Rome had an African Emperor after the Ceasars and before the End of the Roman Empire.

It Welcomed all Religions and many Races lived in Rome.

or so my old fundie theory went.

endless wars of conquest, relegation of women to second class status, execution of citizens who would not abide by the official state religion, and, after the collapse of the Republic, a dictatorial form of government. I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be, but using Rome as a model for just about any kind of progressive, decent society committed to social justice is ahistorical folly.

a very good example of anything to emulate, except maybe their aqueducts and bathing facilities. Even the legal system they left us has had to be modified extensively in the last 2,000 years, and, in some cases, outright scrapped.

The facts are what they are; what my personal opinion of their valence is in the tapestry of life is that there are lessons there, so my "judgement" is suspended in favor of acquiring and regarding the many many facts Freely. It's called curiosity.

Is History ir-Relevant?

a great deal of historical water under the bridge, as the saying goes. Unless, of course, you count the Byzantines, in which case it goes well into medevial times. It is important to keep in mind that most Romans didn't think in the racial terms of our times and culture, but rather in terms of one being either a "Roman" or a "not Roman".

apparently without Racism.

would not have understood your concept of "without Racism". Let us put aside for a second that you seem to honestly be suggesting that slavery itself is A-OK as long it is "without Racism". But if you walked up to a Roman citizen of the 1st Century A.D. and said (in classical Latin, of course) "swell system you've got here with citizens and slaves of All Races. And apparently without Racism!" he or she would have summoned the nearest Praetorian Guard, and had you hauled off on suspicion of being both a lunatic and a potential troublemaker to the state.

I think we are talking at cross-purposes here: you are trying to compare and contrast not just apples and oranges, but 2,000 year old apples with 2008 oranges. Let me try it again: to the average Roman, both during the time of the Republic and all the way up to the pre-Constantinian Empire, there were two kinds of people in the world, Romans and "not-Romans". The "not-Romans" - including slaves - were tolerated at best and held in utter contempt at worst. Indeed, there really is no WORD in classical Latin that would fit the category of "racism" you are trying to force into our early 21st century English vernacular, and our modern American understanding of that concept.

And that leads me to reiterate once again that the ancient Romans, despite all they gave us in terms of early western civilization, culture, language (60% of all English words have roots in classical Latin) and law, are not really very good examplars for any kind of decent government, society, or conduct we would want to emulate today, in 2008.

If you are genuinely interested I will elaborate, or refer you to more in-depth sources that will educate you more thoroughly.

my Collins Latin Concise Dictionary, and what I remembered from my four years of classical Latin was valid. The only literal rendering of "race" in Latin has nothing to do with "race" as we conceive of it, but with family (genus; stirps; gens; nomen). There is an adjective, gentilis, that I am unfamiliar with as anything other than a straight-forward modifier, unconnected to any of our current understandings of "race". And by "current" I mean since the shameful African Slave Trade to these shores commenced more than 400 years ago. Starting to see the problem with attempts to connect anything that went on in ancient Rome with today's deep-seated historical realities, and our current problems?

I was merely surprised by the information and remarked about something I didn't know and suspected few others knew it either. Amazing how much you can read into that.

Re your offer, No thanks, but you can tell me . . .

how you acquired your superior mind-reading abilities?

on my part, but inferior understanding of the history of ancient Rome on yours. I assumed nothing. I took your post at face value, and responded to it. I'm not suprised that you are uninterested in pursuing an avenue that might lead you to a fuller understanding of the classical world, given your replies to my posts to date. Good day to you.

After which the whole thing turned more Greek than Roman, including the lingua franca.

The Western Roman Empire is commonly considered "Rome" among scholars unless otherwise specifically indicated, and when we talk of the "Fall of Rome" it is that Western Empire we are usually discussing. Further, the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire has competing dates for its final demise, ranging all the way from 1204 to the 1400's (and some date it earlier than either of those). Some maintain that its vestigial remains weren't finally swept away until 1917 and the overthrow of the Romanov's.

That is why I specifically said "unless you, of course, you count the Byzantines" in the post you're replying to.

The Eastern Roman Empire remained Roman in its self-definition until the 700s, after which it was more Greek. By the time of the Crusades (which brought its true downfall in 1205, as you say), it was certainly more accurately described as Byzantine Greek than Roman. Gibbons takes the Decline and Fall all the way to 1453.

"the Romans," which academics and scholars usually define as the Western Roman Empire unless otherwise noted, and "the Byzantines" - which brings us right back to the post you originally replied to, which made that distinction precisely. So I guess I don't get it...is there some disagreement between us somewhere?

Just that the people in Byzantium continued to think of themselves as the Roman Empire until around the fall of Egypt.

