Alon

What is a commie? One who has yearnings For equal division Of unequal earnings Idler or idiot For both he is willing To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling. -- Ebenezer Elliot

Someone better inform Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Eugen von Bahm-Bawerk, Frederick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and H. L. Mencken that they are "just punks".

(Emphasis added) Punk, this is a rather silly statement. Having a superior civilization (and for the sake of simplicity, lets qualify this statement to mean greater recognition of individual rights) does not give that civilization a free hand to crush any less civilized neighbour. It does have a moral right to vanquish enemies when they threaten that civilization. Now in our example, Christianity presented no threat to Islam in the early centuries of the conflict. Islam easily swept through North Africa, the Middle East up to Turkey, and Spain. It was only stopped in the west in southern France and in the east somewhere south of the Ukraine. Christendom was surrounded and cut off from its major centres of intellectual thought and economy within 150 years of Islam's rise in Arabia. I think according to Objectivist reasoning you would be correct to argue that Islam had a right to drive back the Crusaders (despite the fact that, given the context, the Crusaders were on the defensive), but saying that Islam had a right to conquer all of Europe is nonsensical. Europe no longer proved a threat to the Muslim world. Wars cost money, resources, and lives. A nation does not have a right to spend the resources and lives of its citizens because of higher civilization unless its existence is in danger, and even then, individuals are not the property of government, to spend and allocate how it wishes. Simply put, only defensive wars can be considered moral, and Islam's was a war of aggression from its birth.

You're asking for a lot. Unfortunately there isn't any one good book I can recommend, historians of the period tend to take one side or another. On opposite sides you have the position that the Christians were brutes fighting a war of aggression and conquest against a much more cultured civilization, the other the historian will at least treat the opposing forces as moral equals, at worst claim that Christians were a model of civilization and righteousness for the Oriental heathens. Which ever book you read, keep in mind that both armies committed acts of savagery, one no less than the other. Also, a point that is often ignored (and especially so by Islamic apologists) is the context of the Crusades. They did not occur in a vaccum. Islam had been expanding for four hundred years prior to 1099 at a tremendous rate, conquering huge territories of Christendom, including major centres of Christian thought: the whole of North Africa, Syria-Palestine, and Anatolia. Also, several territories which were conquered but not held were Spain, Portugal, southern France, and the Caucausus. Islam had thus encircled Europe from East to West. It is important to keep this in mind when considering the events of 1099. Culturally the Arabs were far superior, relying on Classical antiquity they developed the sciences, arts, and philosophy which they inherited and imported many ideas from India. At the same time Europe was only emerging from the Dark Ages, entrenched in Augustinian theology and mysticism. Does this mean that the Arabs should have our support? Who is to say? The decline of the influence of Classical antiquity upon Islamic civilization began while the Crusades were at their height, in its place was a growing religious conservatism and literalism to which we can trace the beginning of Islam's decline into its own Dark Age.

Moose wrote: Can you elaborate on how this would destroy Israel's democratic government? Giving Gazan Palestinians, roughly 1 million in number, the right to vote in an Israeli election would mean the creation of an extremist Islamic party to represent their views. This new population will make up 1/6 of the new total electorate of Israel, a very powerful voting block. That power can easily be used to slowly dismantle the nation's democratic institutions or to affect Israeli policy to its own detriment. The reason I think they should have two separate states, one in Gaza and one in the West Bank, is to weaken the authority any future Palestinian government will have. This way, the Palestinians have two governments which will probably bicker among themselves (Gaza is far more religious and supportive of Hamas than the more secular West Bank) and Israel will not be required to maintain a land route through its own territory (as it is already planning to do).

