Kosmo

As literature I think that Yourcenar Memoirs of Hadrian are the best.

It is interesting that the SU adhered to its defense pact with the Czechs until the end, a cunning pact that was only valid if France adhered to it as well. In hindsight, the war could have been won so easily it's almost silly. The Czech and French armies outnumbered the Germans by more than 2:1, and they had numerous promises from Britain and the Soviets that they would side with them if Germany attacked the Czechs. It boggles the mind why Chamberlain was still so intent to sacrifice the Sudetenland and then again the rump Czech state, but I suppose the scars of WWI did run that deep. The soviet advantage was that they had no border with Germany or Czechoslovakia and thus while France and the Czech would fight the Germans they would not. Poland (and Romania) wanted no soviet help or soviet armies on their soil. Poland and Hungary also had territorial claims against Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was allied with Romania and Yugoslavia against Hungary. If war would have started then the Germans would have had problems conquering Cehia because the Czech army was well equipped and had fortifications in the border mountains while Germans did not finished their rearming and had only few light tanks. Still France could do little to help because the french-german border was short and easy to fortify (Maginot Line, Siegfried Line) and a frontal attack WW1 style was a nightmare (hence the later Phony War) Soviet diplomacy skillfully avoided fighting the Germans alone (for example the Allies could have struck a deal with the Germans at Munich time and let them invade Poland and the SU first). Then when they were attacked by their German partners got unconditional support from the British and the still neutral US and even later avoided going to war against Japan until they finished off the Germans despite the fact that they could easily defeat in the open lands of Manchuria the Japanese that had no real armor units and had a bad defensive position.

The rich got the power but the rich got rich by having power in the first place.

Hitler did not want a war with Britain. He attacked Poland but that did not necessarily meant that Britain and France had to fight Germany over Poland (or the SU that attacked Poland as well 2 weeks later) especially considering that they could offer no support to a country surrounded from 3 sides by Germany. The problem was the fact that after WW1 Central and Eastern Europe were composed from many small and weak countries with internal and external problems (like the Polish-Czechoslovakian conflict or the conflicts within Jugoslavia) that the French dreamed of using to contain Germany and the SU. When Germany started to arm and assert itself in this vacuum there were only 2 possible courses of action: starting a war in Western Europe to protect the weak states of Central Europe (that was eventually the British choice) or a appeasement policy that let Germany do what it desired (the former protector of Central Europe, France, preferred this policy) "What if" Britain and France would have not declared war against Germany on 3 september would be an interesting but hard guess but it's certain that giving in the spring guarantees to Poland was a bad move because it straightened the soviet bargaining position (now Britain and France would be drawn in the war if Germany attacked the SU by Poland while the soviets had no obligation to anyone), gave high hopes to the polish already hallucinate leaders so they resisted german demands and launched a "dare you" challenge to Hitler in his own backyard. What is remarkable both before WW2, its early and late stages and soon after was the efficient diplomacy of the SU that outsmarted everyone. Diplomatic wits turned WW2 in a huge soviet victory and the SU in a superpower.

Yup; only thing was lacking was herr Hitler in the White House. A physically and mentally fit president and a more realist political class would have helped... The US had the opportunity and passed. Fortunately the Cold War remained cold so it seems it was a smart decision to not have a new war but if they had to fight the commies later in a nuclear war the decision would have seemed moronic. Britain started the WW2 to prevent germans and soviets dividing Central and Eastern Europe with the end result that that the entire area was annexed or subjugated by the soviets alone. The defeat of Japan made China communist and opened the doors of Korea and Indochina while the British were soon kicked out of India and several other colonies or areas of influence. Not much of a victory if you ask me.

This made a lot of sense and it was better then doing nothing. Unlike the germans the western allies could strike the SU from all directions including a Caucasus-Iran front and a Far East front (here in July Japan was still fighting). The UK and the US were fully mobilized and unlike the SU suffered little damage to the industrial base and far less human losses. And of course they would have had the Bomb and huge capabilities for strategic bombing...

If Spartacus was a military leader we can call him a general and as he won several surprising victories he was a successful general. I don't think that an ancient army needed "trained soldiers, able officials, effective weapons and operative logistics" to win a battle. His men were clearly highly motivated and that is the most important thing. He was not an ethnic Thracian but a type of gladiator called thracian.

I did not like Xena or Hercules series so I guess I'll hate this.

The fact that Gaius was also blamed for the crazy thing of restoring the popular assembly tells a lot.

Cicero made fun of a senator who was reading letters in the Senate with a beautiful voice saying that he used to be a public news reader. The name of the senator was Marcus Gallius.

Even better would be "built in the current form in 537 AD" as Justinian built the church over the remains of a previous church.

