Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Zeke

Plebes
  • Content Count

    322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Zeke


  1. In the Golden Age of the Five Emperors could anyone from outside the empire just enter through its borders?

     

    Example: An Parthian Trader from Ctespoion crosses the border in Judea. Could he stay in the empie and cruise around and go to all the provinces? Were their special conditions, like registared immigrants? How were you identified as a citizen? Was their a special ring you wore? How free were you really to travel along the road if you were not a citizen of the empire.


  2. Something I always wondered...how did the Roman legionaries deal with swollen soreness. With improper footwear that didn't have much support other then to keep the foot protected, I am sure the Romans had to deal with constant shins splints and sprains from overworking their muscles. Did the Romans have any knowledge of steatching? Or loosening their muscles up for the march.

    I run Cross Country and I have the best shoes money can buy and I still have the constant ache of shin splints...without physcial trainers, how did the Romans cope with such constant pain when on the march?

     

    -Zeke


  3. But you got to think about...that killing an animal is much more of a deeper symbolic act then lighting a few sticks of incents. You are taking life...in the name of the gods. Sacrificing something for their glory...what exacly does Incense do? THe Ancients thought of incense as a transmitter of offerings from the mortal world to the godly realm. They burnt incense so the holy smell of blood could be smelt by the nostrils of the gods.

     

    OK got to admit that the barbeque thing was a huge factor for sacrifice of animals...it fed people. But eating sacrificial meat showed a bond between the believer and the diety and this is metaphorical in itself.

     

    -Zeke


  4. Hi, Zeke. While I understand what you're saying, I'm afraid I don't really see any concrete examples in what you wrote of Roman "atheists" adopting Christianity due to their finding that religion more appealing than atheism. Can you quote any ancient sources for me?

     

    No, I don't have any clear examples, so I am going to back down there because I don't have a clear answear for that. My additude towards this topic comes from a combination of my biased beliefs as well as the opinions of others and the numerous history books I have read. What I am trying to say is this is my theory....but with no real solid proof I suppose my theory is flawed, and I admit that. It seems logical enough however that an Ahtiest would accept Christainty before Polytheism. If you fast foward to our modern day in age you will see that people are more likely to adopt a monothestic faith then a Polythestic one. There is alot of information out there on Polythestic beliefs...yet the vast majoriy of the westerns still belongs to a Monothestic Faith. I hear stories all the time about Atheists checking out all sorts of different beliefs. They ussually end up embracing Christianity because of its message and perhaps because of some sense of conformity. 98% of American Society is Christian...you feel a little out of place if you're from a minority faith. Constant persacution is something that is always on the mind as well.

    I, however...don't wish to be a drone worker to Consumer Christian America. Maybe its the fact that I am 17 and am trying to find myself. But I have chosen my religion of preference and it suits my needs for the time being.

     

    ANYWAY! I was drawing conclusions...but since I don't have the evidence to support the conclusions, my aplogies. :hammer:

     

    I'm also not really convinced that all of the pagan deities were entirely "the selfish human ones" (as contrasted to Christ) that you described. The Roman goddess Bona Dea (the Good Goddess) was (at least from my readings) a kindly and nurturing goddess, and also a patroness of slaves praying for their freedom.

     

    All Polythestic dieties have some selfish human story releated to them. Even a god like Osiris who piously built kingdoms across the Earth had his own ambitions in mind. I believe that is what makes the Gods interesting, they have sin, they have problems, they can relate to humans in a more pratical manner. How can I relate to this Christ? He is a utopian individual with no desire. I can relate to Mars because of his virtues and vices.....Mars is cocky and boastful, and he went with a Vestal Virgin to conceive Rommulus and Remus, she was supposed to remain a virgin but he broke that law because he desired her so. At the same time Mars is still the god of the warriors and the selfless farmers of the Republic. He embodies the values of thriftyness and self substistancy, he is powerful and from his iron body (in some myths), metraphorically speaking, humans are made. Just because I say Polythestic dieties are selfish doesn't mean I think their horrible...if thats what your thinking. I think its their personality that makes them reality, that makes them more pratical for the human mind to understand. About the Bona Dea thing, I am sure she had her own issues as well. Perhaps the majority of the myths concern themselves with her goodness...but I bet you will find one where she sends her wrath down upon those who displease her. I feel comfortable making this conclusion because every myth I have read the gods have personified human characteristics both good and bad.

