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 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

Due to instability within the Roman Empire, reforms by Diocletian and Carausius' usurping total provincial power in the late 3rd century, the province was restructured by Constantius early in the 4th century.

About time too, the only constant (sic) in all this, is a desire for London to be a capital. I wonder why?

The general view seems to be that London officially became the capital under William the Conqueror who issued a writ in 1067 to ensure all the rights enjoyed by London under Edward the Confessor would be retained. It was even written in 'Old English'

Soon after his coronation he granted the tiny charter which still remains the earliest surviving royal privilege in the City’s Records Office, in form an Old English writ composed by a native scribe, with the earliest surviving impression of William I’s seal upon it

That charter is prized as the City of London's oldest document* but it might turn out to be somewhat suspect. It was first referred to in 1321

It first came to prominence in the early fourteenth century. In 1321 the Corporation’s lawyers set out the basis of its extensive liberties and privileges in a plea over the rights of the canons of St. Martin’s-le-Grand; the liberties were traced back to the City’s mythical foundation by Brutus of Troy, but the earliest documentary authority claimed was this charter of William the Conqueror. The City’s lawyers asserted that it had been written very early in William’s reign, before his diploma in favour of St. Martin’s, of 11 May 1068

The uncharacteristically vague wording has caused a deal of puzzlement but not so much as to actually have the document dated

Though a well-known document, the London writ has not yet received a full treatment in terms of its diplomatic and administrative context, especially in the ways that this historiography has developed over recent decades

Despite, or because of, the lack of analysis, historians haven't needed to scientifically test other medieval charters, many of which have been described as spurious or dubious

It has allowed readers to treat William the Conqueror’s writ as a precursor of the later charters concerned with the City’s liberties and privileges, and so provide some meaning and interpretation for this puzzling document. Yet this is not the only option for contextualizing the writ; there is now a large body of historiography about the diplomatic of writs and writ-charters from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and about the administrative habits and structures that housed them

https://academic.oup.com/histres/advance-article/doi/10.1093/hisres/htac023/6960510?searchresult=1&login=false


* No mention of the charter with the rights, privileges, etc. granted by Edward the Confessor but an earlier deed from Edward to Westminster Abbey, said to be dated 1060, was discovered in an archive (when or by whom is a country house mystery)

The document describes “a holy piece of the countryside, which consists of ten hides [about 120 acres] of land”. The Charter, which was signed by Edward the Confessor, Harold and other earls, thanes and bishops, was found in the archives of Rothamsted Manor. It is now in the Hertfordshire County Record Office.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"What's next, Odo?"
"Well, there's the Harrying of the North."
"That can wait. C'mon, I want something here and now."
"St Martin-le-Grand is agitating for a charter."
"I thought we'd just dished one out to the City of London corporation."
"It was a bit small for the money, they said. And I don't think writing it in Anglo-Saxon was particularly tactful."
"Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch. Maybe we oughta switch to St Martin's. Teach 'em a bit of gratitude."
"No can do, skip, the City's privileges were granted by Brutus of Troy."
"That's big bananas. Sod it, let's go harry the north. But bring along all the gubbins so I can take a look at it. Then no-one can complain."
"I'll call the troops out. First stop, Rothamsted."
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:

The general view seems to be that London officially became the capital under William the Conqueror who issued a writ in 1067 to ensure all the rights enjoyed by London under Edward the Confessor would be retained. It was even written in 'Old English'


The gist of the writ is, as you say, that we are going to carry on as before by ensuring the rights of London previously held under Edward the Confessor. It's about every son should be his father's heir, and no one should do wrong to Londoners. Is this mysterious writ, about the size of a page of Wiley's cheque book, something that symbolises London's status as the new official capital?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"This is so exciting Odo, has he handed him the writ?"

"How would I know, spectacles are not due to be invented for another 200 years"
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
Building a massive Basilica or two as part of an imperial project is possible, but starting a massive Christian programme of building works (whilst moving his capital out of Rome) during his lifetime, converting and later having a death bed baptism, less so.

Someone interested in Roman history wrote a tweet that might explain the disappearance of Constantine's basilicas, though luckily the forum wasn't destroyed in the raid.