I've made it perfectly clear that I'm referring to the Western Roman Empire, not the entity that got chased out of Alexandria in 646. But whatever.

I do my own thinking.

Under Cyrus the Great. Many places have tried to emulate or recreate his reign. Including Us. Many of the principle set fourth in our Constitution can be traced back to Cyrus the Great and the Persian Empire. Cyrus was the most benovelent ruler to ever live. He considered all the people of his empire to be his children and they all called him father. If you ever want to learn about a truly awesome leader. Then Cyrus the Great is the man.

Though the latter was a very pale imitation when compared to Cyrus. Do any longtime DU members with historical/anthropology backgrounds want to weigh in here and back me up on some of this stuff? Or tell me I'm a newbie loser who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about? Either would be welcomed.

Though he was a gentile. The Jews proclaimed him to be thier Messiah after he freed them from the Babylonian Captivity. They wouldn't even do that for Jesus Christ. That alone should tell you Cyrus was truly the Great.

about either Judaism, the Torah, or the Babylonian Captivity. The Messianic Concept in Judaism is a complicated one, and not a matter that is easily discussed on a discussion board without a ton of historical and textual background being established between those debating it. Your sloppy use of the noun "gentile" tells me that you are ill-equipped for such a discussion from the git-go, though I could be persuaded otherwise with clarifying remarks. But we start here: Cyrus the "Great" was no such thing. At least in the modern, progressive sense of the word. And there has been much, much, much, much ugly anti-semitism that has flowed from such flawed historical concepts as you are peddling here.

You have Jews and Gentiles (non jews.) perhaps it is you who are ill-equipped for such a discussion. In all my years of studying the Persian Empire. I have failed to realize that it was all about the Jews. But isn't that just how it is where ever they go. I've found that they were a very small and insignificant part of the Persian Empire history. Your arguement about cyrus is the equivalent of african americans saying Lincoln was a horrible man because he freed them. It just doesn't ad up.

In all my years of studying the Persian Empire. I have failed to realize that it was all about the Jews. But isn't that just how it is where ever they go.

Three sentences. The last one says it all. Something doesn't "ad (Sic) up," alright. And I don't think it has anything to do with me....

of Cyrus, and his reign. Those of our founders who did so in the slightest, most strained of ways - Jefferson in particular - got it right on the margins. Religious toleration, in 1776, was a novel concept about the globe. It was therefore fitting to point to the few examples of it being practiced, for whatever reason and to whatever slight extent, in the long stretch of human history, while thinking about, contemplating, and eventually contributing to what Lincoln would one day call this "last, best, hope of Earth". I maintain Cyrus himself would have had little but contempt for the American Revolution as an expression of self-government. But I'm open to counter-arguments.

This is how got to America in 1776. It went from the Magi of Persia to the Masons of Egypt to the Scotish Rite of England with a breif stop at the Bavarian Illuminati and then onto the American Masons. Cyrus also didn't use slavery. All worker, including the Jews, were paid.

then the "Bavarian Illuminati," then the "American Masons"...and "all worker, including the Jews, were paid." Is that about right?

Gee, I'd never have guessed that's how history unfolded. Especially since I've read a good deal of it that doesn't involve such conspiratorial nonsense....

You're kidding, right?

Bye-the-bye, your unseemly obsession with "the Jews" is decoded, understood, appalling - and contemptible. I think we're done here.

The history of secret societies generally is not well known by the general public. But you cannot deny that the masons had a profound influence upon the founding of America. I seriously doubt you have ever cracked a history book. Because it involves emense amounts of conspirital (as you so sloppily use the word) Nonsense. Especially ancient history. The farther back you go the more conspiracy you encounter. Btw Conspiracy merely means involving more than one person. Obession with jews is always a self obession. They can't ever think of anyone but themselves. I agree, we're done here.

And all involving "the jews" to boot. "They can't ever think of anyone but themselves" you said.

Yes, we are quite done here, I do believe.

You have a ton of conspiracy with those two alone. You really need to get help for your jewish obsession.

"Or tell me I'm a newbie loser who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about? " You say.

I wasn't going to say it before. But I am compelled to say it now. You're a newbie loser that doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.

"In all my years of studying the Persian Empire. I have failed to realize that it was all about the Jews. But isn't that just how it is where ever they go." (emphasis added)

Now, who was it again with the "jewsish obsession"?

"I wasn't going to say it before. But I am compelled to say it now. You're a newbie loser that doesn't know what the hell you're talking about."

As someone who has not had a single historical fact - or any fact, for that matter - refuted by you on this thread, I find that ad hominem assertion laughable. Indeed, given your open, rank anti-semitism (as quoted above) I'm suprised to find you still posting here. You simply are not very well educated regarding the matter under discussion, and exhibit anti-semitic conspiratorial tendencies that are easily disproved and quite silly.

has properly called you out for your bigotry. And I'm NOT a "newbie loser who doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about." I'm truly appalled right now.

