Princeps

A 12-unit *anything* can be subdivided more easily than a 10-unit measure. "More easily" meaning, "by more divisors with none remaining". For example, 12 / 3 = 4, 10 / 3 = 3.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333, you get the point. The Imperial system is quite good at dealing with "middle-sized, middle-distanced objects" (e.g., in making a box), and so it shouldn't be surprising that so many different cultures alighted on 12-unit measures across so many domains. The problem is that 12-unit systems don't scale up (or down) very well: the number of yards in a mile (1760) doesn't make any sense at all. But when you think of it as a 1000-paces, you're suddenly at the cusp of the base-10 world of metric. Now that we have computers and calculators and the like, making these easily divisible without remainder is pretty trivial. The Imperial system was standardized, so I don't know what you're talking about with respect to standardization. Fair point, but the equivalent to a foot (ie 12 inches) is actually a metre (from the point of "units" at least) - inch -> foot Centimetre -> metre And the metre can be divided, with no remainder, by so much more. With respect to standardisation, yes, a semantic error (though, if we're being technical, the 1000 paces you mention, from which a mile apparently originates from, is not at all standard, but that's not what I meant, as you probably guessed). Anyway, I'm just arguing for the sake of it now, I see what you mean by a 12 unit measurement being more useful for construction of objects that fall into that range of distance, but that's about the only use I can see for it. Metric is better, I'm glad they prosecuted the guy from Sunderland. Many people thought it was outrageous, but I was all for it. Gotta do something to wipe out Imperial forever.

The metric system is patently more logical and far easier. The Imperial system is archaic and, quite frankly, a total relic. Unless you measure things in "hands" , "leagues", "Furlongs", "Wigwams", or anything else, you should stop using Imperial. M porcius cato - I don't understand your reasoning there. Divisions of 2, 3, 4, and 6 are just as easy, if not easier, in metric. Thats the whole point of the metric system, the standardisation. There is one, and only one advantage to imperial (imo), and that's phonetics (six-in-ches is better than ten-cen-ti-met-res). I really hate Imperial measurements.

Arabia Petraea.

Primes are very important, more important than you might think. I'm no mathmatician, so I can't fully explain their signifigance, but I once watched an hour long show called "The mystery of the primes" (something like that) where it explained their importance. One thing that comes off the top of my head is cyphers/encriptions (esp. internet security) but that is a relatively recent development, they were important long before that, they're possibly the most signifigant "group" of numbers.

Glad to see they found the largest prime! They used to think that there was an infinite amount, but this is clearly madness. I'll have to read that article when I'm fully compus mentis.

Hmmm, I'm slightly dubious than I was before. I have already expressed my dissappointment at the lack of epic battles. This is acceptable - budget constraints and what not. What's not so good though, is the historical innaccuracies, and more so, the plot inadequacies. I didn't see the first of the double episode, so I can't comment. I saw the very end of the first/start of the second part, where Vorenus saves Pullo from death in the arena. If I was being kind, I'd call this silly. If I was being unkind, I'd call it "The worst bits of Hollywood" (This description can be applied equally to Vorenus' wife's suicide). Almost as dissappointing was the promotion of Vorenus to Senator. I'm not sure about what precident had been previously set in this regard. I would have thought he would need at least some personal wealth, but meh. What I really didn't like about it was how "convenient" (ie lazy) it was as a plot twist. Also, another question - it seemed as though Octavian was situated in Rome at the time of the assassination in this last episode. Am I missing something here? Overall a good series. Hopefully it will be better next series (most shows do get better as the progress).

Ok I think I may have wrong-footed you all with the term "Cavalry" - this of course refers to hand-to-hand fighting units, armed with lances, swords and such like. However, the author also explicitly refers to horse archers. As I'm sure you can appreciate, infantry is highly vulnerable to mounted archers, even if the infantry itself is supported by foot archers. Given this, do you still suppose that legionarries can fight effectively against a force with a strong equine contingent composed of cavalry and mounted archers?

