Fatboy

My favourite time is actually the Late Eastern Empire/ Byzantine period, not really Rome but still. I just think it's an amazing, unique civilisation - a freak of history really. Greek christians dragging the beleagured rump of the Roman Empire through the medieval world. And they kept this turkey flying for damn near a thousand years! I love how they stubbornly maintain their preposterous claims of spiritual and temporal hedgemony over the world even when obviously outmatched by other powers, and the politics are just, well.......byzantine. I like the early republic too but basically, its all good

nope. It was in the fourth century BC and it was a consul CLUE: Celtic heros wore him around their necks

So its accepted! Okay then.....Who first forbade Roman commanders from entering into single combat with opposing commanders? ( is that too easy...or too hard?.. I dont know but there you go anyway ) Oh and the gaulic cheiftain was Brennos PM

OK, hows about Honorius at 10/11 ish? ( I had to root through some books for that one! )

I'd be there front row centre, baying for blood with the rest of the plebs.( when in Rome........ ) I might take some strategic toilet breaks though, if there were any particularly gruesome executions that day, cos they'd be hard to watch.

Yes, now that I bothered to read it is interesting. I seem to have a genetic predisposition to going off topic as soon as humanly possible on any given thread, ah well

Alexander Severus at 13 ?

Its certainly interesting stuff alright, the implications of the magical removal from history of someone of Julius Ceasar's stature is always going to create some serious reprecussions. To find the minimum impact possible I suppose it could be argued that the way the republic was headed, somebody was going to seize control pretty soon ( if it held together of course ), and that the expansion under the Empire would have simply happened a few years later and under different Emperors. But even in that case - the bare minimum disruption caused - the implications would be huge. I don't know much about Augustus's early life, I know he was Julius's protege but - formidable as he was - would the young Augustus/Octavian have had any opportunity to get where he did without Julius's patronage I wonder? ( cos its hard to see an Empire without Augustus )

Didn't somebody do a facial reconstruction of Phillip II from his remains? I remember seeing it and was transfixed to be looking at what supposedly an extremely accurate image of his face ( he didn't look like a man to be trifled with ). I wish they would do that with some of the Dark Age/ Medieval figures who's images we never get to see.

Welcome back Floppybelly, yes everybodies pretty cool here, and helpful too when possible. I guess you got unlucky with your last forum, but don't worry, you won't find people picking on newbs here, ( well, nobody picked on me anyway and I haven't noticed it happening to anyone else)

I got it from Moonlapses clue( I think ), but I'm not answering cos I can't think of a question to ask

QUOTE "someone who advocates the death of America and its people" Oh, I didn't know that now. Having never seen or heard the man, the only thing I thought I knew about him was that he was a native American who opposed the war. I'd like to distance myself from my statements in defence of the man then please ( feel free to take me to task on all the other stuff though )

Whoa, how did I take so long to make such a short post?( oh yeah, the phone rang.. ) By the time I posted it there were 3 new ones there. Anyway, to answer your question Moonlapse: Well, not inaction as such, but definitely a more directed reaction as opposed to lashing out at every country that displeases America, weather they have anything to do with terrorism or not. Invading Afghanistan was certainly understandable as they clearly did harbour terrorists but to repeat myself for a moment, Iraq was a completely secular sovereign state with no tolerance for Islamic fundamentalists whatsoever.Every man and his dog knew that Iraq no longer posed a theat to the US or anyone else and had no conection to Al Qaida in any way. And every man and his goldfish knew that it wasn't some sort of altruistic exportation of " Freedom ", there were plenty of dictatorships across the world to choose from and the administration plumped for Iraq because, and I'll be blunt, of its huge oil reserves and strategic position in the middle east. This is not some conspiracy theory, its as plain as the nose on my face.Its this that has caused an explosion in fundamentalism all across the world. If I lived in an Islamic country I might feel.......threatened by such an act too. There was a huge wave of compassion for America after the 9/11 attacks but the response since then has managed to reverse this to the extent that its the most unpopular its ever been, even in the western world. Now that America is in Iraq, for the sake of the native people I hope they win and succeed in establishing a stable democracy because the alternative is the radical islamist rogue state it was supposed to be in the first place, but all across the world nobodies fooled that it was anything other than a cynical piece of Realpolitik and exploitation of the post 9/11 climate by the WhiteHouse. Finally, the whole concept of a "WAR on TERROR" is faulty The spectacularly unsuccessful " WAR on DRUGS" showed the impossibility in making war on a noun ( as someone wittier than me once said ) Terrorism will continue, and flourishes in a frightened world. Remember, no one get too angry, I'm simply pointing out what I regard as over zealous foreign policy, not attacking the American way of life or anything. My more controversial ideas about the possible motivations behind these actions, I'll keep to myself because they shock even me, and I'm not in the mood to be called nasty names by everybody Pompieus Magnus: I like your theory that everybody is worshipping the same God. I believe none other than Ghenghis Khan stated a similar belief when the major religions were competing for his conversion back in the day, and he was no dummy.Certainly, who ever is up there, is up there and in whichever form you worship him/her/it, its the same God or Gods who would be receiving those prayers. QUOTE "were not fighting a phenemenon of the muslim culture, were fighting against an ignorance which has plagued humanity for millenia" Damn straight

