AEGYPTUS

I am not sure whether this is true or not, however I heard that Cleopatra was the first of the Ptolemaic dynasty to learn the vernacular spoken in Egypt at the time, opposed to using Macedonian Greek exclusively. Is that true? If so, it would certainly back up Rameses statement that she considered herself more Egyptian than Macedonian.

Brilliant article Klingan. Very informative I learned alot! I found the part on the Phonecians very interesting. As I did not know much about them other than having founded Carthage. :D

Sounds like an interesting book, as it deals with all sorts of different forms of Litereature. will definately consider reading it.

On the subject of Latin, well I do not have any real concept of the language to my up most regret/shame. So I wish to pose a question as to whether anyone knows of some sort of Summer Course one could do in Latin, bearing in mind that I live in the UK London. The Secondary School I am in does not provide Latin as a possible subject to study. Only Classical Studies (History side of the spectrum) which I am currently participating in!!! I am starting at University in October- November 2008 (if everything goes according to plan lol ) and I have my heart set on a Degree in Classical Civilization or something of this description. So getting some sort of grasp of Latin would not go a stray I am sure!!!! .Thanks in advance for all help given. AEGYPTUS

[quote name='Northern Neil' date='Apr 27 2007, 08:34 AM' post='62876' In Ireland, the most comprehensively Celtic country in the modern world, the Catholicism of the Romans totally has supplanted the original Celtic religion. The thing that makes Ireland interesting, however, is that the conversion was not brought about by invaders - it seemed to be accepted willingly even though only introduced by a handful of evangelists. Either the Irish people genuinely found this religion attractive or the Irish kings considered it politic to convert, as it (belatedly) admitted them, in a partial sense, to the Roman world. I think the second explanation is most likely, as Christianity even in the 5th century was rapidly assuming its repressive, mediaeval guise. Actually as regards Irish Christianity ( which are obviously of the Catholic Creed today!), However when they were first converted they developed their own distinct version of Christianity referred to as (Celtic Christianity) founded in 5th century, it lacked structure as main stream Catholic and Orthodox Churches having not yet incorporated the ideas of diocese and parishes these ideals were brought to the country later by invaders. Then it started to be identified more with Catholic Church. Celtic Christianity incorporated lots of Pagan myths into the lives of Irish Saints such as St. Briget or St. Finbarr, the acts they are remembered for were in fact carried out by Pagan gods or goddesses in accordance with Ancient Myths! So once again it could be argued in a way that the Ancient Pagan/Celtic stories of Irelands past were in fact preserved by Christians. Just because a different person carries out act does not mean the moral/idea of the story is lost. Christianity did a lot for Ireland as well the rise of the ascetic movement. These communities that developed throughout Ireland became centres of learning and crafts. Even if it did oppress an older culture it did replace it with something that in my view was not half bad. Some of the most beautiful Irish artefacts were made during this period!! in Monasteries.

As regards the title of the topic, do u not think it rather harsh "Monotheism and the suicide of cultures". Yes it did destroy other cultures but did if I am not mistaken they preserve many important ideas that the Roman had be it the Arab (Muslims who preserved Roman ingenuity when it came to things such as Medicine and architecture), also the Christian Church preserving Latin did they not? So I think it would be unfair to say that Monotheism is totally at fault re causing the suicide of local cultures such as those in Iran and the orient prior to the Arab invasion. Besides Monotheism was only part of the Arab identity. Naturally Arab customs would have usurpt local ones they were the ruling class so some loss of local culture and identity is to be expected. On the other hand is that what all invaders try to do to their new subjects regardless whether they are Monotheistic or polytheistic creeds which the particular people involved follow? They try to suppress local culture to prevent a rise in a nationalistic feeling which could potentially cause revolts!!! Just wanted to voice my opinion for what its worth.

