Novosedoff

Well, as some folks put it, if one gathers all the relics belonging to one ancient saint person, they will inevitably end up with 2 football teams and 1 cavalry regiment 😄

It's been over 10 years since the question was posted, so I doubt that the topic-starter is gonna read what I am about to share. Below is a page from a ECB paper that shares some insights about floods in Europe. As can be seen from the right panel, the flood intensity is pretty high in modern Italy compared to many other places in Europe, although the frequency of events is quite low (see the left panel). I am somehow leaning to thinking that the picture must have been very similar back 2000 years ago.

Btw since all the relics of all magi were found at the same place, we should also suspect that the circumstances of their simultaneous deaths must have been rather dark and violent. Otherwise in natural circumstances they would have ended their lives at different times at different places.

Holy f..king sh*t. Please pardon me my Russky-English 😂 But in order for you to believe that there were any real Magi you gotta also believe that their relics are now buried in the Cologne Cathedral of Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_of_the_Three_Kings The whole story of magi is a literary myth created in order to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over Parphian Zoroastrian religion.

These days it's called the EU 🙂 A highly unstable formation of very diverse multi-cultured micro-states built on the principle of federalism (which replaced the principles of democratic centralism in some of its member states). It has already started to crumble with the departure of Britain and the war in Ukraine. The EU claims to be governed as democracy (although British didn't even choose their PM directly in elections).

The key words to answer the question of the topic-starter will be "nomina facit", "negotium conficit". In short, Romans would have special ledgers to record their creditlines, and the ledgers would be managed independently. It is worth checking the PhD work by the following fella 1978, English, Microform, Thesis edition: Bankers, moneylenders, and interest rates in the Roman Republic / by Charles T. Barlow. https://web.archive.org/web/20160310002947/http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21318655?selectedversion=NBD2342223 A more interesting question is how Romans made money transfers between different parts of the empire. Here the key word to check would be "permutatio". This required publicans (tax collectors) to participate.

One of your Welsh compatriots has just published this post about the origins of Zodiac in Wales https://members.ancient-origins.net/articles/zodiac-0 The guy runs the whole website dedicated to this topic and records some videos too https://originofthezodiac.com/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YpTw8_aUFYE

I have a former colleague of mine who was lectured topology and differential geometry by Fomenko at Moscow State University only to become a complete nuts in history (apparently Fomenko advertised his freaking books to his student audiences. Btw Fomenko is a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which is like the Royal Society in the UK - this makes it all look even more stupid). For me studying the history is more akin to studying the internal logic of events, how one thing impacts another. Numbers do help to shed some light on that. But when someone completely ignores the historical logic only to fit the numbers into a scheme, producing some bizarre conclusions, this makes the numbers and their application look a bit crazy. I do understand that there may be some historical patters that tend to repeat themselves over the ages like DNA chains or Kondratiev waves ie economic cycles . But turning history upside down to nourish the nationalistic sentiments in readers minds obviously smells foul.

I think in the UK they have their own set of comedy sketches to ridicule the regional differences of pronounciation 🙂

Understood 🙂 frankly, my main motivation to study the history was due to my interests in numbers. Although I ain't an adherent of Fomenko's theory on new chronology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_chronology_(Fomenko)?wprov=sfla1

Awakening - Vaishnav Janato Indian stuff is great but when it comes to awakening I somehow prefer the older classical Yes 🙂🙄 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=59feSG8U5EQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N8is2-DHeNg

I have here a quotation from one source related to 354 AD that says that every year Romans would celebrate 69 festivals. In my view, this means that at least 19% (69 / 365) of all meetings attended by the senate must have been held outside Curia Julia. PS. Although wait a second. Senators would have their meetings only twice per month (at least at the time of Augustus). This means that the above estimate is irrelevant 😂

