tflex Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 (edited) I think Cato is tired of it too. He doesn't come on as much as he use to. Edited June 9, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 People are allowed to their opinions. If someone's favorite era is the "Caesar era", that's fine. If someone's favorite era isn't the Caesar period, that's fine too. But we're not going to to have a rehash of the tired arguments on this particular thread. You all dig it? Â The Cato v JC topic is tired? Now why would you say something like that? Â Â See what makes that even funnier is the fact it's some Victorian age picture animation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 People are allowed to their opinions. If someone's favorite era is the "Caesar era", that's fine. If someone's favorite era isn't the Caesar period, that's fine too. But we're not going to to have a rehash of the tired arguments on this particular thread. You all dig it? Â The Cato v JC topic is tired? Now why would you say something like that? Â Â See what makes that even funnier is the fact it's some Victorian age picture animation... Â I love that gif That needs to be used every time a Phalanx vs. Legion or Caesar vs. Alexander thread starts. Â However, I also happen to enjoy the Caesar vs. Senate and Fall of the Republic debate regardless of how repetitious it may sometimes get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted June 9, 2006 Report Share Posted June 9, 2006 ...I love that gif That needs to be used every time a Phalanx vs. Legion or Caesar vs. Alexander thread starts. Â However, I also happen to enjoy the Caesar vs. Senate and Fall of the Republic debate regardless of how repetitious it may sometimes get. Â I think you're right in that it's an endlessly fascinating topic of which there's still volumes more to talk about, but when I begin to guess the usual suspects replies then my attention span wanders. It's a more intellectually challenging topic in many ways than the Phalanx or Alexander issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 I think you're right in that it's an endlessly fascinating topic of which there's still volumes more to talk about, but when I begin to guess the usual suspects replies then my attention span wanders. Â I agree there's still much more to talk about regarding the late repbulic--the system of voting and its consequences, whether bribery was really widespread or just sour grapes, whether all or some or none of Sulla's laws should have been overturned, the history of the imperia extra ordinem, whether precedent was either necessory or sufficient to constrain imperia, etc. You might guess the nature of "the usual suspects' replies", but you might also be surprised, might teach someone something, or might even learn something yourself. The question is--What issues would you like to discuss next? If you'd rather we not beat dead horses, give us a fresh new one to beat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 I think you're right in that it's an endlessly fascinating topic of which there's still volumes more to talk about, but when I begin to guess the usual suspects replies then my attention span wanders. Â I agree there's still much more to talk about regarding the late repbulic--the system of voting and its consequences, whether bribery was really widespread or just sour grapes, whether all or some or none of Sulla's laws should have been overturned, the history of the imperia extra ordinem, whether precedent was either necessory or sufficient to constrain imperia, etc. You might guess the nature of "the usual suspects' replies", but you might also be surprised, might teach someone something, or might even learn something yourself. The question is--What issues would you like to discuss next? If you'd rather we not beat dead horses, give us a fresh new one to beat! Â Of course I mainly meant the usual suspects on that narrow topic of Cato/Caesar which was Satan, which was saint. Some of us who are regulars tend to get tired of certain issues--old age, short attention spans, etc-- and forget that there's new blood that comes on in for whom the issue is new again or that you can still learn a few things from the others or, especially after reading and the contents of a particularly good book or study, can share new information. Â The problem with a new topic is there's little out there with the same star power or low flash point of the Caesar v Cato stuff. I could post ten posts about how democratic the Republic was, how were the allied Italians integrated into it, Polybius' discussion of it's constitution and so on. None of them combined would get the emotional and intellectual response from the memberships or longevity of threads called "Cato the constitutional matyr sainted by the Vatican", "Jesus Christ/Julius Caesar, seperated at birth?" or "Cato, Caesar or OJ--Who really killed Nicole Brown Simpson?". Â So I guess in that sense, I surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 The problem with a new topic is there's little out there with the same star power or low flash point of the Caesar v Cato stuff. I could post ten posts about how democratic the Republic was, how were the allied Italians integrated into it, Polybius' discussion of it's constitution and so on. Â Three fabulous threads right off the top of your head! Sure, they might not have the star power of other threads, but so what? Don't be such a populare... Or, to be fair, don't underestimate the forum. Haven't you ever started a thread and thought it would be a hit (only to see it fizzle) or started a thread that you thought would be dud (and turned out to be hit)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 (edited) The problem with a new topic is there's little out there with the same star power or low flash point of the Caesar v Cato stuff. I could post ten posts about how democratic the Republic was, how were the allied Italians integrated into it, Polybius' discussion of it's constitution and so on. Â Three fabulous threads right off the top of your head! Sure, they might not have the star power of other threads, but so what? Don't be such a populare... Or, to be fair, don't underestimate the forum. Haven't you ever started a thread and thought it would be a hit (only to see it fizzle) or started a thread that you thought would be dud (and turned out to be hit)? Â No this forum can't be underestimated, quite a few good posters. You can never tell which thread will catch everyone's imagination or better yet what direction that thread's original topic will wander off to. Edited June 10, 2006 by Virgil61 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uros Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Bizantine era, specificcaly the Comnenus Age, but in that time Byzantium was more e mediaval greek state that a roman one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoMinutesHate Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 Late republic, easily the most interesting part of Roman history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) Personally, I don't like the Late Republic era. I think that the main protagonists are mostly power-hungry self-absorbed aristocrats who didn't really care much about patriotism or the Empire but rather lining their pockets with cash at the expense of others. It seemed to be more of a side-note that in the process they expanded Roman territory. In my opinion they where mostly corrupt glory-seeking upper class types. Â I much prefer the super-state of the Dominate. And also the fact that they long ago ditched the concept of democracy which proved a failure in controlling the Empire, and no longer made any attempt at even a fa Edited July 13, 2006 by Lex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 I find the totalitarian centralised state of the Dominate and its bureaucracy far more fascinating . Â It's clear that you hate the republic, but what is it you find interesting about the Dominate? Why not study any of the other monarchies that lasted from the first Caesar to the last Czar and Kaisar? What was remarkable about the Roman monarchical system? I really am just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) What was remarkable about the Roman monarchical system? I really am just curious. Â Good question. What I think makes the Dominate different to the other monarchical systems is that theoretically anyone who was Roman could become Emperor. It wasn Edited July 13, 2006 by Lex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miguel Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 interesting poll =) I vote for Dominate as I personally feel interested in this period the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus of Seleucia Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 I went with principate but I also like the period between the conquest of Italia and the Punic Wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.