# Favourite part of Roman Empire?



## Brian G Turner (Jun 21, 2004)

My personal interest in the Roman Empire spans from the indisputable reign of Augustus, to downfall of Commodus (an emperor Gladiator faithfully mis-represented). There's an interest in the fourth century and Constantine Chlorus onwards, but after we get into the three sons of Constantine the Great my interest switches to Byzantium. 

 (I just thought I'd start this thread in case anyone wishes to discuss Ancient Rome)


----------



## Esioul (Jun 21, 2004)

The end of the republic to the Augustus period- quite a short period, but full of interesting characters like Cicero and Sulla.


----------



## Blue Mythril (Jun 21, 2004)

Hmm, I think I'd have to say from Ausustus to Commodus (he was the one who thought he was Heracles wasn't he? Then he died in the gladator ring trying to prove it ).
My favourites were Trajun and Hadrian I think. Don't know why, maybe because they were Spaniards, maybe because they travelled all over the place... Maybe just because I'm in love with Hadrian's Villa 
But yes, that span of Emporers and their comings and goings seems to me to be the most interesting. Though I have only just started studying Italy.
I like Claudius too: he was more than what he seemed


----------



## Hypes (Jun 22, 2004)

As a person with only a faint grasp of the Roman era, I shall make an **** out of myself and say Octavian.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 22, 2004)

I guess it's because the first two centuries were really the height of the Roman Empire - and Trajan up until Commodus was an era of general peace in the empire. Commodus is effectively the beginning of a long troubled century of civil in0fighting and fast-removed Emperors, that isn't properly adderssed until Diocletian at the end of the third century - and that's when we warm up for the succession of Constantine.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 22, 2004)

The Octavian (Aug) bit is interesting, especially his rise to power. But I can never forgive him for killing Cicero.


----------



## Sirathiel (Jun 22, 2004)

To me the most interesting period would be its beginning (Augustus) till the whole descendence thing broke down (i.e. when there were all these emperors who had been successful army leaders and who didn't stay emperors very long).

Was the first of these Commodus?

Besides that I was always fascinated the philosophical tendencies and views of that time period...


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 22, 2004)

More than the Empire, I am fascinated with the last years of Republic. It seemed a time of truly larger-than-life figures, like Marius, Sulla and of course Julius Caesar.


----------



## polymorphikos (Jun 22, 2004)

I thought Antony killed Cicero?

I find Rome interesting in general, but no one part of it. I can say, however, that it got distinctly less cool after Constantine. One loon sees a light while he's taking a bath, and the whole world has to suffer for it.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 22, 2004)

It was the triumvirate of Antony, Augustus and Lepidus that ordered his death, but I think Antony was the one who campaigned to have Cicero's name on the hit-list. The actual killing was done by assassins, I think.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 22, 2004)

Ah, sounds like you're talking about the civil war of 67-69 AD, after Nero was effectively deposed. Otho, Galba, Vitellus all followed as temporary rulers of Rome, each being violently dispatched - and the commander of the Eastern legions, Vespasian, marching away from his Siege of Jerusalem to take the throne for himself. 

 A particularly interesting point about Vespasian is that Tacitus actually records miracles being performed in his name. 

 Commodus was the son of the "philosopher emperor" Marcus Aurelius, and was the first bloodline succession of the imperial purple since Vespasian's sons, nearly 100 years earlier. It was pretty disastrous as well, and Commodus was removed by Septimus Severus - who happened to die at York while on his way to exterminate the Scots Calaedonians. (Constantine Chlorus also died at York.)


----------



## Esioul (Jun 22, 2004)

Augustus had a hand in Cicero's death, but I think maybe Antony was partly responsible.. but I like Antony, so I always decide for it to be Augustus. I think Cicero upset Antony with the Phillipics speech, and he'd upset Augustus by saying things like 'He should be praised, honoured and removed', and 'the last of all my friends', and it may have been him who said 'the boy who owes everything to a name', but I'm not sure about that one. 

I've just discovered Virgil subtlely insulting Cicero. I hate Virgil even more now...


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 22, 2004)

Isn't that a dillema for you, though, that one of your favourite Romans partly orchestrated the death of another favourite? These sneaky Romans!