I doubt that the collected evidence from the ancient sources allows us to estimate the total number of meetings per each location in order to be able to judge about the most preferable of all. However given the obvious fact that any temple must mainly serve its very basic purpose of worship, I reckon that Curia Hostilia / Curia Julia must have been the most frequently visited places for the meetings. Nonetheless the question of precise numbers remains open as it is still unclear whether Curia Hostilia / Curia Julia hosted 50% / 60% / 70% of all senatorial meetings... Presumably any holiday dedicated to any deity would require a special attendance by the senate in the corresponding temple, that's why Romans cared so much about their calendar (a separate temple built for each day?) I once raised on the forum the very easy question (as I thought) of how many laws per annum the Roman senate would enact on average, and unfortunately got no answers. It is really a pity that historians don't like the digits 😊

🙂Surely, one may pose the questions "How many participants does a meeting need to have in order to be counted?" or "Do we regard Roman baths as significant locations to the public?" Augustus implemented the rule which required the minimum of 400 senators to be present at any meeting. Under Alexander Severus the minimum was set at 70. I was hoping to compile the full list of such locations of which we would know that they did host some meetings and did fit into the scheme of minimum requirements. I don't think there were many, because the number of public buildings of "significance" is still limited by space between walls, while any gatherings outside Rome would be illegal (senators needed to seek an approval from the emperor first in order to travel)

Hi all, Apparently, the oldest one was the Curia Hostilia. It was later replaced by Curia Cornelia and Curia Julia, but all of them resided approximately at the same place next to the Forum. Forum itself apparently hosted a number of senatorial meetings too right under the open sky (this was incredibly rare, only "when a bull spoke out"). There is also information about the following places of the senatorial meetings: Temple of Castor and Pollux, Temple of Concord, Temple of Honor and Virtue, Temple of Jupiter Stator. The newly elected consuls would often (or always?) gather their first meeting with the Senate on the Capitoline Hill presumably inside the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus?? On very rare occassions when senators had to meet foreign envoys or Roman generals the meetings took place outside the city, incl. Campus Martius, Temple of Bellona, Temple of Apollo. Under both Augustus and Tiberius the meetings often took place in the Bibliotheca Palatina. Also Atrium Vestae hosted some meetings too. Finally, Augustus built the Temple of Mars Ultor which hosted the senatorial meetings to discuss the matters of war and to celebrate the victory. Apparently Pantheon hosted some meetings too (at least under Hadrian). Have there been any other known places?

I suspected so. Since Caligula was to introduce his horse to the Senate as a new consul, I thought that the role of the Senate must have been diminishing, so its opinion had become negligeable for the emperors .. 🙂

Hi all, I am curious about the legal aspects of the Roman politics at war times. As we know in the modern world the war customs are varying across countries despite their international commitments (Geneva conventions etc). For instance, in Russia the decision on starting a new war can only be authorised by the Federation Council (the Russian parliament is bicameral, so this is the higher chamber akin to the US Senate), the lower Duma (in the US that would be the House of the Representatives) takes no vote on this occasion in accordance with the Russian Constitution. In the US things work a little differently, so we all remember the famous painting of Woodrow Wilson addressing both chambers of the US Congress to declare a war on Germany (WW1). Since then things have been subject to some changes as President Truman seemingly sent his troops to Korea without seeking first an approval from the Congress. I wonder what the mechanics of waging wars was back at the time of the Roman empire. Did the Senate (unicameral) have any say before starting a new war? Or was it solely at emperor's discretion? Thanks.

What's interesting is that their functions partially intersected with the Vigiles', although the Vigiles are said to be operating as police force only at nighttime. However when Sejanus was about to be denunciated and executed (the whole performance took place at dawn), instead of using the more militarised urbanae cohortes to counterbalance the Praetorians Tiberius used the Vigiles.

Such findings are not new. Here is an article (with some photos) about the famous plateau of dinosaurs in Turkmenistan, Khodzhapil (a highly unreachable area at high altitude): https://tomkad.livejournal.com/178225.html The footprints on the photos are said to belong to Megalosaurus, and the area was once covered with a swamp Some landscapes in Turkmenistan do look pre-historic. I once lived not far from the below place with dead volcanoes amid shallow lakes, which attract pink flamingos in the sping time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaOPflIMPAQ

Could there be another phallus somewhere hidden? It seems I've noticed an inscription between 1:00-1:15 on the video

A valuable contribution indeed. A breakthrough.