sonic

Salve, C Lake Toba is in Sumatra, Indonesia and a brief review on Ambrose's Toba catasrophe theory. I've never heard of this before: cheers, guys!!

Although the word 'corn' is usually connected with the cereal known as Zea mays in North America, in Europe the word 'corn' is an alternative word that can be used for a variety of major cereal crops. For example, in England it can be used for barley and in Scotland for oats. For Europeans who are not specialists in grain, the word can be applied when wheat is meant.

I'm not having a go at Darwin. If anything, his principles have stood the test of time and he should be highly regarded for his thoughts. What I am saying is that, to a greater or lesser degree, later writers/historians etc. have hijacked his work and used it to promote their own views. Furthermore, the general acceptance of his views without acknowledging the caveats he placed in them has tended to promote the assumption that modern man is the superior in all ways to those that went before him. This to some degree has warped our view of the past - except for those who have studied that past in depth and know what surprising things the ancients knew and, until recently, had been forgotten. For that, I think (misunderstood) Darwinism is to blame. As for humans and animals being essentially the same, all you have to do is watch a group of 'thugs' surrounding a defenceless individual and it will remind you of jackals round a wildebeest.

I agree that authors can grossly distort the facts to suit their own agendas - albeit mainly without knowing it. However, it's your acceptance of 'natural selection' as a 'capital factor on human social evolution' that was the point of my post. Although I think it safe to assume that you don't fall into the pitfalls of this belief, individuals who are less knowledgeable about the past simply assume that ancient societies were backwards and nowhere near our level socially, politically and scientifically. I think this highlights my point: if Social Darwinism hadn't had an impact, there wouldn't be an opposite end of the spectrum for professional academics to be at. However, my question wasn't really concerned with academic interpretations, but with a possible underlying acceptance among a large number of people that the ancients couldn't possibly know what we know today, because we are the end result of 'evolution' and they were obviously backwards.

When it comes to spoken Latin, 'Cicero' is my favourite. Because it is so common in England (I think a large percentage of the population will have heard the word, without being able to say who/what he was), extremely pedantic specialists will correct people on their Latin (eg. the plural of hippopotamus, or how to pronounce 'Veni, Vici, Vidi' - with the 'V' being a 'W') then comment on how wonderful 'sisseroh' is! However, the need to be 'politically correct' is now starting and beginning to cause confusion. For a long time people in Britain have been able to learn about 'Belisarius' because they could read 'Procopius'. Now, it's changing to 'Belisarios' and 'Prokopios'. The same is true all over antiquity, especially in regard to Greek names needing a 'k', not a 'c' and the endings 'ius' and 'ios'. However, if this needs to change then does it need to change the world over, not just in labels in antiquity?

I'm not too sure about that. I think that until Darwin's time people in the West liked to think of themselves as inheritors of the Roman Empire, and stood in awe of its achievements. However, with Darwinism taking hold, it's hard to believe that the Romans - or anybody else - could have achieved things we do not understand, simply because we are the 'survivors' in an obviously superior age. Therefore, although a minority understand that we actually don't know as much as we think, a large proportion can't really believe that, for example, the Romans could have a highly-developed medical service for the army, or that they could put an awning over the Colosseum, and it's obvious that everybody thought that the Earth was flat until Columbus proved it wasn't! The 'Antykthera' (please don't correct my spelling!! ) mechanism couldn't have been built by ancient people without the use of modern technology - it's obvious!! Reading the very old histories (eg Gibbon and before) makes me think that they thought that the Romans and possibly the Egyptians and Greeks could surpass the modern world. Now, thanks to Darwin, modern people are convinced that prior to the Renaissance the world was a very backward one. Even now Terry Jones (ex-Python and neo-historian) can make a series of programs about the 'Middle Ages' and attempt to correct our distorted view. Again, I'd suggest that at least some of the blame lies with Darwin, as 'everybody knows' how backwards they were even as late as the Middle Ages with regards to disease etc. Although the Greeks are seen as advanced 'politically' in some respects, and the Romans as advanced beyond their time, they still are seen as pale shadows of what we are now. Darwinism lives!!

