Spurius

What a choice, three trollops/courtiers and a psycho emporer. While I'm tempted to say Agrippina, just because Nero wouldn't have gotten far without her initial efforts, I'll have to follow the trend and say Nero. Nasty-boy there... Really, you should have thrown some others in there...people of power...

Yes, that was what I was thinking of, but in relation to its uses in an Islamic army. The n

Related but off topic question- I know there was a system used from horseback for their short bows that enabled them to fire a rough equivalent of a crossbow bolt; meaning ability to fire a shorter, very weighted or even metal arrow, for greater impact. It consisted of a straight grooved piece of horn or wood held perpendicular to the bow along the bow wrist. The bolt could then be placed in the groove as the string was drawn. Since the pull was longer than the bolt, the grooved holder ensured a smooth release and flight without catching the bow. Thus the strength of the bow could be used to launch a weighted missile. Very awkward, but it was useful to get one good shot on a heavily armored target. What I am asking is what this was called. I used to have it in my reference works, but since a forced reshuffle of my files I can't find it. I need to reference some battles in which it was employed.

The results gave me two types: You are a Linguistic Thinker Linguistic thinkers: Tend to think in words, and like to use language to express complex ideas. Are sensitive to the sounds and rhythms of words as well as their meanings. You are a Spatial Thinker Spatial Thinkers: Tend to think in pictures, and can develop good mental models of the physical world. Think well in three dimensions Have a flair for working with objects. In the company of: William Shakespeare, Sylvia Plath, Anne Frank, Pablo Picasso, Michelangelo, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Moonlapse. Yep, that's me...two minds about everything

Thumb's up But now you'll have to lighten the darker lettering (like the hint for guided mode in advanced posting). Tinkering is never done...

The legions didn't have any "sartorial elegance" to begin with, just the practicalities of garrison life. Wearing thick woolen socks with your Birkenstocks now, however, is an offense punishable by five administrative lashes with a centurians stick...

Maybe it would have been better to see it legally in a theatre? It was better than Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, but that's roughly like being the best hockey player in all of Peru. I'd put it as good as the weakest of the first set of movies, Return of the Jedi. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't any great shakes.

Hmmm, I think I can let a piece or two of my writings/lessons go out to public domain. I might be e-mailing you soon.

And the kind of roll-of-eyes that the priest did, almost saying: How many times have we heard that before?

You're expecting the payoff in $$$ right? Read the print, it's in euros m'lad. Just send me a small (3%) fee and I'll collect on them for you. :pimp:

My favorite is Wedge. Only guy in on blowing up two Death Stars.

I won't die, this I know. I have a son and as he comes from his mother and myself, I know that we will live through him. From the father comes the son, from the son to the father as he grows and some day has children of his own. I will be there with all of them until the end of my line. This I also know, that I am the reason my ancestors existed. They loved, strove, built, cried and died in full lives. But ultimately I am the reason they lived, passing themselves on to me, just as I have joined with them and passed to my son and his children. My life is still rich and it will go on forever but through one thing....my children. Victor

Sounds like you hit the Atlanta Cutlery site. Since they bought windless steel, their selection has ranged across the board. Some of their pieces are good, but they also have in-stock problems. What do you want? Ones that look good on display, ones that carry well for recreation or ones that can be used in mock fights / stage theatrics?

Hmmm, that didn't occur to me immediately. Guess my degree emphasis is showing. Back to the books.

I don't think so. The average poster here likes to discuss more than name call and the moderators aren't afraid to step in if necessary. Now watch it turn ugly anyway...

When I first started going over it, the individual points started sounding like an argument for Islam: The indivisibility of God, Jesus being a man not son of God,...

I have to ask, where are you going with this?

yeah, Firefox is far better, even with the recent security hole. I also use EZ firewall, adaware se, spybot search and destroy, assorted microsoft, and McAfee. I'm also on Roadrunner so I keep the security settings fairly high. I still get some spyware coming through from time to time, but no major problems yet.

I'm itchier than a hound dog with fleas to go see it. Yeah I know the story, yeah I know the ending, but what the hey...I saw Star Wars on the first showing when it came out, so I might as well finish what I started almost 28 years ago .

Well, why don't we let some air out of our shirts and take a look at the not so serious portrayals of Rome and its empire...let me start with a comic panel. Feel free to add jokes, comics, whatever strikes the Latin funny bone in you.

Finally got to see it today. I have to agree, Orlando Bloom didn't suck...but the character played into his acting "strengths." It called for a limited and wooden reaction to most circumstances. This he did admirably . As far as the movie, a quick review: 1) History- yeah, like I went to see history with this one. At least it got the names correct, for the most part. Grade: H for Hollywood. 2) Story- Very choppy and propped together. If it were longer, maybe there might be a reason given for the trust given the main character. As it is, it just seems like people respect him because the script told them. We won't even go into how loony and loopy some of the other principles are written. Grade- C 3) Cinematography- A little bit weak for a Ridley Scott film, but still better than most peoples. The battles scenes camera calms down eventually and the speed tricks get tiresome, but they are fairly good. Costuming is average to weak. Special effects are overblown (exploding stones?!!?). Grade B/B- 4) Music- I almost laughed when they stole the music for the dramatic scene of swearing knights for Thirteenth Warrior, especially given the number of northern european bit part warriors, but descent. Grade: B 5) Intangibles- Like feeling immersed in the action/story...feeling what is on the screen. Grade: D But overall, the movie turned out better than the sum of its parts. It is well worth a matinee, though I can't see how it could be six hours on DVD.

Okay, I'm going to go see it on your recommendations. With my limited amount of time in big chunks, if I don't like it, watch out! :2guns:

Ummm, how was Dar-al-Islam not sophisticated and civilized? With the possible exception of China, it was the most sophisticated and civilized society in the world at that time. I agree that it is tiresome to have Europe protrayed as stupid vandals stealing from civilized nations. That's more irksome than the portrayal of Islam. Hamilcar Barca, I was hoping that the action sequences (esp. the seige) would be worth a look because most movie writing these days leaves me cold.

Let's see, taking the test ... Smartass You are 71% Rational, 85% Extroverted, 71% Brutal, and 57% Arrogant Hmmm, fairly perceptive I'd say... :pimp:

Size depends on nutrition and genes, mostly nutrition. Look at the rapid rise in the average size of Asians since more protein has been introduced into their standard diet. So to do a proper size comparasion, the standard diet needs to be evaluated too. As far as the panoply of war, there is one interesting theory I've heard about the relative size of suits and uniforms. Until fairly recently in the gunpowder era, the bigger you were the better you were at fighting. The small suits were left by men who weren't as sucessful at battle and thus avoided it. By avoiding the fight, their equipment survived at home as heirlooms. The bigger guys who fought more (as the theory goes) would have lost their arms and armor on the battlefield due to breakage and wear...therefor less big suits left at home on display. Not to say I believe all of that theory, but I think it does have some truisms in it. As for average size of Romans, how about the remains at Pompeii? The grim statuary in the dock cave areas would yield a variety of results....I just don't have the time to look it up on-line right now.