caldrail

You have to be joking. I agree they were ruthless, determined, and capable of engineering that some armies couldn't match, but much of the methodology was derived from the greeks, and Egyptians in periods gone had been equally capable and it seems just as well organised. People sometimes place too much emphasis on te Roman model of warfare I think - which evolved into a one-trick tool. They used a heavy infantry army, useless against Surena's mounted archer army at Carrhae. Paulus' unelnlightened tactic of attack in a huge mass led to a spectacular defeat at Cannae. The Roman system worked not because of any innate superiority - they had any number of defeats to their credit - but because they always tried to exercise initiative, though the advantages of scale increasingly worked for them too. By the late empire the Roman legions were not exactly capable, nothing like their peak in the early empire. What is true is that the Romans often found capable leaders and that made the difference. A poor commander and the legions were not better than anyone else, even lacklustre in performance (Titus nearly had many junior officers executed when he was threatened by zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, and lwgionaries were not following simple regulations of having weaponry to hand during their siegeworks). Well led, a Roman legion was a difficult beast to defeat. Bear in mind, nearly half the major battles fought by Romans were against each other.

When he was in Spain, Caesar was visiting a town with friends and spotted a statue of Alexander. He started to weep. His friends asked what was causing his misery. "This man" Caesar said, "at my age had conquered the world. I have done nothing". Alexander did not merely conquer a large area, he set in place a greek-orientated culture across the regions he had dominated that lasted long after he was dead. These regions demonstrate extensive ruins and remains of the period to this day, some now in obscure or difficult areas. Caesar did not inspire the same pro-Roman culture - that was the result of later influence or prior work by merchants. Had Alexander reached the age of sixty it's unlikely he would have extended his reach much further because his army in India had already threatened to mutiny if he did not stop.

Of course without context a simple translation could mean anything. If the latin phrase is something genuinely Roman, then it likely refers to the pagan god Janus Bifrons, normally known as Janus but in rural areas, particularly Etruria, alternatively known as Bifrons which might inmdicate an early example of Roman assimilation of local deities. Note how the Christian church has demonised pagan mythology over the centuries

In North Korea, any overt religious display would be suspicious to the authorities. I imagine owning the Koran wouldn't be any less provocative. That's because it's a communist country which supplants religion with political worship. Russia used to do that - it was only their desperation in the early days of the Patriotic War that Stalin allowed churches to reopen in order to bolster civilian morale. I suspect something similar might be seen as a marker of DPRK's perception of their plight.

Indeed, but that region had long been variable. Ramses the Great had moved his captal from Thebes to a city on the eastern branch of the Nile Delta, called Pi-Ramesses. Around a century or two after he died, the city was in trouble because the waterway it was built on had silted up and the water taken another course. It transpires that the populace moved their city, stone by stone, to a new site at Tanis - which also went dry only this time the city was abandoned.

Using Google Translate I get In the past, things bifrons prudence affairs / elicited keen mind and a sound reflector. This is a curious sentence as it appears more medieval than Roman because it refers to ... The Demon Bifrons. Therefore we have someone telling us that Bifrons used to be a source of information and encouraged learning, typical of an older view of sorcery which was magic learned from demons and thus a crime against God.

I think we often forget how much the coastline changes around Britain. The white cliffs of Dover (mentioned by Cicero in his letters) have eroded around a kilometre inland since Caesar's time. Beaches have come and gone, harbours built and lost, and so forth. Finding a historical landing point isn't something I would have thought was a simple exercise unless you're lucky to be talking about an area that hasn't changed much and has reliable and generous information. Let's be honest, whilst the Romans left a great of writing for us, they rarely go into much detail about their subjects.

Given how much religious persecution Christianity has handed out over the centuries, seeing them complain that it's happening to them is a bit hypocritical in my book.

Why are Christians getting a star treatment? What colour did the Colosseum get lit for the plight of the Rohingya moslems? Okay, some Christians are having problems. So are some moslems, hindus, Buddhists, or other faiths. Come to think of it, why hasn't anyone worried themselves about the continuing plight of Christians in parts of Africa beset with some of the worlds worst atrocities? A good cause? No, no better than anything else, just one cause someone wanted to make a big deal out of. Not that lighting the Colosseum is going to make the slightest difference whatsoever.

As often happens in human societies the problem of what to do with the dead changes with the scale of the problem. In the same way that the Victorians eventually accepted the necessity of cremation to deal with the sheer numbers of deceased in London, so the Romans adapted their methods to deal with the relative lack of space in burial grounds around Rome. After all, Roman settlements are notable for the long lines of small mausoleums and memorials built along roadsides out of town.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say he found more than five thousand words with common lingual roots? - this is typical of a great many languages that have come down through the Indo-European tree.

