Primus Pilus
-
Posts
4,483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Primus Pilus
-
-
I celebrate Christmas with an unrestrained capitalist zeal. Happy Christmas to some, a reflective Hanukkah to others and a Saturnalia of revelry and debauchery to a very (fortunate) few.
-
Would a Roman Soldier (Surveyor) working on Hadrians wall, have read Vergil, The Aeneid. ?
My reason for asking is that I am writing a paper about Hadrians Wall, and wanted to add background information.
Personally, I would think yes.
If he is intelligent enough to be a Serveyor, he would probably be interested in finer things.
Intelligence is not necessarily indicative of taste in the "arts". Interest in finer thing is truly an individual thing... so the answer is he could have. . It may depend on his education - formal or informal, the station of his family or even his place of origin. In any case, books were a relative luxury, hand printed, bound or rolled, etc - not as much as compared to the middle ages when they were truly scarce, but still uncommon for the average Roman.
Regardless, a fair case could be made for having exposure to such works without any great stretching of reality.
-
I'm in general agreement with Ursus, at least once Caesar "came of age". As a young ambitious patrician surrounded by the opulence of an eastern monarchy, I wouldn't be that surprised if a tryst or several took place.
-
It's also possible/likely that the publisher/publicist emphasized a rather tiny portion of the book in order to make it appealing to a larger audience.
-
The Christian Right will not look at the evidence that the Founding Fathers, though Christian, held very few beliefs that we find today in fundamentalist, theocratic Christianity. I find it refreshing that these early leaders, many of whom were Deists, saw the separation of Church and State as a fundamental principle for the protection of religious freedom. Thus so far have many Christians strayed from their own history.
I differ with you on a couple of issues - but not necessarily in the manner in which you might think. In any case, we do know that there were several prominent Deists among the founding fathers (as well as revolutionaries): Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and most prominently George Washington, but by contrast we don't know whether the majority of the founding fathers were deists or Christians based on the presence of these and likely other prominent non Christians. We can look through the list of notable members of the 1st Continental Congress, the signers of the Declaration and the members of the Constitutional Convention and find many quotations in support of and adversarial to Christianity (or a particular Church
-
The point is that their power did not derive from the military. Their power was electory - military authority came with elected power. They were not permanent military chiefs as individuals--well until one particular tyrant came along that is.
-
The Roman Republic was a stratocracy, and not a military dictatorship (like Italy and Germany during WW2). A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs. It is not the same as a military dictatorship where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. In a stratocracy the state and the military are traditionally the same thing and government positions are always occupied by military leaders. The military's political power is supported by law and the society. As such a stratocracy does not have to be autocratic by nature in order to preserve its right to rule.
There are elements within the later Roman Republic which might be considered a stratocracy, but it's certainly not true on any sort of permanent basis prior to the rise of the imperatorial generals. (ie Marius, Sulla, etc.) Even in the later period, there were Consuls who would not be considered "military chiefs", even if their role was officially to act as such when necessary. Cicero comes to mind immediately-and there is a relatively long list of Consuls of whom written history gives us little evidence that these men ruled out of any sort of militaristic necessity. Perhaps this is a semantic argument, but for me, having the authority to wield military power as the Consular heads of state did is not the same as using that military power to wield authority.
-
Another thought while driving home... The USA was undoubtedly founded as a Christian nation - not a theocracy of course, but a nation made up of Christian citizens. While the 1st amendment of the Constitution intends to protect religious freedoms, it was surely nvever intended to be interpreted as to exclude Christianity from the mainstream. It was the fear of federal sponsorship of a particular church over another (Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc.) therefore limiting the right to worship freely, that was the most important aspect. NEVER (in my opinion) was it intended to imply a secular society... nor did it originally apply to individual states, but only to the federal government. It's interpretation today, while certainly valid in many cases, does not necessarily relate to what it meant at the founding. It is absolutely unquestionable that the vast majority of the revolutionary Americans were Christians, and there was little concern over such distant religions as Islam, Hindu, Buddhism etc. in their immediate future. There was however, a very real concern over one powerful church exerting its influence over another.
-
Independent of defined state church, yes, but not independent of Judeo-Christian value systems.
But were these values uniquely Judeo-Christian, or more universal, i.e. present in the value systems of other cultures, both western and eastern? For example there were many values of the Greek philosophers (stoics among others) that were not inconsistent with the values of the Christians.
