Ursus

Well, the Comitia Tributa elected lesser magistrates and did have some legislative functions. But the Comitia Centuriata elected the higher magistrates, declared war, and acted as the highest judicial appeals court. The Comitia Centuriata was divided among property qualifications, not tribal affiliation. The Tribes would have been important to the average Roman as a social and religious organization, and the tribal assembly did have some power. But it seems like the divide between Patrician and Plebian was more important in political terms than the tribes. Having said that, Patricians from the same "Gens" were often political allies.

Cool. If I ever visit Rome, I'll look you up.

Mod's note: Inflammatory language and childish insults will be deleted. If you have a problem with one of the mods, please message them in private. Or at least post thoughtful and well-worded critique in the "suggestions and feedback" forum. Thank you.

You guys don't want to see my ugly mug. And I'm kind of private and shy. ;-) But, hey, nice pic, PM.

(moved from Legion folder to main folder) I think Octavian wouldn't have killed her until *after* he paraded her through the streets of Rome. Which makes me believe the proud queen killed herself to avoid the humiliation. Honestly I think this whole episode with Cleopatra demonstrates his character in a nutshell. Caesar and Antony fall prey to Cleopatra's charms, but Octavian is immune to her charms. Either he had an iron will and clarity of purpose, or else the rumors he was more interested in men than women held some truth. Or perhaps it was a bit of both.

Hi, CenPrinCohILegVIVictPF. May I just call you Centurion for short? Welcome to the forum! Yes, I remember reading about "hand me another." How I would have hated to have served in that unit.

Hi. Since this topic seemed military, I just thought I'd move it here where it may get better traffic among the military buffs. :-)

An update: http://www.friends-classics.demon.co.uk/ne...ews_tv_rome.htm Mods, can we move this to the "Roman Media" section?

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.

Born and raised in No Where Special, also known as No Place You've Ever Heard. :-)

Cleopatra, just to see what the heck was so alluring about her that great men became her lap dogs.

This is an excellent question, and I do ask myself that sometimes. However, I pose another question in hypothetical retort: if we use a modern set of standards to condemn the Romans, should we consider the possibility that: 1) Is there a certain fallacy in judging the mores of a by-gone era by modern notions, and should we only judge the Romans by how well they lived up to the standards they set for themselves (did they live up to their own propaganda, in other words)? 2) Some of our modern notions might themselves be in error, or at least not as exceptionally advanced and enlightened over an allegedly primitive and barbaric people as we would like to believe? In the above two questions I have found some cause to hesitate before condemning the Romans for anything that runs afoul of modern sensibilities. I'm not saying I'd want to live in ancient Rome, but I do believe the Romans would have as much to teach us as we moderns would have to teach them. That's why I study them and admire them.

A book I read about him recently made the point, that to paraphrase Napolean, it's not enough to defeat your enemies - you have to profit from their defeat. Alexander may have been a brilliant general and fierce warrior, but his political and cultural visions of a united empire simply weren't realistic. It was bound to collapse as soon as he died and break off into successor states. Arguably though, he didn't care all that much, as his main goal seems to always have been simply to conquer everyone, be declared a god on earth, and get his name in the history books . In this he succeeded, and his legacy to inspire others to military glory is not in doubt. But his legacy as an imperial architect of lasting vision is. His father was much more sophisticated in this regard, and certainly various Roman rulers were on a higher plane. To be blunt, even if Alexander was the greatest *general* in history, I think that's marred by the fact he wasn't the greatest *ruler* in history.

Do you mean astrology? A lot of the astrologers came from the East. The Roman government feared the influence of these foreigners over the masses and often expelled them. Trying to predict the fate of the Emperor actually became a capitol offense, I believe. Nonetheless, as traditional society broke down and Eastern culture started influencing Rome, there was a sector of society that turned to foreign cults for answers, astrology included. But it was considered a little seedy and scandalous.

The Empire was honestly always too big to rule from one capitol. And there had always been a cultural divide as PP said. The union of East and West had always been somewhat artificially imposed by the military hegemony of the Romans, but economically and culturally they were always two distinct spheres. Whenever the military forces holding them together started weakening, they became rapidly unglued. During the Crisis of the Third Century it nearly divided into the Gallic Empire of the West and the Palmyrine Empire of the East, along with other odds and ends. The Palmyrine Empire probably would have fallen under the shadow of the Parthians. Would the West have somehow survived against the Germanic hordes? I don't know, but if they had and Western Europe had remained united under a "Roman" government, how history would have been different. :-) If Antony had won over Augustus, the Empire would have been ruled from Alexandria. I suspect once the Germanic hordes on the Western frontier became too much, the Alexandrian government might simply have conceeded the West and left them to their own devices. I can't prove the last would have happened, but most of the wealth and culture was in the East, and the East was in a more defensible position anyway. So it makes sense. The major problem of an Alexandrian East would have been an endless border war with Parthia. However you slice it, it seems like the divide was inevitable. But it didn't have to take the exact form as we know it from history. I wonder how the West would have faired under the Gallic Empire....

In my experience there are only a few groups that are still hardcore about the American Civil War. Scholars, historians, and civil war reenactors, obviously. A few somewhat anachronistic Southern patriots, some of whom still have political parties advocating secession. African-American and civil rights groups who are still leery about the South's commitment to racial equality. And then various political groups who use the South as a martyr against what they regard as a bloated federal government. Generally speaking, if someone brings up the South outside a purely academic context, it's usually as a pretext for modern day politics. In the last election when regional trends did play a factor, the South and its shady past was all I heard about for a few weeks from the side that lost. I don't live in England but I've known some English and I can't recall them ever talking about their civil war. Must be too far in their past to matter. To put this back on topic, how did the civil wars effect Rome? By the late Republic it seems Roman society was fraying at the seems, which Augustus (if we are to believe his writings) was only too happy to try to restore. When the civil war with Antony ended, it didn't seem like it took too long for the Romans to recover. There was an economic boom shortly afterward, along with a cultural revival. I guess the biggest scar left was the idea that anyone with an army at their back could overthrow the government, and certainly the pattern would repeat itself occasionally.

