Fatboy

P, Well, the relationship of Irish toward these languages differs greatly between the two, and its relationship to ancient Gaulish is more complicated again. They all derive of course from ancient Celtic which probably began to form from the same archaic indo- european language(s) as Latin and Greek in the late Bronze age. The Celts expanded westward from a starting point believed to be in central Europe and reached the British Isles some time before 1,000 BC bringing their language with them. The relative isolation of these islanders has resulted in the establishment of two distinct branches of Celtic. This split still exists between surviving Celtic languages today. The chief remaining " living " Celtic languges are Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx and Breton. They each belong to one of the two branches: Goidelic or Q-Celtic and Brythonic or P-Celtic This is how they are split The Goidelic group is: Irish, Scottish and Manx The Brythonic group is: Welsh, Cornish and Breton Goidelic is the older of the two, brought to Britain with the original Celtic settlers. Brythonic developed later on the continent but did not readily spread to the islands. It was only much later that P-Celtic reached the islands where it replaced the Q-Celtic culture in the southern part of Britain. The most obvious difference between the two is the substitution in Brythonic of a P for the Q in Goidelic. The sound represented by Q in goidelic was later replaced by a hard C while the P remained in Brythonic. Here are some examples: The English word:......................son In Goidelic:...............................mac In Brythonic languages:.............(m)ap ( welsh ) ...............................................mab ( breton ) ...............................................map ( cornish ) The English word:......................head In Goidelic:...............................ceann ( Irish ) ............................................... ceann ( Scottish ) ................................................kione ( Manx ) In Brythonic:.............................pen ( Welsh ) ................................................penn ( Breton ) ................................................penn ( Cornish ) The differences of course run much deeper than this. The first line of the " Our Father " prayer for example: English:........Our Father, who art in heaven, halowed be thy name. Irish:............

Quite right, I've always put " monoatheistic " for some reason, a weird habit of mine..... I guess if you were monoatheistic you'd say that there is only one God...which you don't believe in, heh.

Very nice Scanderberg. Zoroastianism is an often neglected subject. Its amazing that an ancient fully fledged monoatheistic religion worshipped by millions which is, as you say, still alive today can often by completely ignored when people discuss monoatheism and its roots. I do believe that it is now considered likely that it may in fact be much older than previously thought - rivalling Judaism as the worlds oldest monoatheistic faith. ( can you delete that last post please Mods, I forgot to log in )

Well Scipio was, for sure a brilliant and innovative general but I'd find it hard to describe Napoleon as anything other than a genius considering he, for many years bested the combined forces of Europes great powers. The man completely revolutionised warfare in his time. I would have no idea who would be the superior of the two though as I don't know as much as I probably should about Scipio.

Thats rich. You're the one being childish.

A good Pope and a brave guy. I'll be sad to see him go.

* Edited * Doesn't matter any more Primus Pilus explained it just as I posted. ( this thread had me thoroughly confused )

I was born, and still live in, Dublin City capital of the mighty Republic of Ireland.

A lot of fuss seems to be being made about how Alexanders Empire's lack of longevity. I think it must be remembered that he died very suddenly as a young man, without a natural heir. He had no opportunity to set up an enduring dynasty and any administrative plans he may have had were cut short. The survival of the Hellenic successor states after his death is testament to the potential of his Empire had he survived. I feel he must have had quite formidable administrative skills, such was the coherence of the vast Empire he conquered in such a short space of time. He is often portrayed as crazy but he could be very practical at times. His adoption of the customs and semi divine position of Egyptian and Persian rulers was mosly a case of simple political expediency. It was this light touch that allowed him to pacify the populations of each country amazingly quickly, although of course his native Macedonian troops grew to resent these practices. A prime example is his reaction to Darius's death. When Darius was seized and murdered by Bessus, the govenor of Bactria who then declared himself King, Alexander swore revenge against Bessus thus portraying himself as the rightful heir to, and avenger of Darius. He was a lucid and intelligent guy who exported hellenistic culture successfully and permanently to places where you would not expect it to take, not just some looney stomping around asia killing anybody who looked at him crooked( although he did that too ). Yes, he was unpredictable and increasingly paranoid and vindictive as time went on. Yes, he was involved in a kind of insane mythical struggle against various Greek Gods whom he percieved himself to be in competition with. Yes, he was first and foremost a warrior. But he was much more than that; certainly no petty warlord he is one of the few historical figures who can comfortably be called " Great ". As far as what would have happened had he encountered the Roman Legions well, as others have said already, I think he would have won the battle but lost the war. As far as Alexander fighting poor quality opposition, this is not true. Darius's armies contained many heavily armed Greek mercenaries amongst a variety of high quality ( and not so high quality ) troops. Neither Darius or Porus, his most famous opposition were inept, he just made it look so. If this Roman/Macedonian battle occurred it would certainly not have been a case of the Phalanx versus the Legion. Alexander only used the phalanx as part of a varied, integrated and flexible army. Alexander was a true military genius, he would not have been undone by a simple flanking manuvure as was Phillip V when he faced the Romans. In fact his loyal General Parmenio ( later executed for his trouble ) normally found himself employed specifically to prevent the army being flanked while Alexander engineered a weakness in the enemy line. There was almost no chance of flanking Alexander's phalanx and subsequently no way of stopping it. Not the clumsy and vunerable formation the Romans eventually did face, the phalanx in Alexanders hands was a battering ram he could use to punch holes in the opposition lines whenever he chose. Fully supported and protected by skimishers and hoplites and with Alexanders companion cavalry outclassing their Roman counterparts the prudent use of the phalanx would enable a Macedonian victory in any first encounter in my opinion, as it has been proven that even the Legions could not stand up to the Phalanx head on. Were the Romans to lose this imaginary initial encounter with Alexander it could hardly be considered suprising as Rome had a long history of suffering catastrophic defeats when faced with a new kind of enemy. Here is where the Romans come into their own however, as the ability to absorb defeats and losses in manpower are in my opinion what really set the Roman military machine on a different plane to any other. A fine example of this of course is the famous victory of Phyrrus over the Legions at Asculum, the origin of the phrase " phyrric victory ". Although Roman losses were double that of the Macedonians Phyrrus could not afford such losses turning a tactical victory into a strategic defeat. " Another such victory and we are lost! " he exclaimed, and when fighting the Romans one victory was never enough. No other Empire, certainly not Alexander's could have sustained such defeats as Rome suffered at the hands of Carthaginians, Persians, Celts and Germans amongst others, and yet still recover. All Alexander would have to look forward to after his victory was another engagement against a similar Roman army, one who had learnt from the previous battle.Brilliant as he was, the Romans would have defeated him eventually like they did all their opponents, whether through finding a weakness or simply by attrition.

