sylla

The problem in defining "terrorism" is not so much semantic ("The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments") as administrative. Essentially, all the persons/groups that use force/violence consider that they are entitled to do it so. Consequently, the "terrorist" is always the other side, never oneself. On the other hand, "piracy" is a rather objectively defined term: "robbery committed at sea". Sir Francis Drake was an officially sanctioned pirate (by Britain) ie, a corsair, and a dreadful one indeed. He was also an outstanding explorer; both activities are not mutually exclusive.

The use of Scottish locations suggests that the budget was not enough for getting New Zealand. The poor choice of Latin names for the main characters, and the apparent presence of some barbarian-like moustaches among them, suggest a limited investigation of the social background. The use of the demonym "Pict" and Ms. Kurylenko make-up suggest that anachronisms have not worried Mr. Marshall. As a whole, it seems that hollywoodesque action will prevail over historicity whenever in conflict. So as a humble romanophile, I think the best one can expect is a reasonable reenactment of the legionaries tactics, equipment and weaponry.

Except his German guards, who remained loyal. If I remember right, wasn't the situation somewhat fraught immediately after his death? That would indicate there were still plenty of 'Caligulists' at large. Blood-thirstiness is a complex subject. To some extent, people are sheep. If powerful leaders tell them to be blood-thirsty and give them absoltuion or an excuse, be it religious, racial, or political in nature, then they follow suit and rationalise what they've done even if they have lingering doubts and guilt. As individuals, without a group to hide behind, most people cannot behave in that manner (and fewer still would contemplate it). In other words, as social animals human beings run with the crowd. Regarding leaders, we tend to study them in siolation or in relations to their immediate associates such as family or allies. However, in an organised situation you do often find able organisers that exist in the shadows. For the most part these faceless assistants are of no great account in history (or we'd know who they were) but their influence cannot be underestimated. Augustus for instance was a typically cautious leader (one reason for his popularity - the Romans liked cautious leaders) and despite the peace and prosperity of his reign, doesn't seem to show any great flair in civic management. Granted, he did some clever things. He kept Cleopatra at arms length (what a dodgy woman she was!), reinvented the Roman legions as 'soldiers', not 'brothers', "Found Rome in brick and left it in marble", and certaibnly staged a lot of games. And so forth. But his real success was to do as little as possible. Roman emperors who were remembered fondly often share that characteristic. By maintaining as much of the status quo as possible, fewer influential people got upset. Augustus in fact walked a tightrope in his early days (and due credit to him) and his title of Princeps demonstrates that. Yes, Agustus is in charge, but not an ego maniac like Caesar or those horrible kings we once had. In other words, he was a dictator who pretended he wasn't. You could in fact argue, as I have, that he did little more than bribe the Roman public to keep him in power, though there are are indications he kept an eye out for possible up-and-coming rivals and dealt with them in pretty much the same manner as any modern gangster might. Now the state had to continue running. We know that Emperors struggled mightily to run it in later years, the empire was just too big for one man to control, so the ability and integrity of most bureaucrats who worked on Augustus's behalf must therefore have been somewhat better than in later reigns. They were opening up a genre of government, they had the full support of the Princeps, and had every reason to demonstrate skill and endeavour. Later bureaucrats simply wanted a bit of status, a sinecure, and a source of income, and backscratched their way into an existing role. Some might argue that Augustus kept a close enough scrutiny to ensure his own men were doing a good job. I have to concede that possibility. In a sense, he may have been an able administrator - I would argue he was an able manager. Status and income are universal legitimate demands from any human for any government; the real success of the Augustus' administration (on a global all-time scale) was ensuring plenty of them to millions of Roman citizens for centuries; such kind of "bribing" is what the human "sheep" might reasonably expect from the real top world leaders. Their civic management was enough to explain why the Republic never came back, even after Chaerea butchered Caius; in fact, even among the most noble senatorial families, most of them were more comfortable as bureaucrats (some of them even efficient) under a strong regime than as petty lords under the chaos of civil war.