I have several problems with the pullout: 1) Strategically, Israel loses ground. Rockets fired from southern Gaza at neighbouring Israeli towns will now be able to be fired from northern Gaza and hit major towns such as Ashkelon and Tel Aviv. 2) The Palestinians are not being asked to make any concessions, Israel is simply leaving. Terrorist groups will take this as another retreat - as they took Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon - and have even less incentive to seek peace. 3) Israel has stopped its policy of targetted assassinations and demolitions. Israel needs to show it is not giving up and running with its tail between its legs. They have to continue assassinating terrorist leaders and demolishing infostructure, just as they did when they abandoned the Sinai and returned it to Egypt. 4) Why the urgency? Yes, the occupation is costly, but the Palestinians have offered nothing in return, not even a "cease fire". Is Sharon using this to cover up for the mass corruption under his tenure? On the other hand, there is no doubt that Israel's continual presence in Gaza is costly in lives and resources. Also, there is no alternative since annexing the Gaza strip and giving the Palestinians there citizenship rights would eliminate Israel's democratic government. I also don't know how realistic this is, but Israel should consider creating two separate Palestinian states, one in Gaza and one in the West Bank. Divide and rule, so to speak.

A few months ago I started a thread asking for guidance from law students & lawyers. It may be a helpful read to readers of this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...241entry66241

Excellent idea! How about... Mel Goldsilberothschildowitz?

Amanda, I'm happy you liked the city, did you get a chance to tour the campus? UofT does have an excellent Medieval Studies department, and there is also the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies which is (I was told) world famous. How's your Latin?

Nice to meet you Amanda! Always nice to have another history enthusiast on board. I'm somewhat interested in Medieval history myself - Late Antiquity to be exact - especially the development of the European states after the fall of Rome, the conversion of Pagan Europe, and the evolution of the Common Law. What are your particular interests in Medieval history?

Moose, forgive me if I still sound suspicious. It's quite possible that you are related to the British or French royals, but I cannot for the life of me imagine how you would trace your family back to Roman emperors. What records are you relying on for the period of the Dak Ages, in which the monarchies of Europe were not yet established and even the most blue blooded aristocrats were illiterate? The ancestors of the great houses of Europe (Anjou, Saxe-Coburg, Hohenzollern, etc.) were barbaric chieftains (if they had even attained that rank at so early a date) still migrating through the continent. I don't see how you can make the connection between them and any Roman emperor. Granted, Theodoric married into the family of Augustus Romulus (and I am sure such was the custom of other barbarian kings), but given the lack of evidence for that era it confounds me that you can trace your ancestry so far back.

I came across a forum dedicated to the ancient world (Classical, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic) and the level of discussion is quite scholarly. http://neonostalgia.com/forum

Moose, Not only is the Bible a useless geneological tool, I would question all your sources before the 17th century. What records are you using to trace your ancestors from the 15th century to the 5th? Unless you have royal blood in you, I cannot imagine what records existed in that period (and survive) to provide you with a factual guide of your ancestry.

I would like to apologize to all the readers of the thread that I suddenly stopped replying. I am in the middle of midterms, papers, and finals. I will return to this thread to elaborate on my earlier statements. I would also like to apologize to FreeCapitalist, I had been intending to for some time but thought I would attach it to my next post. I was rather harsh in one of my statements regarding his take on history. I would like to explain that my words were a result of one of his comments, in which he misunderstood me on several points, and without asking for elaboration or clarification, criticized me rather harshly. Don't mistake me, this is not a rationalization of my attack, only an attempt to explain how things came to be as they are. In conclusion, I'm sorry for the injury, you are very intelligent and well-read, and I enjoy your discussions on this forum. I'll return to our discussion on the Roman Republic as soon as I find more time.

DeedleBee, I wouldnt recommend studying Latin if your sole purpose is understanding the etymology of English words. I can only recommend the textbook used in a course called Greek and Latin Elements of English, Greek and Latin in Scientific Terminology

Charles, I'm sorry I didnt respond earlier, I didn't notice anyone added to this thread. I haven't read the Qu'ran, but does it acknowledge that the lands of Islam (in North Africa and the Middle East) were conquered from Byzantium? What exactly does it say about Jewish territory? I know of no independent Jewish state at that time. Judea was free untill 66 BC when Pompey the Great conquered it.

