Germanicus
-
Posts
827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Germanicus
-
-
This should be a separate thread
Agreed.
-
If anyone is interested in reading the actual text - go to this link - and scroll down, there are links to 3 or 4 different translations at the bottom. It does make for interesting reading.
-
Another unproven issue it's what drives tehnology in a traditional society (not in a industrial one!) and what impact slavery had on this factors to reduce the development of tehnology.
This is the only point at issue in this thread, it's been postulated that Slavery had an impact leading to a lack of technological development in the Roman Empire, as the need for labour saving devices, drives technology. The steam engine, the internal combustion engine, hydraulics, farming technology like a plough for example.
You clearly disagree - perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you think stunted technological growth in the Roman empire or in fact if you think it was ?
-
How can I check out your space Princeps ?
-
I don't mean to be rude at all but maybe you should have a bit more respect for a man, before discrediting his achievements.
Whether you mean it or not, I do find you insulting. At no stage have I discredited his acheivements, I admire them. This discussion has nothing to do with respect for the man, that is your construct. As I already said, I will retire NOW or this will get ugly-er.
Do not address me further in this thread.
-
I retire from the discussion, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've given you evidence, things to read, I can do no more. Believe whatever makes you comfortable.
-
but don't say he did this for political ambitions, because I can tell you now he did not.
It's impossible for me, or you for that matter to know for certain, but my belief is that politics figured greatly in his conversion, as all historical evidence suggests to the unbias viewer.
-
The problem is that many do not know the story behind the man
I think you'll find everyone posting in this topic is pretty well informed on the man. They just realise that faith can be a tool just as much as an army can.
While I can see where you are comming from, I think it would serve you well do do some further reading - take the following for example :-
Holland Lee Hendrix:
President of the Faculty, Union Theological Seminary
Constantine's conversion to Christianity, I think, has to be understood in a particular way. And that is, I don't think we can understand Constantine as converting to Christianity as an exclusive religion. Clearly he covered his bases. I think the way we put it in contemporary terms is Pascal's wager, it's another insurance policy one takes out. And Constantine was a consummate pragmatist and a consummate politician. And I think he gauged well the upsurge in interest and support Christianity was receiving, and so played up to that very nicely and exported it in his own rule. But it's clear that after he converted to Christianity, he was still paying attention to other deities. We know this from his poems and we know it from other dedications as well....From PBS - which has some other interesting snippets on Constantine and his conversion you might be interested in. Mostly written by well known theologians and classics proffessors.
-
Standing for consul in absentia had never been allowed by the Senate, if I'm not mistaken
Actually, Marius was the precedent for this, like so much else.....
-
Ending slavery was a result of the broad development of a civilisation, not of some needs in a particular aspect of social life.
No ones saying that it is.
-
you have to let someone think
No problem here Brotus, think all you want, just don't make a thread about it.
-
Anyone heard Film School ? Listening to the album now, it's great.
-
only if everybody in this forum agreed to it beeing good
It is a great "game", and has sapped hours/days of my time.
-
19th Century painted view of Melbourne
-
Constantine was evil BEFORE, converting
This is where your problem lies Rameses - no one here is saying that Constantine was Evil at any stage. Becoming a Christian does not make one automaticly obey the laws of modern Christianity, that you seem to equate with "goodness".
Constantine didn't make Christianity the official state religeon either, but yes, if he was truly converted he was the first Christian Emperor.
-
In my opinion - no. It wasn't an option that any of the four would have taken. The importance of being seen to be legal still figured in their mindsets. This meant that once acclaimed Emperor, a march on Rome was required, and a ratification by the cowered senate. None would have been content to establish some province as their capital, Galba could have tried in Spain, Vespasian could have done it in Judea, but no, the fight was for Empire, not part of it.
-
Mankind possesses no better guide to conduct than the knowledge of the past.
(Polybius, Histories, book 1, chapter 1)
It's interesting isn't it, how much we question ancient Roman texts based on the bias of their writers ? I've recently read a number of intances...in Polybius and in letters from Pliny to Tacitus, when the importance of accuracy in the writing of histories is explicitly expressed as the most important thing.
I apologize for going off topic...what was the topic again ? Oh yes, the Crusades...nasty things those.
-
It is niaf in the extreme to expect ambitious men, who have examples of previous illegal actions being unpunished and no real constitutional safeguards that can be brought against them, not to exploit the system to their own advantage. That is a failing of the morality of individuals (which is commonplace and to be expected) and of the system of government.
Yes, it appears we all agree with PPs post, with conditions. I like this paragraph of yours Furius.
-
I'm pretty sure it was snuffed out as soon as he came into power.
No - Julian the Apostate came after him.
-
Sorry Rameses but I must - first you said:-
It is historically accurate.Eventually you totally reversed your original position saying :-
I don't use it for historical information. I use it for game cinematics to see how scenarios would have played out. You guys may think that this is where I get my information from, I don't. I get it from books at my local library to see the details of the battle.Back to bodygaurds, Cato I just remembered the Extraordinarii - as described by Polybius - seems very bodygaurd like in the description, as the units were to serve near the person of and under the supervision of, the Consul :-
When they are all met together, the distribution of the allies, who are assembled also with the Romans, is regulated by twelve officers, called prefects, and appointed by the consuls, in the following manner. They first choose out from all the allies a body of the bravest and most skillful soldiers, both cavalry and infantry, to serve near the person, and under the immediate orders, of the consuls. These are called the extraordinary, or selected troops. The whole infantry of the allies is usually the same in number with that of the Romans; but the cavalry three times as many. Among these, about a third part of the cavalry, and a fifth part of the infantry, are set apart as extra-ordinariesThis would qualify as pre Sertorius.
-
I agree with PP's post almost in its entirety.
I do to, talk about cut through the crap - mine included. Excellent post PP.
-
Truth is, the romans had an easy life and never felt the need to introduce labour saving devices. I know this sounds like I'm a bit hypocritical, but the difference is that it wasn't actually the slaves that caused the lack of progress. The owners, the people with cash to invest, would have thought it better to keep up with the joneses. After all, if your neighbour suddenly frees 99% of his slaves and builds a large wooden contraption instead you'd think him a little odd wouldn't you? Don't know about you, but if there's a drought this year and that spring dries up we'll know who to blame, hmmm?
You're right, it does sound a bit hypocritical - what you seem to be saying is that the salves themselves didn't cause the problem, but that slavery and it's functions did, which really means we agree.
-
Are you proposing each of these as independent hypotheses for the origin of the triumvirate?
No, not independantly but collectively.
Only one factor is needed to how explain the triumvirate emerged from the republic--the only novel thing to arise in this period, and a source of great evil: Julius Caesar.I do agree that the personality of Caesar contributed to the creation of the triumvirate, that's elementary as you put it but I maintain that Caesar and his actions were as a result of how the republic was operating post Gracchi. We will not reach an accord on this point.
-
I too got my map the other day, and have framed it, it's fantastic !!!!!
Got To Love Pliny The Younger
in Romana Humanitas
Posted
Pliny always seems such a gentleman.