December 25 Information

Where in the New Testament does Jesus say that His followers will be angry at Him? 71.100.6.152 05:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't remember reading that, but this website has a search engine for many different versions of the bible, and allows you to search only within the New Testament or only within the Gospels. Hope this helps, Dar- Ape 22:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It doesn't. I'm quite sure. BenC7 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, if not angry maybe resist or reject or be consternated over? 71.100.6.152 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you got confused. Jesus did not say "His followers will be angry at Him". Jesus said that his followers will DENY ever knowing him.

that Peter, Jesus' loyal Apostle, would deny knowing Jesus three times before the break of dawn. 202.168.50.40 21:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Right, I'm aware of His statement to Peter but it seems that somewhere He also said something to the effect that His followers (including those living today) might curse Him or something to that effect becasue He came to put brother against brother, etc. but despite this that He was still the Way and the Light and we had to follow Him to be worthy of Him. Like we might not like the burden of following Him but follow Him is what we had to do. Consternated or not. 71.100.6.152 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, here it is... Matthew 10:16-42. Found it using the link to the keyword search posted above: this website. Thanks. 71.100.6.152 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but where in Matthew 10:16-42 does it says that "His followers will be angry at Him"? 202.168.50.40 02:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It doesn't. Jesus never said it, or any words to that effect. The asker may have it confused with the part where he said, "You will be hated by all for my name's sake" (Mt. 10:22). BenC7 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

That's correct. However, many use the fact that following Jesus may or will cause others to be angry at them as grounds for being angry at Jesus, not to mention any names. I guess it comes down to having a choice between being angry at others or at Jesus for the situation following Jesus puts you in. My question is really to determine whether you might have to deal with being angry at someone as the result of following Him whether these were His exact words or not and only a lay interpretation instead. Please feel free to elaborate on a more detailed answer to this question or provide references to discussions elsewhere should you know of any that exist. Thanks. Adaptron 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

How did this come to be? While I understand the meaning of BC = Before Christ and AD = After Death, it is not clear when this calendar method truly came into effect and how the world's people came to adopt it. Europe and Asia anyway as I expect the Americas - indians, Mayans and Incas were on their own calendar.

AD stands for Anno Domini, or the year of our lord. I believe that article answers your main question. As a side note, the acutal date for the birth of Christ is more likely 4 to 6 B.C.E. (see note below for definition), becuase of mistaken calcuations during the conversion process. ~~ Dmarney 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Was it decreed by the Romans?

In a sense yes, in that the Roman empire was converted to Christianity, and that the Catholic Church, now the state religion, was responsible for the creation of the calendar system. Again reference Anno Domini. ~~ :Dmarney|Dmarney 07:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly as no one can predict the future, those living in say 100 BC were not minting coins with such a date. Are BC dates therefore a more modern way of talking about history? And, what about muslims - the prophet Mohammed lived in about 600 AD. Is it not about 1400 AD for them? The Mayans predicted the end of the world in I believe 2012 or 2016 -I don't recall. Is this an interpretation based on our BC to AD calendar or were they converted to our western calender with the arrival of Christians.

Anyway, my main question is the first one. How and who was behind the resetting of the calendar to zero at AD? And, did it happen at or near that time or perhaps 10, 20 or even a 100 years later? Chiocchi 06:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC) BC reply

Sidenote on calader systems: Since the lasting impact of Western culture has effected the rest of the world, most dates have been converted into it's calendar system. However, out of respect for those of other religions, most scholarly systems have changed the names for these two eras to Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE). Additionally, regarding the Maya calendar, they had a much more accurate accounting of time than the western calculations, which as noted above mistakenly placed the year 0. ~~ Dmarney 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

