Princeps

Not sure. I've got an HND in architectural technology. I chose the fourth option.

Hopefully I've got about 60yrs left, but I'm not sure which I'd go for. Cremation - I like the fact that it is linked with paganism, and was favoured by the Romans and Norse (and Celtic?), and I'd quite like to go out like Augustus, with an Eagle ascending from my Pyre and taking my soul up. Burial - I like the theory that God will decend (or send his associates) on Judgement day and ressurect my body. I'm leaning towards burial , though I don't have any real Religious convictions.

New season started yesterday- http://alexadex.com/ad/index.fcgi?ref=3860

I'd definately want a slave or two. They wouldn't fit into a bag though.

Probably Tacitus' Germanic war accounts.

Not bleeding obvious to me. Why would Roman conquest have prevented the holocaust? Fascism, at least, cut across Roman and non-Roman territories (Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan). The holocaust might not have happened." Even ommitting that very important part of the sentence, I can think of a few reasons. Being part of the Empire would have prevented the Nazi obsession with Arianism. It would also have (probably) changed the racial composition of modern day Germany, possibly with a lot less Jews. You clearly don't watch enough sci-fi. Even a minor change in the timeline can have massive unforseen consequences. I think pacification of Northern Europe would have been a major change.

I only managed to catch the final ten minutes unfortunately. However, I would give Boris 10 out of 10 for stating the bleedin' obvious ("Had Rome conquored Northern Europe the holocaust might not have happened!"). Hopefully they will repeat it on bbc 4 or something.

One thing I've been wondering about Viking invasions - why was there so little resistance? Vikings were fierce to be sure, but at one point raids were an annual thing. Surely some sort of resistance could be organised, it's not like there's no tradition of this for the island dwelling ancient Britains.

I think the obsession with the application of language and its alleged morality (or lack thereof), and the attempts to redefine the application of language so as not to offend those whom it allegedly oppresses, is rather politically correct in nature, don't you? Anyway, another poster on here once asked us to get away from using the term

His gradual mental decline suspiciously mirrored that of Spartacus (although their individual characters seemed quite different, Phil25 being more intellectual and less willing to argue in his own defence). Phil25 was certainly over-sensitive, this can be seen most clearly with his final "I'm taking my ball home" type comment. It's a bit puzzling to me when forum members do this sort of thing. I don't come here to argue, but I don't really object to a vigorous debate if the situation warrants it, as my previous heated arguments indicate ("fox hunting" and "The British invented death camps"). I don't think I'd consider storming off in a huff muttering "nobody likes me" whenever these type of incidents occour. I prefer P.Clodius' approach of temporarily withdrawing. I'm not sure that there was any backhanded comment about your intellect, merely that his disagreement with your point was (a wee bit hypocritically) not couched in the politically correct lingo that he seemed to favour. All in all a strange incident, that final thread of his. What on earth is it about? I've only skimmed it, but it seems a bit of a non-issue. Phil25 objects to the term "heresy" and would appreciate it if the world at large ceases to use this word? Very strange.

I think there's little point - mainly because I do the same, and so does everyone else, I don't tend to think "This person is a fool" when I notice an edited post. edit - wouldn't do any harm though.

The only site I spend any great amount of time on, apart from UNRV is- http://www.coolminiornot.com/forums/ (that's the forum section, the main site is a daily updated gallery of 64,000+ inages)

In addition, Belisarius fought with limited resources, he was pretty much hamstrung by Justinian, and his campaigns were frequently cut short, or he was forced to re-direct his attentions. He could have been Rome's greatest conquorer imo.

Hmmm, none of my fears are irrational, so they don't count as phobias. I never go in the sea (no-one would want to go in the sea where I live, and if I go somewhere warm I fear sharks).

Yeah this game is totally free.

Just to be clear, the fictionalised account I mentioned was based on actual known (or strongly supported) fact, it was the drama and personalities of the main protagonists that was fiction.

I have also heard the 10% figure (did you not see that BBC gladiator thing a while ago Phil25? I believe it was last christmas, 2004). Basically due to the reason you gave , expense.

Nope, no law against it.

http://alexadex.com/ad/index.fcgi?ref=3860 I'd buy them fast if I were you, they won't stay affordable for long! (so my insider contacts tell me). (warning, due to it's simplicity and awesomeness, this game is highly addictive. You can start straight away, they don't need your e-mail address). Edit/ oops, I didn't scroll down far enough. This is supposed to be in the after hours section.