Mine was not an attack on the Roman Republic – far from it, the Republic was one of the factors (if not the foremost factor) that made Rome great – but on your statement that it was “intensely ethical for most of its existence, and strongly averse to violence.” I therefore set out to demonstrate that, contrary to your Romanticized version of history, the Roman Republic, for all its greatness, was not a Utopia of Lockean liberalism. Compared to the governments and institutions of its age Rome far surpassed any civilization. Yet in reading your account of the Republic one would think it ranks with the political institutions of 18th & 19th century Britain or America. “I could just as easily draw on the 5th century AD and claim that the Empire as such, for its entire duration, had an effete and rotten public, a pathetic military, and no strong central leadership, which had by then degenerated into a primitive feudal system. This description is true, but it wouldn't be very accurate of me to describe the entire duration of the empire by it, now would it? Nor would it of you to do the same to the Republic, which you were.” Feel free to attack the Principate, I shall commend you for it. But on a serious note, you are correct. The whole period known as the Principate cannot be swept with one brush – but then, nor can the Republic. Although the traditional founding of the Republic dates to 509 BC, many of the political institutions, which embodied the freedom enjoyed by Roman citizens, were created at a later date. Both according to the ancient sources and the skeptical belief of some modern historians. If we are to say that “[the Republic was] intensely ethical for most of its existence” or otherwise, then we will have to agree on the dates in which the Republic was astill a thoroughly oligarchic regime and when it became more democratic. And then qualify our statements by specifying which era is in question. I cannot confidently discuss the very early Republic because our only sources for the era are historians who wrote hundreds of years later and could not but lavish praise on it, having a specific interest in returning to the older way of life. Therefore my earlier comments apply wholly to the late 3rd century BC and onwards. But one cannot ignore the fact that from the overthrow of the monarchy to the 2nd Punic War, a period of less than 300 years, Rome came to possess the whole of the Italian peninsula, and it did not bestow citizenship on the Italian peoples (with a few exceptions) until the conclusion of the Social War in 88 BC. “I'd like to hear some examples of slave revolts and widespread slavery even in the 2nd century BC, if not earlier.” The revolts I speak of occurred in 135 BC in Sicily, the whole island was taken over by slaves who established a short-lived kingdom. At around the same time a slave revolt occurred in northern Greece. The 2nd slave revolt in Sicily occurred in 103 BC and lasted 3 years. The last is the famous Spartacus revolt in 73 BC. “I'd also like for you to tell us just how corrupt the Consuls during the 2nd Punic War were.” Had you read my statement you would have understood I was referring to the typical habit of Roman proconsuls to levy heavy taxes in the provinces. I did not say they were corrupt in governing Rome. If you have any sources on how all those consuls you mentioned dealt with the provincials they ruled as proconsuls, I would love to read them. “Even during the crumbling 1st century, why don't you mention Cato, Cicero, men of the kind of character that I and most other people on this forum can only dream of equalling. Even the African prince Juba who helped them was a model. Even Brutus, Caesar's slayer, was and is a role model. Why don't you mention them?” Because my goal was to disprove your statement, not suggest role models. I know there were great Romans through most of the city’s history, and you know that. But men like Cicero, Cato, and Brutus were exceptions to the rule. “Yes it was violent. But why was it violent, for what reasons? That you still have to answer. Merely stating a fact proves nothing. Violence in and of itself is not a vice, unless you're prepared to accuse America of being violent and therefore somehow automatically evil.” Merely stating that it was violent, and giving supporting evidence, proves exactly what I intended, that it was not strongly averse to violence. If you will bring up the question of how and why, I shall oblige. “Are you calling me a liar?” No. I am saying that you don’t seem to care for a scientific study of history. You prefer to read stories of glorious deeds and heroes – that’s all well and good, I like bedtime readings, too. But I am also interested in discovering who exactly the Romans were, how they lived, what they thought – in short, what really happened. So I will not be content with a 1st century BC bard’s account of the 8th century BC. “Yes, that is precisely where each of the two resides in. Are you prepared to argue otherwise?” No. I agree. But the point of the statement was that you moralize at the expense of historical fact.

So the World Bank will now pour even more money into the pockets of 3rd world dictators - whose sole concerns are the plights of their people?