The shocking Arab raid on Rome in 846, during which both The Old St. Peter's and the Old St. Paul’s Basilicas (both built by Constantine I, in 318 and 324) were sacked, and Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s tombs both destroyed, marked the symbolic end of the medieval imperial Rome.

Sources are a little uncertain about how to describe the raiders, either as Arabs or Saracens, though some prefer 'Moors' and another settled for Moors and Saracens.

There is disagreement among the chroniclers over the origins of the raiders who attacked Rome, although most sources describe them as Saracens. According to the Liber Pontificalis and the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, the raiders were Saracens from Africa who raided Corsica before attacking Rome. The Annals of Fulda, on the other hand, describe the raiders as Moors (Latin: mauri), which generally indicated Muslims from al-Andalus (Spain) or the Maghreb, as opposed to Ifriqiya. The author of the Annals of Xanten was unsure: he called the raiders "either Moors or else Saracens". It is possible that the annals, which are from north of the Alps, were using "Moors" as a synonym for "Saracens". No Italian source describes the raiders of 846 as Moors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome#:~:text=The%20Arab%20raid%20against%20Rome,itself%20by%20the%20Aurelian%20Walls.

One can understand their haziness as the none of the sources cited are contemporary with the 'shocking' event. Most if not all the chronicles are fifteenth century manuscripts, every single original text having got lost as usual.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've just found another Bishop Odo! It came about thisaway thisamorning

John Welford wrote:
George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury
Active during the reigns of King James I and King Charles I, he was the only Archbishop of Canterbury to have killed someone
https://medium.com/@johnwelford15/george-abbot-archbishop-of-canterbury-7f8dc081ac4d

Mick Harper wrote:
His successor William Laud killed more people than anyone else in English history!

John Welford wrote:
But not by his own hand, and certainly not with a crossbow!

Mick Harper wrote:
You're drawing a veil over Oda the Severe (941 - 958)? I'm inclined to agree.

Wiki wrote:
941 to 2 Jun 958 Oda (Odo, Oda the Severe) Translated from Ramsbury; canonised: St Oda.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:

The shocking Arab raid on Rome in 846, during which both The Old St. Peter's and the Old St. Paul’s Basilicas (both built by Constantine I, in 318 and 324) were sacked, and Saint Peter’s and Saint Paul’s tombs both destroyed, marked the symbolic end of the medieval imperial Rome.

Sources are a little uncertain about how to describe the raiders, either as Arabs or Saracens, though some prefer 'Moors' and another settled for Moors and Saracens.

There is disagreement among the chroniclers over the origins of the raiders who attacked Rome, although most sources describe them as Saracens. According to the Liber Pontificalis and the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, the raiders were Saracens from Africa who raided Corsica before attacking Rome. The Annals of Fulda, on the other hand, describe the raiders as Moors (Latin: mauri), which generally indicated Muslims from al-Andalus (Spain) or the Maghreb, as opposed to Ifriqiya. The author of the Annals of Xanten was unsure: he called the raiders "either Moors or else Saracens". It is possible that the annals, which are from north of the Alps, were using "Moors" as a synonym for "Saracens". No Italian source describes the raiders of 846 as Moors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_raid_against_Rome#:~:text=The%20Arab%20raid%20against%20Rome,itself%20by%20the%20Aurelian%20Walls.

One can understand their haziness as the none of the sources cited are contemporary with the 'shocking' event. Most if not all the chronicles are fifteenth century manuscripts, every single original text having got lost as usual.


For Wiley

Saracen=tsar word
Moor= Messenger word

The former is associated with conquest, the latter trade.

The barbarians always appear at the gates, when Rome wanted to expand. (Alas, a former student of mine, Mr Putin, has only gone and applied his lesson in empire building).

No evidence for Peter or Paul ever being in Rome.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

By the by

John Welford wrote:
I looked him up - an interesting character, but there is the huge problem - with which you must surely sympathise - that contemporary documentation is sadly lacking, particularly in relation to his time before becoming Archbishop.

