Northern Neil

,,,possibly from the island still called Gotland, Sweden.

Valerio Massimo Manfredi in his book 'The Last Legion' described a world which was increasingly losing touch with its classical heritage - the germanisation of the Army, the decay of towns, vulgar latin starting to develop into dialects which would one day become separate languages and ineffectual emperors manipulated by powerful courtiers, some of whom were part German themselves. Also he describes places such as Neapolis - still greek speaking, with most of its populace still ignorant as to the change which had occured, because life went on as it had always done. Visigoths are described by the Romans of the time as 'Staunch Allies' - which by then, they had been, for a few decades. The main character several times poses the question 'Why do people not realise what is happening?' The film was a masterpiece - it managed to miss all of this out, and a lot more besides!

Aiding the poor and destitute I understand, and blurring of social social class may have occurred for a short time until the middle classes dwindled after the third century, but... better treatment of women? It seems to me that the 'Big Three' monotheistic religions have invested an awful lot of energy subjugating them. In the very earliest days of Christianity women were indeed regarded as equal to men, and even officiated as clerics. This was short lived however, and when Christianity began to assume its definitive form it soon disappeared, as the crude third century alteration of second century mosaics illustrates. The lynching of Hypatia by Christian fanatics hardly displays a consideration or respect for resourceful and educated women. On many occasions persecution of Christians took place because the Christian community contained individuals intent on deliberately committing criminal acts against the state. A modern day comparison would be if a Western democracy automatically interned all orthodox muslims because a small percentage of them were terrorists. Muslims would see it as a persecution, whilst pragmatic polititians could view it as a logical way to minimise a dangerous threat. It was not the religion itself that was under fire, but the activities of some of its adherents. I find it unlikely that the Roman state would use up valuable resources persecuting people just on account of loving ones neighbour, helping the poor or being meek. Many other cults around this time expressed exactly the same sentiments and even shared the same mythology - but did not get persecuted for it. I quite like the story of the Governor of Bithynia, who one day found himself confronted by Christians intent on being martyred. They said something along the lines of: 'Governor, we have done something really naughty against the State - now feed us to the lions'. The governor sent them away saying that clifftops and knives were abundant if they wanted to kill themselves, but he wasn't going to do it for them. I suspect that the nature of the persecutions has been exaggerated by Christian Emperors and bishops intent on persuading people how wicked their pagan ancestors were.

FRom my point of view as a model maker, 'The Buildings of Byzantium' by Helen and Richard Leacroft is a must.

I intend to get this book, in the hope it will answer one question I have thought much about: Were the Christians as prominent in the minds of Romans as modern Christians assume they were? I have often thought that maybe they weren't, and maybe this book will shed a little light here. We all know that Decius and Diocletian conducted general but short - lived persecutions, and that locally individual governors had public order problems with them which provoked various crackdowns. But we also know that the persecution of Nero was almost certainly an invention, and that until the time of Constantine Christianity was a cult which had a tiny following. I await this book enthusiastically!

Having read very little on the politics of the early prinipate, this suggests to me that at this time the position of Emperor was regarded still as a political office rather than a maonarchy, and that the person filling this office was still directly answerable to the senate. Does this not then suggest that Rome was still a republic?

Hmm.. maybe there is a loophole here which will make it possible for me to market my products? Let me work it out.. If I sell my theatre in its half completed state for

Hehe - now I've two things to say to you Cornelius: Why are you talking about Rugby when the rest of us are discussing football? and more importantly - you shouldn't be making any snide comments at all with that flag in your avatar. Les Bleus effort yesterday has been surpassed only by tonight's offering from Sweden and Greece in its uncompromising awfulness You are quite right there, Augusta. Petty England arent in it - Maybe the band could have played 'March of the Gladiators' when Rooney walks into the arena, with his chin jutting and knuckles scraping the ground. Does he not originate from a certain city in South-West Lancashire...?

I think the real 'Biggie' was fiddling the figures to steal the election first time round. Airlifting the Bin Laden family out of America hours after 911 must be up there too. I agree with PP though - this is election time BS. What a shame those fine polititians who have filed this didnt have the ourage to do it, or when the presidency was in mid-term. But they would then have lost their jobs, wouldnt they? I believe 'Dubya' (he doesnt like that anymore, apparently) has far too many influential friends for this to have any impact. A bit like our own 'Teflon Tony' who has been just as bad.

It is precisely this lack of understanding I find so exasperating. These beautiful pictures were destroyed because people of one religious viewpoint made assumptions which were wrong, and decided that people of a different viewpoint were not allowed to exercise their spirituality in their own preferred way. Earlier, classical statues 'naughty bits' and noses were hacked off, because Christians thought them immoral. Books were burnt by the Church in the middle ages, and a Sultan in egypt used the scrolls in the Library at Alexandria as firewood because ' If they contain information not in the Koran, they are blasphemous... if they contain information which is in the Koran, they are superfluous' - or something like that. Despite my lack of faith, I recognise that religion has produced much which I find interesting or beautiful. Its a shame it also destroys so much of it - the Bamiyan Buddhas being the most recent iconoclasm I can think of.

How was it? Well, to be honest, it didnt say much I hadn't already thought about myself, although Dawkins does of course put the case in a very fluent and methodical manner. But then, I was 'converted' before I read it - so I found it more reassuring, than informative.