Moonlapse, I just noticed the last part of your previous post, I don't know if you edited it or if I'm just going blind. Anyway, I can see how the likes of Ward Churchill could be very irritating to Americans when their country is at war but as a Native American he owes the United States nothing ( not even his nice home ) and I think an attitude of resentment is entirely understandable given the treatment they recieved and situation many are still in. Besides, a lot of people would say ( me included ) that America's civic liberties are more under threat from the present administration than by Islamic fundamentalists. Wanting America to LOSE the war is a bit much though ( as well as a tad unpatriotic )

QUOTE" Uh oh " Yep, touchy subject I've veered into and no mistake We haven't actually had the opportunity to argue over it yet cos I've just there launched into a an unprovoked rant and no one has had the opportunity to dissagree yet. I enjoy the odd rant - it clears the system. Stay chilled though man, most people on the forum know by now to take me with a pinch of salt when I occasionally launch into a biased tirade against whichever religion/government/political system Ive got a problem with on any given day. Besides, I can be relied on to clamber down off my high horse and compromise when one of my arguments gets taken apart.( Not that I don't believe what I say, I just tend to put it out in the most bald form possible ) I know people get pretty worked up over this and, yes the argument is endless really, but its also incredibly important and I've found on the couple of occasions I've put this sort of provocative post out there we've tended to end up with interesting discussions ( which is kind of why we're here ) Oh yeah, and neither side supports my interests, some of us are just stuck in the middle dealing with the reprecussions which is why I reserve an equal amount of vitriol for either side Split the thread? hmmmn, let me see what was it originally about......is religion a bane on society?....yeah, I suppose I am hijacking the thread a little,ah well, feel free then everybody to ignore my last post, I just thought we were headed in that direction and I may have jumped the gun a little.

QUOTE" I wrote too much and I'm visibly off topic " Naahh.....its all good, anyhow topics tend to evolve as threads go on. I think Napoleon once said something like " Italy exists only as a geographical term " referring to the fact that by his time Italy hadn't been unified for over 1300 years So since modern Italy is by comparison to the likes of Spain, France, England etc a very young country, does this mean most people tend to feel regional loyalty before a feeling of being Italian or is that just the extreme minority like those Lega Nord people?

