Northern Neil

I am going to stock up on spelt bread tonight. It does indeed carry the Hadrian logo - with a nice picture of a legionary on the front. I will send you and Augustus the composition as soon as poss.

Civilisation? What have southerners got that we havent? Do they have black puddings, clogs, magnificent victorian industrial archaeology sites, Boddingtons and Hadrian's Wall? NO!! What they have is Eastenders. I rest my case! :beer:

I tried the garlic bread recipes last night. Great!! Fortunately the Booths supermarket in Ulverston supplies spelt bread and italian style bread. Yummy!

I will be there. I have booked hotel for Fri. 13th and Sat 14th. Time off work has been booked as well!

People often think the Roman Empire and Classical Culture were one and the same; they were not. Rome adopted classical culture from the Greeks about 300BC and, by degrees, had largely dispensed with it by 450. The loss of the Western provinces did occur about the same time as the end of the classical world, but the Roman state of course carried on until 1453.

I voted for Arles, although If Nimes had been there that would have got my vote.

Well... the entire US Midwest is colonial territory wrested from the Native Americans in exactly the same way that African and Indian colonies were gained from their indigenous peoples by the British and French. I am not saying that the US should give these territories back - like the French and English did in the 50's and 60's, but the fact that these territories were 'cleared' of indigenous peoples and then annexed suggests to me that they are held in exactly the same way that we held Kenya, Tanzania, India and others. I believe that answers the above two questions. We now consider the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Colarado, Nabraska and others are part of the US, just as we now consider Tibet to be part of China.

This is a huge assumption, and mistake. Arabs have a unified culture and unified language. I would like to see the assumption that their culture is 'screwed up' qualified - in what way? to what degree? Why? They have to blame many agencies, including themselves - and also us (westerners) as has already been suggested, by the divide and rule attitude to 'artificial' countries and the drawing up of arbitary borders. The reason they do not unite is because the West props up many regimes such as the House of Saud - far more murderous than the secular, western-style government of Saddam. The Saudis have a financial and vested interest in not uniting with the pan arab movement - largely because of western sweetners - yet we look the other way when they commit human rights abuses and inforce Islamic Sharia law in such a way as to make Saddam (the erstwhile enemy) look like a real gentleman. If the Arabs and their culture are screwed up and disunited then it is a state of affairs we have brought about, and utterly intentionally. But please do not underestimate their ability to unite - surely, the current 'cold war 2' situation we are now in is testament to the fact that they can.

The Angles and Saxons came from Northern Germany (present day Sleswig - holstein) and the Jutes from slightly further North. They gave 'Jutland' its name. Today, part of Jutland is German, the rest is Danish. The Wends were also involved in the invasion and settlement of Britain. They apparantly were Slavs.

Hahahahahaha! MPC's appraisal realy made me titter just then. Like Al Capone said, 'Its funny because its true'.

'At Last' by Etta James.

How can one condemn the Arabs for wanting back land taken from them in 1948, and yet support Irish terrorists killing members of a protestant community 300 years old? However the Irish were treated 150 years ago plus, does not excuse planting a bomb in a rubbish bin in Warrington (England) and blowing up shoppers. A pristine example of people being killed because they were not of the bomber's ilk, would you say? Do Black folks in America do this because they were mistreated historically? Or Native Americans? the English, to paraphrase yourself, defeated the Irish for their land. Thats life. At least we gave them most of it back in 1922. Most of the Colonies then followed by degres. Something native Americans are still waiting for... Irish people were indeed mistreated and starved during the famines and prior to that. It is also worth saying that English working people were treated exactly the same way in this period-kept as virtual slaves by mill owners, dying due to overwork in their thirties, young boys sold to go up chimneys and clean them. Had Ireland been independent at this time, its working people would have suffered much the same as they did under the English, because thats how peasents and working people were treated at this time. There is no room here to discuss the current Irish problem in detail, but the view that it is down to English people treating Catholics as sub humans is grossly incorrect and naive, however true it may have been in the past. The British troops in recent decades were originally brought in to protect the Catholics from Protestant thugs. I think one needs to read a respectable volume on recent Irish politics to obtain a clear view here. I do hate the way the Pope was reviled when he made his statement - and I also revile the way he backtracked as a result. I revile all sorts of things done by muslims and others to people not of their ilk. That is why I steer clear of viewing history in an absolutist way, condoning attrocities done in my name but reviling attrocities done by the 'other' side. true objectivity comes out of weighing up the situation by stepping out of it, and admitting when your own side are wrong, and when the other side have a point. Turning down peaceful offers from muslims and calling them headbangers does not help to achieve this. Nor does excusing bombing of innocents because of a perceived injustice centuries ago - especially when people with similar grievences live on your doorstep. These are all prime examples of Western double standards which are at the root of why the Arab world dislikes us so much. I will not be contributing further to this discussion, as I believe I am failing in my aims, and at the end of the day I do not want to fall out with someone whose comments I generally find entertaining and informative.

