Tribunicus Potestus

Actually it doesn't; if you consider the fact that lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) can interbreed as can some of the variosu species/ subspecies of horses and donkeys all it actually means is that the individuals concerned are to some extent or otherwise interfertile even if such offspring may themselves usually be sterile. Yes, I knew that but was too lazy to come back and fix that. Nonetheless we are speaking of fertile offspring if we want to speculate on differing groups of humans interbreeding and passing their genes down to us.

They may not have conveived a definite picture of the edges of the earth, but they were keenly aware that they didn't know everything. Caligula's legions were not happy at the prospect of crossing the english channel and invading Britain, largely out of superstition, thus he made them collect seashells on the beaches as a means of berating them for cowardice, though in fairness I doubt Caligula really understood what a serious foreign campaign involved. Whilst the Romans eagerly recorded what they learned of faraway places, there was still a great deal of mystery. As for superstition, it's widely recognised that the Romans were indeed among the superstitious peoples of the world. They were wary of crossing rivers for fear the local gods would get upset, for instance, and why else did they make sacrifices aboard ships before a battle to determine whether they had the gods favour? Let me rephrase my statement. I did not mean to imply that most or even many Romans were not superstitious. Just that a "flat earth" concept would not be held by greek educated romans, as differentiated from the ranks of legions, they however would have been familiar with Eratosthenes and his proof of the earths roundness and his calculation of it's approximate size. I recall seeing a roman coin years ago that had a globe on it. With the renaissance Eratosthenes was rediscovered and was the argument used at the Spanish court for not supporting Columbus's request for ships and money. His position was that the earth was narrower east to west than north to south. Eratosthenes only proved its size in the longitude not the latitudes. Columbus knew his argument was unassailable even if he probably didn't believe it. He just had to close the deal. Don't forget that the divine Julius had landed in britain and that the stories of blood thirsty woad painted savages on chariots with blades in the wheels would have been circulated and no doubt exaggerated by the rank and file. Both heroes and monsters grow in the retelling.

Centurion, I see you have taken Optio Cato's lessons to heart and can now read and write. You may make primus pilus yet! My wife and I have begun reading the Simon Scarrow books. Good stuff.

Your local library will have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita it is a good start. Books by Joseph Campbell frequently have hindu stories. If you like what you read then you can expand from there to the rest of the Mahabharata and onto other Upanishads. Carl Sagan's Cosmos refers to Hindu ideas about the size of the Universe and their scale of time. Of all the religions of man it is the only one that is similar to our modern understandings in that regard.

This is an outrage! How dare those flea bitten poor-relations of the greeks claim to have invented concrete before the noble people of Rome? If the senate won't act on this I say take it to the Tribunes. I say Amphipolis must burn!!! Though I am past my prime, I stand ready sword in hand to make these semi-barbarians swallow their words. Dignitas demands! Who stands with me?

If two individuals can interbreed then by definition they are the same species. My argument is not with the interbreeding which if it could have happened then it must have happened. But rather with the use of the term "species".

At the very least they would have reached Somalia on the way to India and back. I don't think the tigers in the amphitheater could have made the trip overland. The idea of tigers in cages on the backs of camels crossing deserts is laughable. They must have come up the Red Sea.

I don't have an opinion as to which is more ethical. But to a practical point. The pantheon was a hodge podge of older religions from many groups and much as Hinduism does by incorporating popular cults from many sources no single cult (most romans had their personal favorite) was able to gain ascendency and the state was not threatened. So from a purely political and social standpoint polytheism is the wiser course. One might say that my last statement is a Consequentialist position and therefore an ethical position. So therefore I do have a position on the ethical merits. Dratz...

