The Shrine

Finished these two books recently. AFfC being George R.R. Martin's long awaited continuation to his Song of Ice and Fire series and Chainfire being Terry Goodkind's latest Sword of Truth adventure.

Enjoyed them both, but since i read them so close to each other I got to compare and found Martin to be vastly superior in both entertainment and writing ability. Song of Ice and Fire is the best fantasy series out there right now, IMO, although i have a bud who really really likes Malazan Book of Shadow series, or something... i have yet to read this guy, but may soon.

AFfC is not as exciting as A Clash of Kings was, but it helps shed a lot of light on certain subjects, but in typical Martin fashion it also opens up debate on a whole slew of new conspiracies. Supposedly he wrote this book and it was too long, so his solution was to release this one with POV's from a handful of characters in and around King's Landing and then release the next book with POV's from everyone else (Dany and the Wall, etc), but on the same timeline as this book. Should be interesting, i hope the next book then will come otu soon.

I have resorted to waiting for paperback for Goodkind's new books and Chainfire hasnt changed my mind. It is the typical, Richard knows and does everything, story. If i didnt like the side characters so much i would stop reading Goodkind altogether. I have never in my life of reading fantasy seen such a riteous main character, it makes you wish for him to screw up or simply die just so he can be humanized. Goodkind is becoming more of a political preachy writer than a fictional author lately. Plus, this Chainfire is another blatant rip off of a Jordan spell that essentially does the same thing. I am entertained by the story, so that much is pretty good atleast.

Ive had Chainfire sitting on my endtable since it came out in hardback. I havent found the time to sit down and finish it.

AFfC was really good, imo, also. I didn't quite tear through it as quickly as I had the previous three books, but this one also didn't have as many of my favorite characters. I'm not a huge fan of Brienne.

But I suppose it says something that even though I don't like her character, I still look forward to reading her story just because GRRM is writing it.

I can't wait for a A Dance with Dragons. I will lock myself in my house with it the moment it is released!

and we shouldnt have to wait 5 years for ADWD since technically it is already done. Woo!

***SPOILERS***
I think it is safe to assume that Brienne decides to go after Jaime, the word she yells is probably "SWORD!". That should make for a decent conflict since she is basically in love with him. Speaking of which, Jaime really comes together in this book, it is impossible to continue hate him. He has become one of my favorite characters.

I dont really like the Sansa/Alayne POV's. She still seems dimwitted to me even though GRRM (and Littlefinger) are trying to play her up to be (and teach her to be) the next Littlefinger... but, atleast it is better than chapters of her doing nothing but dreaming and eating lemoncakes like in the last few books.

The end of this one really picked up and it sucks that it just ended... ADWD is supposed to go a little bit beyond this book, so hopefully it will talk about some of the cliffhangers.

People who i dont think are really dead: Gregor, Sandor, Onion Knight (Davos i think?), and Knight of Flowers being almost dead. I like to believe that everything people have told Cersei have been lies. They really made her out to be the new antagonist, even though i do pity her as well. I think Martin said one time that he would never create a character that didnt have shades of good and evil and that has been somewhat true.

I may need to check out that series. What is the first book called?

A Game of Thrones.

The next is A Clash of Kings, then a Storm of Swords, then A Feast for Crows. Next up is A Dance with Dragons.

I think that's all right.

I think you gotta give A Game of Thrones 75 pages or so, but then you're hooked!

Flip wrote:***SPOILERS***
I think it is safe to assume that Brienne decides to go after Jaime, the word she yells is probably "SWORD!". That should make for a decent conflict since she is basically in love with him. Speaking of which, Jaime really comes together in this book, it is impossible to continue hate him. He has become one of my favorite characters.

I dont really like the Sansa/Alayne POV's. She still seems dimwitted to me even though GRRM (and Littlefinger) are trying to play her up to be (and teach her to be) the next Littlefinger... but, atleast it is better than chapters of her doing nothing but dreaming and eating lemoncakes like in the last few books.

The end of this one really picked up and it sucks that it just ended... ADWD is supposed to go a little bit beyond this book, so hopefully it will talk about some of the cliffhangers.

People who i dont think are really dead: Gregor, Sandor, Onion Knight (Davos i think?), and Knight of Flowers being almost dead. I like to believe that everything people have told Cersei have been lies. They really made her out to be the new antagonist, even though i do pity her as well. I think Martin said one time that he would never create a character that didnt have shades of good and evil and that has been somewhat true.

I agree with that. I definitely like Sansa better in this book than in the past. I basically hated her in AGoT because of everything between Arya and Joffrey. I am sure that Davos isn't dead. At least I hope not. There's got to be a fight between Gregor and Sandor. GRRM has been building up to it so much and to just kill them wouldn't make sense.