As the Anno Domini article says, the BC/AD system was invented by Dionysius Exiguus and popularized by Bede during the so-called Dark Ages. Before that, years were counted since the ascension of a particular emperor or consul, since the founding of Rome or, in Christian circles, since the beginning of the persecutions of Diocletian. Dionysius thought it wasn't a good idea to "honor" Diocletian in this way. So Dionysius counted years from what he thought was the date of Jesus' birth. He was off by a few years. The Islamic calendar counts years from the flight of Muhammad to Medina, while the Jewish calendar counts from the Creation. -- Mwalcoff 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Calendar systems are one of those standards where it really doesn't matter what the standard is, so long as everyone uses it. Unfortunately, choosing a religious method for setting up the calendar was certain to cause resentment and other competing systems from other religions. If we could choose one universally agreed to non-religious event as a starting point, say the August 23, 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, we would have had a better chance of gaining universal acceptance for one calendar. StuRat 13:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

With the Revolution, the French actually tried that, with a fully secular, more metric, decimalized calendar and method of timekeeping, with 10 days a week, 10 hours a day, 100 minutes an hour, and 100 seconds a minute. Needless to say it never caught on. Though I'm not Christian, Arabic or English, I really don't mind using the "Christian" calendar, "Arabic" numerals and the "English" language, as the use of these has pretty much become the dominant standard. Besides, our months of the year and days of the week are based on a smattering of Roman, Norse, and astronomical influences. Just look what became of that absolutely ridiculous language known as Esperanto, ridiculous because rather than have many people learn a foreign language such as a English, (I believe about half the world's population has, at the very least some working knowledge of English), adopting Esperanto would require everyone to learn a new language. So using the English language, Arabic digits, the Christian year, the Roman month and a day of the week named after the moon, the date today is Monday, December 25, 2006. Merry Christmas everyone! Loomis 00:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, the problem there was that year 0 was the French Revolution, hardly a "universal" date that everyone would agree to use. Happy Festivus ! StuRat 14:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Reference points in time are social constructs. Kings used to be reference points. Romans would measure their age in years from the birth of the latest emperor. The Year of three emperors was confusing.

The Christianisation of the Roman empire resulted in the adoption of a more universal time concept. However, the principle remained the same. Further, there was no year zero, as Fibonacci had not yet taken Hindu/Arabic numbers to Europe. So the calendar went from 1BC to 1AD. Math teachers in the year 2000 were accused of being too pedantic in pointing out that 2001 marked the new millenium.

In a move (which I believe silly) to remove the religious antecedants, BC is being amended by historians to BCE (Before Common Era). BCE is appearing in textbooks in Australia, and probably world wide.

Worth noting, the nation with the largest number of English speakers is China. Months, weeks and days, as well as seasons have natural references. DDB 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Whom is his wife? Is there a family tree of him? He built Appian Way. One of his sons is Gauis Claudius, however can not find his wife's name. -- Doug Coldwell 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

See Appius Claudius Caecus. The article links to a Claudian family tree that does not seem functional at the moment. However, I suspect Livy does not mention his wife's name, and we have no earlier sources. alteripse 19:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

What relationship or connection of his family of "Cornelius" or "Scipios" is there to the "Claudius" family? Perhaps a relationship to Marcus Claudius Marcellus (c. 268-208 BC) or Appius Claudius Caecus ("the blind"; c. 340 BC-273 BC). Perhaps there is a relationship of "Claudius" to Lucius Aemilius Paullus, whom's daughter Aemilia Tertia married Scipio Africanus. -- Doug Coldwell 20:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The Claudii and the Cornelii were two of the five mighty gentes maiores patrician family clans of ancient Rome, and marriages would preferentially be between these clans. In fact, until 445 BC intermarriage between patricians and plebeians was not allowed. So the connections must be numerous.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 21:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

25 December 2006 I've searched and searched for this, am eager to find its title. Here are some things I remember from 40 years ago.

A black kid, age 12(?) is shot but not killed, is lying under the bar in a tavern.

Later he's inspired by Eleanor Roosevelt.

A tough gay neighborhood kid gives him a heroin pill.

Toward the end of the novel he dates a girl who he has sex with against her wishes, what we'd call date rape now.

Those are the details I remember. Would be very grateful if anyone--probably 50 or older?--remembers this book.

