gilius

Inspired by the British Museum exhibition, does anyone know how far this type of housing was distribubed/spread beyond Rome and Campania? For example, was it even common for houses in Gaul to have an Atrium and Impluvium? How about Spain? I know Britain never had these houses--not even the grandest villas resembled them.

It was very interesting to see the Oscan script on an artifact at the British Museum last week as part of their sadly-soon-to-be finished exhibition. I'm very curious about the previous peoples who occupied the city. There was a great book that tried to piece together the early history of Pompeii mainly looking at the walls since most of the earliest layers have not been excavated. This then led me to question some of the assumptions/mysteries relating to the Roman invasion of Italy.

Here's my notes I took down from watching the documentary and reading the blog, but there is more info to be had from reading the book, including how Domitian wrote Acts as an adjunct to the gospels (also an upcoming work: the single strand). It's also worth understanding a bit more about the dead sea scrolls being an account more by the Jewish zealots, i.e. people mixed quite closely with the mainstream, rather than some isolated sect. Also the international team who worked on the dead sea scrolls would have us believe that most of the scrolls pre-date the era of Christianity when they are mostly 1st century, but evidence of that should be sought elsewhere other than this documentary. Anyway, here goes... The Julio-Claudian dynasty, ending with Emperor Nero, was bankrupting the Roman Empire, and the Judeans were planning a revolt. The Herods (non-Jewish Greco-Arabs) were client kings/tax collectors of the Roman conquered province of Judea and had previously destroyed the Maccabean dynasty. Every temple was required to have a statue of the Roman emperor besides those of the many Pagan gods. The Jews, a messianic movement with a series of Messiahs (AKA Christ), standing behind their holy books and monotheistic beliefs, rebelled against the Romans. Nero ordered his general Vespasian to crush the Jews, starting in the Galilee, capturing Josephus (who survived where 3 of his friends were crucified), to work alongside the Romans as an adopted member of the Flavian family deploying propaganda against the Jews. Nero committed suicide and the Flavians seized the throne. Titus destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem in AD 70. All treasures from the temple, including the famous Seven-Branch Candlestick, were displayed in public as the spoils of victory and can be seen on the triumphal arch of Titus in Rome

Do you have episode info on this? I found the first episode. There is a UK version as well named Rome's Lost Empire, but as for episode 2+ in either incarnation...?

Rome never fell because it was included in the Byzantine Empire; west and east both continued and the Holy Roman Empire was formed as the First Reich. The Roman Empire itself certainly never fell, but just evolved into a Christian Empire that throughout the Middle Ages tied peasants to the land after Constantine's reforms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pontifices_Maximi The Pope is now the head of the Roman Empire of today (the church and state of the European Union and Catholic Church)

This goes back to the same source as above: POLITICS, POWER AND THE PRIESTHOOD Nebuchadnezzar

I've currently traced the first move from: http://hope-of-israel.org/pope.htm To: http://ldolphin.org/PDFs/The_Two_Babylons-Alexander_Hislop.pdf To: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M4hCAAAAIAAJ&q=cyrus#v=thumbnail&q=pergamos&f=false ""When the Medes and Persians introduced another religion into the great empire of the East, this rascality was after many plottings driven out, and foimd a refuge in Asia Minor, which became their head-quar- ters. Their holy brethren in all quarters would keep up correspondence Avith them, and cause a strange mixture of heads. It is also not a little curious to observe that these heads are shaven, just like the other monkish orders, with the exception of the Christian monks, who afTect to retain a memorial of the crown of thorns, by leaving a circle of hair. It is not unlikely that at the time these figures were made, there was a closer community of feeling and of interest among all the diversified orders of holy men than we are aware of; and the seat of their autlm- rity being shifted from Babylon to Pergamos would cause a great resort of them to Asia Minor." Now trying to figure out the source of the above paragraph? No references from what I can see....

Anti-Catholics claim that the title Pontifex Maximus (religious high priest) is currently held by the Pope and goes back to Babylon. They trace it as follows: 539 BC (or 487 BC?): Babylon > Pergamon (after Cyrus invaded Babylon) 133 BC: Pergamon > Rome I checked all the sources for the invasion of Babylon, but cannot find any mention of the priests moving to Pergamon, so would anyone happen to know the source of this info? Besides the Kingdom of Pergamon being bequeathed to Rome, does anyone know any sources pertaining to the actual religion/priests moving with them? Another way this might be traceable: anti-catholics say that catholics worshipped the sun god Baal and that this also originated in Babylon. Well, according to my rusty knowledge of paganism, Baal was actually a Storm God, so could the Catholics be confused with Marduk or Sol? (my Persian source book says that Bel "Lord" is an AKA for Marduk). The anti-Catholics sure make it difficult to understand their hypothesis...

http://caesarsmessiahdoc.com/ I thought it is one of the best docs ever made!