Can you identify some of those places? (specially if they are accesible online). Try Alexandria where the christian mob murdered Hypatia,and burned the great library. If you would like examples have you never wondered why so many stone figures from antiquity have their noses broken? The early christians thought them pagan idols. This is not unique the Roundheads in the english civil war lopped off the heads of the saints in churches and monasteries, because they thought them idolatry. Christian missionaries destroyed idols of the natives in Tahiti and in recent times the Taliban destroyed buddhist monuments that had existed for hundreds of years. Ignorance and intolerance flourishes when the mob (plebs) are in power. Sometimes it is just plain stupidity such as when french troops shot the nose off of the Sphinx. But sometimes it is a systematic program of intimidation.

May I point out the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I think the statement that the "Polynesians never made a hop ... more than 500 miles", is better said that "Polynesians made at least a hop of 500 miles." I would even go so far as to say that a people with stone age technology made at least a hop of 500 miles in dugout canoes. What might an iron age people be capable of with actual ships?

You missed the answer, in my Point 1: Pereidolia, the human tendency to recognise familiar objects in random shapes. IE clouds shaped like bunny rabbits, the Man in the Moon, Satan's visage in a column of smoke pouring from the North Tower. This is the nature of human sight. To map an object on what we see. With more details our image either solidifies or changes to a better approximation of what it is. I'm sure we have all seen in a darkened room a coat hanging on a rack or thrown on a chair and thought it to be a person until we had enough detail to resolve it for what it is. But if you keep examining a rabbit and it remains a rabbit rather than resolving into something else then you are probably looking at a rabbit.

Actually I don't happen to believe Columbus was first across the Atlantic. As for the various cultures and factions who have a claim to that prize, I don't know, I haven't seen any overwhelming evidence, though I can accept the Vikings reached Newfoundland as at least potentially possible. However, Columbus wasn't being honest. Clearly he knew, rather than believed,, that a land mass was just over the horizon. it may well be he thought that was the orient, since the idea of a spherical Earth was being discussed from that period. His behaviour as recorded in the story is fairly typical of a sea captain with a hidden rutter (a handbook of handwritten notes and maps pertaining to sea travel, very rare before nautical charts and much prized) to guide him. So who got there before Columbus? No idea. If that happened the unknown captain kept quiet for fear the profit of his discovery would be lost, but that of course raises the question of how the rutter, if it existed, came into Columbus's possession. Yes, Columbus does appear to have held secret knowledge, but did it come from a near contemporary as you seem to hold forth or was it ancient sources? I think the latter. Education was much valued in Moorish Spain. Much of the ancient works that have managed to reach us were preserved by the arabs in east and copies would have been highly prized in Spain. There might have been much more had the mongols not thrown all the texts they found in Bagdad into the Tigris. The story is that so many scrolls were thrown into the river by the mongols that it turned yellow. Let us not rule out private collections of ancient texts held by jews in Spain they had been present there since Punic times Maimonides being a prime example of their high education. A widely held theory in Spain is that Columbus or Colon as it is spelt there is believed to have been a spanish jew and that the Italian story was simply a cover to allow him not to be expelled in 1492. There is evidence that this is true off the top of my head one is that letters to and from his brother in Italy are written in spanish and not italian. I think the viking presence in North America is a certainty not a possibility. One indication that I've not heard but seems indicative to me is when one looks at the form of an Iroquois longhouse. It looks to me like what the vikings would have built for shelter. Take a long boat flip it over and you have an instant roof put it up on walls and voila you're good to go. The Iroquois would not have had the long boats but might have copied the look. The round earth was not being spoken of from the 15th century AD but the 3rd century BC, Erastosthenes also calculated the circumference to within 7 percent of its actual dimension and this is what was being quoted in Spain by scholars. If you have enough boats for long enough sooner or later people are going to cross oceans with them.

Agora. It is the story of Hypatia and the loss of the Library at Alexandria. They give her scientific discoveries that we don't know she made. But try to diminish the horror of her death. Artistic license if it can't be disproved and it helps the story toss it in. It is worth watching. Hypatia has been a hero of many people including Carl Sagan. In her time she was famous as philosopher, scientist, and teacher, she was also reputed to be beautiful. The movie shows the disintegration of order in the empire and the rise of religious fanaticism.

