caldrail

It depends. Roman military architecture was standardised for efficient construction regarding wooden fortresses - almost a flatpack product - but in deserts? The roman forts out in the sahara are very different from the stone and brick tile construction we see in europe, and large sections of Hadrians Wall were originally built up from turf. Local materials are likely to be used so its a fair guess there was local variety. Despite the often quoted point that the layout of roman fortresses were the same layout, under close examination it turns out that apart from a basic similarity no two fortresses are the same.

Which mesopotamian king? Surely his weaponsmith did the work and not him? In any case, such remains are scarce and not so easily found. Remember that a large-ish meteor doesn't simply drop on the ground. It creates a sizeable crater and usually buries itself under the debris. Its a large metallic stone travelling at high speed, much higher than a catapult stone. And where did you get the story that the sword made from it was stronger? My guess is thats a piece of ancient hype. If they can work meteoric iron to create a sword, they can create iron swords of mundane origin.

The etruscans dominated the region in the early days, and most of the kings of Rome were etruscan. The etruscans influenced the urbanisation of the tiber valley and provided some of the basis for roman customs. The roman empire was created by the domination of the republic by one man as ruler without the customary restraints of republican government. The republic itself was founded when the romans got fed up of the kings and had the last one thrown out. tarquinus Superbus is supposed to have raped a latin woman named Lucretia, and that was the final straw. He tried to win his kingdom back but lost.

Mostly thats heroic myth, and although an iron-rich meteorite isn't unusual, most are very small and of no use for making weapons. Meteorites are not made of special quality metals I'm afraid, its just the same stuff we find everywhere on earth. Lets also differentiate between phenomena. Meteors are the larger lumps falling with a very impressive firework display, but very rare. Metallic lumps on the ground of extra-terrestial origin are meteorites and are baiscally interstellar rubble that only become visible on entering the atmosphere, as a 'falling star' without the characteristic tail.

A party of men skulk in the shadows of a darkened alleyway. They wait patiently for the passing of late night revellers, young men staggering drunkenly and singing out loud, challenging each other concerning the dangers of late night women. Once they had gone, one of the lurkers whispered to his companions to move. They crossed the alleyway to the door of a villa, an expensive dwelling though one with a modest frontage. They convene and quickly discuss their tactics. One man knocks upon the door. As if impatient he bangs again. And again. "All right, allright..." Came a tired voice from inside, "I heard you. What do you mean by bothering us at this late hour?" "Sir, " Called the leader, "Your house burns at the side! Come see!" The door was unlocked and an older slave emerged with concerned curiosity. Immediately he was hit from behind and collapsed unconcious. The lurkers rushed inside and made no further pretence of their purpose. Within minutes they emerged, carrying two struggling forms. Small, perhaps children. From the villa a woman was heard shrieking in alarm, and three slaves armed with cudgels ran out into the street, only to find their quarry already lost in the darkness. They called for lanterns or firebrands, another left to find vigiles...

its an extraordinary claim all right, but that does not mean it had any lingering impact. We are after all only talking about small numbers of travellers, maybe a ship or two, probably lost and given the distance, unlikely to return. There is some vague indications that something like this happened. The legend of the white bearded god who would one day return. The recently found dark age remains in europe of what appears to be someone of central american origin. Not substantial proof by any means, but then my point to was illustrate the genuine theories of early cross ocean travel. Thor Heyedahl made that point with his papyrus rafts - again, it doesn't prove the ancients made that journey but it certainly showed it was possible. And whilst Columbus got the credit for discovering America, lets not forget he knew the land mass was there. He may have been mistaken and genuinely thought it was the orient, but the story of his voyage strongly suggests he wasn't just plucky - he had access to information about coastal waters elsewhere. Such information wasn't easily shared back then. mariners kept their reputations by keeping quiet about what they knew, hence the 'rutter' of later periods where these men wrote their notes about tides and coastlines etc. In any event, an extraordinary claim is merely that until - as you say - extraordinary evidence is provided. Is that right? Not really. because an extraordinary claim runs against accepted knowledge many learned people will attempt to pour scorn on the theory because it devalues their own status as educated men - it means they're wrong basically - and they usually don't like it when some upstart overturns everything they've written and earned royalties for. So therefore an extraordinary claim - assuming its correct - goes ignored while the learned men beat our hands with vine staffs until we learn their accepted version - even though its actually wrong. I would therefore recommend you keep an open mind. That doesn't mean you have to accept the theory simply because I pushed it onto the forum in front of you, it simply means the theory is there and awaits proof. You see - if you dismiss a theory because it offends your sensibilities, then the subject will make no progress. Of course if you happen to know positively that the claim is wrong thats another matter - presumably you can quote sources to the contrary. If you feel the claim is wrong but you have nothing to stop the arguement, then you need only say so. There's no shame in not knowing, but wilful ignorance is criminal. Really? Get a measuring stick and open an atlas - I'm sure you'll be impressed. Its a long long way to that part of the continent.

