Tiberius Sylvestius

Which one would you chose?

No matter how much i answer it i'll never come out as Vespasian/Trajan etc because i generally would rather avoid fighting and avoid expanding the Empire. I'd prefer peace to war any day. I'd definately be more concerned with exercising greater control over a slightly smaller empire. I'd quite happily play around with numbers, mess around with taxation and go into things in meticulous detail. As they always say if you want something doing properly, you've got to do it yourself, unless you're totally enept at it then it's wiser to delegate. Which is probably why i came out with Augustus.

Where are you going to study? Sheffield University (in England). Yeah there's not much money in archaeology, certainly not in field archaeology as the job is not what you'd call regular (it's more seasonal). However, in museums and university departments there's is always demand for people conserving artefacts. The other route to go down is to take archaeology and teach it. I already have a degree in medieval history though so i can always default to teaching history at an advanced level in colleges. The archaeology degree is a masters degree... if it goes well and i enjoy it, then who knows perhaps i could do a PhD. But that would most likely be heavily biased towards medieval political history than classical.

It's times like this when you can see where Caligula was coming from with that appointment. It wasn't his madness that made him promote his horse but rather a big political statement. A horse is more capable and more loyal than the senate.

Currently working as an assistant archivist. Hopefully next september i'll be enrolled upon an archaeology degree and i can only hope that it'll lead onto a career in archaeology. Laboratory work preferred.

I always wanted the gazelle to get away!

Agree. I find a common strand that goes hand in hand with monotheism is intolerence to other religions. Usually in monotheistic religions there is a 'truth' included within the religion. If that religion is 'true' then everything else is 'false', and people must be converted or they'll suffer damnation. Or why not just burn them now and get it done with? Look at the Catholic Church's attitude towards Protestants and Islam in the medieval/early modern period. The Church was supposed to be teaching Christian values, 'love thy neighbour', unless of course he happens to be a follower of Islam and then you should go over with your armies and slaughter them all and send them to Hell where they belong. Which strikes me as somewhat hypocritical and well harsh. Islam did it back as well. Having studied religious history i can say for definate that Christianity has been for many centuries a brake on medical and scientific development. Science came out of alchemy, alchemy of course was wizardry and witchcraft and people were burned for that. Obviously consulting the devil. Medical dissections were prohibited by the church, which stopped anyone actually understanding how the body worked, which meant alot of people over many centuries died from simple things that had physicians been able to experiment sooner might have found cures to sooner. Instead the practice of bleeding and the totally incorrect theory of the four humours persisted for centuries on end and killed more people than they cured, such as Charles II of Britain in 1685. Christianity was not a forgiving religion. But that's the price humanity paid for accepting religions that had a rule or point of morality on every aspect of life, even to the detriment of the real 'truth'. The world afterall was flat (the Church said it was flat, thus it was flat, evidence to the contrary was either wrong or put there by the devil) and Gallileo was in alot of trouble for daring to suggest otherwise. That's dogma over practicality for you. But i have my bias.

'Airplane!' (and don't call me Shirley) The spoof of all spoofs, 'Hot Shots Part Deux' is amusing too. I too like 'Gladiator'. And one of my all time favourites, 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' The Lethal Weapon films are crackers too, as are the Die Hards. Indiana Jones films are legendary, the second one is naff though. And who could forget the original, 'Italian Job'?

Augustus! Augustus = 89% Domitian = 86% Antoninus Pius = 82% Claudius = 68% Tiberius = 64% Nerva = 57% Hadrian = 50% Caligula = 46% Vespasian/Commodus/Vitellius = 43% Marcus Aurelius = 36% and Nero = 29% I really expected Tiberius or Domitian myself. The fact that Domitian is second is no surprise. I'm shocked Tiberius is so far down!

Well i personally would take over a small island somewhere (failing that Lincolnshire), build a nice big palace. Get a privy council together of people i like, find an evil, loyal but ambitious woman with red hair to lead them (in all the fantasy books it's always a redhead). Employ her as a priestess/sorceress and let her run the place as she wishes, so long as she doesn't interfer with me building my temples to the gods of Rome wherever i can fit them. I'd ban Cliff Richard concerts, and sit around my palace/castle and do very little, hopefully find a nice woman that i can move into the palace to get me a heir. I can hopefully rule from the shadows and enjoy a nice pampered family life. If the Empire turns out to be too shall we say disagreeable to the plebs in the street, then they'll gang up, overthrow the high priestess and i can step forward out of the shadows as the saviour of my people. First rule of evil dictatorships, always have a scapegoat.