Hi all. Just an idea that's been rattling around in my mind for a while now. I thought that members of the forum could help me? When Darwin published 'The Origin of Species' he declared that life was always evolving and that, apart from in isolated circumstances, life was the 'Survival of the Fittest'. Obviously, this was then adopted by historians who saw the whole of prehistory and history as a dynamic growth to the point where we are now. However, I'm coming to the conclusion that this has distorted our image of the past, as some historians and the majority of the public cannot believe that ancient civilizations could accomplish what they did and we don't know how to replicate it etc. Therefore, I think that Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution' has warped our beliefs about the past. Am I right in this or going completely mad?

No, free dacians (carpii and costobocii) and former roman proper Dacia are included in the gothic orange while moesians are not around anymore. The region on the map below the Danube Delta (Moesia Inferior) should have been roman purple. The region between the roman purple on Middle Danube and the gothic orange, the puzta - Tisza plain, belongs to sarmatian people - the yaziges. I believe it does. As Diegis pointed above the Cernihov material culture (named Sintana de Mures in Romania) was made from several elements including roman provincial and free dacian. I see things like this: a german speaking group vaguely identified as goths moves from Scandinavia to Ukraine. Here in a long time they combine with sarmatians, mixed greeks from Bosporan, free dacians, romans form Dacia etc creating a new group that still speaks german and identify as goths. This group moves to the Northern Balkans were it changes again and from there moves in two waves to Italy and Spain where they finally are absorbed by romance speakers. But what evidence is there that the 'Goths' ever lived in Scandinavia?

I accept the point completely, but I am not sure we need to see such a dramatic migration as one from the Baltic to the Danube. Why not from nearby due to population increase/political and military pressure? That's always been a problem for archaeologists. Only in fairly recent times have they started to look at excavations in their own terms rather than trying to tie them in with written sources. This may be linked to modern historians actually looking at the sources afresh and realizing that they may be in error!

As an Englishman I have to admit I've been impressed with Croatia and Russia. When they beat us and knocked us out it was assumed that England were poor/hadn't performed well/didn't deserve to be in it etc. But now we have proof that we lost to what are actually very good teams, and we don't really need too much of an excuse for losing! Having said that, we should be given a good hard kicking for complacency!! Now that Austria are out I find myself wanting Russia to win. Last night they played a fantastic game of football and, if they can maintain that level, there's no reason why they can't win!

In his book 'Goths and Romans, 332-489' (Oxford Historical Monographs), Heather criticizes Jordanes and drives large holes through some of his 'history'. If I remember correctly, Heather sees the Goths as forming from local tribesmen rather than migrations from Scandinavia. I must admit that Heather' theories sound plausible. Maybe you should check this out?

The Scythians and the Goths are not the same. Ancient writers maintained the names of ancient tribes as part of the genre: hence, Goths are called Scythians only because by the fourth century they are living in the place previously associated with Scythians. It's just a topos, not an attempt at 'ethnic' identification. Sorry of that's a little unclear, but my time is extremely limited at the moment!

You're welcome. Not at all. I've slowly come to the conclusion that Narses the Eunuch (sorry, I use the title because there was more than one Narses in the story of Belisarius!) was as good as - if not better - than Belisarius. In my view Narses t. E. is the first true Byzantine general, showing a high level of ability whilst not fitting the tag of 'Roman'.

Salve, Sonic Why is Belisarius considered by you (and others, of course) the Last Roman General? I assume it may be because his Triumphus at 534 for the Vandal War against Gelimer was presumably the last one ever (and incidentally, maybe the first one given to any Roman commander different from the incumbent Emperor since Germanicus). Am I right? Is there other reason? That is definitely one reason for the title. The other is the nature of the 'title' holders. Belisarius was born in Thrace and spoke a version of Latin as his native tongue. After him, we have generals such as Narses, an Armenian who spoke - er - Armenian as his native tongue and was an eunuch. When relating this to the Augustan period, I felt that Augustus would have been (relatively) happy having a 'Thracian' as a general, but would have been shocked at the use of an Armenian eunuch: this was contrary to the 'traditions' of Rome. Although I agree that he would have been shocked by the earlier use of Germans in very high positions, I think that this is probably the last time that he would have accepted the appointment without raised eyebrows. Furthermore, there is continued debate as to when the Eastern Emprie became the 'Byzantine Empire'. I accept that this is a modern appelation, but I suggest that the idea of the 'Roman' Empire speaking Greek would have been unacceptable to the earlier emperors. Not long after Belisarius' death, the Empire became 'Greek' and this is a further point of departure: after this, the empire can be viewed as alien to the earlier emperors. I hope that clears up some of the points! (If it doesn't, I'll gladly answer further questions, but please be aware that my time is limited! Even as I type, my son (Who is 3) is asking for attention: got to go!!) Sonic

