Spurius

John Guilmartin (Gunpowder and Galleys), because he was one of my professors Goittein and Lewis for their Mediterranean and Islamic works. Lamb for just reading, not necessarily academics (can't reread For the Defense: Clarence Darrow enough times). Medieval: Fulcher of Chartres Ancient: Dionysius Halicarnassensis

In Roman history, I'm strongest on the early republic and early empire. For history in general, my degree emphasis was in Islamic history and I am also fairly good with western medieval and late 19th and early 20th century history. Also a special intrest in the history of history (historiography). Basically, for me, it's all good...

If you keep up on the modern interpretations of Islamic thought, as it is taught and practiced in Western societies, there is tolerance and respect. Along the lines of many teachers/prophets, one truth and unity of God. However, teaching this way makes the religion less than charismatic (quite boring actually). The virilent anger, the breeding of violence, comes from the twin dragons of poverty and blame. Most of the so-called terrorist breeding grounds are poor countries whose residents have been made even more painfully aware of their poverty by the increasing information/entertainment about the rich West. Unlike us in the West, where we have been taught that the money is out there and you can create more if you do it right, they are operating on the assumption that there is a finite amount of capital and the rich are just keeping it from the poor...it's not their fault, the rich are keeping them poor while dangling rewards in front of them. That creates tremendous frustration. Note: I am not saying either of these view points is valid, I just discussing perceptions. Anyway, this frustration is keyed into by charismatic leaders much like Facists and Communists during the first half of the 20th century. In this case, given artificial borders and forcing together of groups, it is really easy to adopt an "us versus them" mentality. All of our problems are rooted in "them", so drive "them" out and all will be better. The charismatic political leaders, like Quadaffi and Saddam Hussein take advantage of this, as do religious leaders like the Ayatollah Khomeni and Al Sadr. The religious leaders are like the evangelical church here in the U.S., gaining converts at a fast rate because they offer a forceful quick answer to life's problems instead of the more boring "let's reason together." Then it is easy to jump from a forceful religious answer to a violent answer offered by "heroes" struggling against the evil forces that are keeping us in debt bondage and trying to eradicate the true voice of Islam. So, Islam can and has adapted to modern Western society, it's just that the majority of Muslims still live in situations that create tremendous amounts of anger and frustration...leading to a situation of charismatic violence done in the name of a religion that has nothing to do with their basic frustrations. It is a deadly feedback loop that is hard to break since one of the real ways to solve it involves money. And every country is very guarded with that... Sorry for the rambling post, and of course all of this is IMHO.

Why all the secrecy about Burrows cave? This sounds like the old saw, but if he really wanted it to be studied, he'd have released the location already. Hope he diagramed and took photos of everything, though of course I don't expect it to amount to anything.

Religion is an excuse. There would be conflict between Daar al-Islam and The West even if both were purely secular. Look to the root causes of anger in the madrassa in Pakistan, Kurdistan, and other poor countries of the region. Look to the reason why the Serbs went after Muslims. All have to do with anger outside of religion and given focus by leaders who chose religion as a catalyst. I would suggest two books to give perspectives: The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization by Thomas L. Friedman, for how money makes needs and expectations and how violence can follow. The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington, for seeing all of the complex societal and cultural clashes that scar the landscape. Compare those two and you can see the flash points that haven't erupted yet but will. Kind of depressing actually. But with the OP: Men, not their creations, are evil. Some are created for evil's sake but need evil Men to run them, and Islam is NOT one of them. Terror killing is evil.

Yes, a prickly subject...especially since it has been linked to totalitarian dreams of conquest. It does seem to be a good rule of thumb that about 50 years has to pass before rational discussion can occur about an emotional event, or in this case an out and out horror in terms of eugenics.

True since as a group the Celts were around before the founding of Rome, and they had the iron working techniques to make steel. In northern Italy, the Villanovan culture had hammered iron/steel about the 9th cen BCE, the Etruscans about the 8th cen. Both of course before the founding of Rome. Interesting sidenote: Western Italy was deforrested by the Etruscans early on for charcoal in forges. They were so bad at their refining that their slag dumps were used as sources for iron in both world wars. The oldest iron weapon (a dagger) recovered is from Alaca Hoyuk in Turkey, dated to the 23rd cen BCE. The oldest hammered iron artifact comes from Egypt, dated about 1350 BCE. The earliest quench harden steel, from Cyprus about 1100 BCE. But, with the OP, bronze was important and valuable to early Rome because its quality was easier to control in large scale production techniques. Later on it was supplanted by iron, but we have no clear idea how important iron was because of its destructability and everyday reuse.