Indeed, it was an hypothesis which was found to be valid 1900 years later. In much the same way as Leucippus and Democritus' hypotheses regarding atoms were subsequently found to be valid. Historically speaking, nothing is actually 'modern' prior to the year 1500. But I think it is fair to say that, as with so many other aspects of human development, the area of medicine in Roman times was quite advanced, and following the fall of classical culture and the moribund centuries of the early mediaeval age, it took a few hundred years before such advances were at a comparable level. Quite right. The 'modern' atomic theory postulated the existence of atoms long before any good imaging was available. Black holes have never been seen yet were expected and have been detected although they can never be seen. The romans knew the size and shape of the earth without have circumnavigated it. That the earth circled the sun without space travel. Is it so hard believe that they suspected invisibly small things of causing infection? I was surprised to read that here but find it quite acceptable. It is tragic that so much of classical knowledge was lost but it is exciting to see what was not.

As much as I despise Constantine's religious policies, I point out things were becoming dark for Rome long before that. The weaknesses of the Empire were beginning to show themselves around the time of Commodus. And it weren't for Aurelian, the empire as we know it would have ceased to exist in the third century. Yes, however the riff raff were already abandoning the pantheon. As early as Nero non-believers were being blamed for the fires in Rome. Could it be that the growth of the religion I shall not name paralleled the instability in the Empire? As the gods became increasingly irritated would they not meddle with the order within and without the Empire?

Don't be off put by Cato's gruff and brusque nature. He lives up to his namesake whose great grandson punished a married couple for kissing in public. Such a stiff collar or make that toga. And no one but no one named Cato would give the Carthaginians credit for anything good. He would close every meeting of the senate with the words "Carthago delenda est." or "Carthage must be destroyed". He never could get over Hannibal's merry jaunt through Italy.

Rome prospered while they respected the gods of their ancestors. Things went down the Cloaca Maxima after they abandoned them. Just sayin'.

You refer to a single family line that was discredited, that does not change the fact that others did descend from Jefferson. But your point as I see it regards the motives of those making claims to support one or another agenda of the moment. And I agree we have to take a look at the agendas of those pushing a theory for a specific reason unrelated to the search for truth. Some are bound and determined push the claim that Cleopatra was sub-saharan african for their own agendas. While paradoxically the Egyptians are trying to disguise the same "blackness" of Tut and others of the pharaonic lines. We should keep open minds and look to the evidence. The fact that agendas are present does not change the facts, just that the agendas should be taken into account and ignored when considering the facts.

Venus, if she was good enough for the Divine Julius she's good enough for me. (Pssst...don't let on, but I have a hankering for that Tanit wench, she is one sweet looking tart.)