And yeah, I thought Jaime was made to be a very interesting character. I hated him for pushing Bran but now I almost like him. I love when he goes to end the siege on the Tullys and punches the guy in charge in the face with his golden hand.

Flip wrote:I think you gotta give A Game of Thrones 75 pages or so, but then you're hooked!

That seems to be the norm with most fantasy series Ive read

Seraphina wrote:

Flip wrote:I think you gotta give A Game of Thrones 75 pages or so, but then you're hooked!

That seems to be the norm with most fantasy series Ive read

Use 'fantasy' loosely. While there are elements of it, Martin's books have more of the grim reality of the medieval era then any other fantasy series i've read, which is why it rocks. Defenitely adult oriented.

Cool....I'll check it out..when I can..hehe

Game of Thrones is the best fantasy series in print. A Feast of Crows was a much more personal book than the last two. All of his books give high attention to individuals, but this one is even more personal. I loved it. It's amazing how the characters are almost completely different indivuals from what they began as in book one and even more amazing is how it flows so naturally.

"Malazan book of the Fallen" is a very good series. The author (can't remember his name right this sec) is taking a very interesting approach to telling his story. I think he overdoes it with the writing at points, but I like the overall mythology that holds the story together, though he hasn't fully revealed how it works. Overall an amazing series.

When fantasy authors stop writing about murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time, then I will start reading fantasy again.

If there is a new fantasy series that is any good that comes out I would be interested. Right now I am reading Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I must say, Gibbon's book is the best I have read on the topic since Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court (364-425) by John Matthews. I re-read Thomas Malthus's essay on the Principles of Population earlier in the year, and I do think that anyone who has no yet read it should read it (it is a must read). Other than that, I have been getting books dealing with the subject of British concentration camps in the Boer Republics during the Boer war (just had an urge for it).

The Seeker wrote:When fantasy authors stop writing about murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time, then I will start reading fantasy again.

If there is a new fantasy series that is any good that comes out I would be interested. Right now I am reading Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Because the Roman empire wasnt full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles?...

Advantage: Flip

Though I doubt it's really worth condemning the entire Roman empire because their patriarchs liked to boink their slave boys. Remember, cultural norms vary widely across times and nations. They ruled all of Europe and the Mediterranean at one point, and established a civilization that still affects ours today...

Flip wrote:Because the Roman empire wasnt full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles?...

Correct.

I refuse to take the bait on that one. I'll just say this:

Flip wrote:I refuse to take the bait on that one.

What exactly is this "bait" that you are talking about?

Mental wrote:Though I doubt it's really worth condemning the entire Roman empire because their patriarchs liked to boink their slave boys.

I think you might be confusing Romans for the Atheneans (and some other Greek tribes of which this type of behaviour is far far more typical). The Roman Empire had a whole other vast set of corruptions =) More often than naught, the Emperor was the good guy; but not always (as is the case with Emperor Arcadius and Honorius vs. Stilicho and Alaric).

The Roman Empire is separated into two periods, the Principate and the Dominate. The Dominate period is what I am interested in; that is, everything from Diocletian onward. I am also a huge fan of the Dark Ages of Western Europe.

As far as I know, at least in the later periods, you could find just about any kind of sexual behavior you liked in the Roman upper classes, who increasingly had a tremendous number of slaves to serve their every whim (or be killed if they refused to). And I'm fairly sure that adult male-juvenile male relationships were fairly common practice, again, at least in the later time periods. I could be wrong though...

I do know the Greeks were more "famous" for paedophilia, but the "famous" example of that wasn't with slave boys. Teenaged Spartan military disciples were usually paired up with older soldiers, with whom they were generally expected to have a physical relationship. The Athenians weren't even really all into that, I thought...Socrates was killed for "corrupting the city's youth", which I thought referred to (at least in legality) the physical part and not his teachings...

Mental wrote:As far as I know, at least in the later periods, you could find just about any kind of sexual behavior you liked in the Roman upper classes, who increasingly had a tremendous number of slaves to serve their every whim (or be killed if they refused to). And I'm fairly sure that adult male-juvenile male relationships were fairly common practice, again, at least in the later time periods. I could be wrong though...

I am not sure where you read this from, because it clearly contradicts all of the historical works I have read on the time period. What you are describing sounds more like the Roman Republic rather than the Late Empire.



"you could find just about any kind of sexual behavior you liked in the Roman upper classes"

What is deemed immoral sexual beahaviour by todays standards was less common in the Late Roman Empire than it has been in the past four hundred years of European history (no where near as close as it was during the mid-17th through to the 18th centuries). The ideals of the late Roman Empire were quite similar to those of Medieval Europe in a lot of respects. It was the marriage of the German nations and Late Roman Empire that gave rise to Medieval Europe afterall. The Late Roman Empire was the first Christian Empire.



