I hope you do too, good luck with the dream!

Oh I grew up with the same one as you I imagine. It wasn’t until years later that I saw this other one. Not as fun or as campy as the Kevin Costner one. And no amazing theme song that reigned supreme on the charts for like forever!

Given how overextended they were already trying to hold their East Indian/South Pacific posessions, I doubt it would had been wise.

Indigenous, First Nations …

Honestly I thought they meant men in tights, but that came out in 93

Oh interesting, I happen to be doing some research on the Beeston family, as I may be tangentially related. Couple of fun facts:

The castle is named for Sir Hugh Beeston, son of Sir George Beeston. Hugh was well connected in Cheshire and London. From 1594 to 1603, he was the receiver general for the crown for Cheshire and North Wales. Beeston was elected to Parliament for four different boroughs in the late Elizabethan period.

Hugh was close with Sir Walter Raleigh. "In November 1603, Dudley Carleton reported that Sir Walter Raleigh, while being interrogated for his part in the Main Plot, had asked whether Beeston had been ‘apprehended and tortured, because he was always of his chiefest counsel’. This seems to have induced some kind of a temporary breakdown in Beeston, but there is no evidence that he was suspected of having played a part in the Plot."

Raleigh called upon Beeston to deliver a message on his execution day. (sadly the note would not be read, as the sheriff blocked the request, unable to read it as he had left his reading glasses at home).

His father, Sir George Beeston was the longest serving courtier/gentlemen pensioner of the Tudor reign, holding that title from 1547 to at least 1589. He was an accomplished sea captain in the Royal Navy, hence Hugh's connection to Raleigh.

https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/beeston-sir-george-1520-1601

In 1588, at the age of 69 (!), Beeston was given charge of the Dreadnought in the battle vs the Spanish Armada. The Dreadnought was perhaps the fastest, most modern ship in the fleet, having been a radical new design by Mathew Baker. And Beeston may have been the oldest of the captains in command. He was knighted on the Ark Royal by Lord High Admiral Howard after the battle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_ship_Dreadnought_(1573)

1. exactly. Keep in mind that up until 299 Rome had been at war with Persia. Defending Rome wasn't an abstract idea, the empire was threatened.
2. We live in a society where we consider that humans all have the same fundamental rights and value. This is not the norm in antiquity. Roman society is extremely hierarchical. There are actual legal distinctions between categories of people, and not just between free people and slaves. The rich, powerful and from old Roman families are supposed to be on top of every hierarchy. Then lowborn citizens. Then non citizens. Then slaves. This hierarchy is part of Roman society. In Roman religion the powerful ones hold the priesthoods, they are the superiors of lowborn and foreigners. Christianity has for its main tenets that everyone is equal and also gave a lot of importance to women (which for Romans always have a subordinate role). In Christian communities you could have non citizens/citizens of low birth, or even slaves (to not even talk about women) in position of authority over good roman citizens. This is unthinkable for Romans. This is an actual danger for them because it reject the traditional hierarchy. It is seen as "destroying the essence of Roman society", an attack against their society (to simplify a lot they see it as a conspiracy to destroy what makes Rome Rome).
3. Yes, more or less. The persecution of 303 is maybe when it starts to be a systematic persecution of the religion itself (it is still debated by historians), but even then because it seen as a dangerous cult: it is a cult that endanger Rome's relations to gods... but it's also a religion that goes against Rome social structure.

Good luck with the living under a bridge and demanding tolls. Watch out for goats.

Yeah, my apologies for the mishap, I was referring to the one between 303-313, which is what I'm assuming you've answered. Thanks, by the way. My takeaway is:

1. Persecuted because they were endangering Rome by not partaking in events honouring the Roman Gods.
2. The fact that Roman society was hierarchical rather than egalitarian. This part I'm a little foggy on, if you wouldn't mind shedding some more light, why was this a reason for persecution?
3. And it wasn't religious discrimination but rather persecuting "criminals" for breaking the law – the law being that they had to worship the Gods for their grace upon the empire.

Interesting again: I was thinking of a non-blood sacrifice, but Pliny indeed suggests that no offerings were acceptable to this obstinate minority.

It's not easy to get a push chair up there either, my parents always tell the story of how they had to carry me to the top in my pram like I was in a sedan chair haha

Christians (when they became important enough to be noticed) did not practice sacrifices, which were essential for the Roman religion (it's not about faith, it's about the correct actions, a simple prayer wouldn't do), so the question is moot. Also if you read Pliny's letter to Trajan (written around 112) some things are pretty clear: he has to discover who is and who is not a Christian and he notes this

>Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged

This is confirmed by other sources: Christians absolutely refused anything to do with the Roman Religion, which as I said was a crime in itself.

How does the British Robin Hood from 1991 compare to the Kevin Costner extravaganza that we grew up with across the pond?

