The beginning of the Post-Roman Era in Britain is shrouded in mystery. For this reason‚ there is considerable debate over the chronology of events in the fifth century.   The traditional chronology of fifth-century Britain has been determined by the words of Gildas‚ a sixth century British writer. One of the events that he refers to is a letter sent by the Britons to the Romans‚ appealing for help. The letter was sent to a man named “Agitius.” Traditionally‚ this has been understood to be a reference to Flavius Aetius and has been used as an important chronological marker. However‚ there are some serious problems with this traditional interpretation.   Falvius Aetius and the Traditional Chronology Ancient Roman letter from Northumberland‚ c. 100 CE‚ via British Museum   After describing how the Romans left Britain‚ Gildas explains that the Britons started to suffer from attacks by the Picts and the Scots. They were unable to effectively defend themselves‚ so they appealed for help from the Romans. Gildas seems to quote directly from the letter they sent‚ which began:   “To Agitius‚ thrice consul‚ the groans of the Britons.”   The letter went on to describe how the barbarians were overrunning their land‚ pushing them back to the sea‚ leaving them with no escape. However‚ the Romans offered them no assistance. Therefore‚ after some time‚ the Britons decided to appeal to Germanic mercenaries‚ the Anglo-Saxons. The Britons gave them some land and resources in return for their service. However‚ the Anglo-Saxons eventually became dissatisfied with what they were receiving‚ leading to them rebelling and conquering more land. This marked the start of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. As we can see‚ in a poorly-documented era‚ establishing the date of this letter would go a long way to determining the chronology of fifth century Britain.   Depiction of Anglo-Saxon King Alfred‚ by C. Steckmest‚ 1847‚ via the British Museum   On the basis of this letter‚ the Anglo-Saxon arrival is generally placed in c. 450‚ with the conquest starting probably within the next few years. The basis for this date is that the name “Agitius” could be a form of the name “Aetius.” There was a prominent general by that name in the first half of the fifth century — Flavius Aetius. He was a powerful Roman leader who was active in the war against the barbarian tribes during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. We can see why the Britons may have wanted to appeal to him for help. Furthermore‚ Flavius Aetius was the only man (excluding emperors) within a 300-year period who was consul three times. Since the letter addresses him as “thrice consul‚” this seems to prove that it was sent after he became consul for the third time. Flavius Aetius had his third consulship in 446‚ and he died in 454. Therefore‚ the Britons’ appeal has traditionally been placed within this small window.   The Issue of the Name Gildas’ De Excidio‚ folio 14v‚ via British Library‚ London   One issue with the traditional identification of Agitius with Aetius is that the names are not quite identical. Some scholars have argued that there is no issue in concluding that “Agitius” is simply a form of the name “Aetius.” The letter “g” in this era was sometimes pronounced like a “y” which means that the pronunciation of “Agitius” would have been essentially identical to that of “Aetius.” For this reason‚ most scholars do not have an issue with this interpretation.   Portrait of Flavius Aetius‚ by Julio Sprozza‚ 18th century‚ British Museum   On the other hand‚ other scholars (such as Michael Jones in Nottingham Medieval Studies) have argued that the philology of the name is beside the point. What matters is how it was actually written in practice. Although there are some later documents which spell Flavius Aetius’ name with a “g” included‚ no contemporary document contains such a spelling. Recall that Gildas appears to be actually quoting the letter directly. This makes it unlikely that he would have used a non-contemporary spelling. Still‚ we cannot exclude the possibility that he updated the spelling intentionally.   Chronological Issues Anglo-Saxon style bird-shaped broach‚ sixth century‚ Metropolitan Museum‚ New York   A much more significant issue for the traditional identification of Agitius is the chronology of fifth century Britain. While it is true that this is a poorly-documented era‚ there are some contemporary records. These records come from the continent. Renowned scholar John T Koch pointed out that two fifth-century continental sources “both show uncontrolled military action by the Anglo-Saxons in Britain at a date earlier than 446.”   These two sources are the Gallic Chronicle of 452‚ and The Life of St Germanus‚ written in the 470s. Archaeology also shows a significant Anglo-Saxon presence in Britain from c. 430‚ some 20 years before the traditional date of the Anglo-Saxon arrival. Therefore‚ the evidence is clear that the Anglo-Saxons arrived and were warring in the country long before Aetius received his third consulship. Therefore‚ the traditional chronology simply cannot be correct. Two main possibilities have been proposed to resolve this issue. Either the letter was misplaced by Gildas in his sequence of events‚ or it does not refer to Flavius Aetius after his third consulship.   