Northern Neil

I was Q.Horatius Flaccus, followed by Hadrian. I'll write an ode to that...

'INVICTA' was a common product name in 50's and 60's England. They made toys.

The other night we experienced an earthquake in England. It measured 5.1 on the Richter scale, and it was centred on Market Rasen in Lincolnshire. It occurred at about 01.00, and I was woken by the sound of my furniture shaking. It reminded me that we are all vulnerable to the capriciousness of the natural world, and I considered myself lucky not to have suffered injury or loss. Unfortunately, my mother was not as lucky and she is still reeling from the destructive effects of the quake on her property. Here is a picture of the damage:

Definitely the Dominate period. So many unanswered questions - were things really that different from the Principate, or were the differences superficial, such as styles of clothing and shapes of helmets? What buildings - if any - lay inside those empty Saxon Shore forts and what were they really used for? How long did traditional units such as cohorts survive in the army? Did the ones that survive continue in the same way, or was it just the name of the units that survived? Did towns look like Pompeii, or had everyday material culture moved on a pace? How much power did the Senate actually retain, and did polititians still refer to the state as being a 'republic'? I could cover a page with such questions.

Our apologies for going off topic, Roman Emperor. Its all MPC's fault for saying something which just BEGGED a punchline! Please continue...

Now that WOULD be something! Maybe Phillip's MI 5 buddies can fix it? (In fact, I'm surprised they havent already..)

Hmm. Very true. Unless Charles decides to forego the throne in favour of Prince William...

...but not, perhaps, Spirituality and science. Again I ask, why should evolution - or come to that, anything discovered by science - rule out god's existance, simply because it runs against some religious dogmas?

There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that much of what Paul wrote was embellished and altered in the 4th century.

In Rome your Christian lady would be relatively safe, I believe, up to the reign of Hadrian or even after. The persecution of Nero is now widely believed to have been 'invented' in the 4th century - in Nero's reign hardly anyone knew about christians, and even Trajan seems ignorant about them until receiving a letter concerning their alleged 'Criminal Activities'. I say this not to correct you, but to enable you to give your character a better choice of time scale - for example, setting the story during the Flavian dynasty, as has been suggested. If your lady wanted to help the poor and yet not compromise the conventions of her class, maybe she could send a slave to identify stricken families in the poorer areas, and perhaps pay for the services of doctors / midwives anonymously? This could open up some interesting plot lines, as the slave relays information between the poor families and the rich lady, who might even try a little evangelism by proxy! I believe at this time, even christians did not have a problem with slavery, and food would not be an issue with the poor, as the corn dole kept most families from starving.

Whatever type you use, the tang and blade MUST be of one piece - otherwise it cannot be considered a proper weapon. Even if the weapon is only for display, this should still be the case. Thus speaks an old campaigner from the Regia Anglorum (Saxon, Viking and Norman) re-enactment group.

I cannot think of anything offhand from primary sources but I expect the attempts at theatre and music by Nero must have had people in the palace struggling to stifle laughter, in much the same way as Pilate's guards in the 'Life of Brian'.

Thats an amazing article. I had no idea there were monuments in Egyptian form so far down into Sudan.

Maybe, but we are discussing evolution - not the origin of life itself. Life developing and changing due to environmental factors is a proven fact, and it does NOT rule out the existance of a god. Why should it?

Science has proved conclusively that life - in the main - is shaped by evolution. My opinion is that to deny this is like denying that the earth is a globe, and it is high time it stopped being controversial. Although a 'free thinker' (atheist) myself, I fail to see why evolutionary theory annoys some religious people so much. Why should it deny the existance of God? If I were religious myself, I would embrace evolutionary theory like a long lost friend - It is more marvellous that God created things painstakingly over billions of years, rather than waking up one morning in a few thousand years ago and saying: 'oh, I think I might create a universe'. To paraphrase Einstein, 'God does not make airfix models'.

the presence of a cross in the Colosseum is indeed misplaced, in the context of venerating Christian martyrs. To be fair, the Catholic Encyclopedia actually states this, and the Church's position on this has always been that the association with martyrs is sketchy and inconclusive. See here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04101b.htm

I believe one of these areas is to this day called Romagna (Romania) meaning the bit of Italy that remained in the Roman Empire.

But the crusades were a long time go. Longer ago, indeed, than the span of time between the crusades and the muslim conquest of Christian areas. So, I dont believe this is the root of the current victimisation of Christians in the middle East. The Middle Eastern countries have long had a large minority of christians which has lived fairly peacfully among the muslims. Recent events such as the Anglo - American intervention into Iraq have made these people a target of the majority religion - and resulted in their mass emigration from such countries. In much the same way as Jewish Germans were rounded up and interned in Britain during WW2. Didn't everyone with a modicum of historical knowledge and insight predict that this might have been the case?

...and hasn't all religion been the same, from ancient times to date? (Wooops - naughty naughty!) Seriously though, I thing Faustus has a point here, and certainly some religious traditions and conventions which were no doubt common sense and practical in the time and place they arose became tradition and doctrine in later ages. Maybe Pertinax or Andrew Dalby can shed some light on the subject of entrail reading and food intake?

I once bought this book at an airport, and read it cover to cover in a day. I think Key's idea is very strong; even if it only half right, it still explains a lot! Sonic, I do hope your book is a bit clearer than that or Robert Graves; his was good, but all the to - ing and fro - ing throughout the Italian peninsula got me VERY confused. When your book is out, I will buy it - but I want a signed copy!

Yes - there isnt really a satisfactory thing to call 'Imperials' at this stage, is there? Some people call them 'East Romans' to mark the difference between Classical ones and Byzantines - this is a bit of a mouthful though. Perhaps in this context of the wars of Justinian/Belisarius, use of the word 'Byzantine' is more useful.

Just watched Apocalypse Now (Director's cut) for the first time. I really didnt know what to make of it. It needs a second watch, I think. Very strange film.

No, it was me who messed up - my sources say what you just said. I do have an excuse - I wrote that on my lunch hour at work and didnt have my books handy. One of the problems of writing things from memory; well spotted Sonic. But yes, although I transposed the gothic/Roman (Byzantine) damage to the city, the facts are that aqueducts were cut by one side, and monuments fortified and stripped of adornments by the other. In any event, the point being that it was a disaster for the city. I always refer to Imperial forces prior to 610 as 'Romans', in accordance with current convention. The people of Rome at this time seemed to regard them thus also, given that the Senate made the ultimate sacrifice as a result of supporting them.

I think I will go with the Huns. Their migration set off a chain of events in which the Germans first sought sanctuary, then land from the Empire. This happened at a time when the Empire itself was riven by political and religious divisions and was thus unable to cope with the pressures from without. Without pressure from the Huns the Goths would have posed far less of a problem.

Saw 'I am legend' Last night. Same plot as Omega Man. Not as long. Watched 'Flyboys' again. I have warmed to it.