Onasander

I don't know what fort your talking about Caldrail, but I note you mentioned you said it was already a fort prior to the romans.... meaning it already was 'defendable' and already had a cultural and likely a legal status as a fort, likely gained from the rights of conquest. It's a lot easier politically to remake a former fort into a new fort in a populated area than to start buying up land, or increase antagonism by taking uncompensated land from the locals and making a general mess of the logic and tradition of their civic architectural layout of their community by demolishing households and squares. I think this was a wise move, as a generality and lacking the specifics. Even if it was rural, a defendable position is, indeed, a defendable position. Can't find fault in exploiting a earlier effort to fortify a position.

(This is my first real book review) Three Political Voices from the Age of Justinian Translated by Peter N. Bell http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1846312094/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1426431996&sr=8-1&keywords=three+political+voices+from+the+age+of+justinianπ=AC_SY200_QL40 I noted this source in my research for John Malalas http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Malalas , and furthermore saw the text mentioned in "The Byzantine Republic" http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00SFH463M?ie=UTF8&redirectFromSS=1&pc_redir=T1&noEncodingTag=1&fp=1 , and became immediately fascinated with it's middle text, "Dialogue on Political Science", as it purportedly was the sole work from Roman antiquity which explored a method to stabalize the office of Emperor and legitimize it, via elections and checks and balances against the office of the emperor, Wow! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers So, it does indeed do this, but badly, from an American viewpoint, in which we are used to a tripartite division of executive, judicial, and legislative checks and balances. I naturally didn't expect this exact construct. There exists only checks against the Emperor, who is much reduced in scope and powers to the point of being little more than a elected Ayatollah. The phrase Ayatollah fits better than any term I could think of, much better Emperor. https://books.google.com/books?id=4Qt-zJ7V0v8C&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=ayatollah+perfect+man&source=bl&ots=M30x4PdFYO&sig=waOQ-hSAZRxpRTKwxcYJSX4rKZA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o50FVYGHLdDjsAT6nIBw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw In this work in particular, there is no concept of separating Church and State, which didn't arise until the 12th century in a calculated tactic on the Pope's part to check the power of the princes over the bishops. http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Formation-Western-Tradition/dp/0674517768 If anything, this text remolds the Emperor almost into a Daoist Sage, Baroque in his qualities for selection, who's primary responsibility appears to be to go on introspective journeys into Neo-Platonic heaven and return with broad principles of government and justice http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism#Demiurge_or_Nous , and who's second responsibility was to pass this on to the Optimates (Senatorial Class), and under no circumstance shake the Optimates self confidence or ability to pursue their perogatives, which includes not taxing them or disabusing them of their narrow minded prejudices, as they would have been specially isolated and breed for their role in society (funded somehow as well)... Which produces a class that is of course hypocritical, meddlesome and aloof, whos offices are received on a hereditary basis, in just one branch of government.... And by "branch" I mean more of a Echelon, meddling in the work of magistrates below more or less in charge of the same thing, such as those in charge of munitions production, farming, or clothing. The word guilds is never mentioned, but I can't help but suspect this is what he was getting at. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_Prefect The Optimates are a secluded lot, living together communally but NOT communistically (they have their own houses and wives and money, not Plato's Communist Elite). They live together isolated from everyone else, on the acropolis. This isolation from society of course makes them all the more qualified to meddle judiciously in the affairs of more down to earth magistrates dealing with real people, real problems. Why? Nous, Optimates has Nous, all thanks to the Emperor, who is the closest model to heavenly perfection men can get to, much like their Iranian counterpart. The High Priests, who may or may not be Bishops (Christianity was merging with Neo-Platonism at this time, not quite finished in this process yet when this text was written) had a strong hand to play in the election. The three orders of society would each choose from among the landed and well breed Optimates a candidate for Emperor, and from among these three the priests would "supervise" the drawling of lots so God could have a say.... at best a random selection of three candidates, at worst a Medici like election rigging by the high priests.... The same priests in charge of presiding over and validating oaths.... The text was originally six books long, but only parts of book 4 and much of 5 survives. The military writings swings between deep insights and foolishness. His idea of emphasizing the infantry echoes Vegetius as well as our modern era. His idea of using red dye on training swords in mock combat parallels the modern use of Red and Blue painted Sim Rounds inside of M4s/M16 rifles by the US Army. However, his