Northern Neil

According to Quo Vadis/The Robe/Ben Hur my 50's - style quiff and DA are authentic enough!

Very impressive indeed! I would like to know what scale this model is - looking at the figures it may be 15mm, but its hard to tell.

On checking this out, it happens that the black guy indeed WAS based on Eugene Bullard, who I previously knew nothing about. During his career as a pilot for the French air service, he shot down two enemy aircraft. This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Bullard gives more info. In future, I will research more thoroughly before I comment...

As companion to the thread about what books we have all read recently, I thought I would open one up on Films, or Movies as they are called over the Pond. Having got rid of my TV some time ago in disgust at the continual dumbing down of popular media - and not wanting to continue to fund it, my only screen entertainment now is to watch a movie in bed, with laptop on my knee, instead of reading a book. One Movie a night I will watch - it is also a good way of sending me to sleep. Anyway, the movie that unfolded last night was 'Flyboys'. Good points: The aircraft - wether computer modelled or otherwise, were excellent. Use of classic vehicles shown close - up in the movie, excellent. Dogfights - WOW!!! Cinematography - excellent. However, as the movie progressed, I began to feel the same disquiet as that which prompted me to get rid of the TV. World War I aerial combat has really recieved the '300' treatment here. Just about every cliche in the book was in this film - Almost all the German aircraft were red - painted Fokker DR 1's in Richtofen style, with the exception of a bomber, and a black - painted DR1 flown by the baddie. No Albatrosses, Halberstadts or Pfalzes from other squadrons to be seen! Not a single Spad VII, SE 5 or Sopwith Camel. The 'French Boudoir with kindly Madame' bit was in there - although the Hero's girlfriend turned out to be the one girl who wasn't actually a prostitute. Phew. The chivalrous, good German who lets people off for bravery, the wicked, nasty one in a black plane who kills people on the ground. The kindly but firm senior French officer who treats his pilots like children, the senior pilot drinking and risking himself going up alone - and all the pilots having the attitude 'Lets get those beastly Huns / Frogs / Tommies' (by this stage the US had not entered the war - although the miraculous use of 1918 Fokker DR 1's in 1917 deserves comment). Yep, they were ALL in there! After I viewed this movie I didn't know what to think - like many I have seen recently, there was gross standardisation, implausible heroic acts, and the unrealistic presence of a black guy to make the movie appeal to a bigger audience. As a film adaptation of a boy's comic book version of WWI aerial combat, it was good, and I enjoyed it. For a more realistic view, perhaps Blue Max and Aces High should be kept in reserve... Tonight I will be watching 'I am Legend'. Right! NEXT!

The city itself survived much in its classical form under Odoacer, and even the succeeding Ostrogoths maintained the public buildings, funding chariot races and animal fights in the Circus and arena for the populace, whilst complaining it was a waste of money. The city started to change after the reconquest by Justinian, which wrecked much of it. Imperial forces cut aqueducts during the siege - thus reducing habitable areas, and the ostrogoths turned monuments such as the Mausoleum of Hadrian into fortresses, using its marble adornments as missiles. Units of the Roman Army pillaged outlying areas, destroying infrastructure and ruining the livelihoods of people they had come to liberate. The Goths abolished the senate and killed its members for sympathising with the Romans, and the war itself ravaged so much of the Italian peninsula that henceforth Rome became unviable as a large city, and by degrees the population left for the countryside. By the end of the war, in 560, the Senate had been abolished, food supplies had become erratic and the remaining population was strung out along the course of the two remaining aqueducts. It is at this time that historians mark the end of Rome's ancient history. Rome was once more part of the Empire, but it was as an outpost, not as a capital. By 590 churchmen are commenting that the forum is disused, and cattle are being driven through it. Habitable areas are now isolated huddles around surviving fountains, surrounded by areas of rotting buildings and vegetation. It is sad to note that the Roman reconquest did much to reduce Rome to this. It is easy to speculate that if this had not happened, less of the city would have been wrecked, and Italy would have withstood the Lombard invasions which were about to come. The sources for this information are many and varied; 'The World of Late Antiquity': Peter Brown, 'The Fall of Rome':Ward Perkins, 'The Fall of the Roman Empire': Peter Heather, 'The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History': Colin McEvedy(Who quotes other sources), And also a book I once had called 'Rome in the Dark Ages' which I regrettably threw away, and I have forgotten the author. These books also mention primary sources. Hope this helps!