Fined, or top of the line if you will, bronze weapons are indeed better than average or low quality iron weapons. High quality iron is better than its bronze counterpart, and steel (as pointed out by Primus Pilus) of any quality is better than both. Bronze is easier to work and fine than iron, but being an alloy...if you don't have tin and some lead, you don't have bronze (see why the Egyptians used copper so long, no accessible tin in Egypt). If you got iron, well, you got iron. So, that's why if you got the choice between using cheap iron or bronze for something (like helments), the Romans would go for bronze to assure a better quality by easier manufacture. As forge techniques continued to improve, iron could be trusted more. Also, remember that if everyday items were made from iron...we find fewer of them. Rust and scavenging for iron to make steel destroyed most of them...while bronze would still be recognizable but corroded.

hello l

Yeah, pinning the bibical story to a real place is always a good thing. At the very least it means that the site was famous enough for the writer to include it as a believable piece of background, thus probably a rich trove of history. For this one, I am waiting to hear the dimensions and descriptions of the steps...underground sites (like the chambers of Petra or the churches in Cappadocia) have a special interest for me.

Well, slope is slope and it seem like the site is a natural catch basin. It seems like the civil engineers have refigured the depth to keep the sewer as shallow as possible. This is a text book give and take situation between the modern world and historic preservation. The situation is a good contrast with what is going on in Istanbul right now.

Here's my take on the subject: Pietas => Industria => Felicitas, Pax => Libertas => Pietas Honor and duty to other Romans and society, by means of hard work, yields happiness, prosperity and peace for self and others, empowering the individual to seek and find personal freedom ,which can only be served and maintained by duty and honor to self and society. What sets a "Roman" apart from contemporaries is this dichotomy between freedom and service. The ideal "Roman" knew his place, worked to the best of his abilities with the ambition to raise himself in society. This raising could only come about if his social betters would permit it ... and that would only happen if the superiors and/or society profited (or at least didn't lose anything). This is along the lines of The Wealth of Nations. Then, once raising himself, he would still profit his patron and perhaps become a patron to someone else...keeping the honor and duty to other Romans going. Once one part of this ring broke down with greed, sloth, etc., then you hit situations like the late republic civil wars, corrupt tax farming, insular imperials courtiers and the like. So...in a short hand version... A Roman is Duty and Freedom linked, circled and protected by hard work. IMHO.

Here's the 16th century translation: 1) The cities that ought to be fenced either with handwork, or nature, or both. 2) Walls should not be made straight but with many coignes. 3) After what loose(?) earth may be heaped up and joined to a wall, so that it shall never be beaten down. 4) Of portculis, and how gates may be made safe from burning. 5) Of making ditches 6) How to keep them which stand on the wall harmless from the arrows of the enemies. 7) By what means it ought to be forseen that they that are beseiged be not famished. 8) What kind of things must be prepared for the defense of walls. 9) What ought to be done if stores of stringes or cords do fail. 10) What should be done that the besieged lack not water. and the chapters go on to 45.... The book has reproduced copies of the original 1572 translation, so I can see how muddled that gets in scanning and send it to you....if you wish.

I think the point is that you cannot compare Huns and Mongols on any but the broadest terms...and that the technology of the sturrip, stronger compund bows, steel arrowheads, as well as various engineering advances and seige techniques from 12th century China, are vital parts of what made the Mongols so difficult to defeat. Now, as far as the defeat of a huge army, it would be hard for the Mongols to defeat an army fielded with the support expertise of Persia. A check/proof for this is how long it took the Mongols to conquer all of China. Southern China, besides having more population, had better organized societies than northern China...more support expertise...as well as an extensive canal/water transport system. Seqestan is quite right in suggesting that the Persians wouldn't be an easy target. Felix Marcellus is also right in pointing out that Mongols are not Huns and that their tactics would not be the same as each others. Now my opinion, with a level technological playing field, it comes down to what Vegetius described as the discipline of the troops. Whichever force was "harder" would win. From a western view, the Persians were never quite as fanatic as the Macedonians or Romans...hence the usual Persian and Parthian defeat at their hands. If the Mongols wanted Persia as much as they wanted southern China...then the Mongols would win. Against the Huns, the Persian Empire would win by easily absorbing them.