ideas on awards and punishment is utterly worthless, as he recommends executing men for cowardness in training battles.... He clearly never been in a training battle, for if he had been, he would know there are no cowards in training, quite the opposite. It's one of the worst issues of peace time promotion, is that the worst cowards are promoted for acting like lions, as they know they won't die and act superficially the part. What follows is a grizzly execution contest, as the emperor and his military officers call out and question the officers in public as to who was awesome, and who was a disappointment. Winners take prizes, losers demoted or die. This is work in modern times given to Majors, who have a empirical and scientific approach aimed at remedy and preservation of force via training and education.... Rewards and punishments are not neglected, but.... Somehow modern militaries have developed a better sense of "Nous" and Hierarchies than the Neo Platonists of antiquity did, and I think its better to just ignore this author on this subject. He's bad, but not nearly as bad as say, Wei Liao Tzu, who advocated murdering half your army in training PRIOR to campaigns. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_Liaozi Wonderful how this aristocratic breeding works! Immigration and the unemployed are closely monitored by the Optimates, and political factions are utterly ignored, which seems ludicrous, but you gotta remember the author lived through the Nike Riots and found proof an Emperor really didn't have to deal with the whims of the masses if he didn't have to. The text reads like a Nietzschean fairy tale. Iran and Nietzsche were the two models that sat formost in my mind as I read this. I guess this shouldn't be surprising, as this work is not just based on Cicero's Republic, but was actually attached to the surviving portions of the recovered work discovered in the 1800s. It would of been a relatively new text for a philologist to review, and so it's no surprise we find so many of Nietzsche's parallel formulas in this text. Likewise, Iran propped itself up on the idea perfected men leading as inspired Islamic role models was not incomparable with Islam or Republicanism. It does contradict, but that's a different subject. For both the author of this work, and the Iranians, it does not. This is a fascinating text for exposing senatorial prejudices against the emperor when the status quo was transgressed, how they struggled balancing a meritocracy with landed, hereditary elitism.... Not to mention how clueless and out of touch several well known contemporary historians were with struggling to maintain and recover lands pressed by barbarians. As a funny sidenote, the theory of electing emperors fall apart at the end of the text, when the author recommends either forced retirements at 60, or by the emperor choosing himself a successor to understudy after 60 till he dies.... clearly no abuse could arise here.... Several unknown quotes from authors such as Livy and Frontinus occur (I have severe doubts about the Frontinus claim). Parts attributed to lost philosophers, as well as Cicero not found elsewhere also abound. My biggest complaint about the commentary is that the professor carries on a really bad bias that Christian culture was distinct, and in contradiction to classical roman civilization, which isn't generally the case, and not any more than Neo-Platonism, which he doesn't negatively bias as well, which he should. Neither would of been tolerated in the republic, Rome was heavily prejudiced against Egyptian cults, despite the Greek intellectual strata inherit in them. Quite frankly, the christian religion already had a heavy dose of Platonism in it from it's earliest era. It was a rivalry between the two movements, oftentimes bloody, but they were more similar than dissimular, and its really bad to lump every pagan religion against Christianity. Christianity carried a lot of republican sentiment in opposition to imperial deification, they were the final repository of this opposition that began prior to Christ. Likewise, by this period many pagans were little more than sun worshippers. You have to look at every era, and count the balances of competing elements, and the give and takes between eras. Thus commentator carries the poison inherited from the 19th century that is inexcusably anti-christian, and tries to get away with it. He fails, and brings scrutiny on his role in the British-Irish troubles due to his knee jerk prejudices. Can you imagine this kind of prejudice existing with historians touching on partisan issues of Islam/Christianity, or Zoroastrianism/Hellenic Religion, Vedic/Shiavism, Confucian/Buddhist religion, blantedly taking lopsided biases, making one group authentic, and the other upsurpers? Most pagans in the 6th century were NOT Neo-Platonists, I can guarantee you this. It's a very intellectual religion. Most would of worshipped something else. Very few would of been involved in a classical pagan cult, and of those still around, I would hold in suspect the correctness of their beliefs balanced against the earlier varients of their religion several centuries earlier. It's a shameful academic bias to hold to, and has no place in 21st century history writing. He might as well of subscribed to the idea giants in antiquity built the pyramids. Christian culture didn't automatically make you less classically Roman than other Romans. They got their start under Tiberius, from WITHIN the Roman Empire, organically grew within the larger Roman Dialectic, and were always involved in Roman life for the 1400 years Rome continued on. It's like making a division between true Iranians and the Baha'i living in Iran, or True Germans vs German Jews.

