Northern Neil

At this time Roman observers would have seen a vibrant Persia winning battle after battle, modernising with the times and enjoyings its own Golden Age of political stability. Looking at Rome, Diocletian would have seen an archaic system of succession, pretending to enshrine republican values, in which the status of 'Princeps' had diminished to that of a bonus earner for whatever rebellious legion he was legate of. As EG says, he clearly needed to do something to elevate the status of the imperial title, and what better than to copy the practices of his better organised and politically safer rival? Un - Roman the practice may have been,but if prostration before an emperor was part of the package, then fair enough.

Likewise, the disappearance of Glenn Miller

Well, I thought he always had been seen as an emperor on a par with Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius etc. I like your analysis as to why he adopted the Persion dominate style - previously I saw this as one of his bad ideas, but now I understand why he did it. Its just a shame that it was a system so open to manipulation by courtiers in the fifth century. Just a quick word on the persecutions: Those of Nero are now viewed by many as literary forgeries, in much the same way that Josephus' references to Jesus have been seen to third or fourth century additions. Christianity was a tiny Jewish cult at this time, barely noticed by anyone. Many of the Christians persecuted by pagan emperors were later persecuted as heretics when the Empire became Christian, and much of Diocletian's bad press was promulgated very soon after his death by Christian Emperors. It did not seem to encourage them to reverse his reforms, though.

...and if Sulla were teleported to 2nd century Rome, he would be puzzled to see a Spaniard in the position of 'Head Citizen'. Or into the third, various Illyrians and an Arab. Constantine (himself a Pannonian) would have been shocked to see half-German puppet Emperors on the throne a century later. One cannot, with hindsight, rename a nation because it asumes a different lingustic and cultural identity to that of the cultural period we prefer. Medieval westerners agreed about the name of the empire, yet correctly called the inhabitants Greeks. One cannot ignore the fact that the Eastern Roman / Byzantine Empire was the same state as the Classical Roman one, and that there was a direct, unbroken continuity; it has nothing to do with wether or not it was centralised. In addition, depending on perspective, differences between Classical and Eastern Rome may be more apparant than real. A Chinese friend of mine, when I said that Chinese art and architecture looked much the same throughout the entire imperial period, said he felt the same about Roman and Byzantine, and that minor differences are significant when it is your own culture.

Gravestones from Dacia show legionaries with long sleeved tunics, and at Vindolanda knitted socks and underwear have been found, and referred to on the famous wooden tablets. Also, a more enclosed version of the Roman sandal has been found there, minus holes and loops, and I would say that these, worn with said knitted socks, were probably a standard issue in northern provinces. They are the only primary sources I can think of for now, but it is evidence that the army was as practical in this as in all other matters. Minor inaccuracies aside, I think that the legionaries depicted in the opening scenes of 'Gladiator', wearing woolen trousers and furs, are a fairly accurate depiction - at least as far as the cold weather clothing is concerned. EDIT: I was typing away there just as Asclepiades sent his excellent link, hence the duplication of information. Send this to Tartarus by all means, as I simply state what Asclepiades' link did a few moments before, but far less thoroughly.

In the 4th/5th centuries BC the dominant linguistic grouping immediately North of Greece was the 'Thraco-phrygian' group, which is on the same branch of Indo-European as Greek, and from which Greek probably evolved. Members of the Thraco-Phrygian group include Dacians, Thracians, Phrygians and Armenians. Today Armenian is regarded as being distantly related to Greek. As is often the case with related languages, maybe the interface between Thraco-Phrygian and Greek was indistinct, and there were a lot of hybrid dialects between the two language groups, including elements and heavy borrowing from each. It is likely that Macedonian fits into this category, and it might have sounded to 'True' Greeks like a bastardised and gutteral version of their language. Maybe they were a thracian tribe with Greek links and pretensions? Given that Greek is a linguistic and not a racial term, the adoption of Greek proper immediately prior to the Hellenistic period in any case makes them Greek from the fourth Century BC onwards.

I would say that they are today's Calabrians, Campanians and Sicilians. As late as the 6th century Naples welcomed and aided Justinian's reconquest, relieved to receive succour from the largely greek - speaking Romaioi. Italy south of Naples hasa strange peculiarity noted by the zoologist Desmond Morris: Sometimes it is possible to relate the geography of modern Regional Signals to past historical events. The Chin Flick gesture, in which the backs of the fingers are swept upwards and forwards against the underside of the chin, is an insulting action in both France and northern Italy. There it means 'Get lost-you are annoying me.' In southern Italy it also has a negative meaning, but the message it carries is no longer insulting. It now says simply 'There is nothing' or 'No' or 'I cannot' or 'I don't want any'. This switch takes place between Rome and Naples and gives rise to the intriguing possibility that the difference is due to a surviving influence of ancient Greece. The Greeks colonized southern Italy, but stopped their northern movement between Rome and Naples. Greeks today use the Chin Flick in the same way as the southern Italians. In fact, the distribution of this, and certain other gestures, follows remarkably accurately the range of the Greek civilization at its zenith. Our words and our buildings still display the mark of early Greek influence, so it should not be too surprising if ancient Greek gestures are equally tenacious. This is an extract from his chapter on Regional Signals, in his book Manwatching..