No, the chinese were better...

Marius introduced changes he thought worked better on the basis of his own experience in dealing with hastily raised armies without the standard division in troop type based on military experience. Hastatii were novices, pricipales were experienced, triarii were veterans etc. The trend to an 'all-hastatii' legion had indeed already been under way for some time, so perhaps Marius wasn't so put out by having to raise his own. Nonetheless, once consul, he introduced what is now considered the professional army, in that it was no longer levied for each campaign but existed in something approaching permanance - a standing army. Augustus made changes in his reforms but I would suggest these were an evolution of the legions toward an established army with permanent legions and the tradition and esprit-de-corps that goes with the regimental system, apart from relatively minor changes in organisation such as the introduction of military tribunes and the return of the cavalry contingent. How professional the roman army actually was is debatable. In many ways it was - we see training and drill that is reminiscent of the modern day, and daily army life for roman soldiers is hauntingly familiar. Yes, they were paid for their 25 years service, three times a year at a special parade if possible. They had stoppages for equipment, burial clubs, and a sort of pension scheme which saved a seventh of their pay for a lump sum at their end of service. Nonetheless, these men were expected to loot and pillage if the opportunity arose, and the soldiers considered this a perk of service. On the other hand, corruption was rife and I have read that some soldiers complained when opportunities to buy their way out of fatigues were hard to come by. Therefore we need to be careful when considering if the legions had a professional attitude, though I must admit these matters are partly due to the mindset of the times, given many of them were from poor ill-educated families in less civilised regions in or surrounding the roman world.

My favourite has to be Jack Vance. He's a great storyteller, very influential in the fantasy genre, produces some extraordinary characters in his tales, and always provides a colourful and interesting world to read about.

They went a lot further than that. Russia (Kiev was their kingdom), Byzantium, Iceland, Possibly greenland or labrador, and persistent theories have them on the west coast of america, even central or south america if you want to stretch things to breaking point.

I always get a bit annoyed by these speculative ideas of how humans will turn out. Mostly it emphasises factors that may not be available in future generations, or that the enviroments we live in are within certain bounds. Take a closer look at how animals develop. Small creatures are the better survivors. They require less resources and can hide from danger more readily. In times of plenty, or where threats from predators are lessened, there is a tendency to grow larger. Indeed, size can be an evolutionary advantage. We see creatures in the jurassic period that are truly colossal. In Argentina they've uncovered parts of a sauropod that suggests a size of up to 140ft long. Thats big. Very big. I can only guess how much a creature of that size weighs and lets face it - how the heck are you going to bring one of those down if you're hungry? The remains of a pterosaur (flying reptiles) has been found with a wingspan of 70ft, around twice the previous biggest. In England, the head and tail of a fish called Leedsicthys (I hope the spelling is correct) suggest a full grown size of up to 100ft long. Try catching that with a rod! In later periods we see larger animals too. Flightless carnivore birds in the hothouse period immediately after the K/T event that would make short work of us. Megalodon, a shark that died out only four million years ago, with jaws large enough to allow a six foot man to walk in. Indratherium, a truly big mammal that dwarfed elephants, and until the ice ages there was a species of elephant in africa twice the size of those we see today, not forgetting Gigantipithecus, more or less a colossal gorilla. Not quite king kong, but way larger than we see these days. Thats a few examples. So why do I stress size? Well, due in part because of our relatively safe enviroment and protein rich diet, humans are doing well, and its noticeable that we're bigger than our ancestors. Assuming modern civilisation continues unabated, I would expect to see very large human beings becoming the norm, increasing in size over millenia. I regularly see predictions of dwarf descendants. Guess what? I think the opposite. The result of human evolution is dependent on all sorts of things, but then, in purely darwinian style, isn't the huge hunk of a football player more likely to get the girl than the super-intelligent nerd?