"who increasingly had a tremendous number of slaves to serve their every whim (or be killed if they refused to)"

Actually quite the opposite. Slavery diminished throughout the history of the Roman Empire. Octavius instituted a law stating that slaves could not be killed without just cause after he got angry at a senator who did such a thing. By the beginning of the Antonine period, slaves could take their masters to court for cruelty and sue for freedom, slaves who were abandonned by their masters automatically won their freedom. By the end of the Antonine period (Marcus Aurelius), a master who killed his slave without just cause proven in court would be charged with homicide and a master who used sexual force against a slave could be charged with rape.



"And I'm fairly sure that adult male-juvenile male relationships were fairly common practice, again, at least in the later time periods."

It is possible you are mistaking the late Roman Empire for the Roman Republic centuries earlier. During the late Roman Empire slave labour became more scarce, and society had been changing towards a much more moralistic one. By Diocletian's time, no longer could a person in debt be sold into slavery; that was illegal by this point and it clearly created a slave shortage. Slaves were now picked from the criminally immoral, including immoral sexual acts, in order to create new slaves. Even homosexuals could be arrested, especially those that went after "little boys." The ethics code was Christian by this point, and slaves were required to work, and immoral criminals were the perfect ones to swell the ranks.

An example of this was in the 320's when flour supplies in Rome had become low. Constantine who was sacking pagan temples for wealth (those which had "perverted practices", sacrifice and sexual rituals) arrested the pagans and had them placed into slavery in order to grind more flour for the cities. "Male-Juvenile" sexual acts along with any other immoral sexual acts were illegal along with a good portion of other things that Christianity saw as sinful, and offenders would be punished.

The corruptions that brought down the fall of the Western portion of the Empire were mainly political and economical. Sloth, greed, and manipulation were the three ingredients that I see that did it. Also, later Emperors who became jealous of their greatest Generals (such as Honorius towards Stilicho). Racism from the Romans towards the Germans who had been rising in numbers and power. I can't explain the complexity of the material and stories available, there are thousands upon thousands of good pages written about the era and the people who lived in it. I would recommend Western Aristocracies and the Imperial Court (364-425) to anyone who is interested in history and doesn't have trouble reading advanced material (I know some people do). I haven't got through much of Gibbon's book yet (I am still on Volume 1), but it is probably the most famous work dealing with Late Roman Empire: it separates it into Six volumes and is about 1500 pages inlength. volume 1 discuses the evolution of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East from the Antonine period (which has been called the most prosperous period in European history, which is unfortunately one of the most boring periods) up until Diocletian. Volume 2 discusses the Constantine and Valintinian dynasties. Volume 3 about the Theodosian dynasty up until Attila and the period of delegated Rule to Germanic Kings. Volume 4 talks a lot about Justinian and the Germanic Kingdoms. Volume 5 about the Carolingean dynasty and the restoration of an Emperor in the West (Charlamagne). The final volume talks about the crusades, the fall of Constantinople, the colapse of the Imperial relevence, and later examinations. So far I am REALLY enjoying the book, but still find Aristocracies to be more interesting, but we'll see. I am a very large fan of the Germanic Kingdoms who conquered the Western Empire.

Whatever Seek, i'm not sure what you are even trying to argue, because it is fairly common rumor that prominent figrues in the Roman Empire were murderers, pedophiles, and homo's... things you refuse to read in modern fantasy books. Whether or not your book touches on these subjects, i dont know and dont really care, but to argue the point is asinine.

You again posted something purely because you knew someone would eventually ask the right question that would allow you to rant for paragraph upon boring paragraph of totally unrelated material just you could feed your own ego. If you want to start a Roman history books are great thread go ahead, you wont find me posting about fantasy novels in it. The intentions of your chest beating posts are only too transparent.

Flip wrote:Whatever Seek, i'm not sure what you are even trying to argue, because it is fairly common rumor that prominent figrues in the Roman Empire were murderers, pedophiles, and homo's

I guess it is quite unfortunate for your silly point that this is not at all true when speaking about the Late Roman Empire. Regardless of these rumours you claim to have heard about the Late Roman Empire, they have no factual basis behind them. Rumours are completely irrelevant in the face of factual information.

Note: I did not say "murderers, pedophiles, and homo's" in my post. What I spoke about was "murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time" which quite accurately describes a number of characters in recent fantasy books I have read.

Flip wrote:... things you refuse to read in modern fantasy books.

But the only point is that I am not reading about that stuff now, and you just can't seem to get this simple information through your thick skull because of some "rumours" that you heard.

Flip wrote:Whether or not your book touches on these subjects, i dont know and dont really care, but to argue the point is asinine.