A "cult" in the strictest sense of the word was simply everything and anything connected to the worship of a particular deity - the myths of the deity, images, rituals, beliefs, festivals, sacred objects, temples, shrines, statues, a membership of adherents, etc.. Every deity thus had its own cult, and this word wasn't meant in a perjorative sense. The related cults of numerous deities - the culti deorum, or cults of the gods - thus constituted religion as a whole. I'm not sure where the modern, derogatory meaning of cult originated. But in the ancient world there were cults of deities that were viewed with suspicion or even hostility. These renegade cults were confined to the fringes of society and were often targets of government prosecution. (for instance, the cult of Dionysus, or later the cult of Christ).

That's a completely modern view, influenced by postmodern deconstruction, and it might be valid for us moderns in the post Nietzsche era. To ancient Romans, however, the traditional culture, the mos maiorum, the way of the ancestors, did furnish them with (in so many words) the ethics and values which they were expected to live by. When individuals or groups deviated from ancestral custom and established morality, they considered it "immoral." The Ancient Romans did not have the belief that every individual's perspective could be different but valid, or that culture rested on assumptions that could be arbitrary and oppressive which individuals could deconstruct and transcend at their leisure. Even most of the philosophers felt there was some ultimate nature to which human behavior should be subject, and deviation from that nature was unacceptable. I think we should judge the ancient Romans by how they thought. To an upper class male in Roman society, power was everything and we he was expected to pursue it in all levels of his life. There was a definite social game to which all Romans of some background were expected to follow and pursue, but there were certain limitations built into the game by ancestral custom to keep it within certain parameters. When some individuals, either through political chicanery or mental defect, went beyond acceptable boundaries of acquisition and display, that's where the problems happened. Personally I rather like the idea of pagan Rome that worldly glory and one's reputation is in some sense the whole point of life, as long as the pursuit thereof is kept within boundaries, it is not to begrudged. Wealth, power, fame, glory, honor, service to the patria. All good stuff. But I admit I am sort of a Heathen. I'm not much into modern religions which seem to be hostile to worldly glory. Nor am I postmodern desconstructionist, who all seem to become rather nervous any time a while male seeks after wealth or power. Power corrupts? After a point, certainly. But I would say on the whole that power empowers. :)

Things were a little different in Ancient Rome, where in the early citizens militia the wealthier sorts were the ones that could buy heavy armor and weapons and thus took the lead in the defense of the state. And throughout Roman history the wealthy were expected to contribute to the community and often did, usually in the form of public buildings or direct contributions to the state treasury. The Decurions, or municipal councilors, were tapped especially for this purpose. I think it worked for Rome, at least until the rot and degeneration of later generations. It might not work for modern western societies, but that's precisely because in the last 1500 years we've developed different values and different social mores where the Roman conception of society is not completely welcome. And I'm inclined to think that captains of industry and commerce help provide the economic and tax base from which most teachers and social workers get paid. ;-) Most of my teachers and professors seemed more inclined to thrust their social values lessons on their students rather than teach them strictly practical and useful things. These social values were usually along the lines of "society is evil, and it's all the fault of white rich men."

What if you actually like the standards of a culture and find them reasonable and "moral"? As I see Roman society, it was a system where people were concerned about their honor and social prestige. Which is fine. But there were certain safeguards put into place. It was fine to have glory as long as you didn't go out of your way to rub it into people's noses. It was fine to have wealth, but not to be obnoxiously crass about displaying it. It was fine to be a capable military leader, but you couldn't march your legions on Rome itself. In other words, it was acceptable and expected you'd climb the social ranks and seek to have a spot light shone on your fame and glory. But you couldn't get so carried away with it that you crowded everyone else out and denied them their own possibility of climbing the ladder. The complaints from Sulla onward was the various strong men did overreach themselves and monopolize the spotlight. These strong men ignored the rather minimalist cultural standards placed on the social game. That's why an overreaching Caesar was murdered, why many of Antony's supporters ultimately deserted him, and conversely why a deliberately moderate Augustus was accepted. It seems to me in the Roman world it wasn't power that was corrosive - Roman society was all about power. From politics, to the military, to even sexual activity. It was all about power. But when people tried to monopolize power, to go beyond a certain cultural standard in acquiring and displaying power, that's when the trouble started.

I recommend _Roman Art and Architecture_ by Mortimer Wheeler.

He seems to have been mostly sane and competent, which given the times was no small feat.

The Holy Trinity of Isis, Serapis (a combination of Osiris and Apis the bull), and the Harseisis child (Horus) were widely worshipped, and some other deities like Anubis were peripherally related to the cult. However, these cults started in Greek occupied Egypt, and their understandings were not completely true to native Egyptian religion - they had some deliberate Hellenic influence. But these Greco-Egyptian cults and their rites are the ones that spread to Rome. The Senate tried to destroy the Greco-Egyptian cults, but it was too popular with the people. Particularly women and the lower classes (if some things had gone differently Isis might have triumphed over Christ). And later there were Senators and Emperors who were among its adherents. Aside from Isis and the deities surrounding her, Ammon from North Africa (the God whom Alexander the Great had consulted), who was identified with Zeus and Jupiter , had a small cult following as well.

Beautiful pics.