They might mount some in times of trouble, but not as a permanent feature. These machines needed maintenance and being made of rope and wood, are not able to withstand the enviroment forever. Watchtowers were observation platforms, not defensive works.

In sieges bolt throwers were useful for keeping the heads of defenders down - and given the continued use of such weapons for that end - I'd have to say it worked. At Masada the earth ramp was defended by ballistae in this way for instance, and the romans sometimes built wooden towers to mount ballistae for better targeting. On the battlefield they don't seem to have made much impression, because we don't read of the general use. No, bolt-throwers were primarily weapons for use in or against fixed positions.

Concerned at the sound of a struggle, the guards looked into the tent. When they saw the gaulish slave woman trying to force a knife into Ralla's chest, they rushed in and pulled her away. They disarmed her with typical heavy-handedness, then attended to their legate. Laronius Ralla held his shoulder, where the woman had almost succeeded in killing him, trying to staunch the blood. "Nasty..." The soldier commented with some bluntness, pulling some rags from beneath his breastplate. "Hold this this to your shoulder Sir, we'll fetch a physician. What about the woman?" Ralla looked across to where she stirred groggily from the sudden beating she'd received. Betrayed! After all the care he had lavished on her! He tried to speak but winced at the pain of his wound. "Get her out of here." The soldier commanded to another by the tent flap, "Find the Centurion, tell him what happened. Watch it, the bitch is quick with a blade... Don't worry Sir, we'll soon have you patched up." Romanus Darkus sauntered into the tent without hiding his satisfaction that Ralla had been taught a lesson. "So... The pretty slave has claws?... Soldier, leave us. Centurion!" "Sir!" The Centurion saluted Romanus from the entrance. "That woman is not a suitable consort for my general. Have the men play with her - they could do with some sport." The centurion raised his eyebrows for a moment but thought better of questioning the order. He saluted again, then turned away to carry out the task. Romanus sat down and watched Ralla lying in pain. He could hear shouts for medical aid in the camp outside the tent. "Ralla - I want no more time wasted on that gaul. You should know better than to play with wild animals. Why else does a beastmaster keep his cats in cages? Forget her. She won't forgive you for the deaths of her tribesmen, nor her treatment to come.." Romanus glanced outward at the raucous laughter nearby. He poured a goblet of wine and savoured the aroma for a moment. At the arrival of a breathless physician Romanus motioned him to stop. "Wait outside... Numidia has fallen in with us. Soon we'll have troops trained in the roman fashion. Once these men deploy it won't take long for Augustus to realise our intentions, and that is when we must play our hand in Rome. We shall carry on as planned however. The eastern element is of vital importance. Oh incidentially, you are now divorced from your wife in Rome. There is a Syrian princess I want you to marry instead. She's not particularly comely, but I'm sure you uunderstand the necessity.... You know, you should be more careful Ralla. That shoulder looks most painful. Physician!... Put him back together... When you're feeling better Ralla, we'll speak again." Romanus sauntered from the tent without looking back.