The Qualitative “Thrice” Folio from Eclogues‚ Georgics and Aeneid‚ by Cristoforo Majorana‚ c. 1470‚ via Walters Art Museum‚ Maryland   One key fact which many researchers have overlooked is the fact that “thrice” does not simply have a numerical meaning. It has generally been assumed that when Gildas referred to Agitius as “thrice consul” (literally‚ in Latin‚ “ter consul”)‚ he was referring to Agitius as having been consul three times. But this is not necessarily the case. The word “thrice” does not just have a numerical meaning. It also has a qualitative meaning. That is‚ it can be used in an emphatic sense‚ highlighting the excellence or degree of something. This may be related to the practice seen in the Bible‚ where the writers would sometimes repeat a quality (such as “holy”) three times.   One example of this use of the Latin word “ter” is seen in Virgil’s Aeneid. In both Book I and Book XI‚ we find characters referring to others as “thrice happy.” This obviously does not mean that they became happy three times‚ but rather‚ it means that they were extremely happy.   Bust of Hermes in one of his many forms‚ Roman copy of Greek original‚ sixth century BCE‚ via Wikimedia Commons   Another example of this is seen in the title given to a combination of the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth. This god is known as “Hermes Trismegistus‚” meaning Hermes Thrice-Great. The Roman equivalent of the Greek god Hermes was Mercury. Thus‚ in Classical Latin‚ this god was “Mercurius ter Maximus.” Notice the use of the word “ter” here‚ just as in Gildas’ reference to Agitius.   In this example‚ it is obvious that Hermes was not considered to have become great three times. There is no indication whatsoever of this understanding. The use of ‘thrice’ in this title is very obviously qualitative‚ not numerical.   With these examples in mind‚ it could be the case that Agitius was referred to as “thrice consul” in a qualitative way‚ not a numerical way. It could be that this use of the word “thrice” was used simply to emphasize the excellence of Agitius’ consulship‚ which he could have held just once. This would greatly expand the potential candidates for the real Agitius.   Suffect‚ Honorary‚ and Independent Consuls Ancient coin depicting Emperor Carausius‚ third century CE‚ via the Royal Mint   Another issue‚ also highlighted by historian Michael Jones‚ is that there is no guarantee that the Agitius mentioned by Gildas is someone whom we know held the consulship. The problem is that the official list of consuls only includes those who were appointed consuls at the beginning of the year. However‚ sometimes a consul died before the end of the year‚ or he retired or was removed from office for whatever reason. If this occurred‚ he would have to be replaced. The replacement‚ who held the position just for the remaining part of the year‚ was known as a suffect consul. There is no list of these suffect consuls‚ but we know that they existed.   Additionally‚ we know that independent consulships were sometimes set up in territories that had become independent from the Roman Empire. This occurred‚ for example‚ within Carausius’ breakaway empire over Britain and part of Gaul. Significantly‚ various territories had become independent by the fifth century. Again‚ we do not have a list of whatever independent consuls must have existed at that time. Furthermore‚ there is evidence that official titles‚ such as “consul‚” were being used in a looser sense in the fifth century. Some prominent figures may have been called “consul” simply in an honorary sense.   Was Agitius Really Flavius Aetius? Possible depiction of Flavius Aetius on the so-called Sarcophagus of Stilicho‚ fifth century‚ Milan‚ Italy‚ via Wikimedia Commons   The chronological evidence from the Gallic Chronicle of 452‚ The Life of St Germanus‚ and archaeology clearly shows that the Anglo-Saxons were warring in Britain before 446. Therefore‚ the Britons’ appeal to Agitius simply cannot have been sent to Flavius Aetius after his third consulship‚ which was in 446. It must have been sent long before then (unless Gildas simply misplaced it in his sequence of events‚ and it was actually an appeal regarding the Anglo-Saxon attacks‚ not preceding them). Some scholars have argued that a different figure was the recipient. This may well be the case.   The word “thrice‚” as we have seen‚ can be used in a qualitative way rather than a numerical way. It could well be that it was sent to someone who is only known to have been consul once. Alternatively‚ it could have been sent to someone who is not known to historians as consul at all‚ because he was a suffect consul. Or he could have been a consul of a territory that was already independent of the Roman Empire. Whatever the case‚ if Gildas’ sequence of events is accurate‚ the Britons’ appeal to Agitius simply cannot be dated to c. 446. It must have occurred much earlier.

