Kosmo

Some say that Tropeum Traiani from Admaclisi was made by the legions themselves, so depictions are less artistic and more realistic.

One objects for censorship and the next against it? I think that MPC's "extremely imaginative foul language" was very funny even if I find Caesar intriguing. If you like the Late Republic you should apreciate witty rethorics and respond in kind. That's what Caesar did with "Anticaton" And if you want to make a case for Caesar (not that he needs one) being on-topic will help.

Better than having several men in white medical gear trying to force you in a shirt with long sleeves... I think that romans are the ones that had spreaded the camel from Asia to Sahara.

If he would have made profits from his investments nobody would have cared. Unfortunately for him and GSG the market had turned sour in the last period.

No, I'm Romanian and I live in Bucharest and the only things I know about bulgarian criminality comes also from media. Bulgaria it's a great turistic destination with nice and cheap seaside resorts, friendly people and great looking girls. I feel safe in Bulgaria, but like in every place I've seen you have to keep your eyes open.

I'm somekind of lawyer. I decided that making a living from history around here will not be great in terms of money making so I keep it as a nonprofesional passion. Anyway, I like history more because I did NOT had to study it, take exams, make papers etc. I believe Tom Sawyer was right and it's more fun to do a thing because you want to, not because you have to. So, a history buff lawyer here.

I could not read the whole article. It sounds interesting, but the destruction of Carthage was nothing unique in that era. After all Corint was razed in the same year while romans had no grudge against the greeks. Tarentum and Syracusa, the capitals of Western hellenism had already been destroyed.

There is a theory that suggests that periods of instabilty and conflict beetwen many players are more innovative then periods of stability under a hegemon that lead to stagnation. This is generally true. Ancient Greece and the hellenistic periods created more innovation then the period when the Mediterranean Roman Empire difused this innovations. But if we compare the roman period with the Early Middle Ages (500-1000) we can see that in history there are also periods of regress. The period 1000-1500 was one of change and development for the West that would truly deserve a better public image than unwashed knights and fanatic monks. They washed and they were not fanatics... Western Europe was a beckwater in 1000 AD while by 1500 AD was the leading civilisation of the world in all aspects. To a large extent today's civilisation it's the product of that period and of the future development that were unleashed by it because the Medieval West was the first civilisation that suffered no collapse, but a steady and continuos evolution.

Naucratis was highly atipical and I was not talking about phoenician colonies. It is hard for me to believe that locals were willing to give up their land to the newcomers, especially because it was usually a good harbour and seaside fertile plains. Because the colonists were looking for arable and other agricultural land the size of the territory of the polis (chora) had to be quite large. It's hard to know now where the borders of colonies were, but some indications were analysed. The 3 greek colonies in Dobrogea (Histria, Tomis and Callatis) controlled the entire coast line and a proconsular decree enforcing the borders of Histria recognised the city authority over a vast area. Of course, the placenames mentioned in the decree are hard to put on a map today and this it's about the I C AD rather then Clasical period, but it's obvious that the prosperity of a greek colony depended always on the size and fertility of it's agricultural land. I don't believe that this large fertile lands were uninhabitated or that the locals were willing to give such land grants, regardless of later stories and myths. The land was taken and this involved force, at least as a show of force. Your english it's very good. I had no problem enjoying your work.

Good work Klingon! In regard to greek colonisation I have some comments: -from both arheological digs or literary sources results that colonies did not start as trading points. - The trade relations were probably expended by colonisation and not the other way around. - greek colonisation was a part of the social change that resulted in the creation of polis. Areas that did not evolved to polis did not created colonies. - the division of the land in equal shares does not mean that everybody received the same number of pieces of land. Something like loot distribution it's posible where leaders received several equal shares. - the person(s) that led the colonisation were often aristocrats. -the purpose of colonisation was to aquire arable land -the colony was often started by the conquest of the native population and it's expelling or subjugation

The villains were from Paris and their slang it's mostly incomprehensible. Corsica was not a part of medieval France being anexed in late XVIII C.