No harm in questions whatsoever. Well... I'm not sure. Given they were halfway between arrows and spears i would hazard a guess that making bolts wasn't something for the odd five minutes you had spare, and that the legion carried supplies of these for use. I doubt they made them on the move, but if the right craftsmen were available, then a few more might have been readied. The bolts had fletchings. They were literally big bulky arrows in effect. A bulls skull found at Vindolanda shows the legions practised regularly with bolt throwers in camp. The larger engines were usually built on an ad hoc basis at the site of the siege, and therefore practice with them was on the day as it were. Smaller catapults of that kind were on the legion strength (In Hadrians time siege engines were allocated to each legion) so I would hazard a guess they practised with those too. Training was very much a feature of legionary life and the men were cross-trained for flexibility, so most soldiers eventually got to play with artillery. Primarily weapons for fighting at a fixed position. That doesn't necessarily mean a siege, but I guess it usually was. Employing such weapons on a battlefield was awkward given the size and weight of weapon and munitions, and with the ready availability of missile firing troops, the need for battlefield artillery wasn't there. We know that bolt throwers were used in the attack on Maiden Castle, England. They were also using automatic bolt throwers that fired repeatedly but the commander was very critical of those, regarding them as a waste of ammunition. Since they fired faster than they could be retargeted, inevitably a man was killed by five bolts instead of one. Thats the only instance I know of of these auto-ballistae, so perhaps they weren't regarded as a success?

the wheels are small diameter and not well suited to rough ground, nor was the carriage steerable. Therefore rapid relocation is extremely unlikely, although I agree it makes it easier to move a very heavy wooden construction if need be. The romans had pila, archers, and slingers. The demand for battlefield artillery wasn't there, particularly since moving siege engines around was a slow difficult business. Such engines might be accurate but only at a stationary target. As I mentioned, the battlefield is a dynamic place and unless the battle is involving a fixed position, the catapults have limited utility. Effective once they got your range I imagine - you'd go down like ninepins - but then, wouldn't a formation move or do something if targeted in this way?

i use england as a regional description, not as a nation state.

