Onasander

Britian a mysterious place inhabited by monsters and strange tribes! Any more strange that the other lands the Saxons could move off into. It needs to be remember, there was a pretty decent ocean trade bewteen England and the rest of Europe in raw goods, like tin. I think the concept of wood floats on water was present throughout europe..... This link is a german docked roman ship from the first century: http://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/14/science/ancient-roman-ships-found-at-german-site.html The Pesse Canoe: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesse_canoe The Poole Longboat: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poole_Logboat The Hanson Logboat: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanson_Log_Boat And if I recall, the basque populated england early on.

I would make a recommendation to talk to the Pittsburgh, Pennslyvania Greek Orthodox Metropolitan. He has a deacon everyone keeps telling me to talk to regarding text and translation questions. Plus, he can hook you up, if needed, with a phone interview with the Greek Patriarch in Constantinople, your thesis warrants it. In my personal heretical, I scoff at the claims of Constantine being a saint. There really isnt a scientific way to recognize a saint, save in the modern catholic church.... you either are one by merit, or your not. Typically miracles are intermixed in there. Think Mexico or Argentina with their dubious, unsanctioned but tolerated saints. Its the older impulse strata of anything goes. Constatine's main claim to sainthood was a battle. Other warrior saints like St. Maurice, St. Sebastian, St. George (not the pagan horseman that is the patron saint of england, the real one who was a general) didnt earn their sainthood by jihad, but rather restraint, faith, and self sacrifice. But the greeks are greeks, and every orthodox church and monastery I visit has a icon of him up. Much less so in the Catholic Church. Do I think he was a christian? In the end yes. It took time to grasp it, and he was a judgemental snd complex person. But in the beginning I doubt it, beyond just a general religious superstitious fever. He likely noted the Christians, though a stubborn minority, intentionally mimicked the besaspects of the nobility. They had stable marriages, served in the military, respected government so long as it tolerated them, and had a seemingly unbreakable resilience at times. I dont know why your trying to make Constatine a either or character. Your imposing a 21st century dichotomy that honesty and sincerity requires conviction to be either completely religious or secular in the atheist sense. Constantine lived in a more intelligent and intellectually free era, where a emperor could be a man of both opportunism and convictions without having to endlessly compartamentalizing the aspects of who he is, fitting it into various philosophical schemes to gain a politically correct, noncontradicting identity. Constantine was, in essence, a bad ass emperor, in the true meaning of being a badass. He was awesome. Emperor of the world. Of course he waowasopprotunistic..... thats a requirement of being a good emperor. He has great concerns, multitude and varied.... thats the office of the emperor's function. Given he focused so much on faith, not just leaving it to the bishops but exploring it himself and taking awkward stands against the, be it for sun cults or the arians, shows he was religiously active, and already had a rough theological bias he was attracted to. Monotheism made sense to him. It was opportunity, taking the chance to back it, that made and sustained him, and it seemed to be god that sustained him, securing him in power, and revived his empire. That matters alot on a deeply personal level to someone who happens to be emperor. Similar to how a man can love God for saving family from peril and offer support in hard times. The hardest thing for a historian, writing a biography from another age, is to escape from the prejudice of his own age. Its hard to see where the cracks and weaknesses of our era are intellectually. Constantine offers that insight. The secular, anti religious outlook of Europe mirrors the era Constantine was fighting against. Decaying, state administered temples trying to enforce a cultural and religious status quo had progressively failed. In both cases, bad traditions and deep seated prejudice towards new, invigorating ideas strangled those with aspirations. He recognized the old system of agnosticism or absurd mystery cults wasnt going to keep the population going. The age of 'spiritualism' over 'religion' was at hand, and most spiritualists are nebulous, lack conviction and concepts of right and wrong, or the backbone to stand up and fight in the long term. And constantine's efforts were successful. The new center of the empire lasted a thousand years, while the old decayed part struggled between christian and pagan factions, dragging the field army out west to put down decadent pagan aristocrats, letting the barbarians through to occupy western europe. To this day, greece is highly religious, whereas places like Britian and the Netherlands, constantines old stomping grounds, are intellectually and socially decaying. Despite all its weaknesses, you can take a state like greece and expect it to last a thousand years more. Half of England and the Netherlands think they'll be dominated by Islam in a few years. This is ironic, considering the ottoman occupation and genocide, the greeks have no intention of going. Thats Constantine's influence. Europe in cycles.