Wise guy! mind you, our ancestors also fought without defensive armour and helmets. And look where it got us! (Maybe the addition of Scuta and Gladii would make your game even MORE interesting?!)

Are we actually discussing football here? It seems that the game under discussion is something we call Rugby, although we play it without defensive armour and helmets.

The 'Cambridge History of the Middle Ages (Vol. 1)' has a haunting and evocative statement on this: '[before 410]...one could send a letter from York to Hippo, or travel from Clermont to Dura. Before too long, this would no longer be possible...'

The problem I find with a lot of this speculative and sensational literature is that it makes even genuine study into such areas off - limits. For example, there is a case for looking closer at the date of the sphinx and questioning who may have built it. Unfortunately Hancock's grandiose theories have put such legitimate research on the backburner. The same with Atlantis. Thanks to a plethora of fanciful books speculating on a glittering civilisation in the midst of the palaeolithic world, indications from geologists that the Central Atlantic Ridge in the Azores region may have been above water in the ice age are largely ignored. It is a shame that an area of study itself should become unrespectable because of these charlatans. But, it is also a shame that proper academics should avoid an area of interest because of this. They should be impartial.

I have just finished reading 'Constantinople' by Roger Crowley, about the seige and fall of Constantinople in 1453. There is reference to a senate even in this late period.

They may not be arguments, but they are pertinent to this discussion. We were asked our opinions on matters impossible to prove empirically - what Romans would think of us, and what people 2000 years on would think of us. As Gaius says, many of the things we perceive as evils of Rome are rife in our own society. There are quite a few more - Ammianus Marcellinus complains that in times of grain shortage, scholars and philosophers are asked to leave Rome, whilst gladiators and dancers are allowed to remain. He would look at the way 'Celebrities' have a privileged position in our society above scholars and scientists and give a knowing nod. Many Romans would look at the current 'Cold War 2' with Islam and say: 'Oh, I see the West and Persia are still at it, then?' Not everything is black. World trade and globalisation would be looked upon with admiration, and the use of Spanish - 'Modern Latin' - as a world language would make them very proud. They would see as one of their successes the massive spread of Christianity, a religion largely re-shaped and re-invented by themselves. They would see neo-classical architecture in many cities throughout the world. People in 2000 years time may, with wonderful hindsight, actually see ourselves and the Islamic world as direct continuities from Rome and Persia - our ongoing quarrels and cultural divide seem to point towards that. But then, they might see things in utterly different terms that would be confusing to us - a bit like our curious convention of saying: 'Right. From 610 onwards, we are giving the Roman Empire a different name, because we think it is different.' Perhaps they will give Post - 1948 Britain a different name, because after then it was no longer an Empire, and became multi-cultural. The speculation can be endless and fun.

Actually NN the entire structure is of poured concrete. Ah well - in my view poured concrete is fine as long as the ultimate result is desireable. I gather that the craftsmen at the real parthenon are using traditional materials, then? As a matter of interest, what are the splendid collection of neo - classical monuments at Washington built from?

That will all depend om IF we are on the verge of change. It's easy to see a pattern after the events. If we're not on the verge, the event will most likely fall into the mists of time. That is a fair point, of course. However, in, say, 375 it certainly would not have done any harm to have listened to the profits of doom, just as it wouldn't do any real harm today. The benefits, then as now, would far outweigh the minor disruptions needed to address these concerns.