[Do you mean a lie?] Propaganda involves distortion and fiction. Whether its a lie or not is a matter of opnion. I think some of it is. [Are you sure that you don't have it backwards here?] Not at all. The early christian leaders needed something to give their neophytes as evidence of their beliefs. They collected the gospels for that purpose. [is the Bible a history book or one on religion?] Neither really. Its a guidebook to christian dogma. By that I mean to reinforce the personality cult of Jesus. Is that religion? The followers say yes, because they believe. I say no, because Jesus was a mortal rabble rouser and not the son of god. [for religious purposes] It is used in that way, but lets understand what religion is. Belief is what you hold to be true. Religion is what someone else tells you to believe. [is this within the province of historians or theologians? Would one allow a historian to draw medical conclusions?] We do sometimes. Heck, in the case of the bible this has gone on for two thousand years. Some people take the bible absolutely literally today, and there are those who believe the world was indeed created warts and all in 4004BC. That figure was arrived at by treating the bible as a wholly reliable source. Think about it. [Are you using the same calendar as the authors? At the battle of Austerlitz(?), the Russians arrived 11 days late because they and the Austrians used different calendars.] I understand your point but that merely opens up all sorts of historical distortions in an attempt to prove the bible is a reliable source. Which different calendars do we need to observe? The actual date of Jesus's birthday isn't known (its celebrated at christmas by convention, because the saturnalia was the most popular festival of the year). However, there are no records that I'm aware of of observable stellar phenomena in that period at all. [How do you 'know' this?] When I was ten years old my parents gave me a pamphlet explaining where babies come from. Recreational sex wasn't a feature of life for judaeans of good character. If joseph hadn't got her pregnant... well.... In any case, the story is probably bunkum. By describing it as a virgin birth, the incident appears pure and untainted by human sexual behaviour. A gift from god as it were. [The Chinese record a bright star at that time.] Interesting. Do they also record it moving across the heavens? I think they would have noticed. Or is the record a mere coincidence? You have no way of knowing when this part of the story was added, and whatever the chinese say, the western world does not record that event. [A conclusion without any premises or 'facts'.] No, a supposition, but one based on ordinary human behaviour and not fantastic events without any shred of evidence whatever. [You seem to admit that God exists here. If God exists, then nothing (miracles) is impossible for Him.] Erm... No... thats the christian view. Nor is there any reason to believe that god can actually perform miracles. The use of miracles as evidence of divine status is typical of those who want people to believe nonsense. The modern media do that all the time. [All about worship and not about history?] Correct. The history is in there to understate the vital message. That Jesus must be worshipped [but, Jesus IS God according to Christians.] Thats a heresy, not standard christian dogma. Although I do agree that the worship of Jesus has precedence. But isn't that the whole point of christianity in the first place? Its the subversion of judaic beliefs as the basis of a personality cult. [Neither the Virgin Mary nor the 'supporting cast' are 'worshipped' by Christians.] Pardon? Have you travelled anywhere in the latin world? The virgin mary takes pride of place in a great many churches. [Would you hold the same for a favorable biography of A. Lincoln?] Why would I? Is anyone worshipping Mr Lincoln? Now if that biography tells us he could walk on water, cure the blind, feed thousands out of thin air, and got himself shot to save mankind, I might start wondering. [No problem here, but is this the fault of men or the Book?] Men. The human factor always arises where the potential for exploitation is there. [Couldn't the same be said of you?] That I don't think for myself? Rubbish. If I didn't think for myself I'd be lining up on Sunday along with all the other happy punters. Can I be fooled? Of course. Can I be mistaken? Yes, just like you or anyone else. Just like people who believe in a religion. It may or may not be absolute cobblers but if I believe everything I'm told, then I'm at risk of manipulation. Sorry, but if I smell a rat, I'll shoot it. [Again, you have concluded without offering the proof you demand of believers.] No, I've presented an arguement for debate, not a statement for you to believe in. Oh dear, you do seem amenable to religion. Are you stating that Christianity is a 2000 year old conspiracy? Not as a homegenous conspiracy. But its a milieu for those who want to conspire. I hope that I have shown that you have very weak arguments, if not fallacious ones. Sorry, you failed. Pulling my arguement apart with statements that have even less strength doesn't convince me. Fallacious? Not as far as I'm concerned, especially when you read how much blatant nonsense the bible spouts. Thats my opnion. You're welcome to yours. The Bible was written (guided by the Hand of God according to believers), for the people of the time, using the nuance of the time. And modified by many, many revisions over the last two millenia. I wonder if a 'novel' written today and could be transported back in time and translated, would it be understood in the same sense as it is today? It would be given a different emphasis without modern experience and education. But if you want to know how amenable people are to hidden mysteries, then look at all the behaviour surrounding 'The Da Vinci Code' which now has a core of readers absolutely convinced that Dan Brown has revealed the truth of the world. Hunting for holy grails has proven to be a futile quest more than once hasn't it?

Inevitably there are subtle vivking influence especially in regions they settled, yet I should point out that the saxons were a hardy lot and not given to giving up their own culture easily. In england, or rather the danelaw area, it would be likely that you see a certain amount of blending. The viking settlers eventually intermarry with saxon neighbours, their own cultural influences watered down. Still there, just in the background. Yes. After Alfred the Great finally beat the crap out of them, Guthrum (the viking leader) agreed to be baptised and live in peace, and was granted the north of england as their territory. That was named Danelaw.