You have a source for that 80-20 percent presumption? I'm having trouble visualizing this based on drawings of the various districts. I can't claim your wrong, but it doesn't feel right either in terms of workable Ekistics. Like, sewage issues pop into mind immediately, as well as aqueduct constraints.

It's going to get much worst here after Mosul is recovered by the Iraqi Army. I track this war via just under two dozen websites, and am fairly convinced Jazira Canton will be quickly overrun very shortly after in retaliation.... but ISIS will lack much ability to push into other lands. Reason why is, Al Nursa is in discussions with Qatar about breaking off from Al Qaida, and is already aligned in areas (not all) with the Free Syrian Army. They are doing this to get funds and weapons. Likewise, the Free Syrian Army is training 5,000 guys a year in turkey, but it will be several years (several) before it can take Raqqa in Syria, ISIS Head Quarters. Assad has open access to Russia, and Russia has farming/irrigation land development leases in the northeast of Syria, as well as oil tapping rights from Assad, and ISIS knows this. They'll want to spoil it as much as possible for the Russians as payback. Turkey has the three Kurdish cantons under a very strict embargo, and the one bridge in Jazira Canton linking to Iraq has a bunch of pissed off Kurdish refugees on the otherwise digging hugh trenches against their fellow Syrian Kurds due to failing to win the political power struggle between them. The Iraqi Peshmerga advance on Mosul is tied up in mission creep, as its too large of an area to secure for a force stretched so thin, as their trying to blockade and maneuver at the same time.... which works so well against guerilla lines of communications (sarcasm). Basically, short of the Iraqi Army pushing up the Euphrates to Qaim and then taking the border roads up to the west of Mosul, cutting off a ISIS retreat, most ISIS forces will just pull out. The coalition will bomb some, but most will make it back. Kobani was a relatively small area to retake, it was easy to concentrate coalition air power in such a small area, and mech infantry had a easy job taking a few passes and urban/hilltop strong points. I don't think that strategy will work as good in Jazira. The Kurds would have to pull east hard, and all their western forces would thin, making very easy gains by ISIS. But I don't see ISIS having any success after this. They will eventually be whittled down, someday Raqqa will be taken, but that is a long way off. Aleppo is likely the higher priority in the short term for the FSA. This means ISIS has all the time in the world to decapitate and light people on fire, and desecrate every ancient sight in the region for years to come. I doubt given the trouble the Iraqi Army has had around Haditha Dam that their about to suddenly go on the offensive. I hold out hope that the Pentagon is just cleverly manipulating the data to make them look inept prior to a lightening strike campaign, but I'm not really holding out much hope. After all, his many times have they taken Tikrit? Fallujah was a nightmare, Ramadi was constantly being flanked. Not to mention the severe distrust of the Iranian influence in the Shia militias. Think this war is gonna drag out. Longer it takes, and more cities ISIS loses = more churches and archeological sites destroyed, for no reason other than revenge. It boosts serotonin gained from indulging in resentment, which is a (pathetic) substitute for that feeling of victory. We can pretty much kiss most sites goodbye. Unless of course the US and Turkey sends in Special Forces units for small team kills in Syria and Iraq. The attrition would bleed ISIS very quick, especially if targeted strategically. Turkey making a final peace with Ocalan, opening up trade with the Kurdish cantons would rapidly lead to ISIS demise. Turkey claims to be in talks, but President Erdogan also appears to be a paranoid schizophrenic at times, while in others appears competent. It would also mean a massive increase in YPG/YPJ recruitment of western soldiers (they claim about 100 foreign fighters), but a peace between them and Turkey would change it from a company to a battalion of NATO trained veterans very quick. But that's unlikely to happen. Expect rather that they all die later this year late fall to middle winter. After that, all our archeological sites.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/07/let-in-light-ancient-roman-fort-designed-for-celestial-show/ http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Frontinus/MKDahm**/body.html Only problem with this is the automatic assumption that it was religious, I've been reading this biography of Frontinius due to trying to place a "fragment" assumed to be by Frontinus from his lost art of war (don't think it's his), and I've come across many references to him Surveying roads, as well as mountain terrain, and building complex bridges and forts. Given he was also a former British governor.... Umm, plain and simple, I'm guessing it has a more pragmatic function, than a religious one, as Frontinus' works would of been standard reading for commanders in Britain, especially in this sort of engineering task. This doesn't of course translate to Hadrian's wall overall making sense on the larger level, as it's clearly a joke, but engineering corps doing the actual layout planning of the long term minutia of the stone works would of been serious about such things, and would of looked back to Frontinus.

Didymus Chalcenterus Didymus & Arius Didymus Both undoubtedly associated with the Library of Alexandria, Arius Didymus apparently the more famous upon Octavian's landing in Egypt. I'm guessing as one of the leading citizens of the city, he got a very early meeting with Octavian and felt comfortable enough with him to advise him to kill his relative, Caesar's son. He was brought back to Rome, and held in very high esteem in Augustus' household as resident philosopher, much like Seneca would later be under Nero, except in this earlier case it worked out much better chemistry wise. Didymus means twin. I've been scratching my head as to who the other guy was, and was a idiot for not noticing it! Both used compilations of other works. I can't rule out yet that their the same person, but I think two separate. So this is a theory, but one that should make it easier to pinpoint any lost chapter fragments from Diogenes lost chapter on Arius Didymus. Also shows Augustus was philosopher shopping in the immediacy of the aftermath of the war, and who he likely kept company with on the return back to Rome. I'm presuming due to Arius' bent inherited from his emphasis on Ethics Augustus' marriage reforms came from him. I also note a Greek and Latin library opened up in Caesars honor in Rome roughly then too. Also note I don't recall mention of either at Augustus' boring masquerades. Now, if Arius and his "Twin" were already famous enough to be immediately met upon Octavians landing (Augustus has a air to it like Theophrastus in terms of grandiose naming), it means.... Mark Anthony and Cleopatra likely were very energetic culturally in aligning the philosophical schools under them, and backing Anthony. Anthony would of needed the library for planning far flung operations, and it's a damn good place to recruit intelligent spies with ties to schools spread across the ancient world, Rome as well as Antioch, Athens, Perganum (if he didn't piss off the local philosophers when he offered Cleo all the books in that library). I'm guessing one of them was the head of the library, while the other lead a philosophy school, or one of the lesser city hermuenetic schools (Jews known for having such places). Best insight I can offer for now. Might change later on when I dig up more info in the future. Very hard to do.

Vindo was the location in particular, around the tower mock up. I don't 'mind' using turf, but there is a proper way to use it. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/vindolanda-fort-gatehouse-12796378.jpg I have a few books now on Hadrian's Wall, and this image just.... It angers me. You can see the gaps beneath the wall, the images in my book makes it look even worst. I was in the infantry, my instinct when I see this is to wait till night, then belly crawl up and under it, and wreck havoc on the idiots inside and in the rear. I get the issue of logistics and resources, but it doesn't mean you gotta be an idiot putting the wall together. If it was anything like this in real life, then I understand why the empire was lost. I mean.... You dig a defensive ditch to the rear too? You plaster it as well? It's the mist shameful wall in history. What do I want? Hmmmm.... I want you to paint yourself blue, and burn the sucker down. Or at least fill in the undergaps. You got a shovel? Fix it, or put it out of it's misery. It can't go on like this anymore. It's just not right. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5--ca8rX4ks/S9SIjIVJfOI/AAAAAAAAPe4/8VM9qYgdsoQ/s1600/Vindolanda-5.jpg http://www.loweswatercam.co.uk/08021223.jpg

William Bell Scott "The Building of the Roman Wall" If you really work on the wall, kindly ask the park maintence guys to close the gap between the wooden walls and the mounds, it's causing OCD Anger Fits in me seeing such a absurdly useless defensive array being on display. If the Romans actually used it, they all deserved to be ambushed and die. Rule 1 for any defensive fortification: The Defensive Walls has to reach all the way to the ground. It's about the worst place I can imaging for a shortcut. Its almost as bad as forgetting to put a lock on the city gates.... or making them so they can only be locked from the outside only, your just asking for problems. Of course, this is the same wall that built a defensive ditch to the REAR of the wall (????), and took delight in plastering the front of the wall. It's a shameful wall.

