M. Porcius Cato

Why not look at it from both points of view--from Cato's POV and from hindsight? Even from hindsight, I don't see how the "Dionysian" elements of Greek culture harmed Rome. Her acquired taste for luxury spurred her to acquire more wealth--and that's a good thing!

Whoa on the second comment. Example: Ben Franklin was a wealthy gentleman (self made I'll admit). His experiments with electricity and observations of the weather lead certainly advanced our understanding of the natural world. Many of the founding fathers of America tinkered in the sciences. If you read Sidoneous' letters you get the impression that he just wasn't interested in many things other than writing long letters and enjoying his estates with his family and friends. Ben Franklin is almost a perfect case for my point. He wasn't an aristocrat, but initially an indentured servant. Only after he left indentured servitude did he begin his remarkably productive career, and it was his free and creative labor that created his wealth. Moreover, as he became wealthier, he didn't increase the rate of innovations, as your account predicts. I'd also point out that there is a huge difference between tinkerers and innovators. Jefferson, for example, was a magnificent tinkerer, but I can't think of a single product that he invented that he saw through to completion--i.e., actual, widescale manufacture. In contrast, people like Eli Whitney and Josiah Wedgwood (not aristocrats) not only invented new products and methods, but put them to use and to market.

First, "Western" versus "Third World" is neither a clear nor an exhaustive distinction (e.g., there are Eastern, "first world" countries). Second, if the contrast you wish to draw is between technologically-advanced versus not-so-advanced, there is a clear metric to use: per capita GDP. When you regress Christianity against per capita GDP, I doubt you'll find a very good correlation (but I could be wrong). Have you checked for this? Also, have you checked for the opposite--free expressions of atheism versus per capita GDP? At least in the US and Europe, higher education is correlated with more income and less religion (of any kind).

To add my two cents, I think there is both a very important role for the sciences in the study of the past and that history is not (and cannot be) a science itself. In my view, history is rather akin to forensics--one has to reconstruct an event or series of events from fragmentary evidence and testimony. In the same way that more basic sciences (physics, biology, psychology) help the forsensic investigator rule out possible reconstructions via application of basic principles to special problems in (say) ballistics, medicine, or memory, the special sciences also help the historian rule out alternative hypotheses. This is very clear in military history, where competing accounts of battles are subject to reconstruction and test. It is (at least in principle) also applicable to other problems in history. For example, scientific examination of the presence of genetic markers across diffierent modern populations have shed light on the origins of the Etruscans; modern demographic models have led to a re-examination of the causes of poverty in the run-up to the Gracchan crisis; etc. No, of course, history cannot itself be a science for a very simple reason--true replication is impossible. Just as it's impossible to diagnose what's wrong with your computer when you can't get it to misbehave again, so too natural phenomena must be repeatable to allow for the systematic manipulation of putative causal factors in the course of hypothesis-testing. Even astronomy, a science where experimentation is impossible, at least allows for repeated testing of repeatable phenomena. Without the bedrock of replication, history simply cannot attain the certainty of science.

The partisans of Caesar on this forum are far more anti-Cato than the partisans of Caesar on the Roman forum. O tempora, o mores!

Yes, but at least since Hesiod, old men have been complaining about how the world is going to hell-in-a-handbasket because young people just don't respect the ways of their fathers. Isn't it possible that Hellenization was fabulous, and Cato was just cranky?

Am I correct to assume, then, that the opponents of Berlusconi have nothing but nice things to say about him?

Yes and it has to do with the change of thought from tribal cohesiveness to aquisitive individualism. The Hellenization of Rome brought greater emphasis to aquisitive individualism and corruption is an inevitable byproduct of it. As a cheerleader for individualism against tribalism, I completely disagree. The link you make between corruption and individualism also strikes me wrong in fact and theory. In fact, tribalist and collectivist societies lose more to corrupt officials than individualist societies; in theory, the tribalist can always defend his pilfering my maintaining that his tribe's needs outweigh the rights of any individual. We'll probably never agree on this matter though.

Only slightly on-topic, but who was the Carthaginian who travelled by sea to Britain?

Yes, but was that due to Hellenization (as Cato the Elder maintained) or due to the ambition of Rome's leading men being sapped by the servility that the Imperial order demanded (as Tacitus maintained)? No surprise, I lean towards Tacitus' explanation. Within a given era, is there any correlation between corruption and Hellenization? I don't detect any.

There is a world of difference between the Platonist, other-worldly philosophers who influenced Christianity and the Aristotelian, this-worldly philosophy that was at least as popular in the classical world. Epikouros, for example, would have been horrified by Christianity, and the popularity of Epicureanism was so great in Rome that it appealed even to political rivals such as Memmius, Cassius and Caesar. Popular Greek philosophy (of the kind expressed directly in Artistotle's exoteric works and indirectly in speeches such as Perikles' funeral oration) and Greek culture--with its public nudity, sports, debating, theater, democracy, egoism, elitism, and eroticism--may be a cousin to Christianity, but it's such a distant cousin that it's like comparing humans and chimps. On this matter, I'm with Nietzsche. ***Actually, on second thought, I do see merit to Ursus' argument. His point, if I take it correctly, isn't that Greek philosophy and culture was dominantly other-worldly, but that it contained a virus of mysticism that had a negative influence on Roman society (via Stoicism). If that's the argument, I'm in agreement.

Aks yuor s-x-ryealod to raed it.

Hope you had a good birthday Neos!

I'd still complain to someone or another. Feedback is the only way this kind of nonsense can get weeded out.

Also, I'd bet that the Chronicle salaries are based on academic year, not fiscal year. With three additonal months of summer salary (earned via grants or teaching or both), it's easy to get a bump. Overall, though, anthropology and archaeology are not very highly-paid in the academic world.

I'm not sure if the capitalisation/bold text is supposed to suggest that I don't know how capitalism works ('cos I do), but are we agreed then, that it is a fair wage? At least fair, maybe a tad on the low side because universities are insufficiently greedy.

Depends on where in the States you lived. In Manhattan--no way. In most of US--sure. The median US household income is around 43K, so for one person to make $40K is above average. It's hard to say whether the cost of living is higher for British academics or American academics. Most research universities tend to be located in areas with an above-average cost of living. Overall, for urban university professors, I'm guessing that the US is a cheaper place to live. For example, London is the world's third most expensive place to live, whereas Manhattan is #13. WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR. They're as essential as movie stars or baseball players--they provide a service that is in demand by a population that is willing to pay.

But was this because supply decreased or because demand increased?

This sounds like complete bunk to me. Send a letter to the lecturer's boss letting him know that you want your money back!

But this is the question we need to address to know about the effect of expanding citizenship. Was there an inverse correlation between citizens' rights and military service?

Anyone can survive on that money? So what? Since when is that a legitimate standard for deciding on wages? At least in the US, archaeologists and anthropologists can generate much more than 40k/year simply through the credit hours they teach to undergrads, let alone all the rest of the money they generate.

Absurdity on stilts. Why not believe instead in a flying spaghetti monster? The case is at least as strong.

What was the sport? The pankration? Or is there really no evidence of such combat sports in Sodom or Gomorrah?

Why were they recruiting in the provinces instead of in Italy or even Rome itself? Because they were closer to the frontiers, had a higher success rate, or both? Was there any attempt to recruit in urban areas?

Did combat sports originate in Greece? Maybe the gladiatorial contests can be blamed on the Greeks...