Yorkshire, England.

I was going to put Caligula because it sounds good. But it was taken. I go by the name of Sylvestius/Sylvester on most forums anyhow. It means one who dwells in the woods. I love woodlands and i wanted to honour the god Sylvanus the god of woodlands. Plus i like cats and as you'll note the latin name for wild cats is felis sylvestris, which is where the typical cat name Sylvester comes from. As for Tiberius, i think it sounds good. After the river Tiber, the very essence of Rome. Also being an imperial name helped it carry flavour in my book, even if the Emperor Tiberius has little to commend him. Personally i would have prefered Domitian because he was dedicated to Minerva, but the name doesn't sound that good.

Once you've read this i'm sure you'll agree that he deserved what he got. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamida_Djandoubi I've no sympathy with people like that, they should guillotine the lot of them. If you think the guillotine is bad, you should see what long drop hanging can do to a person's complexion. (Put it this way long drop hanging works by breaking the neck, the neck break does not kill you but causes you to black out, then you spend 15 minutes strangling to death). Decapitation takes about a minute or two a most, of which shock will take over and you shouldn't feel anything. Actually decapitation is probably one of the most humane ways to die (even if it doesn't look it). The US currently uses two methods of execution that are really nasty. Firstly the electric chair, if it's done correctly then apparently it destroys your nervous system and then you burn alive and boil... the charge bursts all the blood vessels anyhow, and stuff bursts, like eyes. Technically you shouldn't feel it anyhow. If the get the charges not quite right or the sponge is not wet enough... then well the nervous system might not be destroyed and you're gonna feel it. Think Ethel Rosenburg. Electric chair should be banned outright, it's as humane as sticking someone on a bonfire. The other method of the gas chamber is even worse. Cyanide is a particularly nasty and extremely painful poison. Most people in the gas chamber suffer terribly and they don't die of the poison (unless they're unlucky), they generally die from bashing their brains out on chair's head rest. How the US government still allows these brutal practices to continue and insist that decapitation and long drop hanging are more inhumane is beyond me.

Metal, rock, classic rock, pop, synth-pop, classical, new wave, dance, disco, and a bit of rap (but not much). 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Particularly fond of; Blur, Iron Maiden, Testament, Depeche Mode, New Order, Alice Cooper, Vivaldi, the Beatles, Moody Blues, Daft Punk, Bee Gees and ELO. As you can tell musically i'm completely all over the shop. Favourite songs in no particular order; 1) Procol Harum - Whiter Shade of Pale 2) The Clash - Rudie Can't Fail 3) Deep Purple - Fireball 4) Iron Maiden - Powerslave 5) Depeche Mode - Enjoy the Silence 6) Blur - Parklife I guess it's what they call eclectic. I get real bored of having to stick with one genre for too long, i like to pick and mix and keep things fresh. Loved the 60s music as a kid, really grooving on 80s at the moment. 70s will be the next big thing. Oh and i love anything with violins or guitars, preferably both. I have greater respect for bands/artists that can formulate their own sound. I'm not a fan of the frenzy of bands/singers all trying to sound the same. I'm particularly disheartened by modern music of this decade as it stands so far because they've all gone for the soul music style singing... you just can't escape it. It's not that i don't like a bit of soul music every now and again, i just don't like it everywhere!

I should clarify, i meant to state that you should stay away from ebay generally until you have some experience. One you know what you are looking at then by all means use ebay, because you'll know what's good and what's not. I can heartily agree with Primus on vcoins. I can recommend several other coin dealers that are useful if anyone is interested. And the Sear catalogues on Roman coinage are expensive (

Well consider; This is the sort of thing Roman had been producing in the 2nd century CE. This is an Antoninus Pius denarius, struck around the 150s. http://www.omnicoin.com/coins/903211.jpg Such coins did reach Britain and were in 'circulation'. (How much circulation they saw exactly is another question). I know a coin dealer that's selling a Nero aureus that was found in the UK, so coins of this nature were definately around. By the 870s the most advanced coinage being produced were broad thin silver pennies. Here's a King

Might be useful to get yourself some books on Roman coins and do plenty of reading on them. You'll need a reference work to attribute them anyhow. Plus you've got to learn how to grade. My advice is stay away from ebay, alot of rubbish on there. Overpriced, overgraded and often misattributed.