Emperor Romulas Augustus neither fought personally, nor did his government ever fight in a war. Deep thinking here on my part. I cant think of any emperor, from Julius Caesar to Constatine XI besides Romulas Augustus who had a peaceful reign. The Roman Empire went for over 1500 years (not including the republic), I dont think there was ever a point that they were not being attacked or falling into civil strife. Im sure there is some Byzantine emperor who was crowned and then died really fast before the persians or turks knew to even do a congratulatory attack ushering in his reign, but Im not recalling one. I know one of the medieval popes declared himself Ceasar.... he too probably warred somewhere. Listen everyone, just avoid having the title of Roman Emperor and you should be fine.

Simply, its stupid simple. The route between the black sea and the caspian sea was completely fortified, and the barbarians who normally went south went west. Constantanople stood, Attila and the Goths became the top dogs of the migratory trail, and everyone bum rushed the west. Many microfactors can be claimed, but with 100% certainty, it was military failure that caused the western empire to implode. When the west was briefly revived under Narsus and Belisarius, Narsus being the more politically savy and long lived suffered from one flaw that prevented him from starting a dynasty, he had no nuts. Literally, no nuts. Everytime the Almond Joy commercial would play, he would cry. No nuts = no dynasty. The plague, and then later Islam, insured what remained of the western holdings would remain merely provincial holdings and not the seat of power. Rome got conqured from the north, the persians and byzantines held. Simple stupid obvious.

Why would the romans hesitate one second in consolidating tribes into settlements? It worked literally everywhere else, from the Ionian experience, through the roman empire, into the the byzantine era. A hostile settlement is way, way better than hostile tribes on the move. Its easier to march troops on a settlement, and collect taxes. The romans wouldnt of hesitated one second. Something not occuring to us is plague cycles, both the human kind and the type that strike crops. It causes sharp contractions of logistic flow, resulting in a strategic realignment. Another is weak leadership, be it indifference, xenophobia, or outright malignancy and corruption. Or it could be a strategic masterstroke, setting up a defensive line with a buffer population on the other side to take a larger, more threatening enemy's blow first, and for free at that. However, I suspect the reason why is the same reason Rome didn't invade Ireland.... they just didn't like gingers. The food sucked in scotland, hagas and fried everything, the women were loud talkers, they stole stuff left and right and never pay for anything, cause the had no money, and whenever the troops left on a liberty pass for a day off to visit the locals and party, they would return with strange rashes on their genitals that would puss, making them walk funny and constantly scratch at themselves down there. Add to that the scottish and Irish weather, and its obvious by the Romans said screw it, packed up and left.

Oh, and I wouldnt be so sure about the rich only having access to the plumbing, I seriously doubt Detroit invented the concept of the illegal municipal hookup. I can imagine the plebians reading this artical and laughing themselves half to death upon hearing they couldnt possibly of hacked into the water system. Its not like the emperor is going to send troops after you for having clay or wooden pipes suckling a leaky lead/brick mainline. Im sure those naughty plebians had all sorts of tricks. They certainly had the time to figure it out.

So, the son came out of the closet as a celibate christian, and the pagan father immediately gets the idea his son should get lucky with a vestal virgin? Something is seriously wrong with this mans logic. Its like finding out your son is gay, and trying to set him straight by rushing him out to a gay bar to make him hetero once again. Talk about a plan backfiring.

I would find the law against Christian vs Jewish weddings hard to enforce.... Christians didnt have to be circumcised, so be the male or female a jew, once called on it, they could simply claim to be Christian. Its not like it was taboo within christianity to convert Jews,, given Christianity's origins. Harder to convince a synogogue, especially if your a uncircumcised male asked to whip it out for proof, but I suspect jews back then were as sporty as they are now, and you could easily outrun them. Offspring from a formerly jewish mother could be passed on as jewish if she claimed them as jews, cause thats the jewish tradition. Honestly, tensions would have to be very rough, like in the movie Agora bad, for two such closely related communities to want to target cross-religious marriages. The Romeo and Juliet kind of bad.

