frankq

Again, the word ''scientific'' has a misleading ring to it. It denotes too much the left brain field. As scientific as archeology tries to be, and philology, they aren't sciences, nor the arts of deduction and speculation which are tools of the historian. I don't like the word revisionism, but I disagree that it has only been used in the negative sense. The word first popped up RE the revamping of African-American history.

Scientific Inquiry? Uh, naaa. Too complicated. Revisionism is still the best term but it's not a good term. In fact it has a bizarre ring to it. Scientific inquiry is too stuffy.

Anyone immediately know the real deal with Alexander the Great's Sarcophagus? According to Wikipedia, which can be either on target or highly inaccurate: Alexander's body was placed in a gold anthropid sarcophagus, which was in turn placed in a second gold casket and covered with a purple robe. Alexander's coffin was placed, together with his armor, in a gold carriage which had a vaulted roof supported by an Ionic peristyle. The decoration of the carriage was very rich and is described in great detail by Diodoros. According to legend, Alexander was preserved in a clay vessel full of honey (which acts as a preservative) and interred in a glass coffin. According to Aelian (Varia Historia 12.64), Ptolemy stole the body and brought it to Alexandria, where it was on display until Late Antiquity. It was here that Ptolemy IX, one of the last successors of Ptolemy I, replaced Alexander's sarcophagus with a glass one, and melted the original down in order to strike emergency gold issues of his coinage. The citizens of Alexandria were outraged at this and soon after Ptolemy IX was killed. Its current whereabouts are unknown. Many Romans went to pay their respects to his body. Caesar, Antony, Augustus, Germanicus. And naughty Caligula even had his gold breastplate removed. I've been searching for reference that, since his body was moved to Egypt, it might have been mummified.

Anyone know anything about the actual political status of Jamnia? Some background on the place first. It was a city near the Judean coast, primarily Jewish, and bequeathed to King Herod's sister Salome upon his death. Upon her death she gave it to Empress Livia. Now Herod Agrippa was arrested here and here's where things get fuzzy. The Jewish prince was escaping debts in Rome, and, according to Josephus, the procurator of Jamnia had him arrested. Note again: procurator of Jamnia. All of Judea was incorporated as a province by this time. I have found no map showing it had a separate status. Anyone know anything about this? PS And yes, it was the city where the Jews trashed an emperor's statue and Caligula got pissed.

Barrett's book was what led me to this monstrosity. I just finished reading Barrett's excellent work, superb indeed. I had seen it listed alongside Barber's book, was quickly steered away, got Barrett's history instead, read it, and in going back for more Caligula stuff, delved deeper into Barber's piece and was appalled. This kind of exploitation riles my blood. In fact, it got me about as angry as watching Pearl Harbor. Messing with history and not respecting facts is a red carpet rolled out for propagandists.

Has anyone read the book Caligula, Divine Carnage, by Barber? I was checking around at Amazon and read a few blurbs. Is this guy kidding? Can authors get away with this kind of sensationalism? Already from a few pages I can see that he's an outright liar. This isnt fiction he's abusing, it's history. Sacred Roman history!

What books do you folks recommend on Tiberius? For someone who I deem the true tragic figure of the Julio-Claudian line, Tiberius is in need of a great deal of vindicating and re-examining. I've recently been reading bits and pieces of a book on Pilate by Wroe and she she's hell bent on using the old anecdotal references to him as the gruesome old pervert. The facts actually speak much different, IMHO. Any case, what books are up to date and what books aren't?

I'm getting a lot of hits but interesting that no one else has come across this book. Indeed, I don't think anyone is trying to be rude by not responding, but I personally can't recall ever seeing it. I didnt feel it was rude at all, it just verified my suspicions that this fine book has been lost to readers over the decades. (It has a horrible index, though.) Funny how that happens. Any case, my post was a form of test or way of calculating its popularity or lack thereof.

I'm getting a lot of hits but interesting that no one else has come across this book.

Cool, and I appreciate, but this concerns more directly happenings at home in Rome. I can't think of any other circumstances aside from Caligula...

How closely related? There are many instances of cousins and such, but I assume you mean siblings? Oh yeah. First cousins? My God, what a hotbed then of breeding against the genetic strain, both X and Y chromosones.

