Northern Neil

I think what we would all find is that, unlike the 'Mel Gibson' view of history, where everything is black and white, there would be a lot of indeterminacy. For example, Hadrian's Wall may well have been plastered and whitewashed - when it was first built. Maybe, like maintaining all the signal turrets, it was considered prohibitively expensive after the Severan reconstruction, and through the next 200 years of its occupancy. Maybe the practice was revived again during Valentinian's refurbishment of the frontiers, given that this Emperor was keen on making political gestures to barbarians. So, we would probably find that 'Hadrians Wall was whitewashed and plastered - sometimes.' We would probably find that 'The cities of Gaul did not recover after the barbarian incursions of the 3rd century' - in some instances only. Trier and Arles would have continued to grow. Perhaps the ones that never recovered were not economically viable in the first place, and had for decades been propped up by government subsidies, which were removed during the 'crisis'. Milvian Bridge probably happened much as has been described - with the exclusion of the 'sign of the cross'. I mean, does anyone really believe that this happened? It is significant that this bit was recorded once the battle was virtually out of living memory. We would probably find that Augustus was very passionate about the conventions of the republic, and simply regarded himself the latest in a line of figures such as Sulla, Marius and Caesar. But this has been discussed a lot by people far more informed about the Republic than I. We would find things that may surprise us totally, and that Victorian assumptions we still hold about things would simply not apply. For example, the Belgae/lowland Britons are described as looking like Germans. Maybe 'England' was Germanic speaking way before the landing of Hengest and Horsa? Maybe 'Celtic' always has been confined to the West? Geneticists and linguists are certainly starting to think so. One thing, I feel, is certain. Blanket statements about 'what the Romans did', 'This place was occupied by' or 'This happened when...' would certainly not apply universally.

When I saw this topic, I thought 'Great!' and immediately started to compile my own mental list with a view to sharing it here. Then I thought of the variables involved, and more and more problems started to arise. Thus, I compile here a list of variables (is that the right term, MPC? ) to be taken into consideration when compiling such a list. 1) Are the people concerned influential, or are the times they lived in? Columbus may have discovered the New World and heralded an era of permanent European settlement, but improvements in technology and navigation made it almost certain that the New World would be discovered by someone around 1500. Perhaps Caesar, and his own set of circumstances, could be considered here. 2) Legendary figures - Should persons such as Jesus Christ and Abraham, for whom there is little or no direct documentary evidence, be considered, and does their possible lack of authenticity make them - or at least their names - any less influential? 3) Technological innovators - In Victorian times there were several 'Inventors' who patented machines which were almost certain to become available in some form over the next few years. Eddison, for example, simply waited for someone else to invent machines he had already patented, whilst getting the credit himself. 4) Artists and composers - As has already been mentioned, the Arts are not everyone's bag - have they been influential in the development of human society? My personal view may be yes, but I can see how, in the grand scheme of things, the Arts could be seen as a sideshow. Just a few thoughts!

For me it would be a visit to the Saxon Shore fortifications during the independent Britannia period under Carausius. Then I could learn what their actual function was, and just what did fill the empty spaces within the fort walls. A close second would be the Council of Nicaea, watching all those bishops accepting a radically altered and watered down version of their mystery religion, in response to imperial sweetners and threats. Maybe I could smuggle in a digicam to catch images of the soon to be destroyed gnostic and apocryphal texts.

I think it is a matter of record that Israel treats Arabs on its own soil as second class citizens, and frequently agitates the Palestinians. The current round of hostiliies - now several years in progress - was deliberately kick - started by the actions of Benjamin Netnyahu. Since then, Israel has systematically attempted to dismantle the security services and infrastructure of the Palestinian territories. There are very real parrallels between the way the state of Israel treats the Palestinians and the way black south Africans were treated during apartheid. As previously stated, If Israel had gotten behind its pre-67 boundaries when the PLO was a secular political group peace might have broken out. The association with Hamas has grown out of repeated broken promises to moderate Palestinians and constant refusal by western governments to condemn Israels annexation of Arab territory.

I think this initiative will be about as sucessful as making Tony Blair an envoy to the Middle East. When will western democracies learn that forcing Middle Eastern countries into becoming western democracies never works? Do we really think that imposing a puppet Western - style government on the Palestinians is going to get us anywhere at all? In the 60's right through to the 90's Arafat kept a lid on the internal disputes between Palestinian sects, but we attempted to de-stabilise him. Now he is gone, of course, and it is folly to think that a Western imposed settlement is going to meet with anything but disdain. For decades mainstream Palestinians stated they would grudgingly accept Israel's right to exist if Israel got back behind its pre - '67 borders. Like the UN said it should. Thus removing most of the reasons for conflict. If we in the West did a u-turn and started to put pressure on Israel to do this, and allowed Arab countries to sort out the factional battling we might get somewhere. But I rather think we have missed the boat.