I agree that there isn't necessarily an inconsistency with either value system. However, it doesn't mean that the influences in the colonies should be ignored. Without delving too deeply the Puritan influence on the northeast is one that comes to mind immediately. The relationship between the colonial Puritans and the crown was strained throughout the colonial period. Summarizing here: they aligned themselves with anti establishment sentiment throughout the colonial period (the Glorious Revolution for example). Nearer to the time of the American revolution, New England Puritans were often at odds with Britain over the encroachment of the Episcopal Church, against their religious preferences. Their was a natural distrust among New Englanders when it came to their religious rights against the will of the crown. Boston, it should be noted, was the common man launching point of the revolutionary movement.
Puritanism was influenced by Revivalism which led to the Great Awakening of the 1740's - creating some sense of solidarity among the colonies. There are many who disagree with the idea of the "Great Awakening" but there is little question that there was an increased level of evangelism and politicizing of pulpits. The "preachers" of the era were often in the forefront of local revolutionary movements.
As a bit of an aside... While education was not limited to the northeast in colonial America, it's there that the modern system of educating children in an organized fashion took its roots. The Puritans were very much pro-education and literacy - a necessity in order to read and properly interpret the bible. Education was of course not limited to the colonial northeast, but can we dismiss that much of the written revolutionary rhetoric took hold in the very same place. Coincidence or not?
-
I was under the impression that when the U.S. was founded, the aim was to specifically dissociate the state from religious influences, judeo-Christian or otherwise. I believe that Thomas Jefferson would be revolving in his grave if he heard the conservative right banging on about America being founded as a christian nation. On the other hand...
'Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.' - Thomas Jefferson
Independent of defined state church, yes, but not independent of Judeo-Christian value systems. Of course, more important to the revolution itself is political circumstance, English common law traditions and revolutionary commentators of the time such as Locke and the Cato Letters. Unquestionably, if we speak directly of the American revolution we see far less of a biblical influence than if we look at the entire colonial period. However, the revolutionary period is a sum of all the eras that preceded it.
I agree and would never advocate that the revolution was a Judeo-Christian event, but I believe it's impossible to disassociate the influence on the culture. Despite the religious affiliations of some prominent founders, it's easy to see the existence of "Providence" throughout their letters and documents. It was not the primary force, and again, I'm not suggesting it was. Many colonists arrived in the new world as a revolt of sorts against the Church of England (and others) heavily influencing American ideology, but the revolution was political, not religious.
-
Yeah but what's with the guy that just got murdered by the people getting married. Call the cops!
-
The term Fascism has always proved far more difficult to define than other political creeds. The modern left has been prone to use the word to describe any forthright opinion that does not match with its own.Not just the Left. In the US, the Right is accusing the left of being Fascists. Watch Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly on the FOX News Chanel. These "discussions" go on because nobody in their audience seems to grasp the difference between socialism, communism, and fascism.
People spend far too much time on labels anyway. Does it really matter what the label is if whomever it is intends to take your freedom, right, left, top, bottom, what have you? Please just refrain from making current political statements in the Roman history section.
-
The foundation draws from both really. There are many elements of Christian influence in colonial America and the revolution - personally, I don't know anyone on the far right that completely excludes the historical influences. Some may tend to look more earnestly for Christian thought processes in early America, but the people I know on the deeper right don't view it as a mutually exclusive thing. Of course, there's also those people on the far left that seemingly refuse to think that Judeo-Christian values have any positive influence whatsoever.
In any case, the influence of the Roman republic on the American system of government is fairly clear. People who don't realize it can be informed. Anyone who seriously refutes the notion despite already having been informed should be disregarded as intellectually inferior. My opinion only of course.
Haven't read it, but you can try this.
http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Classics-Gr...t/dp/0674314263 Dig around within similar books and you're bound to find something.
-
I had rhinovirus once. It made me horny.
-
Attalus has a been a great research tool on a number of fronts. This is just another example. It's great have the entire chronological conversation in a single place and in the proper context.
-
O blithe little soul, thou, flitting away,Animula, vagula,blandula,Hospes comeque corporis
Quae nunc abibis in loca
Pallidula, rigida, nudula,
Nec ut soles dabis jocos.
Guest and comrade of this my clay,
Whither now goest thou, to what place
Bare and ghastly and without grace?
Nor, as thy wont was, joke and play.
(Translated by A. O'Brien-Moore).
The main problem is of course the original source: the Historia Augusta ("Aelius Spartianus") is entirely unreliable, even for Hadrian.
Agreed, likely even more so than Cassius Dio, much of the Historia Augusta seems to have been presented with a distinct flair for the dramatic.
I say likely because despite the inherent issues with the Historia Augusta, the book on Hadrian appears to be somewhat more reliable than the later works. As I recall, it is more in line with other historical evidence than the books related to other later emperors. Of course, I readily admit that "somewhat more reliable" is completely subjective and open to interpretation.
-
The Chinese invade America and occupy Detroit.
It makes sense, bankrupt automobile producers are always a desired target...
UAW ~ PLA, what's the difference really.
-
Apparently they are remaking Red Dawn. The Chinese invade America and occupy Detroit.
Chris, what would you do if you saw PLA troops in your back yard?
Much of it was filmed within a couple of miles of my house. There are already plenty of communists living here in Michigan... a few Chinese wouldn't make much difference. =P
I just can't believe that there is so little hollywood creativity left that they had to remake Red Dawn.
AVENGE ME BOYS!
-
Dear M. Porcius Cato,
I saw the very interesting comparison, which you make in your post, of prosopographic data to the coin hoard incidence. Is this paper published? If yes, I would greatly appreciate a reprint. Please respond directly to my e-mail, as I am not a regular visitor on this forum.
peter.turchin@uconn.edu
Thank you,
PT
The source data for the chart is here - no published paper per se, but rather a list with accompanying ancient source references:
http://www.unrv.com/government/political-v...an-republic.php
I don't recall that we ever published MPC's chart in conjunction with the above data, but he obviously posted it in this thread.
-
US Army in Somalia was the most funny !
Yeah, 16 years later and Somalia is still a shithole of islamic genocide and tyrranny. Yeah, really funny stuff. Asshat.
-
The classical source here is presumably SP Festus, De verborum significatione Book 14.133 BCE - Scipio Aemilianus created a personal guard of clients called the cohors praetoria.From this text, it seems no hint was given by the author on which Africanus (Major or Minor) was he talking about.
Lacus Curtus provides some quick reference background on the who said what. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...raetoriani.html
-
Here's another start
http://www.redrampant.com/2009/07/ancient-roman-armor.html
This post has a bunch of links to pictures of armor and such.
-
Does anyone know how many men were in the Praetorian guard?
That depends very much on the who and when. Typically it was 9 cohorts of 1,000 men... here's a VERY rough lineage.
133 BCE - Scipio Aemilianus created a personal guard of clients called the cohors praetoria. This practice continued for imperatorial generals throughout the late Republic and the civil war period.
31 BCE - 14 CE - Augustus essentially created an imperial guard based on the previous practice - there is some debate on the beginning numbers but it is often accepted that there were 9 cohors of 500 men or roughly the same size as a legion (4,500 men). Before the death of Augustus the number of men per cohor doubled.
69 CE - Under Vitellius it swelled to 16 cohorts of 1,000 men.
c. 69 - 70 CE - Vespasian reduced it back to the original 9
c. 81 - 82 CE - Domitian, his son, increased it to 10
c. 193 CE - Upon the assassinations of Commodus, Pertinax and Didus Julianus, Septimius Severus disbanded the praetorians and reformed them from his own loyal legions. The number may have increased nominally, but the base 10 cohors remained.
c. 312 CE - Constantine disbanded the praetorians permanently though a form of guard units would always remain. (ie Scholae Palatinae)
-
How much Imperors was Caesaried? How much Caesar in The History of the Empire?
The correct name is Caesar not Ceasar.
Was there a developped Hospitals?
Who are the most known Ancient Rome Medecs and Sergians?
(I'm in Vet medical studies)
Instructions of UNRV Administrator Nephele:
I hope tha the answers would be referenced with schloar and agreed resources, names of professors articles, without coping word by word.
Wikipedia is not an accepted source.
Signature:
"Hospitals" were a later Roman concept developed from the earlier Aesculapium. It was essentially a temple where the sick could go to pray to Aesculapius (the god of medicine whose serpent entwined staff evolved into the medicinal symbol) for help. There was limited care provided by the priests in order to comfort those seeking help, but not likely any real medicinal intervention.
True hospitals in the Roman empire seem to have developed with the growth of Christianity and the church in the Constantinian era, though the modern concept of hospitals (or simply large facilities to treat and comfort the sick) pre-date Christianity in places like India.
Two "famous" Roman doctors:
Aulus Cornelius Celsus who wrote De Artibus and De Medicina Octo Libriand
Aelius Galenus (simply Galen) who wrote an exhaustive number of treatises and encyclopedic works (which are unfortunately mostly lost)
For Moonlapse (if he is still around)
in Hora Postilla Thermae
Posted
Heh. Those guys have actually been around a long time. You can check out some more samples on the Ten Masked Men myspace. None are as good as Britney's though. Except for the "Baby, Baby" and the repetitive chorus, Britney's song actually fits in fairly well with death metal. LOL