Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Sextus Roscius

Plebes
  • Posts

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sextus Roscius

  1. Now I'm really upset. I went to the website for the movie and in place of the "a" in DaVinci, they have a freakin "Lambda." I hate it when folks use greek letters without any understanding of what those letters mean. A "sigma" for instance is not an "E" in Greek or in any other language. A "delta" is not an "O," and a "lambda" is certainly never an "A." Why would they use a Greek letter anyway? The movie has nothing to do with Greek! I hate Hollywood.

     

    I completely agree. There is a sad lack in knowledge of the greek aphabet, I learned it from my latin teacher originaly who happens to speak ancient greek as well... stupid hollywood...

     

    and btw, I won't see the movie till I've read the book. I never bothered reading it since it seemed relatively childish and infactual. Mainly I was mad at it becuase it "taught" a ton of wrong or sketchy ideas to people who had no idea of the subject and yes, now use it as a "reference"

  2. Suicide was seen by the Romans good or bad depending on the context.

     

    In some terms, if a child was in some way making a bad image for the rest of his family, or had dishonored his family by commiting a crime or something etc. It was seen as honorable for that person to commit suicide and the Romans would admire how he had put his family before his own life. Also it was viewed in good context in military terms. The Romans considered Death before surrender to be very, very honorable and note worthy. After all, you fought for Rome through and threw, and would rather die by your own blade than by the blade of an enemy.

     

    In the bad context, it would be horrible for some one in debt to commit suicide, becuase that would leave his family in quite the situation, and probley if worse came to pass, his wife might have to become a slave to compensate. Also, in the negative context, would be if persay, a comander was to kill himself and leave his men divided. That would be an ultimate of cowerdlyness and dishonor

  3. Sextus, your pronunciation are good, but I would make the following changes:

     

    aedile = ah-ay-dee-lay (the ah-ay can be pronounced like the word "eye")

     

    stilicho = the "ch" comes from the greek "Chi" (X) and is pronounced with an aspirated hard "c" like this: kho = stee - lee - kho

     

    finally, "ii" is pronounced "ee-ee"

     

    Your right, I was running on automatic there.

  4. Some will correct me if I'm wrong on these but

     

    aedile= eye-dial (as in sundial)

     

    mos maiorum= mos (as in mosque) may (as in mayor) or (as in orbit) um

     

    Odovacer= Odo-wa-ker (the -er sound in -ker is pronoucend like air)

     

    Stilicho= Sstee (make the long -ss sound, not a -z sound) lee-cho

     

    Cassivalaunus= Kassee-wal-aun(as in aunt)-us

     

    I'm sure people with more skill will come back and correct me, I'm not good at doing word pronounciation on paper...

  5. To make a general comment about the data from the poll, personaly, I'm surprised at the 0% of the combined Judaism and Islam, I was realitively sure that we had at least a jew or two, maybe even a Muslim... Though not shockingly, christianity was the majority, with atheism following close behind, and then the polytheistics.

     

    Personaly, I could never get into Polytheism, though it makes more sense than Monotheism (at least to me)

  6. We know that Burebista sided with Pompey against Caesar, and perhaps the cutting of the vines was a symbolic gesture after Pompey's defeat, intending to say... Dacia will never submit to Caesar?

     

    Why didn't you mention this in the first place? Now I'm convinced that Dacia wasn't backwards! :unsure:

     

    Cato! no, now your not the real cato, the REAL cato wouldn't have been factional, he would've supported Rome, not Pompey, Pompey was not Rome. Sigh cato, am I the only real republican left.

  7. As for science in respect to Catholicism, there isn't much conflict with the exceptions of abortion, cloning humans(who the heck would wanna do that), and gays are naturally born(BS in my opinion). Aside from all that, the Catholic Church now promotes the advancement of science and learning.

     

    Well Flavius, it has been scientificaly proven that Gayness CAN be naturaly born. It is caused by a chemical inbalance in the brain due to incorrect hormones from the Male and Female. Whether you like it or not, there is XX males and XY females on occasion. Birth defects...

     

    As for human cloning, cloning could be incredibly helpful in theory. I personaly wouldn't mind clones for certain things. They pose an economic problem over a ethical problem to me, so personaly I am in agreeance with the church on that

     

    Also, I can't say much about abortion. It depends on whether you consider the developing baby/fetus a baby or a fetus. Personaly I consider it a fetus and there for am Pro-choice. However, I find that the church hasn't taken the full stand. If they want to declare Abortion wrong, they should also declare that taking birth control pills is wrong, that using a condom is wrong, and in general fact, the idea of doing anything to prevent birth, they have yet to do so.

  8. I think that assuming the impossibility of a creator based on assumptions of the nature of a creator is a flawed rationale.

     

    Belief in a god without godliness (omnipotence and omniscience)? Why bother? If you don't believe in godliness, what's the point of theism?

     

    Agreed Cato, I'd like to ask the same question.

     

    Also, I'd ask the mods to make sure that if this starts to get out of hand, to lock the thread, this is really beyond what I meant it to be currently, but don't lock things down yet mods...

  9. No, this couldn't have happened, at least not often. As soem one stated earlier, such a thing would not have been tolorated by the Roman Centurions and comanding officers. It quite simply wasn't going to happen anyways, why would any self respecting soldier choose rather to rape a hardened bloody sweaty disgusting warrior, and not the lovely young virgins of the town. Rape was part of sacking a city, not part of disgracing an enimies manlyhood.

  10. Yes yes, they had good architecture and gold working, but look who went out to put it to work to the people, the Romans of course. I think when it comes to a civilizations advanced or backwards classification, we should judge by the sophistication of the average person, the whether the average person is literate (Roman literacy rates were incredible for the time, Dacia, not so much) and the addvanced technology that effects the average persons life (such as roman aquaducts and things like that).

     

    So by those terms, I think it is fair to declared Dacia inferior to the Romans. Though then again, I'm incredably bias towards the "barbarian" cultures.

  11. I must confess to my lack of knowledge on the subject at hand, though general knowledge of the time tells me that in terms of seige warfare and its sophistication, the celtics were just about as "primitive" or "advanced" as any other culture in the world (the eurasian world anyways)

     

    The only thing majorly different with tactics is

     

    A. a lack of extensive stone fortifications of the "barbarian" tribes and entities which consequently lead to trouble sieging citys that used such fortifications, and also a lack of knowledge on how to defend these, considering they didn't have the experiance to develop things such as boiling oil and also the advanced metal plated seige towers of the mediteranian (or in motzart's words, the Merdeteranian)

     

    B. A different Fighting style and warrior armorment.

  12. Me Personaly, i'm an Atheist. Hardcore now, I beleive that the only purpose in religion is (like PP said) to explain the unexplainable, however I have faith that everything can be explained by scientific thought, and to follow practices of religion in the meanwhile would simply be a hindrance to furthur advances of science and finding the true answer. Religion in terms of morals and ethics is positive, but I beleive (and practice) firm morals and ethics without beleif in my duty to a higher power, other than rightousness.

     

    Though in a sense, atheist is a religion, a religion is simply a belief about how things work, and one can find that atheism in terms of what one who practices it does and how one practices it will vary just as much as a religion. The only thing lacking in atheism is organized groups who come together to speak about the meaning of atheism, which is profoundly useless in my opinion. Therefore in my mind atheism is a religion, a religion without a deity.

×
×
  • Create New...