    In fact, I can also imagine how ancient, god-fearing polytheists might have viewed the followers of Chrestus as being immoral --

     

    :furious: Ancient Roman Pagans thought of early Christians as cannibals who ate the body of their god...isn't that trippy to think about?

     

    While it may be true that the christian god was more appealing to formerly pagan Romans on an individual basis, I think an important issue to determine is why these people were looking for something new, or why they were willing to alter their belief systems. It wasn't simply that this new god was nicer to them or more beneficial, but that social conditions were ripe for change. Yes, urban residents were more open to this new religion than their rural counterparts, but large population centers are always more susceptible to rapidly changing conditions than smaller communities.

     

    YES Primus Pilius...I should have presented more information on the subjects you just talked about. I just didn't want to sound too ranty...and I agree with you. Thank you for informing me, your right of coarse.

     

    Wasn't the mythology of jesus based partly on the mythology of Bacchus?

    You are correct...Osiris as well. These two deities resemble Chirst sooo much that sometimes you got to wonder how much Polythestic mythology was stolen..or should I say culturally diffused into Christian Mythology.

     

    Zeke


  5. do you have any examples to show how early Christianity might have been more appealing in some way to those who rejected all belief in gods, than to those who believed in some gods? By that reasoning, Judaism, another monotheistic faith, should have been equally appealing to Rome's "atheists".

     

     

    Christianity was appealing to so called "atheists" in ancient Rome because of the fact that it is a "Love-Bombing" religion that offers a wider variety of services relating to the human physce. The Polythestic religions of ancient Rome didn't market in trying to help the invidivudal. As long as the gods were pleased with the blood of sacrifce, then the state would be prosperous and the government of Pagan Rome thought that if the state was prosperous then the people would be happy.

     

    Humans are humans and I have seen many athiests go back to being religious because they need that feeling of support. As Karl Marx said "Religion is the Opium of the people" and even non-believers need something to feel like they are not alone in this universe. It is difficult for a human being to just say... "I am alone, no magic fairy is going to help me." In the back of their mind their still hoping there is something...so the great mystery that is the human adventure will continue on after our eventual demise do to whatever illness or calamity that will eventually behallf us.

     

    The Atheists of Ancient Rome found it easier to accept a loving, caring diety then the selfish human ones that were already in place. People don't want to feel ignored, they want to be helped. Jupiter and Mars do not offer nearly as much support as the Christian God does. The lack of dogma that Polytheism has also enforced the idea among the Athiests that perhaps the whole concept of gods and goddesses was a bunch of bull* B) Yet the Christian God was mysterious, and was up there somewhere in the sky giving support by allowing his son to die for human sin. That concept is romantic, why wouldn't athiests see that as suppieror to the state sponsered cults of eccentric deities that were often combinded together for national purposes? Since no one ever goes into account about what this Christian God looks like or acts like...its open for more speculation, allowing for greater belief. TO THIS DAY people are still speculating Who or what god is. Paganism shuts out this idea by telling you elabrorate stories of what the gods did and how they act. The mystery is taken away...and when that mystery is gone skeptiscim developes because there is only one question left to ask.....

     

    "Is this really real?" Christians don't have to ask this question...there too busy trying to figure out what god is accually doing.

     

    On the subject of Judaism....Judaism didn't become popular because of its Nationalistic sentiments. It is a Jewish Religon, it doesn't have any plans on ever becomming anything else. Christianity has always tried to convert the world to the Kingdom of Haeven.

