Kosmo

It seems that is hardly needed.As usual, we agree in far more than we differ; the same "light" seems to have been seen by both of us from long ago It is Armistice Day and we indeed agree more then differ so I'll rest my case.

The WW1 treaties spread an even worse kind of "Balkanization" to Central Europe and the Baltic region exactly because they were based on the right of self-determination of nations. That was my point! You're seeing the light! This is completely untrue. Gypsies still have a strong presence in all countries of this region and they were targeted systematically only by the Nazis. Jews and Germans are far better examples of ethnic groups that were virtually eliminated. Of course in 1876 wars and revolutions have started in the ottoman lands in the Balkans and Bismark's December declaration could mean that Germany had no wish to interfere with Russian war plans and the Russians attacked Turkey a few months later when the weather allowed it. And this eventually called for another British intervention to limit Russian gains. I was kidding (see the smiley). We learn about it in school. That treaty could have been drafted by the Ancient Romans. It was simply imperialism, the winners annexing what they wanted without having any rights based on ethnic composition and also getting economic benefits. The Trianon Treaty on the other hand established Romania's western border giving it the lands where Romanians were a majority or the largest plurality. A vague ethnic border became a political border then a clear cut ethnic border.

And it gets bigger... Unfortunately, those politicians had different standards then you and mostly still do. My sources say that it was as best indifference and even mistrust. Can you give me some sources for these statements? Italy entered fairly early and Portugal did not play much of a part. Romania was counting on massive allied support and reinforcement to defend itself. No plans for marches on Viena or Berlin were made. Actually, they were. The most obvious example was forcing Italy to give up claims on Slovenia and Dalmatia, but there are other examples as well.

That would make a great movie.

Romans are original among the states of Eurasia for the absence of "royal hunts" those large scale, luxurious hunts of dangerous or exotic animals that enhanced the prestige of royalties and aristocrats from Ancient Egypt to modern times (the Achmenid kings had huge enclosed parks, Wilhem the Conqueror moved villages to create hunting reserves, Kublay hunting party was a very organized mobile city, the one of Bayazid was the size of an army, Akhbar had 1.000 trained cheetas, etc). Instead the romans had venatio shows were emperors and other powerful politicians paid for the killing of wild animals in the arenas for the enjoyment of the plebs. Only Hadrian was a passionate hunter but he had a small host. This tells me that the romans view of the relation with the natural world was somewhat different from most other civilizations.

Actually most did. Austria started the war because of the state-sponsored Serbian terrorism and that it is still seen as a legitimate casus belli see NATO campaign in Afghanistan. Others were pulled into the war by treaty, moral obligation or to gain or to defend something important. US had none of these. That affinity did not meant much yet and there was no love between these countries after 2 wars and many crisis. There was definitely no de facto alliance between them. If they believed that in 1917 after so many bloody battles and with an untrained and poorly equipped army they clearly had intelligence problems. The peace was based on Wilson's principles (with some unjust exceptions) but the declining US influence was largely because of US isolationism including the Senate rejection of Wilson's brainchild The League of Nations. Bismark had a point but I fail to see yours. What separatism and ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe are you talking about? The movements against the ottomans in the Balkans? The Europeans had an imperial logic and put little interest in making their conquests seem just but they did not have to alter the ethnic balance to justify their hold of a piece of land. Anyway, the Brest Treaty while was decried as unjust by Russian propaganda only gave lands that were not ethnically Russian and now none are part of Russia. Never heard of a Bucharest Treaty Just check an ethnic map of Central Europe in 1914 and one of today and see in how many places what were then local majorities or pluralities and even minorities became 100% pure. No need to say how that happened. Of course, nationalism was not invented by Wilson but giving lands based on ethnicities and referendums gave some ideas to many people not only in Central Europe but in time everywhere. The WW1 peace treaties legitimized nationalism to an extent never before achieved.

The US entered the war without serious reasons and that only strengthened later isolationism. This means that the US tipped the balance of power for the Entante but refused to keep it that way so the balance swung soon the other way. And of course the cheap idealism of Wilson had far more devastating effects then any brutal expansionism because collective security it's a joke while his principles justified nationalism leading eventually to absurd separatism and ethnic cleansing. The man had no grasp of the complexities of ethnic relations and identities in places like Austria-Hungary.

Nice. The "byzantines" were sometimes very successful in diplomacy and they fought an enormous number of enemies but I doubt that the US can apply their ways for ideological and practical reasons.

It makes sense, bankrupt automobile producers are always a desired target...

I don't see much of a mystery here. For example the diminutive form animula could have been chosen over animus to rhyme with vagula and blandula. Speaking of mysteries I've found interesting the speculation of Birley in his biography of Hadrian that Antinous killed himself as a human sacrifice for Hadrian's health and the later public worship of Antinous was Hadrian's gratitude for the sacrifice.

Maybe coins thrown in an well or spring? In time they would make a hoard...

I would guess that "saxon" it's rather a generic name for Germanic raiders on the North Sea then an ethnic/tribal group. Some of the "saxons" could be anglii or jutii from today Denmark or people from Norway or Sweden.

or a midget gladiator...

Footprint that size could also be of adult women.

I think that the invaders wanted to plunder or/and to became an elite in roman lands rather then becoming peasants and local militia.

MAISONCELLE, France

http://www.alphagalileo.org/Organisations/...;CultureCode=en It was well known that batavians made up the bodyguard of Julio-Claudians

No need to be so defensive, we have an entire subforum dedicated to Rome and religions and I guess this belongs there. The New Testament mentions Rome and romans many times.

It is obvious a case of kidnapping and rape and giving the scale (widespread or systematic) it would be considered today a war rape punished as a crime against humanity like in many decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and possibly an element of genocide like in a 1998 decison of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, if applicable, the Rape of the Sabine Women would be a crime against humanity as art. 7 g "Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children and "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. It will qualified also to be a war crime under art. 8, so, sure, don't do this at home.

All states resort more or less to violence in order to defend their interests and all societies have their share of sadists. What is striking about romans it's that violence became a regular form of entertainment with the gladiatorial fights. Many, if not most, gladiators were not fighting because they wanted to, but because they were slaves and forced to fight, unlike knights in a joust that chose to take part and had some control over the lethality of the fight. Generally I agree with what Sylla said above. The punishment that impressed me most was the blinding of Bulgarian POWs by the great emperor Vasile II.

NAIROBI (AFP)

"According to the researchers, mapping out the times when the coins were buried is a good indirect method for measuring the intensity of internal warfare and unrest, /// and therefore a key indicator of population demographics" I agree with the first part but I can not see how it's related with the second. Having more hoards means a more intense and widespread conflict rather then a larger population.

Again, the content after 1999 it's now available until the end of October.

The romans only needed a draw on the battlefield to win the war and they had some serious advantages to get it: larger army, much cheaper army, familiar with the land, short supply lines, trusted allies, etc. Besides that they proved themselves hard to defeat in battle and immune to diplomatic maneuvering. Pyrrhus allies in Italy and Sicily were always shaky in their support and he had to leave while still in control of most Sicily and South Italy.

Indeed. The photos are yours and you are under no obligation to mention the place where was taken or the owner of the objects in the photos. Per a contrario imagine that you have a picture taken in a parking lot and you would have the obligation to mention all the car owners who had cars there.