Bede says that there were formerly 28 cities in Britain, and also mentions forts. Since we only know of 21 Roman Towns (Bede's Cities) it seems like there's still 7 to be found, so I wonder where they were? Bede states that Caerleon (City of the Legions) was one such city (or Roman Town), and I guess with the recent archaeological discoveries then that is close to being confirmed? Personally, I suspect Corbridge, Carlisle or perhaps somewhere close by like Penrith. Some of the "small towns" may be "potential cities" such as Rochester. Recently a theatre was discovered at Faversham (Durolevum), so a Forum-Basilica may yet to come! Brough? Any other candidates? Possibly somewhere round Lewis perhaps? Another interesting thing reading Bede is that St Martin's Church in Canterbury was most definitely a Roman Church, hence the remains there may actually be a retaining wall of the Roman nave.

What do you guys think of the alternative history provided by this website? Has it been discussed before? Shame they don't have a forum or quote sources, which doesn't help when promoting something so controversial. However, I myself find their arguments very plausible. I've read books on Saxon history, but they never give their reasons why they believe the Saxons brought Old English with them. They do state that place-name experts are separate to historians and archaeologists, etc. Place-name experts never seem to be in agreement anyway. Any views? http://www.proto-english.org

What good is a number/figure? One needs to examine the changing map of the Roman Empire over the centuries of its existence to gain an understanding of the extent at any given time.

Could York, Lincoln, Exeter, Gloucester and/or Winchester have evolved from Roman towns to Medieval burghs throughout Sub-Roman and Saxon times without any period of abandonment, always maintaining a relatively high population compared to the rest of the country? What do we know about the sub-Roman period of these towns and of their Saxon history? http://www.britainex...day-england.htm

I haven't seen this one so far - not published until 1 October 2012 apparently - but it may be interesting to comapre with Dando-Collins 'Legions of Rome' (2010) which I am currently reviewing as both effectively claim to provide the 'first definitive history of every Roman legion'. That Legions of Rome book is nowhere near as comprehensive as the aforementioned. It's definitely out in the shops already as of Monday... the cover is poor, but the content looks incredible

Has anyone seen that new book called the Complete Roman Legions (not in the above list)? It definitely looks the business--simply by judging the published photo of Zeugma! That photo is enough to make me buy the book.

Can anyone describe this battle in laymen's terms? I've re-read around <7.44> of Caear's Gallic War but just cannot understand/comprehend exactly what happened. Can anyone recommend a companion guide?

According to the Cambridge Ancient History: before Claudius extended the chain of auxiliary forts, there were several Tiberian forts, which are said to be the earliest known on the Danube: *Bregenz *Rederzhausen near Augsburg *Aislingen *Nersingen *Burlafingen So far I've only found Aislingen on this map: Uploaded with ImageShack.us The most authoritative map doesn't seem to feature them unless they go by different names? Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I found this online and read the chapter in question, but there was nothing there describing an overland trading route from China. Any Chinese silk would have come via India and the maritime. Has anyone read the Warwick Ball article I posted on page 1 of this topic yet..? You guys believe that the Silk Road was real, but what is the evidence?

Thanks guys, but can anyone sum up what this book has to say about Roman architecture and its roots in other civilizations?

All maps I've seen of the Republican period show the whole of Italy subdued and annexed as Roman territory. Indeed, it seems that way, as the Romans had moved on to create the following Western provinces in north Italy and overseas via their wars with the Carthaginians: 240 BC

So you guys would be happy to purchase a chronological book on Ancient Egypt that fails to mention the capital of the 14th Dynasty, or a chronological book on the Roman Republic that fails to mention the creation of the Hispanic provinces in 197 BC or even book on Tudor England that fails to mention London? For book on such a short period in time (Alexander the Great), failure to mention the cities he founded should mean that any such book is confined to the scrap-heap, no? No doubt such books miss the mark on many other fundamental facts concerning this period, too. You don't want to end up with something like the Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt that is obviously written and compiled by unenthusiastic authors; were they simply trying to get through an exam in order to gain an extra qualification for their CV? Very few books out there, unfortunately, are as good as say Rome Enters the Greek East by A. Eckstein. I did find 1 good book on Alexander, but that's about it.

There was no marble or concrete before the time of Augustus, and the Etruscans built the first public buildings in Rome. The Romans had no interest in ruling over and occupying Greece as a province until just before 146 BC. However, does anyone know what architectural/engineering ideas had spread from Greece and the Hellenistic world to central and northern italy during the early to mid Republic, perhaps via Magna Graecia and the Greek colonists in southern Italy and Sicily? What, if anything, did the Romans steal from the Greeks?

My favorite index is HERE your favorite index is really nice. Thank you very much. However, is there a guide to different sources for different periods/themes? For example the early history of Rome is covered by Livy, but that cannot be the only source as it was written in the time of Augustus. There must be untold Greek authors who can add to Livy's info.

In this book, besides AD 9, does anyone know what years get detailed coverage in terms of the Roman campaigns in Germany between 12 BC to 16 AD?

Most books on Alexander are complete crap. Here's how to find out if it's a good book: check the index to see if it covers the following: *Ai Khanum (Alexandria-on-the-Oxus) *Merv (Alexandria/Antiochia in Margiana) If they don't get a mention then don't buy the book--simple!