tflex

Well the main factor has to be the fall of the republic. Caesar and Augustus have to be credited in ending such an unstable and outdated system. The late republic brought nothing but civil wars, and an absolute ruler with absolute authority was the perfect ingredients for peace, prosperity and stability at least for the next 200 years. Hail Caesar!

He shouldn't have been jailed, it's ridicolous, while I agree his comments are insensitive to Jews, you just can't jail a guy for stating his opinion. Same applies to any religion. But when it comes to the head of a state like Ahmadinejad, who is trying to build nuclear weapons then it's a different story. He should be assassinated before he gets his hands on a nuke, pure and simple.

Here's what I'm trying to say Cato. Fantacism is one of the factors that helped Rome rise into an empire. You compared the Romans to the Celts and Germans, now compare them to the Athenians. The Athenians were scientifically, technologically and politically advanced but they lacked fanaticism unlike the Romans. If you add fanaticism to the equation then the Athenians would have been ruthless enough to build an empire like the Romans did. They simply lacked the drive to conquer and rule. The Romans had everything the Athenians had, but fanticism seperated them and thats what gave them the iron will and drive to build and rule a vast empire.

Therefore, the factor that allowed the Romans to excel over the Germans and Huns was not fanaticism but their advanced science, technology, and political system. Do tell me you are able to grasp this. No, I don't grasp it. Yes, their advanced science, technology, and political system seperated them from their neighbours, but that doesn't mean that they are not fanatical. I explained in my previous post.

Some people might find this revolting but it's historically related so what the hell. If for whatever reason you were going to be tortured and executed, which device would be your first choice and which one would be your last and why? Oh and lets stick to the methods of torture practised in ancient, medieval and renaissance times ending at the industrial age. Hangings and chopping heads off are too easy so you can't choose any of those. Me personally, I would prefer a quick death rather than a slow one, even if it was extremely painful. So I would choose the head crusher. My teeth would break, eyes would pop out, then my brains should spill out nicely and that would be the end of it. Depending on the executioner the whole process can take anywhere from a few seconds to about an hour. My last choice would be crucifixion which can last over a day or more. I'de have to deal with the pain from the nails in my feet and hands, I will have trouble breathing and staying upright, and will have to deal with severe dehydration. Too many things to worry about and takes too long.

Actually, february is on course to be as busy as november, and that was our second most active month ever... regards viggen Oh well. I guess you are right but for some reason I thought things were a little peaceful around here. Not today though.

That statement couldn't be further than the truth. You can be an engineer, a scientist, or whatever and still be fanatical. Some modern examples are Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Nobody can argue that the Nazis weren't fanatics and nobody can argue that the Nazis weren't great at building infrastructure, organizing armies, discovering and developing new technologies. They were fanatical yet they were more advanced than any other civilization at the time. Stalin turned Russia from an agricultural economy into a massive industrial superpower through pure fanaticism. The Romans were fanatical but advanced. The Germans and Huns were fanatical but primitive. The same way you can have a thriving democracy and a failing one. Ofcourse, there are other factors that determine the success of a civilization but in the case of the Romans fanatcism was one of the factors that helped. Pure fanaticism gives you motivation and an unwavering drive to enforce what you believe in and thats were moderation fails. The Romans used that fanaticism they had and channeled it into the right direction to build a great empire out of a small village.

I've noticed recently less acitivity than usual in the forum which got me thinking. Are we eventually going to run out of Roman topics? I know there are still a lot of new topics that have not yet been discussed but there are also many topics that have already been covered. A lot of the new members that join don't get the opportunity to discuss those popular topics. If they open a new thread about for example 'Greatest Roman', 'Republic vs Principate', 'Christianity in the Empire' or 'Rome's worst enemy' etc. they will be told that this topic has already been discussed under an older thread and if they post on the older used up thread they won't get much feedback. But, I also realize that we cannot have repetetion and exhaustion of topics. This is just a suggestion. In order not to deny participation to new members and current members that wish to rediscuss older topics and to avoid repetition, do you think a limit should be placed on the topics that have already been discussed? For example, if I want to open a new thread about 'Cicero' and a similar thread was opened say over one year ago, then I should be able to discuss 'Cicero' under a new thread, but if the old 'Cicero' thread was less than a year old then a new thread is not necessary. Does that make sense? I just think this way new members will have the opportunity to contribute and it will reinvigorate the forum while at the same time keeping repetition under control. I'de like to know what the mods and members think and what ideas they have on this matter.

