Kosmo

Romans had forbbiden the export of precious metals, but this drain was a constant source of troubles for Europe. It became less of a problem when potruguese and spaniards strted to export the gold and silver of West Africa and America to a point when american spanish export of silver to Manila-China was, for a year, greater then those to Europe (and much of that was going to Asia by the Cape route). Only the Industrial Revolution (and much less the opium trade) changed this pattern, but the last decade shows a return to the ancient model. It was speculated that the roman eastern trade deficit combined with the gradual decline of mining after a peak during Trajan are an important cause for the reduced monetary circulation in the Dark Ages and the establishment of local self sufficient economies. But with this discussion we are offtopic because it's not about enemies.

First of all the romans had no reason to cross the Rhine where it's the largest. They had land acces to Germany from Rhaetia, the famed Agri Decumani area. They could also easily cross the small Upper Rhine and Danube or where the Rhine it's divided in many arms. Crossing a river was not as difficult then. The enemy could not know where an army will cross to concentrate at that point. Fishing and river trade made boats readily available. Simple boats could be made on the spot and the crossing was done quickly.The rivers were not high beetwen dams like today, so fords were available in places especially during summer. During winter the Danube was usually coverd with ice like it happened when vandals crossed the Rhine. Many states/tribes carried campaigns over Low Danube (bigger then Rhine) in recorded history and many of them did it dozens of times. The reasons why romans choosed the great rivers as borders were: a clear demarcation to barbarians, easy supply for garrisons with the river transport, a natural obstacle. A roman fortress on Rhine could be supplied cheaper in peace times and more safely in war time then an inland one.

There are never easy solutions "2 studies conclude that biofuels are not so green after all" "Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the pollution caused by producing these "green" fuels is taken into account, two studies published Thursday have concluded. The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months as scientists have evaluated the global environmental cost of their production. The new studies, published by the journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy. These studies for the first time take a comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development. The destruction of natural ecosystems - whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America - increases the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere because the ecosystems are the planet's natural sponge for carbon emissions..." http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/07/hea...fuel.php?page=1

Many accounts of battles point to romans having a looser line. That was that the maniple was designed for and that's why a maniple had 2 centuria. If you have a line you don't need a unit higher then the centuria. If the enemy enters the gap beetwen maniples this could be solved by a centurion (and a maniple had 2 centurions while one would have been enough for the front) ordering a "face right/left" order for the soldiers on the flank leving the enemy in a pocket with romans on three sides. A reason for the depth of roman lines (the other being change of lines within the centuria) could be this move, because a line four deep cannot create a significant gap. What Caesar did at Pharsalus it's called refusing the flank, creating a line on a straight angle of the first line. The Rhine, as GO rightly points (strange to say that ) was not a serious obstacle for romans. Danube it's bigger, but did not stopped them (or many others) from expanding over it .

Very nice! The roman artillery had no purpose behind the roman wall where it could shoot only at romans. Maybe placing it on the wall would have been more accurate.

When I was in high school there was a period of great change (early 90's after the fall of communism) and the school books were new. That left the techers of all human studies in confusion because they could not recite anymore their well rehersed lessons. Of course we knew much better the matters most of us being heighly interested in the "new" information available. I still remember when my romanian literature teacher called a book of memoirs, several hundred pages thick, an essay.

So the decisive caucases on 4 february did not decide anything for the democrats. Yes it all makes sense now.

Would a roman realised after Adrianopole that the empire it's at risk? Looking at their history they would have thought of a stinging defeat, but they always went back up after Cannae, Carhae, Teutoburg etc. Probably internal conflicts drained more blood than that batlle. Was the empire definetly on the road to collapse? We know the way history turned, but maybe it was not unavoidable and if things were done different the outcome would have been different. If you were a roman then and you knew what that meant could you have done a effective change? Was there something that could stop the endless fights for the imperial power and was there a way to restore lost military superiority? Could someone stop christians from fighting each other for arcane reasons? The empire was big, rich and powerfull. It was the most advanced in culture, technolgy, arts and religion in his area (if not on Earth). It did not fell from trivial causes that a prophet could rectify. Today we know that what happens in Africa it's bad, but can you propose a viable solution? What about polution or East European girls? The capacity of states (and humans in general) to change things in the way they want to it's painfully limited. With the obvious exception of destroying things, something that was always easy to do.