QUOTE" I think the situation is not entirely different from early 1930's Europe when the various European powers could have crushed the rising threat of nazi Germany while it was still small and growing. Instead the decided to give peace a chance and follow a policy of appeasement. In retrospect, that really didn't work out very well " Well, I agree with the rest of what you say about freedom being worth fighting for etc but geez, I think I thouroughly dissagree with this statement if only because the present US administration has used this comparison as part of its reasoning for its idiotic response to 9/11. It depends what your referring to. If its the big picture - the " war on terror " etc then I definitely do. Incredibly, the US has seen fit to invade and bully Iraq and Syria respectively, secular countries with absolutely zero tolerance for Islamic fundamentalism, already turning Iraq into a hotbed of fanaticism, and should Syria be attacked it would surely go the same way. Before the aggressive response of the US to the terrorist attacks, Osama bin Laden and co. were close to being washed up, having failed miserably to start Islamic revolutions in Algeria and Egypt due to the complete lack of interest, and finally open emnity from the native muslim populations.Islamic fundamentalism has recovered in these places, and across the world since then. Osama and co were clearly counting on the reckless overreaction by the US Goverment to drum up support for their dying movement. And now, its back for good I think any comparison between the rise of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups across the world and the growth of the Nazi Germany is very tenuous indeed - Germany was a coherent state who needed to be squashed before it reached its full capability, Islamic fundamentalism feeds on, in fact needs, the aggression currently directed at the Islamic world in order to survive. Of course, if you're referring to the response of countries in Europe and elsewhere to the Islamists living in their midst , which I've just realised is probably what you ARE referring to , well then I agree with you completely, you can't let that ***** slide when people come to live in your country and then proceed to take advantage of the freedoms of your society to actively attempt to destroy everything it stands for and replace it with " whatever religious and/or political system they have dreamed up in their fanatic little heads " Hmmmn...I didn't really think before I stared writing this one so I may have done you a diservice with my first interpretation of your statement. Either way, any opportunity for a wild rant about American foreign policy is generally too tempting for me to miss

thanks for the honest answers about your religious beliefs everybody Iulius mentions the Pope. I reckon the present Pope is one of the best things the Catholic church has going for it at the moment and it will be a shame for Catholicism when he dies. Although it seems there is strong evidence that he was involved/complicit/aware of, the supposed murder of his predecessor John Paul I, Vatican politics has always been very turbulent so I wouldn't find it all that shocking if he was. He's actually a pretty impressive guy from the perspective of the relentless workload he has shouldered through years of ill health. His stoic determination reflects well on the Catholic church. I'm not sure how incorrupt he is though - after all he did pass legislation legitimising the P2 masonic order in the curia, not exactly a measure likely to help curb corruption and increase transparency. I've yet to properly investigate these things though so I don't want to make any more accusations against someone who nothwithstanding anything alse, is clearly a passionate and dediated pontiff desrving some respect. ( plus he's not feeling so well at the mo' - so I'll give him a break ) QUOTE "The new generation of muslims seem to be clinging onto their faith even more fanatically than their parents do". I keep hearing about the rise of fundamentalism among immigrants and the inevitable xenophobic backlash among native Dutch. For years, many of us have regarded The Netherlands as an example of how a country could be run with an attitude of tolerance and inclusiveness or even ( and we probably got carried away here ) as some sort of liberal utopia of peace and love and harmony etc, so I think its a damn shame if these days are beginning to come to an end. It seems from here that the ultra tolerant and welcoming attitude to immigration has come back to bite you in the ass.If I was Dutch I imagine I would be pretty pissed off that people who we welcomed into our country, who we built mosques and schools and housing for, not satisfied with rejecting our own culture, saw fit to attack the very freedoms and attitudes which allowed them come here in the first place. Surely, if people move to a new country they should make some attempt to adjust to the local culture, and certainly not impose their own values on everyone else. Basically if the "noble experiment" ( as someone once said) that is dutch society is going to be dismantled because of fundamentalist ignorance, I think it sucks. I could, of course, be way off the mark about the situation because I'm only basing a lot of this on a newspaper article I happened to read the other day, but that is the picture it painted. I was going to contribute on the rather deep and and facinating direction you guys are heading in, the whole area of the nature of existence, the Universe, reality and everything, but I've got a hangover and when I started to think about it my brain hurt - so I'll leave it at that for the moment and go try and find some alka seltzer.

I don't own any ancient artifacts, although I'd like to own a couple. I'm actually quite wary of getting ripped off. I mean surely it would be quite easy to knock up what looks a bit like an Egyptian ushabti or something and sell it to the likes of me. I've heard that fakes are quite a problem even for serious collectors and I would be loath to give my money for something that turns out to be piece of junk. Would the online auction sites be as reputable as they tend to look?