Silver it's a soft metal and long usage would gradually tell. This coin it's in good condition so it was lost not many years after being mint.

Happy Birthday Big!

The regions of southern France between the italian and the spanish borders was Gallia Narbonensis a deeply romanized region, conquered since 121 BC, later a senatorial province also known as Gallia Togata. Massalia was a de jure ally until Caesar but a de facto protectorate since the founding of Narbo. The rest of Gaul was Hairy Gaul, Gallia Comata where roman remains are less impressive but it was still well romanized. Bretagne it's a peculiar case with the survival of a pre-roman language until recent times.

The fact that the poor did not gain high office does not mean that they were powerless or that only the rich got elected. There was a huge amount of prejudice against "blue-collars" in all societies but modern and speaking of their access to power it's anachronistic. Having a good education was highly important in Rome and that did not meant only reading and writing but knowing greek and rhetoric as well and education was not cheap. We see this thing in many modern democracies as well with a sort of monopoly on power in some countries by people graduated from Ivy League, Oxbridge or ENA. Some wealth was necessary for a political career as was the case in most republics in history. And as usual political power was the base of wealth. There are many examples of roman politicians that were not very wealthy in the beginning but gain power and wealth during their political career. Cicero came from a family of provincial equites and his lawyer skills made him among the most powerful people of his day.

What do you mean by Northern Gaul? The regions near the Rhine had a rather germanic character before roman conquest (Germania Sup. and Inf and Belgica). It's worth mentioning the powerful batavian rebellion in 69 AD. The area was raided during the III C crisis and villas and many civil settlements are gone. Since the time of Julian franks and later saxons were settled as laeti so by the IV C there was definitely a german population there.

A. Indeed. And it went beyond the poor citizens. B. There is no connection, this was meant as a reply to post #2. I was trying to say that the Senate of the Republic was not necessary a plutocracy. And the Senate was not the only power and maybe not even the greatest so I doubt that Rome can be ever seen as a plutocracy.

The urban poor of the Late Republic had influence and we see members of the elite trying to win favor with it by many means. It was often decisive when the army did not got involved. The requirement of 1 million sesterci for a senator and 40.000 for a equites belongs to the Empire period.

Let me guess... Caius Proletarius and his other poor citizen peers were lucky enough to be comfortably waiting in their farms while the altruistic rich soldiers were risking their necks for them... pretty unlikely, isn't it? Especially because we have good evidence that, when things got hot enough, even slaves were recruited. Maybe we should try this one... like in any other city-state, military service was an absolute duty for all citizens. As any soldier had to pay for his own equipment, poor soldiers ought to get the money from moneylenders, the same as in so many ancient and modern societies. So these poor citizens became clients of their noble patrons (Patricians or rich Plebeians alike), usually for generations. The main difference from the Republican and Imperial systems was the number of patrons; multiple in the Republic, just one for the Empire. Never heard of this before. Maybe they used whatever they got in crisis, but there was no real crisis after Cannae. Can you give some sources for your statements?

Poor citizens were not part of the army before Marius as soldiers had to afford their equipment and to be able to take leave from their daily bread winning for long periods. Also plebs were not necessary poor. Many of them were wealthy and powerful. The road that led to the massive imperial assistance begun when competitors in elections started throwing games and gifts to win the urban poor citizens. Also supplying the city with cheap grains was a task that the institutions of the Republic handled long before the Empire. Bringing this 2 processes together did not required a dictator even if it was eventually done by an authoritarian regime. The Republic was not ended by the urban or rural discontent but by armies that were loyal to their commanders and not the Republic.

The problem of poor citizens that left their farms and were now living in Rome was not going to be solved with land distribution. As any traditional society romans wanted a return to a previous Golden Age of small farmers but this was gone forever. This was tried by Gracchi and their opponents as well. The solution eventually found was to give to the poor money, food and shows and this unfortunate solution could be applied equally well by a dictatorial princeps or by the democratic institutions of the Republic. The end of the Republic came when power went to the commanders of the mercenary army. The quick succession between Marian Reform and Sylla's march on Rome it's proof enough for me.

In that area Romans never held positions far from the Black Sea and the greek colonies around it. The closest roman held area would be the port of Tyras at the mouth of Tyras/Nistru/Dniester river but on the other side of the river. That roman held land probably was stretching from modern Galati in Romania to Tyras protecting the Danube Delta from the North and was under the governor of Moesia Inferior as were the Danube fleet and some of the Black Sea Fleet and also the roman garrisons further east in Ukraine at Olbia and Chersonesos Taurica. The road itself looks like a Macadam road ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadam ) in a very bad shape, a type of road that was very common in Romania and can still be seen in some streets in Bucharest.

Maybe the neapolitan wanted to go beck to the Moon - Luna

ROME