sonic

Try reading Procopius' 'Histories' and 'Secret History' (both available in paperback!). This gives a description of Justinian - although you need to remember that Procopius doesn't like him and so gives a very warped impression! In fact, a very, very warped impression!! I recommend that you avoid the 'Secret History' if you are easily shocked!!

(Sorry for not responding earlier - whenever I've tried to log on to the site for the past month, I've been told it doesn't exist until today! It's going to take me a long time to catch up!!) I've got to agree with Doc here: especially with regard to Welsh. The Welsh people have a culture and a history within their own lands far longer than we English newcomers. Also, they had many outstanding ideas long before the 'advanced' English even considered them. For example, when their history and laws are analysed it's found that their laws with regard to women were more advanced in 1100 than the English laws of 1900!! Women could divorce their husbands (unkown in England) and were treated with a lot more respect. It may be true that language is there to communicate with others, but the sad thing is that most English and Americans appear to believe that this means we should all learn English!! Welsh children are now being forced at school to learn two languages - English and Welsh. English children only have to learn their own. Is this the way to encourage communication? I've just reread this post and it sounds a lot more 'aggressive' than was meant!! As I said earlier, I'm playing catch-up and so don't have time to think of 'nicer' ways of putting things!

Can I ask where you got the figure of 95% from for the 'foreign' recruits in the army?? Sonic

Lief Eriksson, his son, I believe...but I could be wrong on that. No, I think you're right! Cheers for the correction Doc!! Sonic

Actually, I think you'll find it written down in the Viking Sagas (I can't remember which one! ). The Vikings told everyone who'd bother to listen, but no one listened and believed them when they spoke of 'Vinland' in the West. Not only that, they actually returned and did tell the tales. It's taken archaeology to prove that the antics of a group of Vikings (Erik the Red??) reported in the Sagas were actually based in fact! Sonic

Unfortunately, whem one works within a specific perspective, then aspects of that perspective can be open to criticism. Although I accept that the linguistic perspective is that 'if they are not part of the original culture, they are external pressure', can this lead to a bias where the 'newcomer' is viewed permanently as an outsider, rather than as an equal part of a 'culture'? (This is not a criticism, but an honest question!!) It is possible/likely (I haven't made my mind up yet!! ) that the English and Vikings in Northern England became a single culture with a unified language. Furthermore, check the dimensions of the Danelaw and realise that it included London, albeit for a short time. Non-historians of the era commonly assume that 'The North' begins somewhere near Scotland, whereas the Danelaw was much further South. (I remember an advert placed in a wargames magazine where a figure manufacture was opening a shop for its' customers "oop Norf". The shop was in Birmingham, which is nearer to London than the Scottish border!! )

Sorry Doc, but there's one thing that you and other linguists are forgetting: the Vikings were not an 'external pressure'. After the intial attacks many of them settled in England and became 'internal'. The need for a common language was not due to 'invaders' wishing to make their demands known, but of the 'neighbour-to-neighbour' variety used on a daily basis. The continuous interaction is likely to have embedded changes in the language rather than being relatively uncommon and so unlikely to have a great effect. The fact that the two languages are highly inflected is mainly irrelevant, and can actually be used to support the opposing theory. Due to the complexity and differences of the two Germanic languages, the natives and immigrant Vikings are likely to have concentrated more on the similarities than the differences. Therefore, the different endings for the inflections could have been lost and, in the search for clarity, word order have become more important. The invasion of the Normans - actually not true Vikings by the time of the conquest - who spoke French (a Romance language) probably gave a greater impetus to the simplification of the language and the greater reliance on word order to make sentences understandable. Please note that I do not make these statements as a linguistic scholar, but as a historian who studied the period at university. The major difficulty with all such discussions is that too often one side or the other (ie linguists or historians) do not agree on something (such as the linguistic influence of the Vikings!! ) because the experts in both fields are approaching the question from entirely different viewpoints and with entirely valid arguments. Unfortunately, due to the irregular nature of these 'meetings', neither side has the chance to convince the other that they are correct, even when both sides have valid reasons for their assumptions, For those not in the know about the Danelaw (as seems to be the case from some of the above posts), it is fairly easy to give a rough idea to anybody here interested in Roman history . Find Watling Street (yes, the Roman Road!!) on a map of England. To the north of this is the Danelaw, to the south is 'free' England. A section of the Kingdom of Northumbria remained free, sandwiched between the Viking Kingdom of York and the forming Kingdom of Scotland, but otherwise the rest was ruled by the Vikings and a substantial number settled in the area. It was only after many wars that the Kings of Wessex managed to conquer the Viking-held lands and so create the Kingdom of England. In fact, for one glorious period Denmark, Norway and England formed a single 'Empire' under the control of Cnut (Canute). However, this collapsed soon after his death and the sorrowful events leading to the Norman conquest unrolled. One final point; I'm working from a not-very-reliable memory here, but it was only during the reign of Athelstan (I think!!) that the term 'King of England' was used: prior to this, the kings were termed 'King of the English' This illustrates that only relatively late did the concept of 'land rule' emerge, following on from the concept of 'people rule'. I know that's got nothing to do with the question, but I like it!! Sonic