Ummm.... this line of reasoning would be great except for one little, tiny flaw in reasoning... How exactly did the romans store their gear when at rest at night? In Iraq, many rooms had a 'crucifix', but with one subtle differance, the crucifix had a square base and the whole thing was waste tall. You put the vest on it, and if you cared to, the helmet on top. Its generally bad, very bad, to have your equipment disorganized, dirty and tossed here and these. I dont think the roman army was any less demanding and exacting in the scope of their inspections. The roman soldier disheveled, out of conformity, and chaotically unprepared in his set up probably was looked down upon, at the very least. Propping your crap up on a cross keeps them together, out of the muck, ready to go and very easy to inspect. Its coincidence that it looks like a person, but not one that the roman legions would of overlooked. Its damn obvious if looks like a person. However, there is a massive difference between having a cross holding up your armor and saying 'this is me crucified'. That is not the mentality of a soldier. Nobody walked into my room in Iraq and said 'behold the crucified one'. They asked where I got it and if they could get one too (weird thing is, no one assumed I built it. I think I should be insulted about that). It makes for a very obvious battlefield trophy, or perhaps for a very lame gung ho few, a idol. But crucified? Hell no....... no no no no no no...... NO! Why would they crucify someone in their own uniform? How would that improve morale? Thats like, soldiers photo cropping their heads on the bodies of POWs being tortured. I dont want my head on John McCain's body during his stay in the Hanoi Hilton..... and especially dont show me that stuff before rolling out the gate, reminding me this could be me. It wouldnt boost my morale any. A soldier isnt getting into Elysium by being crucified. That was a christian concept, and wasnt even a christian soldier's ideal path to martyrdom, neither St. Sebastion or St. Maurice went that way, or desired that sort of outcome. I rarely even noted my armor cross was like a christian cross. It was my spacehog that I had to push aside on the way to the bathroom at night. Think coatrack. It can be used as a battlefield memorial. American soldiers put helmets on shovels and rifles sometimes the same way...... at least in the movies. Im sure in WW2 or Vietnam or something. 100% certain roman soldiers were not into crucifying their own likeness, as well as certain command wouldnt want the uniform disgraced like that. Much less advertise if to subject populations. That would send a wacky message, wouldn't it? Heck, they probably offer to help out. Joshep and Jesus could of labored away building crosses to offer to the roman legion (it was the sixth, right) for the romans to crucify themselves in mass on. Every jew could of walked up and provided their own nail each, hammering them into each roman legionaire's hand, and the whole Roman legion could dance while being crucified, singing the song from 'The Life of Brian', with crowds of deeply amazed jews standing below the merrily dying romans dying, noting in Hebrew to each other the Romans certainly taught them a lesson! Thats pretty much what your theory amounts to, in its inherent silliness. The Romans are not going to advertise crucifying its own legions and emperors. The mindset didnt make sense to them, of voluntary martyrdom for a god..... they could sacrafice anyone and everyone BUT them for a God, that they understood. But propaganda of them doing it to their best imperial representatives, hell no. Imagine Napoleon posing for a mass produced picture with him lying, smiling on the guillotine.... do you think his troops would of reacted positively? Or Stalin tied up on the firing line during WW2? How deeply inspired after 9/11 do you think Americans would be if Bush issued photoshopped images of him being beheaded, or Hitler passing around imaged of himself being lethally injected? That sort of stuff doesnt raise morale, nor reassure, or install fear in the enemy, much less cement a empire. Its a very bad, and very silly idea. It took 1000 years of highly specialized pressure for the shiites to develop the masochistic martyrs brigade, and its really just a thinly veiled and deeply veiled sadism saying 'we will never forget, will never forgive'...... and despite all the hype and hysteria, tactically its generally worthless, they only use it when convention force is unavailable due to weakness. The Sunnis know this, and therefore try to help the shiites ritually beat themselves by beating them to death. It took a thousand years of demented hatred to tap into that mindset. Romans showing up in Jewish and Samaritan lands are definately not going to immediately jump into that mindset. Its absolute insanity.

Clandestine communications.... Aeneus the Tactician devoted time to the earliest methods the Romans would of known of. Also, Frontinius' Stratagemata dealt with cryptic-symbolism, mostly in gestures, to pass information. Also remember a simple cypher wasnt enough, the Romans grew wise to hannibals misinformation plants, leading the romans to carefully examine not just the message, but the conditions the information had been come across. They became very discriminating and skeptical regarding the possibility of captured intelligence being misinformation. Hannibal apparently enjoyed a good mind game. Its hard to discern when a orthodox or unorthodox strategy is being employed.

