Arvioustus

Probably economics and then deseases or combination of both. Malaria, plaque and perhaps lead based deseases are well documented in this period. Think most historians have become enlightened enough to realize the the migrations occured because of this decline and before that they were repulsed for a long time. Do not forget the empire was huge and strecthed out and still had the power to repulse. (they had revolts all over the empire) Many modern historians have discounted what many German historians have written (practically all of moden data concerning /German Roman realtions) because it had elements of superior barbarians over running the inferior Roman army. We all the know the truth now. The barbarians were kept out and when they did raid they were punished severely and many of the most important German tribes were made part of the empire. Also, Roman incursions(except the over rated Tuetinberg delemna, Aryan historians made it out to be biggest Roman loss ever, not even close!) all the way to the Elbe and the crushing of revolts (Batavia,etc.) showed Roman superiority many times over. After all if the 'mass migrations' could have occured at an earlier time they would have! They tried many times, but Rome was economically strong and proved its legionaires could defeat them regardless of enemies numbers and how stretched out the empire was. So the real reason has to be either economic decline (cannot defend) or deseases which caused an inabilty to have enough manpower. We know the late Romans had difficulty getting enough manpower to be sure.

The 'literacy test' you mentioned, I am not so sure. The Romans are then backward compared to the Greeks? The Romans idolazed the Greeks to be sure and who was it that stated ' a good Greek is better than any barbarian but a bad Greek is worse than any'? Romans were considered barbarians to the Greeks for various reasons too. Think more data will come from this region concerning its Roman period. (probably neglected and squashed during communist era) Just the location of where Dacia is suggests a nation that can take care of itself. The Romans valued Gold above all, Dacia had gold and was free from Rome for a long time. For, example Rome view Germania inferior as a source for their typical recruitment odf sone but superior supported taxation,which menat alot to the Romans. You do not think the knowledge of Dacian gold was perhaps the real reason for Roman interest there? The location of Dacia also supports a nation that can handle itself and maintain independence. The German tribes I am sure did all they can to invade and were repulsed. The Samartian to the east the same and of course the Romans. If I am not mistaken the largest invasion force the Romans ever assembled was needed to conquer Dacia. (except of course civil wars) The Romans lost many battles there, to be sure Romans lost battles all over but given the size of the Roman force this was a major feat.( even though I have read the Romans were most likely outnumbered,plus Dacians had German allies) The falx was not the only thing Dacia possessed that was formadible I am sure, they traded with Greece long before the Romans did so they must have obtained much. Doubtful Dacia was backwards in most areas especially warfare.

Dacia, I would not classify as backwards in any means. Just because Romans used the term barbarian does not mean they were backwards. Bulgarian archeologists just unearthed a string of mounds rewriting early European history of goldworking. Thriacians were well known for their metal works and were far ahead of the Romans in this. The time ranges of the findings were fin 4000 BC thru 800 AD and the caliber and abundance of the finely wrought work suggest the region was a center in ancient Europe. Unexpected technical expertise and a cache of 15,000 gold artifacts so meticulously crafted that the seams are invisible to the naked eye. Perhaps other areas in the frontiers had similar? January 2006 Discover magazine

Dacia, I would not clssify as backwards in any means. Just because Romans used the term barbarian does not mean they were backwards. Bulgarian archeologists just unearthed a string of mounds rewriting early European history of goldworking. Thriacians were well known for their metal works and were far ahead of the Romans in this. The time ranges of the findings were fin 4000 BC thru 800 AD and the caliber and abundance of the finely wrought work suggest the region was a center in ancient Europe. Unexpected technical expertise and a cache of 15,000 gold artifacts so meticulously crafted that the seams are invisible to the naked eye. January 2006 Discover magazine

If you look at ancient Roman artwork and portraits it is very difficult to say they are even 'Mediteranean looking' ( even though I do not know what that is exactly). I see a variety of faces almost like the USA of today. They really do not even look like modern Italian faces. It seemed like blond hair and dark hair were well represented as well were an amazing aray of physical diversity much more so than the modern Italians I studied. If I was to generalize and compare I would see the Romans as a muscular type people( not the body builder type but a look of extreme strength) and not very attractive facial features at all. (the modern Italian does not resemble them at all) However, looking at the portraits it is plain to see that hair or skin tone was not an issue but just an extreme lack of facial beauty. I am not talking about portraits of the slaves (there are many) but of the Romans. Ethnically it would seem like they are in a class by themselves and just merged with other Europeans so much that they dissapeared completely.