To sum up this section of your post: Cop-out. I am sorry, but ignorance on the subject does not justify anything you have written.

Flip wrote:You again posted something purely because you knew someone would eventually ask the right question that would allow you to rant for paragraph upon boring paragraph of totally unrelated material just you could feed your own ego.

No, I wrote it because it is what I am currently reading as an alternative to the fantasy books I used to read a lot.

Flip wrote:If you want to start a Roman history books are great thread go ahead, you wont find me posting about fantasy novels in it. The intentions of your chest beating posts are only too transparent.

No, I posted here because it would be pointless to create a new thread just to say "by the way, I am reading such and such a book right now."

It seems to me that you have just invented all of this stuff for some sort of justification to negatively critisize me for absolutely no reason. You really have zero justification for anything you have written. You have behaved in this manner on numerous occaisions in the past.

http://www.sbc.edu/honors/HJSpecial_Iss04/KFowler.htm

Is this late enough for you?

(Warning: there is pedophelia, incest, and male on male sex in the article! Oh my!)

EDIT:: Oh, i just realized that nothing i say will matter because there are no "murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time" specifically. This is a cheap fallback, Seeker, and you know it because even in a book like Martin's there are no characters who are "murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time" and i doubt that any other fantasy book has characters who are EXACTLY "murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time". Your defense is similar to asking someone to bring you somthing violet colored and refusing to accept the purple colored item they bring back.

Flip wrote:http://www.sbc.edu/honors/HJSpecial_Iss04/KFowler.htm

Is this late enough for you?

(Warning: there is pedophelia, incest, and male on male sex in the article! Oh my!)

Did you even read the article? Or even the title of the article ("Sexual Invective in the Fourth Century")? The article is about how various figures in Roman society are SLANDERED using sexual vice which is highly taboo in Roman society.

Scriptores Historiae Augustae was a piece written in the late fourth century to bash Emperors of the Principate (pre-Christian) period. Since SHA is written to demonize Emperors of the 2nd and 3rd century obviously the first part of the article will be about how the Christians used sexual slander to bash earlier emperors and prominent figures.

The second examined work is In Eutropium, which targets Eutropius (an easy target) with heavy slander. Eutropius, for the record, was a eunich, and rose to power in the East court of Arcadius (he was Consul for a few months). Claudian, who wrote In Eutropium was from the Western Court (rival to the Eastern Court); he disliked the fact (as did a very large number of people) that Eutropius, a Eunich, had reached the position of Consulship (the only time in history that it had occured). The funny thing about In Eutropium is that Claudian accuses Eutropius of a number of sexual perversions among a number of other things; Eunichs are unable to have sexual relations. It is also true, that if a lot of the things that Eutropius were accused of were true (pagan worship, human sacrifice, blood bathing, canabalism of babies, homosexuality, incest, etc, etc, etc...) that it is a VAST impossibility that he would have ever risen up that highly Christian society of Constantinople.

I don't even know why you posted that article, it actually serves to further invalidate your critisism.

Flip wrote:EDIT:: Oh, i just realized that nothing i say will matter because there are no "murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time" specifically. This is a cheap fallback, Seeker, and you know it because even in a book like Martin's there are no characters who are "murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time" and i doubt that any other fantasy book has characters who are EXACTLY "murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time". Your defense is similar to asking someone to bring you somthing violet colored and refusing to accept the purple colored item they bring back.

Really? I've found plenty who fall under that category to some degree: Little Finger, Jaime, Jaime's sister, that ugly dwarf, etc... I just don't enjoy it, because I found it awkwardly written and boring. Sword of Truth, like Wheel of Time, has just become a slow moving saga which hasn't moved forward in half a decade. The main problem I have with fantasy books lately is that nearly all characters are almost always written to have very low intelligence and do not have much common sense. You would think that in societies like the one these people are living in, that they would have more common sense about the situations they're in; but no, they seem to have none whatsoever. I've quit fantasy because right now I am finding older books to be much more diverse and interesting to me.

An Essay on the Principles of Population, this is one of the most important works I feel I have ever read. It is interesting to see how this work shaped Darwin's work, Galton's, and even Adolf Hitler's. I really enjoy these works. I guess now you'll be accusing me of being a Nazi =P

I will still read fantasy, I was a huge fan of it until a couple years ago perhaps, maybe even more recently; and I will read more once I find something that interests me. I love reading.

The paper is using two works of writing to show how Romans viewed sex, the paper is not disagreeing with the writing, it is NOT saying the Roman figures were slandered by the writing, that is your interpretation of it and if you refuse to believe it then so be it.

