FLavius Valerius Constantinus

I believe a local museum would be the best choice, unless we have a real archeologist somewhere on this board.

Hmm, that disease seems utterly horrible.

Viribusque cautioni ( The word I used for security, means security with the essence of caution. Obviously, the word security comes from securiti, but the problem is that that word can mean freedom from care and carelessness even though it can mean security, its just what it also denotes is the problem. You can also use composito which means law and order along with security.)( The word for strengh is vires, so in latin when you want to say strength, you have to say it in the plural. In the singular, it means violence.)

A simple one, get your tongue cut sucks, because then for the rest of your left, you could no longer converse with anyone, unless you were literate, and that is something most Romans weren't. The move, the Mummy, brought light to me that its horrible to have your tongue cut out and get mummified alive, along with those scarab beatles eating at your flesh the whole time.

Sorry Pertinax, I don't understand what you mean by distinction. What kind are you looking for? Are you looking for terms to disctinct these sentences or do you want the sentence structure of a Latin sentence? But I will try my best? You would always want to say it idiomatically all the time when you translate Latin into english.I must explain that the Romans weren't so good at saying things in the active, they were more passive-oriented. So really, by our standards today, the Roman grammar was utterly horrible. Even the Roman scholars and philosophers thought it was better to write that way. Your three sentences, two are imperatives and one is a declarative. I don't know what you mean by distinction but I'll try my best. Really theres nothing to the sentences. The first and last are just direct commands. The second is just a declarative. I must also explain that the Romans did not try or bother to distinct these sentences. All the terms in latin you learn or see is created by British grammarians who wanted to create a structure for Latin, nothing more. I'm gonna start out the lines as separate sentences first and explain them: Since its an imperative( imperatives have different Latin endings) (You)Watch out for the repositorium : Spectato repositorio. (I used the word specto because it means watch and can also mean consider...get the drift, but the out part is implied. You can use vigilas, it means to stay awake, so it can denote a watch out meaning.In latin, case and tense are very sensitive. If I made repositorio into the accustive(direct object), repositorium, then the sentence would translate into You look at the table( repositorium can also mean tray), and so longer gives a sense of vigilance or observation. Thats why I put it into dative or indirect object to imply the import for) Point being this sentence is in the imperative, nothing more, just a direct command. You will be stunned by the scope and quality of the same: Ab comprensione et adjuncto idei adstupebis. ( There is no latin word for awe, but many words for amazed and stunned. You may notice the verb is passive, but the words definition is already passive, be stunned. So I put it in the active.\ Do not trip over the table for food: Super mensam contingens cibo non supplantato. ( this is another imperative, direct command, sentence. But it also has a participle phrase, reaching for food, same structure as sentence one.)

I already know about this. Europeans were the first really to come to America. How do we know, an archeologist found a really complex spear tip( sharper than a surgeons scapel knife, and thinner too) that exactly resembled the spear tip that designated a specific group people in Europe, and the carbon dating proved it. Also, during the ice age, during winter, there was a huge land bridge between europe and the Eastern American coast. Most likely, the people from around Spain.( I think)

Er... eat all the sweets you can my friend before you suffer.

So the soothsayer was a haruspex. I always imagined the soothsayer as some lowly deformed plebeian. Now, I have a new image.

Your in luck mate: Hic cur est taxideam taxum habemus. (You can take out taxideam bc that's only the genus of the species, taxum is the species name, but then again, taxum in latin means yew-tree, weird.)

Has anyone here read the Venus throw? If not, will you ( Viggen) let me write a review on it. The novel is a fiction book and the category is mystery. That's right, its a novel about an Roman detective. The novel interesting is set around the time of the first triumvirate. This novel includes lots about Roman culture and the politics happen at the time. It also includes a certain Clodii family. My post sounds like a review, but its just basic info.

Funny, my guy Constantine messed up the tetrarchy, but it didn't matter because he was an abled and competent leader on the field and in the political arena, including in heading a new religion. Now do you call that corrupt when the Roman tetrarchy was already a failure and the only thing left was again for an empire under the rule of one man, a man who actually improved the Roman state compared to Rome after Commodus.

