DecimusCaesar

I think that Boudicca became associated with Queen Victoria, the ruler of the British Empire during the 19th century. Victoria was almost the 'modern' version of Boudicca in some Victorians eyes' and the Boudicca statue that can be seen in London was constructed in honour of Victoria. To the Victorians, Boudicca represented the most ancient form of British ideals such as freedom and the 'fight against oppression'. Ironically when the Boudicca statue was built the British ruled a quarter of the globe, and they imitated Boudicca's enemy - the Romans - in many ways. Thank you-Boudicca's statue is outside the Houses of Parliament I think.The non-historical character of political propaganda is very common - in Greece Leonidas was used as a role-model during the formation of a national-state.19th century nationalism searched in the past to create foundation myths, as the Gauls and jEAN d' Arc for the French or even Vercicentorix who was made to a movie not a long time ago. Yes that's true. Another example could be Arminius in Germany. The Germans built a massive statue of him during the nineteenth century as a symbol of German might, as well as to show that unlike their neighbours in other European countries, they were never conquered by the Romans. An interesting side note on Boudicca is that her name, when translated into modern English means 'Victoria'. I'm not sure if Victoria was named after the ancient figure, but it might be a coincidence.

It was very sad to hear that the ship had been on fire. Some have even suggested that it was started delibrately by vandals, which if true would just be another sad case along with vandalism brought on monuments in Pompeii recently. It is very sad to hear that so many people have such disrespect for heritage sites. I've often heard of Stone Age burial grounds being desecrated. It has gotten so bad in some areas that the burial mounds need to be kept under lock and key. I only hope that the restoration of the Cutty Sark goes well, and that we might one day see her back at sea instead of on land.

I think that Boudicca became associated with Queen Victoria, the ruler of the British Empire during the 19th century. Victoria was almost the 'modern' version of Boudicca in some Victorians eyes' and the Boudicca statue that can be seen in London was constructed in honour of Victoria. To the Victorians, Boudicca represented the most ancient form of British ideals such as freedom and the 'fight against oppression'. Ironically when the Boudicca statue was built the British ruled a quarter of the globe, and they imitated Boudicca's enemy - the Romans - in many ways.

Reading somne texts from the early Middle ages, including works from the twelfth century - You can see that many of the writers had an average or good knowledge of the Classical world. There are frequent refernces to Caesar and Cicero as well as Greek Mythology. These refernces were made by the scholars of the time to show how learned they were. Even Geoffrey of Monmouth, the writer of the pseudo-historical 'History of the High Kings of Britain' mentions Caesar's expedition to Britain as well as other events from Classical history and mythology. In terms of other areas like art, it is obvious that Italian artists had already developed the Renaissance style before the fall of Constantinople. Artists like Pietro Cavallini and Giotto di Bondone were painting masterpieces in the fourteenth century, while Jan Van Eyck's famous 'Arnolfini wedding' was painted in 1434. These art techniques were therefore not influenced by Byzantine learning. We can be sure that some Classical Greek and Latin learning was known in Western Europe before the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. But what the fall of Constantinople did do was increase this learning ten-fold. Many Greek scholars brought unkown Classical works to Italy, while others opened up 'academies' where noble Italians could attend lessons on ancient history and civilisation. Of more importance to history was the effect that the fall of Constantinople would have on trade and exploration. The closing of the eastern trade routes would eventually lead to the decline of Venice as a superpower and would lead to the eventual discovery of America.

I believe that the 'Draco' standard became the most popular standard of the Late Roman period. I also believe that during the Christian period that the cross was carried into Battle. If my memory serves me right, I believe that Constantine I might have carried a cross and some other Christian symbols into battle. Other Emperors that followed him must have done so. Here is an illustration by Gerry Embleton, showing a Draco standard bearer: These Draco standards were introduced by the Sarmatians.

Angus McBride, one of the most popular historical illustrators has died of a heart attack. Angus was responsible for illustrating over 90 Osprey titles and numerous other books concerning the ancient and Roman worlds, including, among others: * Roman Legionary 58BC -AD69 *Imperial Roman Legionary AD 161-284 *Republican Roman Army 200-104 BC *Gladiators - 100 BC -AD 200 *Romano-Byzantine Armies - 4th to the 9th centuries *Imperial Rome at war * The Rome's enemies series ( Celts, Germans, Persians, Spanish etc) He also published on other subjects as beyond the Roman and classical periods, from Conquistadors and Samurai, to Zulu warriors and the army of Napoleon, right through to the second world war. His last book to be published is Byzantine Infantryman: Eastern Roman Empire c.900-1204 (Warrior 118) for June 2007.