I was looking around the university's catalog and found: "Knyghthode and bataile: a XVth century verse paraphrase of Flavius Vesetius Rematus' treatise:De re militari edited, with introd. notes and glossary" by R. Dyboski and Z.M. Arend. It is in middle english. and also a 1944 reprint of an 1855 latin/english translation of "De re militari" that may have the fourth volume in it. I requested both and if they pan out, I can send you some copies of key pages to aid in your translation. I'll post back here when they arrive in a few days.

Early Sassinid domed structures are characterized by the same barrel-vaulted iwan leading into a domed hall introduced by the Parthians The Sassanids solved the problem of constructing a circular dome on a square building by the squinch. This is an arch built across each corner of the square, thereby converting it into an octagon on which it is simple to place the dome. Later Islamic design (esp. under the Seljuks) added a four iwan and central dome design as the basic layout of religious buildings (mosque, madrassa) and later secular buildings (palace, caravansari and hospitals). Roman influences are easy to see in Sassinid buildings (and the later influence on Islamic architecture) by way of mural techniques, landscape subjects and positioning. Buildings are a great introduction to seeing how human history did not exist in a vacuum with sterile beginning and end points.

"If the Republic should fall to save one innocent man, then let the Republic fall." I guess I'm also getting to be more French as I get older too. Ah well, I guess we can agree on this line from the movie Major Dundee: " I intend to smite the wicked, not save the heathen."

Here is another link through The Tribune. The original story was in the Independant.

Historically, jails as concieved by modern people are a very recent invention. If you look at Rome, you will notice that punishment was meted out and you either went on your way or had to work as a slave or worse in some occupation until the perscribed debt was paid. It could be the rest of your life or some years, but you didn't languish in a prison doing essentially nothing. Now, personally I am against capital punishment. For most of my life I supported it, but as I have grown older I see the all too human flaws in the justice system...and there is no release for the innocent after the death penalty has been applied. However, I am in no way saying not to punish offenders. I has no problems with life imprisonment under hard labor. I want to see prisons try and pay for themselves as much as possible. It can be a micro society in which the lesser offenders are given the skills necessary to continue with law abiding lives once released, and lifers are made to pay for their keep else they live in low squallor. Prison reform has to include methods of employment and means to decrease governmental costs of a steadily increasing prison population. IMHO, of course.

The Independant article on the upcoming BBC production: "Senators, slavery - and central heating. Every schoolboy knows that ancient Rome was the crucible of civilisation. But a steamy $100m TV epic is set to rewrite history. John Walsh reports " This looks either very good, or very bad. I'm kind of afraid...

Hey! Iulius had to bite the big one so that the greatest Roman of them all could rise. Also, Brutus did him a favor...nothing like an assassination to cement you a favorable position in history.

The death penalty has changed over the years for a number of reasons. Here are a few that stick out in my mind... First is death and exile. Many times a death penalty could be avoided by voluntary exile, especially in Rome. Simply go away and stay away until the heat dies down and people might forgive you. This was of course much harder to do if one- you offended a powerful person who wanted a long reach, and two- if you were too poor to travel. Remember, if you are dealing with the viewpoint of a tribal type of society, exile was often a death sentence. The tribe wouldn

Is this a pet project of yours? I've been picking up some turk to help me with research lately. Slow going but satisfying, isn't it? As far as the Fourth and Fifth book of Vegitius, they haven't been put on line translated as far as I can tell. They fell out of favor at the dawn of modern warfare since they are so specific to tactics no longer used. Good luck finding an english translation even in book form. If not, have you considered a brute force translator and then corrections? Example: FLAVI VEGETI RENATI VIRI INLUSTRIS COMITIS FLAVI VEGETI RENATI GREEN FAMOUS Companion or this text from Book Three: Athenienses et Lacedaemonios ante Macedonas rerum potitos prisci locuntur annales. tanslates to: Athenienses and Lacedaemonios before Macedonas rerum to obtain ancient locuntur annales. and usually translated as: The Athenianss and Lacedaemonians were masters of Greece before the Macedonians, as history informs us. Thanks to Inter Tran for that wonderful translation. But it does have an option to refine a translation, maybe it'll help you with your work?

You know WoDo that if you want to write up the Revolt of Aristonikos, we would be happy to read about it.

Ummm, you do know that the arena had a floor to it, right? You can see where it has been partly put back on (the white area in the arena). The maze like spaces were under the arena floor, where holding pens for animals, wait areas for gladiators and whatever else they wanted to pop up into the arena through trap doors and elevators, were preped and readied. Think of under the stage of any big opera house or old theatre, only on an epic scale.