Andrew Dalby

These are very interesting points, but a lot of these measures depend on how you count. No single Roman dynasty lasted as long as the Han. Southern China and Vietnam, regarded as conquests by the Han, were (probably) much more heavily populated than Germania. "The Han dynasty did not need to conquer but Rome needed to so it can keep its citizens happy." Explain how you work that one out! "Rome was accepting to other cultures like those of the Greek, Egyptians, etc." Yes, but when the Qin (preceding the Han) conquered neighbouring kingdoms, such as the Chu in the mid-southwest, they also were accepting other cultures. When the Han conquered the South and Vietnam, they were accepting other cultures too. Since most of this is now one single colour on our map, we think of it as monolithic, but at that time it wasn't.

I find your points extremely interesting, Favonius. I would just make this addendum to your addendum: actually China was expanding too, rather as Rome was, though entirely overland. China in pre-Qin times was politically fragmented, I believe. The Qin, immediately before the Han, conquered the other kingdoms, but that still only unified northeastern China. What we now think of as central to southern China, not to mention the vast western regions, were mostly not yet part of China at all. However, the early Han were strongly interested in exploration beyond those limited frontiers. It was in the Han period, for example (around 125 BC), that the Chinese opened up the Silk Road as far as Bactria. Others, maybe, can say whether they also made new conquests -- I suspect they did. Also, though what you say about the Mediterranean is true, the Romans were not bad at overland expansion -- partly because of their road-building!

I quite accept that opinions can vary on this issue. The reason I don't go along with those who say 'ancient Macedonians were Greeks' is that the (very limited) examples of words in the ancient Macedonian language don't look like Greek. But this is certainly not conclusive. They might be cited exactly because these particular words differed from Greek, while most other words were just like Greek. I guess that is one of the arguments that Hammond may have used (I haven't read him on this particular subject). What is certain is that the language spoken and spread by Alexander and his successors was, purely, Greek.

Thanks very much, I see now. If I understand it rightly, it was a term used by some odd 19th century Americans which got into popular evangelical books in the 1970s. My Christian days were over by then, and I'm not American, so no wonder I hadn't heard of it. The big question, according to the Wikipedia article, is whether Rapture happens pre-Tribulation or post-Tribulation (pre-Trib or post-Trib, as Rapture buffs like to put it). I had heard of Tribulation, because that concept is used in a great science-fiction novel by John Wyndham, 'The Chrysalids'. Well, I think Tribulation is pretty likely, but I doubt if many of us will make Rapture. I certainly won't.

I still want to know what is this Rapture that, according to earlier posts, Christians believe in. I was a Christian for fifteen years and nobody mentioned Rapture. Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I thought. So what is it?

...that would be me... cheers viggen (i actually used the UN symbol http://www.un.int/intimages/biglogo1.gif and replaced the the middle with a crossed falcata and gladius) I thought it was a walking-stick and umbrella ...

Ah, but how many of them really came from Greece? Remember Greek was a language of communication all over the East. Many so-called Greek slaves were from Asia Minor, Egypt, Syria etc. Also, Greek slaves in Rome were not necessarily war captives. Greece and the eastern kingdoms had been slave-owning cultures also: some of those Greek slaves will have been born as slaves, in Greece and those other provinces, and of course brought up to speak Greek, the language of their owners.

Language is really important in this context. Let me just give my take on this in case it's useful. First, although (I think) ancient Macedonians were not Greeks (but related), the ancient Macedonian language had no importance after Alexander's initial expedition. In those first years, some of his troops spoke Macedonian, but, even in the army, Greek totally supplanted ancient Macedonian as language of communication. The Macedonian court was thoroughly Hellenized by Phil's time (Alex's dad), and at court only Greek was spoken. [Note I am carefully saying 'ancient Macedonian' because, as someone else said above, modern Macedonian is a Slavic language not connected with the ancient one.] Now, what happened after. On one side of the argument: because of Alexander's conquests, Greek became the language of government, power, education, high-class culture, all across the Near and Middle East. That is why Greek became the second language of the Roman Empire, and eventually the only major language of the Byzantine Empire. That is also why the New Testament was written in Greek; and why all the great works that came out of the library and 'museum' at Alexandria are in Greek. A large proportion of later Greek literature, in fact, wouldn't be in Greek if it hadn't been for Alexander! He had a huge influence. On the other side: compare the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. In the West, Latin eventually supplanted all the local languages except in remote and mountainous regions (the Basque country, Wales, Albania ...). In the East, even though Greek had a chance to do this for much longer, it didn't do it. Greek hasn't eventually become the language of Syria and Egypt, in the same way that Latin HAS become the language of Spain and France. Why not? Partly because those eastern regions had better-established languages of written culture already (Aramaic-Syriac, Coptic); partly because Greek didn't penetrate mass culture in the East quite as much as Latin did in the West. You could say also because of later history and the Islamic conquest: but no, that isn't it really, because Coptic and Aramaic actually did survive the conquest, and continued to be used by minorities; Greek (in those eastern regions) didn't. I tried to work all this out in /Language in Danger/, and I think I still agree with myself! This is a quick summary.

