MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
All Things Roman (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Caratacus= Man of Chariot

It's a lyre bird i.e. he's Nero.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Caratacus= Man of Chariot

It's a lyre bird i.e. he's Nero.


The Australians introduced the Limeys to afternoon tea during cricket games so why should we not find a Lyre Bird on a coin uncovered in south east England? It is certainly a trailblazing approach to the semiotic function of coins.

Any ideas on the pellet in annulet, which was the thing that immediately stuck out to Wiley as strange?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh. It's Henry VIII.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yup! Nero = Henry VIII
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why am I suddenly hoping to be wrong?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Why am I suddenly hoping to be wrong?


You are right.

You were wondering why a pellet in annulet features on a Celtic coin, as your understanding was that these were heraldic symbols. Your mind goes back to John Leland, sent by Henry Viii, to find ancient manuscripts amongst those held in the monasteries that were going to prove Henry's lineage, and resolve the thorny question of splitting with Rome. Who knows what scripts were created or destroyed as a result of that mission? Bingo! you then discover Henry issued coins with the pellet in annulet symbol.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm so clever I've got the clogs to prove it. I didn't spot the Leland connection, that's Hatty's department.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yep. As you say, department H is more rigorous on scripts than department W.

It's a bit of a bugger, the new standards H is setting. If we coin lovers just had to meld our ideas within the laxness of conventional historiography, it would of course be easier to come up with new ideas. You just have to slot your find/fake in with any old bit of story telling, propaganda, folk lore etc and then ease it into the conventional, very loose chronology.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Caratacus= Man of Chariot

It's a lyre bird i.e. he's Nero.

I see your thinking

Carat=Chariot

Nero is famous for his participation in, and winning of, a chariot race in the Olympics. To do this, he changed both the year the Olympics was held, and also arrived with 10 horses rather than the traditional four. Nero did not complete the race, being thrown from his chariot, but was still declared the winner.

But why select Nero? We have previously come across this coin of that other tyrant Elagabulus. It appears that the tyrants could be related?



It's a Roman aureus depicting Elagabalus. The reverse reads Sanct Deo Soli Elagabal (To the Holy Sun God Elagabal), and depicts a gold chariot carrying the holy stone of the Emesa temple.

In the central spina of a Roman chariot racing track was placed an obelisk, here the sacred black stone is seen on the chariot.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:


According to ortho.....

On the obverse is Heracles wearing a lion skin.

On the Reverse is an eagle with outstretched wings, bottom right is thought to be a serpent.

Top right is a pellet in annulet.

What do you see?


Wiley didn't see the recorded pellet in annulet, he actually saw an eclipse.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The First Epistle of Clement (Ancient Greek: Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους, romanized: Klēmentos pros Korinthious, lit. 'Clement to Corinthians') is a letter addressed to the Christians in the city of Corinth. Based on internal evidence the letter was composed some time before AD 70.[1][2][3] The common time given for the epistle’s composition is at the end of the reign of Domitian (c. AD 96)[4][5] and AD 140, most likely around 96. It ranks with Didache as one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of extant Christian documents outside the traditional New Testament canon. As the name suggests, a Second Epistle of Clement is known, but this is a later work by a different author. Part of the Apostolic Fathers collection, 1 and 2 Clement are not usually considered to be part of the canonical New Testament.

The letter is a response to events in Corinth, where the congregation had deposed certain elders (presbyters). The author called on the congregation to repent, to restore the elders to their position, and to obey their superiors. He said that the Apostles had appointed the church leadership and directed them on how to perpetuate the ministry.

The work is attributed to Clement I, the Bishop of Rome. In Corinth, the letter was read aloud from time to time. This practice spread to other churches, and Christians translated the Greek work into Latin, Syriac, and other languages. Some early Christians even treated the work like scripture. The work was lost for centuries, but since the 1600s various copies or fragments have been found and studied. It has provided valuable evidence about the structure of the early church.



Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,[6] the letter does not include Clement's name, and is anonymous, though scholars generally consider it to be genuine.[4] While Clement is traditionally identified as a pope, there is no evidence for monarchical bishops in Rome at such an early date.[4] The epistle is addressed as "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth". Its stylistic coherence suggests a single author.[7]

Scholars have proposed a range of dates, but most limit the possibilities to the last three decades of the 1st century,[8][9] and no later than AD 140.[10] 1 Clement is dated by some scholars to some time before AD 70.[1][2][3] The common time given for the epistle’s composition is at the end of the reign of Domitian (c. AD 96).[4][5] The phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) is taken as a reference to persecutions under Domitian. Some scholars believe that 1 Clement was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation (c. AD 95–97).[11]


I was going to stick this in the fake or forgery thread

Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,[6] the letter does not include Clement's name, and is anonymous, though scholars generally consider it to be genuine.[4] While Clement is traditionally identified as a pope, there is no evidence for monarchical bishops in Rome at such an early date


But it was way too easy.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The 4th Century AD (Christian chronology) is a great place to look for forgeries and destruction of scripts, as they had to set up a fictional account of early Christianity, whilst destroying all evidence of the Augustan empire cult. Of course the coin evidence remains and shows sly amendment, reinterpretation, whilst the scripts were forged, whilst "originals" were lost in "fires" etc.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
The 4th Century AD (Christian chronology) is a great place to look for forgeries and destruction of scripts, as they had to set up a fictional account of early Christianity, whilst destroying all evidence of the Augustan empire cult. Of course the coin evidence remains and shows sly amendment, reinterpretation, whilst the scripts were forged, whilst "originals" were lost in "fires" etc.

'Destruction of scripts' is quite a wholesale operation, reminiscent of Vikings (or equivalent) wiping out all evidence of early monasteries. The re-appearance, i.e. publication, of Classical scripts takes place at the same time as printing takes off in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, later dubbed the Renaissance. Not sure how much the scripts would have had to do with early Christianity if the so-called religious wars hadn't been ongoing.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is another book coming out about the ninth legion, or rather the demise of the ninth legion, it is by Simon Elliot. Title "Roman Britain's missing legion"

Everyone knows the Ninth went missing, but before we get excited about this latest punt about their murky fate, what exactly happened to the rest, you know the other legions, can we account for them?

wiki wrote:

Legion number and title (cognomen)
The numbering of the legions is confusing, since several legions shared the same number with others. Augustus numbered the legions he founded himself from I, but also inherited numbers from his predecessors. Each emperor normally numbered the legions he raised himself starting from I. However, even this practice was not consistently followed. For example, Vespasian kept the same numbers as before for legions he raised from disbanded units. Trajan's first legion was numbered XXX because there were 29 other legions in existence at the time it was raised; but the second Trajanic legion was given the sequential number II. XVII, XVIII and XIX, the numbers of the legions annihilated in the Teutoburg Forest, were never used again. (These three legions are without titles, suggesting that in disgrace their titles may have been deliberately forgotten or left unmentioned.) As a result of this somewhat chaotic evolution, the legion's title became necessary to distinguish between legions with the same number.

Legions often carried several titles, awarded after successive campaigns, normally by the ruling emperor e.g. XII Fulminata was also awarded: paterna (fatherly), victrix (victorious), antiqua (venerable), certa constans (reliable, steadfast) and Galliena (Gallienus '). Pia fidelis (loyal and faithful), fidelis constans and others were titles awarded to several legions, sometimes several times to the same legion. Only the most established, commonly used titles are displayed on this table.

Hmmm.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiley's new book, "Rome's missing legions", features the full list of all of them and discovers that legions have constantly changed their identities, some merging with other legions. The constant name and number changes and amalgamations mean that fictional histories get created, and it is impossible to trace any accurate records of individual legions.

You get a whiff of the problem by looking at "legion 2"



Legio II (Latin for "Legion 2") may refer to:

Legio II Adiutrix, the Second Rescuer Legion
Legio II Gallica, the Second Gallic Legion
Legio II Italica, the Second Italian Legion
Legio II Herculia, the Second Herculean Legion
Legio II Augusta, the Second Augustan Legion
Legio II Armeniaca, the Second Armenian Legion
Legio II Flavia Virtutis, the Brave Second Flavian Legion
Legio II Flavia Constantia, the Reliable Second Flavian Legion
Legio II Traiana Fortis, the Valiant Second Trajanian Legion
Legio II Isaura, the Second Isaurian Legion
Legio II Parthica, the Second Parthian Legion

Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next

Jump to:  
Page 17 of 18

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group