We put 300,000 .USD and 8 million plus we inventored the formula
Daniel O' Connell legal Post to Flower of Life 1999 Drunvalo Ekvall
: My name is Daniel O'Connell and I am the attorney for Perfect Science in Turkey and the United States, as well as its subsidiary companies.Recently, there have been many declarations published on the internet concerning Perfect Science. Some of what you have read is true and some of it is not.
I was in attendance at the Washington symposium with Dr. Mike Mickey.
Mr . Micheal Mickley PHD does speak for Perfect Science, as well as, Mr. Randall Miller Haydu , Internation Beef see original company in Istanbul 1992 funded by Ira Bogs , Randall Miller Oak Hurst Oak Hurst , NJ tel-phone 1-732-517-0328 200 Amper , NJ , USA
, Ms. Terry Welch, AL-Sheri my visa 1992 summer Iski ( Trevor Spenser appointment ) Ms Zarrin Tek Enerji Sol man Brother Oil my office .
Ms Zarrin work day and night on Iski with Randall , Andrew and Terry Welch see their phone , and Tel-phone across the street Haydu ( 800 number At & T collect ) and all so At& T Christmas 800 collect call I made a deal ( Ayhan , Terry , Andrew and Randall for the planet 198,000 free call to save the planet ) see Andrew Nixon Bill which we have . Paying only the tax 's we knew you try .
Tickets bought by Mohammed Al-Aquah Kuwait airline flight Orlando - Italy - Istanbul - Kuwait I stayed in Istanbul till Dec X mas Time leaving five month caring my child who was over due and had heart problem
and myself
Dan O'Connell 1-815-723-2909 .
Should you receive any information that you cannot verify as coming from these people or my clients, who are Perfect Science, then you should hold it suspect and check out the source.
I understand the unbridled enthusiasm associated with the science and I understand the two aspects of this enthusiasm. The higher aspect, of course, is to attain a clean environment and free ourselves, our homes and our earth of the poisons we have heaped upon ourselves.
The other aspect of this enthusiasm is quite obviously driven by fear, greed, and their misbegotten progeny, the lust for control.
Do not be misled by misguided information that has been coming through non-Perfect Science sources that may mean well.
Much good can happen especially if all of our personal egos can be kept out of the way.
Daniel F. O'Connell
Attorney at Law
1-815-723-2909
fax 1-815-838-2001
For Perfect Science AD Inc/ Perfect Science Inc / Perfect Science Boulder Inc
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-kaballah-founders-story-part-two,0,4137283.htmlstory
Tel-phone 1-815-723-2909
The Monarchy of Spain, constitutionally referred to as The Crown and commonly referred to as the Spanish monarchy or (historically) Hispanic Monarchy, is a constitutional institution and a historic office of Spain.[1] The monarchy comprises a reigning King or Queen of Spain, their family, and the royal household organization which supports and facilitates the monarch in the exercise of his royal duties and prerogatives.[2][3][4] The monarchy is currently represented by King Juan Carlos I, his wife Queen Sofia, and their children and grandchildren.[2][4] Opinion polls routinely reveal that the monarchy remains popular by a wide majority of citizens in contemporary Spain,[5] with as many as 75% of Spanish citizens ranking the monarchy above any other public institution in the country.[6] In 2010, the budget for the Spanish monarchy was 7.4 million euros, one of the lowest public expenditures for the institution of monarchy in Europe.[7][8]
The Spanish Constitution of 1978 reestablished [1][9] a constitutional monarchy as the form of government for Spain. The 1978 constitution affirmed the role of the King of Spain as the personification and embodiment of the Spanish State and a symbol of Spain's enduring unity and permanence.[2][10] Constitutionally, the king is the head-of-state and commander-in-chief of the Spanish Armed Forces.[2][10] The constitution codifies the use of royal styles and titulary, royal prerogatives, hereditary succession to the crown, compensation, and a regency-guardianship contingency in cases of the monarch's minority or incapacitation.[2][10] According to the constitution, the monarch is also instrumental in promoting Ibero-American relations, the "nations of its historical community".[2][10] In this capacity, the King of Spain serves as the president of the Ibero-American States Organization, representing over 700,000,000 people in twenty-four member nations worldwide. In 2008, Juan Carlos I was considered the most popular leader in all Ibero-America.[6][11]
The Spanish monarchy has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom founded in Spain and Aquitainia[12] in the 5th century, and its Christian successor states which fought the Reconquista following the Umayyad invasion of Hispania in the 8th century. A dynastic marriage between Isabel I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon united Spain in the 15th century. The Spanish Empire became one of the first global powers as Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand funded Christopher Columbus's exploratory voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. This led to the rediscovery of America by Europeans, which became the focus of Spanish colonization. Juan Carlos I, current King of Spain, is descended directly from Robert of Hesbaye (770-807) through the male line, thus making the Spanish Royal Line the longest lived in the world, second only to the Japanese.