I'd quite like to be a priest of Mercury. Failing that i'd like to be an Emperor and then build a temple to Mercury. As you can tell i like Mercury. I'd also quite happily honour Minerva too.

Woe there. There's alot of stuff in this thread i think needs to be elaborated upon. Firstly the most important and crucial thing to get your head around with regards to the Classical (and medieval period) is that there was no such thing as 'homosexuality'. The term is a 19th century one. Romans did not think of themselves as homosexuals. There was no such thing. Yes men had sexual relations with men, women, children etc. Women had relations likewise. The Greeks viewed that there were two 'genders', MASCULINE and OTHER. (This was consistent thinking into the early medieval period, Richard the Lionheart for one is rumoured to have slept with men, it didn't do him any harm). Masculine; is the active, the aggressive, the dominant Other; is everything else, call it effeminate if you will (women, children and elderly would all fall into this). Now for 'homosexual' sex as practiced by the Greeks. If two men were engaged in sexual relations, one would be the active partner (the penetrator), the other would be the passive (the penetratee). They did not switch. One would take the role of the man, the other the 'woman', and as far as we understand once it was settled which was which that's how it stayed. (In theory) So a man who was the active partner was no less of a man, he could sleep with men, women, young boys and he'd still be a full blown man. It was perfectly acceptable, he hadn't reduced his standing, afterall he was still the one with the power. (This is where Richard the Lionheart fell, Alexander the Great too i should think). If however (like Elagabalus) he preferred taking the female role then it was a matter of the man degrading the status of his sex to that of a lowly female. This was bad, very bad. This is where they get criticised and seen as effeminate wimps. People like Caligula that seemingly was quite happy to break the rules and switch places between active and passive were seen as abnormal nutcases that were up for anything. Classical thought was as long as you were the one doing the action you were a real man. Modern thought teaches that people either are homosexual or are heterosexual and the two are mutually exclusive. Bisexual seems to fall into the 'up for anything' case. As for the case of 'lesbians' in the classical period i've yet to find any info on that, but i should imagine that it would be frowned upon. If you've got two women engaging in sexual activity then one of them's got to take the male role no? This would have been a woman trangressing her gender and aspiring to greater things than she should, i.e being male. Which they'd have a problem with i would imagine. How many times had historians at the time complained of Emperors being pushed about by their mothers? Severus Alexander, Nero...

Roman religion was a 'bartering' religion. Per say. The best way to think of it (this is a well used example amongst modern polytheists); Deity (whichever one you prefer to follow) = Human Human follower of that deity = Cat Observe the relationship between cats and humans. Cats can see things in their lower field of vision that humans can miss (i.e mice) and thus cats can be of use to humans. Humans can also take great pleasure and be proud of having a loyal and devoted pet. So humans get something out of the bargin. Humans are alot taller than cats and can see father afield and of course they feed the cats, sure the cat could feed itself if it must but it's easier to have someone bring it you. Between cat and human there is a benefitial relationship on both sides. Watch what happens if the human doesn't feed the cat though... it'll go elsewhere and switch allegiences. Well the same relationship works between humans and gods, humans can inform gods of things they might have missed (this requires the belief that gods are not omniscient or omnipotent as monotheistic traditions teach). And gods can help humans by letting them arrive where they have to be in a better fashion. As gods can see further ahead they can help followers overcome obstacles that they cannot see until they are almost on them. If the human keeps their side of the bargin then the gods will generally keep theirs. If the god decides not to bother then the follower will dissassociate themselves from that god and go and find another one. So why did the Romans follow their religion? Out of fear? Perhaps... perhaps it was also due to things they did not understand, science was not as advanced as it is today and religion is a useful tool to explain things. Butin this modern cynical world it is important to realise that many people at the time followed the religion because they believed in it, it brought them comfort and it worked. Boring night in, ask Bacchus to relieve you of the bore an hour or two later someone knocks at the door telling you they're throwing a party? Mere coincidence, maybe, but who are you to argue?

Worst politician? Incitatus perhaps? Although actually as senators go he probably did a better job than some.

That was Elgabalus, he came to power after Caracella. Actually that was Commodus that succeded Marcus Aurelius in c.80CE. Elagabalus succeded the Emperor Macrinus in about 218CE?, and Macrinus had succeded Caracalla. Although you can be forgiven for mixing up Commodus with Elagabalus because they were both fruit loops. As for Caracalla and his brother Geta, it should be noted that both Emperors were trying to kill each other. Caracalla just happened to succeed first.