357 with ammo, first aid with matches(to enchant natives) an Roman history books to show who they are and what becomes.

I think historians in general promote what they want promoted. Ussually you would assume the Aryan historians change history and facts to promote their ideology but they are not alone. It seems that through omision or downplaying of certain events over others the same distortions occur. This event it seems can be one of the biggest massacres of civilans in ancient history. One question, how come the civilains could not protect themselves at all? Another question, ancient Judea has produced much turmoil (guess it still does) and the fantasism must have produced fierce fighters and many problems for the legions. My guess why the Romans could not protect these 250,000 civilians just shows that Roman legions are just streched too far perhaps. Why historians downplayed this needs serious attention.

I am saying that is a possibility ,yes. Analyzing the battles it seems that Roman losses ussaully contribute to poor leadeship and/or inability to cope with cavalry. However, even in loss they inflict severe casualties on th enemy while being outnumbered greatly with Hannibal being the exception on this. When victories they sometimes take such little loss that some conclusions have to be made. The Romans also had a great desire for slaves so I am sure those numbers should be fairly accurate.(they had to bring prisoners back) Hannibal is such an interesting exception on this but does not counter my theory on the individual Roman superiority as I will expalin. Romans for the first and perhaps only time outnumberd their oppostion and still lost. I can explain how they lost so many battles to Hannibal because the legions were not what people think they were, brilliant fighting machines. No, they were led by polticians not military men ussually. ( oppostion ussually had military men as leaders) It would be nice to think their discipline and training is the answer to their success , as it may have helped , but it seems that the legions were ussauly bumbling around and being outmanuevered by all. Caesar even was severly outmanuevered by the Celts and Germans. They lost because they did what Hannibal didn`t , engage the Roman infantry totally. (When Hannibal did it was a guise) I do feel that the Celts and Germans would have beaten the legions with better use of their cavalry and just do not engage the Romans directly. Why? Caesar,Marius, Geramanicus and others inspired them to beat the odds, doing so against such great numbers, leadership with questionable motives and/or amazing confidence about their mens superiorty? What leader would tell their troops lets attack these 200,000 Celts/ Germans with our 50,000 man army, we have the advantage. Ridiculous! This is not strategy regardless of the outcome. The Romans did this not with brilliant manuevers or traps just but with just relying on the infantry. Great generals would not do this. Arrogant and charismatic leaders perhaps would. The oppostion did not use their numbers and cavalry effectively, if they did Roman loss would have always occured. Even though I feel the Celts and Germans had inteligent and clever miltary leaders they did not grasp how to beat them as Hannibal did obviously. I can understand why though, their sheer numbers would convince any general, how we can lose? I know this takes the the Roman miltary system down a notch but I think it should be. Hannibal used intelligence and superior use of cavalry. I know some German tribes had cavalry (Caesar used some , I think for economy and Roman lack) but they were not the Numidian cavalry. The Goths later proved the effect of cavalry with sheer numbers against Roman infantry. Goths proved to be the most effective German tribe against the Romans through cavalry and brilliant leadership.This is how you beat men that are superior to you are with hand to hand, cavalry can easly outmnauever and cause havoc and greatly weaken the infantry giving your infantry better odds. Hannibal did this. Everyone who was effective against the Romans did this, from the Atlantic to the Black Sea! Looking at Hannbals battles he did all he can to nullify the superiority of the Roman infantry. Hannibal proved that the Roman fighting machine was not adaptable and can be outmanuevered easlily. Hannibal did humiliate the Romans more than anyone ever in their history, just because he lost in the end is meaningless to me. He showed that the Romans can be beaten by strategy and cavalry and not going against their infantry. Why, because these infantry men had to be amazing physical specimens with hand to hand abilty that was fierce. Those of you who are trained with hand to hand knife skills know what I am talking about. Being outnumbered you have to have great agilty to avoid and the best get cut up.( All people of that time were trained in hand to hand) Also, abilty to take many wounds for sure; no matter how good you are. This is theory only: take heart those who love the Roman military machine. Perhaps I am wrong , at least that I am open minded on matters that happened 2000 years ago. It just seems so logical looking at all their battles in totality and how the opposition feared their infantry. I understand this takes the brains out of the Roman war machine in favor of the braun. Just want people to consider all possiblities, that is all. Too many are just so opinionated that they can be blinded to the obvious.