----------



## Esioul (Jun 22, 2004)

And Vespasian's last words.... 'I think I'm turning into a god'
Octavian: '40 young men are carrying me off'

Last words are odd, random things.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 22, 2004)

Why like Anthony, and not Augustus, though? I've not seen anything in particular to recommend Anthony, but Augustus was a pretty astute Emperor, and surprisingly tolerant.

 Also - "He should be praised, honoured...and removed"? What was Cicero asking for - _yet another_ bloody civil war? Maybe he was too much the traditionalist, harking back for the 'goold old days'.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 22, 2004)

Cicero probably did ask to die. He upset a lot of people, including Antony's wife Fulvia... apparently she asked for his head so she could stick pins in his tongue. Although, he was such a great orator, and might have written even more speeches if he hadn't been proscribed. 

Thing was, he had actually averted one civil war (Catiline conspiracy), and people liked him at one stage. He was a traditionalist, though- he had all these visions of the Republic coming back, when younger, maybe more sensible people like Augustus knew that the Republic was pretty much dead. Cicero just couldn't help himself from saying things. And he couldn't make up his mind. He could never decide between JC and Pompey, and then he couldn't decide whether to leave Rome or not, which turned out to be his undoing. He was interested in being a politician and not just a lawyer, and he was consul for a while. He was only a novus homo, though, which maybe limited him. 

I like Antony... maybe I'm influenced by Shakespeare, but Antony is a much warmer, more interesting character than Augustus. And Cicero is funny....


----------



## Hypes (Jun 22, 2004)

Why not? After all that Cicero did to bring Julius Caesar (the first one, that is. His full name I can't recall) down, and Octavian's ties with Caesar, I don't blame him at all.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 22, 2004)

Well, I do blame him. Cicero was so sweet! How could Augustus/Octavian/Caesar kill him?


----------



## Hypes (Jun 23, 2004)

There's no sweetness in history. I don't need a bachelor to see that. Cicero was a backstabber, and he proved the pen was mightier than the sword. As long as you are at a safe distance, that is.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 23, 2004)

But Cicero was a darling!


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 23, 2004)

The past really is very alive for you, isn't is Esioul?  Still a Cicero fangirl does make a refreshing break from the Bloom-fans and Depp lovers (not that I don't like that particular actor quite a bit myself) one normally encounters online. Yes, this forum is a very special place indeed.


----------



## Blue Mythril (Jun 23, 2004)

> But Cicero was a darling!


What makes you so sure eh? He was an ok guy, but he had his flaws, and he did stir up trouble.
Besides, he wouldn't be remembered so strongly if he had have died and un-tragic death at an old age


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 23, 2004)

Plus I get the impression he was a bit of a cantankerous old codger.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 23, 2004)

But Cicero really was a darling! You can't not love someone who says things like 'whilst draining the cup of death'. 

Ok, I am obsessed, and I am a Cicero fangirl.... I have strange obsessions I know.


----------



## Sirathiel (Jun 23, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> Why like Anthony, and not Augustus, though? I've not seen anything in particular to recommend Anthony, but Augustus was a pretty astute Emperor, and surprisingly tolerant.


It's been a few years since my last Latin class, but I remember something about Augustus rise to the position of Emperor that was anything but tolerant. I think my teacher described it as extremely bloody and ruthless.

Which is why the Pax Augusta is a bit ironic.

If I ignore the Empire in the original question I have to say that my favourite part of the Roman era was the Republic. It was a democracy born out of the fear that was inspired by the desastrous reign of the Roman kings. Especially Tarquinius Superbus.

I think it's downfall began with the civil war right before Julius Caesar's time. Gaius Julius himself was in a way the last straw.

As to Cicero: I appreciate his qualities as a writer. I still have nightmares thinking about Sallust though. He's the most difficult read I ever encountered in seven years of Latin. (And he was the subject of my oral final... ::shudders:


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 23, 2004)

My bad earlier - had my illustrated Gibbons out this morning and it wasn't Septimus Severus who removed Commodus, but his servants who dispatched him - then placed an apparently distinguished senator on the throne by the name of Pertinx, who lasted about 88 days before the Praetorian Guard literally ripped him to pieces in their camp, because he wouldn't stump up an absolutely ridiculous pay hike - the Praetorians then holding the Imperial Throne up to the highest bidder. Another senator by the name of Didius Julianus decided to best whatever price anyone else was offering, paid the Praetorian's a monstrous fee, and held the throne for a month or so, before Septimus Severus marched from Syria and to the gates of Rome with three legions.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 23, 2004)

I don't believe Augustus was very much more bloody than anyone else who has seized the reins of power in such circumstances. And I think he was a masterful organiser and administrator - don't forget that he laid down the Principate and established the way Rome would be governed for nearly 300 years.


