specific roles according to the allegory. I have my own opinions which are not entirely popular.

According to Donna Lettow the horsemen united sometime after 1650 b.c. and before the Cassandra incident, which occured towards the beginning of their thousand years together rather than being the cause of the breakup. (Thank you Donna. Nice to see I guessed right.) Of course I'd like to see them broken up between Alexander the Great and the death of Christ. Who she thinks the priests are that imprison Kronos I don't know. We'll see if I guess right on that as well. If they're Zoroastrian I'll gag.

In an ancient near east smelting copper dates from 3800 B.C. in Iran. There were Bronze implements found in Ur 2800 B.C.

2500 B.C. Indus Valley

1600-1027 B.C. in China

1800 B.C. Europe

2500-1200 B.C. Aegean

Bronze Age is more an indicator of technology rather than a chronological marker. Some cultures skipped it completely going directly to Iron Age.

My personal feeling viewing the terrain and inhabitants of the episodes makes me put this in the Aegean (2500-1200 B. C)

If Methos is approximately 5,000 (that he can remember as an immortal) he "died" around 3,000 B.C. Kronos and the rest are younger but by how much we don't know. Casandra never gives her age. I always thought is was really late bronze for Aegean...say the 1500-1200 B.C.

And the raiding fits, as nations stretched their boundaries either through trade or war in order to find supplies of raw materials for smelting.

I'm sure many immortals start to round off dates after a few centuries. The older you get, the more you approximate. If it were 1200-1400 b.c. Kronos would very well say 3,000 years ago rather than for example 2,789 years ago. And I'm thinking Aegean, Turkey maybe, middle east because you see Africans and Caucasians in Cassandra's village.

The filming actually took place in Capfira outside Bordeaux.

Donna and Gillian went back to analyze the allegorical tie in to the horsemen, even though there was no intention of one at the beginning. This being forced upon them by the many questions regarding Methos' "I was *death*" speech in which Peter Wingfield gave a most stirring performance. They didn't write either episodes and are going back after that fact. And rather cursory if the answers they come up with are any indication. They say Methos is death and Kronos is pestilance, Silas being War and Caspian famine. I disagree in part. And I can back it up:

In the New Testament, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are the allegorical figures of the sixth chapter of the book of Revelation (sometimes called the Apocalypse). Riding a white, a red, a black and a pale horse the horsemen are generally understood to symbolize power or conquest (white horse- the one Methos was riding "You live to serve me" "You live because I wish it." the brains of the ourfit and a rapist?), violence or war (red horse- sounds like Silas "I like to feel my axe in my hand") poverty or famine (not both-black horse-Caspian "What kind of wine goes with rodent; white or red?") and death (pale horse (palomino)- Kronos "It's what *I* do best" "We were death on horseback" and holding a scythe, the historical symbol of death, "I do love the old ways best") The rider on the white horse is sometimes interpreted as representing Jesus Christ. (Notice Methos was dressed in white while the rest were in black. I could go on. Like the wires on the bomb were white, red and black all serving "death". Methos, Silas and Caspian were all subservient to Kronos and recognized him as leader or "alpha male") Pestilence doesn't come into it. It's a common error of memory.

Then there's Kronos asking Methos doesn't he miss it? Methos replies what, the killing? And Kronos says, no the power. Because he knows that's what turned Methos on. Methos tells Cassandra *he* killed her but we know it was Kronos. He tells her she's alive because *he* wishes it, but we know it's because she's immortal. He's into the power. It's his drug. Who's "Death"? Who said "It's what *I* do best". "Methos never liked the thought of killing you, but I do."

In the Euros Cassandra tells Joe and Duncan in the bar that she's been hunting "Death". But she's been hunting Kronos. She hasn't even seen Methos at this point.

Just because Methos made that impassioned speech about being "death" doesn't mean it's so. He lies when it suits his purpose. When he was going to go to the newspaper publisher to head off Christina blowing the immortal thing with the watcher CD in Finale? Joe asks Methos if he was going to tell the truth? He said "Why would I do that?" Cassandra calls him a liar. And Kronos, who knows Methos better than anyone, replies to Methos "Would I lie to you?" with "Have you ever done anything else?"

