Kosmo

Nice summary! I had read some of the first two kinds and I found them interesting. The religious pieces are sometimes boring, but texts regarding magic are often amusing. Puting the macerated half of a dung bug in the drink of the loved one does not seem failproof to me, especially if she finds out . The folklore stroy resamble a bit "a Thousend Nights"

He had some sort of skin disease with open ulceration. I don't remeber where I've read that maggots crawled from one to the other.

Oh, yeah!!!

Elegantly phrased. But not entirely true. Freedom had been chocked before. Not even the oldest roman living during Augustus could remember a time when people did not got killed for their opinons.

You also have to be more specific about what propaganda are you writting about. There were different levels from one of a commoner that is seeking higher status, someone that has a lot of power and tries to justify or glorify himself or that of Rome herself that we see made by historians and poets etc.

Poland for some centuries elected kings, but called herself Republic. Napoleon was for some years emperor of the French Republic. This are justr words.

The law it's about significant and hard to make conquests not military walks and the only succesful campaign of this type of the empire was the conquest of Dacia. Anyway, the reason why Rome did not conquer the entire Britain may have to do with Asimov's law. I guess it's not supposed to be a complete explanation, but rather a description of a visible trand.

There are 2 stories for the end of Romulus. One in which he is taken up to the gods during a storm while in the other he is ripped in pieces by senators. I think the two represent, in a metafor, the conflict beetwen divine monarchy and republicanism. Thru paricide the romans gain control of their lives, paricide as a rebellion against authority.

In the book series "Foundation" Asimov creates The Trantorian Empire, a construction that its obviously based on the Roman Empire. When the trantorian general Bel Riose attacks the Foundation his is defeated by a psihohistorical law that it's presented some thing like this: a weak general can not conquer a foe, a strong general and a weak emperor will create a situation when the general will be more interested in taking over the empire then fighting outsiders, if we have a strong general and a strong emperor the general will use his skill outside the empire, but if he is succesful he will end up in a conflict with the emperor because he becames too popular. If the strong emperor leads the conquest himself he can not spend to much time on that border because in his absence someone will try to take over the imperial center. So, in no option the empire can use his superiority to expand during a longer conflict. To you think that this law it's true for roman imperial history? I do believe that Asimov it's spot on. The emperors had always the problem of putting to much power in the hands of one general, power that could be used against them, while the option of leading themselves the army presented other problems including less control over the rest of the empire. This could be one of the reasons why Rome had military problems during the empire.

Thank you! So, because of the connection of the plague to rats and grains it could be said that grain supplies spreaded the disese and also main grains producing areas would suffer worse because of greater transport contact and having more rats in the graneries. I see now why the plague was so devastating for agricultors and much less for nomads.

Probably the decrease of urban population was larger then that of peaseants, so after the plague there will be a higer peasant/urban ratio hence easier to feed the population because you have a quota of more producers then users. The only way the disaster will bring "system failure" it's if you don't have enough people to keep complex systems of agricultural production. If that's the case then one would expect the disuse of the labour intesive irrigation projects in the "South". Did Rosen provided evidence for that? In other sources, after a JStore search, I found no evidence for the wide spread expansion of the three field system that early. What agricultural practice Rosen described for the period before the plague in the North? I'm sorry to put so many questions, but I have being waiting for your review to trouble you with them

A very informative and well written review! Can you go, please, a little in depth with the argument about the three field system. I thought that this system recquires more labour and will be less useful with a depleted population. After all one had to work in a year two out of three plots, two thirds of total surface, while in the two field system they worked just half of the entire surface. The plague was a huge disaster for romans, without it, only Persia could have troubled it and the chance to recover the entire West was real. Justinian almost did it anyway, but the weaknesses prevented them for keep it.

Happy Birthday Pertinax!!! May all your wishes come thru!

Excellent work WW!!! This is a subject I never see discussed around here (in Romania). Both Latinists and Dacianists are nationalists that used ideology and history to their purpose. Latinsts started in late XVIII C in Transilvania that was then a Habsburg province. The Habsburgs promoted the greek catholic church in an effort to bring the orthodox romanians closer to the Crown. Romanians had a low status the province being dominated by Hungarians, Saxons and Szekely (a hungarian speaking group). The greek catholic clergy received education in Rome, being among the first romanians to receive modern high education. They used the latin origins of romanians to prove that romanians were the oldest group in the province in a failed effort to increse the economic and social postion of romanians. This was a refuting of the hungarian theory of romanain migration from the Balkans after the hungarian conquest. The debate still continues

Great work WW!!! You touch some points that are never brought to light around here. Latinists and Dacianists are both nationalists that have a political agenda and not a genuine interest in history for the sake of history. Latinists started in late XVIII C in Transilvania. There romanians had a low social status below the three dominating "nations": hungarians, saxons and hungarian speaking szekely. The Habsburg conquest brought some changes and the newly formed greek catholic romanian clergy had acces to education in Rome. They used the latin origins to claim a better place for romanians in Transilvania as the original inhaitants. So started the historical debate about the origins of romanians beetwen them and the hungarians that spoke about a romanian migration from the Balkans. This was found very usefull by romanians in Moldova and Valachia as they started to promote nationalism fearing russian panorthodox expansion. In early XIX C the group one idenitfied to, started to change from orthodox (like in Middle Ages) to nation (seen as those who spoke the same language). This was a widespread procces in the area. Latinists influence my have to do with the ethic name - rom

