WotWotius

Ok, here is a nice open-ended question for you all: Why is History written? My personal view is thus: It is a means for individuals to shock, inform or emphasise their interpretation of the past.

It seems that people are trying to generalise about something that clearly cannot be generalised. Depending on where you are, and what time frame you are situated inside, ages of antiquity vary immensely; you may disagree, but this what I believe. For instance, the fall of Rome, and with it the emergence of the 'modern' European states, is often considered the end of European antiquity

If my memory serves, it is speculated that the site of Troy may have been a Hittite city. Could anybody expand on this?

History in the Movies. History in Film. Sorry, I must have overlooked your post.

This is probably one of the few History-based films that will not bother me if it is historically inaccurate: the main aspect of the film is style.

Osprey books often depict Galatians as armoured warriors; I am not sure if this a reputable source, but there has to be some true behind their drawings. I think the naked, but noble savage we see in the tri-podia statue from Perganom, was erected with more Romanism than accuracy. As mentioned earlier, the Galatians may well have been more

Yes, despite the fact that I agree with a sparse amount of his political and social views, the man is indeed very funny. I have just re-read my original post, and, it seems that I must have written the above post in a moment of intense anger: the man is an arse, but a harmless one who should not be taken seriously.

Yes, I believe it was a copy of a statue erected in Perganom to commemorate a victory over the various Galation tribes. The original, as I was told, was part of a tri-podia statue: on the left podium was the beautiful, yet pathetic depiction of the 'Dying Gaul'; the centre one showed a more noble Galation holding his dead wife in one arm, while he gloriously fell on his sword; and on the right, if my memory serves, was a fallen warrior. Below is an artists impression: In regards to contemporary sources on the Galations themselves, I vaguely remember Strabo writing about them. Does anybody have a quote handy?

The other day I met a Turkish archaeologist in the local student bar (I think he may have been using the university to further some research). We got talking about the cultures of Asia Minor, and it turns out that he has done large amount of fieldwork involving ancient Galatia. The only problem was that his English was not particularly good; therefore he was unable to elaborate on his points, and I could not ask him all the questions I wanted to. I feel that this was just a missed opportunity. What I tired to ask him was: in terms of culture and customs, how exactly did the Galatians differ from the Celts from the European mainland? I know that there were some language differences, but does archaeology prove the Galatians to be vastly different to, let's say, the Gauls. Any ideas?

Wow! Thank you for such a great wealth of information. Is there anywhere I can get a copy of the book mentioned above?

So, do we have some sort of list of who is coming?

I basically agree with your explanation because it accounts for the most salient fact that has to be explained--that the empire fell at different points in time in different locations (depending entirely on where the barbarians were invading). No internal conflict theory can account for this fact. That said, Rome had defeated far more formidable enemies in the past, and when defeated in the past (e.g., by the Gauls or by Hannibal), Rome recovered. Why don't you think Rome recovered from its final defeats? The loss of patriotism and the old Roman spirit? The lousy economy? The apocalyptic beliefs spread by Christians? Something else? What I find strange is that during the fall of the Empire, Rome was unable to tap in to the vast amount of manpower that she had during the Punic War period. Was it because the Empire's populace was so disillusioned that they did not mind the transition into the Dark Ages? Or was the Empire in fact overwhelmed?

...hehe

Impressive indeed, but I already have those maps in book form.

I missed it! Has anybody found it on Youtube?

Just to reiterate my point: if you believe the above thesis and believe that the Atlanteans could have possibly been Minoans, their apparent war with Athens may well have been a reference to a war between the Minoans and the Mycenaeans on the Greek mainland.

Yes from a large scale perspective Epirus was only a minor player after the death of Pyrrhus, but the Epirotes maintained some independent regional signifance until the Macedonian Wars. Though Pyrrhus was not 'defeated' after his invasion of Italy. He still spent some time trying to expand Epirote authority on the 'Greek Peninsula'. Had he not been killed, seemingly by a fluke, in Sparta, who knows what may have happened. What I find strange is that Hannibal (if we are to believe the story about the tired general meeting Scipio) viewed Pyrrhus' military strategies in high regard. Though there is some military merit affiliated with Pyrrhus, the man was not exactly a conjurer of victory. I vaguely remember reading that Pyrrhus may well have had great logistical abilities, but was just very unlucky; I am not sure if this is the case as my knowledge of pre-Punic war Rome is scant at best. What are everybody's thoughts?

That is where I will probably be staying anyway: I have a student friend already residing there. If you want, I can ask her if there are many rooms available during term time. Excellent WW ,please do so . I was nitending to contact the college of Ripon and St John , but please proceed! I am a little busy this week--I have started my dive into Classical Archeaology at University, meaning I have to do the rounds on various pubs...--but I will get round to it sooner or later.

And probably the Picts and Caledonian, and maybe the Brigantes: according to Tacitus , they came from Germany, though this seems fairly hard to believe as he was as bad an ethnographer as he was a geographer.

That is where I will probably be staying anyway: I have a student friend already residing there. If you want, I can ask her if there are many rooms available during term time.

Sorry, I did not mean to jump-start an age old debate, which, on UNVR as well as everywhere else, has probably been done to death with no real conclusions made, and with nobody changing their starting opinions. Also gives a fairly informative overiew, giving the lengthof the time period it covers. If I get any time this month, I may well review it.

I also owed this book--MPC has pretty much got it in a nutshell. However, I do not tend to agree with Philip Matyszak's assessment of Caesar: 'It (the Gallic War) masks the war's horrendous cost in human life and suffering (one historian describes it as the greatest human and social disaster until the settlement of the Americas.) It also hides the fact that the war was fought for Caesar's enrichment and glory. Contemporary Romans were well aware of this, and there was a movement in Rome to hand Caesar to the Gauls as a war criminal.' Seeing that Matyszak restrains himself from making any moral judgements on the other famous Romans he writes about, his view of Caesar seems to be fairly biased. Yes, Caesar did invade Gaul with a great amount of bloodshed, but the violence of this campaign would not have been viewed as a unique case: the 'war crimes' charge was just an excuse for Caesar's rivals to hold something else against him; and yes, Caesar also was a ruthless self-promoter, but this personality trait was found in most of the characters Matyszak looks at. Oh, and great review Cato.

I am of the belief that the main reason for the fall of Rome was due to barbarian incursions, rather than internal conflicts. At its height in the 2nd Century AD, Rome could only be viewed as an impossible miracle come true. The Empire was colossal in size in size, and was kept alive, not because of her ability to defend her frontiers, but because her frontiers never experienced large-scale pressure. When they did (during the 3rd/4th Century), they crumbled. Basically, what I am saying is that the Roman Empire was not so much weaken, more overwhelmed.

No, nothing near me, but I appreciate your effort.

But surely, the fact that Tiberius Gracchus roused so much support based on his claim indicates that the effects of latifundia were not as insular as you make out. Even if you claim that latifundia did not directly affect the lives of the rural poor, their sheer presence was enough to cause discontent among the poor: they were an indication of just how much wealth was accumulated by the nobility (which by no means trickled down to the lower classes) as a result of Rome's expansion