sylla

I'm not sure they ignored it, per se. It's possible they weren't even aware of its existence, certainly the probability that they didn't know about it was higher in the second and third centuries. I'm not aware of ANY textual quotation from the New Testament by any pagan writer. The closest we get would be Celsus (II century), known only from his Christian detractors; it can be inferred that he knew some of the Gospels and maybe even some Pauline Epistles. The Emperor Julian must have known well the Gospels and other Christian books, and maybe Porphyry too, but it seems no specific reference from the NT for their lost works can be inferred (However, Porphyry quoted the Book of Daniel). On the other hand, some of the Roman historians (like Tacitus and Cassius Dio) at least partially reviewed the content of Jewish Scriptures (ie, the Christian Old Testament), probably via the Egyptians and other hostile neighbors, as their records are rather confuse and chaotic. In essence, the consequence was that such historians deeply despised and mercilessly mocked the Jewish theology.

Actually, Revelation was considered among the Apocrypha by Eusebius (ergo, Constantine I) at Nicea I (325); it would not be included in the canonical New Testament until 367, by Athanasius of Alexandria.

I wouldn't dare to take such kind of risks in Singapore, due to their legendary fine culture (and obviously because photo flash is forbidden in their museums too). Some examples (from THE GUARDIAN 2002): - dropping gum or litter S$1,000 (

Not so sure about your last statement, but here come my two cents. Your first problem would be the definition of "ethnic Roman/Italians"; I don't think it's possible to get any useful operative criteria. At least since Zama, Rome and Italy had been receiving a massive influx of migrants, both free but especially slaves. For obvious reasons, the immigrants usually pretended to be Italians or, if they weren't able to, at least Greeks; the overwhelming majority of slaves from any province received Greek names. Conversely, we have evidence of huge Italian emigration as early as the beginning of the I century BC (just remember the Asiatic Vespers of 88 BC). Some examples: were the Jews born in Italy after many generations "ethnic Italians"? How would we know how many of them were local converses? The same can be said regarding any other "ethnicity". What about the native Italian Greeks (from Magna Grecia)? Not to talk about the offspring of "mixed" unions. You only have to check on the Imperial biographies; how much of an "ethnic Italian" was Caracalla? On the other hand, it would be almost impossible to obtain hard figures; even for the former period they are quite unreliable; for the Dominate, they are almost absent. In fact, for the late Dominate we lack almost any kind of information; it has been called a Dark Age for a reason. Again, let us check out the emperors; what do we know about Pupianus, Iotapianus or Aureolus? All that said, IMHO the predominant scholar consensus would be an affirmative answer for your original question. Irrespectively on how "ethnic Italians" are defined, there is abundant evidence suggesting that the non-Italian portion of the Army (and Emperors) was constantly increasing.

Oh? Why? Do you imagine two opposing phalanxes 'pushing pikes' in a sort of military rugby scrum? In fact, most combats from the endless Diadochi Wars were macedonian inter-phalanges battles.

QUOTE: "Dr Backwell added: "Brown hyaenas are scavengers, not hunters, so the hominid was dead by the time the hyena came upon it..." These scientists seem to be as pious as they are misinformed; hyenids are actually far more predators than scavengers, and a tiny human would have had very little chance against a carnivore that regularly hunted medium to large sized ungulates.

Excellent idea; by themselves, the crucifixion and related public exemplary torture/execution methods were not religious at all. Fallacies aside, if anyone want to check on the use of these methods on slaves and other low status populations by the Romans and its social implications, your search will be greatly enhanced if you add the heading "furca".

The Lutatius treaty that ended Punic War I in 241 BC, even after the Senate's revision, was far more balanced than the Versailles and related treaties that ended WWI in 1919; the former would have been more similar to the Armistice of Kaesong in 1953 that ended the Korean War. First of all, the winners were many in 1919, with diverse interests; in 241 BC, Rome was alone. Even after losing Sicily and other islands, the Carthaginian imperialist expansion was allowed in other directions, and not entirely suffocated, like it was the German case in 1919. No restrictions were imposed in the size or weapons of the Carthaginian army or navy, as was the case for Germany. The Carthaginians were forced to pay 1000 talents at once and 2200 talents within ten years (with an additional contribution of 1200 talents in 238 BC); no source questioned that they paid such money, and no long term consequence was evident from doing it so. By the early XX century, war and its damage were far more expensive; the controversy on the feasibility for the payment of war reparations by the Germans continues to this day, but its crippling on their immediate development is undisputable. Carthage was also forced to return the Roman prisoners (read slaves) without any ransom; however, Rome did exactly the same on their own side. After 1919, the main tendency of the winners was to maintain (or at least delay the softening of) the original clauses; both the Nazi regime and its western opponents at some time considered that this might have contributed to the beginning of WWII. After 241 BC, the persistent Roman tendency was to revise and harden the previous peace conditions; Sardinia and more money were seized in 238 BC under war threats (in fact, the war was actually decreed by the Roman Senate); in 236, an added clause restricted the Carthaginian expansion up to the river Ebro; Saguntum in 218 BC, the ultimate casus belli, simply filled the measure.