There was a well used as a prison in the eastern Empire as well, in The Tale of the Four Dervishes, in the section dedicated to 'the dog-worshipper'. The storyline played between Cynic and Old Testament themes. The princess who rescued the man (wrong man, one of three in it) was not a muslim, therefor was a byzantine princess. The vatican had a nice website dedicated to the matyrdom there, that throws reasonable doubt onthe idea that people were crucified or hung upside down, as well ad noting the theory where exits (sounded like basement exits to me) faced the temple across the walk. I also remember they recently excavated one of these stairwells. I think either the temple of jupiter or isis was across from it. I remember foreign dignitaries were brought to the temple. Im guessing it was the temple of jupited as isis was hated by the roman government in the pre christian era in roman city limits. But if it was the temple of Isis, then Im guessing yes, water left the prison and watered the crocodile exhibit in the temple. Its a assumption, but a reasonable one if it was indeed the temple of Isis. I literally cant remember which. From the description of the prison I remember from the vatican website, it was for short term holdings or torture. Screaming could be heard from the windows. Romans really didnt need prisons, they were more into executions, enslavement, and ostracism. Boethius got a one year prison term before he died by execution, but the prison sentence to me, purely on a hunch more than anything else, seemed pragmatic more than anything. Think about it, he was provided with ink and parchment, had enough time to sulk and recover, writing the classic 'the consolation of philosophy', apparently wasn't tortured..... and then after a year was killed. Why? Neither his trumped up charges nor his actual treason gave good reason to keep him alive, much less provided with a means of communication with the outside world. I figure he was held in hopes of extorting the roman senate to pay up for his release, or the fainhope the byzantines would ransom him. That, or Boethius was sentenced to death, and Boethius said 'hold off for a year and let me write a book incriminate you, telling you and the world why I dont give a flying f'ck your about to chop my head off, it will at the very least make a good read' with the king saying 'well, I was and still am pretty cross with you, but enjoy a good cheeky, defiant and yet spiritually uplifting chastisment, so Ill give you the time to do this, it better be good' It makes no sense to be. I have my doubts as to the logic of imprisoning Boethius. It was obvious the treasonous faction was the Senate itself, why bother holding for intel or any other clever reason beyond financial motivations? Hence, Boethius was treated fairly until his execution, almost like a modern prisoner of war. Romans had little use for prisons, they were temporary detainment centers at best, torture chambers at worst. People not politically important were enslaved, those important, such as foreign hostages for peace treated well. I was reading Tonybee's selections of the greek historians the otherday mention a hellish rock quarry on Sicily the unransomed defeated Athenians were imprisoned in. I also know during the Christian era you could get sentenced to a monastery. The anchorite trend wasnf fill 5th century Egypt, and being bricked into a small space always seemed voluntary and non lethal. Only suggestion Ive come across anchorite prisons being in existence was the heavily hypothetical king arthur movie that came out a few years ago. It might have a basis in fact, but more likely is a influence inserted by modern anti christian sentiment in Europe. Though the collapse of western rome and the collapse of modern europe has many parallels, I dont think its right to insert european intellectual prejudices of the early 21st century on Christian trends in the british isles immediately before the anglo saxon conquest. They had different priorities then, and though similar mental makeup to today, had different personality and cognitive specializations due to cultural conditioning. Having been a paratrooper deployed from the south of the US to Alaska, I can get a little of the average mindset of the average roman soldier being dragged from italy, north africa, syria, etc..... it was a constant wonder at the weather, trying to do your stupid, pointless patrols on the edge of the far north of the world, and trying to keep the peace and not angering the locals, because you could die if they grow to hate you, and half your unit is contemplating retiring there after they get out, taking local chicks for wives. The religion of christianity then would of been a simple, portable soldiers christianity, mixed in with friendly traders trying to make a trade profit with locals. Nobody wanted to antagonize the locals. Rome was in a defensive holding pattern, and prisons dont win the hearts and minds of the people, especially the woads. I doubt Christianity, of all the Roman religions present, in this era went rambo and went so starkly against its founding principles. Remember, the dark ages didnt yet arrive yet. But its not improbable, as today as in the past, improbable and moronic things do happen despite all good logic. Im remembering Gaius Marius was imprisoned, and chained, the soldier sent in to kill him pooped himself and fled from the attempt. Jesus spent some time in custody, not long. No prison seen in the Satyricon beyond the ritualistic reenactment of the Labyrinth and the Minataur. If imprisionment was common long term, it would of been noted. Im Catholic, my Spiritual Mother is greek orthodox..... I recall many arrests, tortures, and executions of saints, but no long term imprisonments. Showing up to the local arena or market in chains never lead to surprise long term imprisonment to my knowledge. Oh wait, The Anti-Pope Hippolytus, the head of the greek faction of Rome's christian population, was enslaved in a mine of some sorts in Rome. If juvenile was mocking Rome for having too many prisons, it was probably that hellhole. I'll come back to this list if I recall more roman prisons.

Think someone just shot someone nearby while hitting writing my yeah apology. I heard the argument, the shot, and now I think I might have to do something. I might die, so everyone have fun. Gonna go get shot now in the ribs investigating this little occurance of insanity.... where are the cops..... where.....

Sorry for all the times the word yeah popped up, my android phone kept autocorrecting yeah into absurd places in the post above, and even deleting that word and two words before it couldnt erase it. I gave up in a few places and left it.

