Gladius Hispaniensis

That's why France was conquered in a few weeks. You're joking, right? No. I already told you the reason for the German victory. It was original battle tactics and the last minute intervention of Manstein and Hitler himself in formulating Fall Gelb. If the Germans had adhered to the original attack plan that they formulated before, which was almost a replica of the old Schlieffen plan, a German victory would have been doubtful. French tanks were superior to German tanks and so were British. The Stuka was one of the most overrated planes of the War. It was very slow, poorly armoured, and highly vulnerable to fighter attack as was proved in the Battle of Britain, where it got massacred. In short, the Allies were stronger, they just did not know how to make use of their strength. BTW, it was the German General Staff, not me, that considered the French Army the strongest in Europe.

After WW1 Europe was pretty much destroyed. How would these countries just go around and start 'sorting each other out'? It doesn't work that way, at least not when your country is a complete wreck. Well, for one thing France had the strongest army in Europe at that time, much stronger than Germany's. German tanks were much inferior to most Allied ones even in 1940, let alone '37 and '38. It is a well known fact that during the Austrian anschluss the Panzer divisions suffered an enormous rate of breakdowns that drove the Fuhrer apopletic. What won the German victory in '40 was a superior battle doctrine and imaginative use of modern battle tactics, as well as the brilliance of Guderian and Manstein. If Germany had been attacked while it was busy with Poland it could not have sustained a two-front war. During the occupation of the Rhineland Hitler went through some of the most anxious hours of his life, and this is from his own confession. He knew that if France took decisive action at that point Germany would have been done for. France and Britain did not act until very late, fortunately not too late. The end result of WW2 showed how ill equipped Germany was to fight a global war. It could definitely have been taken care of before things got so murderously difficult. What the Polish, Norwegian, and French campaigns did was to allow the Germans to develop and perfect a brilliantly imaginative battle doctrine in the most sure and tested school of warfare - the actual battlefield itself. Plus these campaigns contributed enormously to the aura of German invincibility. Things should not have been allowed to get to that point. But I guess all this is being wise after the event.

By "buggers" I meant the isolationist party in the U.S Congress and Senate, not America as a whole. If France and Great Britain had sorted out Hitler in '37 or '38 it is unlikely we would have seen the carnage of WWI again. Instead what we saw was an even more frightful carnage of WW2

Come again? The Ottoman Empire fell at the end of the First World War. The Armenian genocide occurred during the First World War. How could these have resulted in WWI? The origins of WW2 can be traced to the outcome of WWI but yes, the Second World War was not an inevitability, it was the spineless cowardice and political naivetee of the Western powers, primarily France and Britain, that made it inevitable. There would have been no war if France had acted promptly to the German reoccupation of the Rhineland and if Mr. Chamberlain had not been so intent on pleasing Hitler at Munich. Even after Poland was invaded and France and Great Britain declared war they could not get themselves to attack Germany while it was preoccupied in it's aggression. There is no way the Wehrmacht at that point could have sustained a two-front war. And yes, American isolationism did exacerbate the situation. It took Pearl Harbor for the buggers to come to their senses.

Not quite true. It was Japanese adventurism in Manchuria and elsewhere that led to the U.S embargo on Japan and this was a primary catalyst in the motivation behind the Pearl Harbor attack.

Julius, Prokhorovka is one of the most overrated battles in the War. Check out these links: http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.p...sc&start=15

Obviously I am indulging in a lot of speculation here but since Koine Greek was used more or less within the confines of Alexander's vast empire with it's enormous diversity of subject peoples I think they would have incorporated a lot of their local idioms within their Greek speech over the centuries, with the result that, during, say the time of Augustus, the Koine spoken in Egypt would have probably differed from what was spoken in Gandahara (modern Kandahar) in Afghanistan. To imagine a parallel and more recent situation, imagine the English that was spoken throughout the British Empire. It would have been mutually intelligible to all Commonwealth subjects but each area would have incorporated it's own linguistic peculiarities. So, for example, in India today, many older generation folk will still use Victorian phrases like "to drop in for a spot of tea" or "old chap" etc., but they have some local twists of their own, like "to make both ends meet", etc.

EDIT -- BTW, Laconic dosen't come from Lakedaimon, it comes from Lakonia. Lakonia was the area where Sparta was located

Ave I just watched the programme. It sure is intriguing stuff, but I still think the evidence is too circumstantial. Until they come up with something more substantial I think I'll still reserve my judgment.

Now that I think of it, I remember Plutarch mentioning that the Spartans used a very terse form of speech. I believe the word laconic, in fact, is derived form Ladedaemonian.

