Princeps

Johnny Cash - Hurt I'm not the greatest fan of country music in general, but this is a classic. I believe he wrote this just before his death - it's about his wife, she died a short time before Johnny Cash died. The Lyrics are top notch and the simple tune is very stirring, especially the guitar. 8/10 - It could be longer, and could definately use some bass drum overlaying the piano at the end.

Ahem, Virgil, I think you'll find the politically correct term is "Limey". Caldrail - I think you're right, I seem to remember the Dacians definately made use of undermining, though I can't find a source at this time. They probably had the knowledge, I think this is shown by the famous account of their defeated King (Buribista?) when he diverted the course of a river to conceal his hoarde of valuables and was famously betrayed by Bacilis. (Dacians, circa 60BD -100AD) They had the ability imo.

Hostage taking was a time honoured way of enforcing treaties.

Rockers Hifi - What a life You can be the narrator - never the destroyer, more the creator. This is quite old-school, I must have been about 12 years old when I first heard it. 8/10 - An uplifting tune with a message (you may have to search "basketball diaries", since the soundtrack to the movie is where most people know this track from)

Ok, I shall reccomend a new song to my friends at UNRV every day. I reccomend you download these songs from a legitimate source like itunes. You will not regret it if you enjoy music, as I have a diverse collection of tunes. Todays tune "Gnarls Barkley - Crazy" A funky tune if ever there was one. I think it's about an ex-lover, though I may be wrong, as I tend to project my own feelings onto tunes a lot of the time. 8/10 - A low-tempo dance beat with violins, slap bass, and a soulful voice singing.

Dude, read the question, I'm not saying they "invented" it. What I'm saying is that they were the only Army to possess it and use it so skillfully as to be able to tip the balance from the defender, to the aggressor for a long period of time. (the late republic and Principate). Who else in that period (you'll need a time frame) say 60BC-180AD possessed it. I guess no one, as your links indicate. Please accept my humble apologies for misreading your question Germanicus.

The ones I've seen illustrated had plate armour. I think this would have been the best option for siege towers (as the main benefit of chainmail, afaik, is flexibility), so I dobt they used chainmail armour.

Roman board games http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk1...ma/rbgames.html Roman sports / ball games http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/romeball.html Dice games, cards, drinking in taverns(?), bathing if they were able to(?)

Sounds more like an Aztec/Olmec/Inca thing to me (not sure why). Perhaps Eagle warriors?

Google.com - siegecraft +BC http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000e.htm http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Fort...+and+siegecraft http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2004/...g/br10-sp04.htm Dunno how relevant these are, I've only scanned them and I'm not sure if they're considered academic enough, but fwiw I would agree that siegecraft wasn't invented by the Romans by any means. Some of the "high-end" towers were armoured.

"Their drills were like bloodless battles; their battles bloody drills." I'm not sure what time period this quote comes from, but I chose training. Edit - fixed quote. Also, I think this might have been Suetonius, speaking of Hadrian.

I said roughly the same thing when I first joing UNRV (in a different context - I didn't say he was the greatest thinker ever), I think it was my second post perhaps. Some people disagreed with me. I'm not entirely sure now, I still admire the man and his achievements, but I have been persuaded that his tetearchy, in particular, was flawed. As for answering the original question, I'd have to agree with the author tflex. Isaac Newton, easily, without any doubts whatsoever. Ok, some of his theories are now a little dated, but his brilliance, given his time and place, is beyond question. Calculus alone earns him the honour of greatest mind ever. If he'd invented this and then lay around doing nothing for the reat of his life it would have been fine by me. And it's not just the maths, as you say tflex, his physics and inventions also give him much credit as far as I am concerned. Compared to his contemporaries, Hook etc, and even those that followed, his is the greatest. If I may stop being serious for a second, he was also a total nutter. I remember watching a documentary about him a while ago and bursting out in laughter (exactly why I cannot remember, unfortunately). If only he hadn't spent so much time on alchemy, who's to say he wouldn't have achieved even greater things. The world could be a very different place today.

There are many questions I would like to ask Dr. Heather, not least of which is Constantine's culpability in the fall of the late Empire, as a result of his placation of the Sumatians, but I think I have to ask this - How dedicated to Christianity was Constantine? Given the fact that he, in all likelyhood, in my opinion, did not have a vision at the Milvian bridge (unless he was prone to hallucinations), and his merciless treatment of Fausta, Crispus, Lechinius, and a host of others. He clearly enjoyed bloodsports, yet in contrast to this he showed mercy to many, especially Christians. He often chastised his court for their immorality, yet, being an Emperor, was himself weighed down by a lifetime of accumulated sins. Given these contradictions, I cannot be sure - was he a "true" Christian (even though the standards of Christianity have changed dramatically over the centuries), or was he more of an an expert propagandist? Thanks Dr. Heather. I very much enjoyed your commentary on the "I, Caesar" series, as I have stated elsewhere.