Yeah, I somehow survived Iraq. I remember using the latin dictionary and grammer in Iskandariya, Iraq during its triangle of death/surge era in 2007 trying to decipher a Tudor era early modern English translation of Vegetius called 'knighthoode and bataille' or something close to that spelling. I took a turn to Philosophy during the seige on a helicopter ride back from Kalsu to Iskan, and in a few years turned to Cynic Philosophy. I dabble in getting horribly confused in translating unbelievably still untranslated philosophy works on the side. Its difficult breaking the post Nietzschean prejudice (one Nietzsche as a philologist didnt hold to) against classical philisophy, and the deep taboo of medieval philosophy. In San Francisco, I remember I was debating with a bunch of philosophers in a group about information theory, logic, and AI, and not a single one of them knew who Ramon Llull was.... I'm steering away from a cyclic pattern of history to a cognitive/migration duality, but its damn annoying when new traditions who think they evolved from a spark in the dark in a vaccuum to be completely unaware that older, and advanced parallel systems existed earlier in history, and already tackled many of the same problems, going off into some pretty interesting tangents we are still blind to. Convergent evolution of ideas are pretty common in philosophy given everyone is issued similar models of brains! Roman names statistically couldnt last very long, given the late republican land grant formulations of the 'latifundal' system (hope I spelled that right). The foundation of continuity of every successful society is the endurance and health of it's various sexual strategies, both illicet and mainstream. Sexuality is the foundation of the state, all acts seemingly peripheral to sexuality, such as war, self identity, laws, philosophy, manufacturing, etc, by the selfish economy of human nature, must by default intergrate within the sexual schema or fall away. Ibn Khaldun pretty much nailed the technological flow of civilization in relation to dynastic fluctuations, but didnt really hit other systems, such as republics, or manorial or capitalistic or socialist systems. He had a good grasp of the feudal. Islamic feudalism differed from European models in one way, given the dhimmi tax, Eastern Orthodox Latin christians living in medieval north africa until the 15th century, mych like the jews in north africa until the early 20th century in the Mahgreb, and even the coptics in Egypt to this day, could survive in isolation and relative indifference to the larger Muslim population, as long as they were non threatening, isolated, and kept quiet. The latins left via Carthage for sicily in the late medieval era, joining the renessiance as players with little apparently to offer, unlike the greeks returning from the eastern empire's collapse via the turks. The sexuality of republican rome was nailed by Cato, Pilny, and even to a extent, Cicero. The old conservative minor land holder, providing the backbone of the republican middle class. Frugal living, tough lovs, independence and honesty as the chief virtue. The large aristocratic land estates pretty much F'd that patristic utopia up, in much the same way microsoft and apple computers economic model monkey stomped the jeffersonian model of a agrarian republic. There isnt a whole lot of reason to hold to a patriarchy for family inheritance if you dont have landed estates to pass on to heirs. You might as well name your family after the silly equivelent of something modern like Spagettios or Hotdog if your a slave. A serf can have a little more self respect, but lack of education breeds stupidity, both today as well as the dark ages, and parents had no reason not to name their children whatever wacky name that popped into mind. The concept of the late roman republic's massive land grants are the only that seemed to of survived, other than the Catholic/orthodox church.... a good Roman lineage that was self aware would own one, never willing work in one, and if they had to from destitution, within a few generations their descendents were peasants named Spagettios. The dark ages were dark for a reason. The roman system of small landholding inheritance in the west died out in the west in sixth century, last stronghold beind in the Sub Sahara were latin legal inheritance contracts were still being signed. Many here wouldnt even realize romans lived so far south, especially considering the Vandal invasion to the north.... but thats north africa for you. The manor system followed germanic, not roman methods of inheritance, and therefor marriage. Incest was determined by a elementry root system based of the knuckles of the fingers tracing lineages, instead of the Roman system. The Zenith of the feudal system saw large, landed aristcrats marrying in incest to consolidate wealth, land holdings, and military power, while the roman educated priesthood noted this was a bad idea theologically, legally, and just damn downright creepy marrying your cousin generation after generation, and forced roman styled marriage laws roughly the same time as it was pushing the university system and the seperation of church and state in a effort to break the encroaching powers of the nobility. A very inbred nobility. Today, we run amuck with these abstract concepts, reorganizing them in complex schemes, slapping labels like liberal and conservative, moral or immoral to their fancy arrangements, with love or disgust. Its connective genesis is tbe 12th century