Gladius Hispaniensis

Quite commendable. Only the word tolerant needs to be used in a relative sense. It would be absurd to equate the tolerance of the Islam of that period to the religious tolerance of modern societies. As history students we, of course, should be aware that historical societies should be judged against their historical backdrop and not by modern standards and this is something people that are not into history often fail to realise. Islamic societies of that time period were remarkably more tolerant than contemporary Christian societies but the comparison ought to end right there.

Ave The historian Lafferty in his "The Fall of Rome" written back in the '60s has made a comment that Stilicho's army would have broken Caesar's or Pompey's armies "like sticks" because, according to him, the latter were "summer-time soldiers" from the citizen levy while the former were true professionals. I found this irritating because it was so absurd. AFAIK the Roman Army was fully professional by the time of Marius. As for the quality of the soldiers themselves, this must largely be confined to the realm of speculation. One might as well try to compare the quality of modern U.S marine with a Janissary of the Ottoman Empire. Any thoughts on this?

That's interesting. I remember spending two years of my childhood in Jordan and seeing the city of Amman decked out like a bride every Christmas. Back to the topic - Muslim scholars in Spain did translate a lot of classical works from Greek to Arabic and these were subsequently learned and transmitted by itinerant European scholars. This spurred the Enlightenment as much as the mass emigration of Byzantine scholars did. The fact that the Arabs transmitted knowledge borrowed from other civilizations cannot be held against them. No one criticizes the Romans for adopting and implementing ideas that rightly belonged to neighboring civilizations. After all the Arabian peninsula was a cultural backwater not too long before Islamic civilization reached its zenith. Considering just this one fact, I think the rise to cultural prominence of the Arabs was rather remarkable. Also, algebra (al jabr - the counting), algorithms (Al Khwarizmi), and alchemy (al keemia - the chemistry) owe their origins to the Arabs. Avicenna discovered the circulation of blood through the body long before Harvey did.

"The Fall of Rome" by R.A. Lafferty

I think you missed my point PP. I don't disagree with what you wrote but my contention is this: When did the Roman public ever feel squeamish about the genocide of a foreign people? Why would slaughtering a million Gauls, or any other nation for that matter, have turned people against him? Cato's censorious comments on this matter were a political dig in Caesar's ribs. I'm not convinced his outrage was genuine in any way.

Not that I'm at all partial to Caesar, but I don't see how butchering a million Gauls would have struck the Romans, Brutus included, as particularly odious. How many Roman commanders showed restraint in their campaigns? And in any case, Pompey's murder of the elder Brutus was hardly an example of honourable conduct either. If Caesar had murdered envoys, Pompey had also perfidiously put to death a man who had put himself in his power.

Ave Can anyone please name the father of Marcus Brutus and husband of Servilia? He was apparently killed on Pompey's orders. Does anyone know the reason for that? It's really surprising that Brutus took Pompey's side in the civil war considering this fact.

Currently reading "Death of the Roman Republic - From 146 BC the birth of the Roman Empire" by Stewart Perowne

That makes sense. It is also interesting that the curved blade seems to have become more prevalent later among Eastern warriors like the Saracens. Although I am sure it did not originate there (witness the Falcata), this type of weapon is now almost associated with armies of the Muslim empires while its use seems to have pretty much disappeared in Western Europe.

What is the difference between a slashing and a slicing attack in sword-fighting

Surprisingly enough, it had the advantage of being lighter - always an advantage in close combat. That's why I am surprised the eastern legions did not readily adopt it, considering the hot climes in which they had to march and fight. Maybe it was a matter of supply? Eastern armourers probably made what they traditionally made, whereas armourers closer to Rome were more amenable to new techniques. Regarding Lorica Squamata, I believe it became more commonoplace during the later empire for two reasons: its cheapness of manufacture, and effectiveness against slashing attacks of barbarian longswords. Probably. That last point is of interest. It indicates that Barbarians who fought the Romans of the early empire period and before typically used thrusting rather than slashing movements with their swords. From Caesars Commentaries it would seem they actually preferred spears but I am guessing that when they did use swords it was more in a thrusting role. I cannot remember where I read this but apparently the reason was because the carbonizing process that converts iron into steel was not very prevalent among Northern European tribes, hence a slashing attack with an iron longsword would have seriously dented or bent the weapon. Until the advent of steel a thrusting movement in combat would have made more sense. Again I cannot remember the source for this but if anyone has information to the contrary I would welcome it.