  Emperor Nero is well known for his acts of madness and tyranny‚ with the Great Fire of Rome being one of his most infamous acts. Yet‚ while the Great Fire was a devastating event that destroyed much of the Roman Empire’s capital‚ Nero was not the one responsible for the calamity. The emperor did not make the order‚ and he certainly did not play the fiddle (or the lyre) while Rome was burning.   However‚ Nero made most of the devastating event and‚ in the aftermath of the Great Fire‚ embarked on several grandiose construction projects‚ including the opulent palatial complex – Domus Aurea. The emperor’s building spree on the ashes of the smouldering city angered his political enemies‚ including the Senate of Rome. Following his suicide in 68 CE‚ the senators (many of them historians) exploited the Great Fire of Rome in their quest to tarnish emperor Nero’s name for posterity.   The Great Fire of Rome Happened During Nero’s Reign The Fire of Rome‚ by Robert Hubert‚ 1771. Source: Historyextra.com   The Great Fire of Rome‚ one of most tragic events in the city’s long history‚ happened in the tenth year of emperor Nero’s reign. The fire broke out on the night of July 18‚ 64 CE‚ in the eleventh district‚ the area that hosted the great arena for chariot races – the Circus Maximus. According to historian Tacitus‚ our best source‚ the first flames appeared in the merchant shops near the grand arena‚ from where the fire spread quickly‚ fueled by strong wind and dry summer weather. The Great Fire of Rome raged for six days and seven nights‚ destroying or damaging ten of the fourteen districts. The flames claimed hundreds of lives‚ left thousands more homeless‚ and left two-thirds of the city in ruins.    Nero’s Enemies Blamed the Emperor for the Fire Coin showing a bust of Nero on the left‚ Nero laureate‚ playing lyre on the right‚ 62 CE. Source: the British Museum‚ London   Nero’s enemies used the disaster against the emperor. Nero was blamed for the fire‚ either for ordering it or for neglecting it‚ and for indifference to the suffering of those affected by the disaster. Probably the most severe of the accusations was that the emperor was using the Great Fire of Rome for his artistic pursuits. While the ancient city burned‚ the emperor observed the event from the safety of his Palace‚ played the lyre‚ and sang of the destruction of Troy‚ comparing the present misfortune with the calamities of antiquity. A tempting tale‚ but as often in history‚ too good to be true.    Nero Was Not Responsible for the Disaster Coin of Emperor Nero showing the stylized depiction of the Roman harbor‚ 64 CE. Source: The British Museum   To start with‚ according to the most reliable source – Tacitus – Nero had a strong alibi. He was not in Rome when the fire started. The 26-year-old emperor was relaxing at his seaside villa in Antium (modern-day Anzio)‚ 50 km (31 miles) from Rome. Upon hearing the terrible news‚ the emperor immediately returned to the capital‚ where he personally led the relief efforts. Not something you would expect from an arsonist.    The Emperor Assisted the Citizens of Rome The map showing the layout of the city of Rome‚ and its districts‚ in the imperial period – 1st to 4th century CE.   The emperor also assisted the victims. According to Tacitus‚ the emperor opened the Campus Martius and the public building as a shelter for the homeless‚ going as far as to allow the use of his private gardens. And after the blazing inferno was finally contained‚ Nero offered cash incentives to ensure Rome’s rapid recovery. Emperor Nero also passed and enforced new fire regulations. The Great Fire of Rome was not the first time the ancient city went up in flames. No fewer than six fires were recorded in just the first half of the first century. But the fire of 64 CE was undoubtedly the worst. Thus‚ Nero played a crucial role in preventing any similar disaster in the future. Nero‚ However‚ Exploited the Fire to Build Domus Aurea Visual reconstruction of the Domus Aurea‚ built after the Fire of Rome in 64 CE‚ by Josep R. Casals.   