I'm reading that chapter right now!! It's great, too. Good recomendation my fellow Antiochus! Antiochus III I hate to do this, but my own take on the story is now available for pre-order on Amazon. Belisarius: the Last Roman General. Although I'm slightly uncomfortable 'blowing my own trumpet' (after all, I am English!) I have tried to give as detailed an account as is possible of his career and conquests. Hopefully the editor/publishers will accept my request to include the large number of maps I have drawn that help to explain his movements, especially in the Italian campaign. Once it is available, I was hoping that some kind soul (emphasis on 'kind'!!) would post a review? No doubt not everybody will agree with my conclusions, but I hope they will understand that I have attempted to omit any preconceptions whilst writing the book.

I wasn't sure but it's been clarified today: a defender that is behind the goal line still counts as active, though I've got to admit I didn't know that! Good job I wasn't the linesman - sorry, 'assistant referee'!!

Hello everyone, just thought I should point out that the new tome on Belisarius is finally available to pre-order on Amazon: Belisarius. I'm expecting everyone to buy a copy, and those who don't will get a visit from the Spanish Inquisition!! (Unless they've got a note from their mum!! )

Now THAT would make the headlines!!

1) Decide which period you want to study! It may seem obvious to anyone who's been to University, but different Departments have different specialisms. eg. When I went to University in Cardiff it was becoming known for its study of military history in the Ancient World. 2) Decide which period you want to study! 3) Once you've decided which period, look at the specialisms of the lecturers at each university. When I was looking I found that there was a lecturer at Lampeter University (in central Wales) who specialised in the Etruscans. However, I rang to ask him a few questions and found that he was leaving to go to teach at Oxford. I didn't go to Lampeter! 4) Look at the reputation of the University. In the UK there are a lot of new universities that have recently (ie in the last 20 years!) upgraded from colleges and Polytechnics. People from older instituitions look down on these and you need to be aware that a degree from one of these may be seen as less than one from Oxbridge! 5) Distance from 'home'. Do you want to create a brand new lifestyle, or commute, or go to the University in your home town? I wanted to have a brand new lifestyle so travelled a large distance to get to University from my home town. No home visits except during major holidays, no weekends at home. It forced me to adapt and become a more integrated person!! 6) Work out what qualifications you need to attend specific universities. For example, I didn't have the grades needed to go to Oxford or Cambridge! Strangely enough, I decided to put them out of the equation!! Will that do for starters? Yes, I know there's six, but I wanted to emphasise point 1!!

The San Marino of the Euro 2008 would be Austria, so thank`s for your support! You're on!! Come on Austria ......!!

You are assuming that both sides adopted the same depth of formation. The Romans deployed in depth - virtually in column - so their greater numbers were behind the front line. The Carthaginians deployed in a 'thinner' formation, so that their fewer numbers still extended beyond the Roman lines. Or, in a poor attempt at a diagram to make the point: CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC RRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRR As you can see, even though the Romans outnumber the Carthaginians, the Carthaginians' line is still longer. Now you can see how the Carthaginians could outflank the Romans. Furthermore, because a large number of Roman troops are deployed in the centre -the bold letters in the diagram - they can never bring their superior numbers to bear. Although this is simplified from reality, I hope it helps to explain what happened.

How do you narrow it down? To Begin: The missing sections of Ammianus Marcellinus; Claudius' "History of the Etruscans"; Anything that was relatively detailed written during and about the 3rd century AD - to fill in the gaps in the 'crisis' - and especially on Claudius II Gothicus There - that will do for a start ..... !!

I couldn't watch it all - I was shouting and swearing at the screen! I can't work out which is worse: this or the building of a museum showing humans and dinosaurs living together!