Of course, the writers never had any of this in mind. The horses were a matter of chance. Valentine Pelka didn't like his horse...wasn't getting the job done and made "Kronos" look less than skilled as a horseman....so the palomino he was riding was actually the trainer's horse. Marcus Testory ended up with Valentine's original horse and the ensuing problems. The writers never gave the 'death' aspect of Methos' speech the power Peter put into it. The reference was no more than that *all* the horsemen were death. Kronos says it. *We* were death on horseback.

And of course the virus was a last minute substitution. It was originally supposed to be a large, phallic-symbol missile with a nuclear warhead. Adrian as director asked for the change.

It's amazing no matter how many times this arc repeats it still inspires the most philosophical discussions. But then, that is the quality of Highlander.

I am not precogniscient and what I post has no power. (But don't tell MacKinney who got her job or Raeven who got her raise.

You bring up some interesting points that I don't think anyone can answer.

Not even Peter.

>Do you think he is as much into power as he was in the old days? Or do you think it has been tempered by experience and life?

Personally? I think power is still a draw to him, but he's learned to curb his desires just like someone on a strict diet. He's more aware of that side of himself and so can control himself better. And I think he is very much into repression. Except when the unexpected hits him hard....like Alexa. Methos does nothing without looking at every angle and possible outcome. He is "one calculating son of a bitch."

>Sometimes I think he hangs around Duncan MacLeod because Mac is one of the most powerful players in the Game. Perhaps Methos does the things he does because he feels he doesn't have the ability to control the Game himself -- either by fighting like Mac or exerting his influence like Darius. But he can manipulate like Machiavelli. I almost believe the fan extrapolations into Methos's history, that he had been a slave early in his life. 

What makes you think he can't control the game? He controled the Horseman situation despite all the unexpected irons that kept getting thrown into that fire. Power need not be obvious. And Methos is a master manipulator. Makes Machiavelli look like Heidi. Probably taught him. Real power is to control anonymously. And for no one to know it's being done or by who. MacLeod doesn't know if he's manipulated or not until the end of Rev. 6:8 and even then isn't sure. And then there's Methos time with the watchers and all the questions that brings up. Methos is an enigma. Therein lies his power. Neither the fans, nor Peter nor even the writers know enough about Methos to draw an accurate picture of his character. Before the Horseman Arc everyone thought they had a pretty good idea who Methos was and where he stood. Almost every episode since then can be interpreted several different ways. It's the beauty of the character and the craft and art in which Peter portrays him.

>On the other hand, I wonder if the Horsemen and the quest for power through conquest was just a "phase" in his long lifespan, something that burned him out and then he went to next phase. While he was teaching Byron, he was obviously in his hedonistic phase. 

They can be all sides of the same coin. In our short mortal lifespans, we go through phases and cycles ourselves. Especially of personal discovery and self-knowledge. I think Methos simply learned of other and more sophisticated means of getting his power 'rush' without resorting to the barbaric and obvious means of when he was a horseman. Made him to high profile a target for one. And since it was a personal rush, he found ways to gratify himself that also kept him unnoticed. For Methos, the power isn't being the leader or being a celebrity. It's a personal thing. And he's content to be the only one who knows. He doesn't like to advertise. 

I guess the question I'm asking -- probably the one that MacLeod's asked himself time and time again)-- is Methos still the power-addicted Horseman underneath "The guy" personality? Or does he have a "higher" agenda?

Yes. No. Maybe. What do you think? 

Methos greatest asset is his adaptability.

It's how he's lived so long. Many of the immortals MacLeod eventually kills he does so because of their eventual inability to adapt. 

Which is one of the reasons I didn't have as much as a problem with Duncan in season six. I wanted to see a change because for an immortal change is good. Change is survivial.

As for Methos. Has he lived long enough to find himself? No. And no matter how long he lives he never will. Because once he finds that self, it's not him anymore. Just because he's an immortal doesn't make him less human. He simply lilves longer. And he will continue to change as long as he lives. And so, will never find himself. Ironic. "I'm in charge of finding myself and I make sure that doesn't happen."