Nice post Caldrail, it's very informative. How come you can't think of any examples, histroy is filled with fanatics that accomplished great things and the Roman empire is a good example. To build an empire you have to be a fanatic, you can't build empires through moderation and fairness they just don't go hand in hand. Rome invaded foriegn lands, forced the inhabitants to obey them through oppression, fear and violence and enslaved millions of innocent people because they were considered inferior to Romans. If thats not success through pure fanaticism, then I don't know what is. Furthermore, the republic system was also a fanatical system driven by the idea of Roman superiority and its expansion. Just because it wasn't run by one family doesn't mean it wasn't fanatical, the only difference is the republic was run by several fanatics rather than just one. I think pure fanaticism is a prerequisite for empire building.

Great news Lacertus, I'm sure everything will work out fine. After the surgery your eyes will be a little dry and sensitive to shiny lights, but don't worry it happens to everyone for about 3 weeks after the surgery. The surgery is very effective you will notice a significant improvement in your eyesight within 2-3 days and after about 2 months you should have 20/20 vision. It's amazing I'm very happy for you.

I don't know if this topic has been discussed before but I'de like to know what where the conditions that led for Rome to rise out of the seven hills into such a unique and successful civilization. Was the landscape more fertile than other places in the West or maybe the climate was ideal? Was it mass migration of different tribes? Where the Romans just more superior than their neighbours mentally or physically? Was it Greek influence and what seperates them from the Greeks? Where did the organization and technology come from in terms of construction, politics and the army? Why where they able to overpass their neighbours the Greeks & Carthage to the south and Gaul & Germania to the north. What circumstances allowed Rome to rise from a small village to the most advanced city and turned into the greatest empire ever known.

Angels rule! I also like the Red Sox because I hate the Yankees, it's a great rivalry though. The steroids scandal really hurt the sport in my eyes but still I enjoy watching when it's playoff time. I never watch the regular season, there is way too many games. They should reduce the number of games played.

I understand, just make sure to find out everything you can about the clinic before you make a decision, maybe ask someone who has already been there and try to find out if the equipment they are using is new and if the doctor is experienced in laser surgery. Keep me updated.

I recall seeing an exceptional documentary on the Spartans as well, though I can't think of a specific title. I think the title was just "The Spartans". The documentary covered their civilization from about 900BC until around 300BC. It was mainly concentrated on the Spartans role in the Persian wars and the Peloponnisian wars. Great documentary, I think you can rent it at blockbuster.

I think you should dig him up, crucify him and then hang him from a tree for all to see. After about a week cut him down and throw him to the vultures.

I would argue to cancel the trial and expedite their execution. Crucifixion would be a good form of execution.

I would have to go with Egypt, simply because Rome relied heavily on the grain exports from that region. It was the backbone of their economy.

I thought the History channel documentary on Hannibal was more comprehensive than the Nat Geo channel documentary on him. Also, I loved the documnetary on the Colosseum and the Spartans.

By the way the christians in Lebanon are still resisting up until today. As a Lebanese christian myself, I fought in the war when I was 16 years old for about a year. I don't live there anymore but it seems like things might blow up again very soon between muslims and christians. The Lebanese Forces (christian militia) trace the origins of their resistance back to the time of the rise of Islam and the Crusades.

He did-but first he had has son killed as he feared the boy would not be strong enough to resist torture. A very loving father.