Wouldn't surprise me. I've lived in rural Idaho and I still remember some of the old-timer saying "over thaar" instead of "over there" - just like in old Elizabethan literature. I think some communities in the New World have retained some idiosyncrasies in speech from their first immigrant ancestors.

That is an excellent website Docoflove. I'll have something else to occupy myself with for the next couple of days! But the thrust of my question was - when different Greek city states communicated with each other, was there a common dialect they used as a lingua franca?

Ave This might sound like an obvious question, but did the different Hellenic city states have a common dialect with which to communicate with each other? I know that Sparta and Athens spoke different dialects and the Macedonians had a dialect completely unique (which IIRC is the basis for koine Greek that became so widespread in antiquity) but when they communicated with each other for politics, trade, etc. did they adopt a particular regional dialect or was there a standard form of speech that all Greeks were familiar with?

I also want to add - even if it is Jesus's sarcophagus they found, it does not logically follow that he was not resurrected. It could very well be that his body was transferred to a different tomb and resurrected from there. I don't really care either way - I don't believe in the resurrection anyway - but I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to offer possibilities from a Christian point of view. So I don't see a real conflict with theology there. As for the marriage part, well, again I don't see what's so scandalous about a man getting married and begetting children.

They care about archeology as long as it does not conflict with their faith MPC, just as at one time they cared about science as long as it did not coflict with their theology (Galileo ring a bell?) Anyway, I think it would be a good idea to suspend our judgments until we see the programme on the 4th and have a chance to analyse it. I think dismissing it sweepingly without investigating it thoroughly is as foolish as accepting it unconditionally for it's sensation value

The relevance of the story it's 0. Even if they found an afidavit of a man named Jesus made in the presence of Pilat and The Synhedrion stating that it's not God, christians will still believe in their God. I don't think anyone is trying to stop Christians from believing in their God. A story does need to be investigated for academic reasons. I don't see your point

Julius Caesar was the founder on the worlds greatest empire Julius Caesar founded an empire? Boy that's news to me

Well MPC, that's reasonable enough, but my question is - were the names Jesus, Joseph and Mary really in the realm of your "1 in 10" or should we be looking at a larger ratio? After all how do we determine such a ratio? If we are looking at 3 in 10 or 4 in 10 then the hypothesis gets weaker and weaker. I don't think your Beatles analogy is convincing because Ringo is a very unusual name. Now if you had to stumble into an airship shaped tomb with the names Jimmy, Robert, John-Paul, and John, there is a possibility we are looking at the sarcophagus of the Led Zepplin crew, but there is a higher possibility it could be just a coincidence because those names are very common in England. I think Jesus, Joseph, Mary and Judas do fall in the latter category. Greek names were common in the Holy Land, even among religious Jews, and the tomb in question does not categorically have Mary Magdalene's name IIRC. It just contains a name that she was commonly known by. Anyway I am not ruling out any eventuality. My mind is open to both possibilities. I just would like to see more evidence. And all those people out there that are pouring out their righteous indignation are just being silly. What is so scandalous about a man marrying and begetting children?

The implications are enormous GPM. We live in a world where many people believe their personal salvation is based on the resurrection of Jesus. Now, how would one prove that? Maybe there will be a sign in the coffin stating God is in here? The scoundrels will make millions out of this. The D.C. narrator will start every inane statement with an equally inane question - that is when it is not interfering with a commercial. Almost impossible to prove for sure. The only thing one can prove, if at all, is that the coffin belongs to Jesus the son of Mary or Joseph, which could be any number of people in Judea. Why would the coffin mention God anyway? All the researcher has to do is to prove that the coffin belongs to Jesus of the NT, and that is gong to be extremely hard to do

The implications are enormous GPM. We live in a world where many people believe their personal salvation is based on the resurrection of Jesus.

Ave Programme coming up on Discovery channel about the supposed remains of Jesus and immediate family http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/t...=20070225073000 I do try to keep and open mind about these things but I cannot help thinking that the evidence offered above is highly circumstantial. After all, Jesus, Mary, Judas, etc were hardly uncommon names in the Holy Land in the 1st Century CE and I don't think it's totally impossible for a family unit to have these names

You have any sources I could look up for that?

The Arabs referred to the Byzantines as Ar-Rum, which translates as Romans,in spite of the fact that the word Greek does exist in the Arabic language. In fact Arabs that spent substantial time within the empire were often nicknamed Rumi or Roman. This seems to indicate that the Byzantines did indeed call themselves Romans. IIRC Byzantine is something the Westerners tended to call them.