Regardless, it shows that that kind of activity was all over the place, just like it sometimes is in Martin's books. The paper also says those kinds of activities were considered wrong, which it ALSO is in Martin's books. Jaime slept with his sister, yes, but they hide it and deny it because it is taboo, just like the paper says about the late Roman period!... Therefore, it is clear that for you to put off Martin because of sex acts that are prominent in the material you like to read is absurd. Martin uses realism and the Roman period is actually a pretty good similarity, even the late period.

+1

Flip wrote:The paper is using two works of writing to show how Romans viewed sex, the paper is not disagreeing with the writing, it is NOT saying the Roman figures were slandered by the writing, that is your interpretation of it and if you refuse to believe it then so be it.

On the first of the two articles examined:

"The author of the Historia Augusta is clearly following literary tradition in slandering "bad" emperors"

On the second:

"In these poems, he roundly chastised Eutropius for having undertaken such a responsibility when it was not his place, and proceeded to use every slander technique he could create to poison the minds of the West against the eunuch"

You know he is using that to mean that it was a common thing to write about, not that it is untrue. You honestly believe it to be untrue? With all your Roman knowledge you think the accusations of incest are unfounded?

Flip wrote:You know he is using that to mean that it was a common thing to write about, not that it is untrue.

Where does the author state that the the articles were used to show that it was a "common thing to write about?"

The author states that both articles are slander which I showed in my post above.

Dictionary.com:

Slander - A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
False - Deliberately untrue
malicious - Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful

Flip wrote:You honestly believe it to be untrue? With all your Roman knowledge you think the accusations of incest are unfounded?

I think it is already WELL established that your accusations are completely unfounded.

Fine, Seeker, the late Romans werent pedophiles and didnt participate in incest even though i found two pieces of writing from that period that said they did in a 3 second search. Could i find more proof, yes, but i dont have to. The paper author goes on to use those writings to show how everyone in that time period viewed their leaders, i dont know how you can ignore it. The authors defenition of slander is obviously different when they use the writing to make points.

Is Michael Jackson a pedophile, everyone seems to think so. Could you call it slander to write about it, maybe, but you and I both know the guy is guilty.

Your blind faith in this is disturbing. Admit it, you read about pedophiles and you need to apologize to those of us who read Martin for your stupid statement. Where is your proof, btw?

Flip wrote:Fine, Seeker, the late Romans werent pedophiles and didnt participate in incest even though i found two pieces of writing from that period that said they did in a 3 second search.

You have not found anything at all.

The two writings you found were not only slander (as indicated by the author of the essay), but one of them doesn't even attack any figures of the late Roman Empire at all!

The only figure from the late Roman Empire in either of the works was the eunuch Eutropius who was a Consul for a few months.

Flip wrote:Could i find more proof, yes, but i dont have to. The paper author goes on to use those writings to show how everyone in that time period viewed their leaders, i dont know how you can ignore it.

There is no such section in the paper which says anything of the sort.

Flip wrote:The authors defenition of slander is obviously different when they use the writing to make points.

Really! Then what exactly is this NEW definition of slander you are suggesting the author is speaking of? =)

Give me a break!

Flip wrote:Is Michael Jackson a pedophile, everyone seems to think so. Could you call it slander to write about it, maybe, but you and I both know the guy is guilty.

Not only do I not think that everyone thinks he's guilty, but I am unsure of how you think that you and I are supposed to know he is guilty. I also do not see how this statement is of any relevence whatsoever.

Flip wrote:Your blind faith in this is disturbing. Admit it, you read about pedophiles and you need to apologize to those of us who read Martin for your stupid statement. Where is your proof, btw?

See, now you are just being completely ridiculous. You know very well that I have not demonstrated blind faith in anything. You tried to bash me with a series of ignorant comments, and you failed miserably.

OMG! Romans had sex with boys and their sisters, the very thing you are condemning, you know it and are only arguing to argue, it is common knowledge! Mental knew what i was talking about and i didnt have to say a thing. Prove it wrong!

I love the Shrine. If we can't find anything in the present-day world to argue about, we *will* dip back two thousand years in the past to find something.

Good times.

Nev wrote:I love the Shrine. If we can't find anything in the present-day world to argue about, we *will* dip back two thousand years in the past to find something.

Good times.

Cheers to that =)

Flip wrote:OMG! Romans had sex with boys and their sisters, the very thing you are condemning, you know it and are only arguing to argue, it is common knowledge! Mental knew what i was talking about and i didnt have to say a thing. Prove it wrong!

My proof is that you, the accuser, have brought no evidence to the table to back your claims. The burden of evidence/proof is on you. Unless you do bring some sort of evidence forward then your accusations will continue to be invalid.

Why do you continue to post unbacked accusations anyways?