I haven't given up on this John Malalas subject, been getting books in. I'm trying to get background works on the Parthians and Goths, so I know what the underlining motivations were. Secondly, I've also been looking into works on 6th century statecraft and philosophy, so I can see the intellectual climate better. I have a potentially wonderful work that has just been translated for this. Also expanding my sources for the Catholic-Orthodox vs Neo-Platonic vs Arian showdown that erupted. And Caldrail.... I don't know everything, but I actually approach history with a overarching methodology that I'm conscious of.... I systematically search out Pythagorean metaphysical conceptions, such as limits that inform essense of a thing to be referee to. An example would be Macro-Micro.... It's a denoted of Space, so I look at the semantic range of space like topics, and also invert it for time.... Beginnings and end. This coincidentally is at root what a Chronological History is. When say, Viggen asked me why I was so concerned with the end points of the Roman empire.... I outright said it's how I look at things (unfortunately for all of us, one roman island was never conquered by the turks or Venetians till centuries later, never found evidence it was). It's a very, very old philosophy, pre-platonic, in ordering polarities in the mind. We all do this, but in my way, I'm just more conscious of it. It provides a ever tighter net where I can flesh out the continuity of ideas in a sociological view. It makes it a much easier task to sniff out stuff that doesn't belong. The priesthood is very mathematical in it's replication, it's very easy to express. It's why it's been so successful. I don't approach the administration of the priesthood on the basis of faith, but purely secular and mundane, but at the same time I'm very aware that toying with it is a high taboo, as that in turn does effect how ideas are transmitted, as well as their validity. The system after all was designed by Jesus. Anyone can grasp this. However, as easy as this was to grasp, know I have searched out the origins of your position, the exchange between Res Publica and Poletia. I'm in the midst of a nightmare of a work called "The Byzantine Republic".... I won't argue that many POST CICERO could argue a Monarchy and the Republic as the same, but you sure the hell can't do this prior. The book makes no sense in terms of point to someone like me who knows damn well the Poletia of Plato, Diogenes, and Zeno of Citrium had no reference to the Romans, and always were Utopian in its outreach for Eudiamonia. The form expressed the desire, merging Concrete and Abstractions. Cicero brought ALOT of foreign philosophical concepts into Roman philosophy that ran assunder the republic. I've brought up some of it in the past, he started the cult of deification that lead to emperor worship, the aggrandizement of living hero worship, and how they could trespass against the underlining political system of the Romans. There is of course more, just.... I'm more or less unimpressed with Cicero, he's reminding me too much of the French philosopher Bernard Henry Levy, who explored the far and disturbing, and comprehended nothing of it, preferring to be a rabble rousing hipster among the political elites instead. Cicero was in constant reference to several extant philosophical schools in his era, and while I'm not opposed to someone trying to connect the dots or having their own opinions, he more than anyone else in my opinion tipped the scales fatally against the republic. What is more upsetting to me in this particular case us, the Cynic concepts of Poletia.... Which was made immediately to Plato's, exist in a total ideological void of this author of The Byzantine Republic, for the points they made in reference to Plato's writing 'The Republic' and then later on writing 'The Laws' (again, really?) more or less hit on the foundational nuances inherit in the term at the getgo. A poletia isn't the Sum of it's Parts, or how it's Anthropromorphised (as in units of a body = parts of a society), as this is a oxymoron. It's neither holistic or divisitory into abstractions, as the two ways of approaching "it" conceals it with "the other". It just is. This is why Diogenes systematically removed the temples, gymnasiums, and municipal buildings from his "system". Hell, in Zeno's case, he made it a Virtue-Vice ridden affair, all the Vices just happened to be related to ADHD (I'm not joking, ADHD, I've carefully listed every symptom of vice in Arius Didymus' Stoic Ethics, it's closely matching to the symptoms of ADHD) and virtues aligned with Love, which was whoever he and his followers wanted to molest (literally, as in pedophilia). How Cicero got the particular mode of government of the Roman State to match up with Plato, Diogenes, or Zeno is utterly beyond me. It doesn't begin to match up. I honestly don't think he himself really grasped the inherent difficulties of transporting the Greek into his choice for Latin, and vice versa. An example being, the Greeks built slavery into the household.... And therefore was part of the larger system.... at least philosophically with Aristotle and Zeno. The reality is both the Athenians and Romans made use of industrial, task specific slavery under lethal condutiins. I truely question how well a dying gladiator or a slave in the mines was part of the republic in the sense this author seems to insist in. Eudaimonia and Poletia can't be separated. It's abstraction is always going to be utopic. It's a messy, sloppy attempt to try to port that word over to express a Roman mode of governance, or even to denote it AS the continuation of government in general. Cause it never was just that. Every source thus author has hit shows this inherit variability.... He takes it as evidence of proof that Rome was simultaneously a republic AND a monarchy (which you caldrail admittedly don't, preferring to pretend it wasn't even a monarchy). Yet his own arguments against "modern historians" each have a tinge of Diogenes and Zeno's arguments. The ultimate irony is he uses various imperial decrees on laws as the basis. All this shows is that there was a Hugh, ongoing debate from Plato, Diogenes and Zeno to the late Byzantine era that each consciously knew the term was philosophically nebulous and literally each took from it in their own way. However, this doesn't mean anything goes.... the term had a origin in the Platonic school, and the interplay of dialectics between Plato and Diogenes is the chief determinate, as it shows what the various nuisances of the meaning was, which the author of "The Byzantine Republic" clearly does not grasp. I usually don't care to argue on the origins of words, or correct usage, but he does, and gets it wrong. I do blame him, but not as much as Cicero. Cicero, I seriously doubt, was aware of how much damage he wrought on the republic. He wasn't the cause of all, or even it's origin, but he did more to plunge it over the edge than anyone. He got his just desserts in the end for playing the game he played. Most roman era historians looking back nailed it.... Augustus was a monarch. Now.... It's that little period between Alexander Severus, the horror of Thrax, up to the time of John Malalas which becomes my chief concern. John took potentially from a very wide range of theological and political historians and biographers. Every nuicased outlook matters here. My reading "The Byzantine Republic" was my best attempt at understanding your position Caldrail. I sincerely tried. It's not fully your position, but does it better and doesn't quite make it convincing to me, but I of course was spoiled in advance in knowing 100% positive that his claim wasn't up to muster. I'm surprised he even acknowledged tyranny as being incompatible with republican government. It should of been a tell tale sign his theory had some issues. You can't have a tyrannical republic, much less a dynastic one (unless the king of course is elected, which was one of the possibilities explored in a 6th century work I'll be getting in two days). Honestly, just Google the kyklos cycle people. This book was unnecessary. Cicero messed up porting a word over that didn't belong to the roman system. It wasn't the only Greek belief he ported over either unfortunately. Luckily, we have other authorities the predate him, and can know better.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_of_Heraclea http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_the_Renegade Am I the only one seeing this? This is confusing me.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/20/ancient-shrines-used-for-predicting-future-discovered/?intcmp=features Looks at the date of it's collapse, and the infighting, and it's strategic location to the Hittite (flanking both directions north along the black sea and southwest), as well as dead south. I've always considered from Russia (which this would still obviously allow, as Jordanes thought with the Gothic origins of the Amazonians, which is Pontus, but that's doubtful, more likely just some steepe tribe), or subject Hittites rising up with Mycenae and Phoenician help (Illiad like raids now and then, till they themselves get raided). Ayr Darya, Karakorum before it got really bad. Just never considered Armenia.