This is the order of the secret of the priesthood under the order of Healing
Second Book of Enoch
The Second Book of Enoch (also called "Slavonic Enoch") is apparently a Jewish sectarian work of the 1st century AD.[67] The last section of the work, the Exaltation of Melchizedek, tells how Melchizedek was born of a virgin, Sofonim (or Sopanima), the wife of Nir, a brother of Noah. The child came out from his mother after she had died and sat on the bed beside her corpse, already physically developed, clothed, speaking and blessing the Lord, and marked with the badge of priesthood. Forty days later, Melchizedek was taken by the archangel Gabriel (Michael in some manuscripts) to the Garden of Eden and was thus preserved from the Deluge without having to be in Noah's Ark.[68][69]
[edit] In Christianity
Melchizedek is commemorated as one of the Holy Forefathers in the Calendar of Saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church on July 26. He is mentioned in the Roman Canon, the First Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman rite, and also figures in the current Roman Martyrology, or Martyrologium Romanum as a commemoration on August 26.[70]
[edit] New Testament
In the New Testament, references to Melchizedek appear only in the Letter to the Hebrews (later 1st century AD), though these are extensive (Hebrews 5: 6, 10; 6: 20; 7: 1, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21). Jesus Christ is there identified as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek quoting from Ps. 110:4.[71] and so Jesus assumes the role of High Priest once and for all. Abraham's transfer of goods to Melchizedek is seen to imply that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, in that Abraham is tithing to him. Thus, Melchizedek's (Jesus') priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood, and the Temple in Jerusalem is now unnecessary.
[In Nag Hammadi Library
A collection of early Gnostic scripts dating on or before the 4th-century, discovered in 1945 and known as the Nag Hammadi Library, contains a tractate pertaining to Melchizedek. Here it is proposed that Melchizedek is Jesus Christ.[72] Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies and is resurrected, in a gnostic perspective. The Coming of the Son of God Melchizedek speaks of his return to bring peace, supported by the gods, and he is a priest-king who dispenses justice.[73]
Patristic Beliefs
The Pelagians saw in Melchizedek a man who lived a perfect life.[74]
[Evangelical Christian beliefs
Traditional Evangelical Christan denominations, following Luther, teach that Melchizedek was a historical figure and an archetype of Christ.[75] Some[who?] evangelical Christians since the 19th Century or earlier[when?] have taught that Melchizedek was an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ.[citation needed] Others[who?] teach that Melchizedek was an angel sent by God as a representative.[citation needed]
Purported immortality
Hebrews 7:3 creates some confusion between denominations regarding Melchizedek's nature and background. This is how it stands in the KJV, describing Melchizedek as "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
Different denominations interpret this in vastly different ways. Some say that Melchizedek is literally like the Son of God (or even is the Son of God) in that he has no father or mother. Others say that he has been adopted into Christ's lineage through the Lord's suffering,[76] still others claim that the verse has been mistranslated, and that Melchizedek's priesthood is without lineage, not Melchizedek himself.[77] Others claim that the verse merely represents Melchizedek's not being a priesthood holder because of lineage (in other words, "without descent" meaning not a descendant of Levi as required by Mosaic Law.)[78]
The Book of the Bee, a 13th C. Syriac text, also offers insights contrary to Melchizedek's purported immortal nature:
NEITHER the fathers nor mother of this Melchizedek were written down in the genealogies; not that he had no natural parents, but that they were not written down. The greater number of the doctors say that he was of the seed of Canaan, whom Noah cursed. In the book of Chronography, however, (the author) affirms and says that he was of the seed of Shem the son of Noah. Shem begat Arphaxar, Arphaxar begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shâlâh and Mâlâh, Shâlâh was written down in the genealogies; but Mâlâh was not, because his affairs were not sufficiently important to be written down in the genealogies. When Noah died, he commanded Shem concerning the bones of Adam, for they were with them in the ark, and were removed from the land of Eden to this earth. Then Shem entered the ark, and sealed it with his father's seal, and said to his brethren, 'My father commanded me to go and see the sources of the rivers and the seas and the structure of the earth, and to return.' And he said to Mâlâh the father of Melchizedek, and to Yôzâdâk his mother...."[79]
Latter-Day Saint beliefs
The Book of Mormon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints describes the work of Melchizedek in Salem in Alma 13:17-19. According to Alma, Melchizedek was King over the wicked people of Salem, but because of his righteousness, his people repented of their wickedness and became a peaceful city in accordance with the meaning of that name. With respect to Old Testament prophets, Alma declares that "there were many before [Melchizedek], and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater."
