'Etruscan Treasures' On View At Dallas's Meadows Museum

Antiques and the Arts ^ | February 24th, 2009 | unattributed

[SunkenCiv]

Etruscan, Mater Matuta, third quarter of the Fifth Century BC.

Etruscan helmet dating to the middle of the Seventh Century BC.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[exist]

Wasn’t like the last King of Rome an Estruscan?

[txnativegop]

Interesting helmet, never seen one shaped quite that way.

[SunkenCiv]

Pretty much all the Kings of Rome were Etruscans.

[Grimmy]

Wasn’t the Republic model that Rome adopted created to ensure that nothing like the Etruscan Kings could ever rise up among them again?

Well, at least until they got around to reinventing the king thing via emperors and such.

[SunkenCiv]

To adapt and misappropriate a line from the Doobie Bros, “they just kept on lookin’ to the east”. :’) In particular, look at the helmets from Corinth:

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/war/Armor.htm

This one came up as an image search hit (which yielded a link to the above page), but doesn’t seem to be used in the ‘blog which hosts it:

http://bmonday.com/images/35/r_DSC00115.jpg

[SunkenCiv]

The Republic was a fascist oligarchy in which a fairly small number of families owned all the land and held all the power. They went on increasing their holdings through suckering the citizens into fighting wars of conquest, then through usury, other financial bullying, and outright thuggery, confiscating lands from the commoner families while the dads and such were off fighting. By the time of the crisis which led to the creation of their version of a chief executive, much of the population was either enslaved (privately or “corporately” by the state) or indigent and landless — and most of the rest were in the armed forces.

[SunkenCiv]

Holy kaka, this is GREAT (found it on the main page of that ‘blog):

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-25/

[exist]

I like the King of Rome who invited their allies over for a party, and then stole all their women.

[Miss Marple]

Ha! Wasn’t that great? I am thinking of sending it to Senator Dodd and Congressman Franks.

[Grimmy]

I didn’t say they did it well, but the basis behind the republic form in it’s origin was an attempt to ensure no more tyrant kings. At least, that’s what I recall from the long ago days when I read about such things.

[txnativegop]

This is hilarious! Also true about the Dems being hypocrites.

[slowhandluke]

Ok, was it fascist? Or an Oligarchy?

I doubt it was both. Or at least not the Fascism of 20th century Europe. So what features of 1st Century Rome do you consider fascist?

[SunkenCiv]

It was both. I’m not getting into some dead-end semantic nitpicking with anyone, I’m going to bed.

[SunkenCiv]

:’) Our Framers studied past attempts (all of which were unsuccessful) to establish a system of gov’t with things like checks and balances, limits to power, separation of powers, and subservience to the will of the people. The Roman Republic was a classical period city-state with various kinds of pre-existing affiliations such as tribes, clans, and families, along with the concept of citizenship. Politicians from the period following the overthrow of the last of the Kings, through the next phase of the republic — when the emperor became a permanent part of the political system — had to know about and deal with these older affiliations, as well as yet another permanent affiliation, that of the Roman armies.

The Romans didn’t come up with a regularized or stable system for succession, or even for selection, of its emperors, until (after a couple of centuries, which included a long period of regional “caesars”) Diocletian tried it. To test his system after setting it up, he retired (to a fortified, nearly self-sufficient manor in the now-former Yugoslavia — the building still stands) so his designated successor would take power, and compelled his eastern counterpart (Diocletian also divided the empire into e and w) to do the same. Splitting the empire may have been the one aspect that was pretty much stupid.

Eventually this broke down and Constantine conquered the whole works.

[Islander7]

The Republic was a fascist oligarchy in which a fairly small number of families owned all the land and held all the power. They went on increasing their holdings through suckering the citizens into fighting wars of conquest, then through usury, other financial bullying, and outright thuggery, confiscating lands from the commoner families while the dads and such were off fighting. By the time of the crisis which led to the creation of their version of a chief executive, much of the population was either enslaved (privately or “corporately” by the state) or indigent and landless — and most of the rest were in the armed forces.

Admit it, you are on 0bama's planning commission.

[SunkenCiv]

Yeah, they were stealin’ boys not long after that. ;’)

[SunkenCiv]

Check Out Dilbert Today !
Dilbert.com | Feb 25, 2009 | Scott Adams
Posted on 02/25/2009 5:14:21 AM PST by ml/nj
Edited on 02/25/2009 5:33:12 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2193576/posts

[slowhandluke]

I wasn't trying to just nitpick. I was genuinely curious about how you might differentiate Roman fascism from the general thuggishness of all governments back then.

The enforced civil uniformity of German and Italian forms of fascism in the 20th century wasn't there in the 1st century that I'm aware of.