I've been sick for several days Caldrail, tried writing a post yesterday here but passed out. I'm stuck in a quandary, as I've usually have in philosophy in general held a anti-academic position, but make certain expections for parts of it's branches.... history being one, as it seems to of peaked rather early, and holds to a conservancy and bias unlike few other cultural institutions. I more or less considered it dead in terms of evolution, so why not tolerate the academics? If they specialize, they inevitably become closed minded and closed circle socially, but few people read most of their literature. It's a bit like seeing a barrel on a worm farm.... You know what's inside, you know what's going on, but really, what impact on their surroundings can they really have? So, that's my view on professors, worms in a can, doing it in the dark of a university, might be for a fruitful end, might not.... clearly not aware of the larger world they are in. Yeah.... that about sums up historians in general, every biography just written. In your case Caldrail, I've fully accepted your position that you were a history professor. Sometimes I've held doubts, especially your wild denouncements that the Roman Emperors were NOT Monarchists, but remembered you lived in England, and for patriotic reasons as a subject of the crown, couldn't come to grips like most authors covering the rise of the principate did, bashing and joking at the severe hilarity of Augustus disdain for dictatorship, or how remarkably unrepublican Nepotism bordering on.... Not even bordering, a outright dynastic succession was. You arbitrarily then pulled out of your butt "Constantine" of all people ended the Republic, even though he lived centuries after it's fall. Senate of a kind had always been under the emperors, and continued on long after him. I was stumped, just summed it up to generic pop culture anti-christian populism from England. I half expected you to rant on about Manchester United or some MP no one ever heard of, and essentially wrote you off as marginal, yet representative, of professors in the UK. But I don't have the highest expectations to begin with with academics, and took it for what it was. Now.... I'm worried. You've landed into a few deeply fringe categories of possibilities, and am going to have to ask BRITISH ONLY members to respond to: Scenario 1) Caldrail isn't aware of the history of Roman Christian history, which is at least half of it's total history (paganism the first half, with overlap). If this is the case, I will fill you in. The Christian churches (not christians persay) are organized on the basis of apostolic succession. Every Christian priest is expected to be able to trace his lineage back to Christ, from one ordination to the next. Obviously, this got hard to do after a while. The early apostles (1st gen) after Christ held a Synod, which is a get together of clergy holding rulings. Apostolic Succession + Synod = Organizing Structure of Christianity. It's how it's worked for over 2000 years. This isn't to say there doesn't exist other ways to organize things, just thus is how Jesus and his first Apostles did it under Original Jurisdiction. It won't be changed, not for you, not for anyone. It's his system (Jesus), and if your going to call yourself a Christian priest, you go by his system. They control the rites and rituals of the church.... the sort of stuff I doze off to. It's always been Males as Priests, except for one occasion I recall the Vatican found, in Roman times out in Asia Minor (might of been Syria, like I'm thinking 3rd Century, but it's been a few years). As soon of the Bishops heard this, they moved very rapidly against the Bishop who consecrated these priests, pointing out they never were priests, as there never had been female priests before. Thus being said, we've had no shortage of Female Deacons. They still exist to this day. The Synods of Greek Orthodox Churches IN GREECE a few years back allowed abbesses in all female monasteries, under very strict isolation, similar to his on Mt. Athos only Males can visit, in their case only females.... this appointment. However, a deacon is not a priest. Likewise, a female CAN to my knowledge in all the ancient churches still extant (Im taking a pan-apostolic position, not just a Catholic one) take theological degrees equal to Priests. However, what most people DON'T realise is, a priest isn't a preacher. It became a rule early on (logically a few generations down the road, don't know exactly when) that the only person who was allowed to preach was the Bishop, but he could delegate this authority.... to male or female. Yes, Christians have Rabbis of sorts. I'm told this happens quite often in parish areas of modern Greece in particular where the priest is bona fide but not necessarily eridute, the Bishop allows select qualified members to speak, but only priests can do the priestly things. I know of only two cases where known pagans, both male, had been made Bishops. The one during the Roman era was during the barbarian invasion of Greece.... every person of means was getting out of dodge, and so told a local pagan philosopher he was now Bishop and in Charge, as a Bishop was a government official, and also had secular authority. Obviously, the issue arises, would any priest consecrated under him be valid? I doubt it, as the douche who passed that sort of authority along wasn't being very Christian himself (one must at least be a priest to make another a priest, much less a bishop, I question if a baptism occurred, or it's sincerity). But apostolic succession by this point meant it expanded from a network of priests to tiers of special administrative priests called bishops, and one in particular called Patriarch/Pope/Cathlicos in each region. If the recognized them and their successors, shared communion.... so be it. If questions arouse, ask them, have a conference, synod.... whatever. If obviously solved itself as statistically I doubt his priests went off to become patriarch of every Holy See and shipwreck Christianity. I recall also a instance of a Alexandrian Cynic, upsurping the title of Patriarch of Constantinople. The Emperor wanted nothing to do with it, the Church in the east was torn up over it, but eventually pushed both claiments out just to be safe, and the Cynic appealed to the Pope, who I believe at first backed him.... then the Greeks sent a delegation to explain the coup and how he wasn't even a priest, nor any of those involved in elevating him to bishop. You'll find this basic formula stamped across history used by many churches to this day in determining via apostolic formula who is and is not a bona fide bishop outside their communion. I also know of a case of a courtier arriving to Antioch I believe just when the patriarch of Constantinople died, he loved Christianity, was highly educated, the local bishop was so impressed he made him a priest and then a bishop, and rushed him off to get coronated as patriarch. Only afterwards it was realized he was never baptised, which like.... obviously confused everyone as to whether or not he was even therefore a priest.... I don't think anyone ever solved that one. Feel free to crack that one.... So.... now we know this. This is fact. Truth. If you were not aware of it before, then you were merely ignorant, but I'm worried how a historian of Roman history could be unawares of it. The Catholic church in Brazil, for example, is split between grey capped bishops (Brazilian Catholic Church) and Red Capped (Vatican). They do not share communion, but both groups have equally legitimate Bishops. Likewise even with the monophysites. Legit bishops. Only problems arose over a century ago in Sri Lanka, with a Syrian