Mick Harper wrote:
Oh, I do not believe in his existence. He is (presumably) modelled on Odo, the brother of William of Conqueror. For whom there is sufficient documentation that he passes my muster. Remember, John, I'm only obeying the norms of academic historiography. That is why historians (and yourself) find me such a nuisance.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A STUDY EXERCISE FOR STUDENTS FROM LANCASTER UNIVERSITY HAS REVEALED A ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE NEAR LANCASTER CASTLE IN NORTHERN BRITAIN.https://www.heritagedaily.com/2023/03/evidence-of-romano-celtic-temple-found-in-northern-britain/146420




The discovery was made during a hydrogeophysics training session

We must take note of this new (to me) academic subject, hydrogeophysics.

conducted adjacent to the Roman military fort and castle in Lancaster, revealing an extensive religious enclosure which has been identified as a Romano-Celtic temple

There’s nothing like coming to the scene with preconceptions primed. If it is next to a Roman fort, it will be Romano. If it is in northern England during Roman times, it will be Celtic. If it isn’t the fort it must be… well, let’s see, shall we?

Lancaster Roman Fort, also known as Wery Wall, Galacum or Calunium (a modern name given to the fort), was first constructed atop Castle Hill in Lancaster to command a crossing over the River Lune around AD 80. During the early 2nd century AD, the fort was rebuilt in stone with a 2 metre thick revetment wall constructed in front of a clay-and-turf rampart. A Roman inscription at the fort records the re-building of a bathhouse and basilica in the middle of the 3rd century AD.

They had a basilica inside to look after the religious needs of the Romans. The religious needs of the natives was taken care of outside. Typical.

Around this time, the fort was garrisoned by the ala Sebosiana and the numerus Barcariorum Tigrisiensium. Archaeological evidence suggests that the fort remained active until the end of Roman occupation of Britain in the early 5th century.

We’ll have to take their word for this, mis-spellings and all.

“I had a few PhD students doing geophysical research and thought this was an interesting group hobby project, training them on techniques and getting them to work as a team,” said Professor Binley, who uses geophysical methods to solve hydrological problems, such as assessing underground water in agriculture and tracking groundwater contamination.

Ah, now we understand why this new academic subject has landed amongst us (and why in Lancashire). Fracking. Though groundwater contamination from agricultural practices has been a problem since artificial fertilisers were introduced in the nineteenth century (but that wasn't enough). This could be great for our own New Hydrology purposes (but won’t be).

Using ground penetrating radar, resistivity mapping, and modelling to produce high resolution 3D images, the study found evidence of a Romano-Celtic temple showing a walled enclosure with a gateway leading to a processional way. The mapping data also shows a possible roadside mausoleum outside the enclosure, and what might be the base of an altar close to the temple.

I don’t think it did, chaps. It showed a building with a path leading up to it and a porter’s lodge.

“It would have been dedicated to a god, probably associated with the sea or river. The inner sanctum was reserved for the priests, the outer ambulatory space was for elite members of society,” said Beyond the Castle project’s leading archaeologist, Jason Wood.

Or indeed anything else.

“Most of the religious activities would have happened outside the temple, including sacrifices.

Well, yes, burning stuff is probably best done outdoors but it’s a bit parky up there to conduct alfresco church services. But it's their choice.

There would have been a sanctuary or enclosure, possibly with another temple and buildings associated with hospitality and curing the sick. The enclosure would have been separate from the fort, but connected to it by a road or processional way,” added Wood.

"More research is needed."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is a great relief to write about a genuine treasure (as far as I know)


The Trier Gold Hoard is a hoard of 2516 gold coins with a weight of 18.5 kg, found in Trier, Germany, in September 1993 during construction works, nearly 1,800 years after it was hidden. It is described as the largest preserved Roman gold hoard worldwide.

True, that makes it a world record and normally therefore a subject of our ire but in this case our other rule about individual coins being fun-but-dubious whereas hoards are dull-but-authentic holds sway.

Greater inspection revealed that it was not simply someone's personal fortune but most likely an official treasury. The treasury had been carefully administered and had grown over time.

