Kosmo

"Byzantine" emperors always regarded the roman title took by Carol and Otto of the West as an usurpation on their rights (and rightly so). I doubt that they saw them as equals, hence son seems more likely, but as we speak about 650 years of diplomacy things might have varied. I'll try to find something relating on the mission of the "holy" ambassador Liutprand in Constantinopole.

The purple shoes were indeed the sign of imperial authority until 1453 and only the emperors were allowed to wear them.

It seems that Pannonia was taken over by longobards after the defeat of the huns.

Amazing place. Thanks.

There have been already some discussions about this before. I believe that Justinian was unlucky and he did not have greater success because of the plague and that he was one of the greatest roman emperors. The greatest quality of a leader it's to choose good people for the highest position and to keep a working relation with them and in this aspect he was evidently wise and well served. Under him the roman army successfully conquered large areas like no other christian emperor before or after. He built many fortifications in the Balkans and at the persian border and that marvel that is Hagia Sophia. He codified roman law in the best way and blended it with christianity giving it a shape that it's the base for many modern law systems. Maybe, if not for the plague, he would have left behind a Roman Empire covering the entire Mare Nostrum bigger and stronger, capable of withstanding any attack.

I'm interested in the situation of the easternmost regions of the Western Empire after the split. Dalmatia remained under roman control until the death of Julius Nepos, then became part of the states of Odoacru and the Ostrogoths before returning to the Roman Empire. This looks more certain then the next ones. The rest of Illyricum (Croatia proper and modern Bosnia) seem to have been under Gothic settlement after Adrianopole and this maybe the area from where Radagaisus, Alaric, Theodor Strabo and Theodoric of the Ostrogoths launched their attacks. Still I'm not very sure about it as Goths were present in many areas of the Balkans. It's also unclear what happened after the Roman conquest of the Ostrogoth kingdom in Italy. Was it overrun by Lombards, was it conquered by romans, was still roman when the slavs/avars moved to the area? The fate of Pannonia (western Hungary, eastern Austria) it's even more confusing to me. Somebody (I can't remember the source) said it was given to Vandals shortly after 400 and then taken over by Huns as Vandals moved to Gaul. Some maps show it later as part of the kingdoms of Odoacru or Ostrogoths. Was it recovered by these after the fall of the Huns or the Huns never conquered it in the first place?

The romans recruited people that were already trained in archery, but I believe that they were making more training with them, drilling them to obey orders and to act like a unit and also to keep and improve their level in archery. Regarding the crossbow romans could train some infantry soldiers to use them like they did with other siege weapons.

"The ancient world was probably very much like the flintstones with all those nifty dinosaur powered inventions, only they were run with slaves." Romans had a professional army so they had ample time to select and train people in more efficient archery. They had no need of a crossbow except maybe defending fortifications.

I made it! What are you all three doing in the storeroom?

I don't like modern art, so I would not go inside the Denver museum to be displeased by the dysfunctional spaces, hence I like it

1 This seems to be the academic consensus. It's also logic. Why would have Rome punished Rhodes for mediating the conflict that Romans also disliked and finally stopped? They kicked Rhodes for mediating between them and Macedonians when they wanted their allies to fight not talk.

Judaism isn't a race because not all Jews share the same genetic makeup (you can have fair-skinned, blonde, blue-eyed Jews as well as dark-complexioned Jews). But all Jews are nevertheless united as a sort of extended family with a shared history, regardless of whether or not they happen to be religiously observant Jews. There are Jews who also happen to be atheists. -- Nephele Israelis are amazingly diverse from a "racial" point of view, but still Judaism it's (or was) a religion based on ancestry. Obviously this man had the status to became consul, but it will be interesting to know if romans would have made consul somebody who was not a pagan given the religious attributes of consulship.

