Gladius Hispaniensis

Good point. I didn't consider that. But the Gospels do make it clear that Jesus' disciples "forsook him and fled" at the Mount of Olives. I would think that they were considered small fry compared with Jesus himself and Pilate might have earmarked them for future prosecution once the Messiah was dealt with. History and legend bear witness that his immediate following were eventually hunted down and executed. For some reason that's still not clear to me, the authorities seem to have wanted to get rid of Jesus before the advent of the Passover feast, hence the urgency for the crucifixion. The disciples could always have been dealt with later. One other possibility is that the Romans and their cronies probably expected the Jesus' Messianic movement to fizzle out after his execution. They probably were not expecting a belief in a resurrected Messiah to come back to haunt them. When it did there seems to be no doubt that they made short work of the so called Jerusalem Church. How I wish more contemporary documents would have survived that could have probably shed more light on the matter.

Sure. But how improbable compared to there being a family of "Jesus, son of Joseph"/"Mary"/"Mary Magdalene"? It's like finding a tomb of John/Paul/George/Ringo, and saying it's just a coincidence that they have the names of the Beatles. It's possibly a coincidence but not statistically likely. Does it really say Mary Magdalene though? As for Jesus,Joseph and Mary, I thought they were fairly commonplace back then.

Caldrail, sorry for the off-topic comment but Jerusalem was actually occupied by the Fatimid Arabs during the First Crusade, not by the Turks. It is amazing how often this little bit of data gets overlooked during discussions of that era. Are you sure about that? The Pope used a lot of persecution horror stories from Christian pilgrims in order to whip up support for his pet project. Even granted the possibility of exaggeration there, I wouldn't cavalierly dismiss the possibility that there was some persecution. The Fatimids on the whole were very tolerant (except for one phase in their history) but the Turks were rather new to the Islamic faith and had also relatively recently undergone a transition from a crude, nomadic life. I would be willing to entertain the possibility of over-zealous Turks mistreating Christian pilgrims, even if, as I said before, the latter may be using a lot of embellishment and exaggeration.

IIRC crucified people were even denied proper burials, let alone expensive ones. This is actually an old chestnut. It has actually been pointed out in the past by people like Haim Cohn, etc. Crucifixion was meted out for sedition or armed rebellion and as such the victim was denied burial as a part of his punishment. That coupled with the absolute horror with which Jews regarded the handling of bodies "hanging on a tree" makes the likelihood that the tomb belongs to a crucified Jesus rather improbable.

You know, just as a thought - I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to investigate the linguistic roots of people currently living in the part of Turkey that used to be known as Galatia. We know there was a massive migration of "keltoi", whatever was meant by that term, into that part of Asia Minor, in the Classical Age. I'm pretty sure everyone speaks Turkish now but I wouldn't be surprised if certain basic words of the language they used when they moved into the area still survive. This would give an intriguing clue as to who the Romans and Greeks really referred to when they said "keltoi" - the Celts as we know them today or the people who had linguistic similarities with the Germans as Neil is suggesting.

Ave Well, when I did my "A" levels in Chaucer, I was actually pleasantly surprised to see how many words were actually intelligible, to me at least. It does, on the whole, require commentary and even translation at times but I think I could pick out a common linguistic skein. E.g the opening part of the "Pardoner's Tale" in the Canterbury Tales: "IN FLAUNDRES WHILOME WAS COMPANYE OF YONGE MEN THAT HAUNTED IN FOLYE" It doesn't take much imagination to realize that what is being described here is a group of young men in Flanders that indulged in all types of folly. I would be curious to know if such similar threads can be picked out by people that are familiar with both Welsh and Irish Gaelic.

Ave Just got done with "Jesus and the Zealots" by S.G.F Brandon. Rather dry and academic but a good read nevertheless.

I am currently reading Peter Heather's "Fall of the Roman Empire"

Thanks for the info Melvadius. Those articles were quite edifying (no pun intended). I must say the sculptures of the menorah and the shewbread look different here from what I remember from my school books.

