WotWotius

You obviously have more of an open mind than I do. There is evidence to suggest that Cleopatra's father was the product of political marriage treaty: his mother may have been a concubine from Nubia (or from an area with lighter-skinned inhabitants). So does this make Cleopatra 100% black? Probably not. The Romans, who wrote about her rather extensively, probably would have noted it. Besides, the few busts (I do believe there is only one) of Cleopatra that remain depict her as having Caucasian/features. Just because Hugh Gaitskill died of a tropical disease does not mean was assassinated by the KGB; though the manner of his death was fairly eccentric, I find it hard to believe that the Russians would go to effort of using germ warfare against a minor player sitting at the Cold War card table. And as Wilson being a KGB agent--various tapes of Wilson being secretly interviewed by the press divulged that he was himself incredibly paranoid of both Russian spies, and coups from the British aristocracy (if you would like further details, please inquire). Bubba-hoptep Not really evidence, but a brilliant film involving both historical characters--greatly recommended. No, the original article in History Today (the article I provided was just a commentary on it) implied that, during the Battle of Britain, the Navy's contribution was a much more important one than the RAF's. I am of the belief that during the fateful months of 1940, the RAF was Britain's sword and the Navy acted as her shield. I do not however, see how sole credit could be placed on the shoulders' of the Navy. The main point of this post was that some Historians (in order to gain recognition) tend to document History on the opposite end of the spectrum, with no room for middle ground. For instance, instead of claiming that Cleopatra may have been black, a career conscious revisionist historian may just state that Cleopatra was black...full stop. I have nothing against people revising history; I just want people to do it properly.

I didn't imply that all form of revisionism was poppycock, I merely said that the whole concept of the Royal Navy single-handedly winning the Battle of Britain was a bit to hard to believe. Besides, my point was that some historians have a tendency to muster-up controversial angles of History based on very sparse evidence, often resulting in articles such as: was Cleopatra black?; was Hugh Gaitskell murdered by the KGB?; Did Elvis shoot JFK?

Hehe

Bolton is the way to go!

I can see the relevance of the Royal Navy during this period, but what really threw me was the fact that the historians presented their arguments in a 'the Royal Navy won it and nobody helped' way. I suppose they thought that controversy, at the expense of belittling the deeds of the RAF, was the way to receive prominence.

Well that cleared that up. I did not really research the matter, I just thought the quote from Plutarch was quite intriguing.

Here. is a useful link. For some reason, the city of Cincinnati, Ohio has a statue in his honour. Does anybody know why?

Thank you, a list would be very much welcomed.

The other night, positioned in my bed after an evening of revelry, I was rudely awakened by what sounded like the house collapsing. Initially the noise didn

You may have been heard in the news that many revisionist historians are now saying that it was the Royal Navy's, rather than the RAF's contribution, that stopped Germany in 1940--basically, the sheer presence of the RN was enough to deter a full blown Nazi invasion. I personally believe the idea to be poppycock, and that as with most so-called revisionists, historians in question are only 'revising' (or rewriting) history in order to have a basis for a career. Who would protect the Navy if the RAF were destroyed? I've said it once and I

Do you know if its the BBC or HBO Version out of curiousity. I didn't know that there was any difference.

What would you do with eight Treadmills?

'After the spectacles, a census of the people was taken, and instead of the 320 000 of the preceding lists there were enrolled only 150 000. So great was the calamity which the civil wars had wrought, and so large a portion of the people of Rome had they consumed away, to say nothing of the misfortunes that possessed the rest of Italy and the provinces.' -Plutarch's life of Caesar. I am curious to know whether or not these figures are accurate. Could civil war have decimated Rome's populace so greatly? I find hard to believe that any civil war could half the population of one of the greatest cities of the age. Even if it did, surely the great loss of life would have documented in less of a 'matter of factly' way that Plutarch gives. Furthermore, later census' taken by Augustus give figures of around half a million: '...the number of Roman citizens was 4,063,000. Again in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinus [8 B.C.] I [took the census, when] the number of Roman citizens was 4,230,000. A third time...in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [14 A.D.], with Tiberius Caesar as colleague, I [took the census when] the number of Roman citizens was 4,937,000.' Res Gestae Clearly Rome population quadrupling from the time of Caesar to Principate of Augustus, is a very unbelievable concept to grasp. Or was it a mistake of Caesar's? Perhaps the previous figure given by Plutarch was the population of the Italian peninsula, and Caesar's later Census only counted the populace of Rome. Maybe Caesar's census did not include females. What are your views? Additionally, I was wondering if there are any other sources regarding Rome's population during the late Republic.

'After the spectacles, a census of the people was taken, and instead of the 320 000 of the preceding lists there were enrolled only 150 000. So great was the calamity which the civil wars had wrought, and so large a portion of the people of Rome had they consumed away, to say nothing of the misfortunes that possessed the rest of Italy and the provinces.' -Plutarch's life of Caesar. I am curious to know whether or not these figures are accurate. Could civil war have decimated Rome's populace so greatly? I find hard to believe that any civil war could half the population of one of the greatest cities of the age. Even if it did, surely the great loss of life would have documented in less of a 'matter of factly' way that Plutarch gives. Furthermore, later census' taken by Augustus give figures of around half a million: '...the number of Roman citizens was 4,063,000. Again in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinus [8 B.C.] I [took the census, when] the number of Roman citizens was 4,230,000. A third time...in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [14 A.D.], with Tiberius Caesar as colleague, I [took the census when] the number of Roman citizens was 4,937,000.' Res Gestae Clearly Rome population quadrupling from the time of Caesar to Principate of Augustus, is a very unbelievable concept to grasp. Or was it a mistake of Caesar's? Perhaps the previous figure given by Plutarch was the population of the Italian peninsula, and Caesar's later Census only counted the populace of Rome. Maybe Caesar's census did not include females. What are your views? Additionally, I was wondering if there are any other sources regarding Rome's population during the late Republic.

So was Deva the base for a legion other than the XXVV?

Ouch! I lost mine six months ago, horrible business; it involved lots of cutting, opening, pulling and stitching...thank the heavens for anaesthetics! I do hope your removal goes ok.

I have been viewing this idea with great interest and curiosity. Though up until now I have chosen to remain silent on the matter, I cannot refrain myself from mentioning the following points: When the moment requires it, I and many other forum members, tend to use contemporary sources to support issues raised.Additionally, during serious discussion, throwaway comments along the lines of

My choice would have to be Aurelian (270-75 AD), the 'restorer of the world'--restitutor orbis. He achieved many great feats in the short space of just five years: he both crushed invaders on the frontiers, and quelled revolts; snatched back the Eastern provinces, usurped so audaciously by Zenobia of Palmyra; and after he defeated the detached Gallic Empire, Europe once again, was placed under the wing of Rome. Additionally, he is remembered for his construction of Rome's Aurelian Wall

Many slaves in Ancient Rome were indeed stereotyped. For instance, Greeks were generally seen as academics

According to Herodotus, the Persian king, Cambyses led a failed military expedition in Nubia. Thereafter every other expectation into Nubia initiated by later monarchs

'Tiredness kills, take a break drink' -a road sign I noticed on my way to Plymouth.

Where exactly is Tarantum?

I do not believe I have played a Caesar game before, is it a RTS?

That is indeed the true. However, this was only done to a cohort which fled too early in battle. Interestingly, in order to stop this from happening again, the self-made millionaire made his troops put a cash deposit on their weapons to discourage them from dropping them and fleeing in battle.

I think that early October would be the best time for me too.