If it were only the Romans who spoke of human sacrifice then the argument that the Phoenicians/Carthaginians did not practice human sacrifice might hold water. But it is not limited to the Romans. The Old Testament speaks of this practice granted in mythological terms but supportive of the theme and the writers were a neighboring sub group of the phoenicians. I would like to propose a supporting argument for the practice of human sacrifice from another angle. I think it entirely possible that the practice was transmitted to Meso America and led to the wide spread practice there beginning with the Olmecs and then passed to the Maya, Toltec, Aztec etc. First allow me to present the evidence for a punic arrival in the New World. My link"]http://phoenicia.org/carthanewworld.html[/url] A recent article showing what appears to be a map of the world on a carthaginian electrum stater. My link This article prompted me to look for evidence on this side of the Atlantic. I found this. My link which speaks of child sacrifice at La Venta. The Olmecs lived concurrently with the Carthaginians. Please be patient and don't jump to conclusions until I have finished my case. Here is an Olmec cup. My link look down the page at the cup titled "Banded Eyed God (IV)" Now compare the figure to this roman mosaic My link (I forgot to mention that the projections from the mouth of the "creature" are described as teeth or a tooth. Could this be a ram? Why would the tooth be projecting forward from the mouth otherwise? I don't know of any animals living in Meso America having a forward projecting tooth or teeth.) The figure on the cup is used in a number of 3 dimensional art works and is described as having an eye that wraps around from front to side. If one were to project a trireme on right angled figure might not the eye wrap? Looking at a trireme would you say the eye is in front or the side? Because of the shape of the ship both are correct. Looking from the front it faces you and looking at the side it also faces you. If you were told this but had never seen a trireme and did not know its shape but had to depict it in stone would you not wrap it so that one could see it from front and side? Experts have been perplexed as to the reason as to why the eye wraps, but if you accept the trireme idea that I've set forth it makes sense. The shape of the eyes on both the trireme and the indian works are very similar. Here is an olmec carving that is purported to be the earliest known representation of the god of the plumed serpent (known to the Aztecs as Quetzalcoatli.) My link If one ignores the distracting square flags and floating belt "what are we looking at?" Is this the front of a trireme? With a man sitting on the ram, perhaps sounding the water and looking out for submerged rocks? The "plumed serpent" god makes me wonder how would a primitive observer of say a group of carthaginians wearing helmets topped with feathers moving in single file describe what he saw? Perhaps "I saw a group of men with feathers moving like a snake." With retelling what would remain would be a snaking figure covered with feathers, and eventually a feathered snake. I compared carthaginian names with the names of Maya gods and think this interesting. Khilletzbaal - compare this with Quetzalcoatl. Could Khilletzbaal have morphed in the retelling? The Mayan word for blood sacrifice is ch'ab, abd is a common prefix in carthaginian names. Abd means means servant or slave in Carthaginian. When Cortez arrived in Mexico he was aided by the belief of the natives that Quetzalcoatl would return and was described as being white. The indians described his ships as great white birds, referring to the sails no doubt. They were expecting his return. Why? That there was an explosion of advancement occurring suddenly beginning with the Olmecs involving art, architecture, agriculture, writing, astronomy etc. can not be questioned. Was it just a coincidence that they appeared when the Carthaginians had the ability to reach the new world? How does one explain the Olmec heads which appear to many including me as distinctly african? My link What is that on his head? It looks like a helmet to me, with a reenforcing strap around the bottom and across the top, that makes no sense for a people without metal. Finally I would like to show this a roman head found in Mexico in 1933. My link

Yes, that is a little known factor in the small population of Mount Olympus. Reproduction was very difficult due to the whole leaf thing. I went to the link above and did not see anything I would call quality copies of ancient works. For anyone interested I found this site a while ago that has first class examples, the life size examples seem to have been made from actual molds of the originals. My link

