Furius Venator

Shurely: People from Scotland to Armenia could fairly claim to be Roman if they held the citizenship.

Interesting. It's good of him to take the time to do this sort of thing. I'd have liked to have seen him pressed just a teensy bit more on the difference between choosing between historical alternatives (eg Brutus noble born or plebian) and disregarding perfectly good history in order to make a 'better' story. But I admit I'm biased.

Senior citizens... They always used to be 'pensioners' or just plain 'old people'. and of course the infamous Lambeth Council 'Ba Ba Blue Sheep' from the early 80s...

I'd like to see the Czechs win it. Or failing that, a rank outsider from outside the traditional footballing areas of S America and Europe, like Australia or Iran. Not very likely though, especially as this time the African nations seem rather weaker than previously.

Fifa's current top 20: 1 Brazil 2 Czech Republic 3 The Netherlands 4 Mexico 5 USA 5 Spain 7 Portugal 8 France 9 Argentina 10 England 11 Nigeria 11 Denmark 13 Italy 14 Turkey 15 Cameroon 16 Sweden 17 Egypt 18 Japan 19 Germany 20 Greece Even if we ignore the order, Egypt, Japan, Greece and USA are certainly not top 20 teams. It's perhaps debatable whether Turkey, Greece, Denmark and Nigeria are also. Does anyone seriously (apart from FIFA and some of the Czech fans perhaps) really consider the Czechs to be the second best team in the world? Or the current Dutch side the third? And Mexico? Top ten maybe but that's about it. Probably half their top ten are uncontentious (even if the order is ignored). I don't quite see the necessity for Fifa rankings, but their current system is hugely flawed.

Of course bookies' odds also reflect the betting. So teams that lots of folk are betting heavily on (England) get lower odds. But you're right, FIFA rankings are a waste of time.

Personally, I dislike this kind of slightly subtle fear-kindling/hate-mongering. I assume the crazed Admiral is expecting the good citizens of Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt to suddenly decide that piracy is a good way of making money and that their government's will sit back and watch with smug satisfaction as hordes of badly sunburned north Europeans get their come uppance. Honestly, I've not heard anything as silly as this for years.

Look, it's a straightforward job. My Latin's extremely rusty now but I can get the gist without effort. You'll have a vocabulary in the back of your textbook. Use it. Really though, what does it profit you to have someone do this for you? Hints: sum= I am Cerebrus is the name of Pluto's pet doggy.

Why? Weren't you paying attention in class? Here's an easy one to practise on: Civile, si ergo, fortibusis in ero! Vassis inem, causan dux! Gnossis vile demsis trux.

If only the egregious Conn's books could be shuffled from this mortal coil...

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant the number of the legions (as in legio I or legio III) rather than the numbers of men in the legions.

None of the literature give any hint to legion numbering. I don't think there's any archeological evidence either I'm afraid. I'm slightly puzzled as to why it matters which legions were involved given their impermenance at the time.

But it is true that friendlies allow more substitutes, often involve weaker than normal teams/squads and are generally not played to quite the same intensity as competitive matches. Maybe that's what he meant? Argentina have won more though... That said, I think the current England side have the potential to be frighteningly strong, in four years time. By then, Beckham will be gone and Ferdinand probably have been exposed as the weakest of the potential centre backs. If they have the gumption to switch to wing backs, they'll be able to field their strongest players in a way that suits their style. Even if they stick to 4-4-2 (which I think likely as the players seem unable to embrace anything else happily) then Robinson A. Cole Carragher Terry King ? Gerrard Lampard J. Cole Rooney Owen would be a formidable starting 11, with only one tricky spot to fill and only two other 'questionables' (Carragher and King). Realistically, England should hope for a quarter final place this time round, with a semi spot if the draw is kind. Next time round though, a last 4 place would be a realistic aim.

Well the Greeks can't really be regarded as an empire. Possibly the short lived empire of Alexander of Macedon might be an exception, but the Greeks had no unity in political terms. They were a collection of warring city states and petty kingdoms, later forming small leagues or empires, later still becoming a ruling caste in an assortment of kingdoms carve dout of Alexander's fleeting empire. Though the Romans suffered civil wars, they had a central government ythat Greece lacked. Comparing Greek civilisation to Roman would be a different matter.

It is possible to compare them, or at least elements of what they achieved. The problem is that so many people have a set opinion that they cannot be objective. Similarities: They both fought large numbers of engagements, around 50 battles/sieges each, though Caesar fought more 'proper' battles than did Alexander. Whilst Alexander was undefeated in his five 'big' battles/sieges and Caesar suffered reverses in two of his 10 or so, Caesar's reverse was relatively minor at Gergovia, more serious against Pompey (though Pompey's failure to exploit means that the result was really inconclusive). They both conquered the greatest empires of their day and fought on three continents (if we allow the Indian subcontinent as separate). They both served on campaign for about 15 years as supreme commanders of the forces under their control. They both faced mutinies and dealt with them effectively. They were both (in all likelihood) assassinated. They were both famous for their speed of manouever. They were both popular with the rank and file. Differences: Their command styles were wildly different but both were suited to the armies they led. Alexander was an absolute ruler as well as general, which Caesar was not until he took the dictatorship. There are other similarities and differences, but none of the differences really amount to much as far as military matters go. Not much to choose between them as commanders. Perhaps better to ask, whom would you rather have served as a high ranking officer?

It's unlikely that in Caesar's time the numbered legions were referred to by anything but number, though it is possible that they had informal nicknames. I'm unaware of any accounts describing any of his legions changing sides in battle, and I'm pretty certain that none changed sides during the civil wars. Or do you mean by 'turned' that they retreated or routed. Caesar's troops quite often suffered reverses, though I can't offhand recall the third (did he actually command a Legio III at any stage anyway?) being mentioned in this regard. In Gaul, Caesar's legions were numbered VII and up. It might help if you could be a little bit clearer about where and when this is meant to have occurred.

Your solution is simple root for England in one half, whoever they're playing in the other (toss a coin to decide which half for which team). Problem solved...

A typical US misconception. The English are competing. Most Scots will be roaring on whoever England are playing. Don't ask why, it's just traditional.

I'd say there might be a case for returning things that were removed illegally within living memory (say 75 years or post 1930). The rest is just one of those things really, it's silly to think that countries can be held accountable for the actions of previous generations.

[q]The 'noble savage' of history theory rises again with a touch of civilization this time. [/q] No mention of their head-taking activities then? Or human sacrifice... Or reputation for alcoholism.

Arrian III.9 contains a summary of what Alexander is meant to have said at his 'officer's call' prior to the battle. It seems plausible enough but contains nothing that any sensible general would not have said. Diodorus might have a pre-battle speech, I can't remember.

I've certainly never heard of such a thing. At least I don't recall reading it in any ancient source or modern text. Sounds rather unlikely to me...

Daydream Believer by the Monkees, which I find curiously pleasing. Hello Goodbye by the Beatles, which is less pleasing but adequate.

Series one and two arrived this morning (never do anything by halves....) I shall begin watching this evening.

See folk think that about Syme. But there's little sense of that in his book. Or rather there is, but his hatred isn't confined to the Principate. He hates everyone. That's the strength of his work. He's unrelentingly harsh on the lot of them. He's not so much anti-Augustan as anti-everyone.