I am quite interested:

I am willing to bet that your motive for anything is simple: you just want to be right. For each post made you actually do actually feel that joy of RIGHT on the matter; you do not even need evidence to feel you are right about any accusation you care to make. You are quite fine wallowing in the blissful ignorance of your claim; until it gets shot down that is. Once shot down, you need that feeling back, so instead of dropping the subject, you repeat the process and post something else equally as ignorant as your last post; all for no other reason than to just get that rush of thinking your right again. If I were a nicer person, I 'might' actually be sorry that I have to point out the invalidity of your accusations all the time; taking away that exhilarating feeling that people like you have from a dellusionary daydream of being right right.

I keep posting simply to not let you get the last word, which you purposely try to do. No exhilieration of 'right' is needed on my end, except the fuzzy feeling i get when i hit post, knowing that i have now denied you the last word. Lo and behold a few hours later your broken record post will follow with no backup.

Every arguement is the same whether it is with me or sine or gman, WE bring stuff to the table and you close your eyes or look for nit picky things to discredit the source, never bringing anything of your own. It is pretty easy to dismiss any piece of backup on any subject.

If it is common knowledge, as it is since anyone will tell you so, that late period Romans had incest, then it is your job to prove it wrong. Why do i have to prove something right that everyone thinks is right?

I can go forever!

EDIT:: btw, nice self diagnosis you rambled about at the end there... just because you feel euphoria from attempting to be right, that doesnt mean we are all as batty as you...

No Flip, the burden of evidence is on you, the one making the claim the Late Roman Empire was "full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles" (taken from a sarcastic question). You cannot make a claim unless you have some evidence to back it up. If an accuser brings no evidence to the table, then a case won't even go to court. That is professional argument right there.

A rumour that you have heard does not constitute evidence; otherwise someone could just say in court "well your honour! I heard a rumour that this man is responsible for bombing that building." . The page you brought up clearly is not evidence either, it does not anywhere say that anyone in the late Roman Empire is responsible for this stuff; again "Well your honor! In the past someone in that giant corporation was slandered by a corportate enemy for being a mass murdering serial killer, the whole corporation is filled with mass murdering serial killers!".

Other than that, the only things you have "brought to the table" are a bunch of groundless ignorant and ridiculous comments like "Your blind faith in this is disturbing." and following up the statement with "you and I both know the guy is guilty" in reference to Michael Jackson; wouldn't that be blind faith for one to think that you and I know he's guilty seeing as we have no evidence and the prosecution wasn't able to find any either?

Unless you make an accusation with solid evidence, then there is no relevance to it. Plus there is plenty of material WIDELY available on the Late Roman Empire. Don't you find it kind of stupid to continue making accusations while not being able to find any evidence among these vast amounts of sources?

On second thought, you probably still haven't yet figured out WHY the burden of proof is on the accuser (and, incidently, why this is how things are done in court procedures). Allow me to put it to you more bluntly in relevent terms; so simple that even YOU can understand. The burden of proof is on the accuser because of this:

Accuser: "The Late Roman Empire was full of invisible pink elephant worshippers."

Assumed opposing point: There is no historical document that states that "The Late Roman Empire was full of pink elephant worshippers."

It is the burden of the accuser to bring forth evidence to suggest otherwise. If no evidence is brought forward, than the accusation is invalid, just as your accusation is invalid.

Flip wrote:I keep posting simply to not let you get the last word,

Yes, but why?

Oh wait. I guess you answered that question in that satement, is this correct?

Flip wrote:the fuzzy feeling i get when i hit post, knowing that i have now denied you the last word.

Which I find MUCH MORE laughable than the reason I originally thought you continued to push forth on your ongoing crusade of ignorance.

Why do you think hints of homosexuality are in Sparticus and incest are in Gladiator? Between Roman myths and the writings liked i dug up, it is quite appearent. You can close your eyes if you want to.

Also, why is everything someone else says 'ignorant'? Do you have something to prove to yourself since you dropped out of school?

Why do I think everything you have been saying is ignorant? The answer is both Simple and obvious if you actually read the dictionary definition of the term "ignorant." Everything you have been saying has demonstrated that you have a lack of knowledge and understanding based on the actual facts surrounding the material you are accusing; yet continue to press forward as if you somehow "know" that you are right.

The fact that you cited Gladiator and Sparticus as sources as evidence that the 'Late Roman Empire' was filled with "full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles" is strong evidence of your ignorance on the subject. For:

-Neither film is historically accurate
-Neither film depicts a late Roman Empire "full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles"
-Neither film even takes place during the late Roman Empire (4th and 5th centuries):
-Sparticus takes place in the first century BC during the Roman Republic.
-Gladiator takes place in the second century AD at the end of the Antonine period.

Oh yeah:

Flip wrote:Why do i have to prove something right that everyone thinks is right?