Bishop consecrated a couple of sack jobs like this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Vilatte If you look closely at who ordinated him, you'll see he had at the time what seems a sincere ordination. Most Gnostic Bishops and self styled bishops hook up with this lineage, in an effort to point out they have equally valid credentials as any other bishop out there in terms of apostolic succession. The Syrian church is currently deeply embarrassed by this, admits to it, but various churches have dealt with it in various ways. I guess once you get to the point of every apostolic lineage rejecting your lineage officially, your dead. I don't know. Most of the bishops of this offshoot (I think 30+) cross consecrate and exchange offices, which is a tradition none existent in mainline churches, in the belief that the more times your consecrated, the more solid and official your status becomes. During Roman times, communion between patriarchs would of sufficed (the communion of excommunication, hence why the don't do it now). I'm thinking, by very simply, concrete fiat due to preestablished rules already embedded in being a Bishop (which one has to follow if one is to consecrate another as a bishop) is the early Roman rule, that all Romans followed, that females can't be made bishops, as one must first be a priest to be a bishop, and no females are priests (the default) then these so called female bishops cancel out the reconsecration of every male they do it to. I'm just not certain how wide and windy this closed and open circuit would be at any given time. In some off these meetings, hypothetically, all could lose their status, while just some, depending on the domino of the order. However, if the females were not bishops in the first place, did they have the capacity to even nullify the effect of bishop in another? Heck if I know? All I know is, if they develop patriarchs, and they successively all become female for a few generations long enough, by default they lose all argument to being a bishop. The lineage in any form dies off. Likewise, the issue of baptism. Two churches that for a long time were recognized as having legit bishops, The ArchBishop of Cantonbury and the Dutch Old Catholic Church, both attempted to consecrate females. Of course, this isn't possibly, as the rules imbedded in their lineage forbids it, but heretics do as they like. Both churches are being driven to the point if near extinction. 1 out of every 6 to 7 ordained ministered in the C of E is said to be female. Once you get one into Archbishop position, every new seminary graduate ordainef becomes instantly voided. I know the Catholic church is experiencing fast growth in England because of this, as well as the Russian and Greek Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, and even the Gaulic Orthodox (branch of the Syrian church). All likely would plunge instantly for the title of ArchBishop of Cantonbury, as all would have a much better legal claim, as all (save the Russians, they are however offshoots of the Byzantine, and lesser extent the Roman churches) were parts of the Roman Imperial Church. I doubt there be very many confused post war baby boomer Brits around by that point to fight it. Likely goes back to the Catholics. Now.... In Protestant Churches, anything goes. They use self proclaimed ministers. Some might even have a legitimate apostolic succession, but every time I've looked outside save the Lutherans, I can't find it, just smoke and mirrors. It's a simple mathematical formula. I honestly can't even see what the attraction in being a priest is, outside of hearing juicy confessions. You gotta hear a whole lotta lame ones too. Lots of vestments and robes, liturgies left and right. A lot of churches won't let you shave, or make you fast. Gotta consecrate everything and hymn, and no control over finances. And the defrock you at the slightest cause these days. And like I said, you can get appointed by a bishop, male or female, to preach.... or you can become a monk or nun, without bothering. Other restrictions also apply, including in Roman times. You had to be of whole body. All your parts, in order to be consecrated. Why? Cause.... Another early rule. Some big seminaries actually photograph pictures of the face and ten fingers. In the Catholic and Orthodox church, I'm prohibited from being a Priest, just like any woman, because of my voluntary entry into the military. Exceptions are made for draftees who don't kill, and military chaplains and now defunct military orders (if you count the knights of Malta). Catholics aren't as strict on this one, and have been pointed out examples where guys got consecrated anyway. But I'm not breaking that rule, much easier given I don't really want it. Oh.... Election of Pope's by the Roman Senate, and of Greek Patriarchs by the Turkish Government. They were priests before hand. Obviously, Jesus didn't leave behind a pamphlet explaining how Bishops (which hadn't occurred yet) were to be elected by the Senate or Parliament. It's a simple variable in the outgrowth of the mathematical formula. You have a basic root structure, it branches out, but like any tree, each branch can do subtly different things. Most bishops lean towards extreme conservative views, if for no other reasons than fear of realizing their the only one saying it. It's not a position for radical policies or politics. So.... If you were merely ignorant of this, now you know. This is the way it is. Test any fact, I'm not infallible, but much more likely to be correct than you on this matter, and of course I can back any point. However, given the severe state of collapse in your country (C of E dying off, and political and ideological preying on what's left of the church for short turn gains and hooliganism) I ask the other British members here if any of what I said rings a bell, or if the Queen just one day scribbled some lunacy down of paper, handed it off to the Ministry of Defecation.... I mean Education, and everyone got brainwashed a few generations via quacko-history? All I know is, in both England and the Netherlands, one Century ago, Catholics were the minority, and are now the majority. Know no matter how grumpy you get, how emphatic you lie, scream, pout, or change the law, this will not change, EVER. It remains this way till the end of time. We can say this with confidence, because it gas lasted so long. You can select a sister religion, say Christianity's sister religion, the Mandaeans. They only have 9 priests, all heredity. They trace themselves back to John the Baptist. Less likely to have a female priest, but who knows, with only nine, you got a solid shot of convincing them. Just it will never, ever.... No matter how emotive you get, how clever your Davinci code theory is, will ever change it. It is as it was, and will continue to be so. That is the way it is. It's not up to Caldrail to Change it. England lacks the authority, and would likely even at thus stage fail in any attempt to mandate it. Feel free to complain to the Administer, but he lives in a Catholic country and only has to ask someone outside on the street to figure out in under 5 mibutes flat at the very least, your very, very mistaken here. Question is, are you intentionally lying, or just ignorant, and if ignorant, how could you be so if a professor of Roman history. Your statement is like trying to say Muhammed founded Islam in Beijing, and wasn't an Arab. It's so absurd any Arab or Muslim, or school child for than matter would lash out. Your showing a continued fringe pattern. All I can say. I myself am naturally a feral fringe pattern, Roman Cynicism.... But I admit to it, and there is a higher logic to it. In your case, I'm worried.

