Gaius Octavius
-
Posts
3,293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Gaius Octavius
-
-
Off topic? Its achieved escape from the Earth's gravitational pull.
I apologize for the understatement
You gentlemen don't mean a word of that. It was fun anyway.
I apologize for being so flippant. :1eye:
-
The Senate was a tyranny from its very outset.
Not in any meaningful sense of the term.
O.K. How meaningful do you want?
What is the point of 'freedom of speech' if it doesn't matter?It did matter a great deal. As a result of free speech, men like Verres were successfully prosecuted. That's a system that's working, and it was that very feature of the free republic that the triumvirs destroyed.
Ever hear of a plebe prosecuting a governor?
The 'vast' sums spent on elections were more properly called bribes.Give me a break. The little cups that canvassers used to spread around are hardly bribes. We don't have a detailed record of campaign finances, but we do have a pretty good sense of who was tried in the courts for bribery, and the incidence of bribery was astonishingly low.
I believe that it was you who earlier said that large sums were expended in elections. I wonder how much the plebes spent on their campaigns for consul or quaestor. If one weren't a good boy, one no longer was a client. In addition to that little cup (probably filled with a few as), does the fear of losing ones patron count as a bribe?
One optimate vying against another. If one of the objects of government is to serve the ENTIRE nation, then the Republic failed.That isn't a proper object of government--it is quite frankly wishful thinking. No government will please all the people all the time. What matters is that the government conform to the rule of law. The triumvirs did not.
If the laws are just, they will serve the ENTIRE nation all the time. Except for the criminals, of course. Serving the entire nation is not a proper object of government! Rats! I didn't know that.
The Senate served its interests and not those of the nation as a whole. This was the case also in the senates of the cities. The number of people who climbed the 'ladder', on merit alone, were exceptionally few. The Empire, when it was effective. did little if anything for 95% of the people. When ineffective, this mass suffered more. The result for the people was the same.You're ranting. Give some evidence for your case. What is the EVIDENCE that the senates in the provincial towns did not provide the government services which the people--who alone had the power to legislate--decreed by law? What is the EVIDENCE that 95% of the magistrates of the Roman republic were meritless? Take a look at the surviving list of magistrates of the republic--for how many of them do you have some evidence of incompetence and for how many do you have ZERO evidence of incompetence? And if you have ZERO evidence of incompetence, by what authority do you second guess the judgment of the people of Rome?
Ranting? My good man! Are you maintaing that the poloi legislated? That a yokel could become a politician?What, then, was the point of these senates composed of local elites? Let us speak now of ranting. Would you please be kind enough to review my last three sentences (ex the period blunder) and determine if your last three have anything at all to do with mine or even relate to my 'supposed facts', which you seem to be countering?
How many times would the gluttony of the Senate have had to have been 'fixed' by a Sulla or triumvirate before it got the idea? The Senate was not acting in the nation's interest.Now I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what the Senate could and couldn't do at various points in Roman history. Sulla did not fix the gluttony of the Senate. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He succeeded in ousting the tyranny of the Marians, and he set himself up as a tyrant. The Senate was as helpless in this civil war as is a senate in any civil war. Nor did the triumvirate contain the "gluttony of the senate": almost all of the opposition to the triumvirs were on constitutional matters because there was a real constitutional debate happening in the aftermath of Sulla. If you think otherwise, provide the names and dates of the legislation that support your interepretation; otherwise, admit you're wrong.
At VARIOUS points? Oh, dear me! Have I once again blundered?
Didn't Sulla whack a few senators? Well, I guess that they were all guilty of some peccadillo. I DO know that the senate couldn't stop Sulla. I agree with you that the gluttony of the senate wasn't satiated, that's what I'm saying. Needed another Sulla. One tyrant succeding another is refreshing. "...helpless in this civil war as is a senate in any civil war." Something like the U.S. Senate in the U.S. Civil War.