I've just got hold of a very nice book entitled "The age of Fuedalism - 336-1300". It really is a gem of a book (whoever said the dark ages weren't all that dark was right. Although it's a little different to what I'd normally read, more religion and less war than normal, it is fascinating). Anyway, what does Fuedalism have to do with the Roman military? Well, one of the passages in the first section says that Rome's Achille's heal was the cavalry - they simply could not compete with the horse-driven Germanic invaders. I know that Roman cavalry was once thought of as quite primitive(sp), the lack of stirrups being one major factor in this. However, it has been proven that the saddle design they used was sufficiently effective that they could function adequately without stirrups. I believe that Romans still didn't employ cavalry en mass though (I may be wrong). This got me thinking, can any of the experts point to battles towards the end of the Western Empire where the Legions were defeated as a direct result of insufficient cavalry use? Does anyone agree with the author of Fuedalism, that it was their major weakness? (I am as yet undecided). There were also other interesting statements about vikings and such, which raised some questions in my mind, I'll post them in "After hours" later.

Claudius asked if there was a "kind of" fatherly relationship, not a literal paternaty. I'm not sure, but if I had to take an un-educated guess, I'd say his relationship with Antony would be stronger (as he had been to war with Caesar, and did not betray him in the end). However, I also think that Brutus' betrayal was justified.

Lepidus. Chief Praetorian (I think), part of the Octavian "Triumvirate" (Octavian, Antony, Lepidus).

Yeah I'm just ribbing you. As a reader in the early/mid nineties, I would consider Friday to be the original (I think the final series united the two characters, I can't remember how exactly the story resolved itself though).

Nope, he's a fraud. You can have Friday, but not Rogue Trooper.

I like computer game characters like Paul Phoenix, King, Mitsurugi, Ryu, Akuma etc (I usually have one of these as my avatar). I used to read comics when I was younger, my favourite would be Slaine (appropriate for here, battling the Romans for control of Ancient Britain).

A good place to read mythology- http://www.pantheon.org/

I've been interested in ancient Rome for as long as I can remember, I think that comes from my dad, but I began to truly love it when I watched the "I, Caesar" series by seventh arts. As for the film Gladiator, it is exceptionally good. The ending is a real tear-jerker, there's only 2 films that can bring a tear to my eye, Gladiator and Watershipdown.

What is your favourite mythical beast / monster? (From Greek or Roman mythology). Mine is the Minotaur. The intelligence of a man, the savage aspect of a beast. A close second would be the Talos.

AFAIK he most definately did spot Octavian. As you say he was a great speaker and propagandist, an this lead him to make several speeches about the moral corruptness and treachery of Antony (ranging from him taking a barbaric Egyptian wife, through to his conduct at public banquets ie consuming too much alcohol and vomiting into his lap).

Vile traitor! Why would anyone choose to abandon the sunny skies of Manchester? Madness.

Well I get a lot more than I give, so I'm already ahead! Hopefully I can give more than just opinions over the coming year. I've invested in some more Roman books, maybe my knowledge of all things Roman will be expanded in 2006.

Ah, thanks. That's the button I use on most forums, I didn't notice it. Easily better than active topics.

Any chance of moving the "Today's active topics" button on the forum homepage to the top of the page? It waould save me some scrolling when I log in.

Guess the quote, who said this- That it is within my power to rule over you for life is evident. However, I am mild by nature and have no wish to dominate. Let me live my life in peace

Send me your mother's email address and I will convince her that all online personas are kind and good. By force if neccessary.

What do you have for your current wallpaper (remember no hotlinking from sites that aren't youer). This is a Hyneria, a massive predatory fish from the Devonian era I think.

To me there are several things that define the Romans. Porcius Cato's point about contradictions is very apt- -Tolerance - Roman society could be extremely tolerant. Instead of attempting to obliterate other cultures, they would often integrate instead. This is contradicted by their brutality though. A multitude of religions were tolerated, there were all kinds of esoteric cults and such scattered throughout society. However, some sufered edicts of persecution. -Practicality and pragmatism - Roman commentators would often deride the great monuments of other cultures, citing the fact that Roman creations were not merely works of art, but served a function (aquaducts, the Collosseum). However, their aesthetic tastes were highly advanced also. -Ingenuity - Both militarily and socially. Many of the social cornerstones of Roman society exist even to this day. However, they could be dogmatic in their views at times. -Confidence - They were supremely confident in their superiority over neighbouring cultures, centuries of dominance proved this. However, they could also be extremely insecure and fearful.