Hmmm..... Lactantius "On the Deaths of the Persecutors" vs Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists One seems to be in partisan reaction to the other. East Side vs West Side kind of bickering in Constantine's Court between the Neo-Plotinist (Vedanta) and Christians. I'm assuming Lactantius came first, but don't know if he necessarily started this fight. I know however, the aftermath.... After a few centuries of infighting, they more or less merged, though with Christian theological priorities domination. It's one of those issues Ive found to gloss over with the Greek "Orthodox", that their not as pure and more faithful to the original principles of Christianity as they think they are. But it's a minor issue, don't care if they stare at their navels, keeps them busy. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eunapius_02_text.htm#AEDESIUS THE CAPPADOCIAN

It starts in Book 9 of Eutropius Abridgement of Roman History: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00CCHCNMC/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?qid=1424276615&sr=8-5π=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70&keywords=eutropius&dpPl=1&dpID=51P9rcZiMeL&ref=plSrch

In De Caesaribus, when he says Decius made Decius his son, it's not a typo, they both carried that name, he meant Herennius Etruscus. His brother was Hostilianus Perpenna (or Perperna), and Zosimus thinks he died of the Jealously of Gallus, but I also see plague listed. Hostilius stayed behind in Italy, apparently as the younger brother, but as usual, wikipedia and Google are at odds and says he is also the older brother of Herennius. I also read Herennius was the wife of Decius and not the son, but this makes no sense to me. Obviously they are of Etruscan geographical origin. All involved in useless pogroms against Christians. It's also said Hostilian had no coins minted of him, which I have my doubts. Was the treasury really that full? You gotta continually melt down and remint the old coinage, they wear down, and people shave them. (Tom, your avatar reminds me of the 1/40th Cav Scouts, a Airborne Infantry unit up in Anchorage, Alaska http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Handlers/ThumbnailHandler.ashx?id=110&size=150 We used to say it looked like Barney the Dinosaur waving around a light saber while high on crack. Obviously the pentagon didn't screen the unit crest when some bored, mischief driven lieutenant designed it.)

