbed one tribal kingdom, another dangerous one would be on her borders, waiting to be

I too would also like to give this site a rather large thank you; UNRV (in particular Pertinax and Primus Pilus) really helped me with my end of year exams.

There are also many cases of pseudo-archaeology: the use of selective archaeological evidence to promulgate non-scientific, fictional accounts of the past (Renfrew and Bahn, 2006). For instance, when Leonard Woolley excavated UR during the 1920s, the discovery of flood mud beneath the ancient city was used as evidence for the biblical flood described in Genesis. However, flood mud dated to a much later period than the assigned date of the biblical flood. Genesis may well have been describing a flood that took place around the city of Ur; but the fact that archaeologists assign these sites so surely to semi-fictional accounts of the past is rather disturbing.

So what would you say, in your eyes, was THE definitive reason for the rise Roman Imperialism? Obviously RI arose as a result of combined factors, but making you narrow it down into one reason may create a nice discussion. I am not sure if there are any posted discussions on this question. If there are, just post a link.

If we put his inexcusable character traits aside, Tiberius is a rather tragic figure: he was forced into divorcing a wife he actually loved (a rare event in Roman times); both Gaius and Lucius Caesar howled for his blood during his time spent (in what was effetely exile) in Rhodes; and above all else, he did not seem to want to become Emperor (If we assign ourselves to a traditional view, it was Livia who suggested that Tiberius became Emperor after the deaths of Gaius and Lucius). In my view, a lot of Tiberius’ bad press was stemmed from his neglect rather than his scorn.

Ah, he is no Anton Karas!

This was not always the case during the Imperial period. For instance, the bust of the 'no nonsense', middle-class Emperor Vespasian, seem to mirror his dislike of flattery: 'warts and all' may be an apt way of describing them. Though having said that, the intensity of his expressions may have been put there to promote the image of a determined ruler ready sort out the problems that Rome faced (...or maybe I am reading too much into it?). The image below may reinforce my point.

Yes, the only way we can really differentiate between the later Augustan busts from the earlier ones is the fact that later busts seem look more sorrowful: maybe the weight of the Empire's affairs was beginning to take its toll on Augustus.

This bust may not be entirely 'accurate'. Caracalla enjoyed being feared; therefore, the sculptor of the above bust may have been under strict orders to make the emperor seem as menacing as possible by exaggerating certain feature (deeply-set eyes etc.).

Augstan architecture - particularly the Forum Augustum - is an area I find fascinating. A thread about it would be thoroughly welcomed. Let's see if we can get the ball rolling by asking a question: how do Augustus' Imperial buildings mirror his intended aspiration of greatness without overtly implying kingship?

If the Republic had a similar provincial administration to the one installed by Augustus, maybe.

True, Caesar commented on the Britons not actually using chariots for combat, but more for transport into battle.

Also evidenced from papyrus scroll letters found in Egypt from soldiers to their 'mommies' Wow, do you have a link to the text?

Does this poll only apply to Roman citizens? If so, literacy was widespread: even members of the Roman legions, who were almost always drawn from the poorer ranks of society, had some degree of literacy. It is not just the Vindolanda tablets that reveal this, but also various discharge papers that have been found (I cannot remember where, but my memory banks will probably let me know later). The fact that the Romans so openly attached 'propaganda' inscriptions to their monuments would also suggest that the urban poor could read. For instance, why else would Augustus have to such an effort to place the text of the Res Gestae all over the Empire? Was to create awareness amongst the nobility? They already were aware of the fact that the Res Gestae was a prime example of Imperial propaganda. Therefore, the text would have been for the benefit of the ordinary citizens. If the poll were referring to all the peoples of the Empire, I would have to say that the vast majority of Rome's subjects (at least in Gaul and Britain) probably could not read. In Britain, the archaeology suggests that during Rome's occupation, life on rural farms (after the initial shock of invasion and rebellion anyway) seemingly continued as normal. These inhabitants probably did not have the means to speak Latin, let alone read it. The only provincials in Britain (if we are to believe Tacitus) who had the means to have some degree of Latin literacy were the local nobility who opted for social advancement in their local civitas: in the Western Empire, the ability to write in Latin was a catalyst for social advancement. For more information on the rural poor of Roman Britain, consult Salway.

It is a poor man's Myspace. Myspace is free... I am loving the razor-sharp wit!

It is a poor man's Myspace.

www.facebook.com :blowup:

Do we have an agreed rendezvous point yet?

Livy refers to the use of chariots when he describes the execution of the Alban king, Mettius: 'Thereupon two four-horse chariots were brought up, and Mettius was bound at full length to each, the horses were driven in opposite directions, carrying off parts of the body in each chariot, where the limbs had been secured by the cords. All present averted their eyes from the horrible spectacle. This is the first and last instance amongst the Romans of a punishment so regardless of humanity. Amongst other things which are the glory of Rome is this, that no nation has ever been contented with milder punishments.' -Livy 1.27

Pytheas of Massilia's lost journal. Many scholars of antiquity have dismissed his work as poppycock: therefore, it would be nice to see just how farfetched it was, and if it could actually be assigned to the geography of the British Isles.

Tacitus' writings on Augustus. In his Annals, he mentioned that he would eventually document the events surrounding Augustus' reign at a later date. However, this is only a slight indication for the existence of Tacitus

I could not agree with you more. If we are to put it in simple terms, Rome experienced three regime changes: monarchy to oligarchy, and then oligarchy to monarchy. These changes were by no means as outsized as one might think

Oh crap, they are on to us! Viva la revolution! :giljotiini:

'P.S. Woof woof!' ...hehe!