     

    Your right about the hostility towards Christianity in the Cities Nephele...yet Taticus doesn't record the sentiments of the country people towards Christianity. (Unless you can show me something) Perhaps it was ten times worse....Cities offered places for Christians to hide in vast populations of immigrants. Cities are known for their cosmopoltian additudes, so people are still going to move forward with the trends...it only took a few people embracing Jesus to get the cycle going. YES I TOTTALLY AGREE that Christians were hated in the begining and that they were fed to the Lions...but this only made the Christian resolve to continue on. It made them Martyrs...it allow for Priests to tell the people that these Martrys had rissen and ascended into haeven. State religious intollerance towards Christianity turn out to be the worst policy. It fed the fire so to speak.

     

    -Zeke


  6. Atheism in ancient Rome was practiced by the philosphers of non-religious logical sects and a select few of skeptical upper class merchants and landowners. The upper class used the various Polythestic religions of the day to enforce their rule over the mob and I personally believe that most of the Emperors saw religion as foolish but useful as a way to assert their domiance over the varried populations of the empire. Philosphies such as Stoicism and Cyncism...made mentions of the varioes deities of the day, but these deities were seen as distant and not having much of an effect on the world...so in a way these philosphies embraced atheism as their officials doctrines.

     

    The atheism of the upper class stands in stark constrast to the zealousness of the simple man; especially in rural areas where the gods and spirits of nature had a particular effect on people's lives and the phenamonons that they observed. Illiteracy perhaps had a major contributing factor to this, and the philosphies that were embraced by the urban classes of the Empire essentially stayed in those urban centers.

     

    As such Christianity was able to spread better among the Athiests in the cities then the Pagans in the country. With a more friendly breeding environment, Christianity was able to spread rapidly among questing intellectuals and povery stricken slaves alike.

     

    A final note is that....the Romans are not known for their persacuttion of atheists....as long as you showed up for the sacrifice at the temples you were considered a patriotic citizen. It didn't matter whether you believed in the rituals or not. Thus allowing for considerable freedom of thought about the functions of religion.

     

    Glory be to the gods of coarse,

    -Zeke


  7. :ph34r: Ok I am sure all of us have seen the last instalment of the series of Rome, where they epically make Mark Anathony die like a "True Roman."

     

    From my understanding of the guy he was a preety volupscious character, capricious, arrogant, indulgent, a heavy alcoholic, a gambaler, and a ruthless solider who didn't really care about the Republic to the slightest.

    He grew up in the streets of Rome to a semi-noble family and was known for his thugish ways when he was a teeanger. Latter in life to escape is mounting debt he fled to Athens and studied rhetoric. Upon returning to Rome he joined up with Caeser's Legions and made a name for himself. Today when someone mentions Marcus Antonius, images are conjured up about a man who was a dashing commander, Caeser's chief leutienant and the charming lover of Cleopatra.

     

    But is he really the man everyone potrays him to be? Or his legacy a romanticied shakesphere description. Is he a larger then life hero? Or was he just a sexually crazed coward...who did indeed betray his home land for lust? Who is the real Mark Anathony?

     

    -Zeke


  8. Zeke (Describing George W. Bush)

     

    "In our country called America, we have this Consul sort of character who rules the excecutive branch of government, he has been put in power by the people and he goes and invades two different countries in the spand of two years. He tottally ruins the economy, gives money to farmers for doing absolutatly nothing in the province of Kansas, and seems to be hording money and not giving it to the Senate."

     

    Brutus and Cassius.... "AND YOU HAVN'T MURDERED HIM YET! B)


  9. I had always thought that dictators were "believed" because everyone was afraid to do otherwise

     

    Or their just too stupid do other wise. :smartass:

     

    I think in the case of the average Roman plebian...they were so illiterate and intune with the simpiler things in life (like getting enough to eat, or finding a sutiable partner) that they didn't have time to be afraid.