What about Roman miles? Myanmar also has it's own system of measurements. It's your book, do this however you want. There is a kind of fan known as a "Talifan", this guy isn't as bad as they are, it can get soooo much worst. Just gotta shut them off, and focus on the people who you know you've pleased. It's hard to untangle the product of our work with our sense of self, but we don't have to let others determine the latter... who we are as a result of flippancy on their part. F' em, smile, eat your bagel and move on with what your best at, the stuff you enjoy. You wrote a easy to follow book, I had no complaints.

http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/epitome.htm Found the English, stroll down to chapter 31.

I've just ascertained Aurelius Victor was one of the sources for John of Salisbury, I had translated some of that stuff under 11. of De Caesaribus in De Nugis Philosophicum, which half of that fake work is sloppily yanked from John of Salisbury.... If I recall correctly, chapter 14 of book 3 (bit hazy). http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/victor_ep.html He is mentioned a lot as a source, so went to check him out.

One of my posts went missing.... What I said still holds however. You can find Zonaras on Scribn, it's 9 bucks a month to subscribe. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbannacus Are those the troops your speaking of? And I know I made that post Vuggen, even edited it. Caldrail really is out on left field on this, he even went so far to dodge the Monarchy issue by suggesting it was really more of a mafia. You can't hold that position in the very era we are dealing with. Generissimos are non dynastic. This emperor in question MIGHT fit this 20th century construct, contra monarchy. Caldrail ceases to have a claim in this era, period. Best he can hope for is the Bella Felix dichotomy. It doesn't apply universally, just under one emperor and a handful of rebel leaders (roman and non roman, including Robinhood).

Caldrail.... Come on, how far out on the fringe can you get? I don't know all the sources for Aemillian. The book is on Scribn, I only pay 9 bucksa month to read it's books. Big issue I'm facing is with him is, he appears, either ideologically or for propaganda purposes, to of wanted to of been a conservative of sorts, by "cutting back" on imperial authority back towards the flirtatious and yet ambiguous absolute authority Caesar and Augustus had (and yes, they beyond a reasonable doubt had it), versus Thrax was was blantant as you can get. There really wasn't a lot of group feeling (IBM Khaldun term) between Thorax and the Senators, and questionable further gains. Try soliciting the favor of a brute who isn't aware of how underhand and backroom soliciting, groveling, and outright synchopanty for personal benifit works. Meanwhile, there is a odd divide by historians I don't get, seems obvious he was in charge of collecting the gold tribute to give to the Goths, but historians currently are divided into two camps.... He either was sent to give the tribute to keep the Goths from ravaging the territory by offering tribute (taken from where?) or he merely pillaged the Roman territory. Seems obvious, both. Dont expect Romans in Italy to ship their Gold up? Besides, they minted their own gold in Antioch, likely from local taxation. I don't think they had a central treasury that distributed tribute. Just wrestled it from their provinces that needed to pay off the enemy the most. Naturally the locals would be pissed.

I own this book, just never finished it, got distracted. He has character traits in the description, but comes long, long after John Malalas. I'm putting this here in case anyone investigates the problem of physical descriptions: Zonaras (12.22, pp. 591-592), records that Valerian: "commander of the forces beyond the Alps, when he had learned about Aemilianus, himself also became a usurper. After he had concentrated the forces under him, he hastened toward Rome. Then, in fact, those who served with Aemilianus, when they had recognized that they were no match in battle for the army of Valerian, judging that it was not pious that Romans destroy and be destroyed by one another, that wars be joined between men of the same race, and otherwise reckoning, too, that Aemilianus was unworthy of the realm both as ignoble and groveling, and, to be sure, considering that [592] Valerian was better suited for the rule because he would, for certain, assume affairs in a more authoritative fashion, killed Aemilianus, who had not yet reigned four months and was forty years of age. They submitted themselves to Valerian and entrusted the empire of the Romans to him without a fight." http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/aemaem.htm This URL appears to be the basis of his wiki. I don't know if he technically thought of himself as a bonafide Roman Emperor. But as I've pointed out in the past on the forum, didn't matter what titles or positions the senate offered, if was all fluff, a emperor, especially one with an Army, could very well do what he wants, dictators don't trip over constitutional or legal clauses.

Someone earlier in this thread claimed there was a lack of sources from the third century. We don't suffer from a lack of sources, but a plague. I have never seen some of these names before, and my hand hurts from just listing them.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelian In chapter 4 of said work, he presumed Aurelian was his son. It's not the case: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallienus_usurpers

Wow... I just downloaded a kindle sample of that particular work by Lactantius, and saw a billion chapters, and became discouraged.... But started reading it, and our scene pops up right at the beginning after Nero. I strongly suggest looking it over, it says he was stuffed and put on display in their "temple to the gods". I don't think Zoroastrians would do this however. But if I recalled, Caesar's dam was built outside of Susa, and if I recall, not too long ago I read the Babylonians and then the Persians preserved the Susan culture and religion in parallel to their states (outside the occasional sack of the city and submission of their Gods, outside of that they were pretty tolerant in regards to their beliefs).

Wow... I just downloaded a kindle sample of that particular work by Lactantius, and saw a billion chapters, and became discouraged.... But started reading it, and our scene pops up right at the beginning after Nero. I strongly suggest looking it over, it says he was stuffed and put on display in their "temple to the gods". I don't think Zoroastrians would do this however. But if I recalled, Caesar's dam was built outside of Susa, and if I recall, not too long ago I read the Babylonians and then the Persians preserved the Susan culture and religion in parallel to their states (outside the occasional sack of the city and submission of their Gods, outside of that they were pretty tolerant in regards to their beliefs).