Oh, yes certainly P, Hamilcar had written: I was just trying to clear things up for him as to why the War of the Roses is not usually referred to as a civil war. Heh, yes it didn't catch on fortunately. Actually its often forgotten that England was briefly a republic under his guidance. Many of my Irish compatriots are very suprised when they hear that.

The war of the Roses could be more accurately be called a war of succession. The term civil war is rarely used in reference to medieval times partially due to the lack of true national identity at the time. They were fighting over a kingdom rather than a country. Such wars, common throughout the Middle Ages, rarely involved either physically or emotionally, the average person. They were usually a case of various nobles, often foreign to the area, squabbling over a Crown. Only with the emergence of the new nation states of Europe do what can be described as true civil wars reappear in Western European History.

Nope she was Ptolemaic, her Dad was Ptolemy XII. She just had some Mithridatic relatives ( apparently ).

Well, I voted for Moderate Populares, cos I'm a slight lefty. Most of the time.

Alesia was quite something. Roman bloody mindedness at its best. From what little I know of the details they had no right to win that battle.

I'm certainly no expert in any area, but I have my moments. Imperial Rome is actually one of my weaker areas, but I am improving thanks in no small part to this site. Any areas of "expertise" I may have are almost random. I am completely self educated in respect to history ( like many of you I imagine ) and so have some quite bizarre gaps in my knowledge. The up side of this though is that I often have a quite original take on many events and have peculiar areas of true strength which I hope has helped people on occasion. My stronger areas include Medieval Times, Byzantium, Classical Greece, and the Napoleonic era. I also feel I have quite a good range of knowledge which is spread quite healthily throughout history, which means I can be useful for finding precedents and comparisons relevant to Roman issues. I believe everybody who takes part on this site has something valuable to offer, whether it is specific details, theories, or personal interpretation. Often, information I was already aware of, when expressed by someone differently than I have heard before, has given me a valuable new perspective on an issue.

I chose fatboy because thats my nickname in real life since I was a kid. All my friends call me fatboy or a variation on it - usually " fat " or " the boy ", or since I went to France on my holidays once, often " le boy ". Even my teachers in school would say " fatboy, why haven't you done your homework ? " People are always suprised when they meet me to find that I'm not fat in the slightest. It in fact stems from me being an almost comically fat baby. Once my friends saw my baby pictures that was it - I was christened " fatboy ". Not to worry, they all have much worse nicknames.

I'm 28, but look and behave like I'm about 14, at best.

Does absolute power corrupt? Not necessarily, but it takes a very particular kind of character to deal with it. More often than not it does indeed corrupt, eventually. There is a long line of absolute rulers who began their reigns well, only to sink into depravity, self indulgence, and paranoia. As for Republic v Empire Certainly, by the end the republic was becoming untenable and the creation of the Empire enabled the glories that were to follow. The thing is, its clear from history that fascist and totalitarian goverment works extremely well economically with the right man at the helm. I guess if you had to live in this era you would have to ask yourself which do you value more - the chimerical freedom of living in a corrupt and possibly dangerous and disintegrating republic or the security of living in a coherent totalitarian state, subject to the will of one man ? Seems like an easy choice but freedom is underrated by the many people these days who can afford to take it for granted.

The schitzophrenic Byzantines. I love those guys.

Well, Marcus Aurelius was a smackhead wasn't he ? So opium for sure.

My interest in Rome was really born of a larger fascination with history as a whole. All history interests me, especially ancient civilisations. As far as Rome is concerned, no particular area is really much more important to me than any of the others, I think they are all interesting and can each provide valuable lessons for people today. I really see the destinction between the different catagories as being quite blurred although at a push I would say " History, Politics and Famous People ". The poll is telling me I've already voted but I don't remember doing it or what I voted for .... probably " a bit of everything " Briefly, as far as why I got into history in the first place, I've always found the Ancient world well......... cool.From a young age I enjoyed reading about the amazing characters and events, and found there's always something new and interesting to learn. Oh by the way, this post was at one stage going to be a bizarre rant about ignorance, understanding and the definition of history but it wasn't really relevant so I'll save it for another time

In the long run you're better off fighting bare knuckle, or at least those little gloves the Ultimate fighter dudes wear. You get some good hits, and you fall down - fight over. Its the sustained pummelling that boxers can take with the gloves that eventually turn their brains to mush.

77% - even though I ruthlessly left all the other people to die, maybe the zombies were able to jump in the back of my pick up truck or something.

Hi Sebastianus, Yes, I also like the death throws of the Western Empire. It certainly is facinating stuff.

Good call PP. I didn't get to read the post, but the user name said enough. Not worth replying to.