Answers.com has the same results in the battle of Vercellae....even the losses of less than 1000 Romans. well maybe the Romans lost 2000 in this battle. Still amazing. Amazing how so few want to recognize the Roman soldier here. No trap here,just kicking Barbarian butt while not getting losses. This should be looked into. Strange how some do not like these Roman victories but never dispute Roman losses in which they lost. Peculiar. Maybe we should believe what Tacitus says, don`t think so. Many sources , many different stats to be sure. Even Caesar however gave huge numbers of Geramanic tribes, I do believe him, a bit.

Did Caesar ever have result where by so few Romans were killed given the huge odds against him? Gaius does live in the shadow of his nephew to be sure but is it justified? Two main battles: Approx. casualties Battle of Aquae Sextia====over 110,000Germans against 40,000Romans results- 90,000 Germans killed, 20,000 captured and less than 1000 Romans killed! Battle Of Vercellae ---over 200,000 Germans againt 50,000Romans results: 140,000 Germans killed ,60,000 captured..under 1000 Romans killed! These results speaks volumes about the abilty of the Roman fighting force. (This is hand to hand not bombs....much stabbing had to occur, where the Germans stabbing each other? How many Roman battles ever had this amount of success? Not many, how about anyone remembering Roman battles where they lost over 100,000 men, think Crassus did in Parthia, not sure of many more. Source: wikipedia

Makes you wonder: Religion was designed to provide peace and worship but seems like just the opposite occurs. Perhaps Rome had a even more serious religious problems than we think and many of think they were many, but at the level of these modern conflicts?

History does not talk about this much but it was an enormous masacre of regular citizens. Curious, did the Huns even mascare this many? Not at one time I am sure. Did the Roamns put 250,000 citizens to death? The massacre of Roman citizens on a massive scale by armed Jewish mobs in Cyprus (recorded as 240,000) and Cyrene as well as the destruction of pagan temples forced brutal retaliation. Massacre was met with massacre as Trajan ordered legionary response to the uprising. Jews were virtually expelled from Cyprus and the population of North Africa (Jewish, Roman and Greek) was decimated. The revolt and its suppression dragged on even into the reign of Hadrian (who would be faced years later with another considerable Jewish uprising in Judaea), but Trajan still yearned for his Alexander style eastern campaign and exacting revenge against the people of Hatra. A planned renewal of the offensive was brought to a halt as the emperor fell ill during the summer of AD 117, and Trajan began the trip back to Rome. Landing in Cilicia after a short journey by sea, the emperor died in Selinus on August 9 most likely of natural causes.

It looks like your analysis of Germanic fighters were similar to the Viking? What I have read there was a huge variation between most, some heavy cavalry, some light and they fought with a great deal of strategy. They always new the Roman strength because they had much information from Celtic and Belgic (probably Germanic) on the size of the legions. The Romans had spies of course but it seems like the Geramnic forces alwys engaged the Romans with an amazing amount of troops. Who has the better strategy? True the Romans won most of the battles but this cannot be because of their strategy. Perhaps because the Romans were led by policians and the Germans were led by leaders who came up from the ranks. I feel the Romans biggest advanatge was the individual foot soldier, his abilty to overcome many odds is legendary. Just many researches do not dwell on this because it leads nowhere and just simplifies what is the Roman machine to them. However, the machine did work but its abilty was based on a superior physical specimens I am sure besides training. Hand to hand they must have suffered many wounds being so outnumberd and I still cannot understand their success given the odds. Marcus Aurelius was an interesting figure against the Germanic tribes: Eutropius: Compendium of Roman History, VIII.12-14 Marcus Aurelius was trained in philosophy by Apollonius of Chalcedon: in the Greek language by Sextus of Chaeronea, the grandson of Plutarch, while the eminent orator Fronto instructed him in Latin literature. He conducted himself towards all men at Rome, as if he had been their equal, being moved by no arrogance by his elevation to the Empire. He exercised prompt liberality, and managed the provinceswith the utmost kindness and indulgence. Under his rule affairs were successfully conducted against the Germans. He himself carried on a war with the Marcomanni, which was greater than any in the memory of man (in the way of wars with the Germans)---so that it was compared to the Punic Wars, for it was exceedingly formidable, and in it whole armies were lost; especially as in this reign, after the victory over the Parthians there occurred a great pestilence so that at Rome, and throughout Italy and the provinces a large fraction of the population, and actually the bulk of the regular troops perished from the plague. With the greatest labor and patience he persevered for three whole years at Carnutum [a strategically located fortress town in Pannonia], and brought the Marcomannic war to an end; a war in which the Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Suevi and all the barbarians in that region, had joined the outbreak of the Marcomanni. He slew several thousand men, and having delivered the Pannonians from bondage held a triumph at Rome. As the treasury was drained by the war, and he had no money to give his soldiers; and as he would not lay any extra tax on the provinces or Senate, he sold off all his imperial furniture and decorations by an auction held in the Forum of Trajan, consisting of gold and cups of crystal and precious stone, silk garments belonging to his wife and to himself, embroidered---as they were---with gold, and numbers of jeweled ornaments. This sale was kept up through two successive months and a great deal of money was raised by it. After his victory, however, he refunded the money to such purchasers as were willing to restore what they had bought, but was by no means troublesome to those who wished to keep their purchase. After his victory he was so magnificent in his display of games he is said to have exhibited in the arena one hundred lions at once. Having then at last rendered the state happy by his excellent management and gentleness of character, he died in the eighteenth year of his reign, in the sixty-first of his life. He was enrolled among the gods, all the Senate voting unanimously that he should have such honor.