I will admit (and I am not being sarcastic now), that you know more about Rome than I ever will. Back to my repartee. You provide your creditable evidences first. Then I'll hammer away. A fact here and there, on either of our parts, could never be conclusive.
If freedom or liberty are to be the contrasts between the two forms, then, in my opinion, these only leached into some societies during the 19th and 20th centuries.As I've repeatedly claimed on this very thread, I'm not claiming the Republic was a libertarian utopia. I'm claiming that the instability normally said to be characteristic of the republic was in fact more characteristic of the triumvirate. The republic was not a free state, but it was a freer state than the states that followed it--from the Caesars of the first century to the Kaisars and Tsars of the 19th. For all their freedom and prospertiy, republics are astonishingly rare in the history of the world, and in my view, the republican constitution is one of the greatest legacies that Rome left to the world.
Now, (I hope that you are sitting), I entirely agree with your last paragraph as written!
Nonetheless, my emphasis has been on corruption.
My whole point is this: The people of Rome were probably more free in 1 AUC than they or any other people have been until the 19th or 20th century. Plutocracy has always reigned - and still does.
I still love you (in the philosophical sense). Keep hammering at me; maybe I'll learn! Did you get a private message from me?
-
Ave P.P. and M.P.C.:
Once again, because things are similar (remember your geometry?), that does not make them equal. If I am not, once again, in error, the early Christians did not cotton to pagan beliefs. Seems that they were fed to the lions on that account.
I am not trying to proselytize, but rather to inform (asssuming that I am correct). Personally, I feel that the most of today's preachers are nothing but a pack of racketeers. From this, it does not follow that God or saints do not exist.
-
Half a century ago, my fellow debauchees and I would go to Sheepshead Bay (Brooklyn, N.Y.) and eat clams and oysters -raw, without any sauce - (the only way), by the barrel. One didn't have to mortgage the farm for one oyster in those days. It seems that only Italians and my 'educated' Irish friends ate the things then. Like squaddies, we swilled beer by the gallons. Probably Rheingold from a tap. Never tried scallops or mussels raw. Mussels, only at home, were baked and the swill of choice was burgandy or barberone (imported from Kali4kneeya) - half and half with cream soda - and a lemon twist. My father used to bake and pick at the brains of a sheep's head, wine as above. I am sure that it was his Roman blood.
Was there a connection between the denarius and oysters?
-
Whenever I read about legions, they are composed of 'X' thousands of men neatly comprised of 'Y' men per cohort. Multiply by 10 and, viola, that's a legion plus the cavalry.
If I am not in error, the legion had engineers, doctors, armorers, food and ammunition carriers, legate guards, etc. How were these set into the legion? As units, if so what were they called and how were they accounted for?
-
The Senate was a tyranny from its very outset. What is the point of 'freedom of speech' if it doesn't matter? The 'vast' sums spent on elections were more properly called bribes. One optimate vying against another. If one of the objects of government is to serve the ENTIRE nation, then the Republic failed. The Senate served its interests and not those of the nation as a whole. This was the case also in the senates of the cities. The number of people who climbed the 'ladder', on merit alone, were exceptionally few. The Empire, when it was effective. did little if anything for 95% of the people. When ineffective, this mass suffered more. The result for the people was the same.
How many times would the gluttony of the Senate have had to have been 'fixed' by a Sulla or triumvirate before it got the idea? The Senate was not acting in the nation's interest.
If freedom or liberty are to be the contrasts between the two forms, then, in my opinion, these only leached into some societies during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Can one say that if the Republic had continued that Rome would exist today?
-
Saints are not considered gods or spirits by Christians
They are not considered Gods by Christians themselves, to call them such would be blasphemy, but one can't deny they bare a striking resemblance. this link has a list of Patron Saints, Saints which are seen to have greater influence over specific occupations or areas (and are endorsed to have such by the Papacy) when prayed to. It also depends on ones definition of a god. If you define a god as a being that is immortal, and more powerfull than a mere human and possibly involved or interested in human afffairs, a saint certainly qualifies.
The Romans prayed to their spirits and ancestors, but did not consider them gods.