It is interesting that you mention Greenpeace, and environmental measures (saving trees). When we analyse problems that beset Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries, they seemed to regard each setback and barbarian influx as a separate event, rather than part of an overall Eurasian pattern. We often wonder why they ignored ominous threats, and actually inflamed other threats by their high - handed behaviour. When Rome is finally sacked by Alaric, the Empire is aghast at the event; Rome had endured for hundreds of years, how could it possibly fall? For the ordinary citizen, still enjoying a (relatively) high standard of living, the impossible had happened and without warning. After all, what effect could a few unwashed barbarians far away have on them, with their high civilisation and invincible armies? A few individuals saw the storm coming of course, but were largely ignored - possibly because for 100 years the christians had been saying similar things, albeit with little evidence other than the book or Revelations. We can equate this with climatologists doing serious research, and the issue being clouded by the sometimes irrelevent antics of radical environmentalists. In other words, 'Tree Savers and Greenpeace'. After 410 considerably more people are starting to talk about Rome's growing weakness, and serious problems to come. But by then, 'tipping point' had been reached, as Imperial revenues dried up with the disappearance of each province, and what was left went to fund wars against other Romans. Back to Greenpeace and environmental issues. Will these people in 2000 years consider New Orleans, mass migration from increasingly unviable third world countries, 25'000 deaths due to heat exhaustion in Europe in 2003 which was hardly even reported - and many other recent events - in isolation? I think not. They may however draw parallels between our world now, and the knife - edge the Roman world was on back in 378 on the eve of Adrianople. They may look back on the complacency of ordinary citizens, who believe that their world cannot possibly disappear, or radically change. And so do nothing about trying to change things.They may look back on the vast amounts of money spent by Western governments on foreign wars whose aim is to secure more reserves of the very thing which is adding to these problems. Instead of spending the cash on projects which would alleviate them. In the same way, we bemoan Honorius spending dwindling reserves on raising armies of barbarians - who stayed - to fight other Romans. Political correctness would be seen for what it is - by organisations, a bureaucratic exercise designed to minimise litigation. By individuals, a way of making people live slightly easier with themselves whilst being able to ignore the main issues. Forgive me for giving my own, highly subjective view - but then, I was asked for it! People can only speculate on the thoughts of our remote descendents by giving their own, personal views, using available evidence as they see it.

However, is there not a wonderful replica of the Parthenon, at Nashville, shown in Faustus' excellent gallery pics? This appears to be a life size reconstruction, and seems to me to be as good as theoriginal would have been. Built as it was in about 1890, I assume there is no concrete in the structure.

Me too, my little Egyptian friend. Happy Birthday!

I wonder if the lack of Roman activity in Cornwall is more apparent rather than real. The Dumnonii do not seem to have been particularly anti Roman - except perhaps in the beginning. Thus, there would be less need for internal security than in places such as Wales and Northern England. Accordingly, less forts means less settlements built in the Roman manner developed from vici. Maybe the Dumnonii were more than happy to be part of the Empire if it meant increased trading and employment in mining operations and the wharfes near the forts that Melvadius alludes to. And as such, the Romans were quite happy for town life to be on the lines of Chysauster rather than Londinium. Sites such as this, although built in the British fashion, show through finds that their inhabitants were quite happy to enjoy aspects of Roman culture such as mass produced goods and luxuries. Being to far west to suffer raids from Saxon pirates, there would also be no need for increased fortifications guarding estuaries later on.

Were these kings from Eastern Europe/ the Balkans? This is not off topic, as it implies that even in the middle ages there was some currency in the idea that the barbarian successor kings were - at least in the ceremonial sense - governors of Roman provinces in their own eyes. I believe that Western European kings got their authority from the Pope.

The OS map (6th edition)of Roman Britain shows fort at Nanstallon in East Cornwall. My (very) old edition also shows a fort at Launceston on the Corninsh/Devon border. The 'cest' part of that place name would seem to suggest a Roman site, however nothing is shown at Launceston on more recent editions. On my older map there is also a minor settlement quite far down in the peninsula with the Roman name 'NEMETOSTATIO' but again, this does not appear on modern editions.

I think this is part of the assumption that all people who were of the La Tene culture were by definition Celtic, and is a result of the early 20th century view that race, language and culture came in one package - at least where the Celts were concerned. A view somewhat puzzling when one considers that Greeks and Romans both were part of a 'classical' culture, yet they were linguistically separate. Given that the La Tene culture was extant through a massive part of central Europe it is logical that the Dacians would be influenced by it. I believe that the Dacians were part of the linguistic grouping known as 'Thraco - Phrygian' which includes Thracians, Dacians, Phrygians and Cimmerians. The only language of this group which survives today is Armenian, and the language group is distantly related to Greek, in the same way that (Insular) Celtic is related to Italic -and Latin.

Is this a package which comes in before, or after the coming presidential elections?