Hmmmn, I suppose I better try and contribute to this thread instead of boasting of my Celtic credentials, possibly at the risk of exposing my shamefully patchy knowledge about ancient Celtic culture It seem's to me that once conquered, many Celtic tribes would have very little trouble adjusting to the Romanistion of their culture. By the time of Caesars conquest of Gaul for instance, they had been in contact with the Romans for hundreds of years, and the Greeks and various other metropolitan civilisations for hundreds of years before that. Its hard to imagine a Celtic warrior who had lived for in Alexandria while serving as a mercenary finding Romanisation too much of a culture shock. Celts were not quite the illiterate savages they are made out to be, the lack of a written legacy was mostly a cultural decision. The Druids specifically prohibited the writing down of their traditions and knowledge as it would detract from their own power and importance as the " gatekeepers " of tribal culture.When dealing with purely practical things, the Celts wrote all the time, they simply used Greek or Latin characters to write their own language.The appearance of Roman writers of Celtic stock - Cornelius Nepos etc - so early in Roman history suggests the intellectual leap necessary was not too great. When it comes to things such as building and urbanisation, the Celts are also underrated ( though only slightly ). They had bulit quite an extensive road network accross northern Europe long before the Romans arrived there.Using Caesar's conquest of Gaul as an example again, his armies were not trudging intrepidly through untamed wilderness, they moved quickly along the road network - and they weren't building them as they went along, they were Celtic roads. Analysis of Caesars campigns against Vercingetorix clearly shows a relatively civilised landscape of towns and farmland, and an enemy well schooled in the art of military tactics, organisation and manuvre, even if this degenerated into the famous wild frontal charge when battle was joined. Celtic culture was never really interested in urbanisation, but nevertheless they founded a great many, sometimes quite large towns. Cities such as Milan, Como and Turin were supposedly founded by Celts. Their technology in metalworking and weaponry was, as everyone knows, very advanced too. My object here, I should stress, is not to play up the achievments of Celtic culture. I think on the whole, the image of the Celts handed down to us through history is probably quite fair. I mean, when compared to the Romans; their roads were poor, their towns tiny, their armies a rabble, technology inferior and their culture the oral tradition of a backward people - definitely barbarians to an urbane Roman citizen. As Ursus says the Celts were only on the way to developing proper civilisation ( If at all ). I guess I'm trying to point out how intertwined Roman and Celtic culture was for such a long time and how a mix of Celtic and Roman beliefs/attitudes is not contradictory at all, as the Celts were so deeply influenced by the Romans even before being absorbed by them. I'm quite ignorant of the intricacies of this for everyday life, but certainly, in most places Celtic religion and customs coexisted effortlessly with Roman influences and institutions quite soon after capitulation to the Empire/Republic. Roman writers repeatedly refer to the Celts as eloquent speakers, which suggests a large degree of empathy with the motivations and ideals expressed by them. The famous speech of the captured Celtic chieftain Caratacos in AD 51 when brought before Emperor Claudius defeated and in chains, certainly struck a chord with the Romans, who recognised the heroic values he espoused and gave him a comfortable retirement in the country instead of the usual treatment handed out to Vercingetorix et al. So I feel the Roman and Celtic world views were different but certainly not irreconcilable and their cultures blended quite easily. Oh, also QUOTE " they seemed to believe in reincarnation " Yes, they belived in two related dimensions, the world we live in and the Otherworld, when you died in this one you went to the Otherworld and when you died there you came back again. And yeah, you certainly would be concerned with what you left behind in this life if you thought you'd be coming back again soon

