caesar novus

Hmmmph, I heard an interesting talk by author of "Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church" touching on how Roman it is in spirit and function. And how Protestant types of Christianity, although they may appear to be going "back to basics" of Roman era Christianity, actually tend toward a quite modern mold of Utopianism that Roman citizens might find alien. So I guess any Roman or Constantine influence may be largely found Catholic or Orthodox branches of Christianity. Just brainstorming about macro issues, like relations of religion to government or to individual. Author Crocker seemed to say the way the Catholic church does an ambiguous dance between itself and sinning people or governments (accepting yet prodding... the inquisition never being the norm) ia actually an effective way of dealing with problems evolved from long Roman experience (of worse ways of handling). "Sin" may be furiously condemned, but clear cut cases with victims are already dealt with in secular gov't, and as you go out in the spectrum of semi-victimless "sin" the softer approach maybe being wise. Contrast this with the last few hundred years, where Protestestants or Marxists or even recent environmental extremists sought to get full government enforcement of not only the obvious crimes with victims, but a whole spectum of "sin" that is probably bad, or possibly bad, or maybe only speculatively bad. This even backfired, as close legal binding of Protestant church with state led to loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the public... same with Marxist states. So maybe the old Romans peering down from heaven or where-ever are shaking their heads thinking the world has gone off track from the gift of their civilization. Just as we have modified their row toilets to dysfunctional follow-ons like the low flow toilet, we have also gone from their modulated handling of sin to over/under correction. I'm sure they would admit their heritage could be improved upon, but we may still have not completely returned from the dark ages digressions. Let's face every problem by first thinking how the Romans would handle it, and only improve on it when and if it really makes sense (grin)!

I wonder whether Roman floor mosaics had symbolic meaning or was essentially decorative. I mean besides the banal "celebration of X" when you see picture of X, but something more philosophical or political such as you might find in renaissance art. For some reason the braided border lines jump out to me as more intricate than needed for decorative whimsey. Of course I know their swastikas don't relate to 20th century meanings. Some of the mosaics seem almost ugly but still riveting somehow. Maybe some are a carryover or a contrast to other traditions like the Greek.

Yeah, I'm starting to suspect that "doctrine" isn't the key issue, and it may be Christian-centric to see religions as modular belief systems... and to worry so much about the differences of doctrine and whether they were influenced more or less legitimately. Maybe the more important thing was Christianity was primarily about beliefs as opposed to practices or community stratification, and the ageing Roman empire needed that kind of ideological energy to hold together, whatever the doctrine. In a very naive attempt of anthropology of religion, I gather that Roman approach was more related to practices/rituals and they didn't care or expect this to go together with belief. Sort of like the way a gangster might have a neighboorhood in fear, and everyone wanting you to show respect toward regardless of your thoughts, so as to not mess up a fragile community peace. Another approach might not need you to believe or practice anything (although prefer that you do), but the essential thing is to accept your defined place in its ideology (hinduism?). And I hear Jewish approach was less defined by beliefs than practises and community self definition (so even though monotheistic, was not the threat to Rome as evangelical belief-obsessed Christianity). I probably mangled this badly, but probably Christianity provided an opportunity/threat that Rome had to either join or fight. Maybe the choice of doctrine wasn't too important to them. If it was greco-centric, maybe that even led to a downfall because of the Italian crusaders later attacking and fatally wounding Contantinople. I gather that emperors after Constantine (esp western?) were not always supportive of Christian doctrine. Also there is an interesting question of Emperors mothers/wives having influence in pushing Christian ideology onto skeptical emperors.

I thought Caesar was famous for gratuitous overkill even by Roman standards, and that was the claimed point of contention with the senate. I am thinking of things like pre-Alesia massacres of civilians after a battle was settled. There was a famous case where he spared killing a bride about to be wed... blah blah blah, unfortunately I don't have sources, but they suggested there was no military or political justification other than some point scoring. If this is wrong, I would be happy to be able to admire Caesar again as one of the greatest military minds rather than a brute. The Alesia battle sounds so brilliant; who else could fend off a titanic army on the outside while having to be stretched thin around a siege ring facing inwards?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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"?

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?