Minerva

I came across a painting by Thomas Cole titled The Course of Empire: Destrucion which got me thinking. I suppose all Empires begin with war which is undeniably destructive, but surely an empire's entire course is not one of destruction? But can the glory and advancement brought about by empires condone for the initial destruction?

I believe that I did formerly say that "dissention within the senate proves the senate's (moral)weakness" So i'm not contradicting you on that.

The Men were few but the duration of the magnitude of opposition was not. The instances were grave enough to contribute to undermining the Republic (and even have people arguing over them even 2 milenia later ).

Taken in that sense, the most attractive part of Greek culture I must say, but a little limited being Athenian only. Plato's and Xenophon's works are definitely their own. But the confusion lies in the distinction. We know Socrates and his philosophy through Plato's and Xenophon's works (leaving Aristophanes' "clouds" out) If both recorded Socrates perfectly they ought to be near identical. Besides we have nothing of what Socrates himself wote. Therefore how exactly do we determine how much of it is Socrates and how much Plato and Xenophn? I don't deny their importance though, for if all that existed today were Aristophanes' "clouds" Socrates would be just another "pre-socratic" philosopher

"technically" because certain Romans, though senators, acted independently of and often oppossed to the senate though they were members of the senate themselves, which any one who was elected queastor became. didn't use the term as opposed to "non-technical" senators so I can't name any.

A little off the topic but on what basis does Socrates enter a list of people who preserved the Greek culture? 1) He deviated from the norm to such an extent that Athens preffered to kill him off than allow him to further undermine the traditional views despite the fact that he was an old man of 70 and therefore likely to die a natural death in a few years time. 2) It was not he but his followers such as Plato and Xenophon who commited his teachings to writing most probably moulding it according to their own views.

All proud senators did not always stay togeather though did they? For example both Marius and Ceasar preffered to go as leaders of the populance than members of the senate. but taking them as senators which they technically were; dissention within the senate proves the senate's (moral)weakness. considering the Bibulus Vs Ceasar issue - if I'm not mistaken, Bibulus was the candidate forwarded by the senatorial party. His "non"consulate still shows the senate's weakness. But then agian He didn't try too hard did he? all he did after receiving a basket of dung during an attempt to veto ceasr was to stay at home and proclaim ill omens. "moral weakness" -definitely a nice comfortable term that can mean whatever you want and therefore extremely usefull

I was aware of the Lacedemonian tradition which claimed that Lycurgus took Crete for as a model when fashioning the Spartan constitution but I've also read that there is no definite proof that it was so and that it was more likely to be another instance of the Hellenic propensity to claim their institutions to have been derived from exterior sources. Are their any ealier sources that mention dual kingship in Crete?

Yes, Tacitus records an arbitral transaction that shows this though it appears not too important. In 25 A.D Sparta and Messenia were still contending over the territory in the borderland between the eurotas valley and Messenia, Which was the same cause of the outbreak of the Messenian war 800 years before. After 8 centuries, it was Rome that finally settled the matter by giving its posession to Messenia.

It does make more sence with your explanation. Thanks! China seems to have had an amazingly advanced civilization. It's sad that Ch'in Shih Huan Tih considered one of China's greatest emperors and a builder of the great wall decided to burn all books save those that dealt with Agriculture and Medidcine in 212 B.C with the aim of erasing the past and decreeing that history should begin with him. It was apparently only a century and a half later that it was safe to bring out the few boooks hidden by brave scholars. I've always wondered how many works survived and how much knowledge was lost.

Aqueducts? e.g the remains of the one at Mytilene are thought to be from the Augustan era. But i'm honnestly not sure whether the Greeks had them already.

Apart from Sparta was there any other Greek city with a dual monarchy or where the Supreme power was wielded by two equals? The Spartan system wouldn't have been that inspiring because the two kings didn't have much authority away from the battlefield. But was there another such possibility?

I Don't deny it. Maybe these laws made sense to them. Depends on the particular ethos prevalent I guess. Who knows, some of the ancients might think that the U.N charter is nuts. Translations ; definitely. words and meaning are not necessarily the same.

My inferences are 1) This was a society where sexual deviations and misconduct was rampant. 2) This was a society seriously incapable of logical thought.

Good thing there isn't a rigid "cursus honorum" like way of introduction and discussion else we'd both be chucked out before we've even begun LOL

It isn't so much the senate were weak, it had more to do with the rise of legionary commanders with political aspirations as influential men in their own right, with personal loyalty from their troops rather than to Rome, but also because the senate were more cocerned with their own privilege than serving public duty, thus had effectively lost the support of common people by that stage. . Therefore, while leaving room for the part played by the Roman citizens in letting the Republic fall we can still conclude that the senate was weaker than "those who had political power and those who aspired for it." and that it too was responsible for the Republic's downfall. After all Sulla did fortify the senate's position and yet it couldn't even hold on to that 2nd chance. Or better still blame it on the senate's moral weakness.

Thanks! should be able to do something with this one

Didn't challenge your view on Livy just said that the possibilty never occured to me because Ancient historians generally tend to exaggerate numbers and incidents than downplay them, Though I suppose they might have done so if it suited their purpose better. As greatful as I am for the suggestion of Lintott's book I just don't live in a place where it- along with many other books- is available.

Agreed, The early Republic had violence and even though I never thought of the possibility of Livy leaving out any victims because he gives all the gory details of Fuffetius' dismemberment, Virginia's death and the like it is an interesting line of speculation. But the question expects an explanation for the violence in Roman politics from the Grachchi down to the fall of the Republic.

The plebian secessations were "massive popular uprisings" but they were bloodless. Violence in this case refers more to the assasinate your opponents, march on Rome with an army, disregard the constitution and get what you want by hook or by crook in politics. It's not exactly possible to draw a paralel between 494 B.C and 86B.C

Starting with the Grachchii down to the fall of the Republic Roman politics is filled with violence. Is there a possible explanation for this apart from the fact that politics and power grabbing generally tends to get nasty throughout history ? Actually i found this in an A/L paper so there's got to be an answer although it seems vague to me. Having gone into voluntary exile from school my only chance of finding an answer would be if some one answers this.

Wasn't it more the acts of those who had political power and those who aspired for it and the weakness of the senate that caused the republic to totter an fall rather than the mere citizens?

According to Livy Rome itself had a dual monarchy during Romulus' reign when the sabines joined the Roman community and their king Titus Tatius ruled jointly with Romlus until Tatius' death. Although much of Livy's regal period is clouded in legend isn't their a possibility that a dual rule had existed before the republic atleast temporaraly?

They were assuredly pagans, and almost all Greeks. Did you really think that Christians invented science? Archimedes would be shocked. And the invention of secularism? As far as we can tell, it's Thales, though secularism spread like wildfire among the philosophers in Athens. Tolerance? Long before Jesus was throwing hissy-fits against money-changers, Stoics taught that reason--the birthright of all humans--was what made men free, happy, and gave them their rights. I think Europe is being focussed on too much. tolerance, science, secularism and human rights definitely existed in India in 6th century B.C ( I don't presume to say the whole of India abided by them). I 'll leave the Muslims out because Islam developed even later than Christianity and the pagans have already been dealt with. That leaves Buddhism: Tolerence is a fundamental in it ( but then again don't all religions preach it?). It's proscience ( or at least Einstein thinks so.) It preaches human rights condenming the cast system and the treatment of women in Ancient India . But I'm not trying to make a case for any religion. How can tolerance, science, secularism and human rights be created? Don't they exist any way? Dont they simply have to be cultivated and practiced?

Thanks! sorry but which was the same experience loving the site or being stuck for resources?