Many thanks,

Peter Moore-- 216.183.156.167 22:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

What relationship or any kind of a "connection" did Appius Claudius Caecus have to do with Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great)? This could be perhaps a "connection" where Ptolemy I Soter is related to the Claudius family via Arsinoe of Macedonia; or perhaps through the descendants of Ptolemy I Soter (Ptolemy Keraunos or Ptolemy II Philadelphus). Stateira (daughter of Darius III) married Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great also had other wives. Are any of these wife's families in any way related to Appius Claudius Caecus or the Claudius family in that time period? I believe there to be a relationship and "connection" of Philip II of Macedon to Appius Claudius Caecus. Do you know of such relationship? Perhaps there is a "relationship" of the "Cornelius" or "Scipio" families to Philip II of Macedon??? That then would make the "connection" to Appius Claudius Caecus and the Claudius family. Maybe through Lucius Aemilius Paullus??? -- Doug Coldwell 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The bunch of peasants huddling on some hills in Latium, imagining themselves nobility, may have been below what would register on the radar (forgive the anachronism) of the mighty conqueror Kings of Macedon, rulers over the epitome of civilization, Greece, and subjugating the next jewel in the crown of civilization, the great Persian Empire.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your answer. I am an old retiree and I do believe you lost me on that one. Do you mean to say that there IS IN FACT a connection or "relationship" of Philip II of Macedon to Appius Claudius Caecus? I have reason to believe there is an ACTUAL "relationship" (not necessarily a direct "blood line") between these two. Perhaps a descendent of Philip's married into the Claudius family about this time or the "Cornelius" family. Do you know of such relationship? -- Doug Coldwell 00:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I tried to say that, at the time of Philip and Alexander, Rome was little more than an insignificant village. The gens Cornelius as being considered important runs roughly from the 5th century BC to the 4th century AD, almost the entire lifespan of the Roman Republic and (Western) Roman Empire. Of course it is possible that at the height of the Roman Empire, several centuries later, some descendant of some member of the Argead dynasty married someone from one of the gentes Claudius or Cornelius, but I do not actually know of such an occurrence. The murder of Heracles in 309 BC ended the Argead line, after which being a descendant of Philip lost its strong political significance. This was all before Rome obtained any significant geopolitical stature. Known later descendants of Philip are royalty, which the Cornelii and Claudii were not. That does not make intermarriage impossible, but definitely less likely. You can follow the tree of descendants of Philip II, in as far as it is known, from this link.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 02:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that was very useful. The family tree on Philip II is an excellent clue I will follow up on. Here are my thoughts: Olympias was the mother of Alexander the Great. She also was the brother of Alexander I of Epirus. He was engaged in the Second Samnite War. Noticed that he made a treaty with the Romans in 332 BC while in Taras (where the Appian Way went to). Later he was killed on the banks of the Acheron. He left behind a daughter named Cadmea. My guess is that Cadmea was born somewhere around 340 BC (about the time as Appius Claudius Caecus). They were about the same age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_I_of_Epirus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Samnite_War

I am thinking it is VERY possible that Cadmea is the wife of Appius Claudius Caecus. She is placed in the same area and same time period as where Appius Claudius Caecus put the Appian Way, Taras. Since I also can NOT get access to the Claudius familt tree to verify his wife, this is speculation. Does it sound possible to you? -- Doug Coldwell 13:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd think that while fighting a military campaign in Latium King Alex would have left his daughter safely back at home in Epirus, under the care of her mother, but even if he had taken her along... Appius Claudius Caecus was only about 8 years old at the time, and another 20 years were to pass before he had the Appian Way built. So while not strictly impossible, it does not appear particularly plausible to me.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I was wondering where I could find information about the free trade of human organs, preferably in a Pros vs. Cons structure, or either one of them. I found nothing vaguely similar in Wikipedia, nor serious in-depth material in other sites.

If someone could help me with this I would be very grateful. 89.138.28.251 22:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you sure your question is confined to the "free" trade in redundant human organs? If it's "free", I think the better term would be donation rather than trade. If you're looking for arguments against it, I'm not surprised that you couldn't come up with much, as, aside from matters of religious belief, I wouldn't expect for any secular arguments being made against the donation of redundant organs.

