For crying out loud, Pete. I posted here a loooong time ago and you flamed me really hard then too. Are you on the lookout for me or something?
I've read scores of books on the Romans. I understand that, during the high point of their Republic, they did extend citizenship to "outsiders". I'm sure that, to an extent, they were fair-minded. I would not assume they were substantially MORE fair-minded than modern people. I also have read many, many times of the general feelings the Romans had of Roman superiority. I've read in Latin some of their denunciations of other peoples, and a lot of chest-beating about how great Rome was.
I suppose it's beyond you to think I could conceive of a sophisticated Roman culture that could admire Greek ways and import them while still believing the Greeks themselves to be militarily weak. People can hold apparently conflicting emotions toward something, and the Romans were no exception. John Keegan, in his History of Warfare, speculates on the possible pathology of the Roman behavior of, to paraphrase him, since I don't have the book handy, annually sending out legions to do massive violence to neighboring peoples, every campaigning season, over hundreds of years.
Obviously I made the point about the Celts to...make a point. Not to make a big deal or live in the past. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes were overrun in turn as well; I wasn't singling out the Celts for any reason than that I could speak about them from my point of view as ancestors and not be talking about someone else's ancestry. I wasn't "making a big deal" nor "living in the past"; and I frankly find the latter claim to be kind of strange coming from someone defending Roman practices.
Anyway, I think you are jumping to conclusions about my post. Concerning the book on race, I said several times that I had not read that particular book, and I qualified my ideas appropriately, and was careful to show opinion as opinion as much as I could without completely interfering with the train of thought by qualifying everything.
I wish that you could turn your usually clear thinking to some good purpose, Pete. I find it unpleasant in the extreme to be treated nastily over something so minor -- I flamed no one, and made no sweeping claims one can't find support for in Catullus or Caesar. Yet you imply "glaring" errors? I would say my errors, such as they are, are at least subtle. :)
Regards,
Sailboat
I've read scores of books on the Romans. I understand that, during the high point of their Republic, they did extend citizenship to "outsiders". I'm sure that, to an extent, they were fair-minded. I would not assume they were substantially MORE fair-minded than modern people. I also have read many, many times of the general feelings the Romans had of Roman superiority. I've read in Latin some of their denunciations of other peoples, and a lot of chest-beating about how great Rome was.
I suppose it's beyond you to think I could conceive of a sophisticated Roman culture that could admire Greek ways and import them while still believing the Greeks themselves to be militarily weak. People can hold apparently conflicting emotions toward something, and the Romans were no exception. John Keegan, in his History of Warfare, speculates on the possible pathology of the Roman behavior of, to paraphrase him, since I don't have the book handy, annually sending out legions to do massive violence to neighboring peoples, every campaigning season, over hundreds of years.
Obviously I made the point about the Celts to...make a point. Not to make a big deal or live in the past. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes were overrun in turn as well; I wasn't singling out the Celts for any reason than that I could speak about them from my point of view as ancestors and not be talking about someone else's ancestry. I wasn't "making a big deal" nor "living in the past"; and I frankly find the latter claim to be kind of strange coming from someone defending Roman practices.
Anyway, I think you are jumping to conclusions about my post. Concerning the book on race, I said several times that I had not read that particular book, and I qualified my ideas appropriately, and was careful to show opinion as opinion as much as I could without completely interfering with the train of thought by qualifying everything.
I wish that you could turn your usually clear thinking to some good purpose, Pete. I find it unpleasant in the extreme to be treated nastily over something so minor -- I flamed no one, and made no sweeping claims one can't find support for in Catullus or Caesar. Yet you imply "glaring" errors? I would say my errors, such as they are, are at least subtle. :)
Regards,
Sailboat