Strictly speaking he didn't. All he proved was that modern sea travellers could take a reproduction of an egyptian papyrus boat across the Atlantic. Bear in mind that the knoweldge of mariners in those times lacked a certain background and sophistication, not to mention modern era overight/rescue, and some idea of where they were going. I'm not disputing the sailors of the ancient world weren't skilled as voyages across the Indian Ocean are known to have been a regular occurence once the silk road was closed due to barbarian interdiction and the failure of the chinese to maintain security in the Tarim Basin during the 3rd century, more or a less a century after the Silk Road was regarded as open for business. However we do have to realise that geograhical information was not so easily had back then. I'm thinking in terms of a phoenician captain who was followed by a Roman ship toward Britain. The phoenicians beached their ship rather than reveal the harbour they were intending to trade with and the captain received a reward for his foresight and courage in denying the Romans the secret of the trading post. The question of superstition also has an impact. Whereas the chritian view held that the world had an edge and if one sailed too far, you went off the surface of the sea, the ancients did not have such a boundary in mind. However, the unknown reaches were very much a consideration. Most vessels did not sail all day and night for fear of accident, and would find a safe anchorage along the coastline to set out again at first light/morning tide. For that reason alone the exploration of the Indian Ocean was a gradual affair but one that gave sailors confidence that they knew where to go. With the Atlantic - there was nothing but water. I'm not discounting the possibility of long distance travel in ancient times. There is persistent urban legend to that effect though no-one has yet convincingly argued that this was achieved, never mind on a regular basis, and even the journey around Africa by ship has been called into question. The use of re-enactment such as Thor Heyedahls journey provides useful practical knowledge about sea travel in those days but in no way does it prove that the Egyptians were capable of crossing the Atlantic. You make some good points, yes not sailing at night was practiced in Mediterranean but I don't think it was for fear of the open sea but rather fear of beaching or striking rocks. During a storm if you can't make harbor you want to be out to sea. Navigating would have been difficult in fog as well, as the stars would have been obscured. Given a chance and or excuse to go ashore would appeal to any mariner since there were towns all along the coast this may have also played into the practice. As for the exploration of the Indian Ocean being a gradual one, keep in mind that the Phoenician/Carthaginian seamen were not in it for the sake of exploration. They were in it for trade so stopping as soon as you found new customers would make sense. Then and only then having secured a trading post you would go looking for the next pigeon... er, customer. I forgot to mention pirates, the med was teaming with them, defending oneself behind a towns walls would have been much easier than being caught out at sea. Not only did the romans not have a superstitious notion of a flat earth, they knew it to be round and knew its size thanks to Erastothenes. When Columbus sought money for his voyage the objections were not that the earth was flat but that it was too big. Members of the court were familiar with the works of Erastothenes. I was delighted when one of the movies a few years ago has this very argument brought up in a sailors bar. Columbus cuts a section from a melon and squeezes it together saying what if it were like this (football shaped)? Most of the audience might not have appreciated the significance of the scene but it did point out the historical arguments. I have seen a roman coin with globes on it, clearly Erastothenes was known throughout the Roman world.

Strictly speaking he didn't. All he proved was that modern sea travellers could take a reproduction of an egyptian papyrus boat across the Atlantic. Bear in mind that the knoweldge of mariners in those times lacked a certain background and sophistication, not to mention modern era overight/rescue, and some idea of where they were going. I'm not disputing the sailors of the ancient world weren't skilled as voyages across the Indian Ocean are known to have been a regular occurence once the silk road was closed due to barbarian interdiction and the failure of the chinese to maintain security in the Tarim Basin during the 3rd century, more or a less a century after the Silk Road was regarded as open for business. However we do have to realise that geograhical information was not so easily had back then. I'm thinking in terms of a phoenician captain who was followed by a Roman ship toward Britain. The phoenicians beached their ship rather than reveal the harbour they were intending to trade with and the captain received a reward for his foresight and courage in denying the Romans the secret of the trading post. The question of superstition also has an impact. Whereas the chritian view held that the world had an edge and if one sailed too far, you went off the surface of the sea, the ancients did not have such a boundary in mind. However, the unknown reaches were very much a consideration. Most vessels did not sail all day and night for fear of accident, and would find a safe anchorage along the coastline to set out again at first light/morning tide. For that reason alone the exploration of the Indian Ocean was a gradual affair but one that gave sailors confidence that they knew where to go. With the Atlantic - there was nothing but water. I'm not discounting the possibility of long distance travel in ancient times. There is persistent urban legend to that effect though no-one has yet convincingly argued that this was achieved, never mind on a regular basis, and even the journey around Africa by ship has been called into question. The use of re-enactment such as Thor Heyedahls journey provides useful practical knowledge about sea travel in those days but in no way does it prove that the Egyptians were capable of crossing the Atlantic. I am confused. You begin with "strictly speaking he didn't" and then go on to paraphrase my quote repeating the same assertion. I think you read my statement as implying that egyptians made the journey. When I was not even saying that they might have. I was using it as an example of the relative ease with which it could be done by someone familiar with the trade winds. If it could be done with a papyrus fishing boat whether in the ancient past or in modern times it would have been more than possible for seaman like the Carthaginians who were familiar with the Canary Islands. Maybe it is my fault in not having been more clear.