Now that's an incredible discovery, the team who found the ship must be over the moon. the discovery also coincides with the release of Pirates of the Caribbean 3.

That's great to hear Doc, you are very lucky to have students like that!

Happy Birthday Augustus!! Have a good one!

I've tried the link and it works for me, but if it still doesn't get you through I've put the picture up in the Gallery under everything else.

That's true to an extent, considering that the Mamelukes were suffering an economic crisis during the early years of the sixteenth century, and therefore they were much easier to conquer. The Safavid Persians on the other hand were a much greater threat, and possibly as equally dangerous to the Ottomans as any European power. On another note, here's the photogrpah (sorry for the quality) of the Ottomans using catapults during the First World War. Ottoman NCOs and greande thrower

Welcome back Imperator!

It sounds very interesting, and I have vague memories of reading Eagle of the Ninth when I was younger, so I'll be looking forward to this one. Still, it's a children's story and the director sort of makes out that the film will have an adult feel. I wonder how this will work out.

In the fifiteenth and early sixteenth century the Ottomans were certainly a threat to Europe, although after the death of Suleiman the magnificent, the empire stopped being a serious threat, even though the Turks did launch great attacks on Vienna on several occasions.

I find it odd that many newspapers have already come to the conclusion that Herod's tomb has been discovered, rather than a possible site has been found. It is even mentioned on localised area news in Britain, probably making it one of the most famous non-disoveries in recent times.

Happy eighteenth birthday to Tobias! I hope you have an excellent day!

In the late 18th century the Ottomans took steps to modernise the army through recruiting French officers to train the soldiers. These reforms were despised by the Janissary class, who hated any change to the government as they thought it would bring about their collapse (and it eventually would in the 19th century). The Janissaries were the most important soldiers in the Ottoman state, and they were their greatest weakness, as they were undisciplined and frequently mutinous. Many of the soldiers in the Ottoman army, including the Mamlukes of Egypt and Circassian cavalrymen were still armed and armoured like Medieval warriors in chain and plate mail, armed with swords, spears and bows, even towards the early years of the nineteenth century. Other soldiers like the Armenians that served with the Ottomans were armed with bows and daggers. Some soldiers were amred with old fashioned matchlock muskets rather than the new style flintlock of the period. Despite these weaknesses the Ottomans did win victories against European forces by resorting to ambushes and guerilla attacks. When the Ottomans confronted their enemies in open battle, defeat usually followed. As far as the Turks were concerned, they emphasised individuality in combat, and viewed European troops as mindless automatons. This individuality could be the Ottoman's greatest strength in some situations and a weakness in others. In 1791 - the new army was introduced, which consisted of new style Russian tactics and a mixture of the old style Ottoman regime. To these were added the French military customs. The new French trained troops consisted of units of artillery men armed with small mortars called Topiji or Topchu. During the Crimean War of the 1850's the Ottomans began adopting other symbols of the French military including their costumes (as some of the samurai of Tokugawa Japan would do later in the 1860's). Many other aspects of the Ottoman military of this period was a disaster. The Ottoman navy was in very poor condition. Poorly and irregurarly armed, with poor rigging and unskilled non-trained marines, the Ottoman navy was of no use in sea battles. The Ships were even hard to manouver. Overall, The Ottoman army had been in decline ever since the end of the golden days of the empire in the sixteenth century. The defeats at Vienna and the naval defeat at Lepanto had crushed any Ottoman expansion into Western Europe and the empire had been unable to modernise ever since. The empire's elite troops, who had at one time been renowned as the most feared in Europe became undisciplined. The Ottoman armouries were poorly stocked and lacking in modern weapons, with the Ottoman soldiers often facing their European neighbours armed with spears, swords and bows against rifles, muskets and cannon. The gunpowder weapons the Ottomans did use was usually inferior to European types, for instance, the Ottoman cannons of the 18th century had not been improved for a hundered years and thus had a lower firing range and longer reload times.