So is the Historia Augustae, and even though thats supposed to be a history book it isn't exactly trustworthy is it? The bible on the hand, as I've mentioned, is propaganda. It exists to provide support for christian dogma, not to provide historians with accurate data, although it must be said that christians do prefer people to see it that way. Of course they do. If the bible is given that sort of credibility then so does their religion. Look at what happens. In the case of a book like the Historia Augustae, we do indeed quote from it, yet researchers check what they can and draw attention to its inconsistencies. The bible on the other hand is treated as a source that is in some way irrefutable, and everyone spends their time trying to prove it correct. Thats a big difference, and I think the inconsistencies of the bible story do need to be highlighted, or the historians quoting from it are not really doing their job properly. Ok - The New Testament. We're told that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for the purposes of a census. Yet the records of the time don't mention one. Mary is supposed to have a virgin birth. Thats fiction I'm afraid. That element is there to give a purity to young Jesus that ordinary mortals don't have, accentuated by the dubious tale of star that moved in the heavens and led three oriental kings to the stable. All very cute, but how many researchers have wasted their time trying to search for evidence of astrnomical phenomena of the period? And haven't found any? In fact, if the tale of virgin birth has some reality then Mary is a very guilty woman indeed. Can you see how the christian story is embellished and romanticised to make the easily impressed person think that something special happened? Thats the whole point of the story. It isn't to provide a true story, its to create the illusion that Jesus was indeed a son of god. Now if that story begins in such a way, how can you be sure that the rest of the story isn't as distorted? Notice also the most glaring inconsistency of all. In the Old Testament (basically the existing judaic half) we are given the Ten Commandments - the rules by which believers in God must live. One states quite clearly that only God must be worshipped. Yet the tale of Jesus in the christian second hald is all about worship - it illustrates the noble humility of this son of god, how he refuses the devils offer, of how he cures ills and feeds the poor out of nowhere - and look what happens - We know see Jesus worshipped in place of god, not to mention the virgin mary or any others of the supporting cast. The bible is the basis of a personality cult (a successful one it might be said), equivalent to Mein Kampf or those little coloured books so beloved of communist dictators. Now that view is going to offend some people. I understand that, yet you must also understand that christianity is not blameless. Wars have been fought over which version of the bible should be read. People have been burned at the stake because religious leaders don't like alternative opinions, nor the scientific revelations that cast doubt on the traditional christian teaching. We see people exploited as cash cows by charismatic fakers - and thats something thats been true of christianity since the very beginning. Simply stating that we should not dismiss the bible because some researchers have quoted from it isn't a good arguement - it suggests that you don't think for yourself and merely accept that some with letters after their name can do no wrong or automatically know better than you. They might (and often do!), but then I'm not dismissing the bible - I'm simply pointing out that its a romanticised story for propaganda purposes, and whilst it is based on historical events, it should be viewed with a lot more suspicion than many researchers give it.

And I'm not telling you - I'm merely pointing out that roman ballistae of all types were not wheeled and therefore not intended as mobile artillery. The romans did not develop the concept of tactical fire support as we understand it. As I mentioned before, the primary use of such weapons was to assault a fixed enemy position (or perhaps defend their own). I agree that it was possible to move such weapons around a battlefield, but then you should realise that the same weapons are useless during the transport process and vulnerable to enemy action. This is why we don't read too much of roman artillery in reports of roman battles. In any case, the romans were steadfastly in favour of infantry action although this began to change toward a predominance of cavalry toward the late empire in response to changing strategic conditions. Sorry, I've just realised - Does 'carro' suggest wheels? I'm none to hot on latin. Doesn't change my arguement incidentially, but it raises my eyebrows nonetheless.

No, correction is not necessary The saxons. They thoroughly colonised and opened england up, they made it their own. They managed to preserve their culture under Norman dominion (which is medievalised viking! Norman is a contraction of 'Northmen'). The vikings gave a different blend to english life and to be honest, roman ways were largely dropped after the withdrawal and survive only through the church and establishment careers. Not true at all. Alfred the Great had an english navy with which to secure his coasts against viking incursion, which definitely did the job. Granted their vessels may not have been as adaptable as norse versions but then the saxons weren't afraid of sailing (even if they kept closer to shore). Our modern 'Senior Service' arises because of our island status and the need to protect the coasts even if not technically at war due to piracy (Alfred did good work against pirates too - yes, even the saxons suffered that blight). Standing armies were uncommon earlier in our history because its expensive to pay them in peacetime to sit around and bully civilians for something to do. If I remember right, the regimental system emerges from the english civil war, whilst a standing navy was in place much earlier to deal with threats from spain and holland.