Don't let your dislike of the Isle of Man bias your thoughts: love it or loath it, it's still the oldest!! Don't confuse Anglo-Saxon/German as distinct languages: Anglo-Saxon was a Germanic language, as was Norse, so there are many words which people asssume were English which could easily turn out to be Norse, as they were so similar, as I showed in an earlier post. That helps to explain to the Doc why 'English' remained the norm in England. Furthermore, until the last 50-100 years the dialects of the North of England were almost unintelligible to the South. Both sides had to speak carefully in order to be understood. It is only under the vast influence of the media that accents and dialects have started to become more standard. As proof, in the Nineteenth century a fishing trawler from Newcastle was blown off course and ended up in Iceland. To the amazement of both parties, they could actually hold simple conversations, due to the 'Geordie' accent being influenced by the Vikings so many years before. (The Icelanders, obviously, speaking a direct derivative of Old Norse!) It hurts me to say it, but probably the 'French' invasion from Normandy. Many words were introduced to our language by the Normans, and their eventual total conquest (by c.1072) resulted in a reorientation of English politics and ambitions away from the Viking areas of Scandinavia and Denmark towards the Low countries and France. Politically and culturally we have been very much influenced by the French, even if the influence has been a negative one (such as our refusal to eat snails!! ) The amount of direct conflict between Engalnd and Scandinavia is small compared to our 'permanent' war with France which lasted on and off from the reign of William I until 1815. It is easy to forget that our wars with Germany have only been fought in the last 100 years, whereas we had the Hundred Years War with France. The legacy of a King of England owning half of France is still felt today!! Hope that helps!! Sonic

The Viking contribution? 1) They gave the world the longest surviving 'democracy' in the Tynwald of the Isle of Man. 2) Not content with introducing a 'totally useless' language, they contributed greatly to our present day language. For example every time you look out of a window and see a bird laying an egg, think of the Vikings. Oh, and men wear shirts and women wear skirts, but the original long, non-gendered garment was a shirt. The 'sk' sound came about with the Vikings, so the split shirt/skirt, and in placenames between, for example, Shipton (South) and Skipton (North), is a direct legacy of the Vikings. A large part of the linguistic separation between the North and South of England is due to Viking linguistic influence. 3) The Vikings did not force the 'disparate' kingdoms of England to come together!! They completely wiped out the kingdoms that existed in England with the exception of Wessex. The traditionally named 'reconquest' did not happen: it was a conquest of England by the Kings of Wessex, with the aim being to eradicate the Kingdoms run by the Vikings in order to ensure their survival. As late as the reign of Harold Godwinson many of the Northumbrians were unhappy with the rule of Wessex! And don't forget that for a time we were part of a large Viking empire under Cnut, who appears to have been a great king! 4) They maintained their mastery of trade, and it should be remembered that the 'reconquest' simply evicted the Viking ruling elite. Many vikings remained under the rule of Wessex and contributed to the trade and industry of the North. Finally, they do deserve the attempt at rehabilitation. Although they did attack England and cause widespread destruction and death, that is not the whole story. Try reading a history of the Kingdom of York and seeing the influence the kingdom had on English and Scottish politics - an influence that survived long after the demise of York as a separate political entity.

Spike Millgan, comedy genius. He wrote 'The Goon Show', the major influence on the Python's, and you can't argue with that!!