Interesting. Do you know if early Christians were willing to do likewise? It seems a pragmatic compromise, and in accordance with the notion (if not the meaning) of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

If the terms "Aborigines" and "natives" is deemed offensive, what are the correct terms?

It’s literally in the middle of nowhere, so not unless you fancy a decent bike ride or hike.

>. Judaism was also emphatically monotheistic

It was also a very old religion (which is something the Romans respected) and during the Temple era the Jewish authorities had a deal with Rome: they would not sacrifice to Roman Gods... but will make a sacrifice to their god for the emperor, which, as far as the Roman were concerned, was good enough.

I'd add that a further issue was that Christianity sought converts. Judaism was also emphatically monotheistic, but Christianity sough to extend its flock, and was doing so among the classes who might threaten the social order should the religious element of their allegiance to the empire be eroded. Christianity's growth presented a threat that older religious minorities didn't: as it turned out, church and state found a modus vivendi, but that evidently wasn't perceived in the early centuries.

Is there any way of getting there without a car? From Chester for example

I take it back, it was near Beeston Nottingham - the pub was the Boat Inn. Our house was 1000% haunted

I lived in a student house closish by whilst I was at uni, there was a time team type episode the year after we moved out where they dug up our garden (and the pub next door) and found ruins of a monastery!

Napoleon's 1815 return springs to mind, expanding his realm from little Elba to the whole of France before meeting his Waterloo. I'd say though that the greatest or at least most lasting comebacks from defeat or conquest haven't been military at all, they've involved the subject population absorbing its conquerors and largely continuing as if nothing had happened (an exaggeration, of course) - I'm thinking Mongol or Manchu-ruled China, western Europe's Romano-Celtic peoples after the 5th century, etc.: make love, not war, perhaps.

Surprisingly (to me anyway) it's first recorded in the second enclosure wave of the 18th-19th centuries, but it's widely thought to originate in the first (16th-17th centuries). It's an objection not to state but to private ownership, specifically the conversion of common land (where all villagers shared rights, notably in letting their livestock feed) to individual property, a process dating back to the Tudor wool boom but renewed with rising agricultural returns in the 18th century.

So it's a rhyme of protest against social & economic inequality, invoking the particular plight of smallholders but adopted more generally among workers and radicals: here the state is with the landowners who dominated political life into the industrial period, but it's they (and by extension later privileged economic interests) rather than the state itself who are the real target.

It's very old. A Babylonian merchant borrowing to transport goods could pay a surcharge to cancel repayment if the cargo was lost in transit, a system adopted in Europe from ancient Greece onward. Rome had contributory societies to support families of deceased members, a practice likewise continued by medieval guilds which also offered support in the event of illness. The modern insurance market is commonly traced to 17th-century London, especially after the devastating fire of 1666 demonstrated the risks to property.

I think there is a mistake in your question. The Holy Roman Empire was a medieval state that existed in Germany from the 9th century onward. It was a Christian kingdom, the Holy in its name refer to the fact that pope crowned the Emperor.

So no persecution there. unless you refer to the wars of religions between catholics and protestants in the 16th century. If that's the case say so and I can answer that.

​

Now. What I think you mean is the Roman Empire when it was still Pagan (before emperor constantine converted in the 4th century), right?

​

In that case the answer is very interesting. Rome had a public religion, the religion was the religion of the state/government. All Romans participated in its rites (and no one else. You were Romans because you participated in the cult, you participated because you were Roman). The idea is that if all the citizens worship the gods of Rome, the gods are happy and Rome stays a world power. Often you hear that Rome was tolerant of other religions, it's usually true but the idea is that they literally didn't care about your religion as long as: as a Roman you still participate in the official religion and your foreign faith is not done inside the limit of the city of Rome... as a Roman if you do that you can worship Isis or Mithras or whatever on your own, that's no problem at all.

Now the problem with Christianity is that it claims to be the one true god and one true faith (which while not new is not the norm at this time for other religions) and explicitly forbids the worship of other deity. So Christians didn't go to the temple of Jupiter to do their yearly sacrifice and didn't participate in the city wide worship of Venus and all the other religious duties expected of Roman citizens... and that's a problem for Rome. The citizens needs to participate in the official religion for the gods to help Rome. But not participation you are endangering Rome. And that's they were persecuted.

Add to that that the Roman society is extremely hierarchical, and that Christianity is very egalitarian, this is also seen as an attack against Rome. So persecution too.

​

Christianity was not the first religion to be persecuted that way, the Bacchanalia (a mystery cult that also forbid the official religion and blurred hierarchical lines) was persecuted violently in 200BC. But it's important to keep in mind that it wasn't really about the religion itself. There were a lot of Roman Monotheists at the time or Romans who practiced other faiths... but also the main city cults.

In conclusion: The main problem was that Christianity forbid the practice of the official religion, which was a religious duty. So the state persecuted them for violating the law pretty much as if they refused to pay taxes. It's wasn't religious discrimination in itself but actions against the fact that Romans refused to do their legal obligations.