Average height is unkown but there was a 5 ft. 10.0 in minimum, same height as Mike Tyson. Quickness and stregnth are very effective tools in which the Roamn soldiers surely had.

You can say what you will...the facts are the numbers in all battles were extreme for the Goths ,Vandals and most battles German tribes fought. They did not fight unless they thought the numbers were favorable. What I have read the numbers were extreme for the Germanics and my name sake against Caesar, Goths in all battles and were then driven back over the Danube. Strange that some think the German tribes were that good. Think it is pure Aryan trash. I could say that about the forest trap too. Romans pooorly led and spread out and greatly outnumbered. When the Romans lost they ussaully lost most of their men, Germanics lost great numbers and then fled in terror. Caesar was even surpriesed how they cannot fight once they get wounded even! This is the truth from Caesar(who fought them many times) , Marius, Narses who was so outnumbered that it would seem school boys could have beaten him. That is the numbers not your excuses for German losses. Another angle: Huns easily defeated the German tribes(late Roman period...so maybe they were in decline too? Maybe they still had poor leadership? I am sure they outnumbered the Huns too.) ,the Huns were easily defeated bt the Chinese( Huns when west for easy pickings), Huns defeated eventauly by Roman and German force. Obviosly this could not be done without the Romans, who by that time were not much of a fighting force. The general rule is I think that a well led Roman army would probably defeat anything the Germanics could throw at them, a good example is the Roman/Byzantine reconquests in which the Vandals and Ostrogoths were defeated by small but extremely well led Roman armies. There are also many examples of superior Roman tactics overcoming Germanic numerical superiority, however as the Roman army slowly decayed the Germanic army advanced and the balance was broken. I still strongly believe however that the Roman legions were so superior to the the Germanic armies and that view is justified in the various examples ive pointed out, even when in dire crisis the Romans were able to defeat and expel the Germans. Also had the Germans been superior the Roman empire would surely not have survived as long as it did. How about Marius: The great battle of Aquae Sextiae (near modern Aix-en-Provence), that Marius destroyed an vast barbarian army of Teutones and Ambrones. The defeat of the invaders was assured when Consul Q. Lutatius Catulus and his subordinate, Sulla, fought and won battles at Vercellae in 101. The invading armies were so reduced that it would be two generations before they again seriously troubled Rome. Sulla's contribution to Catulus' victory had been critical. There was an obvious alienation between the three men as to who could claim credit for the victory, although Marius agreed to celebrate a joint triumph with Catulus. As for Caesar not fighting against the Germans that was the main reason he went To Gaul to aid them against the German tribes! Before him his uncle Marius stopped the Cimbri and Tuetones cold as they attempted to do the following. He was outnumbered by such great odds. Caesar fought aginst the Belgae,Nevii,Usiptes,tenteri and many,many more tribes. This is all in the 'Gallic Wars' Caears soldiers new the numbers against them were so great that Caesar himself had to stop his men from mutiny reminding them how Gaius easily defeated the German tribes being greatly outnumberd too. While in Italy, Caesar learned that the Belgae had invited two German tribes, the Usipetes and Tencteri, to cross the Rhine into northern Gaul in numbers supposedly comprising 430,000. They intended to ally with the Belgae. When Caesar confronted the tribal leaders, they told him they had been forced to cross the Rhine against their will. Caesar ordered them to return and they asked for a series of delays in which to consult with the Ubii, into whose territory they had been ordered. Caption: In spite of a truce, as the two armies were drawn up in negotiations, German cavalry attacked Caesar's horsemen and gave him an excuse for a ruse of extraordinary cunning and treachery. The next day, the German leadership came in a body to Caesar to apologize for breaking the truce. Caesar put the lot under guard and raced with his army to the German position eight miles away. The Germans, leaderless and completely surprised, soon broke. The Romans chased tens of thousands of them back towards the junction of the Meuse and the Rhine. Many were killed; many, attempting to swim the river, drowned. It was an absolute, effective and inglorious victory, later much criticized by Caesar's enemies in Rome. I can go on and on citing records of many Roman victories by many others,it gets pointless. The Germans were stopped cold many times trying to wreck either Gaul or Rome. They only succeeded if you can call it that through mass migrations while Rome was really no more. The problem I have is some aryan historians paint the Germans(tacitus also, who most know just fabricates) stating that the Geramn tribes were so fierce. I say the numbers tell a story of such great numbers could not do much against the Romans or te Huns. To me it just seems impossible for them to lose given their numbers but their lack of fighting skills has to be looked into not their myths. If you wanta fierce Roman foe, look to the Iberians or Dacians or Parthians. Th The Dacians(thracian origin) kept the Germans and Scythians at bay for a long time until the Romans weakened them. The Iberians must have fought well given their lack of numbers and giving the Romans much difficulty. I am just amused why some just do not undersatnd the advantage numbers play in hand to hand combat. Yes leadership and discipline matter but anyone who knows fencing or knife fighting techniques that being outnumberd by even one is difficult or impossible. The numerics of the German tribes prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were clods at hand to hand. Or you can just read what the Aryan historians would like you to believe and shine each others boots