Does the name Galileo Galilei answer your question?

Who exactly is this "everyone" who thinks the late Roman Empire is "full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles" anyways? I have not come across anyone who thinks this except you, a single person in over six billion.

I guess now you'll be accusing me of being a Nazi

You would defenitely enjoy that too much. Friggin swastika's all over your AC town, you really are one sick child... may want to look into that.

Always thought the late period was around 180ish-470ish, Gladiator falls in and shows incest. None of these are the best examples, but it clearly shows what people thought about Roman emporers, i dont know how you can not say you havent heard this before. Mental know what i meant and i didnt explain a thing. Even if it is all just rumors and speculation, Histoia Augustus, it STILL shows that it was a well talked about subject during that time period. Ignoring it altogether because you dont want to admit your subject even touches on incest is wrong.

That is an argument you cannot ignore, i dont have to prove that incest in the late roman period happened, i only have to show that it WAS an important political and social topic/debate. I find it surprising that you have never run into this area in all of your reading. *shrug*

Flip wrote:Always thought the late period was around 180ish-470ish, Gladiator falls in and shows incest.

Even if you don't know the history of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (who are the Emperors during the movie) The movie itself at the very beginning it clearly states that the year is 180 AD. Which is A LONG time before the Late Roman Empire (4th and 5th century), this was the end of the Antonine period. I have no idea how 180 AD translates into as late as "470ish."

Another example of ignorance.

Flip wrote:None of these are the best examples, but it clearly shows what people thought about Roman emporers, i dont know how you can not say you havent heard this before.

Really? Explain exactly HOW fictional movies made in the 2oth and 21st centuries about the Roman Republic in 1st century BC and the end of the Antonine period in the 2nd century AD show how the people of the 4th and 5th century AD Europe viewed their leaders? I am quite interested to hear this one.

Flip wrote:Even if it is all just rumors and speculation, Histoia Augustus, it STILL shows that it was a well talked about subject during that time period. That is an argument you cannot ignore, i dont have to prove that incest in the late roman period happened, i only have to show that it WAS an important political and social topic/debate

It shows Christian Roman of the later Empire slandering Pagan Emperors who lived many generations ago. This does not IN ANY WAY show that the Late Roman Empire was "full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles."

Just to add: Histora Augusta is quite a lengthy work (About 550 pages long) covering the reigns of over 70 Emperors comparing and contrasting them to contemporary values (Christian). Within the work, three Emperors are BRIEFLY accused of incestuous relationships: Carracalla with Julia Domna (who was alleged to be formerly married to his father at a time, but not of blood relation), Lucius Verus (since you seem to know a bit about Gladiator, that was the father of the boy "Lucius") who was accused of many sexual vices, including sleeping with an inlaw, not of blood relation. Lastly was Commodus who was accused of raping his sisters in one single line (Commodus is the evil Emperor in Gladiator).

Explain how a brief mention in a long work explains that incest was a well talked about subject in the Late Roman Empire. How it was "important political and social topic/debate."

Nothing you have shown has demonstrated that incest was an "important political and social topic/debate" let alone that the late Roman Empire was "full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles." As I have explained above.


[quote ="Flip]I find it surprising that you have never run into this area in all of your reading. *shrug*[/quote]

You are only surprised because you are ignorant.

So now you deny it is even apart of their society at all? You're really stretching now, quite comical. "Incest is one of many charges a person can hurl at another if the target is considered morally corrupt. The validity of the charges do not matter, only that the target, because of known vices in other arenas, can easily be thought to commit other immoral acts, such as incest, as well." "Rome had a strong taboo against incest. The emperors, in many cases, ignored the illegality of a close-kin marriage. Among the Senatorial classes, such imperial pairings created resentment. By marrying or having sexual relations only with their relatives, the imperial family seemed to say, "Your families are not good enough to be joined with our family.""

Seems pretty important in their society to me.

Now come call me stupid and say that paper is a bunch of bull and that it doesnt mean a thing about late period rome. You're like a trained fascist monkeyboy.







How's your Hitler town doing these days, btw?

Flip wrote:So now you deny it is even apart of their society at all? You're really stretching now, quite comical. "Incest is one of many charges a person can hurl at another if the target is considered morally corrupt. The validity of the charges do not matter, only that the target, because of known vices in other arenas, can easily be thought to commit other immoral acts, such as incest, as well." "Rome had a strong taboo against incest. The emperors, in many cases, ignored the illegality of a close-kin marriage. Among the Senatorial classes, such imperial pairings created resentment. By marrying or having sexual relations only with their relatives, the imperial family seemed to say, "Your families are not good enough to be joined with our family.""