Here is the perfect example of history embellished to exalt virtue (embodied in republicanism) as opposed to vice (emboddied in tyranny) and losing sight of reality altogether. "The Republic was intensely ethical for most of its existence, and strongly averse to violence." Let the record show Free Capitalist described my knowledge of ancient history as ridiculous. Now onto business... The vast majority of the Roman empire was conquered under the Republic. The Republic was an extremely violent regime which from the period of the 2nd Punic War (218 - 202 BC) to the middle of the first century BC knew almost no years of peace, and in that period came to possess most of the territories of the empire until its fall. As a matter of fact, the only territories added under the Principate were Britannia (under Claudius), Dacia, additions to Syria, and Mesopotamia (which did not remain a part of the empire for very long). The rivalry between Rome's upper classes for political power was so intense that it led to three bloody civil wars in a period of almost 50 years. It was in part this tremendous violence that led Romans to accept the loss of political freedom in order to have peace. Furthermore, slavery was far more brutal under the Republic than under the Principate. Three major slave revolts (involving whole armies of rebels) occured in the last century of the Republic. I know of none which occured under the Principate. Perhaps the worst defect of the Republic, in comparison to the Principate, is the treatment of provincials. Under the Republic, former Consuls were commissioned by the Senate to govern the provinces, where they acted as virtual dictators. Consuls often saw the provinces as a chance to refill their coffers (through excessive taxation) after waging political campaigns. As a result, the Republic experienced many more rebellions in the provinces - including civilized ones, such as in the Hellenistic east - than the Principate, which much more actively sought to integrate the Roman world. "In other places, even Greece, where some groups of people got mad at other groups of people, usually they killed them off or applied the power of government to make them more malleable. In Rome, what did the plebeians do when felt oppressed by the patricians? They didn't go on murderous rampage, they simply packed up and peacefully moved out of Rome to a nearby hill. Then the patricians became in a more agreeable mood." This is, of course, but one incident, not proof that the Romans were averse to violence under the Republic. As a matter of fact, at times the people of Rome could be roused to such heights that the mob was used by demagogues to vanquish political opponents. Would a society averse to violence really uphold the killing of children treasonous to the state as a moral virtue? More later...

Literary sources do not exist for the period we were discussing, the 8th century B.C. Of course there are Greek and Roman historians who name older sources in their texts but none from Rome’s foundational era. It is also likely that Rome was not a literary society in its early years and no documentation (beyond decrees, records of transactions, etc. – material common to more primitive societies) could have passed onto later historians. The statue which you mention, and on which so much of your argument relies, is utterly irrelevant. It would be relevant if we had the same statue and could date it. The statue might have been built at any time and a few generations later believed to be much older. There are many such instances; holy relics thought by the Medievals to have belonged to saints, Greek temples to local, semi divine heroes, tombs of heroes and kings (the tomb of King David being an excellent example – Jews believe it is evidence of his existence, yet the tomb was quite obviously built long after David would have lived). Furthermore, a statue does not necessitate a man. All ancient societies had founding myths and heroes which they celebrated and honored in their art. Do statues of Achilles necessitate a historical existence? As for your comment on Renaissance and Enlightenment historians, “And everyone during the Rennaissance and Enlightenment found all the sources enough and quite adequate. Modern historians do not have some kind of an abundance of historical science that the earlier "primitive" historians of the Enlightenment were too simple-minded to adopt. That kind of belief, if accepted, would be the very height of false and haughty presumptiousness; modern historians don't hold a candle to the likes of Edward Gibbon, or Polybius for that matter.” Of course they found the sources adequate. They also found the Bible adequate proof for the existence of God. Modern historians do have a “kind” of historical science that earlier historians did not. It is called historiography, and it was only developed in the 19th century. (I am sorry if you took my “recent” to mean historians of the past decade). When scientific principles were applied to the study of history and when archaeology began to corroborate (or contradict) the ancient sources. Edward Gibbon is an excellent author and his work considered one of the best in the English language for its literary style, not its historical scholarship. It amazes me that you and Eran Dror, and I imagine other Objectivists, have such faith in the ancient sources, a faith I believe stems from your revulsion for modern historiography, causing you to blindly accept ancient narratives without a shred of understanding ancient literary culture or even a critical eye. Did you stop to consider how documents might have been transmitted from the mythic past to the later historians? If they existed at all? Or how did historians recording the events of their times get news of the events they describe? And what about the all-too-common tendency to embellish stories? Do you believe an army of 3 000 000 Persians crossed the Dardanelles? And that 300 Spartans held this army at bay? Granted, Thucydides came remarkably close to an objective retelling of events – as best as an Ancient historian could. But in general, the Ancients embellished and glorified their accounts to signify certain events or people in their history: often to extol virtues, individual or collective (as in the case of Herodotus). Embellishment went hand in hand with a retelling of popular myths. Just as the Biblical story of the flood was a popular myth of the Israelites, so the Trojan War was to the Greeks or the stories of Romulus and Remus to the Romans. These myths gave birth to heroes and events which many a time were used to explain phenomena. The Bible is full of them, as are the stories of Greece and Rome’s mythic past. How would 1st century AD (or even 3rd century BC) historians come to know of people and events which took place hundreds of years earlier? “I'm sorry if I was a bit hostile, but I take Classical history very personally.” You aren’t fit to study history. You take personally any comment which contradicts your child’s view of the ancient world and resort to ad hominems in its defense. Further, you unquestioningly believe ancient accounts with not a hint of critical analysis. The only thing ridiculous here is your conception of ancient Rome, clearly evidenced by your recent post on the differences between the Republic and Principate.