LOL more self-reference! That's almost as good as "moran"!

Your quote: "Obession (sic) with jews is always a self obession (sic). They can't ever think of anyone but themselves."

Two sentences which make me want to discount everything else you are saying. Horrid, horrid BS.

(And, no... I'm not Jewish, nor am I self-obsessed. But I react really negatively to bigotry of that sort.)

Good god, stop embarrassing yourself.

peace my friend

In fact the Cyropaedia was required reading for the Statesmen of that time. Considering that Cyrus authored the first known charter of human rights. I think comparing him to Mao or Mussolini is way out of line. I won't go into the Edict of restoration. Because of your anti persianism or anti iranian sentiments. Jews aren't only people with feelings. Your insults of Cyrus are the equivalent of insulting Abraham. I think your confusing your feelings for the Iran of today with the ancient persian empire. They are world apart. There is no doubt in mind that Cyrus is doing a log roll in his grave over the Iran of today.

Cyrus or Rome, but rather your open, rank anti-semitism, for which you should apologize.

"Your insults of Cyrus are the equivalent of insulting Abraham"

Sez you. I say my historical analysis of Cyrus the so-called "great" are spot-on.

My question is: why are you posting on a progressive message board?

I'm fascinated by all things Ancient and modern. Because everything old is made new again in the crazy world. To say that the jews are self obsessed or a self interest is not anti sematism. That's a fact. If you don't believe it then you need learn about AIPAC. But I don't think that they are any more of a self interest than any other ethnic group. African Americans have the NAACP. Anti semitism is a highly misused term. Some people think that if you say anything bad about someone that is jewish you're being antisemetic. That is untrue. Just like any other people they have their good and their bad. If a jew robs a bank to call him a theif is not antisemtism. But say that all jews are thieves because that one jew robbed a bank is.

You say Cyrus wasn't all that great and other snipes. But offer nothing to support that claim. To tell you truth I'm really interested in why you think that. Iknow there are people that share that opinion. But overwhelming majority of historians world wide not only believe taht he was The Great. But the only leader in all of history to actually deserve that title of being teh Great.

"very progressive progressive" persons. See my #42 below.

"Anti semitism is a highly misused term"

Gee, that's orginal, alright. Sort of like the folks who say "some of my best friends are..."

"You say Cyrus wasn't all that great and other snipes. But offer nothing to support that claim. To tell you truth I'm really interested in why you think that"

Surely you jest. Given your proud embrace of bigotry, I would no more "debate" you than I would "debate" David Irving, or David Duke for that matter. It presumes and gives credibility where credibility is not due, for one thing. For another, we share no common scholarly reference from which to hold such a conversation. I am educated in the classics, and you are "educated" (if one can dare to call it that) in Conspiracy Theory 101 heavily laced with anti-semitic tropes.

"I'm fascinated by all things Ancient and modern"

I can, on the other hand, recommend an excellent liberal arts college where you could satiate that fascination - and perhaps educate yourself out of anti-semitic ignorance at the same time. A win-win.

Thus far you have nothing. You should fit in very well with the piss, whine, moan, groan, and complain society here. Because so far that's all you've done. I don't think it's a case of you won't discuss. I think it's more a case of you can't.

btw, Yes some of my best friends are.

I have educated opinions based on years of academic endeavor and research; you have conspiratorial notions of how the world works, heavily laced with anti-semitic paranoia. At every step of the way in this discussion you have failed to post a scintilla of hard evidence to back up your silly claims: the backing for my claims is available in any decent library, or on scads of legitimate scholarly websites. Or even at your nearest Community College.

There is a world of difference between your absurd ahistorical fantasies, and my posted facts. But if you want to continue embarrassing yourself, go right ahead.

I'm still waiting on your retort on Jefferson studying Cyrus the Great. He must have been a really big fan too. Because he owned not one. But two copies of the Cyropaedia (translation: The Education of Cyrus)by: Xenophon. Surely a person of your great and scholarly educational background is familiar with this great work. But so far you're too busy telling me how educated you are to actually show me how educated you are. Tell the truth you're about 13 yrs old aren't you? I've played poker and I know a bluff when I see one.

long before you ever brought the subject up. Second, even if Thomas Jefferson WORSHIPPED Cyrus (he didn't), so what? What bearing would that have on this discussion? The answer is none. As for the rest, your grubby ad hominems are the last resort of a pitiful, trapped mind, and are therefore not all that interesting. I, too, know a poseur bluffing when I see one, and you fit the bill better than most.

Now, when are you going to address your blatant anti-semitic quotes I've posted in full twice in this thread?