Despite the emperor’s efforts‚ many blamed Nero for burning Rome. It did not help that the emperor exploited the fire for his ambitious construction program. The highlight was the majestic new palace – the Domus Aurea. The “Golden House‚” built in the area devastated by the fire‚ was a lavish and huge palatial complex containing many buildings‚ landscaped gardens‚ orchards‚ vineyards‚ and even an artificial lake. The rooms were covered in gold and decorated with precious stones and gems.   No wonder the senators jumped on the opportunity to use the opulent structure to undermine their hated rival. However‚ their anger may be misplaced‚ as according to recent findings‚ the massive complex seems to be not a private but a public building open to the people of Rome. After all‚ Nero was widely popular among the common folk.    He Also Used the Fire to Persecute the Christians Nero’s Torches‚ Henryk Siemiradzki‚ 1876‚ The National Museum‚ Krakow   To suppress the rumors‚ and prevent violence‚ Nero had to find a scapegoat for the devastating calamity that ruined Rome. The answer was a new and unpopular religious sect‚ considered a troublemaker and threat by the Roman authorities – the Christians. According to Tacitus‚ on the emperor’s orders‚ the Christians were mass arrested‚ nailed to the cross‚ thrown to the beasts‚ or burned alive as “human torches that illuminated the night.” Tacitus’ account‚ however‚ is problematic‚ and it seems that Nero’s persecution of the Christians was inflated by the early Christian historians‚ who found the hated pagan emperor an easy target in the Empire of Constantine the Great and his heirs.   The Great Fire of Rome Was Used to Demonize Emperor Nero Nero Walks On Rome’s Cinders‚ by Karl Theodor von Piloty‚ 1861. Source: The Hungarian National Gallery   While most likely accidental‚ the Great Fire of Rome could easily be exploited by emperor Nero’s numerous enemies. His ambitious building program on the ashes of the still smoldering city‚ including the extravagant Domus Aurea‚ made it easier for Nero’s rivals to undermine the emperor’s authority‚ eventually leading to Nero’s suicide. Following the bloody civil war‚ the new Flavian dynasty used the Great Fire of Rome to vilify both Nero and his Julio-Claudian dynasty. The accounts of senators and historians such as Suetonius and Cassius Dio forever sealed the fate of the hapless emperor‚ making him a tyrant and arsonist of Rome. And after the Christian takeover of the Roman Empire‚ Nero’s persecution of Christians made him the Antichrist.    We should not forget that the winners are the ones who write the history. Nero was an emperor‚ the most powerful man in the Roman Empire. But he lost the battle against the well-entrenched and powerful senatorial elite. Centuries later‚ the long dead emperor also lost the fight against the Christians. Becoming a tyrant‚ murderer‚ Antichrist‚ and the architect of the Great Fire of Rome.

January 10‚ 2024

Oh‚ and did I mention that Mohammed’s wife is about to give birth to their 11th child? h/t Rebel R

And then local authorities let him go again. The post Unaccompanied ‘Juvenile’ Illegal Alien Released Into U.S. Abused Child appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

He also wants a transfer into the female prison population. The post Biden Sues to Force Georgia to Castrate Transgender Criminal appeared first on Frontpage Mag.