Kosmo

Last week I was in the mountains. The snow was melting and there were loads of mud. In the patches of snow you could still see animal footprints. We've found a mudpuddle where a boar had bathed. I was wondering if the bears had finished their hibernation. Next time I'll go in summer when the soil it's dry, there are grass and flowers and much warmer weather. When I walk I always talk with the others, one summer night being alone I sang and ringed my keys 'cause I don't want to meet the wildlife too close, especially the many brown bears.

The Declaration of Independance was not a binding law and the Constitution did not spoke about slavery. Did the North had the right to change the South thru laws or military action? To establish what is moral and right for others? This is more then the central govermant imposing itself on some local goverments, it was the public opinion in North using the federal goverment on South. In ethnic conflicts is fairly common that the majority bashes the minority using democratic means. Yeltsin and Mandela were unsuccesfull statesman that are famous more for what they did before taking power. Yeltsin's tanks firing at the Russian Duma (parliament) are not a good evidence of democracy, but not even that drunk did not provoked a large scale civil war if we except bloody First Cecenian War.

There was a lot of confusion beetwen celts/gauls and germans in Antiquity. Moderns tried to setlle this especially from nationalist resons but I guess that largely failed especially because the two resambled a lot. If we add to this the posibility that other lingvistic groups were present here and there, especially in Britain, things are more confusing. I believe that celts of continental Europe had a similar culture and were very alike germans, but had no, or little connection with the people of Ireland that later influenced Scotland (scoti came from Ireland and overrun caledonians) and Wales. Because celts and germans are hard to distinguish (if it was a significant difference) it's hard to tell if England was inhabited by one or the other.

The South prefered seccesion and war to accepting Lincoln as President. While this does not speak directly about Lincoln's qualities shows evidently how divisive he was. Can be seen a president that brings this reaction of a sizabale part of the citizens as a great statsman?

Slavery it's imoral for us, but so it's starting a major war. My point was that sometimes ethnic groups are tied to a social position (e.g. polish landlords, jewish merchants and ukrainian peasants in k.u.k Galicia or white farmers in recent Zimbabwe) and at that point any reform it's difficult because social change puts in peril the established ethnic relations.

Slavery was not only an economic or moral problem. Slaves were blacks, a visible and distinct racial group, so freeing them would pose for the South a complex problem with an ethnic minority. This kind of problem it's much more explosive then all the others together. If southerners believed that their existence was threatened by abolition then they would do everything in their means to prevent it. A proof to this feeling it's that some of them tried to send the slaves back to Africa. Pushing southerners on what was a crucial aspect of life for them was to risk seccesion and war.

Caesar it's well known, but that does not qualify him for greatness. It seems to me that after winning the Greatest Aristocrat in Rome competition he was at a loss with what to do with his victory. Dentatus, Scipio Africanus and emperor Aurelianus I admire for their martial qualities that I associate with Rome while Octavian, Constantine and Justinian for the changes they brought with their political skill.

Nice. I had broken my ankle playing tennis, so it should be easy to understand why I played rugby only once. Still, it is a great game.

"Don't let them fool you - the real purpose is a massive razor-blade sharpening facility." - I loved this comment.

This summer an arheologic dig that stopped in 1939 will be resumed by a international team from Romania, UK, US and Germany. The site it's made of 4 fortifications rings enclosing a huge surface of 1.800 hectars. Three of the walls are dated from the second half of the II Millenium BC. The fourth wall was discovered thanks to space imagery (Google Earth) and it's noted dated yet. Linky to article in romanian, it has some pictures also http://www.evz.ro/articole/detalii-articol...u-Google-Earth/

I'm watching the series and I find them entretaining until now (ep.9, s.I) despite being innacurate. It's funny to see that the plot it's moving further away from reality as it goes on. Egyptians generally and the doped Cleopatra are hillarious and so is the too-wise-for-a-child Octavian. The main problem it's that they tried to fit a large time span with complex action and lots of side actions in the short time of episodes. And the Vorenus family problems are worthy of a south american soap opera. The attempt to show the life of common people largely failed. And no battle scenes!?! Maybe a movie can be more focused and give better and more accurate detail. Maybe...

Happy Birthday to you both!!!!! Let the celebrations begin!

I'm highly sedentary, but I'm trying to go to tennis and footbal. I've found out that sport it's the perfect cure for the pains in my back. I can not do any exercise because I get bored while games keep my interest high.