However, if by "free trade" you mean the "freedom" to sell one's organs for money, that would be a whole different debate. Loomis 23:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Organ transplant talks about it. Clarityfiend 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Clarity's source is a good one. In particular, this [1] section. It even povides a couple of sources, one apparently strongly in favour of it. Loomis 12:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Here are some posts [2] from the Freakonomics blog. -- Kjoon lee 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I mean free trade - not as in trading for free but the freedom of trading (Like free trade in economy). Does anyone know where I can find information and arguments for and against this? -- 89.138.28.251 15:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Your answer sounds correct to me and MORE logical. I will have to do more research on this to make a "connections" between the family lineage of Macedonian King Philip II and Appius Claudius Caecus. I am PRETTY sure there is a "relationship", however have not at this point made that connection. Notice that the Appian Way went to Taras. Would you say this is close in spelling and sounds similar as "Tharsus" or "Tarsus". Both start with the same letter and end with the same letter. Many Roman roads were constructed in a straight line for fast movement of troops. The Appian Way was the "Queen" of the Roman roads. Would it be fair then to be able to call it the "Straight Street" that went to Taras? -- Doug Coldwell 15:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe Petrarch studied the ancient historians Livy and Polybius. Did Petrarch also study the ancient history of Plutarch. Was his in Greek ONLY? Did Petrarch know Greek? Could Petrarch have had Plutarch's work translated into Latin or Italian so he could have read them. An example would be Parallel Lives, since apparently Petrarch wrote on some of the same people in his own De Viris Illustribus. -- Doug Coldwell 23:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't have a definitive answer, but I can say that in Petrarch's days there was little interest in and knowledge of ancient Greek civilization, which arose a century later with the High Renaissance. Quite possibly Petrarch was unaware of the existence of Parallel Lives, a work that even today is only known fragmentarily. The identical title suggests that he knew Suetonius' work.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 00:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks again for your very good answer. You seem to be extremely knowledgable along these lines. I did NOT know of Suetonius, however I do know Petrarch has at least two sets of De Viris Illustribus. These lists of Lives are presently in Latin only. One set starts with Romulus, the FIRST Roman ruler. Another set (Liber II) starts with the FIRST person of the Bible, Adam. He worked with his friend Giovanni Boccaccio on his Lives "On Famous Women", a list of 106 short biographies. Famous Women starts with the FIRST woman of the Bible, Eve. I do believe there is a pattern here of FIRSTS. I believe you are correct that Petrarch was NOT aware of Plutarch "Parallel Lives", however obtained his ancient history information from the great historians Livy and Polybius (whom apparently wrote in Latin, not Greek) -- Doug Coldwell 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Petrarch wrote a famous poem and book called "Africa". It is of a great commander for Italy called Scipio "Cornelius" Africanus. It is his greatest work and the one he was most proud of. On his list in Latin starting with Romulus it has this great commander for Italy of one Scipio "Cornelius" Africanus. The poem was written in hexameters. Can you tell me what this means of "Hexameters"? Also I believe I have come across still another list of 28 Lives Petrarch's called also of "De Viris Illustribus", however it is written in code. Petrarch refers to this secret list as Chronicle of Universal History of 28 homilies. It starts with the FIRST Persian ruler: Cyrus the Great. It talks of the Cyrus Cylinder and that it is of Human Rights and consists of 40 lines. Now that turns out quite interesting since 40 + 66 (the number of books in the Bible) is 106; which just happens to equal the number of Famous Women that Boccaccio did that Petrarch helped on. This list then goes to the FIRST great Macedon ruler (Philip II) and then to the FIRST great Greek ruler (Alexander the Great), then to the FIRST great Roman politician "Appius Claudius" (of the Appian Way). -- Doug Coldwell 01:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not sure I understand your question 'what this means of " Hexameters"?'. Hexameters were used, for example, by Ovid, whose work Petrarch must have known. By 'Scipio "Cornelius" Africanus', do you mean Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major? There is no reason to put Cornelius in quotes, but the ordering with Scipio preceding Cornelius is odd.