ModernMarvel

The Goths and most of the other 'Germans' were Christians, although they were 'Arians' rather than 'Catholic/Orthodox' - the difference being in what manner Jesus was 'divine' etc. (Sorry no time to go into more detail! Wikipedia under 'Arianism' is a good start.) Theoderic, the 'Gothic' ruler of Italy, appears to have believed in a policy of moderation and cohabitation towards the Catholic Church. Shortly after his reign, the East reconquered Italy and both East and West shared the same religion - the final split between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East wouldn't happen until 1054 (I think!!). In fact, the only 'Germans' (ie. Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths etc) who didn't tolerate Catholicism were the Vandals, and their actions against the Catholic Africans was one of the pretexts for war that Justinian used for his attack under Belisarius. The Popes survived mainly because they did not oppose Gothic rule, since they had no reason to. And don't forget that it was only later that the Pope laid claim to the universal hegemony over the Church, so he was simply a very important 'Bishop' based in Italy. As for books, 'Theodoric in Italy' by John Moorhead or 'Barbarians and Romans' by Randers-Pehrson are good starts. They both also have bibliographies. Aewsome. Thanks so much!!!! I'd like to read about the Pope getting hedgemony over the church...anything there?

My question is this. We all know about Odoacer deposing the boy, Romulus in 476. but what then? What happened in Rome from the 6th century through say, the 9th? How did the Pope survive? How did The church survive the Ostrogoths, Goths, Eastern Imperial invasion, etc. Were the barbarians converted, therefore their destructive hands stayed? Did the Ostrogoth kingdom give Rome and the church clemency? yeah, lots o questions....thanks for the help!!

Some really good points have been made. I suppose only time, and extremely talented historians can sift it all out. Marv

A little context: Panama City was founded in 1519; Havana in 1510; Cortez conquered the Aztecs in 1518. Point being, the conquest of the New World was well underway in 1513, and even illiterate peasants throughout Europe could be expected to have heard something of it. Let alone that Columbus himself had 4 excursions to the New World before his death in 1506. Exactly my point. I believe the Piri Reis map issue is now debunked. Still saying the Vikings As for Panama City and havana, I didn't know that! Thanks for the info! Marv

The southern portion of the map, using the azimuthal equidistant projection, however, exactly depicts the southern part of Tierra del Fuego, Palmer Land and Antarctica, as can be seen at the very end of the article if one scrolls down far enough. No one decided it looks like Antarctica - it just does. Cuba even has a vertical appearance, as dictated by this particular projection of the globe. South Georgia and the Falklands (Malvinas) are shown, which were not discovered until a century or more after the map was complied. This has nothing at all to do with pseudo history, or early explorers mistaking Amerindians for Chinese. Further, the map, far from being strange and awfully wrong, was actually quite accurate - more so than some later maps. I ask again - How did Piri Reis manage to compile a map accurately showing Antarctica and portions of the Americas not yet reached by Europeans? Very simple. I quote from the article: "His high rank within the Turkish navy allowed him to have a privileged access to the Imperial Library of Constantinople. The Turkish admiral admits in a series of notes on the map that he compiled and copied the data from a large number of source maps, some of which dated back to the fourth century BC or earlier." Let us take a look at some of the key words in this quote. Firstly, COMPILED. It means he got the information from various sources. SOME. Some of these compilations go as far back as the 4th century or earlier...not all of them. This thing was drawn in 1513. 20 some years after Columbus. I'm sure an admiral would have heard about Columbus' travels after 20 or-so years. Maybe the oldest parts of information about the map were about Africa and the western parts of Europe. I agree with some of the others here on this. This map, in no way, means that 4th or 5th century B.C. peoples mapped the Atlantic rim. Although I did say earlier that if anyone could do it, it'd be the Carthaginians, I'm not saying they did. As Pantagathus said earlier, the ship would be a tub...not a war ship. The investment needed to make such a trip would be astronomical. I doubt any merchant back then would invest that kind of capital, for an ocean-worthy ship, with AT LEAST 10 years of supplies for an expeditionary voyage to lands that back then, everyone knew didn't exist. On top of all that, the Government could not have financed it either. In the 4th and 5th Centuries BC, when this information was supposedly compiled, Carthage was dealing with a MAJOR problem of it's own. Greece. Carthage was fighting the Greeks at this time. Allying with Persia militarily would not have allowed the Carthaginian Govt. to finance such an expedition. Sorry, a 16th century map that has information about the Americas and Antarctica, with no reference to the sources, or the ages of said sources is not evidence at all to me. COULD the Carthaginians make it to America, sure...WOULD they or DID they, more than likely not...

