"Come back with your shield or on it," is, of course, a phrase associated with the mothers of Sparta. I can't get my son to acknowledge that Rome and Greece were actually different societies (or Japan and China, for that matter) but VP should know better. If you want to make a point about Roman attitudes to war you might mention the Roman leader (his name escapes me) who executed his son for disobeying orders, even though the disobedience was a battlefield decision that saved the day for the Romans. Actually, watching the unrated version of Caligula might not even consitute weak research. (PS: pretty brutal stuff, I know, considering that my previous post was so half-witted that VP deleted it just to prevent my embarrassment. But I'm in my Roman mode: take no prisoners.)

Well, once the empire really got going, especially in the east, the Romans pretty much became Greeks, at least the literate aristocrats did. What was left of the Senate spoke more and more Greek and less and less Latin, finally moving the capitol to Byzantium...

As for Roman society, it may have been brutal and unpleasant by our standards, but that applies to all civilizations before about 200 years ago. The Roman Republic had a real, almost modern, government, with highly sophisticated trade, a large and usually effective civil service, and a fairly consistent rule of law. In these respects the Republic and early Empire were the most "civilized" nation on earth till probably sometime in the 16th century.

Roman wars were very violent, but the goal was always conquest. Pay taxes, respect Cesaer, and you'll live peacably, regardless of your religion. Romano-Celts from Britain even became emporers.

The Palestinian Authority and the whackos in Hamas and other terrorist circle-jerk clubs have none of these civilised traits. They no longer worry about trade, they have no rule of law. Their goal is not victory, but extermination. the word "Barbaric" is insufficient to describe their behaivor.

I'm afraid I must disagree with the Imperium Romanum lovefest. The
Roman Empire was a vile totalitarian state which only succeeded due
to its sheer brutality.

Yes there was peace and prosperity for awhile but let's look at the
end result. The Empire destroyed civilization in much of its
territory (it ran out of money and when it tried to get cash from
its cities they evaporated). When the western empire expired
there were no cities of any size in Britain, Gaul, or Spain.
There would soon be no sizable cities in Italy.

I must disagree with Mr. McWilliams.

Rome did not destroy civilization in much of its territory; in much of its territory there was no civilization before the Romans. There were still cities of some size in the west in the Empire's declining years (we ought to remember that, given the technology of the time, a city of 100,000 was a bloated entity that could only be supported on imperial tribute -- like Periclean Athens). It consumed itself in civil war -- but no more so than the Diadochi kingdoms that preceded it did.

The Empire was no better than it should have been - but no worse (much of the incredible immorality and cruelty for which we now rightfully condemn it was a holdover from the late Republic). Rather, it should be seen for what it was; the Universal State that every civilization (not whacked by a more powerful one) forms when the component parts of that civilization have exhausted their creativity. It happened in the Mediterranean, it happened in the Middle East, it happened in China and Egypt -- and the overwhelming probability is, it will happen here.

They were discussing the Roman Republic and early empire, not the later Empire. Also, this quote is pretty much right on:

"As for Roman society, it may have been brutal and unpleasant by our standards, but that applies to all civilizations before about 200 years ago."

It's probably also important to remember when discussing the decline, that the Empire never officially died. The office of Pontifix Maximus, which Julius Caesar once held, still lives on today (in a slightly altered form) in the person of Pope John Paul II.

The Catholic Church is still the functioning ecclesiastic government of the Western Roman Empire. Maybe that explains the alter-boy scandals...

I missed seeing ANY version of "Caligula." I must have led a deprived life huh?

I'm with the Romans here. Absolutely right to point out VP's misattribution of Greek shields. Greek gear was heavier, almost impossible to retreat with it, and of course heirloom rather than GI-- hard to come by for the average farmboy hoplite, hence the admonition.

The notion that the Romans tore around the countryside conquering everything in sight is not quite accurate. Cultural assimilation is not always best accomplished with force, though it is backed up by it.

There were actually fairly involved formulae for border crossings and declaration of grievances before commencement of hostilities, part of the ius fetiale, later observed only pro forma.

On the comparison with Palestine, was there a reason to dig around for a Roman angle? Not necessary, VP. Stick to bashing Palestine without besmirching the ancient world, thank you very much.

In Roman times, Palestine was viewed as the armpit of the empire. The only reason to remotely care about it was it sat on the major trade routes to the east and Egypt. Today, it is still the armpit of the world, but Africa is really making a push to replace it, with the only reason it being important is the oil and Suez canal in the general area.

The Romans didn't always conquer by sheer brute force. They also used a master-client realtionship between city-states. It was kinda like what happens when you ask the guy down at the social club for money when you need it. They got real brutal when someone tried to weasal out of the deal, kinda like the guy at the social club.