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 01:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, that is the Scipio I am refering to. Would you say this is a fair statement for Scipio: "There was a certain man in Roman command ("Consul") called Cornelius, a captain of the soldiers of Italy." There just happens to be a very specific reason I am asking it this way. Also why I am specific for "Cornelius". Will explain later. -- Doug Coldwell 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know. Livy calls him once "P. Scipio Africanus", and after that "P. Africanus". He never uses the gentilicium "Cornelius". So it may be a bit strange. Rather than "he was called Cornelius" you could say "he was a Cornelius" – although still a bit peculiar because saying "he was a Scipio" is as easy and much more informative. Make sure that if he is called a captain, it is at a point of his career when he is indeed at a rank comparable with a captain, and not a senior commander. For the ranks, see further the article Roman army.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the answer about Livy. Polybius perhaps called him the gentilicium "Cornelius". Perhaps also Plutarch??? In any case however I do believe Petrarch would have had access to the fact Scipio was from the family "Cornelius". Could he also have been called a "centurion" as well as a "captian" or even "a Roman army officer". These terms are NOT mine, however come from other sources; so it is important if these "titles" (even if loose) would be appropriate? Would otherwise then the statement above I quoted from a source be correct as to a description for Scipio Africanus? Would then (even if a loose description) these statements describe this same Scipio "Cornelius" Aficanus Major? "Now there was a certain man in Roman command, Cornelius by name, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment." "There was a certain man in Roman control, called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band." "Now there was a man at Consul named "Cornelius", a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort." Would you say the above would be fair statements for Scipio? Doesn't have to be strict, just as general statements. These statements by the way are NOT something I made up, but come from various well known sources. Isn't it also quite likely that Petrarch would have known the fact that Scipio (a.k.a. "P. Scipio Africanus") was from the family "Cornelius"? -- Doug Coldwell 16:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know the documents available to Petrarch but bits of Plutarch were read throughout the middle ages. He was very popular in antiquity and individual lives and quoted fragments remained in other works so Petrarch probably was familiar with some of the work in Latin. Petrarch did not know Greek, he relied on people like Leozio Pilatus who was one of the primary scholars of Greek at the time. In one letter to Pilatus, Petrarch said thanks for the manuscript of Homer Pilatus but confessed he could not read it and asked for translations of others including Hesiod. In a letter addressed to Homer Petrarch writes how so very few people in a city who know Homer's works. As for other lives by Petraach, I only know of two groups: Book I and Book II. I would be interested in where you read about lives including Cyrus, there other who wrote works entitled De Viris Illustribus. meltBanana 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thought maybe that would be interesting to you. I will reveal this, however a little later. It turns out that there are no other scholars that knows of this; so at this point it is pretty much a secret. First I am waiting for an answer above pertaining to "Cornelius". Both of you have given me EXCELLENT answers, so I will reveal this secret to you both a little later, especially after I point out a couple of things first. This special secret list that Petrarch did is of 28 Lives. Some are on his Latin list of 23 Lives (i.e. Scipio). Coincidently the number of letters in Petrarch's name plus "Africa" is also 23. Petrarch's Liber II is of 12 Lives, the same amount of letters as in Laura deNoves. More on this later. I will give you half the list here at the end. From this you can see that it is in reverse chronological order (making it "Chronicle"). Also it consists of Persian Kings, Macedonian Kings, Greek rulers and the FIRST major Roman politician (Appius Claudius). Would you agree with me that he was the FIRST real Roman political figure? Notice then the pattern of FIRSTS in each of these lists that Petrarch did. The two lists you pointed out to me has the FIRST Roman ruler and the FIRST person of the Bible. Boccaccio's list (influenced by Petrarch) of Famous Women is of the FIRST woman of the Bible, Eve. Do you see this pattern of FIRSTS? This is important because it then leads into this special secret list I am refering to with the FIRST Persian King, etc. Also you pointed out to me the various people that did De Viris Illustribus, one being Jerome. Notice Chapter 66 is of one "Cornelius" (a Bishop of Rome). Coincidently there are 66 books to the Bible. Add this up to the 40 lines of the Cyrus Cylinder and you get 106 (being the number of Boccaccio's Famous Women). Coincidence? Here is half the special secret list (now in Code) that Petrarch did of 28 Lives in the middle of the Fourteenth Century: 1) Cyrus the Great (First Persain ruler); 2) Darius I, the Great 3) Artaxerxes I 4) Darius III 5) Darius III (Codomannus) with sister-wife Stateira I

