Maladict

Maybe so, but he let himself get dangerously close to plagiarism in that one scene I mentioned. I don't think he intended the audience to be thinking about that while watching the movie. The other stuff doesn't bother me as much because, as you say, it does the job it was made for.

No better way to illustrate the harbinger of doom than Dio lyrics

Was Zimmer also responsible for that weird Holstian rip-off in one of the arena scenes? If so he should really consider retirement.

That's exactly what I meant. But on the whole I think Christian interference was benificial to the structure.

Welcome to the forum As for the cross, the Church's claim on the Colosseum as a place of martyrdom is a bit dubious I believe. I can think of only one instance where a Christian was killed in there, but there could well be more. On the other hand, claiming it as a sacred place did help to protect the structure, and I suppose they could have done worse than just plant a cross.

Here's a start.

Early onset Alzheimer's. Let's hope he doesn't lose the plot too soon.

I suppose you could tell by my name Such a shame about his condition though, nobody deserves to go out like that.

Except of course Judah, son of Jesus. Kind of strange to take the four names that match the relations mentioned in the writings as statistically significant while leaving out the one that doesn't.

Not sure that was the direct result of the destruction of the aqueducts. There were plenty of wells in the city, and (some of) the aqueducts were very likely restored after the war. But you're basically right, it didn't help.

I thought the identification of the 'Magdalene' tomb was the one singled out for criticism by most scholars.

Many historians keep rambling on about how terrible the sack of 410 was for the city (conveniently ignoring the ones in 455 and 472), but I think fifth-century Rome took a much heavier beating from mother nature. It's not just the earthquakes (and I believe there were even more than those listed here), but also devastating floods.

I would really hate having to rush through all of Italy, let alone France, in less than two weeks. Let's say you'd effectively have 12 days, excluding the trip to and from Rome. You'll need at the very least four days for Rome itself, which leaves eight. A few day trips from Rome would be in order, let's say one to Ostia, one to Hadrian's Villa and Praeneste and one to Cerveteri and Tarquinia. Five days left. Pompeii is a must, and you might as well rebase to Naples. So that's one day for Pompeii, one day for Herculaneum and nearby sites (Boscoreale, Oplontis, Stabiae), one day for Naples itself, one day for the campi Flegrei (Cumae, Baia, Pozzuoli) and then there's just a single day left. An agonizing choice between many of the great sites that still remain in the proximity of Rome and Naples: Capua, Benevento, Capri, Nemi, Albano Laziale, Terracina, Gaeta, Veii etc etc. That's 12 days of top tier Roman sites, all within an hour's driving from Rome and Naples. What's the point in crossing half of Europe, too essentially see less because you lose so much time in transit and changing hotels every day? Just my 2 cents.

Fascinating stuff caldrail, I've never heard of that story. How far back does it date?

By that standard, nothing in ancient history will ever impress you. That's a bit harsh. If someone comes out and says "I've found the tomb of Jesus", they'd better have some hard facts or utterly convincing hypotheses to back that up. If they don't, you'd be right in being unimpressed by the statement. It's not so much the inadequate evidence, that's what ancient history is all about, but rather the nature of the claims made that is the problem here. For me, at least.

Been watching QI, have we? Excellent show.

Happy New Year

Good review, I agree on most issues. The trouble with the game (and all of the total war series) is that it tries to be a strategy game, but it really isn't. It's a bunch of tactical battles, and completely lacking in economic, political and cultural depth.

I'm afraid witnessing these 'seminal moments' of Roman history would generally be huge let-downs, if they actually happened at all. Many of them are only important in hind-sight, and would not have been thought of as such at the time. I'd rather spend the time just wandering around the empire, finding out if we've gotten things right about the material culture, and looking for things that have now vanished without a trace. That said, I doubt I could resist following an emperor around, seeing him go about his business for a day or so.

Sweet, I'll be in Rome when it opens

Most roads in the Barrington are unnamed.

I thought the identification was a bit premature too. Until they come up with something that can be securely dated, it could be anything really. But I guess that doesn't sell very well.

Well, the name Bel Riose was chosen for a reason. I remember making the connection the other way around, having read the Foundation before I'd ever heard of Belisarius. Bit embarrassing, but there you go.

That could be what I was looking for, though it doesn't ring any bells. Do you have any ideas yourself?

I thought Belisarius was a corruption/latinization of his Illyrian name. I'd have to look it up, because the original name did mean something.