Ave I am not sure this is the right place to ask this question but according to a book I am reading now there was a different Arch of Titus from the one we have now that was apparently destroyed in the 15th or 16th century. Does anyone know what were the circumstances in which the other monument was destroyed? Any information will be appreciated.

Melvadius, can you give me a link for that programme? To be honest with you this kind of stuff is not really my line of study - I am used to reading much more sober stuff - but I do need some material with which to debate all those bizarros and whackos out there that would swallow any codswallop that comes their way and expect others to do the same. I must admit Hancock is new to me, but back in my adolescence I was familiar with other kooks like Berlitz and von Daniken that held so many people in their thrall a few decades ago.

Does that mean that you think the premise of the documentary is self-evident or that you disagree with what the experts in the documentary are saying?

Ave I'm not a person easily given to wild conspiracy theories and New Age nonsense but here is a programme that does pose some challenging questions: This is a five part series hosted by the Discovery Channel featuring, among others, Graham Hancock (yes, THE Graham Hancock) that challenge some of our most fundamental beliefs regarding the origins of ancient civilization as we know it. I would like fellow forum members to open-mindedly view the documentary and share any thoughts they have. If there are any Egyptologists here I would especially like to hear from them.

Charcoal still is used in some rural parts of India.

Ave Here comes one of my droll queries: How did people maintain oral hygiene in the Roman world. Heck, how did they maintain it in the Classical world at all? Now I do know that the Arabs used olive twigs as tooth brushes, a habit that can be seen to this day especially in rural areas, but what about the rest of the known world? Thanks for any information in advance.

Although there is a linguistic similarity because of their both being Semitic languages, I doubt that the Phoenician tongue is derived from Hebrew. More likely it is the other way round, as the Phoenicians were an established community in Palestine before the arrival of the Hebrews there. The linguistic similarity can be seen in the choice of certain words, e.g. the shofetes that were so influential in Carthage have an echo in the Hebrew shofetim which means judges or advocates. Interestingly, the word for intercession in Arabic is shafaat. Go figure.

What really sets off my curiosity is - how the hell did the Romans communicate so effectively with their foreign auxiliaries? Especially on a battlefield where time is at such a premium? I know the British in recent times had officers that spoke Hindustani, Swahili, or whatever in order to handle their Sepoys and other "native" troops. Possibly the Romans had a similar system?

The Wali's son Ibrahim Pasha was considered a fine general in his time. He was responsible for crushing the power of the Wahhabis in the Arabian peninsula.

Ave Why are Roman names that start with G sometimes written starting with C? Like Caius instead of Gaius? Goldsworthy is one author that I can think of that does this on a regular basis. Would it then be alright to substitute G for C? Like Glaudius for Claudius?

Ave PP. In what way specifically? And are you referring to any particular tribe?

Wow! Simply amazing. The Northern Irish connection is just undeniable. Somewhere down the road Americans seemed to have brought about a change in vowel pronunciation though.

Ave Maybe some of the linguists in our forum could help out with this one. No matter where you go, you can easily pick out a person from North America from the way he/she speaks. There are obvious differences within the continent itself, so a person from Alabama would sound completely different from someone in Nova Scotia, for example, but I just wonder where this idiom originated. The way the Irish pronounce their "r"s sounds uncannily North American so that gives me an indication of some Irish influence there. But the rest of it is just a mystery to me.

Ave I was wondering if Caius Claudius Nero who defeated Hasdrubal at the Metaurus was a direct ancestor of the Emperor Nero? Nero does not seem to have been a very common name.

Ave Currently reading Goldsworthy's "The Punic Wars". Whew! That was the best description of Cannae yet.

I don't see how. If anything, Poitiers proved the efficacy of a solid mass of heavily armed and disciplined infantry against a headlong cavalry charge.