I would think genetic experts can and will answer this eventaully as the science is making great strides ;but also pifalls. ( errors abound) Think I read an article that a female genetic expert did on Roman soldiers. She noted that they were of average height but bone density tests showed extremely heavy musculture and where the attachments were showed alot of use. Do the remnants of Troys soldiers have similar? These questions will be answered one day as many more will be.

It is refresing to see threads on the Roman victories , too mant historians just lament on Roman defeats. It should be obvious to note that the Roman empire was rich and desired by most. Entry had to be granted because ALL enemies lost to Rome or just fled from Rome. Those battles who Rome lost to( think perhaps all enemies one time or another) always payed the price later. Rome easily won most battles with all her adversaries except one, Hannibal, but he paid the ultimate price in the end. (interesting to note that against most others the Romans were always outnumbered but not against Hannibal!)

But you forgetting how much they were outnumbered by the Vandals in Africa and Goths in Italy. The numbers to me suggest both the Vandals and Goths were extrtemely over rated as fighters. Some historians paint them as ferocious(albeit Aryan historians), I say they are not. The Eastern Empire had great leadership to be sure(maybe greater than the west who had many incomptetent ones who were polticains more than military leaders) except Caesar of course. Also, do you think that these Goths and Vandals know how the Romans fight by now? Their number superiority in their battles suggest to me that they just cannot fight hand to hand well. I know western Roman armies incorporated German cavalry but I think this was for economic reasons. (very expensive to maintain, Germans were cheaper source) You just have to look at the reality of the numbers,they are extreme. Seen a special on knife and lance fighting the other day on History channel and it is rough one on one and both combatants usually get cut up. Some members had little experience others had much. Everybody got cut, even the experts against the rookies. It showed that quickness and agility was paramount. This was one on one. Caesar, Narses and Belisarious fought against 10 to one odds at least! Seldom did they even trap the German,Goth or Vandal, they just beat them badly. Taking the numbers into account ,sure great Generals matter(Goths had great leadership too) but at these numbers , given hand to hand I really in my heart feel that these 'barbarians' were inept at hand to hand. Cannot see how two men cannot over power one much less ten to one! Something is very wrong how some historians have portrayed these groups. Even an analysis how the huns manhandled the German and Goths is really not talked about. (and the Chinese manhandled the huns!) For some reason this wants to be avoided. Easy to figure out why.