Actually it is... Even wiki says at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetii : "According to the victor, tablets with lists in Greek characters were found at the Helvetian camp, listing in detail all men able to bear arms with their names and giving a total number for the women, children and elderly who accompanied them.[18] The numbers added up to a total of 263,000 Helvetii, 36,000 Tulingi, 14,000 Latobrigi, 23,000 Rauraci, and 32,000 Boii, all in all 368,000 heads, 92,000 of whom were warriors. A census of those who had returned to their homes listed 110,000 survivors, which meant that only about 30 percent of the emigrants had survived the war. Caesars report has been partly confirmed by excavations near Geneva and Bibracte. However, much of his account has not yet been corrobated by archaeology, whilst his narrative must in wide parts be considered as biased and, in some points, unlikely. For a start, only one out of the fifteen Celtic oppida in the Helvetii territory so far has yielded evidence for destruction by fire. Many other sites, for example the sanctuary at Mormont, do not exhibit any signs of damage for the period in question, and Celtic life continued seemingly undisturbed for the rest of the 1st century BC up to the beginning of the Roman era, with an accent rather on an increase in prosperity than on a

Not too long. Often it took a lot of time for a consul to became a proconsul. But as the proconsulate of Asia was the high point of a senatorial career (together with Africa) it was not given to someone as the first province. He might have been proconsul somewhere else before 132. I find the dates more interesting because in both 116 and 132/3 there were large Jewish rebellions under way.

Romans often showed surprising reluctance in annexing foreign lands. In contrast with some "imperial" campaigns like those of Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Trajan etc that are typical wars of conquest the Republic moved very slowly and usually regions were transformed in provinces only after a long period of roman hegemony. Conquered people had time to adjust with romans because this process often lasted several generations (even if we see it on the same page in the history books) Also there was a blur between the inside and the outside of the empire as it was a foedus-ration. Even within a province the relations between the governor and the cities were often based on treaties. Many allies like Rhodes, Massalia or Callatis were never formally annexed.

I have no idea what ethnicity is or was and we can have a lengthy discussion about this fascinating topic. Ethnicity was by no means critical as he was able to win imperial power, a sign of broad support at least at army level, and one of his opponents was also an "african". Still his African origins and even more important the Syrian origins of his wife played a role and his entire dynasty had an exotic flavor visible in the decorations of Septizonium and the excesses of Elegabal. Maybe even the edict of Caracalla had something to do with a changing definition of what being a roman citizen meant. Being a roman knight and even a roman senator had less to do with "ethnicity" or "mother language" and even religion as we see Jew knights and Greek senators much earlier then the rise of Septimius Sever. The romans were a political nation like the French and the US following the ideas of the XVIII C rather then a ethnically defined nation like the Germans and Italians after Romanticism. Anyway, congrats again for your rapid identification of sources.

I remember reading that Septimius Sever was embarrassed when he was an emperor that his sister spoke Latin with a very strong Punic accent. This may indicate that his mother tongue was Punic. Some roman cities from North Africa kept Punic organization and titles like while others were organized on the roman model.

They did it because they could and the rest is propaganda. Even the mongols claimed they had serious reasons for their conquests like a stereotype killing of mongol ambassadors or traders. I know NO example of a state self denying expansionism until recent times.

Nobody gives him money for his face but for the cat, so if he feeds the cat with all the money he receives he will soon have a Garfield-shaped hat hanging from his head.

They would have confiscated the crossbow and throw the owner to the lions Crossbow would have not been very useful against the heavy armored and compact formations of roman infantry. Giving the slow reload it would be even lees useful then archery and archers could not stop roman or greek heavy infantry. Only horse archers that could keep their distance had an impact. Romans had siege weapons that were like huge crossbows.

Romanian academy made some stupid changes distancing the language from being truly phonetic while I was in high school and believe me I had to comply otherwise I would get poor grades. The same pressure was in university and later at my workplace. And of course for somebody working in media not writing or speaking correctly would be seen as a serious professional error.

Not really, the Academy sets regulations that are enforced by countless institutions starting with mass media that is highly influential, schools, bureaucracy etc

In roman law a legal contract was made binding by the use of some sacred, typical expressions. Without them the contract was void. To a much lesser extent this was transmitted to some modern law systems. Usually the contract was made in writing with witnesses present, but in rural areas where illiteracy was widespread they could be made verbally before a larger number of witnesses.

When Galba was send by emperor Gaius Caesar to reform the army of Germania Superior he dismissed from the army some 6.000 men that he considered unfit for duty (there could have been political distrust as well as military reasons for that)