Northern Neil

*the Roman nobles claimed to be from the Trojan blood line. It's important to remember that they weren't, in reality, from Troy (if anyone can prove otherwise, I'd love to read about it). An inscription which appears to be written in Etruscan or a similar alphabet, has been found at Lesbos off the coast of Asia Minor. Aside from this admittedly tiny piece of evidence, there is very little to back up their claim.

Hmm, late Roman films never seem to get the detail right with uniforms. As far as being anti - christian goes, unfortunately any movie dealing with Hypatia in particular and the end of classical civilisation in general is not going to show Christianity in a favourable light. However attached we may or may not be toward that religion, one cannot deny that it and other monotheistic cults were responsible for the 'transformation' of much of the classical world. That Justinian film with Orson Welles looks interesting, and I suppose if Late Roman movies are thin on the ground, Byzantine movies are more so.

Thanks Nephele! Am having a great day. Just pity it's my last day in South Africa. Flying back to Europe tonight. Belated happy birthday, Aurelia. Hope you didn't get caught up in all that snow and slush in South Africa!

There's the Hypatia movie with Rachel Weiss. I havent heard much of it lately, though - anyone else heard any news? Is it out yet?

Me too!

The American version of the comedy series 'The Office'. Very funny!!

happy birthday, Doc. Hope this didnt get to you too late!

In my tiny experience of riding horses (two pony trekking trips in the Lake District) The stirrup aided me only in being able to mount a horse without needing a ladder, and stopping me sliding off sideways. Although making horse riding somewhat easier and more comfortable, the stirrup would seem to make little difference when it comes to a frontal assault on a target, as the Roman Saddle, like you say, was well designed to keep the rider in position. I think the big military difference the stirrup made when it eventually showed up in the 7th century was to enable horse archers more mobility in the saddle. That would indeed have been a big advantage. I had to give up horse riding because, like Clint Eastwood, I am fiercely allergic to horses

Good call, Medusa!

Yes, and yes: L

...as should all accounts of the Tudors. Schoolchildren in the UK get taught a lot about 'Fat Henry' and his excesses, and the reign of Elizabeth, but little else.

Will do my best, as I'm at work all day!

Hmmm, I never thought of that. I find it odd that the writers of this article should accuse others of subscribing to 'mythological nonsense'.

This act is no different from the distruction of the Serapaeum, the disfigurement of classical statues or the dynamiting of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Small minded men erasing something which displeases their own particular celestial friend. Justifiable to themselves, a puzzle or a crime to everyone else. I find this article enigmatic because of one statement towards the end. Although a Christian website it states that: 'we moderns have revived the Games without all this mythological nonsense. Or have we? Consider our present-day Olympian anthem: "Ancient Immortal Spirit, chaste Father of all that is Beauty, Grandeur and Truth Descending appear with Thy presence Illumine Thine Earth and the Heavens. Shine upon noble endeavors wrought at the Games on Track and in the Field

I just dont understand why they get some buildings so wrong. I mean, everyone knows what a Roman Fort looks like, for instance - would it be so hard to do a computer model of one with the standard building plan? Some of the elaborate and unauthentic examples probably take more disk space than an authentic one would! Same goes for peristyle houses, baths, etc etc etc...

Happy Birthday, mate. Too bad it's so close to Christmas!

This is neither plain, nor in accordance with established thinking. As you rightly have asked of others so often, I now ask you to name established academic and primary sources to confirm your hypothesis, as it somewhat counters established analysis. My suggestion that a Roman victory at Adrianople would have led to a different outcome is not speculatory, as I have not suggested what that different outcome would have been. As you well know, the changing, alteration or swapping of one variable for another by definition changes outcomes; speculation only enters the picture if one tries to forecast what that outcome may be. And in any case, there is nothing wrong with that - we are all history enthusiasts and this subject, for us, is supposed to be... fun? I think so. Browbeating laypersons with academic terms and concepts with which they are obviously unfamiliar with to me detracts from it somewhat. Are you suggesting that in the event of a Roman victory, the Goths would STILL have used the Balkans as their stomping ground for a decade or two afterwards, and that despite being no longer a threat, the Goths would still have had an Alaric with which to subjugate Rome? That is speculatory indeed. I do agree with yourself and Sonic's view that the impregnable nature of Constantinople helped to turn the Goths westward, but I also feel that the Victory at Adrianople signalled for the Goths and other Germans that Rome (the empire) was not as formidable as once it was. By turning from Constantinople and heading for the West, they were not so much turning from a stronger Empire to a weaker one - to them it was all the same empire and the division at that stage by no means permanent - but simply hitting a more available target.