They both caused much destruction to the west and also handed the Vandals,Goths and others humiliating defeats. Extremely humiliating. Either they were amazing generals or the opposition was not what many believe. I feel both is true. These generals were outnumbered by the opposition that it seems like devine intervention was needed. I do feel that the Goths and other so called barbarians of the day were severly overrated. Sure Belisarious was tricky but Narses had the same results with so few men also. These battles were fought with small legions as opposed to the Roman legions of old. I suspect that all of Europe was in great decline both Western Roman and barbarian worlds because of the numbers of the small numbers of these fighting forces and lack of quality of the fighters.

My wife five days every month.

Have a solution for Europe: we have many immigrants from south of the US you may need...they can save the day

I feel that the German, Goth and even the Huns were not the force that some historians place them to be :Here is why? The Germanic tribes were easily handled by Caesar and in spite of outnumbering Caesars legions greatly. Fighting hand to hand gives great advantage to the numbers, yes training matters but not when you are outnumbered the way Caesar was. Laws of physics..you have only one hand to throw a spear or use a gladius. When you so thourougly beat an enemy who has such numeric advantages of you I do not call them a great fighting force. Some historians have used propaganda to make them more fearsome: propaganda. The numbers speak the truth though. Caesar even crossed the Rhine and terrorized them for 18 days ,so much so that they fled from him and were completely afraid to fight him. What happened the 'noble 'Germanics Tacitus spoke of: myth, they ran dropping their weapons! ( unless of course they new they so outrageously outnumbered a legion or can trap one) The Goths and Huns came in great numbers at a time when the Roman empire was really in decline or even in a 'dark age'. Aetius could not even field a second army to fight the Huns! That speaks volumes of the state of the late Roman empire and its legions. The Huns had little trouble with the German tribes too except when the Germans combined with the few Romans remaining. T These very Huns were repelled by the Chinese empire so effectively that they headed west where they had easier pickings. These Huns were then defeated by Aetius and German allies. I feel this late Roman army was quite inferior to those Casear had. So I even think the Huns were over rated because of their defeats. As for the Goths they too were defeated by the western armies and then again by Belisius and Narses. Now here comes the final blow...Belisarius and Narses had armies ( Greek,middle easter,Roman remnants) that could have been even more outnumbered than when Caesar fought against the Gauls and Germans! They did this in N. Africa and Italy in many batttles. Read on these numbers...the only conclusion I can make is that the Goths/Ostro Goths were not much of a fighting force either. They are pure aryan myth, just listen to the numbers and not European historians. My conclusion: Parthians were the real adversary when Rome was Rome and Caesar was about to invade them before his assination. So the Romans sacked the capital....they still were defeated by the Parthians many times and suffered their greatest loss of Roman legionaires against these Parthians on open battlefields!

20:59 > TERROR: FINI TO US, THE FIGHT IS COMPATIBLE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS 20:59 > POLITICS: BERLUSCONI SAYS ELECTIONS CAN BE DELAYED Today in Italy Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian Prime Minister's office ANCIENT ROMAN SHIPS: ENVIRONMENT PRIZE TO NEMI'S DIANAE LACUS (AGI) - Rome, Jan. 23 - The "Gianfranco Merli" national environment prize was awarded to the Dianae Lacus foundation, the organization that works in the Lake of Nemi area in the Rome province. The organization has the task to rebuild one of the two roman ships that were destroyed during World War II. The prize, promoted by the environmentalist association Movimento Azzurro in collaboration with the European Foundation of Environmental Education, Bandiere Blu Italia, Libertas and Associazione Mare e Marinai, was awarded to the chiefs of Dianae Lacus with this motivation: they supported the initiative to rebuild the two roman ships that were found in the Nemi lake and that are part of the patrimony of the humanity. The prize was delivered in Rome in the premises of the Luigi Sturzo institute. The prize was awarded before Nemi mayor, lawyer Alessandro Biaggi, Diane Lacus association chiefs and Movimento Azzurro chairman Rocco Chiriaco. Dianae Lacus's project has already built a part of the first ship in the area outside the entrance of the museum of the Roman ships in Nemi. They have exposed a reconstruction of the central keel of the ship. Mayor Biaggi during today's ceremony stressed the importance given by the municipality to the valorisation of the area.(AGI) -