Bio's of Crassus are in the "scarce" category. Check this post and a couple of following replies for more info. &*^)&*& &*(^* (very long and rude swear word!) Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic by Allen Mason Ward is only

Already exists. See list here. Yes, but as a document that is essentially a journal

I'm not sure you could spread the information on Vercingetorix to 70,000 words, but I'll look into it and make sure one way or another! Sonic Quite a challenge there Sonic. Real dearth of information seeing how history is written by the victors and all that jazz. I wonder how much one could glean from the local folklore in the Auvergne area. The only problem would be the reliability of the folklore. We all know that King Arthur came from Cornwall - or was it Scotland (King Arthur's Seat, Edinburgh!) - or was it Brittany? With written evidence, we can at least trace the path of the story or decide upon the reliability of the witness (eg Polybius being a friend of the Scipios, or Procopius being an eye-witness to many of the events he records), but with folklore there is no such guideline and, although the story may in fact be true, there is no way of testing its reliability. Also, I can't speak fluent French!! I'll go through the list to see what's viable and then ask the publishers what they want me to do. Unfortunately, I am not (yet!) in the league of Goldsworthy et al where I tell the publisher what I want to write: all I can do is make suggestions backed by evidence that the topic may sell - hence my asking the question in the first place!! Thanks for all the suggestions. Are there any more or is that the lot now? Sonic

I'm not sure you could spread the information on Vercingetorix to 70,000 words, but I'll look into it and make sure one way or another! Sonic Quite a challenge there Sonic. Real dearth of information seeing how history is written by the victors and all that jazz. I wonder how much one could glean from the local folklore in the Auvergne area. The question would be not how much could be gleaned, but how reliable it would be. As we all know, King Arthur came from Cornwall (say the Cornish!), or from the midlands, or from Scotland (Arthur's seat, Edinburgh!), or possibly even from Brittany. Although it's an extreme example, the rule still holds: the Gauls were inordinately proud of their hero, so may have been prone to exaggerate or make claims that probably never existed (King Alfred and the Cakes!). However, as with Arthur (but not Alfred), the oral tradition would be unsubstantiated and impossible to prove. Although in much of history we have the same problem with only one or two written sources, with the written sources it is possible to trace where the information began and to make a statement about the reliability of the author (eg Procopius, Polybius, Livy etc). With the folkloric tradition, there are no such safeguards, although the stories may in fact be true. There is simply no way to verify the facts. Also, it would help if I was fluent in French. However, like I said, I will look into all of the above suggestions and then liaise with my publishers to see which one they want me to do (I am not in the league of Goldsworthy et al where I tell the publishers what I want to write!! - maybe in a couple of years!! ) In the meantime, thanks for all the suggestions. Is that it, or are there still a couple more out there?? Sonic

I'm not sure you could spread the information on Vercingetorix to 70,000 words, but I'll look into it and make sure one way or another! Sonic

A book with multiple lives, like Goldsworthy's 'In The Name of Rome'? Would people actually want another one of these on different individuals, or possibly a series?? If so, which individuals?? My editor's going to be hearing about these ideas!! I wonder which one will interest him the most? Keep the ideas coming in people - the current book is slowly getting there!! Sonic

What a wonderful opportunity it is for me to recommend the Roman General and Emperator I personally hold as my favorite next to GJC as the subject of your next biography. This I, I think, fills the bill. I don

I haven't looked at personal names, but over time many place names have evolved different endings. For example, Latium has changed the 't' to a 'z' and the 'ium' to an 'o' = Lazio. Maybe the same has happened to the personal names?