Ave I don't know if this would be classified as a sport but I have been into bodyweight culture for a while now. For those that don't know, this is a physical exercise culture that emphasizes the use of one's own bodyweight for workouts. Simple push ups and sit ups are an obvious example, but there is a lot more to it. I am very happy with the results attained and the best part of it is that I don't have to waste time and treasure going to and from gyms. I really recommend this for anyone interested in physical culture and general fitness.

Surprisingly enough, it had the advantage of being lighter - always an advantage in close combat. That's why I am surprised the eastern legions did not readily adopt it, considering the hot climes in which they had to march and fight.

Peter Connolly's "Greece and Rome at War" is also an excellent source. Just be aware that the author states mistakenly that the lorica segmentata armour of Roman legionaries started in the 30s C.E. This was before they discovered this type of armour in the Teutoburg Wald recently. That particular battle was fought in 9 C.E. therefore legionaries must have started wearing the l.s at least by that time.

I think one of the main problems with this "find", as with the other famous one regarding Jesus's DNA, is that it is virtually impossible to prove which Jesus or James the inscription talks about. These were hardly uncommon names in the Palestine of the 1st century.

Thanks for that info Nephele. It seems odd that Octavius murdered her son by Caesar and spared her offspring by his arch-rival Mark Antony. Do our sources tell us the reason for this odd anomaly?

She had Caesarion from Gaius Caesar who was murdered by Octavius. I wasn't aware she had offspring by Mark Antony.

I seriously doubt it. Oral legend is more likely. His shrine is in Mylapore, near present day Madras. He was supposedly martyred there, and the Christians of St. Thomas have a large following in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Thomas is an enigmatic character, not least because Thomas is not a name at all. It is a word which means "twin" in Hebrew. In some versions of the Gospels he is known as Thomas Didymus which doesn't really clarify the matter because Didymus also means twin in Greek, leading to the grotesque appellation "twin twin". In some versions of the Apocrypha he is known as "Thomas, twin brother of the Lord". Interesting.

Yes, that was the siege of Antioch iirc. Surprisingly enough, there were many prominent Crusaders who considered Bartholomew a phony and later made him undergo a trial by fire - quite literally. According to one source, the fellow even survived the ordeal, only to be torn to pieces by an overenthusiastic mob seeking bits of his clothing to keep as relics. Pathetic.

Yes, it was "In Search Of". I would say that Mr. Spock's comments on the subject are eminently illogical.

Ave I was watching an old programme hosted by Leonard Nimoy titled "Mysteries of the Pyramids" in which the narrator states that Alexander actually massacred priests in Heliopolis and Persepolis. I was rather startled when I heard that. The burning of Persepolis isn't news to me, of course, but slaying local priests is completely unlike Alexander. IIRC he was trying to placate and win over the Persian populace after conquering them. Any input on this one?

Not at all, my dear. That is precisely the tone I often use and as I am often at pains to point out - it sounds a lot harsher than it really is. Come to think of it, I think Ms. Austen does do a fine job with Darcy. I think he is a lot more vivid and vibrant than the rest of the characters portrayed in that novel. Yes, "Emma" is in fact pretty high up on my to-read list. I wish I was done with these Classics a long time ago *sigh*. BTW my favourite female protagonist is Jane Eyre of Charlotte Bronte's novel. She tickled my imagination much better than Elizabeth Bennett did. Your analysis of the social impetus behind Dickens's works is flawless.

I think mouths - or at least fingers, in this case - need to be washed out here! Austen is no good at characterisation? Oh, please.... I suppose this is why characters like Lizzie Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy leap off the page today as they did almost 200 years ago. And as for Mr. Collins? No characterisation? I'm sorry, but this post has left me completely speechless. As for the comparison with Dickens, his characters are more caricature than character - there is a subtle difference. Well, to each his own I guess . I somehow fail to see how Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett "leap off the page" and I find Mr. Collins as hard to visualize as ever. Many Dickens characters are, indeed, caricatures. Quilp, Pumblechook, Fagin, Sykes and Uriah Heep spring readily to mind. I was referring more to the likes of Esther Summerson (Bleak House), Mr. Murdstone (David Copperfield), Mr. Gradgrind (Hard Times), Miss Havisham (Great Expectations), and the unforgettable Sir John Chester (Barnaby Rudge). These struck me as people of flesh and blood even when I first read those novels, hardly as caricatures. At any rate I think "Pride and Prejudice" is an eminently readable and well written story, a true classic.

I am currently reading "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen. Ms. Austen, in spite of her obvious talent as a novelist, is not very good at characterization I'm afraid. Her protagonists lack that three-dimensional feel that Dickens conveys so masterfully. A good read nevertheless.

Really? More even than Seneca?