I completely agree. This has caused more confusion than any other concept I can think of in Early Medieval history. The Roman empire could have been called something entirely different at various points, and on the basis of an equally profound set of changes as those brought about by the Heraclian dynasty.

Just a few points and opinions regarding some of the many diverse views in this thread: The Obama cartoon is great, and it would take a very unaware person not to see the satire involved. Here in Britain, as in the rest of Europe, anything which might upset Muslims is clamped down on very vigerously. It has been pointed out many times on our media that this intended not to prevent distress to Muslims, but to prevent reprisal action by extremist Muslims, and as such is seen rightly as an unwelcome restriction on our freedoms. Many moderate and mainstream muslims feel patronised by this, and regret the overall resentment towards them that these measures are generating. Regarding the Borat movie, it has been pointed out that Sacha Baron Cohen would not have got away with much of the humour if he wasn't Jewish. In England, it is well known that comedians from ethnic minorities can make jokes about racism / racist views with impunity, whilst comedians of British background dare not touch the subject. So much for our democracy. Interestingly, Sacha Baron Cohen made a film called 'Ali G in da house' whose central character is 'Ali G' (real name Alistair Graham) who is a white male who would love to be black, and adopts rap culture and a fake Jamaican accent. Devised to poke fun at current teenage trends, many teenagers immersed in 'rap' culture actually adopted some of the characters ridiculous mannerisms and phrases, utterly failing to see the joke. Regarding some voiced regret that Americans are perceived in some quarters as being 'dumb', it must be said that only people who are 'dumb' themselves make this gross generalisation and apply it to 280 million people. When I hear my peers make statements to this effect, I often refer them to UNRV by way of challenging their nonsensical views. I also point out that a nation which has 'X-factor', the 'Jeremy Kyle Show' and 'Big Brother' among its most popular TV programmes cannot judge ANYONE! It is quite true that 50% of the populace are less intelligent than the average - but this statement, if supported by things such as IQ testing may be misleading. I often come across people who are probably very intelligent indeed, but whose view of the world at large is frighteningly narrow. I have also worked with and known some people with various degrees of learning difficulty, who nonetheless have a very active and broad interest in their world, and are very well read and knowledgeable despite their limitations. End of rant!

This remains a matter of debate. The Athenians asserted this in classical times, more from a snobbish perspective I feel, and eighteenth century scholars continued this view, probably for similar reasons and motivated by a desire to 'agree' with the cultured Athenians. But as they were Indo Europeans who spoke and wrote Greek, worshipped Greek gods and built in classical style, what else could they have been?

Does the Dime still carry this image? I have an example from th '50s which does

For much of its time though, the Roman Empire did not have a fixed capital or a dominant territory. During the third and early fourth centuries it was not centred on anywhere in particular, and Maxentius unsuccessfully fought for Rome to once again become the dominant political centre. Constantinople as the capital of a dominate period empire addressed this to a degree, but with the (final) division of the Empire, once again the western half lingered on for another few decades without a fixed home territory, at times having Milan as its centre, at others Ravenna. Again, the Germany of the Kaisers runs against this - there was no dominant territory (unless you stretch a point and regard it as Prussia) because the Empire consisted just of Germany. Other similar entities include the Empire of Nicaea, Empire of Trebizond and the Bulgarian Empire.

..unless we take films such as Quo Vadis, The Robe, Ben Hur, and Barabbas? EDIT: I notice now you said 'Recent'. Point taken!

Very cryptic

What program does one need to listen to this? Log onto the link given in Aesclepiades' third post on this thread. Then click on 'Listen Live'. Once the next window comes up, scroll down the list of programmes and click on 'In Our Time'. That should do it - If you have not already got it, you may need 'quicktime for windows' to run this.

Well spotted, Aesclepiades. I am a voracious Radio 4 listener, but I overlooked this one!

I would have thought that Christianity is probably one of the biggest legacies Rome has left us (and the Greeks), invented as it was by a Roman citizen from Tarsus, adopted and shaped to its definitive form by the Roman state.

