sonic

I'm not sure about the situation in Australia. All I can suggest is having a quick search on the net or contacting a local bookshop. If it's not directly available, it then depends on whether you have to order from a British or American site (e.g. amazon.co.uk or amazon.com). I found this link that (allegedly) allows you to buy from either Amazon site: Possible Aus. link. Obviously, I don't know if it works! If you can order from the UK, it's available now: if from the US, it's being published (again allegedly) on 10th April. Hope that's of some help. If there are any problems, let me know and I'll get in touch with the publishers.

Yes, this is the first - and I'm extremely nervous about the reception it's going to get! The good news for me is that I'm currently writing my second, but I'm not allowed to say any more by the publisher!! I hope you enjoy the book (and thanks for buying it )!

I offer my opinions on that possibility in the book.

A little, mainly concerning the Italian campaign (obviously!). However, there is no real attempt to discuss his life in any detail: it is, after all, a book about Belisarius. Maybe at some point I should look at the possibility of writing a history of Narses. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that we have enough information on him to make a separate book viable.

The main criteria I would use here would be their first language. It was Greek. Belisarius was the last general to attain 'legendary' status who spoke Latin as his first language. I think that the decision to change the language from Latin to Greek was really an acceptance of reality: Latin was no longer the first language of choice - if it ever had been in the East. However the change to Latin is the end of a distinct phase in the history of the empire.

To whom it may concern: Belisarius is now out - I've received my copies - but the powers that be have decided to put the RRP at

Sorry: wrong thr ead!!

Too right I'm jealous!!

Oh Dear. Fancy having your birthday this close to Christmas. Have a great day and make sure you get enough enjoyment out of it to last you for twelve months!! (Spoken with all the smugness of a guy with his birthday in June - six months between presents!! )

It's generally thought that place-names ending in '-by' (Grimsby, Whitby, Birkby) indicate Norse settlement. For place-names, a good starting place is to read 'Signposts to the Past' by Margaret Gelling. But remember that the only way to really understand them is to read the place-names in their oldest forms, as recently many have changed to conform with spelling rules and accepted pronunciations.

'Egg', 'Skirt' and 'Window' are all either Norse or Norse-influenced. See, for example,Norse influence on English The subject is extremely complicated and open to interpretation on many points. Good luck!

Be patient ....

I have to agree with Maty. It is possible that Goldsworthy's latest will receive poor reviews from those who hold to the 'the Empire was going through changes but everything was still Roman and great' view. No doubt it will create some interesting threads on the forum!

Try reading Inker's account of the battle. There is a chapter at the end on the aftermath of the defeat. 'Caesar's Gallic Triumph: Alesia 52BC' by Peter Inker. If you're in the UK; Alesia at Amazon.co.uk If you're in the US; Alesia at Amazon.com If you don't want to buy it you should be able to get it from a library.

Actually, I think it fairer to say that the auxilia were little different to the legiones. I'm also slowly coming to the conclusion that, even in the earlier period, the major perceptions of differences are between those units in the auxilia that fulfilled specialised functions and the legiones. I don't think there was much difference at all between the majority of legiones and auxilia from early in the 1st century AD.

If you go to the homepage (unrv.com) and look at the menu on the left, at the bottom is 'shop'. There are a few items with logos etc. in there!

First, ask yourself why you are going back. Is it to improve your job prospects, or is it to sate your thirst for knowledge? This is the most important first question to ask.

I'm probably being a bit thick here, but what is the evidence for a decline in quality?

And so new languages are born!! As I said, some of it permeates, most of it doesn't!! Incidentally, for those who have never been taught the 'correct'* pronunciation of Latin, if you are laughing at the Chavs' pronunciation you probably shouldn't be : it 'should' be pronounced 'Et Kettera', not 'Et Settera'!! * For a given value of 'Correct'!!

It really began with the death of Theodosius I in 395. Although there was a trend towards the head of the army dominating politics in the West, it was only with the arrival of Stilicho that the situation became dangerous. Stilicho was the head of the West until 408 under the weak emperor Honorius. He was also Honorius' adoptive brother-in-law (i.e. married to Serena, Theodosius' adopted daughter) and his father in law (both of Stilicho's sons were married to Honorius). With the emperor a weak-willed and incompetent leader, Stilicho maintained control by dominating the army command structure until 408 when he was executed. After that it was realised that being emperor forced the emperor to remain in court and so alienated him from the troops, effectively losing the loyalty of the army. Therefore, the magister militum could rely on the army to support him in running the empire, leaving the emperor as a figurehead. Unfortunately, part of the price was the need to maintain relatively good relations with the Senate in Rome in order to raise taxes and recruits. The Senate opposed the raising of recruits, forcing the magister militum to rely more and more on using mercenaries. The army didn't necessarily become 'impotent': by the time of Odovacer the 'native' army was no longer in control, since this had passed to the magister militum, now supported by large numbers of mercenaries. Furthermore, due to the loss of territory and revenues (especially from Africa, Spain and Gaul) the army was reduced to the forces stationed in Italy. It seems that forces in the provinces were either absorbed by the local warlord/barbarian king or slowly abandoned their posts. Without Eastern aid, the remnants of the West did not have the strength to recapture lost provinces, without which they didn't have the resources to recover. When Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus the emperor had lost control of practically everything except Italy. He did not have either the resources or the inclination to attempt to restore the empire to its previous status. A fairly simplistic answer, but one which I'm forced to give due to lack of time.