As far as aircraft are concerned, the Ottomans did have to get them from Germany to begin with. Most of the Ottoman pilots were made up of Germans, but towards the end of the war they began recruiting men from other provinces of the empire (and from neutral territories) including Arab and Iranian units who formed the observation squadrons. These planes were usually flown from Germany to Ottoman airfields. As far as the navy was concerned, it was not up to scratch by 1914 although attempts had been made to update the fleet from 1908. The Ottoman ship builders could construct small light boats at yards in Izmir, Samsun, Beirut and Basra although they were no match for Allied Ships. The Ottomans had put in orders to France and Britain before the start of the war to construct battleships and gunboats, which shows their lack of knowledge concerning "modern" ship building techinques. The sea mines used to blockade the Dardanelles were usually Russian or French type taken from Trabzon or Izmir. After a treaty of 1917, many Turks were sent to Germany to begin training on European techniques as the 500 or so German officers who had supported the Ottomans in 1914 were expanded with new recruits. These Turkish and Arab officers resented the Germans. Most weapons were constructed by the Ottoman's allies rather than the Ottomans themselves. The Ottomans had captured German, British and French artillery after the Balkan wars, and the Germans added to this force by manufacturing more guns for the Turks. Krupp - a German and Austro-Hungarian supplier was the most popular weapons manufacturer among the Ottomans. During the Gallipoli campaign a lack of artillery meant that the Ottomans had to use century old mortars taken from the Istanbul museum. The machine guns used were European types, usually the Maxim and Hotchkiss types. The Turks even modelled their uniforms on German types, and made use of British maps, captured after Gallipoli. Before this, the Ottomans had used tourist guide maps instead of the military cartographical charts. On another note... I brought those books many years ago, although i'm sure that you can find a few of them at a good library. Another book I forgot to mention that's worth looking out for is Constantinople: City of the World's Desire, 1453-1924 by Philip Mansel. It's basically a social history of the empire, and it concentrates on many diverse subjects, from the lives of the Sultan's concubines through to those of ambassadors and Janissaries.

True, Churchill and Kitchener understimated the Turks. For them, the war in the Middle East was a side show compared to the battles of the Western Front. 'Johnny Turk' was suppose to be no match for the British Tommy and his French and 'Anzac' allies. Yet, when they finally met the Turks in battle, the British could agree that they were tough resourceful fighters ( see Max Arthur's Forgotten Voices of the Great War for some examples). Another excellent book I can recommend is 'Gallipoli' by L.A Carolyn. It is rather large and is told mainly from the Australian and New Zealand perspective, yet it is a great read. As for the Ottoman army of this period, try getting David Nicolle's book The Ottoman Army: 1914-18. It is full of interesting information about the extent in which the Europeans played in reforming the Ottoman army. The French officer Captain De Goys, for instance, was the man responsible for creating the Ottoman air force, while during the war it was under the command of a German, Major Erich Sarno. The Germans supplied the Ottomans with 260 aircraft during the war, although not all of them arrived safely. Some of these Air detachments were commanded by German officers. In one curious photograph featured in Nicolle's book, we can see Turkish troops operating a grenade thrower, which is actually a wooden catapult, not too disimilar to a Roman Ballista. It is not mentioned if the catapult was used for training or if it was used in war time.

My fantasy: after many grueling months of excavation and recovery, archaeologists announce they've found the complete and unabridged works of Polybius. That might raise a few eyebrows. Now that would be great. After all, they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in a cave, so who knows what other ancient texts remain to be found somewhere in the deserts of Israel. They have numerous examples of written letters, books, poems etc in Egypt (amongst them the oldest surviving copy of Homer's Illiad) so they might make a similar discovery there.

The Ottomans are a slight interest of mine as well. Have you read The Ottoman centuries by Lord Kinross? It is worth getting. According to the books I have on the Ottomans, they did not realy make much advances or reforms. The Ottoman military reached its peak during the reign of Suleiman the Maginificent during the sixteenth century and afterwards entered into a long decline. There were Sultans that attempted reform, such as SelimIII (1789-1807) although the Janissaries, the 'slave' soldiers of the empire, were opposed to these reforms as it challenged their priveleged position in society. They often reacted violently to any reform, and would cause riots or even murder Ottoman rulers on some occasions. Eventually they had to destroyed. Selim III's reforms ended in failure after the Janissaries had risen up in rebellion over having to adopt French military customs. But they had caused the Ottomans to consider making large scale reforms. These came during the reign of Mehmed the reformer. He was the man who eventually trained a new artillery heavy force that blew away the revolting Janissaries with grapeshot. The reforms themsleves came too late. The Ottoman empire had already lost substantial territory by this period, and throughout the 19th century, the empire was referred to as the 'Sick man of Europe'.

Didn't Fellini (I think) make a film adaption of this story back in the late 1960's? I heard that it followed the text so closely that even the missing parts were entered into the film by having the characters stop in mid conversation. If anyone has seen the film, is it really a faithful adaption to the novel?

Welcome Sonic and Civis! It's great to know that we have a member who's obviously very knowledagble on this period!

You make a good point there. It was typical of Late Roman historians to make allusions to the past when describing contemprory events. This was done to show their learning - Ammianus Marcellinus makes use of archaic Roman military terms in his histories; while Priscus description of the siege of Naissus sound suspiciously like Thucydides account of the siege of Platea in 431 BC, according ot Heather. Priscus description is obviously meant to show that he is familiar with the classics.

Great News Doc, and well deserved!