Jimbow

But the question is, did they learn Hebrew or Aramaic? Or did they use translators. I imagine they could be very different to Greek or Gallic, and especially Latin.

Now, call me a grufty Northerner, but:- Jesus and Caesar were two completely different men, they did completely different things, and they lived in completely different places, at completely different times. Where is the connection? Please? Smacks of the DaVinci Code to me. Bobbins. IT'S A MAN IN THE PAINTING!!!!

Wow - you mean they had a Van Helsingus? Top banana. He was originally Roman in the film wasn't he? Now I get it

By that, do you mean there was no actual popular belief that early Christians practiced the Eucharist literally, actually eating the flesh and drank the blood, babies supposedly being a popular victim? Or, do you dismiss it because it's just plain silly? If it's the latter, I'd say that if there was popular belief that happened, it would have more to do with the persecutions than anything. Imagine if the national tabloids reported that about, say, Kaballah or Scientology? I think the FBI and Special Branch would have their own task forces by now, even if only to placate popular fears. The collecting of relics must also have been reviled, as this was the despoilation of the dead which was a major no-no traditionally in Roman society? Jim.

Bearing in mind 'SPQR' was displayed on some standards, I don't see why it's that unfeasible. What else could it be? The mark of an Emperor makes less sense to me, especially as the only real option prior to Augustus would have surely been 'SPQR' or the Legion? As the legions were subservient to Rome, and their loyalty jealously watched, I'd go for 'SPQR' just to make sure the soldiers knew who was the real boss. Jim.

Vampires. Definitely ancient vampires

There's an auction for diploma fragments on Ebay now, if you're interested: Ebay mil diplomas Jimbow.

Try this link to Legio XX: Segmentata patterns Jim.

Centurion: You know the penalty laid down by Roman law for harboring a known criminal? Matthias: No. Centurion: Crucifixion! Matthias: Oh. Centurion: Nasty, eh? Matthias: Could be worse. Centurion: What you mean "Could be worse"? Matthias: Well, you could be stabbed. Centurion: Stabbed? Takes a second. Crucifixion lasts hours. It's a slow, horrible death. Matthias: Well, at least it gets you out in the open air. Centurion: You're weird! And here's the entire latin lesson People called Romanes they go the house?....

I'm not with any, Primus. I've been working on a story and some images for a while, bought a Gallic H for reference, and suddenly found myself surrounded by the whole lot In the end, the choice was golf or something else, and I really don't like golf

Which in the UK is a bit like saying: .....taking offence to someone saying "damned canadians" just cuz you're american.......

Hey Marcus, can you quote the written evidence for this? If it's in the Bible, understand, I may question the accuracy of the so-called biblical record. As for historical evidence for 'the scourge's' purpose to be execution and not punishment, what is it? I think the film "Passion of the Christ", which is what the thread is about, is pornographic, and only serves to propogandise Christian fundamental views, Catholic or non-Catholic, which I find sometimes quite equivalent to 12th Century views. I really have no problem in saying that, if anyone takes offence. It is a subjective film. I do not hold it in any esteem when it comes to historical accuracy, but just as another Hollywood flick with more gore and "so-called" realism, and with an impassioned maker. At its time, "The Robe" was probably less gruesome. By comparison, I find the whole depiction very cynical, and 'sensational' is a good word to use for it. It has no depiction of the 'love', only the 'suffering'. But, maybe that's why it's called the Passion. I would absolutely question the whole depiction of Jesus Christ in Hollywood over the years. The fact is that NO FILMMAKER has dared to go with the subject to the degree it could be taken (Paul Verhoeven apparently really wants to do it), and He is labelled as the most controversial figure in history by many, including those promoting his worship. The only film with any true 'investigation' of the whole subject has to be "The Last Temptation of Christ". Based on a much maligned novel, it is a genuine attempt to humanise Christ, but still retain "His truth". I obviously don't believe in it all at all, but that's my choice, which many should say is 'God-given'. The fact is that the director made it and financed it. It's his right, good on him, just to make that clear. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Now, the Gospel of St. Thomas. There's a subject........... But, this is a Roman Forum. Speaking of which, while we're on the subject of films: [brian is writing graffiti on the palace wall. The Centurion catches him in the act] Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house? Brian: It says, "Romans go home. " Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on ! Brian: Er, "Romanus" ! Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is? Brian: Er, er, "Romani" ! Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" ! Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt". Centurion: So, "eunt" is...? Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go". Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...? [He twists Brian's ear] Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative ! Centurion: Which is...? Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" ! Centurion: How many Romans? Brian: Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" ! Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it? Brian: Dative ! [the Centurion holds a sword to his throat] Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" ! Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...? Brian: Er, "Domum" ! Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times. Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir. Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off. Considering how much the Romans liked to grafittii - that's very very plausible