Also, in Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, Melchizedek is described as "a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions." Because he was a righteous and God fearing man, Melchizedek was "ordained a high priest." The Translation also describes Melchizedek as establishing peace in his city and being called "the king of heaven" and "the King of peace" (JST Bible Gen 14:25-40), that he and his people sought to be translated, like Enoch (ancestor of Noah)'s people were. Finally, the Joseph Smith Translation notes that, in Hebrews, when Paul speaks of Melchizedek, the order of the priesthood named for him is without father and mother, etc., and not Melchizedek himself. (JST Bible Heb 7:3)
Other Latter-day Saint views on Melchizedek closely match the King James Bible. The Melchizedek Priesthood is named after him, so as not to over-use the name of Christ, after whom it was originally named Section 107:3-4.
According to the Doctrine and Covenants, Melchizedek is a descendant of Noah (Doctrine and Covenants Section 84:14).There remains controversy whether he was Shem, or a descendant. John Taylor taught the former — perhaps due to Jasher 16:11, which says Adonizedek;[80] Bruce McConkie the latter.
[edit] In Islam
There is no mention of Melchizedek in the Qur'an or in early Islamic exegesis or literature. Some later commentators, including Abdullah Yusuf Ali, however, did suggest a link between Melchizedek and Khidr. They referred to St. Paul's allegory of Melchizedek in his Epistle to the Hebrews[81] as a parallel to the Muslim view of Khidr.[82] In Ismailism, however, Melchizedek is of greater importance as one of the 'Permanent Imams'; that is those who guide people through the ages of history.[83]The Urantia Book
In the 20th-century The Urantia Book, Melchizedek is reported as being the first of the four orders of descending sonship designated as local universe Sons of God, created by the Creator Son and Creative Spirit in collaboration with the Father Melchizedek in the early days of populating the local universe of Nebadon.
See also
- Amraphel
- Arioch
- Lech-Lecha
- Zadok is mIcheal Zadok is here and set up the great white brotherhood designed and gone in a skull and bone monents of greed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incense_Route
Terry Welch AL_Shhri Perfect Science AYterion
9 face of Christ 17 level of peufiytion
[ First invasion (55 BC)
Planning and reconnaissance
During the course of his conquest of Gaul, Caesar claims that the Britons had supported the campaigns of the mainland Gauls against him, with fugitives from among the Gallic Belgae fleeing to Belgic settlements in Britain,[2] and the Veneti of Armorica, who controlled seaborne trade to the island, calling in aid from their British allies to fight for them against Caesar in 56.[3] Strabo says that the Venetic rebellion in 56 BC had been intended to prevent Caesar from travelling to Britain and disrupting their commercial activity,[4] suggesting that the possibility of a British expedition had already been considered by then.
In late summer, 55 BC, even though it was late in the campaigning season, Caesar decided to make an expedition to Britain. He summoned merchants who traded with the island, but they were unable or unwilling to give him any useful information about the inhabitants and their military tactics, or about harbours he could use, presumably not wanting to lose their monopoly on cross-channel trade. He sent a tribune, Gaius Volusenus, to scout the coast in a single warship. He probably examined the Kent coast between Hythe and Sandwich, but was unable to land, since he "did not dare leave his ship and entrust himself to the barbarians",[5] and after five days returned to give Caesar what intelligence he had managed to gather.
By then, ambassadors from some of the British states, warned by merchants of the impending invasion, had arrived promising their submission. Caesar sent them back, along with his ally Commius, king of the Gallic Atrebates, to use their influence to win over as many other states as possible.
He gathered a fleet consisting of eighty transport ships, sufficient to carry two legions (Legio VII and Legio X), and an unknown number of warships under a quaestor, at an unnamed port in the territory of the Morini, almost certainly Portius Itius (Boulogne). Another eighteen transports of cavalry were to sail from a different port, probably Ambleteuse.[6] These ships may have been triremes or biremes, or may have been adapted from Venetic designs Caesar had seen previously, or may even have been requisitioned from the Veneti and other coastal tribes. Clearly in a hurry, Caesar himself left a garrison at the port and set out "at the third watch" - about midnight - on 23 August[7] with the legions, leaving the cavalry to march to their ships, embark, and join him as soon as possible. In light of later events, this was either a tactical mistake or (along with the fact that the legions came over without baggage or heavy siege gear)[8] confirms the invasion was not intended for complete conquest.
Landing
Caesar initially tried to land at Dubris (Dover), whose natural harbour had presumably been identified by Volusenus as a suitable landing place. However, when he came in sight of shore, the massed forces of the Britons gathered on the overlooking hills and cliffs (i.e. the White cliffs of Dover) dissuaded him from landing there, since the cliffs were "so close to the shore that javelins could be thrown down from" them onto anyone landing there.[9] After waiting there at anchor "until the ninth hour" (about 3pm - presumably waiting for the wind and tide to become favourable) and meanwhile convening a council of war, he ordered his subordinates to act on their own initiative and then sailed the fleet about seven miles along the coast to an open beach. In the absence of archaeological evidence at the landing point, this beach was most probably at Walmer, which is the right distance up the coast from the White Cliffs.[10] It was thought in the 19th century to be near Deal Castle - hence a house there named SPQR - but is now thought to be half a mile further south, where it is now marked by a concrete memorial.