Urus, Your post is really interesting. You said Mithraism could be an off shoot of Zoroastrianism. What were the similarities that make people think they could be related? just interested

I suppose you could argue that the Eastern provinces Asia Minor Greece etc... Were very important, so important that the legacy of the Roman Empire (Byzantines) struggled on to maintain a hold on these areas until 1400's In the early Roman Empire I would have said that Rome would not want to lose Gaul as if I am right in thinking a substantial amount of the army was trained there and there was gold deposits their then it was a lucrative area the Empire could not afford to lose. Also I would consider Egypt to be of great importance to the empire being the bread basket of the ancient world and shipping much grain to Rome.

Thank you very much for the information on Zoroastrianism. Much appreciated! As I am sure you know already the Romans of the early empire e.g. Pre-Byzantine period had many gods "the more the merrier”. Would there have been any people living in the West that would have worshipped this religion? I am just wondering as since the religion would not have been unknown to them would it?

Zoroastrianism I was wondering having read a little about the mysterious ancient Persian religion as to whether there were many worshippers of this particular religion in the Roman Empire. Was it wide spread in the Eastern Provinces of the empire? It must have had some influence? Also did it have many adherents in the Roman Western world? Like Rome itself for example. Also I would be interested if the religion did have follower in the empire how were they treated as the are a monotheistic religion. Would the treatment have been similar to that of Jews and Christians in the Empire? Thanks in advance for any info posted. AEGYPTUS!!!

They have left us a wealth of literary works. Obviously they were preserved by other but what they have past down to us is really amazing. Also architecture they have left a wealth of buildings which inspired many to rediscover technologies to recreate them during the Renaissance! Without them we may be quite substantial behind in the tech tree when it comes to things like architecture and engineering.

There were other mystery cults which allowed women Like Isis which were popular as well weren't there?

Wasnt the Emperor Hadrian a Stoic?

Thanks you for the prize. Also a belated Happy Xmas and New Year to all!!!

Byzantium The Early Centuries by John Julius Norwich. Has alot to say on Belisarius and his Italian campaigns!

Is there not evidence to suggest that there was Christians and Pagan communities in conflict through out the world at the time. Back on topic is it possible that the Christian Egyptians destroyed the remaining scrolls in the library long after the fire that destroyed much of it in earlier times? As they may have seen it as a Pagan literature. It is possible as you have already mentioned the destruction of hieroglyphs throughout Egypt!

I think it would be unfair to say the Church is the only persecutors of visionary through out the course of history. I think the public view on Philosophers in the early stages were not good for example Socrates executed for his beliefs held against the Sophist’s. The Churches views were widely held views in the times of Galileo. Julian did not to my knowledge do anything tyrannical bar his closure of Christian churches etc… He was a brilliant ruler who died before his time. He lead expeditions into Sassanid Persia as far as the walls of Ctesiphon!!