"In all my years of studying the Persian Empire. I have failed to realize that it was all about the Jews. But isn't that just how it is where ever they go."

"Obession with jews is always a self obession. They can't ever think of anyone but themselves."

"I say my analysis of the jews is spot on. I will never apologize for speaking the TRUTH"

Your pitiful diversions notwithstanding, I really would like an answer to this question. And so would a whole lot of other folks, I suspect. How about it?

You are the one that needs help, and in more ways than one.

guess I'll never know, as you are joining my 'ignore' list

"In all my years of studying the Persian Empire. I have failed to realize that it was all about the Jews. But isn't that just how it is where ever they go."

"Obession with jews is always a self obession. They can't ever think of anyone but themselves."

"I say my analysis of the jews is spot on. I will never apologize for speaking the TRUTH"

Not for me personally, because I'm not Jewish, but for every decent human being who recoils from such ugly slurs directed at an entire group?

"In all my years of studying the Persian Empire. I have failed to realize that it was all about the Jews. But isn't that just how it is where ever they go."

"Obession with jews is always a self obession. They can't ever think of anyone but themselves."

"I say my analysis of the jews is spot on. I will never apologize for speaking the TRUTH"

These are YOUR words, Wizard777. They are blatantly anti-semitic. I'll ask again: are you sure you're posting on the right discussion board?

The influence of Cyrus wasn't huge on Rome, in terms of the systems they used. After all, they were a Republic for about 500 years after he died, and when Augustus Caesar turned them into an empire, he did it by adapting the existing republican structure.

your compliment and your warm welcome.

versus Augustus, etc.

Just saying, the original fellow was Julius C., later emperors were called Ceasars, this became the Kaiser in the Holy Roman Empire (German Nation).

Not a particularly nice guy, or welcoming of all religions or peoples.

I don't believe any of them included "nice".

And of course, there were huge class differences, and all of us know many of the People of Rome weren't nice. But at least they were honest about it, unlike we are here in regards to Preventive and Private "Patriotic" Wars.

in this "made for TV History" that you are citing as some kind of authority on ancient Rome? Just curious.

Carthage was were the modern Tunis, Tunisia is today...and had several carnations. Initially as a Phoenician city (related to the Lebanese), then the Greeks and later destroyed and repopulated by the Romans. Yep...there were several later Roman emporors who were from Carthage...or "Africa" as that area was known, but that person would more likely be an Arab than a black.

I wouldn't quite say Rome was tolerant to ALL religions. My ancestors in Judea ended up on a 2,000 year diaspora due to that "tolerance" and until 313, being a Christian could turn you into a Lion happy meal.

religions of various forms were tolerated as long as the participants acknowledged the rule of the Roman State and paid Roman taxes. Neither of which the Judeans or the early Christians would do.

apocalypsenow "laid the smack down" as the kids say. :nuke:

so whats the deal with cyrus the great.

was he....great?:shrug:

He brought his civilization to a pinnacle of Empire, and left a lasting impression on the world that reverberates to this day. He was still a rampaging warmonger who conquered his way to vast imperial holdings. He was smart enough to allow his conquered subjects great latitude in maintaining their native customs and religion, but this was simply a means to an end, to wit, his Empire still in control of the cultures he'd subjugated by force of arms.

In historical terms, this did render him much more "merciful" than other dictators in antiquity. But in our modern, progressive terms - which is how I was approaching this particular question vis a vi the OP's post about the ancient Romans - he was still a warmongering dictator, and Imperial, authoritarian ruler.

are the comparisons of the america of today to ancient rome
valid? Are we Rome?

And they are very, very specific comparisons, because, as I've said before, one has to be extremely careful when one compares 2,000 year old apples to 2008 Oranges.

Just to give one very specific example, our current leaders clinging to the forms of republican/democratic rule of law and paying great lip service to it - indeed, praising it to the heavens in public speeches - while simply ignoring it in actual practice is much reminiscent of ancient Rome. In this sense, the Bush administration has corrupted our democracy every bit as much as the Emperors who followed Julius Caesar's lead corrupted their republic - and ultimately destroyed it.

There are other examples. But the answer to your question is, in my opinion, a qualified "yes".

can you recommend any further reading on this subject?
books, authors, historians?

named Tom Holland called "Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic." It is not some stuffy textbook, but a quite readable volume that holds your interest and informs at the same time. It is about 400 pages long, IIRC, and I think anyone interested in adding to their knowledge about ancient Rome would find it a delight to read.

I could literally list hundreds of others since the Classics (and their study) are my business, but that is an excellent place to start and Mr. Holland has a lengthy bibliography at the end of that volume if you're interested in pursuing such studies further that I have no quibble with.

I hope you enjoy it! It is a fascinating period of human development.

ill check it out..