Having been tracked all the way along the coast by the British cavalry and chariots, the landing was opposed. To make matters worse, the Roman ships were too large to go close inshore and the troops had to disembark in deep water, all the while attacked by the enemy from the shallows. The troops were reluctant, but according to Caesar's account were led by the aquilifer (standard bearer) of the 10th legion who jumped in first as an example, shouting:
- "Leap, fellow soldiers, unless you wish to betray your eagle to the enemy. I, for my part, will perform my duty to the republic and to my general."[11]
The British were eventually driven back with catapultae and slings fired from the warships into the exposed flank of their formation and the Romans managed to land and drive them off. The cavalry, delayed by adverse winds, still had not arrived, so the Britons could not be pursued and finished off, and Caesar could not enjoy what he calls, in his usual self-promoting style, his "accustomed success".[12]
Beach-head
The Romans established a camp (of which no archaeological trace has been found - otherwise the landing point could be placed with certainty), received ambassadors and had Commius, who had been arrested as soon as he had arrived in Britain, returned to him. Caesar claims he was negotiating from a position of strength and that the British leaders, blaming their attacks on him on the common people, were in only four days awed into giving hostages (some immediately, some as soon as they could be brought from inland) and disbanding their army. However, after his cavalry had come within sight of the beachhead but then been scattered and turned back to Gaul by storms, and with food running short, Caesar, a native of the non-tidal Mediterranean, was taken by surprise by the British tides. At high tide, his beached warships filled with water, and his transports, riding at anchor, were driven against each other. Some ships were wrecked, and many others were rendered unseaworthy by the loss of rigging or other vital equipment, threatening the return journey.
Realising this and hoping to keep Caesar in Britain over the winter and thus starve him into submission, the Britons renewed the attack, ambushing one of the legions as it foraged near the Roman camp. The foraging party was relieved by the remainder of the Roman force and the Britons were again driven off, only to regroup after several days of storms with a larger force to attack the Roman camp. This attack was driven off fully, in a bloody rout, with improvised cavalry that Commius had gathered from pro-Roman Britons and a Roman scorched earth policy.
[edit] Conclusion
The British once again sent ambassadors and Caesar, although he doubled the number of hostages, realised he could not hold out any longer and dare not risk a stormy winter crossing (he had set out late in the campaigning season and the winter solstice was approaching), and so allowed them to be delivered to him in Gaul, to which he returned with as many of the ships as could be repaired with flotsam from the wrecked ships. Even then, only two tribes felt sufficiently threatened by Caesar to actually send the hostages, and two of his transports were separated from the main body and made landfall elsewhere.
[edit] Success and motivation
In short, the campaign had not been a success. If it had been intended as a full-scale campaign, invasion or occupation, it had failed, and even if it is seen as a reconnaissance-in-force or a show of strength to deter further British aid to the Gauls, it had fallen short. Nonetheless, going to Britain at all carried such kudos for a Roman that the Senate decreed a supplicatio (thanksgiving) of twenty days when they received Caesar's report.
Caesar's pretext for the invasion was that "in almost all the wars with the Gauls succors had been furnished to our enemy from that country". This is plausible, although it may also have been a cover for investigating Britain's mineral resources and economic potential: afterwards, Cicero refers to the disappointing discovery that there was no gold or silver in the island;[13] and Suetonius reports that Caesar was said to have gone to Britain in search of pearls.[14]
[edit] Second invasion (54 BC)
[edit] Preparation
A second invasion was planned in the winter of 55-54 for the summer of 54 BC. Cicero wrote letters to his friend Gaius Trebatius Testa and his brother Quintus, both of whom were serving in Caesar's army, expressing his excitement at the prospect. He urged Trebatius to capture him a war chariot, and asked Quintus to write him a description of the island. Trebatius, as it turned out, did not go to Britain, but Quintus did, and wrote him several letters from there - as did Caesar himself.[15]
Determined not to make the same mistakes as the previous year, Caesar gathered a larger force than on his previous expedition (five legions as opposed to two, plus two-thousand cavalry), carried in ships which he designed, with experience of Venetic shipbuilding technology, to be more suitable to a beach landing than those used in 55 BC (i.e. broader and lower for easier beaching). This time he names Portus Itius as the departure point.[16]
[edit] Crossing and landing
Labienus was left at Portus Itius to oversee regular food transports from there to the British beachhead. The military ships were joined by a flotilla of trading ships captained by Romans and provincials from across the empire, and local Gauls, hoping to cash in on the trading opportunities. It seems more likely that the figure Caesar quotes for the fleet (800 ships) include these traders and the troop-transports, rather than the troop-transports alone.