France's poet Francois Villoin wrote many poems using the villains XV C slang that it's largely unknown today. This is at least a century before Cervantes. PS. I liked Don Quijote, mostly the first part.

Happy Birthday!!!

I voted for heavy metal despite the fact the genere it's largely dead now. From the sorts of metal that are made today I like gothic metal (Therion, etc), industrial (Rammstein), some punk rock (Tool). I also listen to older rock/metal, classical (no opera) and house (when driving).

Was Boudicca an worrior that was expected to fight hand-to-hand? Leading one's tribe/state to war does not mean that person it's a soldier. Were Elisabeth I, Victoria, Thatcher and Elisabeth the II worriors? Of course, Boudicca had led her troops on the batllefield the same like Jean d'Arc did, but that had more to do with her status as queen rather then her fighting abilities. Maybe she was the only women in the army. I believe that the absence of women in armies had more to do with their gender specialized functions rather then their lower physical strength. A roman women could, sometimes, fight as a gladiator in the arena, but this does not mean that she was allowed in the army.

Many khazars were jews incuding the most important kings, but some were also christians or muslims. Some say that they converted to judaism in order to avoid taking sides in the arab-byzantine conflicts. Still they fought many wars mostly against muslims. It is presumed that after Sviatoslav, the cnieaz of Rus, destroyed the chazars many of the jews migrated West and setlled in Europe. I doubt it. Eastern and Central Europe were not places at the time for nonviolent migrations.

Sarmatian was much more correct as Danubian means nothing but a place of origin and not an ethnic/cultural identification. If those in the links provided by Melvadius are right they could be yaziges, a sarmatian tribe that lived on the open plains of Tisza valley, North of Middle Danube. This sarmatians fought Marcus Aurelius during the marcomanic wars and were forced to give many auxiliaries that were sent in Britain. Actually they fought the romans many times and were a dangerous and usually succesfull enemy. It is well known that sarmatians graves show female burried with weapons but details are unclear about them actually fighting (some say that women defended the herds while the man were gone to war) or having weapons as a show of status. Hence the amazons.

Hellenism was adopted in varying degrees by many people with different origins: thracians, parthians, scythians, armenians, kushans, etruscans, romans etc. The are many reasons for that. Phoenicians and carthagians had many relations with greeks including conflicts.

From this side it looks that the most interesting candidates are Hillary and Obama. Too bad republicans got such an awful image thank's to Bush. Hoping good from a politician would be mistake.

Good point DF! Granting land does not solve problems for a long period. If the settled tribe it's weaker then other enemies it can not defend the province it's given. This happened with the vandals that were given Pannonia only to be chased out by huns and forced in to the empire where they gave some nasty blows (I see the vandal invasion as the begining of the end for the west) If they are strong enough to defend the area that they were given then they are strong enough to beat the romans (or use the many problems the emire had) and expand and that is what happened in Gaul. Giving roman land to barbarians was a stop gap measure and I don't think it was used too much. Usually by this grants the romans had to accept what has already happened - the de facto germanic conquest of an area. I like Peter Heather opinions on this.

Neanderthalians lived in permanent setllements for large periods of time up to thousends of years. They were not nomad unlike Cro Magnon. They also lived in areas were the effect of glaciations was less felt like the Iberic peninsula were the remains in the caves of Gibraltar are the latest.

This gesture "rock on" or the horns often used by rockers and bickers it's different from what I was reffering to. The right palm it's opened and pointing up with the 3 larger fingers gathered above. The gesture with those three fingers toghether but with the 2 small ones placed in the palm has religious meaning being used when making the cross or blessing.

When legion camps became fixed the outside settlements -canabae- grew in real cities. They often received city rights like municipia and became fortified.

Not so good, but he's making lots of money. Well, that's a surprise He was always better at making money then at playing football.

It is highly possible that the horses used by roman cavalry were smaller then those used in the Late Middle Ages, but they also had to carry a smaller load. Mongols, the best cavalry worriors of all times, used small horses, so size tells us little about efficiency of use.