Petra?

From Suetonius, Appian, Dio and others we know that across his last months of life Caesar: - upgraded his fourth dictatorship term into a lifelong tenure, - proclaimed himself: -- Consul for 10 years, -- Censor for life, -- Father of his Country (Pater Patriae), - declared his person sacred and inviolable (*), - named after himself the month of Quintilis, - extracted: -- from the senate all kind of honours (divine included), -- from the magistrates an oath immediately upon their inauguration not to opposite any of his decrees, -- from each and any senator an oath to protect his person (*). He was about to begin his Parthian campaign when he was killed (even if Sextus Pompey was still active). The signs of progressively increasing hunger for power, glory and deification were everywhere. Nowhere can I find any sign that the man was expecting to depart from this life any time soon. This might explain why Suetonius and Plutarch required from supernatural omens to provide the literary tragic effect of their narratives. (*) Additionally, this might also explain why Caesar was confident enough to dismiss his Spaniard Guard.

No. The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" to make it clear that they were not executing regular enemy soldiers and hence putting them beyond the pale of protection accorded to enemy combatants by international law. The offence was thus political, just as it was with the Romans. You're only walking around my argument and you know it. The point is that robbery was one of the many reasons to crucify a man; if that man was a slave, the reasons were virtually limitless, entirely at his master's discretion. The Caltiline conspirators were all Roman citizens, that is why they were not crucified. Spartacus and his men didn't just defy their private owners, they took up arms and annihilated more than one Roman army sent against them, hence their offence was political. One does not need to have a written political agenda in order for his acts to be considered political. Then, anything is politics; in this case, the number of the rebels defined it so. This is pointless. If you really care, you can check on the dictionaries of William Smith and Daremberg et Saglio. You will find there the reasons for crucifixion were multiple and, in the case of slaves, infinite. If I understood it rightly, the quid was that Jesus crucifixion must have been political, because crucifixion was never done for other reasons. Even I actually find no reason to disagree with the political nature of Jesus' crucifixion (even the Gospels did give a political interpretation) your argument is patently false. Period. And for what it's worth, my last posts on this thread may be good material for Tartarus.

And how is being a rebel slave a non-political offence? Needless to say, most slaves were private property; any slave rebelled against his/her own master. The master required no public sanction to crucify them, at least until Hadrian. Spartacus and his men were crucified for being rebel slaves, not political rebels. That's why bona fide political rebels of the time (ie, the men of Catilina) were not crucified. I'm not aware of any political agenda from Spartacus & co; I will be glad to check on any primary source quoted by you on this issue.

The word used by the author is lestai, or lestes, indicating banditry, a term he routinely uses to describe the Jewish rebels. That does not necessarily mean they were robbers. It was a political term used by a historian writing in Vespasian's palace for a Greco-Roman audience (who indeed would have considered the rebels as "bandits"). During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Communist authorities routinely described the Afghan rebels as "bandits". The Nazis used the same expression to describe the French resistance. You are obviously reading something into the text that is not there. The Soviets and the Nazis described their enemies as "bandits" because that charge was a valid reason to punish or even execute them The original question here was on the indications for Roman crucifixions; your original statement was that there was no other reason but politics. These Jews were crucified on the accusation of robbery; ergo, robbery was a valid explanation for their crucifixion, at least for the Romans (and Josephus' readers). Yes. I already have. The Catholic Encyclopedia just mentions letters by Ireneus, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers in which they regurgitate preexisting legends about the supposed martyrdom of the apostles. Nothing concrete there. Hagiography is hardly a concrete science.

Just out of curiosity, where does it say that they were were crucified? Just out of curiosity, should I infer you didn't find any documentary evidence on the Roman indications for crucifixion? There are plenty. Spartacus being the most famous example. Then all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus in Jewish Wars. All these executions were of a political nature, either armed rebellion or sedition. I haven't seen any documentary evidence of crucifixion for non-political offences. So now, let me repeat the question - where is the evidence that Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew and Philip were crucified? This may surprise you, but I already knew that Roman crucifixions were sometimes done for political reasons. If you review my previous posts in this thread, you will find no one that denies it. What I was asking you for (and you were obviously unable to find) was any quotation that explicitly states the crucifixions were exclusively done by the Romans for political reasons. Now you want me to accept your statement just because you didn't find examples of non-political crucifixions after an exhaustive search (BTW without giving any specific quotation). Besides, please check on the primary sources; Spartacus and his fellows were crucified for being rebel slaves, not for political reasons. (Please give me a primary source quoting his political agenda, if you still disagree) Additionaly, not all the crucifixions mentioned by Josephus were explained for political reasons; non-political crimes (ie, robbing) is also mentioned. For other non-political indications of Roman crucifixion, you can check on Horace and Juvenal. For the crucified apostles , you can check on the Catholic Encyclopedia.

By any definition, an Empire far beyond any city-state limits has been ruled by the Roman Republic for more than three hundred years, not a bad score as compared with any past or modern state; even under the Civil Wars, the Roman Empire was actually growing. What evidence did Gelzer find on the sudden incompetence of the Republic for ruling such Empire? For the sake of the argument, let us admit autocracy was required (???). Why Caesar? Just because he won the war?