Caesar landed at the place he had identified as the best landing-place the previous year. The Britons did not oppose the landing, apparently, as Caesar states, intimidated by the size of the fleet, but equally this may have been a strategic ploy to give them time to gather their forces, or may reflect their lack of concern.
[edit] Kent campaign
Upon landing, Caesar left Quintus Atrius in charge of the beach-head and made an immediate night march twelve miles inland, where he encountered the British forces at a river crossing, probably somewhere on the River Stour (e.g. the future site of Canterbury[17]). The Britons attacked but were repulsed, and attempted to regroup at a fortified place in the forests (possibly to be identified with the hillfort at Bigbury Wood, Kent,[17]) but were again defeated and scattered. As it was late in the day and Caesar was unsure of the territory, he called off the pursuit and made camp.
However, the next morning, as he prepared to advance further, Caesar received word from Atrius that, once again, his ships at anchor had been dashed against each other in a storm and suffered considerable damage. About forty, he says, were lost. The Romans were unused to Atlantic and Channel tides and storms, but nevertheless, considering the damage he had sustained the previous year, this was poor planning on Caesar's part. However, Caesar may have exaggerated the number of ships wrecked to magnify his own achievement in rescuing the situation.[18] He returned to the coast, recalling the legions that had gone ahead, and immediately set about repairing his fleet. His men worked day and night for approximately ten days, beaching and repairing the ships, and building a fortified camp around them. Word was sent to Labienus to send more ships.
Caesar was on the coast on 1 September, from where he wrote a letter to Cicero. News must have reached him at this point of the death of his daughter Julia, as Cicero refrained from replying "on account of his mourning".[19]
[edit] March Inland
Caesar then returned to the Stour crossing and found the Britons had massed their forces there. Cassivellaunus, a warlord from north of the Thames, had previously been at war with most of the British tribes. He had recently overthrown the king of the powerful Trinovantes and forced his son, Mandubracius, into exile, but now the Britons had appointed him to lead their combined forces. After several indecisive skirmishes, during which a Roman tribune, Quintus Laberius Durus, was killed, the Britons attacked a foraging party of three legions under Gaius Trebonius, but were repulsed and routed by the pursuing Roman cavalry.
Cassivellaunus realised he could not defeat Caesar in a pitched battle. Disbanding the majority of his force and relying on the mobility of his 4,000 chariots and superior knowledge of the terrain, he used guerrilla tactics to slow the Roman advance. By the time Caesar reached the Thames, the one fordable place available to him (possibly at Westminster), had been fortified with sharpened stakes, both on the shore and under the water, and the far bank was defended. Nevertheless, he was able to cross, put the defenders to flight, and enter Cassivellaunus's territory.
The Trinovantes, who Caesar describes as the most powerful tribe in the region, and who had recently suffered at Cassivellaunus's hands, sent ambassadors, promising him aid and provisions. Mandubracius, who had accompanied Caesar, was restored as their king, and the Trinovantes provided grain and hostages. Five further tribes, the Cenimagni, Segontiaci, Ancalites, Bibroci and Cassi, surrendered to Caesar, and revealed to him the location of Cassivellaunus's stronghold, possibly the hill fort at Wheathampstead,[20] which he proceeded to put under siege.
Cassivellaunus sent word to his allies in Kent, Cingetorix, Carvilius, Taximagulus and Segovax, described as the "four kings of Cantium",[21] to stage a diversionary attack on the Roman beach-head to draw Caesar off, but this attack failed, and Cassivellaunus sent ambassadors to negotiate a surrender. Caesar was eager to return to Gaul for the winter due to growing unrest there, and an agreement was mediated by Commius. Cassivellaunus gave hostages, agreed an annual tribute, and undertook not to make war against Mandubracius or the Trinovantes. Caesar wrote to Cicero on 26 September, confirming the result of the campaign, with hostages but no booty taken, and that his army was about to return to Gaul.[22] He then left, leaving not a single Roman soldier in Britain to enforce his settlement. Whether the tribute was ever paid is unknown.
[edit] Aftermath
Commius, Caesar's Atrebatian ally, later switched sides, fighting in Vercingetorix's rebellion. After a number of unsuccessful engagements with Caesar's forces, he cut his losses and fled to Britain. Sextus Julius Frontinus, in his Strategemata, describes how Commius and his followers, with Caesar in pursuit, boarded their ships. Although the tide was out and the ships still beached, Commius ordered the sails raised. Caesar, still some distance away, assumed the ships were afloat and called off the pursuit.[23] John Creighton[24] believes that this anecdote was a legend, and that Commius was sent to Britain as a friendly king as part of his truce with Mark Antony.[25] Commius established a dynasty in the Hampshire area, known from coins of Gallo-Belgic type. Verica, the king whose exile prompted Claudius's conquest of AD 43, styled himself a son of Commius.
