Posted on 10/08/2008 2:34:52 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Photo: Ostia Archeological Authority
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Posted on 11/22/2005 10:48:08 PM PST by SunkenCiv
Ostia Antica, once the ancient port of Rome, has hundreds of 2,000-year-old buildings spread over hundreds of acres... Unlike Rome's grandiose ruins and the patrician villas of Pompeii, a visit to Ostia Antica gives a sense of ordinary life long ago. This was a working town, ancient Rome's port near the mouth of the Tiber River (the river's currents and shallows made it too hard for big ships to sail into the heart of Rome). Ships arrived with cargo from all around the sprawling Roman Empire; goods were barged up the Tiber or transferred on carts.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
|
|
|||
Gods |
There is actually a small article, along with a slideshow of pics besides this one. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Sigh. I suppose Manhatten and Brooklyn will be excavated some day too.
And a latter day Gibbons will write a book entitled The Decline and Fall of the American Republic and date it from 2008 and the Obama Presidency.
My uncle Aldo lives in Ostia. Visted him in 1994. He’s about 85 now I guess. His apartment is walking distance from the sea. Love to go back sometime.
Saw a history channel show about Ostia a couple of years ago. It said that a lot of the old city was lost because Mussolini built some more modern seaport facilities there.
Been there. Ostia is no Pompeii but it none the less incredible.
I have been to Pompeii. It must be grand.
The Roman Republic “fell” with Julius Caesar but the Empire lived on for 4 centuries or so. I have a peeve with those who insist on comparing the present situation in the USofA with Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire. It is more like the end of the Republic and we don’t know yet if America will become Empire. One difference will be that the Romans did not lose a lot of day-to-day freedom. Our own transition to Empire is likely to be to a bureaucratic totalitarianism. We are already seeing economic Caesarism grabbing hold in great fistfuls with Paulson’s accession to Chancelorship.
I worry about the tyranny of the courts, as you refer to it, "Bureaucratic totalitarianism" and the state imposing standards in the private arena.
Obama's goon squads tell me everything I need to know about him.
Possible, hadn’t heard that before, but mostly I take PC stuff about the Duce with a big grain of salt. I’ve also seen a rumor (from a 1930s newspaper) that the Muss-boy’s diggers uncovered a pile of ancient dead guys from the arena, and that the bodies had somehow been perfectly preserved, and that exposure to the air made them putrify. :’)
IMV Mussolini would have had a much stronger impact on the world had he, like Franco, remained neutral in WWII. His 8 million bayonets [sic] contributed little to the North African campaign, their participation in the overthrow of France was window dressing at best, and they were a genuine liability in the Balkan campaigns. About the only long-term contribution he made was all the archaeological stuff he had carried out, and I think he set a positive precedent for Italian relations with the Vatican.
http://www.ostia-antica.org/intro.htm — Truly scientific research started in 1907 by Dante Vaglieri. The north-east part of the city was now excavated systematically. Vaglieri died in 1913. The year before, the first monograph about Ostia had been published: “Ostia, Colonia Romana”, by Ludovico Paschetto. Important work was also done by the French archaeologist Jerome Carcopino. Vaglieri was succeeded by Guido Calza, who was supported by architect Italo Gismondi and inspector Raffaele Finelli. Slowly more ruins were unearthed. In 1930 a supplement to the CIL appeared. In 1938 one-third of the city had been excavated. But then extensive, hurried excavations began, lasting until 1942. The initiator was Mussolini, who wanted to present Ostia during a world-fair (Esposizione Universale di Roma (EUR)). The excavated area was more than doubled. More than 600.000 cubic metres of earth were removed, that reached a height of 4 to 12 metres above the ancient street level. Needless to say that much information was not recorded during these five years. The world-fair never took place. Calza died in 1946.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostia_Antica#Sacking_and_excavation — Sacking and excavation: In the Middle Ages, bricks from buildings in Ostia were used for several other occasions. The Leaning Tower of Pisa was entirely built of material originally belonging to Ostia.[citation needed] A “local sacking” was carried out by baroque architects, who used the remains as a sort of marble storehouse for the palazzi they were building in Rome. Soon after, foreign explorers came in search of ancient statues and objects. The Papacy started organizing its own investigations with Pope Pius VII; under Mussolini massive excavations were undertaken from 1938 to 1942. The first volume of the official series Scavi di Ostia appeared in 1954; it was devoted to a topography of the town by Italo Gismondi and after a hiatus the research still continues today. Though untouched areas adjacent to the original excavations were left undisturbed awaiting a more precise dating of Roman pottery types, the “Baths of the Swimmer”, named for the mosaic figure in the apodyterium, were meticulously excavated, 1966-70 and 1974-75, in part as a training ground for young archaeologists and in part to establish a laboratory of well-understood finds as a teaching aid. It has been estimated that two thirds of the ancient town have currently been found.
