barca

Nope; in fact, depending on your specific definition for the former, both terms would be almost surely mutually exclusive. The article identified fundamentalists as those who followed the tenets of the Niagra Bible Conference in the late 19th century. The term could be applied more loosely to many of the religious movements dating back to the Great Awakening. The Methodists could be included in this group, and I believe they do follow the creed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity There are many nonfundamentalist protestant churches that follow the Nicene Creed, which I find interesting, since it mentions the "Holy Catholic Church." I realize that the word "catholic" has more than one meaning, but it does sound somewhat contradictory.

Here's an interesting article regarding the modern christian right, http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...l?hpid=talkbox1 Does it make sense for fundamentalists to follow the Nicean Creed?

It seems even discrete transitory increments on the force and speed of the trirremes might have been critical for some naval maneuvers, particularly ramming. And for ramming the wattage could transiently go higher (1000W or more). As far as long distance rowing, I don't know of any disadvantage to the sliding seats. There are rowing marathons with the C2 rowing machines where individuals remain on them for hours at a time: http://www.concept2.com/us/motivation/awar...ons/default.asp The main obstacle in my opinion would be an engineering issue. Each individual rower would require additional space to slide back and forth, so you would need more boat surface for each rower.

The triremes and galleys were used primarily in the relatively protected waters of the Mediterranean Sea. It is well known that they were less effective in the Atlantic Ocean. The mechanical advantage of the sliding seat is quite clear. It is estimated that about 70% of rowing power output comes from the lower body. A rower competing in a 2 kilometer race can maintain close to 500 watts of power. That's simply not possible when only using the upper body alone.

What is the best source describing these tactics?

One of the biggest innovations of competitive rowing was the use of the sliding seat, which allows the rower to use his leg and hips in addition to his upper body thereby applying much more force to his stroke. It's a much simpler mechanical innovation than the steam engine, and it still relies on human muscle power. There is some evidence that the ancients may have used some crude form of the sliding seat: http://archive.comlab.ox.ac.uk/other/museu...iding-seat.html Does anyone have additional information?

I read the account of the battle several times, and I wasn't able to see the big picture. Your description of their tactics is very helpful. It seems that there were a number of incidents during the battle where the arabs were driven back, only to be shamed by their women to regroup and form a counter attack. Presumably this was possible because the Byzantines were unble to follow up and pursue the arabs as they retreated into the dessert.

We certainly know how the Mongols were able to defeat Islamic armies. What would Alexander have done?

Most of them were Christian in their religious beliefs, but they saw the limits of theology in forming a government. Their political theory came mostly from looking at models from the classical world, modernized through the enlightenment. Was the theory of relativity based on Judeo-Christian principles because Einstein was Jewish?

There may also be valid reasons for not following the path of empire. As far as trying to copycat the Romans, isn't that what the founding fathers did when they drew upon the Classics?

The armies of the late empire placed more emphasis on cavalry, and they were unable to hold off the barbarian invasions in the western half of the empire. The Republic and early empire may have found it cost-effective to maintain an army composed primarily of infantry. The cost of maintaining more cavalry during the later period may have contributed to Rome's economic problems.

Is that why he included "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration?

The battle of Yarmouk has been considered as one of the most important turning points leading to the loss of much of the Byzantine empire to Islam. The Battle lasted several days and a superior Byzantine force was eventually wiped out by the Arabs. The Byzantines were well known as experts in military strategy. What military innovations did the Arabs bring to the field?

The Stoics described a God of Nature, or of the Cosmos. Is that not similar to the Deists' description of God? Can Deism be considered an 18th century manifestation of Greco-Roman philosophy?

I interpreted these questions more from a philosophical standpoint. Pat Buchanan asked a similar question. He is a conservative and but not a supporter of the war in Iraq. And here is an interesting review of one of his more controversial books http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~preston/buchanan.html It's about 10 years old, but it does address those issues. A more recent book of his, Where the Right Went Wrong addresses the war in Iraq.

The Romans certainly didn't accept that viewpoint. Celsus, for example, looked down on them: "...they gather a crowd of slaves, children, women and idlers...... Come to us you who are sinners, you who are fools or children, you who are miserable, and you shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven..." And, as you probably know already, there are numerous similar statements attributed to him. Addendum: We also have to be careful about making generalizations about the early Christians. Prior to the Council of Nicea they were fairly diverse in their beliefs. Jesus Christ himself didn't necessarily see himself as a revolutionary: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html Some of the Martyrs were purposely misunderstood so that in their minds they could attain salvation by dying as Christ did.

We sort of got off the original path of the discussion. Here is an an article that presents a somewhat idealistic viewpoint of ancient Rome's contribution to America. I'm not sure how well it would be received by the general public. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Political...oad/88424_1.pdf Any thoughts?

Can you explain that?

It's been while since I was looking at Ehrman's ideas, and I'll try to find where he spells it out more specifically. It seems to me he went farther to make the following extrapolation As Sylla pointed out, the early Christians considered themselves a sect of Judaism. The Christians sought exemption from persecution for their "atheism" by claiming their long ancestral tradition. In their minds, they were the true followers of the original faith, and the others had gone astray, and had also proved to be disloyal to Rome. They were saying that 1. They were the true followers of the ancestral tradition and 2. They were not disloyal to Rome since they were not part of the rebellion In this way they were dismissing the Jewish rebellion as a misguided group who were not in touch with the mainstream, and the Christians wanted distance themselves from the rebels. That is at least my recollection of Ehrman's points. When I get a chance I'll go back and review his works in more detail to see if my memory serves me correctly.

According to Plutarch, Caesar actually encouraged Crassus to go on his Parthian expedition. Is it possible that Caesar foresaw the outcome? Was it a convenient way to get rid of one of his rivals?

It is not clear what percentage of the Alanic cavalry were archers. Much of what Arrian describes involves receiving a frontal assault of heavy cavalry. For example, the throwing of the javelins would not work against mounted archers because they would stay out of javelin range.

That term implies Christianity took (stole, in fact) the Jewish theology, beliefs, traditions and sacred texts, an accurate description of the historical facts. The original Christians didn't see themelves as stealing those texts. They viewed those texts as their own. In the aftermath of the Jewish Wars, Christians sought to emphasise that they viewed themselves as the rightfull aires of the Jewish religion. They were hoping to be more accepted by the Romans by pointing out do them that they were a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition. At the same time they wanted to be perceived as separate from the nonchristian Hebrews, because they didn't wan't to be viewed a part of the Jewish revolt. Pontius Pilate is portrayed as an enigmatic and somewhat sympathetic figure in the New Testament. Josephus portrays him as a ruthless enforcer, who did whatever he had to do to put down any rebellion. I believe that some of the recently discovered Gnostic texts also show Pontius Pilate in a different light.