Can anyone think offhand of any other cases of incest amongst Roman nobles other than Caligula's bad conduct with his sister?

Has anyone read Cyril E. Robinson's Apollo History of Rome? It was my standard text book in college back in the 70's. A well-written and sober account of Rome. I find little on the Net about it.

Excellent link! Here, by the way, is another good link: http://www.intermirifica.org/lent/passion7.htm Drops you in the middle, you can go back and forth. Well done description, though beware, I think it's a Christian website.

Excellent link!

Hypovolemic shock Definition: Hypovolemic shock is a particular form of shock in which the heart is unable to supply enough blood to the body. It is caused by blood loss or inadequate blood volume. Sounds right.

I don't think its been discussed (at least not in the grim details you are looking for) OK. Then I feel relieved since I did a search. What was the name of the foot-bar used that the victim stood on? And which permitted him to stand, get blood circulating in his upper limbs, and which naturally extended his drawn out agony. Wasn't death basically a form of pulmonary and cardiac overload? Or was it plain asphyxiation?

Could someone guide me to a thread about crucifixion, the grim anatomical details? I can't seem to find what I want.

Varus served well as governor of Syria, and stomped out the rebellion of 4 BC in Judea after Herod's death. He knew when to act and when to strike. But speaking in military terms, Germania was different turf than Judea. And Germania's terrain spooked the Roman legions. Throughout history, capable leaders often end up playing the fall guy. Any case, Varus was first and foremost an administrator, not a general.

Indeed, you know what part I found amusing? How he calculates the rate the Germans could chuck spears. Again, I got this Loony Tune image of cartoon warriors hurling away. Your strongest point of all was that he fails to refute the other theories. Or refuses to support his own. The fact that he didn't put into the bib and I'm still searching for the authors he refers to and who support his view I find inadequate and even a dereliction of scholastic duty.

Back again. And yes, my reaction was as you pointed out, Wells doesn't go on to give his reasons for a one day massacre, nor, more importantly, does he take the trouble to refute and discredit the traditional 3 day scenario presented by Dio C. Rather than create a seminal work, he's given a bold opinion. And to credit his scenario created German warriors throwing spears in such rapid number that it's at a pace that would be more reminiscent of a cartoon. He quotes other authors who support his opinion, but doesn't even put them in his bibliography. Because it's uncertain what happened, he apparently feels he can set out in new directions without a strong defense.

Virgil, thanks! The livius.org link I already know, in fact it was one of the sites that inspired me to question Wells' book. I've just printed out your review and already in quickly glancing at it I picked this out: Professor Wells makes assumptions that a 25 year-old infantry squad leader today could correct. This too hit me. Even if the Germans had machineguns, you know how long it takes to cut down 20,000 legionaries? Who, moreover, are not trained to march like clones out of Star Wars. Will get back to you and this thread oce I read your review.

I wrote a review on it here on UNRV. The chief archaeologist of the site has made statements that disagree with the author stated outcome of two hours and I think even the evidence leans against his analysis. There are some great chapters within the book, but his speculation needs a lot of work. His background focuses on the Germanic tribes of the region and he seems to bend over backwards to try paint them in a positive light going to far as to ignore the fact Varus was a bonehead conducting movement through a narrow passage. In fact he seems to hint, if I remember correctly, that blaming Varus' incompetence is akin to doubting the military prowess of the Germans. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Virgil, can you give me the link to what you wrote? I'm having problems and only finally was able to get back onto the site. I had my bro-in-law send me an English translation of the battle. And of the bib which in Wells book is rather paltry. He quotes guys he doesn't put in the bib, too. I just think there is no way you're going to annihilate 20,000 legionaries in a few hours. And he has them marching like robots, or like out of a Marx Bros. comedy.

If I could read Swedish better I'd know. But I've heard this revisionist scenario before. I'm neutral. Just looking for my facts. And yes, cutting through 20,000 legionaries is no small task.

Has anyone read ''The Battle that Stopped Rome'' covering Varus' defeat at the hands of Arminius and the German tribes? I am attempting to fight my way through a Swedish copy, to no avail. (Much different than Norwegian.) Any case, there are two schools, the old school that states the battle took three days or the new school that maintains less than one day and a few hours at that. What I'm getting as I wade through is that this book advocates the latter approach.