Foul, foul!! Offside!! Your test wasn't fair!! You rang up your own son!! In a slightly more serious vein .... Your son should know what they mean. After all, you brought him up and you know!!! The children of people 'in the know' stand far more chance of learning something themselves!! It is too often forgotten - and I include myself in this - that when people talk about education and standards etc. the role of the parent is vital. If a parent questions the relevance of a subject, the child will almost certainly lose interest. The reason I knew these things at an early age was because of my mother explaining them and implying that they were useful. However, the rest of the people on the estate thought we were odd!! (Mind you, I don't think that was necessarily because of my use of Latin abbreviations!!)

I didn't say that. These, and a few others, are understood by the majority of the population, but as soon as you pass the handful including 'etc.', 'e.g.' and a few others then you are asking for trouble. Then people will not use or understand them. PS. Augusta: I've just had a quick look and I see that we are only separated by a few years in age. Having but recently left education as a teacher I'd suggest that, in many ways, the education we had as children is very different to that taught today. There is a nine year gap between myself and my other half and she wasn't taught in the same way as we were, never mind the difference between the 1960's and the 2000's. She's just read this thread and commented that the kids in her classes (mainly 11-13 year olds) don't like using e.g. etc. as they don't really know why they are used and are uncertain about where to put the full stops!!

Following on from Maty's excellent post above, Sonic, I would agree with you here, but I think you have chosen an extreme example. If one were reading a book in which footnotes cited 'op. cit.' we might reasonably expect that book to have an academic flavour, as 'op.cit' is a scholarly abbreviation and convention in footnotes. What Maty points out, however, is the banning of such widely-used and easily understood phrases as 'status quo' or 'ad hoc'. No, we cannot all have the benefit of a university education, but surely we should be aiming to enhance the layman's knowledge? I cannot see how this ruling would be in any way helpful. Yes, I chose an 'extreme example', but in a forum full of knowledgeable people that was what was needed to make my point in a forceful way. By the way, the vast majority of the population know 'Status Quo' as a rock group that only know three chords and have no idea what 'ad hoc' means. I know this to be true, because where I was brought up I knew and was considered 'odd' for knowing! I agree that we should be aiming to enhance the layman's knowledge, but in the case quoted the individuals using the abbreviations are not doing this: they are using these phrases to 'look good'. A layman's knowledge will only be enhanced if the layman wants it to be expanded, otherwise he/she will simply ignore it - especially when it is forced on them and only leads to them becoming confused. We need to remember that to many (if not the majority!) of laymen the Roman Empire is a thing of the past and Latin is a Dead Language. Although many of them know the meaning of 'etc.', or 'e.g.' they are not interested in its derivation or its full spelling. The average youth in Britain - never mind any immigrants - will not use any of these phrases in their daily language and will never use them when writing. And before anyone starts on claims of a 'decline in educational standards', I would suggest that they look at the past objectively. However far back you go in time, the teaching of Greek and Latin has only ever been to a minority (Public Schools (in Britain this means parents have to pay!), Grammar Schools and the like). The vast majority of children have always been excluded from this level of education. As a result, when they are forced to read them in leaflets and forms produced by government bodies it leads to confusion and uncertainty. Therefore, the orders to remove the phrases from such leaflets and booklets should be seen as a proactive attempt to make them literally available to everybody. However much we deplore the situation, we need to accept that - at present - the government-set level (not the standard!) of education means that the use of such phrases remains common to the few and is seen as pretentious and pointless by the majority. Whether this will ever change is doubtful: contrary to the view on this forum, the use of these abbreviations and phrases has never been common amongst the majority of the population.

HI all. Just to stick a spoke in the works!! I think that maybe people are getting a little bit overheated about something that's not really been reported well?? I remember last year that there was a news story that Christmas had been banned in a school in Britain. Actually, what had been stopped was the passing of Christmas cards. The headmaster took this decision because a minority of children had very few friends and were becoming upset about the fact that everybody else was getting cards but not them. Further, I think there may have been bullying about the matter, with kids 'taking the mick' out of those with no cards ('look at the loser with no cards and no friends' sort of thing). In this context the ban was a sensible one in an attempt to alleviate the situation. However, obviously the English press jumped in with 'Political Correctness Bans Christmas' and saw it as a soft approach in order to avoid offending Muslims etc. with the Christian festival of Christmas. I think that some of the same biases are prevalent here. Until relatively recently I was a teacher in a school with a large proportion of 'non-English' students. These students had to learn English as a second language, which is difficult enough, but the vast majority did very well and could easily hold their own. However, what I think the original 'ban on using Latin' was aimed at was not an attempt to 'dumb down' the language but a realisation that many non-English inhabitants - and many native English speakers - are not fully aware of the use of specific words or abbreviations taken from Latin. Many individuals - especially in regional government - like to show their intellectual abilities by using Latin phrases that are not known to the general public. Therefore, I think this order is a realistic one. No matter how much we deplore it, the aim of education is no longer geared towards an understanding of the origin of words or in attempts to broaden students' vocabularies by teaching them Latin phrases. We must remeber at all times that we are lucky: we DO understand these phrases (for the most part!), but that should not blind us to the fact that the majority of the population will look at a book on Rome, see the phrase 'Op. cit.' in the footnotes and not understand what it meant. In that context, the order is a logical and understandable one. For myself, I would look at the motive of the legislation rather than the 'tabloid' reaction. PS. Sorry to waffle, but I'm not having a good morning!!