Lo-Lo

I think they're patriotic. And with the economic growth they're going through at the moment, and the wonderful history they have, they have every right to be proud... The west needs to get over jealousy of any other country that does well for itself.

Fuedal kings and Christian bishops come quite a way after the fall of Rome in Britain at least. I kind of object to the term dark ages, it was dark because of the lack of historical evidence, not because of there being a backwards society or anything - look at the sutton hoo treasures, the kingston brooch etc., these societies had a whole range of highly developed skills and technologies they just didn't really care to write it all down. They didn't forget the romans technological advances, they had no need for them - the successor societies were totally different set ups, they didn't look to the same centralisation and need to maintain this central authority. Yeah, roads are useful, but they had enough communication routes in existence for their needs - in UK we are talking predominently about agrarian small scale communities. So it's a different kettle of fish I reckon.

Drinking too much water all in one go can kill you anyway, I think it's something like 15 litres, which washes all the salts from your blood and causes your cells to fail (upsetting the osmotic balance or something), probably before your bladder bursts. Full of useful info me.

Do you think Christianity provided that much political control? (I don't know - i'm interested what you think)

Oh yeah, I'd definitely agree with Virgil61 on this one - Augustine's Confessions are a great read! Massive, massive recommendation for that one!!

This is one of the main points that interests me about the whole terminology debate, it is interesting how negative definitions fall into regular usage. Indeed, I am aware that some people define their beliefs as 'heathen', an even more extreme case in point in many ways. I am aware that it may be confusing to use 'traditional/imported Roman religious practices/beliefs' or something similar instead of the neat 2 syllable 'pagan', or talk about specific peoples instead of using the umbrella term 'barbarian', but I think I am more raising the point that people need to consider the connotations of what they write in order to clearly construe their meaning, rather than demanding wholesale change in everyone's language! Does no-one think it an interesting point to consider?

A good point, no doubt partly a reaction against earlier persecutions and a way of proving the 'truth' of their beliefs?

No question? Do you not think so? I would be interested to hear what evidence you base this conclusion on. Personally, I understood Constantine to be sympathetic to Christianity, as to many of the numerous other religious forms available at the time, I wouldn't have thought it would occur to him that pagan institutions needed purging. But I stand ready to be corrected.

Ammianus Marcellinus Mid C4th End of Cassius Dio Zosimus + Eusebius for Christian perspective Theoderot - Gothic I think Libanius Gregory Nazianzus Also Julian's own writings are interesting - or good for a laugh, either way John Chrysostum For the later period I would recommend Gildas and Bede's efforts and also the great translation of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, ed. D Whitelock for Britain. Hope that helps a bit!

Are they actually sacrifices or just displays of strength/power?

I'm a new member to the forum, however, I have noticed something that I find quite interesting. It may be for simplicity's sake, but the vast majority of posters seem all too happy to use terms or names which do not actually explain what they are talking about, but defines it in opposition to something else. For example: Pagans - pagani originally from the countryside, farmers etc., but later taken on by Christians as a slur, presumably suggesting that all those who followed the traditional rituals were stupid, country bumpkins, that type of thing. Barbarians - tribes of people who were not Greek (originally) and who's language sounded like a meaningless bar-bar noise. So essentially this means silly people who aren't us, just like 'pagan' does. What I am suggesting is that terms such as this are too tainted to be used in what attempts to be as objective as possible a discussion, they are unhelpful and have too many negative connotations to allow a reasonable discussion of the subject to be had. Just thought I'd stir it up a bit htere, but I'm interested to know what other people think - is there an alternative, or should we just use these words regardless as everyone recognises them? Are there any other examples?

But Roman emperors had never needed an excuse to persecute people for political reasons before, so why latch on to a tiny sect for that reason? For what it's worth, I reckon the fall of the empire was due to a lot of factors, a lot of it the dilution of Roman structures and identity - the settlement of lots of 'barbarians' to create what turned out to be ineffective buffers, poor management of the frontiers and the resources esp. the army and I agree with what people have already said about Rome not meaning as much, the main blow to this in my book being the 212 Constitutio Antoniniana - how can you bribe people with citizenship when everyone has it, it has become worthless.

Hmmm, do yo unot think that the traditional religion of the Romans is actually just a different type of religion to Christianity, which is based on spirituality more than anything else? Also I have to disagree with the idea that the gods (and by extension, the Romans) had no problem with killing - human sacrifice in particular was frowned upon and considered as deviant behavious which threatened the Roman administration, hence their attempts to stamp out (or remove this rite) from certain religious sects, including the Druids and some Phoenician religions. But then again, there's always the punishment for a Vestal Virgin that strayed, so what do I know!

Possibly true, however, I wouldn't overlook the physical evidence of Constantine's actions and beliefs - consider the imagery on the Arch of Constantine for example - lots of trad. pagan images robbed from elsewhere, and a couple of references to 'Lord' and whatnot, which could be taken to reflect Christian tendancies, but if they did then it's certainly a cunning way to do it without annoying or alienating the pagan nobility who were still very much in the ascendant at the time. And on Helena, I can't say how much she is mentioned in contemporary histories, but she is certainly well thought of later on - attributed with finding the true cross for example, by Socrates Scholasticus later echoed by Theoderot... (Although Eusebius doesn't agree, untangle that one for yourselves!) It seems eminently possible to me that Constantine's tenuous Christian leanings were suitable for the later Church to exaggerate, thus giving them an earlier authority and also legitimising the later Christian emperors? Since then, the rumour of Constantine as the founder of the Catholic church has become entrenched, rather than strictly true?

Oh you rock my world - thank you!