And as a Brit, all I'll say is 'U-571', and 'the Patriot'. We had no Navy and burned all the townsfolk in their churches....... hmm.

I believe either execution was allowed (stoning for adultery, etc), but Jewish law forbade crucifixion - the only way to have Jesus crucified was to have the Romans do it, hence all of the politics. Or on the on the other hand, it may have been Roman law that only they could exercise the right to crucify, it being one of the worst ways to die by execution, if not THE worst, thus reserved for them alone. Jim.

I think the tactics of Hannibal taught the Romans a few things. The flexibility and brute force of the legions tactics was supplemented with a more unified command and an improved cavalry. They replaced the citizen-soldiers with paid professionals who underwent thorough and constant training, although there is opinion that the draft continued for some time regardless. It could be said that Scipio actually introduced battle tactics for the first time, using manouevres and strategy, and not just relying on the skills of the individual legionaries and marching them at the enemy. The abandonment of the phalanx must have been an adaptation to the need for tactics in hillier terrain. Most likely, the hill tribes of Italy hardly met to discuss which open plain they should fight on next morning, as the Greeks often did. The Celtic sack of Rome in 390 BC may have had a large part in this. As for equipment improvement, the one that springs to mind is the addition of the crossbars to the top of the helmet, supposedly in response to the Dacian falx. Pteruges also may have been seen more thereon, along with greaves for the legs, and manica for the arms. Also, the very fact that during the 4th C BC bronze helmets were abandoned for iron ones must also have been in response to weapons used by the enemy. Bronze ones were re-introduced later in the 2nd C BC, but had more thickness than previously. Correct any mistakes, anyone. Jim.

Lol

I need to point something out about the First Crusade being a reaction to the atrocities of Islam against Christianity. It wasn't. It was an overeaction to a simple request from Alexius of Constantinople to the Pope for some soldiers to help defend his borders, not for a horde of starving bloodthirsty pilgrims. The Pope saw it as a political chance for a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and a war for the sepulcher, and it all got out of hand. One of the major motivations for Urban's plea was that he wished to unite Europe, rather than see it continue to war with itself. This is a major factor, and gave him the chance to not only stop the constant warring, but to unite under HIS banner of the Catholic Church in Rome. When the crusaders arrived Alexius was horrified, and wouldn't let more than a handful into the city at any one time. I think there is also a lot of mythologising coming from the other angle. Also, when you speak of "Islam this" and "Islam that" I would be very careful of generalisations, and consider using the term Turks. Remember that the Egyptians held Jerusalem until 1070 before the Seljuk Turks took it from them. It was only then that Christians were banned from making pilgrimages to Jerusalem. To constantly refer to Christians and Muslims is to sink into broad historical generalisations, as much of what happened during the Crusades was just the usual business of political and territorial expansion by individual groups. The Christians also fought and competed with each other, not just the Muslims. They also had a big problem with Jews, as seen even in Europe before they even got near Jerusalem. What did the Jews have to do with it? And, for that matter, if they came across anyone not OBVIOUSLY Christian, the same fate awaited them. No matter how you look at it, Christian atrocities predate Muslim ones, if only by the simple fact that there was no Islam until the 7th C. Even the Turks, up until one major point in the story of the Crusades, treated Christians and Jews with some respect, and it was actually local Arabs who came out worse as a rule. To use the difference between pre-empowered Christianity and Roman Imperialised Christianity as a means of stating Christians actually are pretty good guys historically, and then ignore the difference between Jerusalem under the Egyptian Muslims, and Jerusalem under the Turkish Muslims stating they were all bloodthirsty, etc, is pretty crass imho. As far as I'm concerned, a religion, like a political creed, is defined by the actions of its devotees, ESPECIALLY when they have power; that's where the true nature of the man and his creed will only be revealed. I don't care about the writings, I care about the actions. Also, and this has been somehow overlooked during the conversation, isn't Islam a fine example of monotheism coming from polytheism? Jim. P.S., How on earth could any Roman soldier be a practising pacifist? I personally think that's complete nonsense.

Well, that depends on the distance. Longbowmen could loose up to 9 arrows over 30 seconds, which gives plenty of shots at the charging knights at all manner of ranges. In tests against a steel breastplate, a bodkin-tipped arrow would dent the armour at 80m (260ft), puncture it at 30m (98ft) and penetrate right through plate and underlying doublet coat to the flesh at 20m (65ft). Figures based on tests made at the Royal Military College of Science Testing Ground. However, the Italians had a secret weapon. The fact remains that at Verneuil the Italian armour couldn't be penetrated by the English arrows, unlike other armours. I dare say you could call it a Middle Aged version of tank armour. I have no doubt the Italian morale was much higher than the French morale. In fact, they were probably lined up facing the English chuckling away and nudging each other knowingly. Because they managed to get all the way across the field pretty much unscathed, unlike their French paymasters, they cut through the longbowmen like a hot knife through butter. Unfortunately for the French, the Italians proved to be the worst tacticians, as, instead of taking advantage of their success, they decided to loot the baggage train instead. The English regrouped and beat the remaining French, even though they were heavily outnumbered by 2 to 1.

Well, maybe for a more contemporary view of Christianity, here are some criticisms by the Greek writer Celsus written in the 2nd Century, responded to by Origen a century later: Celsus' view of Christians and Christianity

Well, the jury seems to be out on that one. But, the resounding victory at Agincourt seems to have had something to do with French knights being stuck in the mud. and, horse armour was certainly weaker........ But, the fact that the English were surprised by the resiliance of the Italian mercenary knights' armour leads one to suspect the armour was pretty poor with the French overall, especially when their lines were cut through by the Italians. Otherwise, why the big surprise? Jim.

The original question was asked, and answers were provided. I honestly wouldn't dwell on it too much.

Hey there dnewhous, Here you go (took a while to find it) Ch4 documentary The Battle of Verneuil, 1424. It was in a TV series called 'Weapons that made Britain'. "...... The French pulled back to Verneuil where they were joined by reinforcements, including 2,000 Italian cavalry. These knights and their horses were encased in the latest hardened full-plate 'arrow-proof' armour, which would be seeing battle for the first time ......... the heavily armoured Italian cavalry charged against the English frontline archers. As the latter's arrow storms fell, they failed to stop the thundering advance, and the archers' line was ultimately smashed by this new phenomenon of heavy cavalry. The almost impregnable Italians raced through the English force and set to looting the baggage train ....." It was an excellent documentary series, and they actually filmed some of the same armour being made by a modern armourer. It had a bluish tinge, I seem to remember; a result of the special hardening method. Come to think of it, it could have been Genoese armour? Jim.

Not the case so far as I'm aware. In the Hundred Years War, Milanese armour stopped even arrows from the English longbow, it was that good. The arrows just bounced or stuck without full penetration. The English almost lost their part of France, had the Italian mercenaries wearing it not decided to loot the baggage train and forget about their French paymasters The French armour was not as good as the Milanese. Can't remember the battle, will post if it comes to mind. In fact, there is a theory that the English longbow was not all that effective against French armour.

Lol BOO!!!!!!! again