however. Even though we are not quite roman in our sexual outlook today in the west, or in Europe, we each play upon variables in resurrecting its laws and ways to suit our reproductive needs. I doubt the renaissance, rising from the sexual tensions of oligarchial italy against the nobility of the holy roman empire could of happened. In germany (my family tree research, hence my emphasis) many common german names arouse from the start of this era, arising from trade guilds. The trade guilds were village-town affairs, not exactly suited for a manor, unless it was massive like the large russian estates of the 19th century. Instead of being named something stupid, like Spagettios, or demeaning like Toby, you got a respectable trade name. The combination of symbolic-heraldic symbols, and major minor lineages of a royal house, lead to both a geometric and arithmatic erosion of authentic latin family names as a upper most default in the west for most to be weeded out. A name, like smith, can be infinitely spread to countless descendents, but not a family crest or other heraldic symbol, if it is to matter in terms of representing the lineage and importance of the house. A example, though the House of Savoy can trace its lineage to the roman senate, it cant trace the name 'Savoy' back to it, merely its claim to its earliest established 'nobility'. Other dynastic claims of greater economic and political concern would soon top that, as each generations marriage would have to take into balance the current dynastic balance of 'power' in marrying and accepting the superiority and emphasis of official names. Much like in Children of Dune, when Alia said the Atreides interest in the marriage would trump the old imperial system (the atreides heir was female, marrying into a male dominated, formerly supreme yet now subordinate imperial household). Thess trends are ancient, and still ongoing, as the Queen of England husband isnt considered king, but merely a royal consort, despite being of a royal lineage himself. Each house imposes silly rules on this stuff. A good, nearly modern look at heraldry vs modern family names vs dynastic houses and titles would be to look at the House of Hanover. YeahIt subdivided its coat of arms 4 times, and half of it still retains the british coat of arms, Yeahbut left the british monarchial succession after queen victoria, Yeaha female unable to inherit under salic law, Yeahwhich governed Hanovers succession, Yeahand went to the next closest inheritor. Its why some royal houses still count byzantine imperial heraldic symbols on their crest, Yeahbut cant claim the name legitimately as a family lineage of direct descent. Mathematically, Yeahin the west, Yeahmost names would of been weeded off in time. Pliny was very wise in noting the decline of the Roman small land holder as the end of the Romans, the roman identity was for all intents and purposes wiped out within a thousand years. Constantines mutt system, based on Augustine and Judea-Christian models, survived alot longer in the east. It was more stable, Yeahand homogeneous, not having to juggle germanic and roman practices. Turks didnt care to muddle it either. What is interesting is the priesthood of the romans was Yeahhierarchial, Yeahboth in its pagan and christian variation, and didnt subdivide via mitosis (was non sexual reproducrtion, via diocese subdivisions). YeahThey kept growing and growing, and kept in many places the same conservative titles, and despite illiteracy, never forgot what land it owed, privilege it was entitled to from otherwise forgotten antiquity. Many roman priests in the rebublican era were hereditary, before the foreign mystery cult religions took over. The five Christian Holy Sees to this day continue recording the names of their patriarchs/popes in dynastic sucession. This was important in the ancient world, and a good name meant alot, be it stolen or legitimately claimed (many greek noble families claimed descent from the crew of the Agronauts for example, which is bull.) The diversity of sexual practices, the individuals sexual strategy versus the needs and acceptance of the community balanced against the frictions and outright antagonisms of other societies dictates the how and why of our history and identifications. A truely independent, wild Cynic living in the forest has only need of one name, if a name at all. Someone with 8 grandparents inheriting a trade and plot of land in a walled city needs to prioritize his name to at least the second degree to avoid incest and maintain simple property claims. A office holder, two names and a title, a prince a variety of names,titles, symbols and myths, and a first generation founder of a dynasty, especially a empire, can like the Cynic just go lazy by one name once again. There is only one Alexander, one Ceasar, one ghenghis, Attila..... and one Diogenes, one Jesus, one Barbarosa. You dont have to demand 'Alexander who?' you know it from its awesomeness and infamy. It tends to get you laid as if you had 50 titles and royal names. Being a ascetic like Jesus or a masturbating madman like Diogenes is a obvious obstacle to reproductive success,but its still a sexual strategy that paid dividens for the larger societies that embraced them. The policy of Ceasar, screw any skank With a title, or augustus nuclear family, or Nero's hoodlum gangrape anything beautiful that moves, shows us the range of options the roman state offered for social emulationYea via ceasars dynasty. Many more variations were possible. Yeah.