[edit] Discoveries about Britain
As well as noting elements of British warfare (particularly the use of chariots) which were exotic and unfamiliar to his Roman audience, Caesar also aimed to impress them by making further geographical, meteorological and ethnographic investigations of Britain. He probably gained these by enquiry and hearsay rather than direct experience, as he did not penetrate that far into the interior, and most historians would be wary of applying them beyond the tribes with whom he came into direct contact.
[edit] Geographical and meteorological
Caesar's first-hand discoveries were limited to east Kent and the Thames Valley, but he was able to provide a description of the island's geography and meteorology. Though his measurements are not wholly accurate, and may owe something to Pytheas, his general conclusions even now hold water:
- The climate is more temperate than in Gaul, the colds being less severe.[26]
- The island is triangular in its form, and one of its sides is opposite to Gaul. One angle of this side, which is in Kent, whither almost all ships from Gaul are directed, [looks] to the east; the lower looks to the south. This side extends about 500 miles. Another side lies toward Spain and the west, on which part is Ireland, less, as is reckoned, than Britain, by one half: but the passage from it into Britain is of equal distance with that from Gaul. In the middle of this voyage, is an island, which is called Mona: many smaller islands besides are supposed to lie there, of which islands some have written that at the time of the winter solstice it is night there for thirty consecutive days. We, in our inquiries about that matter, ascertained nothing, except that, by accurate measurements with water, we perceived the nights to be shorter there than on the continent. The length of this side, as their account states, is 700 miles. The third side is toward the north, to which portion of the island no land is opposite; but an angle of that side looks principally toward Germany. This side is considered to be 800 miles in length. Thus the whole island is about 2,000 miles in circumference.[27]
No information about harbours or other landing-places was available to the Romans before Caesar's expeditions, so Caesar was able to make discoveries of benefit to Roman military and trading interests. Volusenus's reconnaissance voyage before the first expedition apparently identified the natural harbour at Dubris (Dover), although Caesar was prevented from landing there and forced to land on an open beach, as he did again the following year, perhaps because Dover was too small for his much larger forces. The great natural harbours further up the coast at Rutupiae (Richborough), which were used by Claudius for his invasion 100 years later, were not used on either occasion. Caesar may have been unaware of them, may have chosen not to use them, or they may not have existed in a form suitable for sheltering and landing such a large force at that time (our knowledge of the geomorphology of the Wantsum Channel that created that haven is limited).
By Claudius's time Roman knowledge of the island would have been considerably increased by a century of trade and diplomacy, and four abortive invasion attempts. However, it is likely that the intelligence gathered in 55 and 54 BC would have been retained in the now-lost state records in Rome, and been used by Claudius in the planning of his landings.
[edit] Ethnography
The Britons are defined as typical barbarians, with polygamy and other exotic social habits, similar in many ways to the Gauls,[28] yet as brave adversaries whose crushing can bring glory to a Roman:
- The interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom they say that it is handed down by tradition that they were born in the island itself: the maritime portion by those who had passed over from the country of the Belgae for the purpose of plunder and making war; almost all of whom are called by the names of those states from which being sprung they went thither, and having waged war, continued there and began to cultivate the lands. The number of the people is countless, and their buildings exceedingly numerous, for the most part very like those of the Gauls... They do not regard it lawful to eat the hare, and the cock, and the goose; they, however, breed them for amusement and pleasure.[26]
- The most civilised of all these nations are they who inhabit Kent, which is entirely a maritime district, nor do they differ much from the Gallic customs. Most of the inland inhabitants do not sow corn, but live on milk and flesh, and are clad with skins. All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad, which occasions a bluish colour, and thereby have a more terrible appearance in fight. They wear their hair long, and have every part of their body shaved except their head and upper lip. Ten and even twelve have wives common to them, and particularly brothers among brothers, and parents among their children; but if there be any issue by these wives, they are reputed to be the children of those by whom respectively each was first espoused when a virgin.[29]
[edit] Military
In addition to infantry and cavalry, the Britons employed chariots, a novelty to the Romans, in warfare. Caesar describes their use as follows:
- Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the mean time withdraw some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry; and by daily practice and exercise attain to such expertness that they are accustomed, even on a declining and steep place, to check their horses at full speed, and manage and turn them in an instant and run along the pole, and stand on the yoke, and thence betake themselves with the greatest celerity to their chariots again.[30]
[edit] Technology
During the civil war, Caesar made use of a kind of boat he had seen used in Britain, similar to the Irish currach or Welsh coracle. He describes them thus:
- [T]he keels and ribs were made of light timber, then, the rest of the hulk of the ships was wrought with wicker work, and covered over with hides.[31]
[edit] Religion
- "The institution [of Druidism] is thought to have originated in Britain, and to have been thence introduced into Gaul; and even now those who wish to become more accurately acquainted with it, generally repair thither, for the sake of learning it."[32] Economic resources
Caesar not only investigates this for the sake of it, but also to justify Britain as a rich source of tribute and trade:
- [T]he number of cattle is great. They use either brass or iron rings, determined at a certain weight, as their money. Tin is produced in the midland regions; in the maritime, iron; but the quantity of it is small: they employ brass, which is imported. There, as in Gaul, is timber of every description, except beech and fir.[26]
This reference to the 'midland' is inaccurate as we would see it (tin production and trade actually happened in the southwest, in Cornwall and Devon, and was what drew Pytheas and other traders). However, Caesar only penetrated to Essex and so, receiving reports of the trade whilst there, it would have been easy to perceive the trade as coming from the interior.