  Stateira (daughter of Stateira I) married Alexander the Great.

6) Philip II of Macedon. 7) Alexander the Great 8) Philip III of Macedon (half brother of Alexander, the Great)

  This chapter is also of Alexander's son Alexander IV

9) Appius Claudius (builder of the Appian Way and Aqua Appia. 10) Publius "Cornelius" Scipio Africanus (fought Hannibal of Carthage) 11) Publius Cornelius Scipio (father of Scipio Africanus Major) 12) Lucius Aemilius Paullus (daughter Aemilia Tertia married Scipio) 13) Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (war against King Jugurtha of Numidia) 14) Marcus Aemilius Scaurus (His second wife was Caecilia Metella

    Dalmatica who was later the third wife of Lucius Cornelius Sulla)

Notice that each "Illustrious Person" is in some way is connected to the next person (or the next after person). This is as if there was a needle and thread that sewed these together in relationships (not necessarily blood line). What is important about this is that it took enclyclopedic knowledge of these ancient people to make this "connection" between each of them. My background is NOT in history, so I could NOT have made this up. Both of you are EXTREMELY knowledgable on ancient facts, so you recognise these "relationships". The ONLY one I have not made a postive connection on ("relationship") is between Alexander the Great and Appius Claudis. I know there is a "connection" because I can see the pattern. The pattern follows all the way through, starting from Cyrus the Great all the way to number 28. From number 10 all the rest happen to be related to Scipio "Cornelius" Africanus Major in some way (i.e. his son adopted one or his daughter married another, etc). Will reveal the next time, however had to set a BASIS first. One more easy question: In Jerome's list, not counting the last Chapter since it apparently is an identification (signature), how many Christian authors (Chapters) are there? -- Doug Coldwell 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