He probably took the Marcus Aurelius name when he became an emperor and if so, this is not his true name. He was not from an old roman family, so names in cases like that are less relevant.

Not necesary Caldrail. Here in Romania, one can find in rural areas many rituals that are pre-christian. Some have also a christian meaning added, but most have not despite being performed by christians. The people who make this rituals are christians not pagans, but they still respect their pre-christian customs.

Old age, with health issues including senility and death can be serious problem. FDR's illness was a great problem at the end of WW2.

The great problem it's the country to which Scandinavia it's attached.

Not really. Modern political theories consider that some of the rights can not be abolished, even thru democratic means. The main function of democracy it's to ensure bloodless transition of power beetwen opposing parties and this can not happen if a party (and the social/economical interest he represents) risks destruction by the hands of the victorious group once the opponent has the power. It seems to my that the purpose of the struggle was less slavery, but the fate of the southern political elite that could have been pushed aside by a republican northern majority that could use federal institutions against state ones. Still, it was his election that triggered the seccesion. He was the most reknown republican politician and had lots to do with the party platform, but he made no effort to propose something acceptable to the South. He did not even run a campaign in the South, because he was clearly unacceptable for them and he knew that. And he was aware of the risk of a seccesion. He also opposed the Crintendon compromise. I fully agree with you on this and I think he made the right choice.

Greek fire appeared in the VII C so clasical romans did not have such weapon. It was a deadly weapon, but it was expensive and hard to use. It's main use was to burn enemy wooden materials such as ships and siege weapons, not to traget infantry. It had a nasty psychological effect, but many modern sources tend to overstate it's importance. By 1453 it was obsolete because of advances in gunpowder artillery.

I don't have a problem with Lincoln's actions during the war, but with those preceeding it. Thru the creation of the republican party, his energic opposition to slavery and his victorious election he created a fear that the North will impose on South the abolition of slavery. His opposition had nothing to hope from his presidential term and the anti-slavery republican majority, so they chose seccesion rather then accepting him as president. Rather then seeking change they refuted the change he was going to make. This type of leadership that crashes the opposition, albeit democratic in forms it's undemocratic in spirit. The majority democraticaly persecutes the minority (not that this minority was nice). And by creating an anti slavery party he made the issue of slavery a highly political one so that the 2 main parties phisicaly divided the country. Yes, the issues of slavery were present in US politics since independance, so why the war broke out when it did? I believe that himself and the issues of his folowers were highly divisive forcing people to chose beetwen beligerant sides, pushing out of the political discourse both the moderates and other significant issues. He would not be a symbol of unity if he was not the one that destroyed it in the first place and the rights he gave were just a tool in his war against Slave Power rather then a goal from the begining.

I could never understand why Licnoln it's viewed as a great US statesman, afterall he was one of the culprits for starting the Civil War, the bloodiest US war ever. His ferm position may arouse applaud, but a more diplomatic person could have calmed things over and prevent the useless bloodshed.

To get, from Nicomedes, STDs Good. Maybe Looking for a Bithynian to tease This fits Hadrian as well. Both caesars had a weakness for that province.

Happy Birthday neighbour !!!

First of all the no wine rule was what he disliked.

In his biography of Trajan, Julian Bennet mentions that, at the begining of the parthian campaign the roman army was gathered at Satala (south of Trapezunt in Cappadocia) The army was supposed of being made from some entire legions or parts of legions as follows: -from Syria - III Galica, IV Scythica, VI Ferrata - from Cappadocia - XII Fulminata, XVI Flavia Firma (the last was based in Satala) - Judeea - X Fratensis - Arabia - III Cyrenaica From the Danube came, on land across the Balkans and Asia Minor, or on the Black Sea from Tomis to Trapezunt the following: - in full - I Adiutrix, XV Apollinaris - probably in part - VII Claudia, XI Claudia, XIII Gemina, II Traiana fortis, XII Primigenia, XXX Ulpia victris, I Italica, V Macedonica. The total number it's hard to guess, but the author proposes that from this 17 legions were at least 8 full legions with at least as many auxilliaries for a total of some 80. 000 men. A rather impressive army that explaines the parthian desire for peace and their reluctance to engage it in open combat. Also explaines the early sucees of the jewish rebelion in the East and of dacian and sarmatian attacks on Danube. Do you think that this is the greatest and best army that the romans ever fielded?