Splendid! As for me, I think I'd better buy 'Italian for dummies' which is up there on my screen right now ...

Hold on, Pertinax: in that first sentence, which plant do you mean by laurel? So sorrry , I didnt see this entry until just now- firstly I will deal with The Laurel or rather the Bay Laurel( Laurus nobilis): this is a mediterranean native (contains cineole as the major component about 50% captured from the volatile oil from the leaves) , thujones and sesquiterpenes also-normally can be used to provoke bile and aid digestion if used sparingly. Not to be confused with : Myrcia ie: West Indian Bay (Pimenta racemosa) which you put on your hair and is not a med range plant. and definitely not to be mixed up with my suggestion for the Delphic plant: Cherry Laurel: (Prunus laurocerasus) a native of Asia Minor and a source of hydrocyanic acid: I paste a quote here- "The leaves yield a volatile oil in the proportion of 40.5 grains to 1 lb. of leaves. This resembles oil of bitter almonds, and in Europe is sometimes sold for it, as flavouring, but the glucoside decomposes more slowly than crystallized amygdalin, and is liable to hold hydrocyanic acid, when it becomes poisonous. This glucoside was called Laurocerasin, or Amorphous amygdalin, and now Prulaurasin". This is of course known to us all as a fraudulent substitute for the flavouring in Kirsch. not to be confused with: Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) the plant indigenous to our American cousins and I am pleased to tell you that whisky is deemed to be the best antidote to it if ingested.It is called "sheepkill" I believe. So Cherry Laurel is my sugestion for Delphi.Apologies again for overlooking your comment. NB Wikipedia is not bad on non-fatal dose "behaviour" , ie: its very "non-specific " and baffling to practitioners. Thanks very much, Pertinax. Having been in the habit all my life of chewing the bay (=laurel?) leaf when I get it in my helping of stew, I was waiting for that answer. Now I don't drink kirsch, but I must say I had no idea that oil of cherry-laurel was sold in Europe for oil of bitter almonds. Is that current information, dare I ask? Labelling has tightened up a lot in the last 20 years or so, as we know ...

Those are my reasons too. Firefox is my default browser. I use three others occasionally; IE hardly ever.

No, I support Lost Warrior on this, we have no tornadoes in Europe. Till now. The way we are warming up our planet, I'm sure the tornadoes are coming.

Hold on, Pertinax: in that first sentence, which plant do you mean by laurel?

It sounds as though you'd better avoid eating local venison, then.

Real Mountain Laurel is Kalmia latifolia, the large leaf tree you're thinking of LW is Rhododendron degronianum but it is common in the Appalachains for people to call it 'mountain laurel'. I love hikes that take you through 'tunnels' of these trees... they are supremely lovely. Ah, I did wonder about that. Neither is familiar in Europe, but it's certainly true that Kalmia latifolia is very poisonous. I read an article about the strange deaths occurring in New England around 1900 because people had been eating partridges that had fed on these leaves!

I don't think that one is known in Europe at all.

It depends what laurel you mean. The tree the Romans called laurus, the same as the Greek daphne (Laurus nobilis scientifically) is an aromatic leaf, dark green (not variegated), often with slightly crinkled edges. This is not poisonous, at least not in normal quantities, and is an important culinary flavouring. The leaves are strongly and pleasantly aromatic when you break them. This is also the proper one to wear in a laurel wreath, because the main point of wreaths originally was to smell nice. In English it is either laurel or bay. The other one, the inedible one (Prunus laurocerasus scientifically) has larger, variegated, yellow-to-green leaves, and lots of purple-to-black fruits on fruiting spikes. It's common in gardens in England. It's a very strongly-growing tree, difficult to get rid of when well established. Maybe I need some deer, I have too much of this in my garden. I don't know its origin but I don't think it was known to Greeks and Romans. You can call it cherry-laurel, but many people call it laurel. I hope Pertinax will turn up, and add to or correct this posting ...

And Dante's language is really beautiful -- Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita Mi ritrovai per una selva oscura, Che la diritta via era smarrita ... But I sometimes wonder, if he had been born in Sicily, would he have chosen Sicilian as the new standard, instead of Tuscan?