Comparisons are inherent to the scientific method, even as applied in history and related humanities; after all, humans have always been humans, with more or less the same psychology and motivations. In my humble opinion what we should avoid are general equivalencies among nations and populations from different eras, especially when concepts like national pride and Manichaeism are involved; for example, if we use the wars of the good Greeks against the bad Persians as a precedent and model for the contemporary fight against the Axis of Evil. Both periods lasted almost a whole generation, the 241-218 BC for the western Mediterranean region and the 1918-1939 for Western Europe. In both cases, the preceding wars were extremely exhausting for the sides involved (XX century war was far more expensive and lethal); the defeated powers retained significant military potential; and they may have considered unfair the imposed peace conditions. However, I find far more differences than similarities, simply too many to be enumerated here. To begin with, we have accounts from both sides for 1918-1939; for 241-218 BC, just from the winners. In any case, I don't think neither Punic war II nor WWII were unavoidable at all; the "what-if" scenarios are countless. For example: What if Carthage and Rome had become allies for the conquest of Iberia and Gaul? What if Hitler had died from his toxic gas exposure in WWI? Additionally, under such rationale, as any war can be seen as the consequence of a former conflict, all peace periods would then be "provisional" and the only definitive outcome would be universal conquest or annihilation.

There was an old thread about some books that considered Jesus as a re-edition of Caesar; the books themselves were a mess, but there's an obvious parallel between both figures; they were considered as tragic saviors, for whom we normal mortals should be eternally grateful. Naturally, they were hardly original; there was a long tradition of tragic literature, inherited mainly from the Greeks; and an even longer Roman attraction for the supernatural omens. The archetype of the tragic hero (ie, Oedipus) unselfishly accepts his duty (and power) even knowing his terrible fate (by supernatural methods, of course). For him, the power is a painful charge, which he must bear just for the sake of Humanity (or even the whole world). Both Suetonius and Plutarch relied heavily on tragic and supernatural connotations to increase the dramatic effect of Caesar's death. Besides of being excellent for their marketing, such literary trick must have also pleased their patrons, Caesar's ultimate heirs.

You're asking a self-made autocrat to renounce his power after all the struggle and risks required for winning it; a most extraordinary course of action that would have in all likelihood actually increased the danger for him. It's hard to find bona fide examples for such conduct; after all, Cincinnatus and the other classic dictators were not true autocrats. Not even the Liberatores themselves renounce to power when they had the chance. On the other hand, a faked resignation, like that of Sulla (ie, preserving his control over the army) might have been in order; Octavius certainly learned that lesson. That's actually Gelzer's thesis; that Caesar expected his enemies to be "intelligent" enough to perceive such fact.

Caesar's clemency may have been a bit atypical, but hardly unique; many examples of clemency can be found from Sulla to the last Emperors; if most of them didn't end like Caesar, they must have used their clemency more wisely. By itself, clemency is a typical tyrannical attribute; the enemies of the state (All the state) were pardoned by Caesar (Only him and just him). Ergo, Caesar Was the state. He even (sic) "offered them positions in his government ". Then, the mere existence of any Roman was a gracious gift from Caesar. As any politician, Caesar promised benefits to anyone; he only required Everything in exchange. The use of any autocrat's clemency should be determined by careful political calculations; nobleness should not have a place at all. Otherwise, he/she erred his/her job. Intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. My own impression is that Caesar had a good deal of it, and that he always counted on having more than his adversaries; otherwise, he wouldn't have dared to begin any ay single battle or any political step. Apparently, what you and maybe Gelzer count on is the lack of intelligence from absolutely any other Roman of his age; that is, unless your definition for "intelligence" is under the heading of "slavishness" (abjectly submissive) in my dictionary.

Even Mr. Stierlin accepts that the pigments are really ancient, so I would infer they have indeed been dated. The problem would be that a modern forgery (early XX century) might have been made using ancient pigments.

It's evident to me that neither Sulla nor Augustus nor any later Emperor (that I

(SIC) :"The head of tourism for Lazio, Claudio Mancini said: "The message is that visitors to our city continue to cherish it even after so many years"." Alternative reading: "our security sucks".

I sincerely hope some alternative uses for the NASA's budget are still being considered, besides of UFO "investigation". There are pareidolias and "pareidolias"; I'm not sure if the word can even be applied here. If this is the best the UFO "investigators" can show us, ET has nothing to worry about yet.

First the Lupa Capitolina; which would be the next one? In any case, I would think the jury is still out; this note has just been published this month by AFP (The Australian). It's interesting to compare this note with the radiologic report of Mr. Huppert, published two months ago also by AFP (Aurelia's post); Mr, Stierlin might not have been aware of this CT scan when he wrote his book. After all, Mr. Stierlin himself admitted that "it was impossible to scientifically establish the date of the bust because it was made of stone covered in plaster" and also that "The pigments, which can be dated, are really ancient"(!?). In fact, after the radioisotopic dating of the metallic Lupa, I wouldn't be so sure about Mr. Stierlin's first statement.