Thanks!
O’Bama means to take several long steps toward Creches and an end to parental involvment in the raising of children. That is what his education policy is all about. It seems he intends to “impose” stuff and there is a precedent now for that with Paulson being given total power over the economy.
I believe that you are correct about the earlier Empire, except for the Senatorial class, of course. Sometimes called the Principate (for 'First citizen', which is how the Emperor was designated), it lasted from Augustus up until the late third century, With Diocletian the idea that Rome was still a Republic disappeared, as the government, (the 'dominate') became ever more autocratic.
Lots of lefties, and even some supposed "conservatives," (i.e., Buchanan), claim the US is already an "empire." It's hogwash, of course, unless you redefine the word "empire" to mean what New Yorkers mean by "The Empire State" -- just a metaphor or school mascot, nothing to do with serious reality.
Yes, 100 years ago, the US had a real "empire," including the Philippines, Puerto Rico and some Pacific Islands, some of which remain part of the US today. But that's not what our critics are talking about.
Finally, we should note the word has long been used metaphorically, going back even to George Washington, who referred to the newly constituted thirteen United States as "our empire."
Point is: when we talk about an "American Empire," we need to be clear as to which sense of the word we mean.
I don't agree much with Pat Buchanan, but his new book, "The Unnecessary War," provides some interesting details on how Mussolini was unnecessarily run out of Italy's First World War alliance with Britain & France, and pushed toward a new alliance with Hitler's Germany.
Clearly Mussolini was unwise, but a more skillful British diplomacy might have kept him on the democratic allies' side, says Pat.
Rome was effectively an empire well before the transition was made de jure. The USA has been effectively an empire since WWII. It is not something to fault America for. The alternative does not involve survival as a nation. The transition to de jure empire will include wholesale loss of rights but not necessarily of freedoms. The government may leave us all alone to do our business but there would no longer be any “rights.” Freedoms would be purely at government sufferance. In that case we would be far better off as a real Big Business Oligarchy than as a Democracy derived Bureaucracy. Bureaucratic totalitarianism is more likely in the cards.
I'll say again, it's pure hogwash to call America an "empire" in the same sense that ancient Rome was an empire, or Britain & France had empires.
All that does is distort both the definition of "empire," and the reality today.
Take for example: in the year 1900, both Britain and France proudly proclaimed themselves "empires." Both were then functioning democracies, and France the constitutional Third Republic. In those days, the empires they ruled over were actual empires, and were NEVER confused with their VOLUNTARY ALLIANCES.
So, by 1914, France and Britain were allied with Russia against the German, Austria-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. None of these ALLIANCES among empires were EVER themselves called "EMPIRES." In other words, the Triple Alliance was NEVER called "The German Empire," and the Triple Entente was NEVER called the "Franco-Russian-British Empire."
Do you not understand the point? American today has MANY ALLIANCES. We have no serious EMPIRE.
Yeah, Sort of like Rome before Julius. You are insisting on a technical definition of “empire” as a political statement that does not correlate with the reality of American ascendance.
That idea was the topic of a book a few years back (well, probably about ten years ago), did Buchanan cite anything? It wasn’t his idea.
Mussolini was looking around for alliances (the European economy was very bad for years after WWI, well before the Great Depression hit in the US), was basically given the brush-off by Britain and France, then met Hitler and was wowed. Also, the goose-stepping was something that didn’t originate in WWII, obviously (I remember seeing a snippet of an English honor guard stepping that way, from film shot between the wars), but I think the Italian troops used for the welcome parade were doing that, and Hitler really liked how it looked. :’)
Hitler’s economic approach was to trade German finished goods for raw materials (most seriously for the US, he made those arrangements with variou countries in South America), making it possible for countries with insignificant industrial bases and little foreign exchange to dig some deep holes or what have you and get autos and the works. It was a smart and effective strategy for a country which had few overseas colonies (and none of much value to it) before WWI, and basically none thereafter. The lost trade for the US was estimated by the State Dep’t at $2 billions, and that was a LOT of money back then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