Your terminology indicates a dislike for these people out of all proportion to their impact on your life in the US (unless I am gravely mistaken, in which case my apologies.) But speaking as someone who is in the front line, so to speak, given that 3 million plus muslims live amongst us, I feel that there is a need for greater understanding on both sides. Fighting ignorance with ignorance is never the way forward. Perhaps the teachings of your christ (I am atheist, personally) need to come into play here, and forgiveness is the answer? During the 60's through to the early 90's, terrorism from Ireland, sponsored and funded in part by certain western countries who claimed to be our allies, caused considerable loss of life (four times that of 911) to British people, some of whom are or were known to me. Yet I have no generalised hatred for the Irish... or the countries which have in the past funded the IRA, and in one major instance continues to do so, despite our support to them in recent conflicts.

Is it not the case that most of them came via the Bering strait, but that small numbers may have come from elsewhere? North America is a huge continent, so I dont see why one has to entirely embrace one theory or disregard another. I saw a television programme on the BBC recently which showed tool technology in the eastern US from about 10'000 BC, and they compared it to tools in Western Europe from the same period. They were identical, which suggests a migration - one direction or another - via the ice floes accross the North Atlantic. There is room for Australians, Europeans and Siberians in such a huge place, but I think the dominant population originally hailed from Siberia.

And Christians were doing the same things to Aztecs 700 years later. As has been stated already, all religion breeds ignorance and a them and us attitude. Getting back to the point, Should the Muslims be allowed to pray at Cordoba by the Catholics, in the same way as Christian prayer was permitted once more by the turks at Haghia Sophia? Should we really be turning down olive branches?

That is indeed the case, for the troops that remained. In 407 Magnus Maximus or ConstantineIII (I forget which one) withdrew most British troops to carve out his own mini empire. Once that had been dealt with, Rome then had more need of troops close at hand than to replenish dwindling Garrisons in Britain. I believe that the Rhine/Danube angle was abandoned about the same time as Dacia, and the frontier of Egypt was brought back to the first cataract also. These withdrawels were, of course, some 150 years before the abandonment of Britain.

I agree. The apparant dignity with which Saddam conducted himself in his final moments will further enhance his hero and martyr status in years to come. If anyone won a PR victory here, it was him.

Despite the local decline you refer to in and around Cirencester, in general civilisation peaked in Britain round about 375. This is not my theory, but that of Sheppard Frere (Britannia), who notes that villas and towns thrived in this period. Quote: 'In 370 Britain was once more enjoying firm government and effective defences: Forty years later she ceased to be part of the Roman Empire. The civilisation and prosperity of the Island had never been higher...' Again, Wacher (Towns in Roman Britain) suggests that many of the Romano British towns prospered at this time and peaked in population. I think that the troop withdrawels had more to do with the personal ambitions of Postumus, Carausius etc, and although this would have had an impact on the local economies where they were based, it didn't impact on the province as a whole.

The Jutes from modern day Denmark (Jutland) indeed came into contact with Rome; Carausius' navy encountered them on many of their raiding expeditions on the Saxon Shore. But they in turn were displaced by the Danes, who gave Denmark its name and were certainly Vikings, or Norsemen. So I'm not sure whether or not the Jutes count...