You have my sympathy. Arguing with European anti-Americans makes me see red--to have to deal with stupid American provincialism simultaneously would leave me in the mood to jail everyone! (I am assuming you weren't the one hauling up the old 'poor dental hygiene' argument, right Virgil? Please!? ) I have to admit I did, but I think I added a decent enough twist. While making fun of Americans and their poor skills at geography one asked me where the state of East Virginia was (he claimed to have stumped an American soldier once with that question). I answered it was right next to the UK School of Dentistry. Edit: Apologies to Pertinax, Princeps, Andrew Darby and the rest of the UK contingent who I hold in high regard (and who's dental hygiene is I am sure immaculate) but one has to defend one's country. Hey, no worries. It's all true anyway, I had all my teeth replaced with wooden facimilies when I was 16, 'cos I knew they'd be rotten within 5 years anyway Seriously though, I personally think that view comes from the fact that braces (retainers) are generally seen as cosmetic alterations over here, unless your teeth are really screwed up. It's not like were genetically pre-disposed to having monsterous gnashers, it's just were not big fans of dental modifications, despite the fact that there is a social dental programme (supposedly - it's not going to last for much longer imo). Also, next time a Europen asks how many times you've travelled outside the US, just ask how many times they've travelled outside of Europe, it probably won't be many. If they ask you where East Virginia is on the US map, ask them where Croatia is on the map of Europe, they probably won't know. As for the subject at hand, I rather think it is unfair. A custodial sentence - 3 whole years. Some people get less time for taking a life. Fermenting racial hatred is another thing entirely, but I don't think he was convicted of that crime. If what you say is true then... this opens up a whole new set of problems and issues concerning the peaceful relations with muslim nations as a whole and I shudder to think of what some western governments supplied with this information, (if completely correct), would do to 'solve' the issues. I wouldn't worry about terrorism too much (in fact I don't) - human civilisation is on it's last legs anyway, the eco-system is about to crumble into dust. It is very likely that global climate change is a far greater danger than terrorism, and is also unavoidable. I read today that the seas are becoming corrosive and won't be able to support much life soon - I don't know if this is entirely true, but I wouldn't be suprised. I think we're all doomed

British Historian David Irving has been jailed for 3 years (Austria) for "Denying the holocaust" http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profi...ticle346741.ece A fairly ignorant and inflammatory pov to be sure, and I wasn't in court, I don't know the full facts, but is this right (morally)? Could it have happened anywhere else? Free speech? Also, it seems that in many Western countries, Jews are (acitvely and overtly) afforded special privileges when it comes to this type of thing (one recent example was London Mayor Red Ken calling a reporter a "concentration camp guard" - no crime there you might think, but wait, the reporter was Jewish), as are Muslims in other areas (of law - religion, for example). Is this true, or am I a bigot for suggesting this? What do you think? I'd be especially interested in the views of members that consider themselves a minority in their country of residence.

Not sure really, I'd guess (given my knowledge of other ancient cultures) that it would be Kings.

Let me make this simple. If the property of fanaticism causes rising, and the Romans, Celts and Germans were equally fanatical (as you claimed), then the fanaticism of Romans, Celts and Germans would have led to equal levels of rising. If science, technology, and politics causes rising, and in these the Romans were superior, then Romans would have risen above Celts and Germans. Romans did rise above Celts and Germans; therefore, fanaticism does not cause rising, rather science, technology, and politics does. QED. OT That's rather fuzzy logic there. For a start, it assumes a "Fanaticism vacuum", where the only influence on cultural expansion is fanatacism. However, if fanatacism is described as- excessive intolerance of opposing views (a rather simple definition, but fairly accurate imo), then fanatacism doesn't build Empires.

Favourable review by Virgil to this book too http://www.unrv.com/book-review/fall-of-the-roman-empire.php

Has a new group been added? I see our newest member is listed as "Group: professor" Also, do I recognise the name? Did Dr. Heather contribute to the "I, Caesar" documentary that is repeated frequently (though not frequently enough) on UKTV history? I hope so, I have some questions regarding Constantine that could probably be beat answered by Dr. Heather (if it is indeed the person I'm thinking of). btw, I must once again reccomend the "I, Caesar" series, as I do whenever the "favourite media" question arises. Unfortunatley no-one else can corrobirate my reccomendation. I particularly love the narration, though virtually everything in that production was top class. Maybe they sugar-coated the reputations slightly, but aside from that, excellent (narrowly beating "Walking with dinosaurs" as my favourite TV ever, I just wish the dvds weren't quite as expensive, I cannot justify the cost to myself given that it was free to tape).

We had a torture thread recently (I'm pointing that out in view of your other thread ), but if I had to go I'd choose drowning probably. Any type of suffocation. The worst? There are so many it's hard to say, but last time I chose the good ol' "Tie his penis and make him drink until he dies."

I don't think it is really, this is pretty much the greatest iron age relic ever found in Britain, some say in Europe. Why invest so much into a bit of execution parafenalia(sp)? They would have had to be regularly indulging in some rather high profile executions. EDIT / Bronze age

For me, the "mold cape" is fairly / semi- convincing evidence of bronze-age sacrifice (especially when considered alongside bog bodies). I'm not sure if it is "Celtic", but it's not armour, and would be uncomfortable to wear (notice how it would resrtict your arms at the shoulders), it is clearly a ritualistic / ceremonial piece, and it has been theorised that is was used on sacraficial victims. It seems to fit. This, along with other evidence, convinces me. Re-constructed pics are also available, pic search "Mold cape"

I don't think there needs to be a time limit on old discussions. I have never yet seen a mod or admin close a thread because it has already been discussed iirc, only threads that are already under discussion.

Who in the UK posse saw this last night? (channel 4). It was one of those dramatised accounts - I wasn't sure of these 7 or 8 years ago when they were first becoming popular, but I've grown to really like them. It was interesting to say the least, the first Emperor was a ruthless and charasmatic man (he was the first to routinely execute POWs, and indulged in the usual slaughter of his nearest and dearest, but showed mercy to his parents). Did anyone catch the end? I was exhausted after a day at work and a 2hr swim so I fell asleep (the last bit I remember was the Emperor hunting the giant fish with a giant crossbow - he'd become delusional by that point as a result of long-term mercury consumption), but the dog woke me up by scratching at my bedroom door just in time for me to see the final scene - final frames even - and it seemed that the Emperor had turned into some sort of statue with a human head, but I was still a bit sleepy so I may be wrong. What happened between the fish hunting and the climax, and what was the conclusion to the story?

Stay in character and be extremely offensive to the Cleopatra character, that should be fun.