It's a good question, and there is a reason. Even when there is little long-distance communication (as in medieval times) people still need to communicate over short distances, to their neighbours all around -- at markets and fairs and because neighbours do communicate. Therefore, the original overall language of the Empire (when there WAS long distance communication) gradually split up (because of less communication) but relatively smoothly (because neighbours' dialects always continued to influence one another). If you get a sudden break, a boundary between neighbouring dialects/languages that are very different from one another, it's because: 1. that line marks what was at some time in the past a fixed frontier, so fixed that it discouraged local communication and/or 2. the languages/dialects had quite different origins; that explains the Romance/Germanic frontier, which has admittedly shifted a bit (hence Trentino/Alto Adige, Flanders, etc.) but essentially preserves a sort of historical memory of the frontier between Roman parts and the un-Romanised Germani. Does that help?

Sorry, I missed this question at the time. My thought is, a historian wouldn't normally bother to say that the Emperor's physician is at the Emperor's deathbed. A. Where else would he be? B. The Emperor's physician is usually not important enough to be mentioned in historical sources anyway. So, if two sources actually do say it, that's extremely good evidence, the best you could expect.

Fair enough, Pantagathus. I'll go for option 4. Mind you, I'm still hoping to find out more about rapture, I like rapture.

I feel like I am beating a dead horse, but is it possible they would have needed a translator? (Did I ask that question years ago?) I don't know. You have to be rich to have an interpreter (even if the interpreter is a slave, he would be an expensive slave). If you're not rich and need to communicate, you have to learn more than one language yourself. In the case of Romans in the East: if they were rich and educated, they would have done some serious Greek at school and 'university' (Athens was the fashionable place). Ordinary legionaries, if of northern or central Italian rural origin, are less likely to have been multilingual in advance of their service (Etruscan was dying). But southern Italy was multilingual (Latin, Greek, Oscan), and if you grow up multilingual it's easier to learn other languages in adult life. After all that, how much Aramaic you picked up would depend how long you were there and how much you needed to communicate with locals. Legionaries tended to stay put, is that right? And often settled locally after service?

Not many votes yet in this poll. Possibly the majority don't feel that any of the five options corresponds with what they think. That's how it is with me. There are two big dangers close ahead. One is the escalation of war. The other is the rise in temperature to the point at which large areas of the earth become uninhabitable or unproductive. Neither of these will wipe out our species (I don't think), so no End, let alone Rapture, whatever that may be. Either alone might, and certainly both together will, disrupt and maybe destroy a large part of our civilisation.

Yes, there are quite a few such -- and a great many more who have migrated the other way, and are now third generation, of Indian or Bangladesh origin, settled in Britain. But you can't make me choose a family identity for them, because I say that people can belong to more than one set. And we will get shepherded into the Arena, or even Tartarus, if we're not careful! I quite agree with you on the passport question, of course, and I could quote B. Traven on this. 'I don't need any paper. I know who I am.' (quotation, from memory, from the English translation of /The Death Ship/). But, in line with your thinking, Octavius, and going back to your earlier example of the American born in Britain, when did his line of descent or family identity become American? Say, for example, his grandparents were Mexicans, or Irish, or British? By your argument, wouldn't he be Mexican or Irish or British too? Anyway, getting back to Romans, one seems to see -- quite naturally, I think -- that people could belong to more than one group. My example was Martial. Evidently a Roman citizen. So was his father, no doubt. His earlier ancestry? There'll be a point beyond which we don't know. His mother? Her ancestors? We don't know. Now of course he's Roman, but he's also Spanish and proud of it, proud of the town he came from and its local landscape and local gods and their strange Spanish names, proud of his Spanish looks (epigram 10.65). I wouldn't dare tell him he's NOT Spanish. Again, Martial addresses one of his poems to a British lady. He calls her 'a daughter of the blue Britons, but with a Latin mind' (epigram 11.53). Her name, Claudia Rufina, is just as Roman as Pontius Pilate's! What would you call her, British or Roman? I would say she's both.

Well, that's a complicated question, isn't it? Such a person may consider him/herself either or both, and probably has a right to choose a nationality. There is dual nationality too, though someone who has three passports told me at dinner yesterday that US law doesn't hold with dual nationality. The person speaking has Canadian, New Zealand and German nationality: he considers himself British but has no right to a British passport (sorry, off topic). In Roman terms, is Martial a Spaniard or a Roman? Is Catullus a Cisalpine Gaul or a Roman? Most people actually belong to more than one set (as a mathematician would say).