An orange and a tangerine bear a 'striking resemblance', but they are not the same because of this resemblance. It is not only the Papacy that commends saints, but also the Orthodox Churches and some Protestant Churches. 'Saint' means 'holy'. Saints are defined as 'beings' who are in heaven with God and as such, may influence human affairs. Their souls are immortal, if one believes. Angels are immortal and holy. One may find similarities with pagan 'beings' but there is not an equality. Saints may not act independently of God as pagan 'beings' or gods can. The Christian God is not merely defined as immortal and powerful, but rather immortal, all powerful, all knowing, unique, etc. Saints do not have these attributes. A saint or an angel is powerful and immortal, subject to the will of God.
-
Sts Cyril & Methodius converted a number of Slav peoples to Christianity in the mid 800's. I assume that many of these Slavs were within the Empire (Bulgarians, Macedionians). I can't cite it, so take this for what it is worth: Paganism continued to be practiced in remote places for quite a while thereafter.
Saints are not considered gods or spirits by Christians. They are believed to be in heaven and are prayed to because it is believed that they may intercede with God on the suppliants behalf. Originally, saints were proclaimed as such by acclamation of the people. 'The voice of the people is the voice of God.'
The setting of Christian celebrations to coincide with pagan celebrations may have simply been a matter of practicality.
-
P.S. Where is that place that you are from?
Have you ever read Aristophanes' Birds?
Nope! Right now I am wandering through 'Bleak House' and rcovering from falling out of bed, whacking my head on a dumb bell and getting a 1" gash on the noggin for my efforts. You're making my life so much easier. Thanks! I'll cheat anyway.
'Cloud Cuckooland', aye!
Sounds interesting. Have to get at it - soon. P. S. Pentagathus, no umbrage taken. Had it been so, you should have experienced my deadly venom. :fish:
-
Oh no not the "cities of the plain " again. All you Proustians know what I mean.
"Cities of the Plain"? What is that about?
-
I should apologize to Dickens for my strong dislike of him but I won't apolgize because of my strong dislike of him.
Vlad Tepes impaled lots of turks, but also many romanians, bulgarians and germans.
As a revange, his brother Radu the Beautifull was impaled often by Mehmet II Fatih. Speak of decaDance.
My Dear Kosmo:
How many times could Mehmet impale Radu? Or are you speaking of the 'Biblical' sense?
-
Pertinax, that thread is a gem. I wish that there were one forum where this subject could be posted on.
-
Some lad on NPR today mentioned that Romans were the first to farm oysters. And that the denarius had something to do with oysters. (Rats! I missed his point!)
As an aside, he noted that the oyster business and prostitution were the main occupations in New York City at one time.
I wonder if the Romans drank wine or beer with their oysters. How about clams, mussels, snails and urchins? Raw or cooked? Wine or Peroni?
-
My Bride decided on:
1. Aspirin.
2. Toilet paper.
3. Cigarette lighters to get the fires started.
Note well that she didn't include ME!
-
THE STREETS OF HEAVEN AND AMERICA ARE GUARDED BY
UNITED STATES MARINES
-
I'm going to say the Roman nobles of the early Republic (can't remember their names right now) who bungled the diplomatic talks between the Celts and Etruscans, and ultimately resulted in the Celts sacking Rome. It set Rome back at least 50 years.
Would you please give a little more information on this matter.
-
I have no idea what Caesar meant.
Caesar = hairy.
I knew that I could count on you. Thanks.
Now, how about the rest of my twaddle? Does it hold water?
-
I will grant that it is up for grabs whether the authors in the Bible were out to make a sheckel or not. But, it is not up for grabs, in re Brown. He was out to make a pound or two.