Actually latin was not so pervasive. Italy had something like twenty languages lasting in regional use well into the imperial period, and quite possibly, in family use for longer still. The provincialisation of Italy that occurred during the imperial period fostered the use of latin, mostly via masculine vocational demands. For the city of Rome, latin was the language to be spoken if one wanted to impress your betters, but then, we only have clues to how educated latin was spoken, whereas the less precise slang and banter of common people is almost impossible to discern unless you depend on graffiti - which luckily for us the Romans indulged quite a lot, and yes, they were a bit obsessed with sexual prowess Of course it ought to be noted that greek was the lnigua franca of the empire as a whole, not Latin.

The idea of classical modelling wasn't specific. As I said, the founding fathers were well acquainted with graeco-roman history as it was understood in the 18th century and simply took ideas from it to suit themselves. A slavish re-enactment of Roman politics was never going to be on the cards given the cultural differences and ambitiions of the colonies compared to the classical societies they were borrowing from.

Of course the suffering of Jesus is accentuated in biblical tales to induce a measure of human sympathy. Nonetheless, he was sentenced as a criminal, rightly or wrongly, and the idea that he 'died for our sins' is merely a Christian attempt to cover the judicial aspects with religious significance that was unlikely in the event to say the least. Jesus had pretty much doomed himself by becoming a popular preacher - authorities in the ancient world and particularly the hotbed of the middle east did not like popular preachers because they represented a potential threat to civil order. After all, Jesus was supposed to have been claiming his royal credentials, which would have been a damning statement of intent to rebel in Roman minds.

Whether a story/gospel fitted the 'overall narrative' was a decision of the Romans in the fourth century and argued over ever since. As much as I've been reliably informed that the Bible contains valuable sociological info, the 'story' is extremely dubious in many degrees and certainly cannot be regarded as a reliable historical source - it was never intended to be, since it contained the censored material conducive to religious conformity as patronised by Constantine I in the first instance.

No. it expresses a model of Roman transport based on modern paradigms. For instance, it does not model the ignorance of the casual traveller - many Romans, whether freeborn or enslaved messengers, had no idea where their destination was whereas the user of ORBIS clearly would do. Optimal travel routes are therefore a bit fortunate. Granted the Romans had some access to route maps but these would have been rare and expensive. To be a bit nitpicky, it does not model risks of travel such as weather, violence, or crime. Travellers were sometimes at risk of capture by unscrupulous individuals and enslavement in rural barracks, or similar treatment from pirates.

The founding fathers, among others, were learned men and had a grounding in the classics, thus they were well aware of the ancient governmental systems of Rome and Greece as they were understood back then. Many people criticise the Roman system - and to be fair, it was never really conducted in the manner intended - but as an example of a civilisation that threw off the yoke of tyrannical kings in favour of representation and so forth, the Republican system had a lot to offer the Americans who were miffed at the lack of representation in England.

There was a notable change for the worse. However, Marius had always been prone to personal rivalries, particularly Metellus and Sulla, thus in a sense one wonders if he wasn't his own worse enemy. In fact, in order to secure consular command on one occaision he attempted to spark a war with Pontus by insulting their king, who was a little wiser than Marius hoped for.

Sailors used to navigating the waters around might have had some clear idea but most people didn't have the same geographical/spacial awareness we take for granted today. The Romans often used maps based on linear depictions of their road network, showing connections rather than placement. It has been noted that many Romans began long journeys across their empire or even beyond without any real idea of where their stated destination actually was. In the grand scale, both Rome and China knew about the other by way of tales and rumour spread by merchants (a bare minimum of diplomatic contact was attempted either way without any real success) but the exact area of the other would not have been known.

Personally I'm not convinced by the explanations of Jesus as something immortal, divine, or mission oriented. That's nothing to do with your scholarship I have to say but rather that Christianity has a very long history of explaining away awkward inconsistencies or statements by the very sort of contextual tweaking you relayed above. I saw the same thing in a tv series once, by way of analogy, where a solider goes to his padre and asks why he can be a paid solider for his country when the ten Commandments says he cannot kill. Ahh, said the Padre, but the rule is that you cannot murder. Killing is just fine as long as it's justifiable. Phew said the soldier, I was in a tight spot there. Okay, that's a bit of drama on television which we shouldn't take too seriously, but the message is there in a different context, an underlying concept that Christianity has a moral prerogative and as long as you can stretch the rules to fit, then the rules still apply and everything's good. That is for me one of the reasons I reject Christianity as a personal belief, but that's another subject. Purges against Christians in the Principate were hardly consistent or frequent. it is true that Christian cults had attracted rumours of such things as cannibalism, vampirism, sacrifice of infants, all misinterpretations of rituals observed, but there was little actual accusation of rebellion, the most glaring being the accusation made by Nero, correctly or not, that Christians were responsible for the Great Fire of Rome in 64. It is true there were a great many disaffected Judaeans around. Groups dedicated to political violence, pretty much an ancient manifestation of terrorism if you like, existed, much like the hard line Islamic State is among modern Islamic communities, and behaved in similar ways. There is also the Book of Revelations, which although the modern end-timer faithful insist is a modern prophecy which has failed to transpire since the first public proclamations of 1844, can be read as anti-Roman propaganda, and indeed some scholars have put forward the view it was written by Judaean exiles in protest of the Roman occupation. it is true that the Judaean people had religious beliefs that did not sit well with Roman culture, either way, and Pilate's habit of decorating his home with images of Roman military and religious icons caused Tiberius to order him to cease the practice for the outrage among the province it caused. Tiberius did not order a persecution of the Jews, merely told Pilate to stop annoying them.