At the time of Adrianople the East and the West were still regarded as a single state, although obviously the two governments were starting to drift apart in many ways. Still, ROMANIA was regarded as a single entity, by barbarians and Romans alike. When the Goths gained their victory at Adrianople, they saw themselves as defeating a Roman army, and were increasingly confident against Rome thereafter, regardless as to which bit of the Empire they had defeated. This victory allowed them to drive a path through the Empire virtually unchallenged, culminating in the sack of Rome and ending in Aquitaine where they gained an independent kingdom. To say that Adrianople did not cause the fall of the West because it happened in the East is a remarkable over simplification, and I am slightly surprised to find such localised thinking here. To give a crude analogy, in 1987 a severe storm afflicted the UK which killed dozens and wrecked millions of pounds worth of property. This storm started out as a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. I think it is fair to say that if Adrianople had been a Roman victory, the history of the Goths and the Western Empire would have been very different. QUOTE (sylla @ Dec 18 2009, 02:43 PM) Have you ever tried to use PM for personal issues entirely irrelevant to the thread's topic and that no one else cares about? We might well be purchasing a one-way ticket to Tartarus here Not neccessarily, but but a thread may well be opened in the arena so that people who simply dont like each other can trade insults whilst the rest of us get on with things.

Nice one, JP! Lets see more of your wonderful illustrations.

I have not read this, although I may be tempted to buy it if only for the fact that it puts forward a much needed argument. For decades the crusades - in Europe at least - have been seen one sidedly as a Christian assault on civilised Islam. I suspect that this revisionist view, now mainstream, has become entrenched partly on account of a very vocal and growing minority who would naturally insist that this view holds sway. Where I work (with teenagers) there are history books which put forward a very pro - Islamic version of the story, whilst glossing over the fact that Islam maintained an aggressive policy of conquest of Christian lands for 1000 years. The critic who voiced the above comment would learn a lot from looking at a basic atlas of medieval history (Colin McEvedy's 'Penguuin Atlas of Medieval History for example). When I read this at age 14 I was under no illusions as to who had invaded and taken more territory off whom. Maybe, like Ward Perkins with his work on the Fall of Rome, this author will remind people of the evidence which is staring people in the face. His unfortunate and possibly partisan use of the word 'Terrorism' may dent his credibility somewhat.

...so imagine how much more difficult it would have been in the 4th century, when membership of the army was increasingly seen as an onerous task, there was no longer any plunder to be had from subjugating a nation, and recruits were well aware that they were as likely to fight other Roman armies as barbarians.

Is there any available record of the January 2002 investigation?

Artimi - Good point! I think the translator was Manfredi's wife (or maybe sister...or mother...same last names at any rate). I wondered about the very same thing through the first 25 pages or so...the dialogue was rather melodramatic. However,the dialogue is becoming more comfortable as the book progresses. I found the book very interesting, as Manfredi (himself a classical scholar) painted quite a vivid picture of the disintegrating Roman World of the 5th Century. Unfortunately for the film many of these details were missed out, the emphasis being on action and the plight of the central characters. Kerstenin arriving in the nick of time with his veterans, putting on his legates helmet as he appeared still gave me a lump in my throat though.

La Multi Ani!

Indeed - I suspect the hoarding was of earlier issues with more silver content. Forgive my extreme tangent, but are all U.S. pre-64 Dollars, quarters etc silver? In England it is all pre-47 stuff.