For Lambiam & MeltBanana: Don't know what time zone you are on, however I believe it is the same as mine of Eastern Standard Time. Perhaps you are in England, however don't know for sure. I must say that BOTH of you have given me EXCELLENT answers and hope to continue this conversation. What I have just now supplied I realize will take some time to research and answer. To elaborate further on the above De Viris Illustribus here is some more, all of which I hope you all will give me a comment on. The above list of 28 Lives (that no other scholar up to now knows about) was written by Petrarch around 1350 +/- 20 years. I have furnished you with half the list 1-14. Notice that ALL are in some way related to the next people below. It may not however be necessarily a blood-line, but there is a "connection" or a relationship in some way. Petrarch himself refers to this as "Chronicle of Universal History of 28 homilies" and does NOT call these Lives De Viris Illustribus as he has his other known lists (presently in Latin only as described above of 23 Lives and 12 Lives). Have you noticed in Jerome's list that there are 134 Lives. Chapter 135 is the person called Jerome identifying himself as to what he wrote. I am NOT a religious person and do not attend church so know NOT of this person (other that looking up in Wikipedia). Coincidently Chapter 66 is of one "Cornelius", a Bishop of Rome. Now here is where it gets VERY VERY interesting. Both of you's have MUCH knowledge of ancient people, however I'll bet you dollars to donuts that in the case of Jerome's "Christians" you do NOT know most of them (if any). Out of the 134 Lives ("Christians"), how many do you have any kind of history of? Not looking for this information, however just a percentage (i.e. "50%"). My guess is that between you BOTH you do NOT know even 10%. Am I right? Also you do NOT know of this list of 28 Lives above I furnished. Here are some additional Lives of this list of 28: 20. Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus 21. Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus 22. Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus 23. Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus 24. Lucius Cornelius Sulla 25. Marcus Aemilius Scaurus 26. Gaius Flavius Fimbria 27. Gaius Marius 28. Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus These names however you recognize as famous Roman commanders. Most are in some way related to Scipio "Cornelius" Africanus. I'll give you something more to ponder: I find it most interesting that Petrarch's most significant work was "Africa" of one Scipio "Cornelius" Africanus. Jerome's Chapter 66 is of a "Cornelius". The number 66 is a most significant number, being the number of books in the Bible. This secret Code list (The Petrarch Code) of 28 lives starts with the very FIRST great Persian ruler with perhaps the largest mass of land ever by any King. This was Cyrus the Great (the FIRST to use this designation of Great). He set the Jews free of Babylon with a set of Human Rights written on a clay cylinder, now called the Cyrus Cylinder. It has bascially 40 lines for these "Rights". Add the number 40 to 66 and you get 106, which just happens to be the number of people on Boccaccio's list "On Famous Women". Look over this list and you will find a couple of interesting things: 1) there are several names there that really don't make sense and are what I call "filler" names to get the number to 106. 2) There are several there that are connected to Petrarch's lists of Lives (i.e. Scipio's wife). Notice that Scipio is on my secret list of 28 lives and also on the Latin list that starts with Romulus. Now with this number of 106 then add my number of 28 Lives to get 134 = the amount of Lives on Jerome's "De Viris Illustribus" Christians. Now here is where it gets scary: Look in Acts Chapter 10 and tell me the name of the person that is a Captain and for what country......... -- Doug Coldwell 21:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm curious as to wether Pope Vigulus (present at same time as Emperor Augustine had communication with the Greek philosepher Oregans. Its rumured that this pope held views on reincarnation that were expelled by the Emperor (and cardinals) because they would have diminished the papal authority and control of the masses (Im asuming this is pre Nician creed). Is this conspiracy rubbish or does it have some historical foundation? Please contact me at <email address removed> Best wishes Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.76.23 ( talk • contribs)

The names seem to be rather garbled -- I assume you mean Pope Vigilius and Origen, but they were not contemporaries. AnonMoos 08:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

And who is "Emperor Augustine"? Contemporary with Vigilius (pope from 537–555) would have been emperor Justinian I (ruling 527–565). Several emperors were contemporary with Origen, but none with a name even vaguely similar to "Augustine". The original Nicene Creed is from 325.  -- Lambiam ^Talk 11:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

During the time around 1100-1400 (medieval age), what cloth/clothes did they use during winter and in cold temperatures?

I'm interested in what they used in europe, and what the vikings used.

can u tell me what they used from top to toe ? from inner to outer ? and if u include armor and protective gear that they MAY used at the same time, then thats just a bonus. what were the clothes made of? what cloth were used ? and what did it look like? did they have jackets at that time ? coats or thick "winter-robes" ? scarf ?

they could have many layers of clothes and then something big and thick/warm like a coat/"winter-robe" at the top?

clothes were made of animal-FUR (from what animals?), LEATHER, COTTON, WOOL ? ? and i repeat, my question is about what they used during WINTER, cold and harsh temperatures, many minus degrees and such. Especially TRAVELLERS and those who would otherwise spend long time out in the frost and cold weather.

well... just tell me from top to toe, from inner to outer and what cloth were used to make the clothes if you can and know the answer to my question. I would appreciate it and be very thankful as I am very interested in this subject.

a very direct answer to this sort of questions is hard to come by.