[edit] Outcome
Caesar made no conquests in Britain, but his enthroning of Mandubracius marked the beginnings of a system of client kingdoms there, thus bringing the island into Rome's sphere of political influence. Diplomatic and trading links developed further over the next century, opening up the possibility of permanent conquest, which was finally taken up by Claudius in AD 43. In the words of Tacitus:
- It was, in fact, the deified Julius who first of all Romans entered Britain with an army: he overawed the natives by a successful battle and made himself master of the coast; but it may be said that he revealed, rather than bequeathed, Britain to Rome.[33]
See also
References in later literature and culture
[ Classical works
- Valerius Maximus's Memorable Words and Deeds (1st century AD) praises the bravery of Marcus Caesius Scaeva, a centurion under Caesar, who, having been deserted by his comrades, held his position alone against a horde of Britons on a small island, before finally swimming to safety.[34]
- Polyaenus's 2nd century Strategemata relates that, when Cassivellaunus was defending a river crossing against him, Caesar gained passage by the use of an armoured elephant, which terrified the Britons into fleeing.[35] This may be a confusion with Claudius's use of elephants during his conquest of Britain in AD 43.[36]
- Orosius's 5th century History Against the Pagans contains a brief account of Caesar's invasions,[37] which makes an influential mistake: Quintus Laberius Durus, the tribune who died in Britain, is mis-named "Labienus", an error which is followed by all medieval British accounts.
[edit] Medieval works
- Bede's History of the English Church and People[38] includes an account of Caesar's invasions. This account is taken almost word for word from Orosius, which suggests Bede read a copy of this work from the library at Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Priory which Benedict Biscop had brought from Rome itself.
- The 9th century Historia Britonum attributed to Nennius gives a garbled account,[39] in which Caesar invades three times, landing at the Thames Estuary rather than on a beach in Kent. His chief opponent is Dolobellus, proconsul of the British king Belinus, son of Minocannus. Caesar finally defeats the Britons at a place called Trinovantum.
- Henry of Huntingdon's 12th century Historia Anglorum gives an account based on Bede and the Historia Britonum, and gives Caesar an inspirational speech to his troops.[40]
- Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his History of the Kings of Britain,[41] has Caesar invading Britain, and has Cassibelanus (i.e. Cassivellaunus) as Caesar's primary opponent, but otherwise differs from the historical record. As in the Historia Britonum, Caesar invades three times, not twice, landing at the Thames Estuary. His story is also largely based on Bede and the Historia Britonum, but is greatly expanded. Historical elements are modified - the stakes placed in the Thames by the Britons become anti-ship rather than anti-infantry and anti-cavalry devices[42] - and other elements, such as Cassibelanus's brother Nennius engaging in hand-to-hand combat with Caesar and stealing his sword, called Crocea Mors, are not known from any earlier source. Adaptations such as Wace's Roman de Brut, Layamon's Brut and the Welsh Bruts largely follow Geoffrey's story.
- The medieval Welsh Triads also refer to Caesar's invasions. Some of these references appear directly related to Geoffrey's account, but others allude to independent traditions: Caswallawn (Cassivellaunus) is said to have gone to Rome in search of his lover, Fflur, to have allowed Caesar to land in Britain in return for a horse called Meinlas, and pursued Caesar in a great fleet after he returned to Gaul.[43] The 18th century collection of Triads compiled by Iolo Morganwg contains expanded versions of these traditions.[44]
- The 13th century French work Li Fet des Romains contains an account of Caesar's invasions based partly on Caesar and partly on Geoffrey. It adds an explanation of how Caesar's soldiers overcame the stakes in the Thames - they tied wooden splints filled with sulphur around them, and burned them using Greek fire. It also identifies the standard-bearer of the 10th legion as Valerius Maximus's Scaeva.[45]
- In the 14th century French romance Perceforest Caesar, a precocious 21-year-old warrior, invades Britain because one his knights, Luces, is in love with the wife of the king of England. Afterwards, a Briton called Orsus Bouchesuave takes a lance which Caesar used to kill his uncle, makes twelve iron styluses from the head, and, alongside Brutus, Cassius and other senators, uses them to stab Caesar to death.[45]
[edit] 20th century popular culture
- E. Nesbit's 1906 children's novel The Story of the Amulet depicts Caesar on the shores of Gaul, contemplating an invasion.
- In Robert Graves's 1934 and 1935 novels I, Claudius and Claudius the God, Claudius refers to Caesar's invasions when discussing his own invasion. In the 1976 tv adaptation of the two books they are mentioned in a scene during Augustus's reign where young members of the imperial family are playing a board game (not unlike Risk) in which areas of the empire must be conquered and arguing about how many legions it theoretically needs to capture and hold Britain, and again in the speech in which Claudius announces his own invasion ("100 years since the divine Julius left it, Britain is once again a province of Rome").
- The 1957 Goon Show episode The Histories of Pliny the Elder, a pastiche of epic films, involves Caesar invading Britain, defeating the Britons who think the battle is a football match and so only send 10 men against the Romans, and occupying Britain for 10 years or more.
- The 1964 film Carry on Cleo features Caesar and Mark Antony (who was in fact not present during either invasion) invading Britain and enslaving cavemen there.
- In Goscinny and Uderzo's 1965 comic Asterix in Britain, Caesar has successfully conquered Britain because the Britons stop fighting every afternoon for a cup of hot water with milk (tea not yet having been discovered).
- In the anime series Code Geass, in the year 55 BC, Julius Caesar attempts to invade Britain, but is met with strong resistance from the local tribes, who elect a super-leader: the Celtic King Eowyn, who summarily became first member of the Britannian royal line.
[edit] Notes
- ^ Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.20-35, 5.1, 8-23; Dio Cassius, Roman History 39.50-53, 40.1-3; Florus, Epitome of Roman History 1.45
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 2.4, 5.12 - although whether Iron Age settlements of this period are - in our sense of the word - Belgic is debated.
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 3.8-9
- ^ Strabo, Geography 4:4.1
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.22
- ^ Frere, Britannia, p. 19
- ^ Science-Nature "Doubt over date for Brit invasion". BBC News. 1 July 2008. Retrieved 2 Jul. 2008. See also: "Tide and time: Re-dating Caesar’s invasion of Britain". Texas State University. 23 June 2008. Retrieved 2 Jul. 2008.
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.30
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.23
- ^ "Caesar's Landings", Athena Review 1,1
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.25
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.26
- ^ Cicero, Letters to friends 7.7; Letters to Atticus 4.17
- ^ Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars: Julius 47. Caesar did later dedicate a thorax decorated with British pearls to Venus Genetrix in the temple to her that he later built (Pliny, Natural History : IX.116) and oysters were later exported from Britain to Rome (Pliny, Natural History) IX.169 and Juvenal, Satire IV.141
- ^ Letters to friends 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.10, 7.17; Letters to his brother Quintus 2.13, 2.15, 3.1; Letters to Atticus 4.15, 4.17, 4.18
- ^ "Invasion of Britain". unrv.com. Retrieved 25 Apr. 2009.
- ^ a b Frere, Britannia p. 22
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 5.23
- ^ Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus 3.1
- ^ Frere, Britannia p. 25
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 5.22
- ^ Letters to Atticus 4.18
- ^ Frontinus, Strategemata 2:13.11
- ^ John Creighton, Coins and power in Late Iron Age Britain, Cambridge University Press, 2000
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 8.48
- ^ a b c Commentarii de Bello Gallico 5.12
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 5.13
- ^ cf. his similar ethnographic treatment of them in Commentarii de Bello Gallico 6.11.20
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 5.14
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 4.33
- ^ Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Civili 1.54
- ^ Commentarii de Bello Gallico 6.13
- ^ Tacitus, Agricola 13
- ^ Valerius Maximus, Actorum et Dictorum Memorabilium Libri Novem 3:2.23
- ^ Polyaenus, Stategemata 8:23.5
- ^ Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.21
- ^ Orosius, Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII 6.9
- ^ Bede, Ecclesiastical History 1.2
- ^ Historia Britonum 19-20
- ^ Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum 1.12-14
- ^ Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae 4.1-10
- ^ Compare De Bello Gallico 5.18 with Historia Regum Britanniae 4.6
- ^ Peniarth Triads 32; Hergest Triads 5, 21, 50, 58
- ^ Iolo Morganwg, Triads of Britain 8, 14, 17, 21, 24, 51, 100, 102, 124
- ^ a b Homer Nearing Jnr., "The Legend of Julius Caesar's British Conquest", PLMA 64 pp. 889-929, 1949
No comments:
Post a Comment