journaldan

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but the conversation about the Itali caused me to reflect for a moment on the state of modern-day Italy. Since Italy was unified as one kingdom, in the 1860s, roughly the same time as the U.S. Civil War, it has kind of just muddled along, never quite able to enjoy the economic and political succes of some of its other European neighbors. Italy's closest move to the head of the line was a brief period of efficiency under the Mussolini government. Obviously, that didn't turn out so well in the end. Italy has always had to make due with being kind of a 1-B type of nation. Advanced compared to the third world, but not quite on par with the big boys. It fascinates me how a small handful of nations, perhaps 20?, have managed to advance so far, head and shoulders above the rest in just about every scale you might care to measure by, and most of the world continues to struggle. While the advancement of some countries has come at the expense of others, to a certain extent, this is clearly not the only explanation. England would be no less well off today if Italy was stronger. England did advance in part because of exploitation of India, but the continued economic struggles of India today have no direct bearing on England today. Likewise, England also benefited in part because of exploitation of the U.S. and Canada at one point, but clearly those countries seperated from England, grew to strength, not hurting England's own ability to grow in the process. I admit to not being an expert on modern Italy, but I wonder what it is that has prevented them from moving from the "almost" category to the top of the list? On the other hand, maybe I am just being an ugly American and should not be judging other countries by the standard of my own.

Sorry, thought we were talking greatest Romans. I must have blanked out on the "of the republic" part.

Nero: For meritous achievement with a fiddle. Caligulia: For lifetime achievement and breaking the barrier of main-stream theater via presence of his self-titled, Penthouse-produced X-rated film appear in general-audience theaters. But seriously... Constantine's decision to embrace Christianity impacted not only the Roman empire of the time, but has had a ripple effect that continues to this day.

I am surprised we've seen no commentary submitted by the People's Liberation Front of Judea.

Good question, Viggen about the availability of calendars. It seems like loans made for agricultural purposes, i.e. the purchase of seed; property rents or purchases made on time; even the collection of taxes could have been tracked without the use of a calendar. These things could have been done on lunar cycles, or in the case of agriculture, based on growing season cycles. Even in the U.S., the keeping of time was not standardized until well into the Railroad era when it became necessary for the engineers/conductors to not have to change their time-pieces -- and their schedules -- every time they pulled into a new depot. Again, the question then arises, how did the people of Rome in the 1500s even come to realize that their calendar was off by a dozen days or so? And really, what difference did it make to some poor schlep in a toga if today is March 12 or March 25?

My apologies to the group. Reading a recent posting between Martin and Primuspilas about a Roman calendar, I realized we missed a good chance to talk about the Roman Empire's influence on our calendar system and its most fascinating quirk, i.e. Leap Day. Having a son born on Leap Day, I should have been a bit more in tune. So, apologies for not posting this prior to Feb. 29, 2004. I am intrigued by the concept of Pope Gregory XIII's decree that the day after October 4, 1582 would be October 15, 1582. This was done to offset calendar irregularites caused by the lack of leap days up until that point. Of course, we live in wildly different times today, but could you even imagine such a change taking place now? It would be Y2K to the nth degree! I am constantly amazed at the scientific and mathmatic prowess exhibited by scholars in the so-called Dark Ages period. It is amazing to me, given the realities of the time, and the lack of tools, such as calculators, and even such things as pencils with erasers and cheap paper, the discoveries that were made in those times. Here's one link with the basic thumbnails on Leap Day and the changes in the calendar system: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/...anCalendar.html

Kama: While they certainly could do the things you mention in the 1940s, my understanding is that they did not. Otherwise the point of the exercise would be wasted. As to why didn't they conquer the New World, there's probably a couple of answers: the voyage was not a certainty and the crafts probably couldn't carry a whole lot, so getting military-type personnel and equipment to the New World was probably difficult. I suggest that the most likely reason for not conquering the New World was that, given prevailing ocean currents, such ocean voyages of the pre-1400s were more or less one-way trips, with very little realistic hope for making it home. So, assuming that these civilizations could cross the ocean in any substantial number, it would have been even more difficult to bring home the spoils of such activity. Why bother with the war if you can't get at the loot?

I think Thor Heyerdahl (sp?) proved decades ago that one could sail in a extremely primitive canoe-like structure across not only the Pacific but the Atlantic as well. If memory serves, on his first voyage, in the Kon-Tiki (sp?), a craft made from balsa woods, he made it from the coast of South America to somewhere in Indonesia. Aboard the Ra (again, sp?), a craft made of reeds, he made it from the eastern coast of Africa to the Caribbean. Heyerdahl did this with a small crew on the vessel with him. The trips took place in the 1940s, after World War II. He proved that using natural materials that were all but certainly available from the dawn of time, one could cross both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Maybe not every time, as I believe he had one voyage that also failed, but certainly with a fair degree of success. So, the question is not if it could be done. Rather, was it? And if so, by whom and when? Here's a Thor Heyerdahl link with a short bio: http://www.museumsnett.no/kon-tiki/Heyerdahl/

I have read several accounts of the role of Pilate, as portrayed in The Passion. Setting aside any theological implications -- which is a major concession in any discussion of these events -- I am interested in hearing the opinions of others on the Pilate-Caiphas relationship. In the movie, Caiphas is presented as the one more interested in sending Jesus to the cross. He clearly influences Pilate. One would think that Pilate would have little reservation in sending the revolutionary Jesus to the cross. He crucified many during his tenure. We know also, that eventually Pilate would be called to Rome to answer for the vast numbers of crucifixtions that were taking place "on his watch." Could Pilate have already been feeling rumblings from Rome that he was too stern? Is it possible that Caiphas could have had so much sway with Pilate? Certainly Pilate didn't care what the "average" Jew out in the street thought. Any thoughts?