I already addressed this very section of the article above; it was taken from the Historia Augusta section. Here is the rest of the paragraph which you conveniently left out: "Even the Roman elite were not acceptable partners for the rulers, only fellow imperial family members were. Three of the emperors mentioned in the Historia Augusta, Lucius Verus, Commodus, and Caracalla, are accused of carrying out incestuous relationships with members of their own families."

I already addressed the situation of Verus, Commodus, and Caracalla, who are the Emperors accused in the post immediately above:

Seeker wrote: "Historia Augusta is quite a lengthy work (About 550 pages long) covering the reigns of over 70 Emperors comparing and contrasting them to contemporary values (Christian). Within the work, three Emperors are BRIEFLY accused of incestuous relationships: Carracalla with Julia Domna (who was alleged to be formerly married to his father at a time, but not of blood relation), Lucius Verus (since you seem to know a bit about Gladiator, that was the father of the boy "Lucius") who was accused of many sexual vices, including sleeping with an inlaw, not of blood relation. Lastly was Commodus who was accused of raping his sisters in one single line (Commodus is the evil Emperor in Gladiator).

Explain how a brief mention in a long work explains that incest was a well talked about subject in the Late Roman Empire. How it was "important political and social topic/debate."

Nothing you have shown has demonstrated that incest was an "important political and social topic/debate" let alone that the late Roman Empire was "full of muderous, incestral, homosexual pedophiles." As I have explained above.

Flip wrote:Seems pretty important in their society to me.

Because of a mention in one line out of 550 pages of Historia Augusta?

[quote ="Flip"] Now come call me stupid and say that paper is a bunch of bull and that it doesnt mean a thing about late period rome. [/quote]

If the selection of writing taken out of a paper has an altered meaning or a different contextual meaning than what it had when written in the paper, then it is not valid. You tried to take a selection out of a full point which I already referred to in order to change its contextual meaning, therefore your argument is invalid; if placed back into context, it has already been addressed.

For the record, there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity; that you think I am calling you stupid (from what I assume is where I am in fact calling you ignorant) is another example (though irrelivant to the argument), of how you are ignorant.

Flip wrote:You're like a trained fascist monkeyboy.
How's your Hitler town doing these days, btw?[

I fail to see the relevenace of your Nazi comparisons.

The Seeker wrote:Because of a mention in one line out of 550 pages of Historia Augusta?

Yup, and because of the other previously stated reasons: gerneral current public opinion and depiction of it in a lot of works of fiction (who i guess feel they need to add that element in their works to make it more real).

Why is just one example of one emperor alone not enough? Only one character in the book slept with his sister... That alone disclaims your statement that GRRM has "murderous incestuous pedophiles who are retardedly high on crack all the time" as characters. Havent read about one pedophile and there is no mention of drugs. GRRM's characters are a lot tamer than ancient Rome seemed to be. Now that i read your statement for about the billionth time, it seems clear that youd have to be retardedly high on crack to say it.

Flip wrote:

The Seeker wrote:Because of a mention in one line out of 550 pages of Historia Augusta?

Flip wrote:Yup, and because of the other previously stated reasons: gerneral current public opinion and depiction of it in a lot of works of fiction (who i guess feel they need to add that element in their works to make it more real).

What works of fiction?

The evidence you brought up were Gladiator and Sparticus, both take place in the wrong time periods and so are therefore invalid. It's like taking a movie about Frederick the Great and Bismark as a portrait of what German society is like today.

Flip wrote:Why is just one example of one emperor alone not enough?

Because of the point that you continuously fail to comprehend: the Emperor is from the WRONG time period. As in, NOT the time period which is being discussed. This is a fact: Commodus lived and died in the 2nd century, the Late Roman Empire are the 4th and 5th centuries.

There:

http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/CourseNot ... ogies.html

A.D. 180-476: The Late Empire

180-192: Commodus
193-211: Septimius Severus
211-217: Caracalla
218-222: Elagabalus
222-235: Severus Alexander
235-284: Age of the Soldier Emperors
284-305: Diocletian
306-337: Constantine The Great
361-363: Julian the Apostate

Late period begins with your incestrous buddy. Happy now?

Goodness gracious, are you two still at it?

Flip wrote:There:

http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/CourseNot ... ogies.html

A.D. 180-476: The Late Empire

180-192: Commodus
193-211: Septimius Severus
211-217: Caracalla
218-222: Elagabalus
222-235: Severus Alexander
235-284: Age of the Soldier Emperors
284-305: Diocletian
306-337: Constantine The Great
361-363: Julian the Apostate

Late period begins with your incestrous buddy. Happy now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empe ... _Empire%29

I have made it obvious that I am talking about the 4th and 5th centuries.

You should be more careful when you say Late Empire, then. You honestly have no idea what you are talking about, even when you're talk about it.