If we want to look at the great picture of Europe, it's easy to see that the Dark Ages were truely dark. Still each area shows a different picture. Some started decaying during the III C crisis (Dacia, urbanization in the northern areas) Others in the centuries to come (V C Gaul, Spain, danubian lands, Britain and after 500 Italy and the Balkans) The degree to which areas were affected is also different. Compare Britain with Italy! Some areas had seen some progres like Germany proper that starts urbanisation in this period under the leadership of franks and their subjects/allies (Thuringia, Bavaria) It's easy to forget that a part of the core area of the well organized frankish kingdom was on the wrong side of the Rhine. The collapse of Rome blured the borders and, things started to improve on the outside of the empire like in Ireland. The same process can be seen in other parts and times like viking raiding Western Europe but starting urbanization and state organisation in Rusia and Ireland.

Often I agree with a post and I find nothing to comment. Emoticons are useful at that moment but someone has the monopoly... The most important reason for which I posted in this thread was to rise the number of posts over 4...

Oh, they did badly. Only their stuberness kept them asking for more after they succeded in losing so many ships to storms. Probably the top heavy corvus had something to do with their fleets ending usualy at the bottom of the sea.

Happy Birthday Ramses!!! Enjoy yourself and don't bother, drinking it's overrated. I woke up with a headache, a bad stomach and a terrible thrist so I know what I'm saying.

A portuguese from 1350 would be thoroughly cofused in today Lisabon, but it will still be in Portugal and today's Portugal it's the same state that was in 1350. I like roman history because of the blend of continuity and change spanning for a huge period.

We're going in circles here. How could someone challange Rome when the entire Med was a roman lake and the Black Sea and the Atlantic coast were fermly in roman hands? Nothing like this could happen before somone had control of a suitable shore like it happened when the goths knocked out the Bosporan kingdom.

Rar Singur, singur, singur,

Pastoral nomads, not seafaring. And all rivers and ports were covered by romans and their allies. As PP points the romans had two fleets on the Black Sea (and Lower Danube) I have no ideea that armenians had a fleet on the Caspic Sea, or direct acces to it.

During the reign of Tiberus the Black Sea was largely a roman lake. They had the south and east shores in provinces or closely guarded client kingdoms. The north and the east had greek cities and states (like the Bosporan kingdom) that were clients as well. No asiatic power had ports at the Black Sea. The roman fleet in the Med was landlocked because I doubt they went to the Atlantic. Rome had no acces to the Caspian Sea and needed not bases in the Maeotis where the client Bosporan kingdom was established. They had a fleet in the Red Sea.

For the first time I found some explanation about the US caucases: Iowans have corn, Floridians have coconuts By Dave Barry Published: January 28, 2008 On Tuesday, millions of Florida voters will head for the polls. Being Floridians, many of them will become confused and drive into buildings, canals, cemeteries, other Floridians, etc. But some will actually make it to the polls, where they will cast ballots that will play a crucial role in the U.S. presidential election. Or, in the case of Democrats, not. It turns out that the 2008 Florida Democratic primary doesn't count. Florida will be sending the same number of delegates to the 2008 Democratic convention as Uzbekistan... http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/28/opinion/edbarry.php Yes, all makes sense now I edit this to express my happines, now when Obama has the support of an established dinasty - the Keenedy's. I felt sorry for him for not being from a presidential family.

Why would they need WARships for that? A trireme it's highly unpractical for transport.

Errr, thanks...!?!

They say he wanted to be a star, but how could he became one if hiding? http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/28/bus...s/28kerviel.php

That was Ceausescu. For romanian workers it's easier to go to other neolatin countries because they can learn italian or spanish in weeks (and the weather it's better). So many people had left that they started bringing chinese and turks to work here. Unemployment it's in some cities 0,5%. The british ban affects more the educated people and it's more of a political move (look we are fighting rampant emigration!!!) because the UK was never an important destination for romanian emigrants.

After Actium the need for a large navy was no more. Local fleets were created to handle local problems while a larger fleet was kept in bases in Italy (Misenum, Ravenna etc) In the Late Empire germanic enemies often used the sea (goths, saxons, vandals) but there were few sea battles.

For me the name Byzantine Empire it's something like a phase of the roman state like Late Republic or Principate and NOT the name of a different state. The roman state was born as a city with some land around in the valley of Tiber and died as a city with some land around in Bosfor.

The ammount of money he played on the market it's just mind blowing. That's more then the GDP of many countries. I can't believe that something like this was done without the bosses knowing.