But that doesn't preclude their use on the battlefield as an "Area denial ordinance system" After all cannon were used on battlefiels and they had to have weighed as much as Carroballistae They had wheels. Ballistae did not - they were carried in seperated loads and reassembled in situ.

Yep, I do have to agree there. But then I'm not sure that mankind is well equipped to control the earths climate either, and I rather suspect we might find out how easy it is to tip the see-saw the other way. Nature has balanced this palnet for billions of years. Sure, the extremes it reaches may not suit us - there's been more than a few species that have fallen by the wayside by changing climate - but is eco-tyranny any better? Do I really want to live in a world where throwing out the wrong rubbish is a criminal act, or where private transport is a heinous sin against society (unless you're rich course - I think you'll find the world leaders suggesting these happy socialist idels will have their own get-out clause) etc etc. What I mean is, these eco-concerns are in danger of being used as excuses for controlling our activities even closer, regardless of any supposed benefit to our daily lives. Truth is, we're getting too successful as a species. There are too many of us and its pushing the ecosystem out of balance. There's a cure for that although understandably its a bit distateful to most peoples sensibilities (it is to mine). We have no natural predators, and modern society protects us from accident and disease better than in previous ages. So there's more of us. And the poorer countries of this world want our almighty dollars so they sell their souls for it - sweatshops, industries, tree-felling etc. They don't care about the enviroment one jot. Why should they? Lots of fancy talk won't put food on their table. So, in the final analysis, does this eco-initiative we see today really count? I think not. Most of it is ill-informed wishful thinking or blatant politically correct vote-mongering. Increasingly, its a moneyspinner. Thats why we will have to endure this eco-sensitive culture - because the profit motive will demand that we conform and become part of the market. The changing enviroment? Isn't that something happening tomorrow? But as long as we do what our leaders want, we can soothe our shame and throw off the guilt of... well... having a good time at the planets expense. Even if others intend to anyway.

Thats backs up my view that Jesus was building a personality cult. I don't know too much about messiah prophecies, but I suspect the average Joe back then didn't either, hence jesus (with some glib talking) was able to convince well meaning but easily led people that yes, he was the man. In some ways jesus was optomistic - the area was under roman rule and the romans don't like potential troublemakers. By making this stand, Jesus effectively labelled himself as such. Now then. In the bible we read of jesus being nailed up on a crucifix (a standard roman punishment for people they wanted dead and made an example of). The christian explanation is that he died for us - as if he was some sort of martyr simply 'doing the right thing'. Which is nonsense isn't it? jesus never chose to be executed, indeed, under questioning he tried to persuade the romans he wasn't the problem they thought he was. Truth is, the romans executed him for reasons they thought perfectly lawful at the time. In later years, it was the romans themselves who were preaching christianity and this 'martyrdom' explanation was cobbled together to paint over the implications of it. Its interesting that you say the royal family thing is fiction (No suprise there! ) and that gallileans were considered troublesome anyway. The middle east has always been a rich source of religious cults, especially Syria, so this sort of career was possibly not unusual for the time? Nothing unfair about it at all. Why should the bible be given freedom from criticism? Because its the christian guidebook? Look what happens. As soon as you cast doubt on christianity someone picks up the good book and says "But its written in here Sir" as if the bible is automatically considered inviolable. How many archaeologists have been chasing phantoms trying to find evidence for the bible stories in the holy land? Look what happens with 'The Da Vinci Code'. Now there are people utterly convinced its real. So it is with the bible. But thats exactly what the bible is - fiction. Its a series of stories based loosely on real events and reinterpreted to portray the world in christian terms. If mundane history and archaeology backed the story closer then I'd have to say there was something in it, but as far as I'm aware the records of the time simply don't match the New Testament. History is written by the victors is it not?