The House of Savoy can trace it's genealogy back to a roman senator. Many imperial lineages are still very much existent, just we're thinking of the rotten side of the apple- 'western rome'- there are websites dedicated to tracing people's genealogies via the eastern emperors, and some of it is rooted back in even western roman times for families they are related to. You'll have to talk to some greeks to find knowledge of the old roman stock.... as I pointed out, only the House of Savoy claims it, but there are lesser branches of nobility that married byzantine nobility as well, and have the symbols of the eastern emperors their coat of arms during the renaissance. Surprised my username and password still worked here.

The saddest thing happened, a dream of mine died... well, actually a few, but the one I'm talking about here is one I think most of you can relate to. As a kid, did you ever look at the artist reconstructions of Ancient civilizations live Babylon and Rome and just stare at the pictures, wishing you could be these, absorbing the details and the way of life in that scenes seemingly full spectrum moment? Well, guess what, I did. I happened at a place called Camp Stryker in Iraq when on a lay over from getting a root canal/tooth pulled/ radical extraction done. I was walking back from the chow hall to the layover tents, and passed a little trailer square full of Hadj Merchants selling bootleg movies and music, with the Shiite guy pretending to be a Christian selling middle eastern Icons, the guy from India wholly out of place selling Hindu statues, and of course, the ever present Barber. I saw contractor civilians, female (Iraqi)translators and army and even Canadian soldiers, plus the equally strange Sudanese Mercenaries we hire to guard our guards there(don't ask me why, I havn't figured it out myself) walking through it all, judging the quality of stuff, and I turned my head to the front of me and saw the road seperating the living quarters from the merchant sector, the roadblocks, freshly paved roads soon to be destroyed by tracked vehicles, 10 meter tall T-walls with a Irregular pentagon pressed into it pointed upwards making it look more middle eastern, and I focused down the road and waw soldier walking in the distance, and in the horizon, where the T walls seemed to converge, two large pyrimids arose, and from instide of them, Chinooks rose up into the air, and swooped down low to take up. This scene reminded me of a Saddam era printing of a museam and archeology guide I found (in English) showing the Babylonians and Assysarians. I had regognized most of the pictures from my some of the earliest books I've read, which were on ancient civilizations. Pictures of soldiers and merchants, chariots and kings, and laws. I had seen it all. No power greater than that has ever exsisted in this nation, it is technicly in it's hight, my eyes recorded a chapter of Iraqi history, the oldest continiously civilized portion of the planet.... and I say it sucked. It was so not worth it. That just ruined a good hobby, I am so, soooo less trusting of everything now. Old forms in new dress, this country must of always sucked. Think of your favorite civilization, live Rome for example, and actually imagine yourself there, beamed there into the enviroment. Would you be able to support a Slave owning, Human Sacrificing murderous thug of a city, with it's military cults and who knows what else? How long would you stand around before you called it quits and jumped back into the time machine? I loved history, still read it alot, but started getting tired of it after that event, at least the ancient version of it, and focused on some revolutionary history, like just last night I was reading about the treaty with England George Washington signed saying it was okay for the British to kidnap American sailors so long as Britian recognized US neutrality. That killed another childhood vision of mine. There are so many other examples out there, I just really don't trust anything anymore. There wasn't ever a golden age, we've mearly experienced different shades of brown. The urge to read and study is still there, but I hate seeing my experiences in relationship to history, it makes it too real to know exactly what it's like to be there, and how pointless it all really was. Of all the daily soap-operas of the roman empire heaving in every day life, how much of it survived in wars and plaques and reformations and loss of cultural memory? Not very much, I'm not denying it's casual influence in Space-time, I'm talking about direct conscious inheritance of the actions of the day. We didn't get very much from the Romans other than a whole lot of loathing as well as longing of them throughout the darkages. So much less from Byzantium, or North Africa, the Persians, the whoever you want here. The script of the play was lost, but new actors played on, and you know what, I doubt the performance of the play was hurt much by the new writers, cause in the end, it's all the same. It could of been a Soviet siting here writing about the Jihads, or a modern Roman, or an Empire of Eskimos. Men are the same the world over, the nostalgia isn't worth it. Gleam all the poetry you want, erect the walls to your modern castles and sing your songs, your life isn't as unique as you think it is, if you wern't there to do it, someone else would be, with a somewhat different variation doing exactly what your doing. My idols are dead now, and I have no gods to follow. Just a mindless urge to learn and consume, and restructure things. I ask myself why? I follow in their footsteps why? Why look into philosophy, or history anymore? Do you guys have a reason, does anyone understand what I'm saying?

Hey, Um, sorry, I forgot to tell you guys that I both got extended in Iraq, and as to date, am not dead. Add to that, my laptop broke, and so lost what I had done of Vegetius, as well as a comparison study of The Divine Comedy, and girlfriend broke up with me, and my knee is worst, and the army executed my puppy, point blank, 9mm, and it turns out, all we had to do to win this war was give the Iraqi's our PT belts. Virgil, why didn't you think of that when you were here? I hate my job. Damn puppykillers. I'm looking into starting my own bookpress once I get back, I'm going to fail horribly and go bankrupt and have 500 copies of Utopia and The Divine Comedy under my bed in a apartment with a crackhead roommate....wooooooo! I made a good career decision. Must remember.....coast guard........coast guard........coast........guard. Any old books published from the 19th century and back (for copyright reasons) you wanna see come back into print?

