Maladict

No, it will still take highly trained professionals to interpret the results. If your suggested technique becomes readily available to anyone with a passing interest, it would be a disaster for archaeology. What's with all the thread necromancy by the way?

Claudius was given the agnomen Germanicus before his accesion, and retained it no doubt because of his brother when he became emperor. When offered the title Britannicus after his conquest of Britain, he refused it but gave it to his son, who was from then on known as Britannicus. So basically the agnomen is strictly personal and based on military feats, the only thing missing is why Claudius was given the agnomen Germanicus in the first place. Interestingly, the agnomen Germanicus was originally also bestowed on the father, Nero Claudius Drusus, who also accepted it on behalf of his son, 'Germanicus'. edit: The title Germanicus does seem to have been hereditary. From wiki: His (Drusus') family was granted the hereditary honorific "Germanicus", which was given to his eldest son before passing to his youngest.

Not sure why you bring up those examples. As I said, by the time of the Enlightenment people like Gibbon had very little to fear from the Church. They would be criticized, yes, but not hindered. I'm sure Gibbon made some more mistakes, everyone does when writing a huge work like his.

No, I don't think he did, but I also never said he did. Gibbon lived at the time of the Enlightenment. If anything, it was becoming fashionable to reject the established Christian version of Roman history. He may have been one of the first, and probably the most prominent, but he was not alone and he did not really have anything to fear from the Church.

PM sent, and a big public thank you to all who made this possible! :thumbs_up:

I'd make that "never let Gibbon be your guide". His literary achievement and the grand scope of his works are not in doubt, but his bigotry against Christianity really has to go. It's no wonder he loves a character like Julian, and therefore should not be taken as anything approaching an objective view. Gibbon never really has one.

No need to apologize, and thanks for merging those threads.

Heh, that confused me a bit at first But there you have it, no proof whatsoever.

You must be referring to this: I've never seen any picture of it, despite claims of that city having been found.

Stupid question, and slightly off topic, but I just can't seem to find the answer anywhere: What adjective goes with Sol Invictus? I mean, someone who believes in Christianity is a Christian, someone who believes in Sol Invictus is a ....? Sol Invictian? Sol Invictor? It seems all the texts go out of their way to avoid having to use that adjective.

The Dominate, without a doubt.

Try finding the book "Emperors don't die in bed", or something similar, by dr. Fik Meier. It describes the locations and circumstances of the deaths of all emperors up to 476. If you decide to make your list I'd be happy to assist.

Camping your armies under the walls of Ctesiphon hardly constitutes "trying to preserve the provinces established by Diocletian". It is because his reign was so short that we can only guess as to what his long term ambitions would have been. Part of his 'enigma', for better or worse.

Not when you have absolute power. Besides, emperors are human too. Read Julian's 'Mispogon', it's a fascinating insight into his persona.

He outlived her; she was buried in the still intact mausoleum next to Sta Constanza in Rome.

Am I correct to assume that you mean the persecutions and repressions COMMITTED by the Christians? No, that's not what I meant. The Pantheon reference threw me off topic, I was referring to Rome rather than Alexandria.

He was married to Helena (Constantius' sister).

I think one of the causes of his failure was that he did not intent to restore the old religion, but introduce a kind of Neoplatonism he had developed himself, something the people undoutedly had a hard time understanding.

Julian was always a pagan at heart, he merely had to keep up the pretense until he became emperor. Why he tried to 'undo' Christianity, something he could not realistically have expected to pull off, I don't know, but it made him one of the most intriguing emperors. If you'd like to know more, I can highly recommend Gore Vidal's "Julian", a novel but very well researched.

I might be interested to do a small piece on Anicia Faltonia Proba, but at the moment I really don't have the time for it.

I'd say it was the catalyst, yes.

Actually I was responding to the original question, not the 'what if' scenario.

Don't forget that Southern Italy was, for all intents and purposes, Greek territory. They, especially the traders and craftsmen, mized easily and freely with the Etrurians and Latins to the north. But also remember that it was not a one-way process. The Greeks were not superior, even though some Romans seemed to feel that way.

Absolutely, although I suppose pictures will be published well before that time.

An extraordinary discovery. According to some of the news sources they will go on display in February, which coincidentally is when I'll be in Rome