The reign of Gratian should probably be seen as the marker - but that is just a personal opinion. He renounced the title 'Pontifex Maximus' and paved the way for the final elimination of classical paganism - and also the mood of philosophy and scientific enquiry which had hitherto existed for a thousand years in the classical world. The Lupercalia was indeed celebrated for about a century and a half after this - much the same way I suppose that maypole dancing and halloween is still with us now. But I do not think that the sealing up of this cave and the abolition of its related festival was a significant marker any more than the ending of the Olympic Games in theodosius' time, the demolition of the Temple of Serapis a short time after, the lynching of Hypatia by christian monks or the banning af any number of pagan remnant activities from the Late Roman period through to modern times. But, prior to the death of Valentinian, all these things were yet to happen.

Julian, Mithraism was not the only Eastern Meditterranean cult with similarities to Christianity. The cults of Bacchus and Dionysus also bear similarities. Especially the stories - water to wine, going to be crucified on a donkey, being born at the end of the year and being visited by astrologers who 'followed the stars' all feature in the mythologies of these figures. See this link for more info: http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/jesusmysteries.html This book, although presented in a populist way, nonetheless was written by classical scholars with impeccable credentials, and the evidense they give is backed up by comprehensive references. If you have not come across this already, I think you will like it.

One thing that puzzles me about creationism is, that they insist on rigerous scientific process when it comes to theories they feel attack their beliefs ( for example, ointing out gaps in an otherwise continuous fossil record ) yet they do not apply the same intellectual criticism of their own beliefs. Another thing that puzzles me about creationists. Given the massive amount of evidence as seen on science V. Creationism websites, it would appear that most creationists do not have spellcheck on their computers. That is only a theory, though - maybe they are just thick!

Shooting off at a total tangent, why is his name always pronounced 'Pilot'? Shouldn't it be (phonetically) 'Pilaatay'?

One thing that seems to be absent in this debate thus far - unless my hasty skim reading has missed it - is language. Half of Europe, from portugal to the Black sea, speak languages whose foundation is the Latin imported to those regions from Central Italy. The Germanic languages have heavily borrowed words from latin, and even Finno - ugric languages use latin derived words for technical/scientific terms. Not enough? ok... European architecture from 1650 - 1920 heavily influenced by Roman (not greek) variants of classical architecture. Political models such as the US Senate. Britain's arterial road system overlying an already existing system of Roman Roads. In my day - to - day life in Barrow-In-Furness, the most humdrum town in the world, I hear teenagers using expressions such as 'etcetera' 'Vice - versa' and even 'Ergo'. Our calendar is an adjusted version of one implemented by Julius Caesar. Religious believers I am acquainted with follow a religion spread - and largely re-invented by - the Roman state. Contrast this against the influence on my life of Tamil, Indus-valley or chinese imperial culture. There aint that much, reallly, is there? I - or rather we - should rest our case. Eastern, African and middle eastern people do not seem to be embarrassed about their colonial and imperial pasts and do not appear to want to diminish the role of their parent cultures in history. Why, then, in the West, do so many of us?

I wonder if Rome of the Imperial and Dominate period can actually be viewed as a republic, in the modern sense, and that there was maybe some substance in the use of the term by Imperial and even Dominate period rulers? Modern states (Syria springs to mind, off the cuff..) in some instances have 'Presidents' who preside over a republic, but are in fact in office due to the fact their fathers preceded them. Again, going back to the Roman Empire, sometimes the office of emperor passed from father to son, at other times to a delegated 'heir' and at other times to someone who had staged a military coup. Emperors such as Galerius and Maximian appear to have been appointed due to merit and loyalty to the state, rather than because of any dynastic claim. Unless I am mistaken, even in the dominate period 'Emperor' was still considered a political office rather than a hereditory title. So, given that the senates of Rome (and later, Constantinople ) continued to function and exercise some power, much as councils and representative bodies have limited power in modern republics run by hereditory dictators, is there perhaps a degree of truth in Julian's words?

Given that the (classical) Roman period lasted for close on a thousand years, it is hard to imagine that there weren't any social interactions between Romans and non - Romans during that immense spread of time. On Hadrians Wall, there is a gravestone dedicated by a Roman citizen to his dead wife, a freed slave. His wife was a non Roman originally, but clearly he loved her very much. From the third century onwards a Hebrew (for example), if free, was by definition a Roman citizen anyway, as he came from the Roman world. As Caldrail has pointed out in an unrelated topic, people are people, the same as us, whichever historical period they are born into, and so there were probably snobs as well as social mixers just like today.

Just got home from work (night shift). Watching the 'Extras' series on DVD with Ricky Gervais. Nice long glass of cider as a nightcap, then to bed for a good day's sleep.

The plotting of events such as equinoxes and solstices would not take the immense effort alluded to in earlier postings. Indeed, once a bearing is taken from the Pole Star, one merely has to wait a few days in late winter / early autumn for the sun to rise at 90 degrees to your line, and bingo - you have the position of the equinoxes.

What are the dimensions of this site? Is there a discernible rectangular earthwork? If it is close to Ermine Street, then it could be a marching camp, in which case little material would be found by archaeologists. Please tell me where Countess Close is - a look at it via 'Google Earth' may at least give us a hint.