Jesus is not unique. There had been a line of charismatic prophets attracting large crowds - all came to a sticky end from the authorities. What is unusual is the persistence of Christianity but I suppose I have to credit adoption by Rome for that, though in fairness, the cult was growing in numbers prior to the 4th century. Now whether jesus had a divine mission is a matter of faith. Historically, he did apparently claim to be the Son of God, but this is a somewhat vague accolade under investigation because it was never clarified what he meant. Did he mean that he was actually the progeny of God? Did he mean was a son of God in a Romanesque adoptive style? Or was it analogous, claiming he was in a special relationship with God? It doesn't actually matter, because Pilate saw an opportunity to claim that Jesus was not giving the Roman Caesar due deference and indeed by denying Roman religion was being rather insulting to Rome. I don't see any particular struggle in judaean hearts and minds. Some would have accepted Jesus at face value, swept away by the moment and the presence of Jesus in sermons. Others, probably most, would have been curious but not actually committed. A fair number would have been there to see what all the fuss was about and likely thought Jesus an amusing act or perhaps an outright liar. We have to note that there was no sudden suppression of the cult by Pilate even though he had a reputation, well deserved, for such brutality (He would eventually be arrested and exiled for a slaughter), nor were the followers of Jesus arrested at all. It was enough in Roman eyes to decapitate the movement, for without Jesus, regardless of the messages or sermons, would not have their charismatic leader. The disunited condition of the early churches was sufficient for the Roman/Judaean authorities to feel assured that no insurrection was possible.

It's wrong to see the Roman Empire in quite that way. For instance, the universal census you claim was ordered by Caesar Augustus has no evidence for it. The political actions of Pontius Pilate were clumsy and brutal - which eventually caused his demise - but otherwise no different to any provincial governor in that he was there to oversee the province - not to rule it as such, though like all governors he was in position to influence events and profit from them. The local government had gotten a little worried by Jesus because his ability to draw crowds was disruptive and potentially politically dangerous. They were unable to stop him sufficiently thus turned to the governor, Pilate, to ask if he could sort it it out. Pilate duly had Jesus arrested and under questioning found some cause to have him punished for. Threat removed. In that respect the Four Gospels relate historical events but the narrative is hugely creative. The supposed miracles are quite similar to acts of Indian gods, known to the Roman world at the time, and it's incredibly hard to imagine that a man who could walk on water, cure any illness or disability, and feed thousands out of thin air was not going to receive an express ticket to Capri to demonstrate these powers to Tiberius himself. What is true is that early Christianity was not a united movement. It consisted of local churches and hierarchies. When Constantine looked around for ways to cement his shattered empire back together he could see Christianity and its non-roman communal aspect of worship as something inherently social, as a military man might well do. Therefore he patronised Christianity and pushed them to unite and conform to a common theme, hence the description of Ammianus Marcellinus of "roads filled with galloping bishops" as they realised that land and wealth were theirs if they complied. The concept of enrichment, hardly alien to Roman mindset, was part of the Romanised christianity from the start, and one 4th century writer said "make me a Bishop of Rome today and I'll become a Christian tomorrow", referring to the wealth that cult leaders attracted. It is from this time that the Four Gospels were chosen as canon and other gospels rejected, though the charge of heresy and pressure to conform did not succeed in fully uniting the Church - and never would.

Gobblum gobblum.

By the standards of the late empire the commanding officer would be keen to get his slice of the action. The feoderati however would feel aggrieved that they were having to purchase something that they would ordinarily expect to 'requisition' or be supplied with, thus arguments and thefts would break out even if Rome's soldiers were expected to swear an oath not to steal from each other - but then, they would argue that this was not a military supply but a commercial transaction from an individual. The other side of the coin is that the bad feeling would cause issues for the smooth order of army business, something a more cautious general would most definitely be concerned about. It's also likely by the way that the legionaries would know what was going on and given their penchant for verbal messages, would no doubt inflame the situation with some mockery of the feoderati's plight. In short, you're are eventually looking at a mutiny of the feoderati who would no doubt see the official's money chest as rightfully theirs.