I meant to say that that to anyone over 30, the fact it is happening is obvious - not that the causes of it happening are obvious. Forgive me for being unclear on this. My personal view is that our activities are the primary cause, but I accept there are some holes in the theory. However, not everyones doubts of this theory are as measured and clearly thought out as your own Primus, and I find it exasperating when some people reject it out of hand simply because it implies lifestyle change they do not want to make. Linking it to left wing ideology and the antics of new - agers and other fringe groups is quite spurious, and offers no scientific reason whatsoever as to why it may be wrong.

Although I started this discussion lightly with a cheap joke (see first comment) back in May last year, I stand aghast at comments such as this, which use the same 'It is only a theory' arguments as religious zealots use against the theory of evolution. In scientific parlance, ALL ideas are theories, in that they may be alterable by the finding of new information, or evidence which is found which gives rise to a better theory. To anyone over 30, evidence that global warming is happening is not only obvious, but it is far from insignificant and slight. Further more, the math involved in drawing a direct correlation between the degree of warming and the carbon released by fossil fuel burning - in other words, our own activities - is far from complex. When I was a child (I am now 46) in Northern England, snowy winters and iced up canals were a fact of life for three months a year. To date, we have only had three frosty mornings this winter, and almost no snow. Friends in Finland tell me that 15 years ago, the snow came in early November, and stayed until mid April. The snow finally came two weeks ago, and they expect it to melt in early March like it has done for the past five years. I ask, can anyone with an understanding of the slow - almost geological - time processes involved in natural climate change possibly say that our current climate change is natural, or 'slight'? Well, maybe they can, if they believe the world to have been formed in 4000 BC... I wonder who the tree - hugging liberals are who are said to have advanced theories on global warming for their own agendas or financial gain. Yes, such people may agree with and like the theory, just as they may dislike other scientific theories which run contrary to their views. This neither validates nor invalidates the global warming theory to any degree whatsoever. When I investigate these findings on global warming and its causes, I see only conservative scientists who are studied in geology, meteorology, petrochemicals etc. These are dour, mathematical thinking scientists, who are telling us that the current theories are the best ones that fit the available evidence. Yes, the tree hugging liberal types are there of course saying 'I told you so', but any exploration of the facts beyond the highly partisan Fox News or Britain's Daily Mail will show analytical types that these news agencies themselves have their own agendas, and largely support precisely those sections of our world who have the most (in the short term) to lose, should we all have to tighten the belt and curb our lifestyles. Global Warming is a theory as proven as any other which has been developed by scientific method and empirical processes. Like any other theory, those with the most to lose from its findings are the ones most likely to dispute it. Religious zealots do not like evolution, flat earthers do not like plate tectonics, creationists do not like cosmology and the Big Bang. Affluent people with comfortable lifestyles they may have to curb do not like current theories on global warming. All people who dislike various theories use the most extreme advocates of those theories to discredit them - wether it is 'cold mathematical pragmatists' with respect to evolution and cosmology, or 'Tree Hugging Liberals' with respect to the subject at hand. It is an old tried and tested method of advancing ones particular brand of propaganda, and one which sadly remains quite effective.

I am beginning to thing that there isn't anything in this global warming theory after all. Four months ago it was quite warm, whereas now it is actually quite cold.

I must agree with Ursus' opinion on the comment by Starkey. While I accept Starkey is a historian of merit, the comment is neither true nor particularly objective. Far from being centralised, most of the history of the Roman Empire is that of divisions and partition into east/west, or separatist entities such as Palmyra and the Gallic Empire of Postumus. Part of this was precisely because Rome adopted and absorbed the very cultures Starkey says it rode roughshod over. Some of the things that made Roman culture so 'great' as he puts it, is that ordinary, or even poor people lived under tiled roofs, had a varied diet and had access to a large variety of consumer goods which made life easier. This was the case in Britain in 400 AD. By 500 AD this had all changed. Domestic pottery was badly made and was reduced to one or two all purpose items, people lived under thatch or birch bark, and ate whatever basic foodstuffs were left after the local warlord had taken his cut. Long distance travel was rare, scientific and artistic development stagnant. This moribund state of affairs lasted for several hundred years. The period from 1000 to 1500 was indeed an interesting and great period, because once again material culture, scientific enquiry and art/culture started to advance, from where it left off back in 500 AD.