Indeed -and thanks. I believe that words such as 'terrorist' and 'Terrorism' etc should be kept clear of historical debate. These words have a degree of emotional baggage attached to them. Mr. Holland navigates a dangerous course by using such words, and could find himself aground on a sandbank with the word 'populist' attached to the nearby buoy. Anyway - less of the nautical similes, mateys! The definition of terrorist can have different meanings to different states, even those who are friends, and circumstance can alter the definition as applied to a specific group. To the British, people putting bombs into rubbish bins and blowing up schoolchildren in Warrington, Northern England, are terrorists in every meaning of the word. To some Americans, Australians and Canadians, they are freedom fighters liberating Northern Irish people from British domination. (Interestingly, in the wake of 9/11 they turned overnight, and almost universally, into terrorists and their funding base dramatically dropped). My own views on this particular episode of recent history are realistic - I respect the motives, but not the act, and I use this example to demonstrate why the 'T' word should be excluded from a dispassionate, historical debate. Modern pirates operate from actual failed states such as Somalia, use light craft with light armament, and prey upon commercial and tourist sea traffic for personal gain. Maybe if they were part of an actual state being gobbled up by a larger neighbour, and preyed upon the commercial traffic of that neighbour to sustain themselves, and had a couple of destroyers and a submarine to boot, they could be regarded as analogous to the Cilician pirates. But then, we would almost definitely call them rebels.

...in which case, were the Romans as incorrect in their categorisation of them as 'Pirates' as we are in calling the PLO a 'terrorist organisation'? Maybe then the term 'Pirate' was used as we sometimes now use the word 'terrorist', to psychologically remove or diminish legitimacy? Perhaps it is the nomenclature in the original sources which is incorrect: The 'failed states' they operated from do not to me seem much different from the many 'successful' minor states which predated them by only a few generations, and Like SF in the last post, I would hesitate to describe Cilicia as a failed state. An oppositional one, maybe. Like the PLO of today, were they not exercising independence which was theirs anyway a few generations previously? Maybe they were pirates (terrorists) according to the winners, and we all know who history is written by. But surely they should be more accurately be called 'Rebels', as they had military force on a par with those they fought against, which terrorists / pirates do not.

Recent threads on settlements and finds in Northern Scotland prompted me to kick this one off. Here is an extract from one of those other threads: What are the furthest recorded finds of Roman Material found in a proper archaeological context? An interesting secondary - or even tertiary - transfer I came across recently was a silver coin of Trajan, found in an archaeological context from a second century site near Tampere, Finland. I expect though that there have been finds of material far more distant from the frontiers than this.

An interesting secondary - or even tertiary - transfer I came across recently was a silver coin of Trajan, found in an archaeological context from a second century site near Tampere, Finland.

I think he means that the actual rampart wall itself was a demarkation barrier rather than a defensive curtain wall upon which troops were tactically deployed. I take issue however with the view that it was too narrow a platform on which to fight, and I believe it still had a walkway and parapet, otherwise why the defensive ditch? The lie of the ditch and breadth of the turf-on-stone rampart suggest a parapet walk width of around 6 feet, which is easily wide enough to fight from, or at least hurl missiles from, in the event of an incursion. Even though intended more as a barrier, I find it hard to imagine that it wasnt equipped with some kind of parapet to protect patrolling troops against an oppurtunistic, long-distance shot from a bow or sling. Hadrian's wall, at some points 8ft. wide and at others 6 ft, was certainly wide enough to patrol and if neccessary, fight from.

I made no reference to septentrional nor as far as I can see is there any reference to this term (rarely used in English) in the article. Melvadius But in the context of a more generalised discussion on how far North Roman culture spread, it is still perhaps pertinent to the specific discussion about the discoveries at Birnie, given the relatively close proximity of the marching camp at Thomshill, to date the most northerly (Septentrional) Roman structure known. Looking at the article itself, I would like to see more evidence as to why the objects should have been buried for religious / spiritual reasons. This assumption is often made with regard to ancient objects which have been buried, but ancient people were as practical as anyone else - why bury a whetstone, for religious reasons or otherwise? I would not be surprised if there were some informal agreement between the inhabitants of this site and the Roman establishment. My question is, did this site have connections with the adventures of Agricola, or the Severan expedition more than a century later?

Gene Vincent's 'Woman Love' for Justinian's missus? Maybe thats not modern enough...

Maybe so, but the suggestion that the EU may be a manifestation of this I take some issue with, Calders. The EU is an organisation which makes daft rules about the shape of bananas (bad) and has introduced a currency which is universal over many European countries (jolly useful. Shame we are not in it). It hardly has pretentions to Empire, although it does have as one of its core values a cultural and economic unification of Europe. Europe does at a very basic level have a common culture fathered ultimately by the unification initially imposed by Rome. Countries such as Poland, the Baltic states and Finland joined the EU in part to distance themselves from domination by the only real imperialist country in Europe which is Russia, and to rejoin a world with which those countries have always identified with. As one of the 'common people' alluded to I was too young to vote on the initial membership of the EU, but probably would have done so. More recently, the Irish electorate have voted against the treaty of Lisbon, a motion which has been acknowledged by the EU. More a legacy of Athenian democracy than Roman politics? Maybe. I do not see Ireland and Denmark being treated in exactly the same way as Postumus' separatist Gallic Empire. So, I would say that Culturally the idea of the EU certainly is a legacy of Rome - but I doubt very much it will adopt the policies of its Russian neighbour to enforce it.