I believe that Constantine did indeed pass an Edict to change the sabbath to Sundays. The reason for this is often seen as religious/political: by making the special day of both the Christians and the Romans the same, he removed a cause for antagonism, since the Christian shops etc were no longer different to those of the Romans and remained open on Saturdays. It also made it easier for non-Christians to convert, since now that the days of worship were the same, there was less pressure on them - they could convert and no-one would be able to detect it as the weekly festivities were on the same day. Consequently, their conversion could either be kept secret or known only to Christians, ensuring that they were not persecuted for their 'apostacy'. The main factor that helped the change was that the majority of Roman 'pagans' had began to adapt under pressure from Christianity and other monotheistic groups. Slowly, the vast number of individual deities were becoming subsumed into one, known as Sol Invictus (The Unconquered Sun - I think!). This is the reason for Sunday being adopted as the day of rest, since most non-Christians within the Empire worshipped Sol Invictus, who was - obviously - worshipped on Sundays. It was very lucky for Constantine that this change had been taking place, as otherwise Christianity may have still had distinctive festivals and days like the Sabbath which marked them as 'different'. Being seen as different is never a good thing - ask the Jews what it has been like over the past c.2,000 years! The change from Pagan to Christian also explains why Christmas is on December 25th: this was a major pagan festival, and the adoption of the date was an attempt to integrate Christianity and pagan religions by ensuring that they all had major festivals on the same day. I used to be a teacher in England, and one of the major (but short-lived) causes of friction amongst pupils in mixed-religious schools is that the Christians have holidays at Christmas, Easter etc. whereas the Muslims have the same holidays plus the Two Eids etc. I would like to emphasise that the situation never mattered to me, but, to some of the less tolerant kids, this 'difference' was, during Eid, a major cause of annoyance. It is not surprising that so many of the Christian festivals were linked to pagan ones in an attempt to avoid conflict. I hope that helps to explain some of the changes, and also clarifies that the Sun cults did not force the Christians to 'sell-out': in reality, it was a ploy used by Constantine to make the Sun-worshippers more likely to become Christian, not htr eother way round!

I know I'm going to be hung, drawn and quartered for this, but I have always felt that Alexander has in some ways been overrated. Yes, his conquests were spectacular, and some of his battlefield tactics were great, but strategically and politically his performance often leaves a lot to be desired. Personally, I think that both Hannibal and Scipio should rank above him, even though Hannibal did show a certain lack of political awareness when he invaded Italy.

Not sure I agree with you there. America may have attempted to absorb different cultures with complete toleration, but I don't believe that that will continue much longer, mainly because, being so large, different areas of the states have different cultural leanings. The question now, as for the Romans, is whether or not the geographical and cultural diversity will lead to a decline in unity should pressure be put upon the whole country. We'll have to wait and see! I believe that, for the Romans, one of the factors in the disintegration of the West and the continuation of the East was culture. The East, was based largely upon the unifying properties of large cities that had long histories of spreading culture and awareness to their hinterlands. Furthermore, before the Romans arrived the area had been accustomed to being part of large Empires (Hittites, Macedonians etc), and thanks to Alexander's conquests had a long history of speaking Greek in local politics and international affairs. Therefore, when the Romans arrived the indigenous peoples changed one master for another, yet life probably still went on much as before, with the role of Empire being assumed by a different master. Moreover, the Romans had early begun to adopt Greek manners, customs and language, and so their impact upon the East for the majority of the inhabitants may have been small. In this context, it is interesting to note that shortly after the Fall of the West the East dropped Latin and officially adopted the Greek language in court business. In the West, the situation was different. Unused to being part of a larger empire, the inhabitants of Gaul, Spain, Britain and elsewhere appear to have clung to a greater or lesser degree to their own cultures and, in some cases, even languages. Once the Empire ceased to maintain a tight control of these areas, it is interesting to note how many rebellions were launched in the West, and not surprising that the inhabitants would be prepared to submit to strong, 'local' rulers who would defend their small area from the outside world. The small, insular, local customs of the inhabitants would lead them to embrace anybody who would defend their local customs and beliefs. However, before I sign off, please note: this post only represents my first thoughts. They are liable to change when people present me with convincing arguments to the contrary!! So come on folks, let's argue!!

