[The Roman Empire and America]

Question has an odor of wanting help for a school assignment rather than genuine curiosity, so I won't take the time to organize mishmash of thoughts toooooo much...

 

I think there are huge similarities, not in terms of superficial appearance or the whacky narrative history, but in terms of some of their aspirational ideals and goal-directed tendancies. It's hard to articulate, but it hits me at a gut level when looking at Roman ruins or statues or history. The scale of buildings, and confident expressions on statues, and a kind of businesslike focus on practicalities rather than posturing... seems unlike even the age of Athens or medieval or renaissance periods.

 

How about the way Romans often co-opted their conquered peoples by giving them an unprecedented stake in their new Roman world... comparable to how diverse immigrants to the US tend to eventually blend into a melting pot (more than many countries anyway). Actually the American revolution dialogue was heavily influenced by the Roman republic in terms of ideals of democracy and civic duties. George Washington was nicknamed Cincinnatus, and the I think the founding documents are full of references to things which had been recently popularized by plays on the Roman Republic.

 

Putting aside the bizarre and brutal aspects of Roman history (written and possibly overdramatized by critics of newly dead emperors), the Roman repub-pire was such an amazing way to organize both economic and political life compared to the chaos before and afterward. At the time of American revolution, that was also a unique political experiment that amazed Europeans by its democratic audacity, and later by it's economic impact followng WW2.

 

Both Rome and USA are full of innovative ways to organize life that at least have the potential of betterment. I couldn't believe it when I downloaded the free audio of a recent course on Rome at Berkeley university which seemed to solely focus on treatment of women and slaves as if that was the only distinguishing element of Roman civilization. But that was the norm for almost any group at that time, and carried the seeds of civilization which could eventually bring more into the good life.

[The Battle Of Alesia - The Effect The Battle Of Alesia had on the Gaul]

If anyone could provide me with more information about how the battle resulted in the downfall of the Gauls I would be very grateful! Some reputable internet sources would be great too, not to mention books! I've been using Caesar's Commentaries as a primary source, and they're pretty helpful (a bit biased maybe... but great!)

Your nickname reminds me of a hushed side comment made by Professor Harl in his audio course about the Vikings (from "teaching company"). He suggested Ceasars epic overkill in Gaul likely caused a domino effect by depopulating Germany of tribes who had been drawn into helping out the Gauls. This vacuum was filled by southern Danish proto-vikings moving south to become present day Germans. He joked about this being a secret because no one dares to say Germany was essentially founded by an Italian, so I guess you won't find any citations.

 

I also heard this was why Augustus had so much trouble fighting the Germans... they had a north-woods almost guerilla tradition that didn't involved centralized towns and forts that the Romans could focus on and besiege. Oh, somewhere else I heard Julius practiced such brutal overkill in order to impress his own side and that it wasn't militarily necessary. Or maybe it was in the euphoria after continually winning when outnumbered 2 to 1? Well, this isn't much help, just some half remembered background...

[Greatest Roman Generals?]

Ultimately, I would have to say Rome's success was built on their passion for organisation. They were so much more business-like about warfare than others it was a real advantage, whatever the quality of leaders and men.

I think that gave a foundation that both protected them from worst consequences of leadership errors, and promoted even better results from any wise leadership.

 

From the perspective of cutting losses, I think it was unusual how well Romans seemed to have learned from setbacks. Instead of impetuous flipflops (say in strategy or technology), they seemed to keep the framework but evolve refinements along the way. From the winning perspective, it may be symbiosis where good organization lets good leadership rise to the next level in effectiveness by focusing on higher level issues.

 

I remember working with technology proposals from both world class and lesser mortal researchers. What surprised me was the almost childlike simplicity of most of the analysis by the top notch folks; it was only in the final leap into the heart of the matter where there would be a creative and mentally challenging twist. The lower achievers by contrast analyzed everything afresh and got so bogged down in complex reinvention of even the banal aspects that no overall leap seemed likely.

[Roman influence on Christian doctrine?]

I think a religion that severs an individual's ties from the family and the public life of the city-state, as Christianity did, is not something that the Roman state really could have "used" for its own agenda.

 

Professors in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...timization.html argue that Constantine allied himself with one of the sects of Christianity that was most compatible with centralized government, and that he persecuted alternate Christian sects (eg. gnostics?), which I gather had a lasting influence.

[Roman influence on Christian doctrine?]

Besides simply adopting Christianity, I wonder if a case could be made that the Roman world shaped it's very doctrine. Not in passive ways, like a Christian reaction against Roman ways, or having Roman citizens defect to it... but as a flexing of Roman power to shape Christianity to Roman interests in some degree.

 

One example might be the Apostle Paul http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm who was an early persecutor of Christians and seemed to be funded in this by the Romans although maybe had other motivations. His later life as a Christian convert seems to involve removing some Jewish aspects out of Christianity, and some think this was to make it especially convert-friendly and to seem less foreign to the average Roman citizen. That took a long while, but maybe still is effective today in conversion efforts.

 

Another example is Constantine, who kind of chaired committees such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea on Christian doctrine. Sometimes described as a passive role in settling esoteric questions, but I think other accounts suggest the stifling of alternative Christian doctrines that would be harder to manage in the context of his empire, such as more mystic and decentralized ones. Could modern Christianity still include echos of things that were "for the good of the Roman Empire"?

[Archeo newly opened to visits?]

There's been news of various new archeological discoveries, but I assume there will be lag time before the objects or sites are open for public viewing. So what is newly opened in the greater Rome area, or what has been recently renovated, and is there any practical advice on visiting?

 

For example I gather Nero's palace basement is being renovated, but you can visit by appointment?