Ahh, yes. New claims seem to come out every other year. Coming back to the Phoenicians, they were master ship builders and their two deck galleys (with 2 banks of oars) were the finest in ancient times and they were far advanced in ship building techniques than the Romans. They were also excellent navigators and there are accounts of voyages to a mysterious city called Ophir, from where they brought back gold, ivory and other "riches". Well, this land is suspected to be India, from a voyage which probably started in the Red Sea. There is another account of a voyage to the West of Africa and it may be conceivable that Phoenician ships could have been caught in storms off the West Coast and maybe blown off further west, towards South America. I remember also reading about some amphorae that was found by the coast of Brazil but I'm unsure if that was ever positively identified to belong to the ancient Carthaginians (or Phoenicians). Well, if anyone could do it back then, it'd be Carthage. Their ships were fantastic. So were their ports. Very sea going economy. As far as the coin, I did see it on the net. It's weird. A picture of an animal standing on a line, and under that, VERY VERY VERY small, is some blobs. The pro-Carthage historians say this is the "map" of the world....looks like some spilled mustard to me....

Ahh, yes. New claims seem to come out every other year. Heh, heh..I hear that. I think next week the 3 legged eskimos of Vietnam are gonna come out with their discovery of the New World.....

I understand what Moonlapse is saying (although they weren't natives really) I just didn't know about the argument about Carthage. Well, for now, I think I'll stick to vikings..... Marvel

Advantage or not, Scipio was no slouch! Not only that, I dont care if Hannibal had a loincloth and a slingshot and I was in full riot gear....if I beat him, I'd shout it from the mountain tops! Marv

*ugh* So, who did discover the new world? I knew about the Vikings and all. But after reading that article that Northern Neil gave us, I have no clue...I'm so confused....*sigh* I'm gonna go get some coffee....

I absolutely agree with you on Cicero beng close-minded, seeing the malaise of the republic essentially as a matter of personnel problem rather than socio-economical and political crisis. But if you mean Caesarism by 'inevitable', I cannot agree in finding fault with him not accepting it. Moreover, I don't think the rise of Principate was inevitable, but that's another matter. Also I don't see how Cicero is responsible for any lives lost other than 5 Catiline conspirators. Are you suggesting that there would have been no civil war if he had not opposed Antony? No, what I mean is that Cicero should have accepted the fact of the Republic dying. Whether it be by Caesar or someone else. The republic was having death throes. I'm not saying that the principate was inevitable, but what was inevitable was the faltering of the republic. Furthermore, whether Cicero opposed Antony or not, there would have been civil war. By then, the damage had been done. I don't think Cicero was a cause of the civil war, but it didn't help matters with him trying to use Octavian against him. I think that his motives were good, but he way underestimated the saavy nad personal ambition of Octavian.

So Cato, I assume from your response that is pretty much bunk. Is this correct? Marvel

Ok, maybe I'm just slow, but I was looking around on the internet, and I saw an article about Carthage possibly discovering America. Is this a new revelation, or am I just slow to hear about it? Any details would be great. Marvel

I have to go with Caesar. Yes, there were better tacticians in the history of Rome, and better warriors. However, the reason I pick Caesar is because of a few points. 1. Caesar's men were fanatically loyal to him. Not because they had to be, but because they loved him. 2. He was not "above" his men. Yes, he had better accommodations, but he shared in their experiences, and their hardships....to one degree or another. 3. LUCK 4. Inventiveness 5. Lastly, he bought many who didn't love him, and used politics to make things go smoother.

Personally, I think Cicero was a brilliant orator and politician. I think that Cicero was extremely influential in the creation of my beloved United States (Ben Franklin, and some of the other founders were admirers of Cicero). That being said, I feel that Cicero also was extremely close-minded. He tried so desparately to hold on the the republic that was obviously falling apart. I found it sad that he could not see past his own desires to keep "the good 'ole days". Personally, I think if he would have accepted the inevitable, many less lives would have been lost in the battle for power. Marv