Princeps

I didn't end up watching it. I read the pre-reviews, they didn't seem too promising. I opted for Braveheart instead (I'm slightly regretting that now, as I've seen Braveheart a half dozen times, but I couldn't resist given what the papers said about Hannibal).

Who is your favourite Roman God or Godsess? I'd have to go for Fortuna, Goddess of luck. Second would be Artemis (Greek) Goddess.

Yeah I just saw a trailer for this. It's on on Sunday - I liked the bit where it described the most powerful army on earth (the Romans!), they looked formidable. It should be great, I hope.

50BC - 200AD

Haha, you've inadvertantly stumbled on my theory of modern human evolution (the scumbags produce more, the decent members of society less = evolutionary meltdown).

p.s, do admin not get the "Ignore me" button? I have a button, but you don't. Not that I want to ignore you, but I'd prefer to ignore you than me! Usually.

Who are you referring to there Moonlapse? Personally I find "Ignore user" never works. You just end up sneaking a peek at whatever rubbish your "ignored" is spouting this time

Anlge, Saxon, Celtic, Norman, Nordic, Roman. Haven't a clue, there have been too many invasions of my little country.

Are there any proper (heh) i.e field archaeologists living it large? (without finding the tonb of a forgotten Pharoah or other such insane luck/skill).

For her sake, hopefully not. I can imagine her getting a few lawsuits in the future if she's thinking like that. (Kid dies of epileptic fit, which she's previously diagnosed as a mild case of scrofula, etc etc).

If I have pleased you, kindly signify appreciation with a warm goodbye. Augustus (reputed last words)

Heh, shouldn't have doubted. As if the mighty Roman Military Machine would neglect swimming lessons! (slaps self on wrist).

If you put me on the spot and I had to pluck an answer out of the air, I'd point to the various battles in which massive numbers drowned in rivers. This doesn't mean anything really (given the strengths of some rivers and all the gear they carried), so it's virtually irrelevant, and my short answer would be - no, I can't think of any sources. Did ancient armies generally take the time to teach swimming? If it was common (which I doubt), I'd guess that the Romans did. Total amateur guesswork

I'm not sure if the capitalisation/bold text is supposed to suggest that I don't know how capitalism works ('cos I do), but are we agreed then, that it is a fair wage? At least fair, maybe a tad on the low side because universities are insufficiently greedy. Yes, indeed they are

I'm not sure if the capitalisation/bold text is supposed to suggest that I don't know how capitalism works ('cos I do), but are we agreed then, that it is a fair wage?

I agree, sounds like typical no-proof sensationalism type history. What evidence was presented?

Anyone can survive on that money? So what? Since when is that a legitimate standard for deciding on wages? At least in the US, archaeologists and anthropologists can generate much more than 40k/year simply through the credit hours they teach to undergrads, let alone all the rest of the money they generate. A legitimate standard on deciding wages? What is this exactly? I for one would love to sign up for a review. I'm not sure I can answer the question you put to me before that ("So what?"). It was pretty much a stand alone statement I made, I'll need a bit more than "so what?" before I can expand any further. I'm sorry if I've offended you. The average (according to that link anyway) is actually 52k. There's a massive difference between that and 40. No-one is ever forced to become an archaeologist (well I've never heard of it anyway). I'll say again, $50k seems fair. How essential are archaeologists? I'd say they're not (in fact I can say this with some certainty. They do not fit any of the criteria of essential workers). I earn a lot less than that (legitimately). A lot of the work I do is essential for the continuous well-being of my community. It's no use waving a piece of paper and a mortarboard whilst saying "look at these, I demand legitimate compensation." I'll ask you a question (don't worry, it's not going to be "so what?") Why do archaeologists deserve more than 50k? (rather pissed at M. Cato's glib response, incase anyone hasn't guessed. Please don't patronise me M. Cato). $40,000 (

Hence the gradients. Seems fair to me. Anyone can survive on that money. They're doing an interesting job that they enjoy (one would think), and how useful, relatively, are they to society? 50k is fair compensation in my opinion. EDIT -Average annual turnover - 183. Oh dear! I guess a lot of potential archaeologists find alternative employment.

Dejavu

I disagree! In fact I feel the opposite is true. Time is an enemy of truth imo. Death and Glory are the twin sons of war. (slightly OT as it's a literary quote iird, but suitable I think).

Ursus, pm me the details of the Roma group, I would like to join it if possible.

Very true. All western medieval kings and Byzantine emperors were Christian, yet many of them were extremely unChristian in their behavior. Didn't his son, Constantius II, try to crack down on pagan rituals? I think you are viewing Christianity in a very C20th/21st way there (If I am reading your statement correctly). It has never been a gentle religion, if that's waht you are suggesting by UnChristian. In fact, it still isn't. As for the rest of the thread discussion, Constantine apparently didn't persecute Pagans at all. He gave incentives to Christians though. More carrot than stick, from what I've read.

Germanicus pm'd

Are you a real Doc, Docoflove? Pertinax, I would add you to my list if you were on Myspace. But alas...

Does anyone here keep a blog or a Myspace account etc? I've just started one.