'Grown over time' is a red flag too but not, I think, on this occasion. Here's another one

The aurei (gold coins) feature a total of 27 emperors, empresses, and members of the imperial family

because hoards ought really to be quite localised in time. But gold lasts and maybe twenty-seven emperors isn't that long. Though I am surprised to hear that empresses and other family hangers-on get commemorated. I thought the Empire was more Imperial than that. Wiley will put me straight here. Meanwhile here's yet another (non)smoking gun

and some are still considered unique to this day.

Well, the mother-in-law wouldn't be on too many, I don't suppose. Nor would we automatically sign up to this piece of classic certainty

The gold coins were buried in a cellar during a civil war in 196 AD

and we would certainly not be over-impressed by

The collection can be viewed in Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier

But this is why I am bringing the story to you

The Hoard equated to the annual salary of around 130 Roman soldiers

I find this exquisitely moving. I never think of soldiers as being well paid but for 'an official treasury' of the Roman Empire, for the largest Roman hoard in the known universe, to consist of the spending money of a bunch of squaddies really speaks to me.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
What are the odds

Pliny the Elder died in AD 79 in Stabiae while attempting the rescue of a friend and his family by ship from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which had already destroyed the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum.[4] The wind caused by the sixth and largest pyroclastic surge of the volcano's eruption did not allow his ship to leave port, and Pliny died during that event.[5


The author of said book, which contains sections on, and catalogues examples of, volcanoes including linking these portents to Rome's fortune, then sails out and dies in perhaps the best known example of an erupting volcano.

The writer's nephew, who has by then inherited his Uncle's library, then proceeds a number of years down the line to write two letters to a famous historian of his day, vividly describing his uncle's death in the Bay of Naples, but not mentioning at all that the areas of Pompeii or Herculaneum were destroyed by this volcano.

Pliny the younger to Tacitus wrote:
For my part I deem those blessed to whom, by favour of the gods, it has been granted either to do what is worth writing of, or to write what is worth reading; above measure blessed are those on whom both gifts have been conferred. In the latter number will be my uncle, by virtue of his own and of your compositions.[2]

Unfortunately for Pliny enthusiasts, there is no original manuscript of the two letters purportedly written to Tacitus. Nor is there any way of knowing either who the author was or when the much later letters were written. The only clue is, as Pliny never mentioned Herculaneum and Pompeii and their existence was unknown until 1709, it seems the letters predate the late sixteenth century.

The first mention of Pliny's letters to Tacitus is in 1500 when Fra Giovanni Giocondo of Verona, a Dominican friar and antiquary, 'discovered' them in the newly established Saint Victor library in Paris. The good friar took on the job of transliterating the letters and sent them to the Italian printer and humanist, Aldus Manutius, in Venice where they were published in 1508.

Meanwhile, the original Pliny letters mysteriously disappeared/ disintegrated i.e. Giocondo's transliteration is the only original as it were. The story goes that Giocondo removed the original MS. from the library and sent it to the Venetian ambassador in Paris but by the 18th century this unique and priceless document had 'fragmented'. The fragments constitute the source of all extant copies of the Pliny manuscripts. In 1910 the surviving six leaves were purchased by the American financier, J. Pierpont Morgan.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

From Revisionist Historiography

Question Three: France has the original manuscript of Diderot’s Le Neveu de Rameau, a famous work by one of the central figures of the French Enlightenment. Did they

A. create a special niche for it in the Comédie-Française
B. hand it over for safekeeping to the Bibliothèque nationale
C. sell it to the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York

You’re on a roll. Question Four: the Pierpont Morgan would have done better to have

A. bought a Seine bridge
B. asked the French for their money back
C. the decency to take the wretched thing off their shelves this minute and admit they’re a complete bunch of wallies who wouldn’t know a genuine eighteenth century manuscript if it came wrapped round Madame de Pompadour’s pompadour
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:

Greater inspection revealed that it was not simply someone's personal fortune but most likely an official treasury. The treasury had been carefully administered and had grown over time.