     

    This same principal can be applied to the religions of the Roman Empire...I don't think the average person had the time to try to figure out if a person "really spoke to the gods" all that an average person cared about was making sure that whatever god did exist was appeased so that their insignifagant 40 lifespan would last a little longer.

     

    Us Modern folk put the label "crazy" on everything...because we want to put the blame on everyone else so we don't appear crazy ourselfs. If we really had a life...then we wouldn't be worrying about other people.

     

    Let's open our minds to the supernatural and believe in our immaginations, Nympths, Saytrs and other Forest folk the haunt the by-ways of the Italian landscape....or I am just crazy? ;)

     

    The point is the people had other worries then to care about a few Priests wandering the streets of Rome going "Jupiter is cursing us!"

    Nowadays we just have way too much time on ours hands...and thats the reasons why real dangerous cults our formed...(Cough cough Jim Jones, physco, cough cough B)


  10. The Eastern Emperors had a large pool of recruits in Anatolia, that was their major center of their Catapract Calvary...I think it was because of the "I don't care toward the west" that the government at Constantinople didn't run off to save Rome in 476, as well as a lack of funds.

     

    When the Byzantines did finnally liberate Italy in the 500s...well they didn't accually have the money to pay for that campagain either. Theodosius is said to have paid his soliders with money from the treasury then tax it out of them double the price latter on, a very clever but unfair system of money raising.


  11. Roman Agriculture went through several phases.

     

    The first phase was from the founding of the Republic till the Punic Wars. The Roman state had its foundations in agriculture and as such its culture revolved around the thrifty, farmer, solider who fought for a certain amount of time and then returned to his farm to tend his crops and animals. I do not believe that the Roman Senate had a permant standing army until after the Punic Wars and this primitive form of conscrition served the Republican City State well.

     

    The destruction of the Italian farm land by the mercenaries of Hannibal forced the Romans to find another method in which to supply their capital and tribute states with grain. Thus the scholar will find the Latifunda developing, a system of agriculture in which aristocratic Patrichans bought out most of the avaliable farm land in North Africa and Spain and turned into their own corporate caboodles. With the influx of cheep grain from the African and Spanish provinces and the warrior farmers of the Republic found themsleves out of a job and with little skills other then solidery, turned into a mob of poverty stricken individuals living off grain distrabutions supplied by the state. It is because of the Latifunda the Republican system of governance began to fail and poverty began to grip the plebians.

    Seeing the plight of the small farmers...the Gracchi Brothers tried to implament reforms upon the Roman Senate. There pleas for social reform caused their deaths. The Patrichans saw it in their best intrest to keep the system of governance conservative and tradditional and the Gracchi Brothers challenged the system that was in place.

    Civil strife fallowed the Punic Wars as military dicators came to power and promised rewards to their soliders in the form of provicial lands that had not been bought up the Latifundas.

     

    The Third Phase of Roman Agriculture began with reign of Octavian, who sought to be a enlightened despot and please everyone. Thus he allowed for a healthy balance of Senatorial Latifundas and yeoman farmers who were equally scatttered throughout the lands of the Empire. Centeralized government control of Egypt; "The bread basket of the Empire," allowed for a steady shipment of grain into the city of Rome to ensure thats it people didn't go hungry. Yeoman farmers had control of much of the agriculture of the provinces of Gaul, Spain, and Britian and the Eastern provinces of Greece probably had a similiar agrement. It is because of these yeoman farmers that the Empire flourished....they encouraged competition and a diversity of products were produced on plots some times no more then 50 acers. This phase exsisted up until the regien of Marcus Aurelius.

     

    The Fourth and declining phase of Roman Agriculture really starts in the age of the "Barrack's Emperors" as crop prices went down and inflation sky rocketed. With the advent of Christianity and the waves of Barbarian peoples ramming into the Empire's borders more and more people found it benificial to move back to the Latifundas for protection.

     

    In the end the Latifundas did prevail and slowly changed into the Feudal Estates of the Middle Ages.