----------



## Sirathiel (Jun 23, 2004)

Ok, seizing power in chaotic circumstances like those from back then, might have asked for methods that are not saintly. And I understand that a man in his position wanted all adversaries dead to assure his reign. And I understand that he tried to cover it all up afterwards.

But in my eyes, that doesn't make him an exemplary ruler. It makes him to one of many men who dealt this way with a similar situation.

As to the Principate... I understand why Cicero was against Augustus and what he tried and did establish. Cicero wanted to preserve the Republic and prevent a return to monarchy. Because the Romans had made very bad experiences with monarchy - see the the rule of the seven kings. The first might have been a good one, but it degenerated fast afterwards.

And this degeneration took also place during the Principate. Augustus was undoubtedly a strong ruler, but that can't be said about too many of his successors.

That's why I don't like to see him glorified and all. Just my opinion on the subject.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 23, 2004)

You can hardly use the later decline of the Empire as an argument against Augustus! And while his mode of gaining power was not exemplary, he was no less bloodthirsty than others, like Antony. And I do believe he was a skiller ruler. Skilled - not morally unstained!

As far as glorification goes, rest assured, I seem to be the only person here who doesn't have a nasty word to say about him! Not that I hold any brief _for _him, either.


----------



## Sirathiel (Jun 23, 2004)

knivesout said:
			
		

> You can hardly use the later decline of the Empire as an argument against Augustus!


No, but against the Principate. Probably didn't make that clear enough. 

/off topic: I really enjoy this discussion. There are as many opinions as people!


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 23, 2004)

Sirathiel said:
			
		

> /off topic: I really enjoy this discussion. There are as many opinions as people!


I agree.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 23, 2004)

Hehe...

Now, re Augustus, see what people in general thought about him, and how scared they were of him: you only have to read The Aeneid to see that. I think Augustus was actually paying Virgil to write a poem about the glory of the foundation of Rome, helping to validate Augustus' reign by linking him to Aeneas, one of the 'founders'. Fair enough- it's a poem of propoganda.

But, Virgil was an Italian, who had lost his farm during the civil war, and many Italians had been killed by Augustus- they weren't too happy with Augustus. Probably lots of Romans weren't either. Now, if a poem is praising Rome, you expect it to end on a positive note, with Aeneas triumphing over the Italians etc. Actually, no. Aeneas has been battling to appear pius all through the poem and avoid furor, which is seen as a very bad quality for a leader to have. In the end, he succumbs to furor and kills Turnus even though he asks for mercy, and the poemn ends with 'Blazing with rage, he [Aeneas] plunged the steel full into his enemy's breast. The limbs of Turnus were dissolved in cold and his life left him with a groan, fleeing in anger down to the shaes.'

What I get from that is a picture of resentment and reluctance, and very bad leadership on the part of Aeneas (who is supposed to represent Augustus, as we are constabtly reminded throughout the poem). Augustus wasn't popular, but Virgil was too scared to say so openly. When he died he even asked for the poem to be burnt, but somehow it didn't get burnt.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 23, 2004)

I seem to remember a claim that augustus did indeed commission the Aeneid, to help push for a certain sense of normality and pride during his reign.

 As for Augustus - top marks for him as a statesman. Julius Caesar had alerady effectively made Rome an empire, but it was Augustus who actually built the machinery to ensure that empire ran as empire, and that Rome didn't turn itself for _yet another_ bloody civil war. Although I can see the appeal of the Republic, it would be too easy to argue that the Republic had long since finished. The only people who really lamented the passing of the Republic were the senatorial class - people like Tacitus and Livy - but it could easily be argued that what they were actually grumbling about wasn't loss of "freedom", but of the restricted powers of their own class, which had otherwise been a rather nasty oligarchy throughout the republican period. The only reason ordinary Romans might have feared an empire is because of the old stories of the Tarquins and Rape of Lucretia - the event that in legend finished off the original line of Roman kings. But, really, even Livy ha to pretty much admit that there were a lot of flaws in the Republican system. Having two military leaders, of equal power, was an especial weakness that Hannibal truly exploited - and to greatest effect at Cannae, when he effectively destroyed the Roman army, but never realised just how great his victory had been, and distracted away to bribe for more Celtic allies, rather tan march on an otherwise defenceless Rome. Polybius also makes for sorry reading of the state of the Roman armed forces then.