'Grown over time' is a red flag too but not, I think, on this occasion. Here's another one


I think they mean that at least some of the coins were in a container, and the older coins were at the bottom, this type of sequencing seems totally improbable to Wiley. Are there gaps showing damnatio memoriae?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Pliny exchanges had some dénouements of exceptional interest so I will lay them out here. It took place on the Time Team discussion group on Facebook

Rob Jones wrote:
I'd heard about these but never read them. Letters to Tacitus from Pliny the Younger. https://igppweb.ucsd.edu/.../lectures/volcanoes/pliny.html

You-know-who lurched from her grave to give the human race a dusting down

Hatty wrote:
Unfortunately for Pliny enthusiasts, there is no original manuscript of the two letters purportedly written to Tacitus. Nor is there any way of knowing either who the author was or when the much later letters were written as revealed by some (inadvertent) red flags, e.g. "It is interesting to note that Pliny never mentioned the towns of Herculaneum (Ercolano) and Pompeii so that their existence remained unknown until the late 16th century. Excavation began in 1748". So all we can conclude is the letters predate the discoveries of Pompeii and Herculaneum in 1709 during the heyday of the Grand Tour and the mania for buying classical stuff to show off to one's peers.

Rob Jones wrote:
Why on earth would you expect to find an original manuscript for a 1950 year old document?

Hatty wrote:
If there is no original manuscript to hand, and no contemporary records alluding to it, there is no evidence that the manuscript existed is there? The first mention of Pliny's letters to Tacitus is in 1500 when Fra Giovanni Giocondo of Verona, an antiquary and humanist scholar, 'discovered' them in the newly established Saint Victor library in Paris. The good friar took on the job of transliteration and sent the letters to the Italian printer and humanist, Aldus Manutius, in Venice where they were published in 1508.

Meanwhile, the original Pliny letters mysteriously disappeared/ disintegrated i.e. the Giocondo transliteration is the only original as it were. The story goes that Giocondo removed the original MS. from the library and sent it to the Venetian ambassador in Paris but by the 18th century this unique and priceless document had 'fragmented'. The fragments constitute the source of all extant copies of the Pliny manuscripts. In 1910 the surviving six leaves were purchased by the American financier, J. Pierpont Morgan.

The reply was absolutely standard
Rob Jones wrote:
I do wish you would take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
The reply was absolutely standard

Hatty wrote:
It may seem pedantic to investigate sources but historians are required to follow the rules of evidence they themselves devised. Pointing out the absence of contemporary provenance for Pliny's letters is scholarship, not a conspiracy theory, unless you are implying that classical scholars are conspiracists, highly unlikely as I'm sure you agree

But now came something that has never happened before. Not on Facebook, not on Twitter, not anywhere in the public domain. Support for Hatty!

Ann Kah wrote:
Rob Jones, that was uncalled for. She gave a cautionary word about accepting documents uncritically, not a "conspiracy theory".

Rob was not taking that from anyone. He tracked Hatty back to her lair.

Rob Jones wrote:
I had a browse through your timeline. Anyone who quotes Ancient Origins as an authoritative source is more than a little suss.

Ancient Origins is an entirely respectable -- though non-academic -- journal reporting all kinds of developments and discoveries about the distant past. But Hatty did not make the rookie mistake of defending Ancient Origins. The average member of the Time Team discussion group wouldn't know it from a hole in the ground. Instead she took the high ground.

Hatty wrote:
We politely but robustly debunked that article from Ancient Origins on the so-called Celtic Tree Alphabet, aka Ogham. But the point, which you may have missed, is that academic historians are similarly over-credulous, speculating unrestrainedly on the origins of this mysterious alphabet. Ignoring the fact that in the absence of archaeological or stratigraphical dating evidence, there is no method of dating inscriptions, they confidently claim ogham inscriptions to be dated fifth or sixth century. So who are you calling suss?

To which Mr Jones had no reply.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Great Wall of China

So why is it here in All Things Roman? Because it's not Chinese and it's not a wall but a Roman road, part of the Great Silk Road. At any rate that is the claim here https://www.bitchute.com/video/YEf52IraSxqu/ Do I believe it? No. Is it worth a butchers? Yes.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next

Jump to:  
Page 24 of 28

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