Krikkert7 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)krikkert7 reply

I am not an expert but will share what I know my impressions with you. I think that the answer to your question would vary a lot by region. It would also very depending on a person's status. In southern Europe, temperatures were not as cold, and common people would have gotten by with wool garments (underwear, socks, breeches, a tunic or robe, perhaps a wool hat, perhaps a wool coat). Peasants in southern Europe probably mostly remained barefoot even in winter. In the north, people would have needed leather shoes or boots as a matter of survival. Wool undergarments were common everywhere, but people who were slightly better off might have worn a leather coat over the wool garments. People in northern Europe would have worn more layers than those in southern Europe. Because animal husbandry was more important than raising crops in northern Europe, use of leather for outer garments and hats was probably more widespread there. In the north, people would have been more likely to wear mittens or gloves. Cotton was almost unknown in medieval Europe. It was a rare and expensive cloth, like silk, that would have been worn only by wealthy people and mainly in the warmer months. Fur was somewhat more common in Europe, but was also rather expensive. It would have been worn mainly in northern Europe during the colder months. The most abundant animals for fur would probably have been rabbits and hares. This would have been most common and least expensive. In the far north, even less wealthy people might have used the more common furs as linings. More expensive furs came from the European mink, sable, and stoat. These were worn mainly by wealthier people as part of hats, coats, and stoles. Marco polo 21:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi,

at that time people dressed very lightly for modern standards. Vickings in particular very often wore nothing on their chest even in winter time as sign of virility. Shoes in modern sense didn't exist, and boots were extremely rare. The most common shoe was patten made of one wooden block, less common leather sandals. Even in the deep north poor people (the vast majority) often walked barefoot or used simple fabric pieces tides with ropes or just flexible branches. Fashion in dressmaking varied deeply by region, but the most common cloth material was line. Wool and leather were a luxury commodity, even for shepherds, while cotton, silk or other exotic fibres were very rare or unknown. Nevertheless, heavy hides were sometimes used for coverage in remotes lands, like mountains or steppes. They were very crude shaped or not at all. The standard cloths were simple tunics, more complex designs such as shirts, jumpers, trousers or gloves were extremely expensives and even rich people wore them rarely. Socks or underwear didn't exist. Essential for the picture is remember that at the time the poors nor the rich wash them. Many movies depict this period, but the choreography they show is often quite fantastic. They tend to show elaborated clothes, colored ones, and perfect teethings. Off course that's not true. And travelers were those who looked the worst, because they broke their fragile cloths very easily and were dirty, tired and hungry because their journey. Off course travelers were very rare too.

Krikkert, I think that this person's account is probably more accurate in most ways than my earlier one. Linen may have been more common than wool, even in winter. However, I have definitely read that people wore woolen underwear, and furthermore that they washed their underwear, though not their other clothes. Also, I think that it is inconceivable that people in northern Europe (Scandinavia) walked barefoot or that Vikings went barechested in winter. This would have led very quickly to frostbite and/or hypothermia, and given the lack of medical care, sickness and death. Granted, lifespans were short, but people had to live long enough to raise children. They would not have survived long exposures to subfreezing temperatures without adequate covering. Marco polo 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

There is a scene in the Niebelungenlied when Siegfried and the others go on a hunt. Upon returning, they ride up on horseback ruining their clothing that had been made for the occasion. They wore shirts (tunics) and trousers. Their horses had saddles. They had footwear (likely leather boots). These were North Europeans of a mythical time, concurrent with Vikings.

In WW1, soldiers for England might not have had leather boots, but knew how to use bandages to strap their feet for marching, so my grandfather told me. It is possible the straps were leather.

Clothing was washed in the middle ages. Detergent was not used. People generally did not wash. Peasants had smocks, and possibly loin cloths. Women might bandage their chests as was fashion in China until recently. However, clothing for wealthy was different than slave or commoner.

Warmer clothes were required for colder climates, but remember, Scots wore kilts DDB 12:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, but Scotland isn't really cold in winter, compared to Sweden or Russia. And I suspect that on a really cold winter day, kilt-clad Scotsmen would wrap themselves in a wool robe or a hide. Marco polo 13:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The old "kilt" had little connection to the modern phillibeg, which is essentially a woollen skirt - it was a single long piece of thick cloth worn around the waist and then over the shoulder, with a heavy knee-length shirt underneath. It basically was a woollen robe... Shimgray | talk | 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply