Gladius Hispaniensis

That is an oddity. It might be an index of just how seriously the Romans took Jesus' movement. When the disciples were told to sell their clothes to purchase weapons it turns out there were only two swords between them. The unit and it's commander that were sent to the Garden of Gethsemane to make the arrest are known respectively as Chilliarchos and Speiran, or Tribune and Cohort. If this cohort included auxiliary troops I cannot imagine a body of men exceeding a thousand. So if the story is true then the movement was really considered small potatoes with the authorities.

Unless there is documentary evidence to indicate that crucifixion was used to punish any crime it would be wise not to speculate needlessly. Elaborating further on this theme, it isn't hard to understand why Christians as a group were so reviled and persecuted. The monstrous exaggerations of Imperial Roman propaganda notwithstanding, people back then understood something that today's moderns don't seem to realise, viz. that worshiping a crucified person was tantamount to deifying a person who must have been executed for sedition or armed rebellion against Rome. How, for example, would modern day Americans react to the presence of a sect that worshiped images of Timothy McVeigh strapped to his execution bed?

Yes, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles definitely need to be taken with a large block of salt. I think few people realise what a close run thing Hastings was. The stalwartness of English troops in defensive combat was glaringly apparent in the battle and would continue to be so for centuries after that - all the way up to Arnhem in 1944!

Interesting article. Thanks for posting. This might be a little off topic, but if the Norse invaders integrated so thoroughly into English society before 1066 does that mean that Harold Godwineson's army at Hastings had a substantial Nordic element in it? If so that is truly ironic because that would mean they were fighting their own cousins, in a sense, in that battle.

I just finished reading "The Spartans" by Paul Cartledge.

That's an interesting list of books Ludovicus. I'd love to get my hands on them. What I would like even more is a book that examines the reasons and the roots of the West's misconceptions about the Islamic world. Outside of a few scholarly circles, people still tend to regard Muslim history with a stereotype that doesn't need repeating. Admittedly the actions of a few idiots out there hasn't helped at all but I'm sure the answer is much more complex and it would be really nice if someone did a study on this issue.

Thanks for that article. I posted it on my Facebook profile. It's high time people started to have multidimensional views on any given issue.

That was my initial impression. Either way, the feats of physical strength and courage described in that book are quite incredible in some cases. That's why I find it so easy to laugh when I see these gang-bangers hanging out at street corners scaring old ladies with their Tupac shirts and low-slung pants.

Ave Going through Flavius Josephus Judaic Wars, one comes across a curious statement. The writer describes the horrific civil violence that was unleashed in the Holy Land and in Alexandria before Roman troops stepped in and portrays the two main communities involved, the Jews and the Greeks. He says that while the latter had an edge in numbers and wealth, the former had the advantage of greater physical strength and courage. I don't doubt the courage of the Jewish rebels, but given the Greek penchant for physical fitness and athleticism (which had no parallel among Palestinian Jews) I must take the "physical strength" part with a pinch of salt. I highly doubt the veracity of the statement and I wonder at why he would have said something like that. I'm curious to know what everyone else thinks.

Ave The downfall of the prefect Sejanus seems to be something of a mystery. I couldn't find any reason for why someone in such high esteem should have fallen so abruptly. Does anyone know what the Emperor's beef was?

I am now reading Michael Grant's "Herod the Great". Looks promising.

Currently reading Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. I'm rather new to Russian Literature so I hope I like it.

It would be interesting to do a study of the local vernacular in the area of modern day Turkey that was inhabited by the Galatians just to see if there are traces of the original Celtic that was spoken back then. That would be so fascinating.

"Soldier Sahibs" by Charles Allen. Good book about the men who made the North West Frontier of India during the British Raj. I wonder if anyone is interested in Indian history here.

That sounds interesting. Thanks for the posing Doc. Hopefully someone catches the lecture on YouTube.

Hello I am looking for a good book on the campaigns of Belisarius. Can anyone recommend any literature on the subject?

Oh I knew that. I was referring specifically to swords. The above examples are of the Gladius Hispaniensis and the later Spatha. I was looking more for specimens that predated the Second Punic War.

Just got started on "The Punic Wars" by Nigel Bagnall

Currently reading Shakespeare's "King Lear" Oh well.

I am getting sick and tired of bloody fools promoting this African/Nubian image of Cleopatra. When is this nonsense going to end? These are monsters that breed in the fetid swamps of historical ignorance and this is a real wake up call for the people that make up our school curriculi - we need to devote more effort and treasure to the study of history. Much, much more. Cleopatra, Hannibal, Rameses the Great - when are these Afro-centric idiots going to stop with their stupidity? Who is next on their list, I wonder, Scipio Africanus?

So I suppose I would be right in assuming that Englishmen from the southern and western part of the Isles have less Norse blood than northerners? I imagine this would also be reflected in surnames - although this might be a little harder to pinpoint.

That was an interesting article.

Ought to agreee with CC on this one; the execution of defeated leaders after a triumph seems to have been regular practice, and Pompeius was certainly bloodthirsty when required. In fact, Imperial historians tended to consider both CJ Caesar and Cn Pompeius Magnus too soft for their taste. It certainly was regular practice. It just wasn't something Pompey indulged in. I can't remember if I read that in Goldsworthy, Heather, or Holland though. He was horrible in other ways, just like the rest of them, but this was his one saving grace. In fact, here is part of Appian's description of a Pompeian triumph: "His chariot was followed by the officers who had shared the campaigns with him, some on horseback and others on foot. When he arrived at the Capitol he did not put any of the prisoners to death as had been the custom at other triumphs, but sent them all home at the public expense, except the kings. Of these Aristobulus alone was shortly put to death and Tigranes somewhat later. Such was the character of Pompey's triumph."

Ave Asclepiades Pompey had one saving grace IMO. He did not have prominent enemy captives ritually strangled at the end of a triumph. Other than that I completely agree with what you stated.

Well, there is no denying Caesar's gratuitous overkill but look at the source of the "claimed point of contention". The Senate, Marcus Porcius Cato and the rest. Should we not ingest the proverbial grain of salt? I'd like to know what made other Roman warlords such sweethearts. Caesar was not alone in practicing "gratuitous overkill".