----------



## Blue Mythril (Jun 24, 2004)

I like Augustus (probably because I enjoyed studying his portrait types and their changes ) but he was very quick to pick up on oppurtunities as they raised their heads. He was a clever manipulator of cult and heritage and managed to handle his opposition and potential threats quite well. He can be credited with so many contributions to making Rome such a great place. Actually, my Mum reckons that "Julius Caesar was the Man"  (she's a big Colleen McCullough fan) and I love Hadrian, Augustus and Trajun, so we have plenty of interesting conversations.
It's odd actually, before I started studying Rome this year, I thought the Romans were boring prudes (based upon what I came across in Religion and Republican Virism etc.
How wrong I was


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 24, 2004)

Speaking of the McCullough books, I've found them very enjoyable (a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine, really) but what do the history mavens here think of their accuracy?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 24, 2004)

Fraid I've not read any Rome-based fiction, other than "I, Claudius". As for Romans being boring - I had absolutely no real interest in Rome or Romans whatsoever, then decided that I should study them in my own time as resaerch for fantasy writing - to make for a thoroughly convincing fantasy world. But I got carried away, and am now a dedicated Romanophile.


----------



## Esioul (Jun 24, 2004)

Did the Aeneid exam today. So hgave no forgotten everything I knew about Augustus. Who was Augustus anyway?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 24, 2004)

Some bloke in the Gregorian Calendar, I think.


----------



## Cricket (Aug 2, 2004)

I am interested in stories about the lost Legion...I think it was the 12th or 20th, around the time of Augustus, somewhere around 17 AD in Germany. It sounds so wonderful the story, but so little is known what happen to them. Aliens? hehe.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 2, 2004)

I'm not a particular student of all stuff Romanus but I do like the era of the Punic Wars. Rome having to face up to a state almost as strong as itself - having to deal with the problems of ever-changing leaderships - and using their own ingenuity on how to tackle a major sea-power (The Corvus).

Then along comes Hannibal and gives them a right good kicking at Cannae - so they invent the policy of running away for a few years.

Cannae? Ye jist cannae beat it


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 2, 2004)

Hi Cricket and welcome to the chronicles-network. 

 Do you have any more info on what you mean by the "lost legion"? I presume you don't mean the three massacred in the Teutoburg Forest under Varus??

 As for Cannae - hah! If Hannibal had then marched on Rome he would have won the Punic War outright - Rome had no organised army left. As it happened, Hannibal wandered off to try and get some more Celtic tribes to join in in his general campaign. While he wasted time traveling and negotiating with them, the prior survivors returned and Rome built and trained itself a new army.


----------



## Blue Mythril (Aug 2, 2004)

I must say I've never heard of the lost legion...
 Do tell! I'm interested already 
 Is it a myth, or a historic anomoly, MIA or something?


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 2, 2004)

> While he wasted time traveling and negotiating with them, the prior survivors returned and Rome built and trained itself a new army.



This is very true. His Strategy was a mess but the battle tactics employed at Cannae were nothing short of brilliant - so brilliant, in fact, that Norman Schwarzkopf  admitted applying them in the first Gulf War.


----------



## Cricket (Aug 2, 2004)

Yes, Brian. That's the story I heard. Now I know. Varus. Once, a long time ago, I became interested in the story because I found the one family stone in Rome with the soldiers name on it. He was in that battle, the stone said.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 2, 2004)

Hannibal was simply good at using ambush and skirmishing - put him in pitched battle and he lost his advantage in war - which is precisely how Scipio forced his defeat in Africa. 

 Schwarzkopf  had his Numidian cavalry lay under cloaks, hiding in the fog by the lake? Pah! 