     

    Roman Agriculture was very productive and its productivity levels were not matched until the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Roman Society was essentially agrain, 80% of the Roman population inhabbited the country side and rural lifestyle was highly coveted by the wealthy. Since manual labor was seen as slave work, none of these "wealthy" people accually did any of the work....but the idea is still romantic. And by the way the Latin poets fawned their lyrics over the glories of farming it can be assumed that Roman farmers were generally happy with their simple existances.

     

    -Zeke


  12. Perhaps people exagerate how bad off everyone was before the Industiral Revolution. Ancient Societies too my understanding were healthy and long lived. Its only the onset of the Middle Ages do we start to see the severe starvation cases that Capitalists point out to.

     

    I am not saying there wasn't cases of starvation in the Roman Empire. Yet we make a big deal out of it. Gods..if the Ancient Peoples were that sick and starving then they wouldn't have had time to build such wonders.

     

    So...I do admit the pre-industiral societes might have not as been as high in living standards as our modern day. Yet we put them down to much. I believe these socities were more advanced then the starving villagers in current day Ethiopia.

     

    I know most of you won't agree with me....but I admire the Ancient World for all its accomplishments if it were so pitful and starving then I wouldn't admire it.


  13. So are you saying there is a conspricy by the Ultra rich to keep one illterate? OR litterate so they will be eventual consumers of company products?

     

    I can believe that...thats why public school classes are crammed with 25 or more kids, noboyd can learn in such a huge environment. Private schools have an advantage for their classes are smaller. Thats why the ultra rich go to private schools and get better educations.

     

    Capitalism does not equal Democracy...I ment it like...Capitalism doesn't nessarasily equal Democracy. It can of coarse because of its "Free" Market princples, yet dictators often use Capitalism for their own advantages. Even the "glorious" Fidel Castro.

    Look Capitalism weights on my conciousness. It makes me feel like...I am a slave to a system. Or I am abusing someone else's slavery.

     

    Empires are built on slavery and even "enlightened" societies had slaves, both wage slaves and non wage slaves. So I suppose I can't complain...


  14. Be careful when using the word "Communist" because Communisn has never existed. All the regimes you have just mentioned were never Communist.

     

     

    YES! there were horrible nations that claimed to be Communist and almost all of them did indeed fail. Yet when they did exist they made life slightly better for the people of the world. Thanks to the Soviet Union the Third World is slightly better off. The Soviet Union litterally gave away tractors, free food, and medical. Has America ever given away free tractors on the scale of the Soviet Union?

     

    I think not. So though undemocratic, the Soviet Union did make a contribution to the world when it existed.

     

    Kosmo you said the Communist countries despised human life. That may be so...but all nations despise life. Especially the United State and the richer more economically sound nations like England and Germany. Do you think we Americans really care about the lives of Nigerians in sweat factories. WE say we do...but are we really doing anything about it? Were the ultra consumers of the world we need them to survive.

     

    Communist experiements failed...because their systems cannont meet supply and demand. Eventually all these "Communist" systems have to become Capitalist or crumble.

     

    You also said Communist goverments were the greatest killers in human history and they destroyed the societies they ruled upon.

     

    We can't forget all the Dark Age Kingdoms, the British Imperlists, the Americans, the Assyrians, etc. They killed their societies to.

     

    No matter how you look at it...both sides of this argument are in some way evil.

     

    The ultimate represenation of Capitalism: The United States...triumphed in the end over the "Wicked" Soviet Union. Now you have a world based around America and its globalization. People are loosing their culture and embracing American lifestyle. Everyone wants to be an American. Is that so good?

     

    The Ultimate represantation of the Command Economy: The Soviet Union failed to beat the United States. But if the world had become Soviet then everyone would have eventually spoke Russian and lived in undemocratic if not deppresing countries. Their culture would have been whipped out by Soviet Globlization.

     

    So both sides are equally evil and equally good. Historically speaking each has contributed their fair share to the world. No one is better.

×