Mehmet Ali was a very interesting person. He got to power by a succesfull rebelion of his "arnaut" albanian corps shortly after the french were defeated and the british had withdraw from Egypt. His succes was helped by the blows Napoleon delivered to mameluks and ottomans. His main weakness was his external policy. Helping his ottoman sovereign in Greece and claiming control over Greece made europeans distrust him. He would have been better seeking de jure independence. His syrian adventures made angry Russia that would have been otherwise a natural ally. Britain was upset by his efforts to industrialize the country using forced labour. This plan, the first in history, would have failed anyway because of the economic weakness of the country that was by now very poor and only added to the peasants burdens. His efforts to promote cotton plantations were succesful, but he did not tried to build a cotton industry. France was his only allie and this almost started a general european war in 1840. Egypt payed the price of this extensive investments and low international position in 1882.

I guess that we generally share the same view of inca, but with slightly different interpretations. For example the qualities of Pizzaro: he could have been mediocre in Italy, but we don't know that, do we? He had a task and he did it. Even the fact that he did not fight to much the incas it's a demonstration of skill in my book. Incas as agricultuors were more exposed to an attack, but the country is exceptionally rugged. I mentioned zulus because there the technological disatvantage was even higher. Of course the zulu worrior ethos made them dangerous foes then and now (the Natal war of recent years proved that) And most wars were fought for gold

OK. So you say that Pizzaro was a bad leader that with 180 weak "warriors" conquered a distant, populous, alpine empire. He used biological warfare several centuries before everybody else knew what a disease is. You say that it was no big deal to fight the Inca, but you point at other spanish defeats from even less equiped native soldiers. Almagro had less then 10 soldiers? As late XIX C british had found out from the Zulu impi, a determined army can defeat a technological superior one. And the use by Pizzaro of native allies was a smart move. The end result was never in doubt, but this does not mean that Pizzaro's feats are not great. But I guess that is my opinion and an opinion it's subjective by definition. I just don't buy the propaganda that for centuries tries to portray the conquistadors as brutal animals that used straight force to destroy the treehuging native astronomers.

Congratulations, Hera will watch over you!

You're number one even for other searches: http://www.google.ro/search?q=pater+emotic...ro&filter=0

There was little in his personality that will please the roman plebs. He spend his time and money away, he looked and behaved like a greek, he did not enjoy their games, he had a strange beard, he made his lover a high profile person etc. Probably his look and behaviour made him look to much like a greek philosopher for people who did not like the greek philosophers. Still, none of this makes him a bad emperor.

No conqueror is saintly, but this ones were definetly brave, determined and shrewd. Giving the population of the inca lands, the difficult spanish communication line and the rugged terrain of Peru the gamble was dangerous, but they made it succesfull in an amazing bluff. Pizzaro it's among the best military leaders ever. The incas would have fell easy against a spanish regular army with tercios, artillery and gun cavalry, but Pizzaro made it with a handfull of man having no ideea what the small pox will do. Its undoubtfull that the silver of Mexic and Peru played a crucial role in the development of the West especially by giving to Europe the means to carry the high deficit asian trade at a moment when military power or industrial advance were not able to level the trade balance.

Except in most cases the inca populations welcomed their visitors as the return of the White Bearded God. There was hardly any resistance, and the spanish did some nasty things on the quiet, including the assassination of the inca prince in order to nab his gold. Further, the spanish introduced disease to the area that severly reduced the population from that time. No inca in 1000AD? Ok, but what culture were the local inhabitants before? Methinks there was something broadly similar or perhaps less unified and sophisticated. This White Bearded God thing it's a joke. The incas did not bow in reverence to the spaniards, they thought the spanish "army" was an embassy from an unknow andine population. I have a great admiration for the feats of Pizzaro and a low opinion on incas. They and the meso americans were not the great civilisations of Noble Savages as some try to portray them. Just some underdeveloped agricultural populations. Giving the technological gap between the Old World and the isolated pockets of agrciulture in the western emisphere the outcome of the meeting was never in doubt.

Is not like Pakistan was a democracy. It was a military dictatorship and it's still the same.

At somepoint we all go thru this stage. My image of Rome changed when I realized that the classical city of perfection was a oriental meltpot in a hopeless disorder and with a nasty smell. Strangely this did not reduce my interest in History but created a stronger desire to know how things really were instead of looking for pretty unreal pictures. Every piece of the jigsaw I find adds color to a more real and vivid image instead of the image people like Gibbons had. To say that all it's the same contradicts what this history tells us. Things change and don't go back. The script was not made for Rome or Persia, but for all humans and we did not see the end yet. You had a peek at history in the making and that's not always nice.