Northern Neil

I was under the impression that is was a Roman protectorate from the Second Punic war onwards, and therefore a de facto part of the Roman world.

AC's suggestions sound great to me, and the hotel price of

Nice one, aurelia. I do not find this at all surprising.

So, I understand Saddam's artificial hill and palace was built directly on top of existing remains?

Well, the Lindum suggestion seems to have impressed some people, including me. Also It would be a more central location for most members, and there are other advantages such as availability of (cheap) hotels and more pubs.

Good point - I will lock this thread to avoid confusion occurring.

Me!

Your own assumptions and prejudices against 'people here' in themselves suggest a degree of bigotry. I see no reason why a discussion on the relevance of ancient mythology to current issues should become a religious battleground. Please moderate your tone, lest ye be moderated...

When this thread opened, it was merely suggested that an ancient Greek story could have relevance to us vis-a-vis our current culture of excess and waste. A reasonable opinion in my view. Similarly, people with strong religious views see all sorts of meaning in books written by other peoples in ancient times; I note that the phrase 'Judge not lest ye be judged' cropped up in a recent topic. So, the Ancient Greeks may not have a direct message about secondary smoking, but I would guess that somewhere there might be a statement regarding effecting other people's health by satisfyng our own cravings. People are people in any age, and then - as now - there were some people who spoke a lot of sense.

It is nice to see the Greatchesters section of Hadrians Wall getting some attention and funding. This particular section, with its associated fort, are as spectacular as any other remains on the Wall, but for some reason - up until now - have received little attention or publicity.

That might be just what we need! We did ponder over verulamium, but Lindvm sounds fine to me - especiallly if you know it well. I did say a while back I would PM all uk and european members - I will do this tonight (Since return from hols I have been internet-less. All sorted now.)

I agree - also one is already available to us, and appears to be working, so why don't we all just use that one?

A very good idea - Why not? Well, yes - point accepted! That said, why not all of us try for 3rd place, then?

Very good indeed. I particularly like the one of Caracalla.

Inspired by a similar topic over on RAT (Roman Army Talk Forum) and our Antiochus III's recent comment on a thread dealing with Rome / US comparisons, I thought I'd start this one off. What also inspired me was the current (in my view) implausible views on the construction of Roman Granaries which unfortunately are still found even in scholarly works ( See: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=96930) So anyway, Antiochus has inadvertently set the ball rolling with this: Heres another: 'The Romans invented the Arch'. EDIT: It woulkd be nice to refer to a direct source if possible to substantiate your example. I would like to give the Walls of Miletus as an example of the arch used in a Greek/Hellenistic context. Over to you, folks!

...And keep us informed as to how you're doing, and how you find the books!

Yes, spot on! I thought that would take a little longer... over to you!

Take your pick. The archaeologist view that a stone wall 2ft thick needed reinforcement because of the pressure of having grain sacks leaning against it, or the builder's and farmer's view that the wall was thick enough already, but that the buttresses supported an overhanging roof to keep walls free from damp, and food dry and cool. One line of thought has academic backing, the other common sense logic from people used to building and storing food. To be fair, some academics support the overhanging roof theory - but most popular and scholarly works overwhelmingly seem to go with the 'supported wall' theory. Turf and timber forts incidentally, had granaries which were supported on piles to keep them free from the ground, and there is no evidence for or against overhanging roofs. However, there is definitely no evidence at all for external wall supports. I mention this minor point in order to illustrate some of the differences between History and Archaeology. Whilst Historical research can be entirely based on academia, I feel that Archaeology should draw on the resources of practical people, rather than solely on academics who may not have enough insight into building, food storage, water conveyance etc to make a valid evaluation of a site.

I believe archaeologists could learn from historians in this respect, and as theirs is a practical science, maybe consult modern day practitioners to formulate their theories. I will give one example: It has become canon that Roman granaries were buttressed to strengthen against outward pressure from stored grain, as both Birley and La Bedoyere state in their respective books about Hadrian's Wall. A friend of mine who is a builder states this is a preposterous idea, given that the granary walls are already 2 feet thick without the buttresses and that Victorian retaining walls considerably thinner secure high earthen bankings, sometimes topped by a railway. He further states that outward pressure from stored materials would only be an issue if the building was loaded from the top, with a crane! In the same discussion, another friend - a farmer - stated that the buttresses would be better employed supporting a heavy overhanging roof, to give weather protection to ventilation windows placed in between the buttresses. The food within could then be stored cool, but dry. Maybe if the building and farming professions were given academic status Archaeologists would then consult them to assess the nature of excavated buildings, rather than developing unrealistic theories based on inadequate practical knowledge of the remains they uncover.

BUMP!!!! This seems to have gone on hold somewhat... following Aurelia's research, have we any takers for a proposed UK meet in August/ September? I will be PM - ing all UK and European members very shortly. August or September is fine for me.

All good stuff - but covered in other threads. As this has gone from the rise of Christianity through historical determinism to Hannibal's campaigns it is no longer splittable, so I will put it to bed.

Welcome aboard, Gloryforixseal, although your opening statement suggests you have been here before... I think most people with more than a passing interest in history understand that humans from as far back as 100'000 BCE were just as smart as us. I do not believe, however, that they believed that killing innocents was murder. As can be seen by the actions of people today, human beings have a tendency to kill people they believe are not like themselves, and feel totally justified. Whether one is a 1940's Nazi, a religious fundamentalist or a Celt raiding a neighbouring village, the sentiment is much the same - ones victims are not quite the same as you, and therefore you can be entirely justified in killing them. To this day, a significant minority of people believe that to take their own life - and several others at the same time - will not only appease their god but give them everlasting rewards. If there are people like that in this enlightened age, I am pretty sure that in ancient Celtic society (whatever that definition means) there was a substantially higher proportion of them. Especially when one considers that in modern celtic society some people still murder individuals they have never met, for belonging to the wrong subdivision of the same religion. I think they were far from ignorant - ruthless is the word I would use. I agree with you that human life was their highest value - but did their concept of humanity extend to people outside their immediate tribal group?

It helps if you've been there! Here's one:

Aosta?

May I suggest the Penguin Atlas of Ancient History and its companion the Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History both written by Colin McEvedy? Each book shows, with a charming chronological array of maps, the geographical outline of each state/kingdom in the periods under discussion. The first one shows beautifully the growth of Rome from local power to Empire, whilst the second one shows the break up of the Empire, death of the Western half and steady shrinkage of the Eastern Roman Empire through the remainder of the period. Some of his ideas are a bit obsolescent - for example, assuming that vast swathes of people from the Atlantic to the Black Sea were Celts because they used and made similar objects. On the other hand, these books beautifully and visually display the birth, life and death of empires and put the start and finish of various time periods neatly into context.