QUOTE" The internet makes atheism seem the majority when it most assuredly isn't" Oh yeah, I sometimes forget that religious faith is still going strong in most parts of the world because it has so utterly disintegrated here. In Ireland, up until 10 or 15 years ago we were one of the most devout Catholic countries on Earth. And it was only 10 years before that since the church still had serious, medieval style, control over peoples everyday lives. Since then, partly due to the many clerical paedophile scandals, the power of the church has collapsed. It would be no exaggeration to say that fully 90% of people under the age of 30 in Dublin have absolutely no faith in the Catholic Church, and as a result no religion. Some still go through the motions but serious belief is nearly non existent. During the next generation it will almost dissappear completely. The thing is, I'm no Catholic, ( I'm a not-very-serious Pagan ), and never tire of pointing out the ignorance and dangers inherent in all the major religions , but I have to say this hasn't been entirely a good thing. The weakening of Church power was definitely needed but the complete and utter collapse of Catholicism has left people looking a bit.....well.....lost. An entire generation who believe in nothing is not a pretty sight. I think there is definitely a hole in the human phsyche that religion fills and people without it can sometimes struggle to fill it, leaving them often feeling kind of empty. Those of us with the inclination can fill it to some extent by exploring the worlds of science and history in search of the true explanations physical and mental phenomena religion simply guesses at. Problem is, most people are pretty simple minded, they are incapable of, and uninterested in, searching for the real truth, and end up just being confused - or worshipping celebrities or something instead. Even for those of us who are interested in the truths found in science/philosophy/history, this still leaves us without a clear meaning to existence ( well, philosophy will try but poses more questions than it answers ). I have often thought how much easier life would be for someone who thought the entire meaning of life really was contained in a single set of religious teachings, was comfortable in the knowledge that the whole world worked according to one divine plan, and convinced that the rights and wrongs of human morality were set in stone ( pardon the pun ). I mean, imagine how much you'd get done if you never had to worry about any of these complicated issues! - that some dude(s) had kindly worked it all out and put it in a book for you. This is not to mention the prospect of eternal bliss waiting for you at death - yes please! So I think that religion has an important role to play in providing meaning to peoples lives and there is probably a good argument to be made for at least using religion as a tool to keep us from going off our nuts. But personally, do I think it is worth living in ignorance to have this crutch? No, not in the slightest, give me a sliver of the truth anyday over a complete belief system based on what is, essentially, nonsense. Can I ask any religious people here, when you say you're religious, do you use your religion as a guide to living a good life or does this mean you seriously think that your particular religion, out of hundreds available, is the one and only true form of worship and the rest of us are damned for eternity etc? I'm not trying to wind you up, I really would like to know

Extroverted ( E ) 56.1% Introverted ( I ) 43.9% Intuitive ( N ) 79.41% Sensing ( S ) 20.59 % Feeling ( F ) 51.16% Thinking ( T ) 48.84% Percieving ( P ) 66.67% Judging ( J ) 33.33% So, an ENFP then, the resulting blurb I actually find reasonably accurate considering I have absolutely no faith in this sort of thing. Of course some of it's way off, but I took the test several times and at least the result was very consistent. It says I should be a journalist - thats exactly what I'd like to be! ( that or some sort of omnipitent GodKing ) It's difficult to answer some of the questions though because of the contradictions in our personalities ( well, mine at least ) for example : I am borderline obsessed with neatness , order and rationality but most of the time I'm disorganised, I can't stand authority figures, and I rarely think things through objectively. Maybe thats what I like about the Romans, the sense of order and control which I can't actually handle in real life.Then again I'm arguably more interested in the chaotic maelstrom of the middle ages..... Oh, I don't know, very interesting but ultimately I don't put much stock in these personality test type things ( unless they tell me what I want to hear )

Fafnir, QUOTE " :2guns: fatboy for starting this(even if it was a joke )" I agree! I should be strung up! As soon as I saw reply's coming in on this thread I thought to myself " what have I done?......" My attempt to be funny has ressurected the monster! You might want to dust off that locking finger of yours Primuspilus............I think its time to put this baby to bed Apologies to everyone for inflicting the nightmare upon us once again

Whoa, while roaming around the forum I just noticed this last statement of mine was a bit harsh even for me.I should probably have put a at the end of it or something. I'll just point out that although strictly religious people very often ARE dangerous simply by nature of their blind faith, those of you out there who simply live by Jesus's ( or Mohammed, or whatever ) teachings and don't have any other crazy agenda's are invariably good, kind people and more power to ya if your'e one of these. I still think the pagan Gods were cooler though

QUOTE " Lets just remember that the term Byzantine is a modern one " No doubt, Byzantium is just a term of convenience but a necessary one. As a political entity Byzantium was 100% still the Eastern Roman Empire up until its dying day but its completely impractical to refer to them as the Romans even if only to avoid confusion. ( among many good reasons) Historians adopted the term for a good reason and so the question is still a valid one - where do we draw the line ? Because there's no question of simply referring to them as Roman - as even most of their contemporaries recognised.