Its been a long time since I've heard about anything about Crete yet.

I thought Redbull was Belgian. Just kidding.

It's hard to think that the Etruscans have no realations with the Romans when the Etruscans were smack-dab north of Rome. Remember that Rome was first intendedly built as a fortress city to protect the Latins from Etruscan agression, which they feared at the time. So contact between Rome and Etruria happened no matter what. When Rome conquered Greece, they took in Hellenism and adapted it. So you could say the same thing happened when Rome conquered the Etrurians and Samnites. Back then Rome's government was really ethical and productive, so they did not allow the Latin and Italian cities to trade with other. So who else left was there to trade( it was obliged) with but Rome. So certainly trade between the Etrurians and Romans happened, which in history always results in a mix of cultures and influences. ( Source, A primer's guide to Roman history.) My post just only tries to shown that the Romans and Etrurians culture had to have contact. I also have a book on Roman medicine that has a big section on Etrurian influences on Roman medicine. I can scan it if someone wants to read it.

I believe in any battle, the calvary is the a key factor in beating a phalanx. Being that the phalanx is rigid, you can just send your first primam aciem to meet the phalanx, positon your strong soldiers on the right and your weakest at the center. Then have the calvary spear the enemy on the left side and that way, you have full encirclement. Same tactic was used by Aetius against the Huns, with the exception that he didn't use the calvary much because of terrain(I think). Don't know if this is helpful to Vespasion, but in latin phalanx is declined like this: Singular/Plural phalanx / phalanges phalangis / phalangium phalangi / phalangibus phalangem / phalanges phalange / phalangibus Its third declension neuter or feminine, but declined in the feminine anyways. So the plural in latin would be phalanges. ( Note: If you try phalanga, you are wrong because that is a different word from phalanx and phalanga means a roller to move ships/ military engines/ carrying pole.)

Thanks Vespasion, it's the first time I've actually read one that included information about every single year of the second Punic war. By the way, can you name all the Italian and Latin cities that went over to Hannibal and can you name all the cities Hannibal tried to sieged.

I merely believe that each emperor just made their own fora out of complete egotism. If you believed that you were a god and a good leader, what better way than to make your own forum decorated majestically with the plunders of conquests and war. Some emperors used their own forum, but many others didn't. Hadrian for example was barely in Rome at all, so I doubt he spent much time there. I suppose government institutions were still active in the fora the whole time, but the topic is about the emperors. Offnote, I think your clincher seems too simply stated. You should try including deification of the emperors.

Thank you Lost Warrior, now I know flogging is again. I also have a question. Did the Romans ever consider pyschological torturing methods or was it just their way to get it done and over with?

I still don't know whose birthday it is. Seriously Well happy birthday to all those its special occasion is.

How about the literal way, Romana Ethicaque Moralitas

After reading info on Justinians campaigns, I've finally comed to realize how much an effect a plague or an outbreak of diseases can have on an empire. Thus, I believe Justinian no matter what, could not combat it. And so he lost taxpayers and most importantly,couldn't find any soldiers, which now he had to rely on the barbarians for recruitment. We know how that turned out when the Western empire experimented with that option. Off topic, does anyone think that it was really dirty of Heraclius when he attacked the Visigoths on a sunday when they were at mass during the Hispanian campaign.

You guys do realize that poaching kangaroos for meat has made it almost fall into the endangered species category, unless they already are? I just realized the consequences now if you eat an animal on the endangered list.

I don't know if this falls into the topic Sextus Roscius started in worst Roman punishments. The only torture device I can think of is a wooden boards with nails focused on one end. Then there is the one from the Passion of the Christ when they, don't know if its consider torturing Jesus. But those Roman soldiers had leather something-like straps with pointy triangular metals lining each segment. Now try imagining whipping someone's back with that, impressioning their skin. I also remember the soldier counting to 99 times of whip, ouch. That movie brought me into sense how horriblely Jesus suffered.