Marcus Caelius

Why do you find it difficult to believe? Many natives (Beothuk) + few Norse = bugger off. The amazing thing is that they managed to stay for as long as they did.

Just ran across an account of the possibility that some of Crassus' legionnaires may have ended up in western China. Before I give any specifics, I'd like to see what other accounts, opinions and/or evidence might be out there. Anyone?

I'm reading The Ghost Map, about the 1853(? - terrible memory!) cholera outbreak in London. Counterintuitively, one reason the epidemic became the worst outbreak in the city's history was the onset of modern sanitation, via the installation of a citywide sewage system that allowed city dwellers to stop storing their feces in their own cellars. I keep contrasting this with ancient Rome and the Cloacta Maxima. Imperial Rome had, what? one million residents throughout much of its history? And the Cloacta Maxima had been there from the first and, presumably, used for sanitation from the first. Indeed, perhaps Rome's most outstanding, if not impressive, feature was the copious amounts of water allowed, forced, to flow into, through and, most importantly, out of the city. So, the contrast is that London was the world's largest city in the 1850s, with twice the population of 2nd-century imperial Rome. Question: In it's 1,000 years, how many outbreaks of cholera did Rome suffer? To my extremely limited knowledge, the answer is "None." ETA: Hmm, let me rephrase. Both ancient Rome and 1850s London discharged their waste into their respective rivers. The difference was the Roman aqueducts; the affected Londoners drew their drinking water from the Thames, downstream.

Err, no. Guys, I am quite literally a card-carrying skeptic, and the rules of evidence are the same for debate, science, law, archaeology, etc. The person making the claim bears the onus of persuasion. If the possible use of concrete in the original construction of the pyramids is something new, then it is up to the proponent to present and argue the meaning of the evidence. If a more prosaic explanation for the presence of the concrete exists, then that explanation must be overcome by the new evidence.

I still don't get your concern. I'm not acquainted with the personalities concerned, but it's bad science to adopt an attitude one way or the other until the evidence is in and analyzed. Forgive me for saying so but, not being acquainted with you, either, it appears from my vantage point that you could be judging the argument by the proponent. Just thinking it through, I'm always leery of test results and such that initially appear to challenge or invalidate an accepted position, especially if I have some sort of investment in that position. If I'm eventually proven wrong, well, I'm proven wrong. However, I really dislike those occasions where I've admitted error too soon.

I believe it actually goes back to William Wyler's Ben Hur. Wyler said he specifically wanted British accents used for the Romans, while American accents would represent the Judeans (the Romans were the bad guys, remember). This was from the movie's souvenir booklet.

Magalus? I don't hold out hope for retribution; the sod chose a god so obscure even Wikipedia can't find him. Doesn't say much for Maggie's dependability.

So? Approving a study does not inherently require assent to its findings. I don't see your point.

Is "at university" British for "in college"?

Read further, in the same article:

What's that about a little knowledge being dangerous?

Wasn't quite sure which group to post this in or what to call it. Anyway, I run into a lot of "foreign" names in my job. Here's a woman's name, from Tamil Nadu state, in India: Mithravindhaa Seshadrirajah, also written Mithra Vindhaa Seshadri Rajah. I've got an idea what "Rajah" means, no idea about "Vindhaa" or "Seshadri." I gather, though, that the cult of Mithras isn't quite as dead as is commonly believed? Just thought this might be of mild interest.

Hmm... Here's a slightly different view of "I, Claudius" than what I've seen here (from The Straight Dope, emphasis mine): All six writers were hostile to Caligula for one reason or another, and they agree that he was not a very nice guy, to say the least. But there is a strong tendency for the stories to get progressively wilder the further removed the writer is from the emperor's times. The trend continues apace, with some of the wildest stories of all being invented for twentieth-century fictional works: the 1934 novel I, Claudius by Robert Graves or the 1976 miniseries based on it and on its sequel Claudius the God; the 1942 religious novel The Robe by Lloyd C. Douglas; the play Caligula by Albert Camus (first published in 1944 but written several years earlier); and most of all, the 1979 big-budget glorified *or* flick produced by Bob Guccione. In addition to the ancient sources on Caligula, some of the stories told about Caligula in these modern fictional works appear to be invented out of whole cloth, while others seem to be inspired by stories Suetonius related about two other imperial bad boys, Nero and Domitian.

I wouldn't go quite that far. However, as I've said here(?), it is appallingly easy to hoodwink very well-educated people. For example, Werhner von Braun actually believed Uri Geller could bend spoons with ESP; Conan Doyle believed in spirits and thought Houdini had paranormal powers; etc. I've avoided advertizing another web site I'm involved with, but if you're really interested in rational thinking, take a look at http://www.randi.org/ You'll find me in the Forum, by the name of "Beady".

The Time-Life series on the Civil War is/was an excellent general reference, combining a surprisingly comprehensive text with a multitude of photographs and illustrations. The description of Lowe's balloons and portable hydrogen generators was terrific. It should be in the library of every non-specialist; I believe they can still be purchased online from Time-Life or, if all else fails, there's always eBay.

Hint: I've already given you enough info to lob a missile at my house. Well, I guess that's true. Is that why I'm more interested in college-age girls than they are in me?

Or Ben Hur, Gladiator, The North and the South... The list is endless.

We already do. The first report I remember giving, probably in 6th grade, was on the Roman Empire. Couple of years ago, I was rumaging through some books that survived from my parents' library and I came across an organizational chart I had drawn of a Marian legion, stuck between the pages of a Bible dictionary; I vaguely remember drawing it about the time I was in 9th grade.

Are you saying this is a good thing?

The answer is rather subjective: If 10% of the population believes in some sort of psuedohistory, is it "as many as 10%," or "as few as 10%"? Then, you're going to have to define "pseudohistory." It can include everything from von Daniken to Pearl Harbor, Project Apollo, the Grassy Knoll, and 9/11. If you figure that an awful lot of people believe in at least one of these "alternate explanations," then my 10% figure is disgustingly low. And then, there's the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon. Is that a form of psuedohistory, or did things happen the way the four gospels, the five books of Moses, etc, say they did? There are an awful lot of Christians, Jews and Muslims in the world. Does this count as "polluting the minds of the majority"?

I think you're overexplaining it. Some people will simply believe, period. The most famous example I can cite is that Arthur Conan Doyle absolutely refused to believe that Houdini did not have paranormal powers, even when Houdini insisted. There are educated people who truly believe that David Copperfield actually made the Statue of Liberty vanish. And so on. What's truly bothersiome is that I am not even mentioning the more-extreme cases.

I think maybe "we" expect too much of the Great Unwashed. Most people have their hands full, just trying to house, clothe and feed their families. They need a certain body of knowledge to do this, and even a passing acquaintance with ancient history usually isn't it. Question: How knowledgable was the average Roman-in-the-street about Greek history, literature, etc?

However, it's difficult to not feel sympathy for Buzz Aldrin.

It was definitive. The Civil War has been called "The Last Battle of the Revolution." I'll venture that most peoples have such moments in their histories, and those moments are their "eras of choice."

I'm not judging them by our standards, I'm pointing out the inconsistency of ordering our lives and our views of the universe according to their standards. As you say, "Different times, different standards, different realities." We know more now than they did then; our knowledge has certainly increased to the point where Credulity should be* considered as big a sin as they considered Blasphemy to be. *Subjunctive - reflecting a case other than present reality.