 As for the Varus legions - ah, now that was possibly the biggest upset in the whole of Augustus' reign - three whole legions slaughtered by Germanic tribes. Varus is squarely blamed for failing to have taken adequate precautions. If I remember right, there was talk of survivors drifting off - no idea where, but if anywhere west of Gaul, probably an early death, or slavery.


----------



## Cricket (Aug 3, 2004)

Brian, I do not know about survivors, or if they just meant he died in that battle. I have the picture of this stone somewhere. I am pretty sure it was that battle. I will try to find, scan, and post here for you to see, if you are interested in these things. I might be wrong about this being the same.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 3, 2004)

> Hannibal was simply good at using ambush and skirmishing - put him in pitched battle and he lost his advantage in war - which is precisely how Scipio forced his defeat in Africa.



Isn't it the case that the eventual defeat was caused more  by lack of support from  Carthage than Hannibal's inability to wage war? I would have said (although certainly do not claim any expertise in this matter) that Cannae was not so much an ambush as a pitched battle that had been better prepared for by the Carthaginians. It is, after all, still regarded by many military scholars as the greatest military victory in history. 

And, let's face it, he absolutely slaughtered the poor, muddled up Romans and was responsible for Rome re-inventing itself and subsequently ruling the Med.  Rather than ask the question 'What did the Romans ever do for us?' perhaps it should be 'what did Hannibal do for the Romans?'


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 3, 2004)

Hi Cricket - I do believe there were survivors who made it back to Roman territory, though obviously the majority were believed to have died. I think there's an account of Roman's returning and collecting the bones for reburial. I'm getting a little fuzzy, now. 

 As for Cannae - if I remember right, Livy puts the defeat down to Hannibal's clever use of ambush tactics- ie, holding a group to hide until the Roman's had passed by, before launching a two-pronged flanking manouevre. ISn't this the battle resulting from the Consuls disagreeing on action as well - or was that another battle?

 I'm not sure how Cannae gets the title of "greatest military victory", though, because it is simply the effects that are known - the pretty solid destruction of the Roman army at that time. However, the fact that Hannibal was completely unable to capitalise on his immediate gains means that Cannae was ultimately a military defeat - because Hannibal was completely unable to realise his _actual_ military objective, which was the complete subjagation of Rome. I guess it was sort of a like a Peal Harbour - stunning attack, but objectives not met and the initial success never followed up. I'm not convinced such a scenario makes for a military victory in any sense - though, of course, I could simply be sounding pedantic.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 3, 2004)

> ISn't this the battle resulting from the Consuls disagreeing on action as well - or was that another battle?



I think you're right about that. Also, I believe the reason it was acclaimed as the greatest battle was the sheer slaughter inflicted upon the Romans that day (around fifty thousand). apparently it's the most people killed in a battle lasting only a single day. Quite a feat when you think about how long ago it was.

Anyway, if you're interested, I picked up a book on the subject a while back 
'The Punic Wars' by Nigel Bagnall ISBN 0-7126-6608-7
It's worth a read


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 3, 2004)

I think we need open up a new thread on battles.


----------



## Cricket (Oct 18, 2004)

My favorite part of this empire must have been where they took this picture. They are so handsome.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 18, 2004)

They knew how to look good in the ancient world. 

 Not sure what those two Romans are doing with a mounted machine gun, though!


----------



## Hypes (Oct 20, 2004)

The death throes of the Republic, and the Dawn of the Empire as we know it is what currently is holding my fancy.

I mean, with such intriguing characters such as Cornelius Sulla, Gaius Marius, Pompeius Magnus and of course Julius Caesar, how can you go wrong?


----------



## Alexa (Oct 29, 2004)

If I could go back in time, I would like to meet two persons : Trajan and Caesar. I would like to know how they really were as humans, beyond what history tells us about them.


----------



## Esioul (Oct 30, 2004)

I like the bit with Cicero in.


----------



## Alexa (Oct 30, 2004)

_*" A long time afterwards, so I have been told, [Augustus] Caesar was visiting the son of one of his daughters. The boy had a book of **Cicero**'s in his hands and, terrified of his grandfather, tried to hide it under his cloak. Caesar noticed this and, after taking the book from him, stood there and read a great part of it. He then handed it back to the young man with the words: 'A learned man, my child, a learned man and a lover of his**country**.' (*_Plutarch, Life of Cicero, 49)


----------



## Esioul (Oct 30, 2004)

Hah. Augustus killed Cicero!