I'm afraid you're about five years behind the times, Ram! Yes - now it is more like the circus, what with the interesting and varied 'victory celebrations' when a player scores a try.

I agree utterly with Honorius' points here - but from the point of view of an atheist. During the period 650 - 900 one sees a constant shrinkage of Byzantine territory, with a corresponding haemmorhage in its treasury. I cannot help but think this damage was caused partially by this useless and pointless conflict. It remains a constant mystery to me why such useless yet damaging conflicts about minor religious differences have occurred throughout history - and continue to do so.

I have just read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I am about to start on the petulantly named and significantly thinner 'The Dawkins Delusion'.

Somehow I find this comparison tenuous... Victorian England did not claim a direct legacy from the Roman Empire, its capital was not founded by a Roman Emperor, and its Royal Family were not decended from the Theodosian dynasty. It did not have a series of consuls traceable from the earliest days of the republic until 690 AD, and did not have military units traceable to the earliest days of the Principate serving on its Danubian frontier (or indeed a Danubian frontier!) One could also say 'so what' that it had to be translated, as opposed to originally written, in Greek. Well, a status quo, rather than a discontinuity, is clearly in evidence here. Maybe at Magnesia a Roman soldier would have been backstabbed for speaking greek (unless he was from Neapolis, Tarentum, Syracusae, Masillia or even Pompeii) but by the time of Strasbourg - when the Empire was still united under one ruler - many units in the Army would have spoken Greek as their first language. I wish not to be argumentative here, but some of this evidence can be taken both ways I feel.

The Eastern Roman Empire did indeed become a 'Rump State' at this time. Some commentators set the date earlier than this, at 395, when the division between the two empires became permanent. But, as I said on an earlier post, at the time, the division was not seen as permanent, and the demise of the West officially reunited the empire. My personal view is that the break came in 1204, when the heart was torn out of the Empire. Surviving dynastic remnants may have cobbled the state together again, but the state was a successor, not the same entity. Interestingly, from the point of view of Chinese observers and modern Chinese historians, the continuity was absolute and without break - the things we see as being differences are actually not, to them. They are minor points. I wonder if our view of their history is similar - maybe what we see as dynastic change in the Chinese Empire was actually a different state / regime from their point of view.

Hmm.. when exactly WAS the discontinuity, that is the question. I would term it as a 'Hiatus' myself, given that there clearly was continuity. The hiatus occurred I would say betwen 625 and 900 (The byzantine 'dark age). Which empire exactly was always given a Greek name? I believe the whole show was called 'Romania' from the time of Marcus Aurelius until 1453 - hence the names Romagna, Rumelia and Rum for various provinces lost from the Empire.

Good to see you - it is nice to see old members staying with us.

Here is a free card model of the late Roman villa at Bancroft. http://www.armadamodels.co.uk/for_schools/...roman_villa.htm Also, here is a selection of card models which, although smallish in scale and obviously card when made, have a certain charm which certainly appeals to me. http://www.romanseas.com/roman_models.html

Royalties and copyright. I am unclear as to whose copyright they would be compromising - If they develop their own range, how can it compromise anyone else's copyright? Commercially available models/kits of Roman buildings are sadly very rare (in my case a good thing - neccesity is the mother of invention!) and there is less choice around now than in the 60's and 70's - for example, I recently bought an airfix Roman Fort (Actually a milecastle - and not a bad representation, incidentally) from ebay. This has been out of production since the early 80's due to lack of demand. Apart from the excellent card models produced by small companies in former eastern bock countries, there are few Roman Model copyrights I believe Lego could breach - especially when one considers that lego always has its tongue in cheek with all its ranges, and none of their models (partly a limitation of the knobbly bricks themselves) is anyway a direct copy of anything.

Heia, MPC! Good point: Fortuna Primagenia (Praeneste) WOW, Asclepiades - how long did this take? It just goes to show, if you have the Lego bricks anyway, you can actually build most things already. Maybe the Lego company simply needs to take more pics of models such as this and the other two, and introduce a few figures? It would take little work I suspect. Btw - mostly in white so far, but on completion the building will assume a variety of hues.

I believe it would. Maybe the moderators will do this, as I believe that this in itself is a fascinating topic. Keeping on this topic (or off it) I have come across this tantalising reference to a North African Romance which was apparently spoken until the 1600's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Romance A question for the Doc: If the basis of calling something a language is zero intelligibility from its neighbours, then how do Italian - Spanish figure in this? Or Dutch and German? Even English people - myself included - have noted that Dutch appears to be on the verge of partial intelligibility with English. Sorry to stray even further off topic, but this has long been something puzzling to me, and it sort of relates to statements made earlier about how languages are defined, as opposed to dialects.

Well, according to BBC Radio four news yesterday, this is a true story, and the cup fetched

Barbarian rule in Italy and parts of gaul was actually quite efficient. Odoacer and later the Ostrogoths maintained the status quo in Italy, so well that few people at the time realised a change had occured. Barbarian officials learnt latin, and some Franks in gaul were quite proud of their classical education and ability to speak latin. Justinian's reconquest, with its accompanying devastation, put a halt to this.

I must say, that temple model is pretty good. It would have been slightly easier to make - without sorting all the white bricks - if it had been red or yellow for the bottom third.