I forgot to add one note in my reply to Praxus: Get very well acquainted with English grammar. Understand the different parts of speech (ie. nouns, adjectives, prepositions, etc.), syntax, and read an article on inflection. This is not necessary, but it will help you a *great* deal. An excellent companion I had with me through 1st year Latin is "English Grammar for Students of Latin" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/093...0403663-0027967 Here are some links to better understand how inflected languages work: http://www.dischord.net/astro/decs/index.php http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/inflecti.html http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/aide...e.contents.html (Read section "Words and Their Forms") BurgessLau: It depends on the university on how the program is structured. In more traditional universities there will be a clear division between a Classics Major (languages only, with minimal history) and Classical Civilization Major (history, but usually with an option to take a few language credits). In my case, I am doing a double major in Latin and Classical Civilization (and I will be using 2 credits from the latter to study Greek). BurgessLau also correctly emphasized the amount of time these languages require. So I would also recommend finding out which grammar books your university uses - some are of such low quality, you may as well work on your own with a good text. If you do like the text, working a few chapters into it in the Summer before classes begin will also help you out. Lastly, if the going gets tough, do not despair. There are several members of this forum who would gladly help you out, there is also Text Kit which has a great forum, and a chat room I subscribe to, #Archaeology (we have members who study, or have studied, Egyptian, Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek: Homeric, Attic, and Koine, Coptic, Sanskrit, and of course, Latin)

Praxus, If you know a Romance language it would help a great deal in studying Latin, but not at all necessary. I learned Latin without knowledge of any other European language. I should remind you that studying the languages takes a lot of work and dedication, and you will already be hammered down by engineering - so be prepared for a difficult road. I would recommend beginning with one language first, and I think most would agree with me that it should be Latin. You will find many more similarities to English (because of the French influence) in Latin than in Greek, it doesn't require a new alphabet, and grammatically less challenging (for example, fewer tenses). Not to mention, Greek has a much larger vocabulary and many dialects (Homeric, Attic, and Koine are the most common, yet each one distinct enough to require its own grammar book). Whereas in Latin you merely have the Classical and the Vulgar. One further note, doing a minor in 2 languages will not give you enough experience in either one. At most universities, the grammar alone is covered in 1.5 to 2 years [correction], and you will require a few intermediate and advanced courses to have a basic mastery of the language. As you can tell, its a far slower process than learning a modern language. If a minor is all you can fit in with your engineering degree, talk to the Classics advisor at your university, he may recommend that you choose one language and focus on it.

I thought I'd start a thread for those of us studying ancient languages. We can discuss just about anything from difficulties learning the grammar to philology. I am currently in my 3rd year of Latin and working on Greek on my own, using Mastronarde's Introduction to Attic Greek.

EranDror: What you say may be more applicable to modern History than to the Classics. I study Classics and not modern history and I have had no experiences with such scholars. But according to your reasoning, we should not dismiss the existence of Abraham or Moses.

Another interesting point is that the Bible does mention sources: (Quoted from the New Revised Standard Version) II Samuel 1:18 (He ordered that the Song of the Bow be taught to the people of Judah; it is written in the Book of Jashar.) He said: I Kings 14:19 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned, are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel. II Kings 8:23 Now the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? And so on...