This will be seen by many Arabs to be a decision forced by Western hands, regardless as to whether that is the case or not. He will presently become a Martyr. Far better to have let him live out his days in ignominy in a cramped cell, like Rudolf Hess.

Another great picture. May I suggest that you send your work to the 'Gallery' section of the forum? It would then be easier for us to view your work. It would also add another valuable album to our collection of images.

I may be shooting off onto a huge tangent here, but it seems to me that most Roman films are about characters who either featured in Shakespeares works, the Bible, or characters who were around in roughly the same period. Picture a parallel world. I wonder what films would have been produced had Shakespeare written a play about Constantine, instead of Caesar? or Placidia and Constantius, instead of Antony and Cleopatra? What would have happened if Valentinian had produced a column, instead of Trajan? I hazard a guess that, sometime around 2005, film producers would say 'hey, there's a whole lot of Roman history we havent made films about here - the early bit. Lets make a film about this guy called Caesar!' Us lot at UNRV would then be seen foaming at the mouth, incandescent with rage, watching Caesar cross the Rubicon accompanied by 'Legionaries' with long hair, wearing spangenhelms and long sleeved tunics, carrying dragon standards. We would throw shoes at the television as Laurence Olivier meets the slave revolt with an army of Clibanarii, horse archers and poorly equipped infantry. A bit like we are now when we see Arthur approaching a fort full of Claudian period auxillia, or books depicting the withdrawel of the Romans from Britain, complete with pictures of legionaries in full lorica boarding ships, with glum faced Romano Brits looking on. Just a thought... But I remain open minded about the coming film adaptation of the Last Legion. Lets hope that it does not miss the oppurtunity to adequately depict to a largely ignorant public the painful transition from classical to early mediaeval worlds, which Manfredi more than adequately depicts in his book.

In a sense, this debate was actually tested at the Battle of Agincourt. Henry V dismounted his knights. He then allowed the French to charge his position - during which time missile fire from the longbowmen whittled them down. By the time the remaining knights reached the English position, the dismounted English knights and men at arms cut them to pieces. I believe thats the way a legion would have operated against a similar foe. They would also have sown their frontage with caltrops and lillies.

Absolutely. The them-and-us thing is tiresome, especially as we have only just come out of one vis-a-vis the communists. There are always two sides to a tale and myself and spittle are just trying to provide a balanced view here. Octavius, I agree you are aware of the current status of Haghia Sofia - but other posters on this thread are not, hence statements to the effect that it should be 'given back'. That is why I redressed the issue. I also agree you do not see Muslims as insane enemies - despite references to them banging their heads in Guantanamo - but many people do, and mainly due to adverse news reports from media with a vested interest in 'them and us' situations everywhere. Personally, I have BBC Radio 4 switched on constantly, read the Independent (neutral British newspaper), the very American but also very scrupulous National Geographic, and the International Herald Tribune when I am lucky enough to get it, and many of my views are as a result of using these very level headed media. Michael Moore may express views many people dont like, but I would say that if he was wrong, he would have been sued by now for mis - information and defamation of character. This has not as far as I am aware happened. Badly presented his findings may be, but insane? Perhaps not. Unpalatable, yes. Some of the views some Muslims put forward are at best infantile and at worst murderous - there is no denying that. Some actions of some Muslims are indeed barbaric and I will not for now go into the long list of such instances, as Octavious has already done this to a degree. However, if someone expresses a view on this site that appears to support such barbarity, and talks in a prejudicial and unsympathetic way about Christians and Westerners, I will also give the balanced view to them. In the meantime, I agree utterly with Virgil that exposure to westerners may have something to do with the civilised and accommodating views of British Muslims - indeed, proximity to Europe may have had a similar effect on the Turks. Therefore, surely the rerquest by Spanish Muslims to worship together with Christians may be considered a good thing, and a move to stop the division between Christians and Muslims.

...Apart from Malaysia, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey itself. India is Multireligious, as is Nigeria and several other African countries. Admitted, there are some streets in even the most moderate Islamic countries that an unaccompanied Christian might not want to walk down. But again, there are streets in Britain that an unaccompanied Muslim would not want to walk down either, and for the same reasons.