----------



## polymorphikos (Oct 31, 2004)

It is very easy to be philosophical in victory. But that was the genius of Augustus, to make himself seem far less unpleasant in retrospect.


----------



## Leto (Nov 18, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> My personal interest in the Roman Empire spans from the indisputable reign of Augustus, to downfall of Commodus (an emperor Gladiator faithfully mis-represented). There's an interest in the fourth century and Constantine Chlorus onwards, but after we get into the three sons of Constantine the Great my interest switches to Byzantium.
> 
> (I just thought I'd start this thread in case anyone wishes to discuss Ancient Rome)



Well, from a strict historical point of view, I'm more interested in the first centuries from the mythological fundation (and what's lie beneath) to the establishment of the Republic than in the Empire itself.
On a more general point of view, the study of Romans civil laws throughout their whole history is fascinating.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 19, 2004)

Ah, Leto - you've also had to read through a lot of Livy's moralising, then?


----------



## Leto (Nov 19, 2004)

Yes, that and Justinian code too, and many more. 
Fortunatly my university teachers at that time were great storytellers, even if their Roman tribes counts showed they had math troubles.


----------



## Blue Mythril (Jun 18, 2005)

I thought I might update my opinion on my favourite part of the Roman Empire. Recently I've been delving into the republic, in particular the late republic from Sulla to Augustus, in more detail. This part of Roman history, despite how horrific it was in parts, is hands down my favourite. In fact I might argue its the turbulant nature of this period which makes it so fascinating and allows for personalities such as Maecenas and Fulvia, who in any other period would barely get a look at politics, to be so prolific. There's just so much in terms of events, people and evidence, its just fantastic! The seeds of Empire were sown...


----------



## Stalker (Jun 21, 2005)

Et tu, Brute?


----------



## Stormflame (Jun 22, 2005)

One aspect of the roman empire that has always enthused me, was their architecture.  I was watching a documentary the other day and it was talking about their aqua-duct system.  Even after all of these years, here are parts of it that are under the ground, connected to a natural spring or stream, and are working to this very day.  The romans were awesome, and had they not fallen to the barbarians and other fronts, I could only imagine what they would have aspired to.


----------



## Blue Mythril (Jun 22, 2005)

Ah but what rises will one day fall, sadly in some cases, not so sadly in a few modern examples I'm waiting for the fall of 

Actually speaking of Roman architecture, something I discovered last year and found really interesting is that Nero was the first person to use concrete on a large scale. Thats how he was able to complete his palace so quickly. It just seemed so odd learning about a technique used in antiquity that has parallels with modern mass production.


----------



## Stalker (Jun 22, 2005)

They say, _the Egyptians used concrete on the large scale_ while constructing Great Giza pyramids but I hardly believe that Egyptians built The Great Pyramids at all!
I also invite everybody who's going to discuss alternate scenarios of historical development to visit the thread *Alternate history scenarios: What if?* and discuss their ideas there http://www.chronicles-network.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5702


----------



## The Ace (Nov 10, 2006)

Don't know about that, the Romans were credited with inventing the stuff.


----------



## Hiro Protagonist (Nov 11, 2006)

Sirathiel said:


> To me the most interesting period would be its beginning (Augustus) till the whole descendence thing broke down (i.e. when there were all these emperors who had been successful army leaders and who didn't stay emperors very long).
> 
> Was the first of these Commodus?
> 
> Besides that I was always fascinated the philosophical tendencies and views of that time period...



Could you elaborate on the philosophical tendencies of Rome?

Rome was Greco-European, which was more Hellenistic than Hellenic.  The great philosophical ideas of the Greeks were strained during the Hellenistic period, and when they were taken and mixed into Greco-European, I feel they lost all value.

Cicero is my favourite Roman because of his sheer intelligence.  I guess you could say Rome was transformed by Cicero.  He took the last of the Greek ideas that the Greeks still had and ported them to Rome.  

I guess I don't like Rome much because it is overlooked.  We all discuss the "great" Roman army, but none of us really realize how much Rome has lived on.  The U.S. is a bloody Republic, and all of the Roman patriotism/impersonalism/cultural relativism still exists.


----------