The Sounding of Gjallarhorn at http://thefinalhorn.com/frames.html A couple of guys I know started this history oriented forum/radio show very recently, and have two new shows for download. Their forums are just starting out too. Please stop by and sign the guestbook.

There is a family in my town that got rich off of real estate. The guy had three sons, one became a judge, one is a county commissioner/real estate branch owner, and the third is prepping to take over the bussiness from the old man. The family is dirty as can get in my opinion on the recent sources of it's money... opening up gambling casinos in poor neighborhoods for thier own profit... thus lowering the property value there while increasing it in thier clients areas, but they play it real clean visually, by donating and helping to organisze a free clinic and living a more noticably upright upper middle class/ close knit family life. I have no doubt one of thier grandchildren will aim for the house or senate someday, the family has it written all over itself. They follow through with many of the traits listed below, and it deals not so much with a individual in relationship to royal authority, but rather, the general trends of kinsmen within a family likely to succeed in time to the top of politics.

I found this in The Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History written by Ibn Khaldun in the 14th Century, which hands down beats Machevelli's The Prince in his analysis of the rise of individuals and tribes into soverign power, thier decline, and the nature of royal authority. I've found it very refreshing, and though at times alien given the distance, time, and ideology of our modern cultures to his North African, find in most respects at home to modern thought, and to top that, provides a good primer to methodological historical investigation of the past. I'm not mearly recommending for you to read this book sometime in the future; no, I highly recommend you to put off any other book on history you may currently be or plan and reading, and read this first, for any analysis of history, any history, would be incomplete without an understanding of Ibn Khaldun. This is a abbrevated except from Rosenthal's thranslation, broken up to allow for numbering and strightforwardness of point, and the title is my own, given he was talking about a wider subject at the time: 20 LEADERSHIP QUALITIES SUGGESTING THE FUTURE EMERGENCE OF ROYAL AUTHORITY 1. Generosity 2. Forgiveness of Error 3. Tolerance towards the weak 4. Hospitality Towards Guests 5. Support of Dependants 6. Maintenance of the Indidgent 7. Patience in adverse circumstances 8. Faithful fulfillment of Obligations 9. Liberality with money for the preservation of honour 10. Respect for the religious law and for the scholars who learn it 11. Observation of things to be done/ not done that those scholars prescribe for them 12. Thinking highly of religious scholarship 13. Belief in/ veneration for men of religion and a desire to recieve their prayers 14. Great Respect for old men and teachers 15. Acceptance of the truth in those who call for it. 16. Fairness and care to those too weak to take care for themselves 17. Humility towards the poor 18. Attentiveness to suplicants 19. Fulfilment of the duties of religious law and devine worship in all details. 20. advoidance of Fraud, Cunning, Deceit, and the Shirking of Obligations The above is not mearly his vision of what a good leader should be, but is also an indicator or who is likely to become a good leader upon the collapse of a dynasty. He goes on in the next paragraphs from individual indicators to the competition of Tribal groups and which are likely to gain supremacy over the other by a higher strata of characteristics. It's a surprisinglygood book... a little heavy on the Qur'an quotes at time, but still a good read.

Thanks all, specially Virgil61. Check your mailbox. Hey, what's the address for sending checks if you wanna buy one of the Roman maps sold here?

Help, some of you may remember me, I'm the soldier from Alaska who's currently in Iraq. I've been trying to translate Vegetius for a while, but my internet connection is practically non-exsistant most of the time, and extreamly slow to use when it is up and running (took me the better part of the day just to get here). I have a Oxford Latin Minidictionary, but ran out of words in it, and can't order any more dictionaries until the phones are repaired, which is going to be a long while. Furthermore, the internet connection here won't let us download programs, so I can't just download a free dictionary off the net. If any of you know of a couple of good latin word lists on the net, I would really appriciate the links. I despreately need them, cause this is becoming very frustrating. In october of 2007 is when I get back, so I'll show you guys the results of my labor then. Till then, everyone have a good day. Onasander ctisphonics@yahoo.com

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article....616145109990015 Sometimes I put ancient history links on my page here, so check it out every once in a while.... I think it was viggen who originally got me hooked on this: http://onasander.stumbleupon.com/

http://www.iconet.gr/prosopa/pages/English...Kastriotis.html I leave for Iraq in Oct, been busy. Sorry

where do I download this?