civis

When I read your reply I clicked on the file again to remind me of what the error said and it downloaded fine. Maybe it was a problem on my end(my internet is shaky sometimes). Thanks anyway. Good article.

Does anyone know if Islam had any similar mechanisim. I realize Muhammad made a point of destroying idols and things, but I am curios if Islam every ran up against Polythesitic religions of the sort Christianity did, and if so how did they deal with them? I am not sure that you do not have enough to connect with classical relgions at least. I mean you have the epic poems of Homer, you have Virgil, Ovid. I mean pretty much everything out there by Greeks and Romans has a little mythology associated with it. You wouldnt even know that modern pagans were getting it wrong unless you had these, what amount to, religious texts to look at.

I see how one can interpret the show like that, but I think it says more about your perspective than the producers. I was sad that the Timon thing ended as abrubtley and unsatifyingly as it did. Call me weird but in a perfect world that would be a set up for a spin off that takes you to Jerusalem to see the effects that occupation has on that city. I would choose Jerusalem because it would strike a chord with viewers plus you would go from the decadence of Rome to the turmoil of occupation. Granted Rome was in turmoil but seeing a different kind, with a proud people reduced to slavery(at least how they see it) would be interesting. And make better, or at least more direct, commentary.

Yes I suppose it would be cowardly if they had any reason to be loyal to Athens and then shrugged off the responsibility. As it was the wave of conquest that was the Persian empire was rapidly approaching. They had no reason to help Athens in their war and they did not. Admittedly this is more underhanded than say Sparta who also had no real love for the Athenians(though I dont know much about there pre invasion relationship). Thebes wasnt a military society though, they just wanted to not die and be left about thier affairs. The Persians, they thought, were going to win. Because of the Ionian War the Persians were going to burn down temples if not entire cities, I assume they rather liked their little corner of Hellas and perfered its continued existance. I dont say this was the bravest action. I am not really even trying to argue that what they did was morally proper. Athens was kind of to blame for the war. They didnt like Athens. They couldnt stop the invasion. Why not preserve their city if possiable. Its easy to call them cowards but I think that if you reflect on their situation you would be hard pressed to disagree with them.

I'll take Plato over Aristotle any day but that is a diffrent debate. Actually one of the main themes of the book is that on instances like you mention the government did go awry they were not the norm. I do not want to go into the whole cheaks and balances thing but in the description he gives of the Athenina system there were cheaks and balances even if occasionaly they did not work properly. For example there was a body of citizens chosen by lot every year if im not mistaken, who saw proposed legislation before it went to the Assembly and who got rid of the 'unconstitutional' stuff. The Sicilian campaign was a screw up, no one can deny that, however given the sheer unconventenal-ness(if thats a word which i doubt) of that war bad things were bound to happen. However I will grant you that men like Cicero did have a good concept of how government should work. And I will preemptivley agree that how government functions during war time is a more telling thing than how it does at peace. One thing I have always thought was that the Roman masses always seemed far more likely to be swayed than Athenian audiences, with the exceptions like the mass execution of the Admirals. Maybe Im not reading the right sources, and you can correct me.

To me it is fairly simple. Anyone who has not read First Democracy should do so immediatly. It is an indepth disscussion of Athenian Democracy. Athenian Democaracy is one of the greatest gifts given to us by the Greeks. If you are gonna talk ethics you have to go to the Romans and Stoisim but if you want good government you have to listen to the Greeks.

To be fair had Athens not supported the Ionians in thier war against the Persians, they may well have never invaded the Greek mainland. Yes the invasion was overkill but even the Greek historians say that it was a bad move on Athens part. It is also important to understand how deeply the Thebans hated the Athenians. I dont know that the thebans saw themselves as betraying "greece." They were only unified in a general belief in the Hellenic identity, not a national identity that would go so deep as to call their support of the Persians an out and out Treasonus act. The Polis of Thebes was doing like many other cities(for thebes was not the only supporter of the Persians) in supporting the Persian side they were trying to survive. The Persians, they assumed, would win and treat those who had helped them kindly and punish those who did not.

Interested in Reading this. Cant get the download though, maybe its because I am a new member.

I think that the OP had an interesting question that came a little before the question everyone is addressing. I will word it diffrently, and to those who support Ceasar and what he was trying to do. What programs did he put in place exactly that bettered Roman society as a whole? What did he do that the Senate was unwilling/unable to do that would justify his take over of that body? I am not saying that these programs did not exist I am simply inclined to believe they have to be of almost heroic proportions to justify the destruction of a system that had proved so succesful.

Hello all, just stumbled across this site doing some general reading. I am a history major primarily interested in the Classical period. More of my knowledge leans towards the Greeks but I am also interested in the Romans.