Laser Surgery is the best scenario but I do not reccomend you entrust your precious eyes to a Moscow clinic, unless ofcourse it has a good track record. Does the clinic have a good track record? If you plan on traveling sometime to western Europe I can recommend some excellent and well recognized clinics in England, France or Germany. In the meantime try to avoid wearing lenses too much, I suggest you wear glasses in the meantime but ofcourse there is no harm in wearing lenses on special occasions. The problem with lenses is that overuse will make your eyes dry and thats not good for your retina. But don't worry about the lasik surgery, there is no pain involved, people usually get nervous before the surgery it's very natural. As for the ophthalmic microsurgery, I think there is no need for such an aggressive procedure at this point, I would avoid that. Lasik is an easier surgery and has a very high rate of success especially for people your age. But don't take any risk with your local clinic, your eyes and your health are the most important so you should only do it at a clinic you can fully trust and be comfortable with.

The militant atheism of some of the people around here is probably rubbing you the wrong way. I find it a bit over the top, myself. (Maybe they were abused by priests. Or maybe they just need an axe to grind). Nonetheless they are right in one thing: you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof rests on those who make the assertions. No one has to disprove the Bible - those who demand others believe in it have the burden to prove that is it correct. As far as the Bible being historically accurate, I believe the results are mixed at best. For one thing, there is little evidence that large numbers of Hebrews were ever held captive in Egypt. And in any event the Egyptians did not use foreign slaves to build pyramids - they conscripted their own native population during the non-farming months. That puts the whole story of Exodus in doubt. That 's not to say the rest of the Bible doesn't hold a powerful spiritual reality for those so inclined, merely that mythology is best read allegorically, not literally. I have no problem with someone telling me the Bible is full of fiction or the exodus might not have occured etc. I personally believe that it did occur but the other person might not believe it, which is perfectly fine. What I have a problem with is an author inventing false stories and trying to add his own version to the Bible which he can't prove. If you are going to say the Bible and the church were hiding that Jesus had a lover then you better be able to prove it with facts. I also have a problem with people applying a different standard to interpreting the Bible and another standard to interpreting a book weak on facts. For some reason these people are willing to give Dan Brown the benefit of the doubt but not the authors of the Bible.

I only like Dan Brown more than the Gospel-writers because at least Brown clearly labels his book FICTION If Dan Brown clearly labeled his book fiction, I wouldn't be arguing against the book, I would simply think it's a book written in bad taste, but Brown claims there are a lot of facts in his book which are completely false. I guess his agenda is simply to mislead the audience. There is only about a Billion people that are convinced, but according to you all those people don't use critical thinking. The Bible is filled with provable material, so it's up to the nonbelievers to disprove it and Dan Brown did a lousy job of that.

The Da Vinci Code talked about Jesus and the new testament which was written two thousand years ago, therefore it's the authors job to prove his baseless claims that aim to revise the new testament. In one of your earlier posts you implied that it's very possible that Jesus had sex. So what proof do you have and what proof does the author have to disprove the new testament? It seems as though you apply a different standard of interpretation to the two books. You are close minded when it comes to the bible but you are open minded when it comes to the Da Vinci Code which is based on lies. This goes to prove that some (and I underline some) atheists are just as close minded as some monotheists.

I respect your opinion but I think you should read it from the original source and have a hebrew dictionary handy. Hebrew is a very specific language and when translated into English it can be a little confusing because English is a more generalized language. I checked out the link, I can't comment on every single point it will simply take too long. But the first point 'Let us make man in our image, in our likness...' When reading this you have to recognize that there was the first earth age and God was in the process of creating the second earth age which we live in now. Genesis 1v2 'Now the earth became formless and empty...' implying there was something that existed before. The word 'was' should be 'became' if translated exactly from hebrew. Infact most bibles have a note at the bottom of the page indicating that the word 'was' is possibly 'became', that makes a big difference. The first earth age is talked about in much more detail in other books like Ezekiel, Isaiah etc. In the first earth age, there were beings in their spirtual bodies which god created. So when god says 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness' he is referring to the angelic beings in their spirtual forms which he had already created in the first earth age.