There is a geological theory which for now I must treat as an anecdote, as I am at work and my books are at home! Broadly speaking, the mid-Atlantic ridge around the area of the Azores was above sea level, in much the same way as Iceland is at present. The continuing separation of the Americas from Europe/Africa precipitated a sudden subsidence of this part of the ridge, resulting in a sudden shift north of the gulf stream, thus ending the last ice age rather rapidly. The above sea level part of the mid-atlantic ridge was reduced to the current Azores archipelago, partly due to the subsidence, and also the rise in sea level caused by the ice-melt. I seem to remember that the sinking of Atlantis happened in two distinct phases, which also ties in with this. The ending of the last glacial period roughly corresponds with the date Plato gives for the inundation, and also fits in with his 'beyond the pillars of Hercules' location. Prior to the Spanish genocide of the 15th century, the Canary Islanders stated, prior to being eradicated, that they originated from the centre of the ocean, and had a legend stating that their homeland sank rather quickly. There are of course many holes in this theory, and most of the circumstancial evidence is unable to be verified or discounted. However, the geological processes involved are entirely possible. Maybe this did happen, and the more recent but still historically remote happenings in the Aegean were grafted onto the legend by the egyptians? In which case, both locations could be regarded equally legitimately as Atlantis- and equally disregarded. Thus, I feel that the search for a single location for Atlantis is an impossible and unrealistic task from the outset. In much the same way, the story of a single Arthur (or Jesus, even) cannot be told by examining legends which, although probably having some basis in history, may have happened to several different individuals.

Since the summer I have been re-reading C.S.Foresters 'Hornblower' novels. Anyone who likes Simon Scarrow's books will like these. In fact, Hornblower and Bush do remind me a bit of Cato and Macro. I am currently up to 'The Commodore' in which Hornblower's relatively small naval action in the Baltic tips the balance which leads to Bonaparte's disastrous retreat from Moscow, and the beginning of the end for the French Empire of Napoleon.

I find this debate, which has aparantly raged on since 44 BC, VERY confusing and I do not blame casual observers for regarding Caesar as an Emperor. To what extent has modern convention decided that he wasn't whereas Augustus was? Is it the same kind of scholastic thinking which states that the 'Roman' period ended and the Byzantine one begun in 610, even though no - one noticed at the time? Or that the Western Empire ended in 476 even though Odoacer technically ran Italy as a Roman governor, and again, no one at the time noticed? Why is Caesar not regarded as an emperor but Postumus is, even though Caesar had sovereignty over more of the Roman world? Is it not true that the 'Emperor' was a political office, not a hereditory monarchy, until the time of Diocletian? These questions are not rhetorical - I would genuinely like to know the answers. It is all so much more complex than the plans of buildings...

Hmph... so whats wrong with good old glue, cardboard and plasticine, then?! No - seriously, great site!

Could it be Decius?

On the whole, I do find this debate (the political one, not this discussion!) pointless. All countries who have been baddies at some stage gloss over the facts, or refuse to admit anything point blank, and the rest of the world goes: yeah. okay... I think there is a majority view worldwide that this was a genocide, and the Turkish position on this always looks untenable and slightly infantile to most observers, so let us leave it at that. There are many similar instances: Perhaps not of Genocide, but of wrong-doing that nations keep quiet about, or even deny in blatant contradiction to the known facts. British school children do not learn very much about our scuttling the French navy in 1940. Russians believe that Finland started the Winter war (Finland atacking Russia?? ok...) and the US keeps quiet about pushing Spain into a corner in order to start a war which gave them Puerto Rico. Where does it end?

I dont disagree with The Augusta on much, but I think bonfire night is great. Bangers in dustbins - making bazookas out of carpet tubes and biscuit tins and shooting rockets at each other - the fun was endless! But isnt it in fact part of the same festival as haloween? For centuries pagans had fire festivals at around the endof October, and I suspect that 'splitting' of it into two different things occured but recently. I agree with the CofE that commercially bought costumes have gone over the top in terms of goryness, and that a level of tast/bad taste should be agreed by thinking people. But, the church should remember that the re-packaging of all things pagan as evil, creepy and to do with death was actually down to themselves in the first place, and early mediaeval attempts to frighten people away from non-christian beliefs.

Many, many thanks for that. I also forgot to mention I have a pair of 120mm binoculars - massive things, like two pint glasses strapped together. I preferto use these than the 'scope - star fields and the Andromeda Galaxy are just breathtaking through these.

Calders, Augustus, Faustus - how big are YOUR telescopes - and does size matter? Mines only a little 3 inch refractor, and the equatorial mount is a tad rusty at the moment...

I quite liked Manfredis book, despite the implausible plot. It had all the things in it, which I really bought the book for - namely, a classical scholar's take on conditions at the end of the classical world. Manfredi depicts the following beautifully - Decay of Latin in rural areas, influence of Germans in the Imperial court, the semi-romanisation of barbarians - and the attendant dangers resulting thereof, decay of urban centres on the fringes of the empire, and the fact that in more peaceful areas such as Neapolis hardly anyone knew things had changed. This film was BRILLIANT - it managed to miss out ALL these things, and like other recent hollywood pics depicting Roman/sub Roman Britain, re designed Hadrians Wall - when we KNOW what it looked like - AGAIN!!!!