I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world, but the system used in England is getting more and more bogged-down with what the 'government' thinks should be taught. We are now being told that we have to teach, amongst others (and in no particular order); 'Home Economics' (cooking etc), English, Maths, the Sciences (sometimes as one subject, sometimes split into Biology, Chemistry and Physics), History, Geography, Religious Studies, Personal Social and Health Education (everything from how to wash your hands to how not to catch Syphilis), Art, 'Resistant Materials' (Woodwork and Metalwork), Drama, Dance and Physical Education. PE, we are now told, should have at least 5 hours a week on the timetable. Unfortunately, there are only 25 hours a week to teach in. There are now also proposals to include/expand Citizenship and 'Business' to fit into the schedule. In Citizenship, kids are supposed to learn about their rights and duties as citizens (voting, abiding by the law, etc. etc) and in 'Business' (or whatever it will be called) they are to learn how to manage their finances (mainly because British people are vastly in debt with credit cards, bank loans etc). It seems that every time another fault is found with society, teachers are given a new subject and told to jam it into an ever-more stuffed timetable and so cure the ills of our present society. Let's be honest, 'Rhetoric' is taught to a minor degree in a subject called ASDAN, but this is only taught to the 'lesser-ability' students who haven't got the ability to 'write' and/or behave properly in a classroom - although ASDAN appears to be being expanded as it is actually useful in a lot of ways. However, how could we manage to cram yet another subject into our already overstretched timetables, and who would teach it? The main problem with all of these 'new' subjects is that people do not recognise that in England teachers do not have the time to teach them, they are not trained to teach them, and are not given the money necessary to pay for the resources needed. This is why Science teachers could end up teaching 'rhetoric' and schools go ever further into debt attempting to pay for it. It's too easy to say that we simply need to train 'rhetoric' teacher, but how many people would actually want to teach it?? As somebody has already pointed out, today's youngsters are already 'cheeky' enough, without being taught to respond in a reasoned and erudite manner! Thank the Lord I am out of it!! An ex teacher

I wish historians would stop using this quote out of context in an attempt to prove that the Roman 'legionary' had had his day. The Roman infantry at Chalons would have 'huddled behind their shields', as they had no hope of catching the fast-moving Hunnic archers and forcing them to stand and fight on their (the infantry's) terms. And any 'speech' given by Attila would probably have been very similar to the speech quoted, but this is the section that is never put into context. Attila was leading one of the most powerful nomadic 'tribes' ever to have emerged from the Eurasian steppes. The speech merely highlights the disgust and contempt felt by any self-respecting nomad for troops that fought on foot, whether Roman, German or Australian! It is not evidence for the decline of the Legions. (In fact, an interesting theoretical question would be how the earlier, Imperial armies of Trajan etc would have fared against the superb horsemanship and firepower of the Huns.) Furthermore, since his troops could avoid contact with the infantry and could therefore choose to disregard them if they wanted, Attila demonstrates that he is not totally incompetent by ordering his men to focus upon the cavalry forces of the Goths and Alans. These troops could catch his horsemen and force them to fight when they were unready or unwilling. In other words, they could take the initiative out of Attila's hands. In fact, the ability of the infantry to 'contribute to the victory by seizing part of the battlefield's high ground' highlights the weakness of the argument that the infantry were no longer of real consequence. When used correctly and properly trained, the legions of Rome could stay play an effective part in fighting the enemies of Rome. Ferrill et al merely demonstrate both their desire to read their own assumptions into the evidence, rather than letting the evidence guide their assumptions, and the danger of hindsight: their recognition that cavalry would dominate the battlefields of Europe for the next c.1,000 years leads them to the conclusion that the role of the infantry had now declined. Try telling that to the Franks, who after this period carved a large kingdom out of previously Roman territory using mainly infantry!

For myself, part of the difficulty lies in what people mean by 'Greek'. I would love to learn more about the smaller poleis (have I remembered that correctly?), and the earlier periods of Greek history. Furthermore, don't forget that 'The Greeks' colonised large parts of the Mediterranean littoral, so we should also include 'Greek' cities outside Greece - I would love to learn more about Cumae in Italy, for example. Yet the majority of books on these subjects appear to be in German. In English, the subject of 'Greece' is dominated by books on Sparta and Athens, the influence of which have probably been overrated as a result. I can accept that in her (brief) heyday, Athens was a cultural beacon for the world, and that Sparta was likewise a model for the ultimate military machine, but the period of their respective domination was relatively brief. The rest of the Greek world has, as a result, been largely ignored by English writers. My main interest is military history, and so the Spartan Warriors and the policy of Pericles dominate all. What is needed is a series of translations of the German (and possibly other?) texts into English to make them available for us poor monolinguistic suckers, and a series in English on cities other than the big two. Only in that way will the Greeks begin to exert a fascination that is comparitve to their cultural influence.

Hi folks, this is just a quick query. Does anybody have a map showing the location of the town/city of 'Hermione', in the area of Byzacena, in the province of Africa?? It's where Gelimer was located when Belisarius landed in Africa during the reconquest of the 6th century. I have tried for ages to find something in my own book collection and on the net, all to no avail. Have I just been unlucky, or is the location of the town unknown? I just hope that somebody out there can help me!! Thanks in advance.