Name your personal archeotype, and nominate others too! (all in good humour of course). http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm I think everyone here has a high percentage of "Philosopher" in them Unlike Profundus Maximus, Philosopher can actually be quite knowledgeable on a variety of subjects. Somewhat humorless and aloof, he is also slow to anger, and when he deigns to join in the fray he is considerate of other opinions. His fighting tactics are direct and uncomplicated - he smothers the opposition with his ponderous and lengthy cogitations. Only the strongest and most patient Warriors can survive an extended battle with Philosopher. Given my postings in the Imperial measurements thread, I think I'm "Tireless rebutter" (when I have the time and inclination of course) For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can't understand why he is universally loathed. I'd like to nominate RonPrice as an "Artiste", as I don't have a clue what his poems signify, but they seem to be at the crux of most of his posts. My personal favourite though, would have to be "Artful Dodger" Check out the moves on this geek!

Yes indeed, there are almost too many to have a definitive favourite. I suppose mine would be the unproven plot against Constantine (Crispus and Fausta). Personally I believe he had them killed because they were having an affair (his reform of divorce procedures and introduction of harsher penalties against adultery really make this a certainty in my mind), but many more learned historians than I seem to think there was a plot against him. Why is it my favourite? Because it showed how polarised Constantines personality could be. Wise and often merciful, he would preach to his courtiers about the virtues of goodness and the dangers of sin, yet he could be utterly ruthless when he needed to be, even against the closest members of his immediate family.

Want to rethink that? (clue - think of numbers above 6) EDIT/ As for numbers below 6, you missed 4 (for the metre). OK--you got me on 4, and sure you can also grab 25 and 50 too. But my entire point was that once the number of subdivisions goes beyond a certain number, such that one needs to make infinitesemal subdivisions (as in chemistry where you'd want to divide a unit by 25 and 50), the value of the metric system increases. As one needs to make a wide variety of small sub-divisions, the value of a 12-unit system increases. Think about it: why not employ a decimal system for time? Not to mention 10 and 20 (ok, ok, I'm doing it again). As for why not apply the decimal system to time, why not indeed? A quarter or a half an hour is still the same amount of time, whether the base unit is decimal or imperial (or whatever the hour measurement is called, I dunno if it's strictly refferred to as "Imperial" time). Not that quarter and half hours are generally employed on your side of the pond (I'm lead to believe 15s, 30s and 45s are more favoured, but I digress). Given that an hour is only 60 minutes, the sub-divider point doesn't even apply! (1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30, as opposed to a 100 minute hour - 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 - a tie in this respect). I think the question has been answered in your post PP. Why indeed have 1/16 instead of 6.25%? Notice you have chosen a relatively simple example there. Take a slightly more complex example (1/10th of a foot, as you mention), and the water becomes more muddy. We could all probably work this out exactly, but can anyone be bothered? Simplicity is the key. Imagine trying to teach your kids how to divide, I know that I'd prefer to teach 10% of a metre is 10cm, rather than 1/10th of a foot is (approx) 1 1/8 inches. I'm sure my future kids will prefer it too. It's all about progress. It's all very well saying "I can live with the more complex fractions, it's harder, but meh...", but civilisation/humanity in general won't get far with this attitude. I'm glad Thomas Eddison didn't say "I can live with oil lights. This lightbulb 'Progression' isnt worth the hassle." I'd like to sign out with one final thought - Thomas Edison did not invent the lightbulb btw. It was some dude from where I live, Northumberland, England.

Want to rethink that? (clue - think of numbers above 6) EDIT/ As for numbers below 6, you missed 4 (for the metre).

Hmmmm....a wise guy, huh? As PP implied, a meter is much closer to a yard (3 feet) than a foot. Also, how many centimeters is 2/3 of a meter? The answer isn't even: it's an unwieldy 66.666666666666666666666666--ok, you get the point. Now, how many inches is 2/3 of a foot? The answer is a nice clean 8 inches. Elegant, easy to find on a tape measure, no need to guess by interpolating between hatch marks. Again, the Imperial system stinks when doing chemistry because we deal with quantities that differ by orders of magnitude rather than by quantities that differ by orders of 2 and 3. I think that it's interesting that when you give people a free hand to choose which system they want (as in the States), the metric system rapidly gains favor in the areas where it really is most useful whereas the Imperial system generally persists where it is. So, again, I'd favor no jail-time for outlaw inch-lovers. ok this is kind of getting OT, but ye have reeled me in again. What is 1/10th of a foot? Dunno, but 1/10th of a metre is 10cm, elegant and easy. And of course, the good old metre is compatible with %percentages too, far more useful than fractions (incidentaly, I don't think the Romans had percentages. They certainly didn't have decimals). This brings us to the fact that Roman numeracy was well known to be deficiant in many areas. That's why we don't use numerals anymore (despite the resistance to Indian numeracy, it eventually prevailed over numerals, 'cos it's just so much better. Likewise, metric is considered a far superior system to Imperial by many. Most of the arguments in favour of Imperial rely on tradition, or as has already been mentioned, status quo). In yo face Imperial! :2guns: