Gladius Hispaniensis

Salve Asclepiades I just clicked on the link you provided and went through the sign list on chapter 3 of the article. I found to my astonishment that there are actually 28 Assyro-Babylonian words in that list that have very similar equivalents in Arabic, which is a language that I understand. Some are actually identical. So the similarity with Hebrew is understandable, as Arabic and Hebrew are sister-languages.

Ave I am curious to know - was there a fundamental difference between the languages spoken in Assyria and Babylonia? I imagine that being Semitic languages they probably had similarities but I wonder if they were two dialects of a common tongue or two different languages altogether, as in Hebrew and Arabic for example. Thanks in advance for any information.

Salve I have heard that the landscape of North Africa in Classical times was completely different from what it is now. Apparently it was a heavily forested area, and that included the Sahara itself. Apparently the heavy deforestation is what caused the barren landscape you see now in places like Cyrenaica and the Tunisian coast. I have never been able to get any independent confirmation on this so I wonder if fellow forum members have any input on this subject?

Not substantially hotter than the Holy Land. I know because I've been to both places. Heck, I remember being in good ol' Roma in July of 1980 and having two scorch marks on my cheeks because the Italian sun had heated up my metal eyeglass frames. If you lived in Alexandria you might have even enjoyed the pleasant sea-breezes!

I second that.

Oops. Double post there.

Salve Asclepiades From that I gather the word was used in a very generic sense. What Pertinax says makes sense. One thing that always bothered me was the picture of legionaries and armoured auxiliaries fighting in the heat of, say, North Africa or the Judean desert in chain mail or lorica segmentata. It might very well be that some of them simply discarded their armour in these areas for simple convenience and comfort. Anyway I'll certainly look into that book "Roman Legionary 161-284 AD" for more details on this. It sure is fascinating.

[

Ave There seems to be some evidence that some legionaries "expediti", that is, without armour, on campaign. Does anyone know why this was? I wonder if it was just a question of no being able to afford armour or if there were tactical reasons for it. I suspect that the majority of legionaries did wear armour though.

Just as an afterthought - the situation with ancient Celtic tongues might be analogous to that of the different dialects spoken in the Arab world. A person from Morocco and an Iraqi would hardly find each other mutually intelligible if they spoke in their own respective dialects, but if they used proper spoken Arabic they would have no problem doing so. Similarly, the different Celtic tribes might have spoken a lingua franca used, perhaps, in Druidic ceremonies and official correspondence, with which they would have communicated with each other. Perhaps this is what Caesar meant?

How, then, are we to explain the startling difference between Gaelic spoken in Ireland and the language of the Welsh? Are we to assume that they evolved from a "mutually intelligible dialect" in just over two millennia?

None of the Gospel writers identifies himself by name in any of the Gospels. The assumption that the Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John is just what it is - an assumption. Hence we have no proof these works were written by Jews to begin with. Read the links that Asclepiades provided above - carefully.

Faustus, is there any detailed account of the two great Judean revolts in that book ?

Ave I'm currently reading Tom Holland's "Rubicon". Speaking of Michael Parenti, I attended a talk he gave at California State University. I remember getting into a heated debate with him during the question and answer session. The guy is a self-professed Marxist but a good speaker and very well read.

Why is that? I read the first one and liked it. I could not finish Dune Messiah.

*SHOCKED* Wow that is news to me. Thanks for that info. Here's another question - how marked is the difference between Koine and Homeric Greek and Homeric Greek with, say, the language of Plato and Socrates?

Ave Here's a question that's been intriguing me of late - why has the Greek tongue survived while Latin has not? Although I realize that Greek itself has gone through several evolutions in it's life, one can make an arguable case that it has survived more or less intact, especially in it's homeland. The same cannot be said of Latin, which, in Italy, actually evolved into a completely distinct language. And this in spite of the efforts of the Roman Church to preserve it in liturgical form. I would appreciate any input on this. Thanks in advance.

I bow out gracefully

Don't mean to sound patronizing here, but when you read fantasy like LOTR, you really have to transport yourself into another world away from mundane reality and just imagine those things are possible - then the enjoyment starts. It's not like reading Tolstoy or Dickens where you can readily identify with characters and situations. It's rather like watching the old Twilight Zone series. Only enjoyable if you temporarily live in a world where those things are possible. One of my relatives used to scoff at them but I always thought he was such a nit wit. I felt that if he was on such a reality fetish why didn't he just look out the window?

Caesar did not conquer Britannia. My vote goes to Scipio Africanus. As the late B.H. Liddell Hart has rightly pointed out, this man is less talked about than Caesar and Alexander but his achievements on the battlefield were, in a sense, more remarkable. The toughest opposition Caesar had was probably Pompey and did suffer a reverse once. Alexander's victories were great but they were won against the Achemaenids, markedly inferior opponents. Scipio fought against a formidable empire and arguably against the best general of his time and never suffered a single defeat.

Dostoevsky's great. I especially enjoyed the way he explored the relation between crime and living conditions in "Crime and Punishment". I feel the same way about American lit as you do. I think it's O.K but I prefer British lit.

Salve I don't know how many fiction readers we have in this forum, but I'm curious to know who your favourite fictional authors are. My favourite among the Classics is Dickens, beyond shadow of doubt. Among the modern 20th Century authors, I like Frederick Forsythe and J.R.R Tolkien. You?

Ave I am an avid book reader, both fiction and non-fiction. Lord of the Rings is the only book I ever read where I was actually disappointed when the book ended. I'm usually relieved to finish a book so I can just go on to the next one. In this case, however, I just wanted the story to just keep going on and an.

Shame on you

Ave I think we're somewhat veering off the main topic here, namely, "The Bible as a Historical Source". Some very valid points have been made by all sides in this debate but what it really boils down to is this - people are perfectly free to interpret the bible in a metaphorical and allegorical sense and fulfill a religious and spiritual need and have been doing so for the last twenty centuries, but when it comes to taking each and every word of the book in a literal sense, the historian is apt to run into some really thick Gordian knots as must be evident to anyone who has followed this debate closely. John may or may not be more reliable than the other evangelists but I am actually focusing on the book as a whole, not just a particular epistle. It must be evident by now that in taking the bible as a reliable historical source one is treading on very shaky ground indeed. I suppose one could say the same thing about Caesar's Commentaries or Josephus' works, but the difference is that these latter two works, and others like them, do not have rabid fanatics proclaiming their veracity with foam at the edge of their mouths and senile fingers on a nuclear trigger (remember old Ronnie?).