The demise of the VIIII Hispana in Caledonia was considered standard knowledge some years ago, as it was based in Eboracum, there is no record of its presence in Britannia later than 109 and it was out of the legion lists at least since Marcus Aurelius' reign (161-180). In fact, this seemed to be the perfect explanation for the timing of the Hadrian

No; the top is facing southeast. That was standard practice; just compare with the Tabula Peutingeriana.

Actually, the main argument against an administrative function for this monument is that it was not readable at all; in place, its upper panels were some 18 meters above the floor level.

The conspirators' motives were clearly more political than personal; the empress Caesonia and the princess Drusilla (two years old) were assassinated too, and Claudius survived by sheer luck.

There's both textual (mostly the Elder Pliny) and archaeological (mostly British) evidence of some extraction and a discrete trade of coal. Its use as fuel was always secondary and far from charcoal and wood in Rome and elsewhere, at least up to the Southern Song dynasty in China. Roman metallurgy added coal to some alloys; it was also used for jewelry, cosmetics and medicine.

The same can be said regarding Alexander III the Great of Macedon; age requirements are there for the sake of minimal maturity, and very few individuals can be expected to succeed without fulfilling them. Anyone can be blood-thirsty, particularly across civil wars; what made Octavius/Augustus and a fistful of historical world leaders unique was their exceptionally gifted administrative performance. If the emperor Caius (aka Caligula) died in 41 and not in 84 AD, it was mostly due to suboptimal security; both his predecessors and most of his successors survived to countless conspiracies.

Apples and oranges are trying to be compared here. As Neil put it nicely, archaeological tourism and multimedia are not alternative, but complementary to each other. BTW, the same applies to almost any personal experience; from animal observation (just check Aurelia's blog) to human sex.

Let me share some key concepts that I have found within the General Guidelines to Safeguard Documentary Heritage from the Memory of The World programme (R Edmonson, UNESCO, 2002): 1.2 Objectives of Memory of the World (a) To facilitate preservation, by the most appropriate techniques, of the world

The Tabula Peutingeriana is a medieval reproduction of a Roman map dating back to the 12th century The Biblioteca Corviniana Collection is also medieval (not sure if it contains any original works from the Roman period although it does contain books by Greek and Latin authors) The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1455 Please don't get me wrong, all the above works are very relevant to the Roman period. What I meant is that I was looking for original Roman documents, not reproductions from later periods. Then the Vienna Dioscurides doesn't qualify either; we have basically restricted ourselves to papyrii, numismatics and epigraphy.

You're right, sylla. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I agree that documents and books such as "Mein Kampf" should be preserved although it would not be number one on my list of items that should be added to the UNESCO Register. As for the list of Roman documents, yes, once again you're right about Dioscurides (I didn't spot it the first time), and probably some of the documents in the Egyptian papyri collection (I assumed they only concerned papyri pre-dating the Roman period) . I was mainly looking for documents that were actually produced in the Roman period, which is not really the case with the Tabula (very interesting nonetheless!), Bibliotheca Corviniana or the Gutenberg Bible. The Tabula Peutingeriana is actually a Roman Map. As its name suggests, the Bibliotheca Corviniana Collection includes many documents: most of them are Greek and Roman classics. At least the New Testament is clearly from the Roman age and world. I haven't been able to find the well-defined selection criteria for additional documents; anyway, my obvious personal suggestion would be the Trajan's Column.

I agree. And aside from moral considerations, "Mein Kampf" is part of history whether we like it or not. Anyway, while browsing through the list I noticed that there's not much (read nothing, at least nothing I could see) from the Roman period. I wonder why... Then, you answered your own original question; by the same measure, ALL documents should be preserved. Roman documents? From the original link, I was able to spot: - Vienna Dioscurides; - Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer; - Tabula Peutingeriana; - The Bibliotheca Corviniana Collection; - and maybe even the 42-line Gutenberg Bible.

On his own last day, Augustus said something like: "Since well I've played my part, all clap your hands And from the stage dismiss me with applause." It seems no one portraited Augustus better than Caius Octavius.

Given the current electronic documentary storage capabilities and the expected improvements, methinks the right question would be which documents SHOULDN'T be added to that list (for example, Mein Kampf).