There are three reasons why I think Alexander really wasn't gay. First off, back then in Greece, there was no such thing as Homosexuality or no distinction of it. It was then understood that men were attracted to beauty be it man or woman. Secondly, It can be possible the reason he ignored women and preferred the company of men was because he admired strength in character and personality, something few women have. Thirdly, I seriously doubt he would have gotten as far as he did if he was a true homosexual. I don't think his macho-obsessed father would have put so much planning and teaching into a boy with a gay personality and damn well don't think he could have led the Macedonian army, let alone conquer the entire Persian Empire. I can't personally recall any great commander that was gay. I would disagree with you that Alexander in my opinion showed strong homosexual tendencies. However this was not unusual at the time as you said already. In fact in Sparta it was considered to be of cardinal importance to a soldier training, as if men loved each other on the field they would be less likely to run away as they wished to defend their lovers. Alexander respected women very highly examples of this would be The story of Timocleia during the looting of Thebes. What you said when you say "It can be possible the reason he ignored women and preferred the company of men was because he admired strength in character and personality" Was Olympia his mother not one of these characters. She cleared his way at court to be King in waiting re alleged poisoning of Arrideus his step brother. Who was intelligent and handsome until he was struck dum!!! Other examples of women whom Alexander respected are Sisgambis Persian Queen mother, Queen Ada restored her to power after Pixodruse's death in her home city the exampels are endless. Also I think it is important to point out Hephaestion was I think from his description and constant praise he received was more than a friend. Also the fact that Alexander after his death sent embassy to Siwah to see if Hephaestion could be worshiped as a God!! The god s said no but permitted him to be worshiped as a Hero. If he is just a friend to Hephaestion he is certainly being rather obsessive for just a friend. Alexander's major fault was getting married so late if he wasn't homosexual why did it take him so long to get hitched. It could be argued that this was a major contributor to the break up of his empire as on his death he had no heir. In fact, Alexander apparently refused to takes sexual advantage of any of the tens of thousands of women captured during his travels. He is said to have, for instance, to have walked by the most alluring Persian women as if they "were lifeless images cut out of stone" (Plutarch). Also in his early years loved to compare himself to Achilles and Hephaestion to Patroculs from his favourite book and most prised possession Homers Iliad. This relationship has been considered by most to be a homosexual relationship. So to conclude taking all those factors into account I would think Alexander was homosexual for a good chunk of his early years at the very least. Perhaps he was bisexual if that was the case I would say he would have preferred to be lovers with men as he maintained a relationship longer with Haphaestion then with Roxanna his own wife admittedly because he was on campaigns but still why not take a mistress! AEGYPTUS

Ok where would you find that exactly?

Well I thought it was important for a ruler to share or atleast be tolerant to the most fastly growing faith at the time thats all.

Still why so persistent. He had no male heir to pass on his religous beliefs to. To later enforce his ideals on the Empire once Julian was no longer around, so why bother?

That is amazing. Very impressive that the items remained in such good condition!!!

Julainus The Apostate(Flavius Claudius Julianus) III Ruler in Constantine's dynasty After Constantine the Greats conversion to Christianity I would have thought Paganism would have died away relatively fast. Christianity was winning that battle of the faiths at the time. Yet Julian The Apostate continued to secretly worship the old gods. He received a Christian education/upbrining and was a travelling philosopher with little ambition until he was elevated to the rank of Caesar of the West .So I am at a loss as to why he switched back to the Old God's of the antiquity. Julian was the last ruler to follow this faith (Paganism). Constantine backed the winning religion Christianity. Even if Julian thought Zeus had given him a divine mission to re-convert the populous of the Roman World. Being an intellectual and a visionary and learning from those who came before him he should know where to put a fine line between the achievable and the unachievable. He had Temples re opened across the Empire. He tried to get Pagans to adopt the same infrastructure as the Christian Church with Monasteries, Convents, Schools and orphanages etc This was in order to combat the opposing religion more effectively. He also made a lot of Anti-Christian legislation to try and hamper the Religions expansion. From what Julian experienced at his capital Antioch he should have known Paganism star was descending into obscurity. At Daphne a rich and prosperous suburb of the capital the great festival to Apollo was held annually. Julian went to the Temple only to find it empty. When he asked the high Priest what was being sacrificed to the god he said he had brought a goose from his home but the city was yet to offer anything to the deity. This surely would have illustrated that Julian was entering a losing battle. So my question is why did he persist to try and paganise a world whose views on this form of worship had clearly changed to the opposite side of the spectrum e.g. Monotheism? It seems to me to be slightly obsessive to me!! Sorry I am not sure if I have posted this in the right place should it have gone in Templum Romae? I thought I would ask. I thought i should post here as Julian is in that sort of time frame latter Roman Period. Any insight would be much appreciated Thanks AEGYPTUS

The early Christians were considered to be cannibal/vampires by the Romans because they received the body and blood of Christ. Weren

When I think of Hellenisum I generally think of Alexander the Great and hsi achivments. Also I think of Democracy, Greek philosophy, Greek Drama. It is amzing how much the achieved of the course of Greek history!!