The Bible was written in different times for diffferent generations. The words and idiom used were for the people of that time - as they understood them. These same often change in meaning and nuance, if not meaning the opposite, as the generations pass. (English being a prime example) One must know what the words meant at the time they were written. In addition to time, there is the problem of the translation into different languages (and their times). Words and idiom are difficult to translate. How does one understand the word 'sanguine'? Warm or bloody? How about 'moot'? If 'contradiction' seemingly (rather than 'apparently') exists in the Bible, it is the function of churches, rabbis and pastors to clear the matter up with due regard to the afore mentioned. Perhaps the Jews were not used to physically build the pyramids, but does that mean that they were not slaves or were not slaves used in some ancillary fashion in their building?
It is held by believers that the Bible was written by a human hand guided by God. Believe It or not. Apparently, God gives one that choice.
Just to anticipate someone holding that I have 'contradicted' myself in regard to translations, I don't know if the hand of God guided the translators. I'll take the matter up with St's Augustan and Thomas tonight.
-
Bahhh... Then why bother argue because Catholics are Catholics with fundamental beliefs and non-believers are nonbelievers... it really isn't gonna change!
Catholics? Only Catholics? Therefore, The Orthodox, Protestants and Moslems accept the book's fairy tale?
This comment applies whether one accepts the Bible (or Koran) as Gospel or not.
-
Also in the book it said that Jesus made Mary pregnant which if you followed would mean that Jesus loved Mary as much as Joseph did (get my drift?)
The Church also looks greedy and wants to destroy all things related to Mary's pregnancy.
Methinks that you have the wrong Mary.
-
I find it remarkable that there are people who believe a man could rise from the dead, yet who are unwilling to believe that the same man could have sex with a woman. I guess they follow Tertullian--credo quia absurdum.
That is the nature of FAITH and MIRACLES. Either one believes or doesn't. Like the words manners, taste and unique, which do not take adjectives, faith and miracle stand alone. Jesus has two natures; True Man and True God. God is sexless and colorless (amongst other attributes). God may do as He chooses.
I haven't read the book and won't; saw the boring documentaries; will have to see the flic by edict of my Bride.
Brown won the case against him in the British assizes.
The book is a story, just like Jack and the Bean Stalk. It wouldn't be politic to tell a Moslem that Mohammed didn't ride into heaven on his white horse. Now, we have this Judas Gospel. Then there are the Gospels of Mary Magdelan and St. Thomas. Obviously, the Council had no idea as to what it was doing when choosing the books of the Bible. It seems that those, who lack faith, so easily have faith in the likes of the DaVinci Code.
-
Excellent commentary, gents.
So, just two cents worth. I understand that if a Roman column were charged by cavalry, in a reasonably open area, and the enemy were armed with spears, the Romans would form up into a square. They could easily defeat the charge in this fashion. If the cavalry were armed with arrows, and did not engage the infantry directly, as at Carrae, then the result might be disaster.
It seems that Varus did not use 'scouts' and was much too credulous of Ariminus. "Trust but verify."
-
It is my understanding: That the 'nomen' and 'cognomen' travelled through the generations of a family in the male line. That there were a number of 'praenomen' peculiar to each family line, e.g., Caius, Decimus. That the 'cognomen' was based on a trait or occupation or physical characteristic of the founder of the family, e.g., Cicero - 'chick pea'; Rufus - 'red'; Niger - 'dark'. I have no idea what Caesar meant. That an 'agnomen' was 'awarded' to an individual for a feat or service to the state, e.g., Germanicus - 'conqueror of Germans'; Africanus - 'conqueror of Africa' (the province); Augustus - 'highest'(?), and did not travel through the family line. Which last calls to mind the question, why wasn't Caesar awarded an agnomen? Am I in need of severe correction and education?
In my opinion, the 'political correctness' alluded to earlier, neither serves nor honors the intended, and is insulting as it is not necessary.
-
Rameses, one of the best ways to learn English is to read Dickens and Jane Austen; American, Mark Twain.
Good luck, kid
polytheistic influence on Xtian saints?
in Templum Romae - Temple of Rome
Posted
What is your proof? Where are your creditable evidences? (Sound familiar?) Lord! Give me a loaf of bread!
The court waits on your pleasure. :notworthy: