Ingsoc

I think that you completely misunderstand the issue, the pseudo-republicanism was a result of the Roman natural conservatism (to simply put it changes were viewed in a negative way) that why the more tactful emperor put this act and this all that it's was, an act. the senate stop to function by the end of republic and became nothing more than an honorary council of the emperor's favorites.

Thanks, here are some better pics: http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4022/img0497jr2.jpg http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3700/img0496ad5.jpg http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6507/img0498fp5.jpg IMP/CAESAR/DIVI/VESPASIANI/F/DOMITIANVS /AVG/PON/MAX/TR/POT/IMP/III/PP/COS/IX/TAT I didn't manage to make out the last two lines.

What exactly do you mean by "doomed"? Rome continue to exist for several centuries.

This milestone was found in Israel (it's suppose to be from Domitianus era), it's is now display at the entrence to the Tel-Aviv University. I will try to get more picture when I can.

Could anyone help me transcribe the inscription on this milestone?

Needless to that his interpretation is problematic, the reading of the inscription is disputed and I seriously doubt that one could fix a accurate date to the tradition in the Talmud. just as much this tradition of the resurrect messiah could be a result of Christian influence rather than the other way around.

I don't sure that this comparison is valid, they operated in a small area of the Roman Empire and have a very narrow goal. Their are to some extent admiration to them in modern Israel however their tyrannical rule and the fact that they are largely seen guilty in the civil war during the Great Revolt largely hurt their reputation and they were seen as a negative example of Jewish independence and thus never rose to truely popular national heroes like king David, the Hasmoneans and Bar-Kochba. While their is an anti-Zealot tendencies from the rabbis after the failure of the Bar-Kochba revolt (btw this work from both ways, the Romans themselves have more moderate approach towards the Jews) but I doubt the Roman care much about Jewish literature (at this time censorship didn't exist) what more the non-Jewish European world "discover" the rabbinic literature only in the 13th century.

One has to be fair and mention that the rabbinic literature also portray the zealots in a negative way.

The premise that the Messiah died and was resurrected after three days is considered the foundation of the Christian faith, one which differentiates it from Judaism. Through the generations, this belief stood at the center of the debate between Christians and Jews. But now, a mysterious tablet from the time of the second temple has led researchers to believe that this premise of messianic resurrection is not unique to Christianity, but rather existed in Judaism years before Jesus was born. The tablet, which has been dubbed "Gabriel's vision" because much of its text deals with a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel, was discovered eight years ago, but a large part of it is illegible and researchers have had difficulty interpreting its meaning. Israel Knohl, a professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has offered a new interpretation of this text recently, which has sparked interest in the Christian realm. Knohl's interpretation could shed light on the history of Jesus and the way Christianity grew out of Judaism. Full article at Ha'aretz

I don't so sure about your notion that there were always violence in Roman politics, take for example the Plebian-Patrician struggle in the early republic - although it's was a bitter one every time that the Plebs "revolt" it was in a passive way: they refuse to conscripted into the army or retire from the city, not once they had thought about attacking the Patricians and nor the Patricians thought about return them to line using violence. The quiet years of the middle republic in which the Roman establishment was in the highest power was due to the opening of the other magistrates to the Plebs, this made the tribune of plebs just the beginning point of the young Plebian Cursus Honorum and thus most tribunes until Tiberius Grachus didn't want to rock the boat and hurt their chances to research the high magistrates.

And even before, with the twins Romulus and Remus themselves. Just remember than all the kings before Tullus Hostilius are considered to be legendary by modern historical research.

We know that the government in Carthago was ruled by two Suffetes, in a similar collegian way as Consuls in Rome and sine we know that the first treaty between Carthago and Rome was made in the year that the republic was founded (Polybius, Histories, 3.22) hence there were a contact between Carthagians and Romans in the time of the monarchy. Would it possible that the source of the Roman Republican system lays in Carthago?

Just remember "Corn" is a word of the translator, the ancient text originally refer to grains.

I think that you missing the main cause for the successful revolution Kosmo, Romania (like all other Communists states in eastern Europe except Yugoslavia) was founded and maintain by Soviet bayonets, had it not for the Soviet withdrew from the affairs of her eastern clients states the Red Army would've crush all anti-Communist opposition just like it did in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956.

I don't think it's necessarily had anything to Darwin, people just like to think themselves as better advance and morally superior to the ancient barbaric civilizations of the past.

The Romans forbade the practice of Druidism, first to Roman citizens then to all people living in the empire because they saw Druidism as a barbaric religion. They also expell members of the eastern religions from the city of Rome on several occasions since they have won many adherents and cause they to forsake the state gods.

Antonius was buried in Egypt by Cleopatra "but as for Antonius, though many generals and kings asked for his body that they might give it burial, Caesar would not take it away from Cleopatra, and it was buried by her hands in sumptuous and royal fashion, such things being granted her for the purpose as she desired." (Plutarchus, Life of Antonius, 82) As he himself have wished: "Moreover, Titius and Plancus, friends of Antony and men of consular rank, being abused by Cleopatra (for they had been most opposed to her accompanying the expedition) ran away to Caesar, and they gave him information about Antonius' will, the contents of which they knew 3 This will was on deposit with the Vestal Virgins, and when Caesar asked for it, they would not give it to him; but if he wanted to take it, they told him to come and do so. So he went and took it; and to begin with, he read its contents through by himself; and marked certain reprehensible passages; then he assembled the senate and read it aloud to them, although most of them were displeased to hear him do so 4 For they thought it a strange and grievous matter that a man should be called to account while alive for what he wished to have done after his death. Caesar laid most stress on the clause in the will relating to Antonius' burial. For it directed that Antonius' body, even if he should die in Rome, should be borne in state through the forum and then sent away to Cleopatra in Egypt." (Plutarchus, Life of Antonius, 58.2)

Hmmm... it's made me think how mistranslation of ancient sources affect our view of Rome, it's quit possible that most modern reader of Plutarch[us] biography of the triumviri who was defeated by Octavianus think that his real name was Mark Antony (or any other distorted form).

Well no primary source explicit say this, however from Plutarchus description of the burial (Roman Questions, 96) it's clear that the Romans regards the Vestal Virgins with the utmost holiness. It's only logical to assume an innocent test was made in order to make sure that the court didn't made a mistake and shed the blood of an holy woman for nothing.

Thanks for the explanation ASCLEPIADES I wonder if this also apply to other major languages like German, French, Russian, etc.

Another explanation that I've read is that supposedly this was the final test to the Vestal Virgin innocent, if a mistake was made and she was innocent then she would have been rescued by Vesta (needless to say that it's never happend...)

Agreed! It was definitely increasing greed for power that caused political corruption, civil wars and ultimately toppled the republic. Unless you consider "power" a luxury, luxurious living can't be considered the sole or main cause of the republic's corruption. And I don't think that Marius, Sulla, or any member of either triumvirate who made a grab for power considered it a luxury (Spartacus might have though) It's actually an important point, as the leaders of the early republic lust after power as well (see for example the Patricians-Plebs struggle) why doesn't the Romans of the late republic could reach compromise without bloodshed like there ancestors? I thing that the reason is obvious, unlike the situation in the early republic when Rome was just another power in Italy in the late republic Roman position as a super power was well assured and there wasn't anyone who could affectedly challenge her since the Second Punic War and thus while a civil war would most likely led to the city downfall in early times the late Romans could "afford" to have a civil war without it taking a tall on Roman power and position in the world.

One of the most annoying thing to me as a native Hebrew speaker in when I'm reading a book or an article in English is the custom of English writers to "translate" foreign names into English sounding names. the most blunt example is Marcus Antonius who became Mark Antony and when you transcript the name accurately you pronounce it wrong, for example Cicero should be pronounce as Kikero. Now I assume this was originally done as an attempt to bring close the English translations of ancient writers to the English speaking audience, but why continue with it to this day? it's amaze me every time that I read an article or an book in English that author could call Marcus Antonius Mark Antony.

This recent post got me thinking, it's seem to be a common themes among ancient historians that the Romans of the late republic were corrupted by luxuries and thus lost the virtues of their ancestors who lived during the early of the republic. Now this idea became accepted in modern times by prominent historians as well and it's was often refer as one of the reasons to the republic demise, but is it true? one certainly could say that the lack of luxuries of the Romans in the early republic wasn't due to the fact that they had virtues but to the fact that they were poor and of course all of this change with the Roman rise to be the prominent power in the ancient world. Now I wouldn't say that your amount of wealth decide whatever you have virtues or you are corrupted, we certainly don't lack examples of politicians who "play dirty" during the early republic and we could give an examples to governors of provinces in the late republic (like Cato Minor, Gabinius, Cicero, Brutus) we conducted the affairs of their subject with respect and didn't made an attempt to loot their money.