Kosmo

Naval warfare does not seems too specialized in Antiquity. Sparta defeated Athens shortly after starting a fleet, in a similar situation Rome raised a fleet and defeated the experienced carthaginians, Caesar made ships on the spot when besieging Massalia, Genseric created a naval power from nothing etc. How was this possible?

The Roman Republic expanded around the Med in a region that shared, to a large extent, the same climate and ecology. Wine, wheat and olives were the bases of food production areound the interior sea. The methods, refined by greeks, etruscans and carthaginians were largely the same, using irrigation to produce wheat and other cereals and hilly terrain to produce olives and grapes. The soil was also the same with small dry plains that could be used efficiently with irrigation and arid mountains. Fishing in the sea was also important as was cattle raising in the mountains. Even if the conditions varried considerably between Attica and the Nile Delta, the pattern was the same. Romans expanded West, South and East around the sea in an area that had the same ecology (beside multiple political, economic, religious and cultural links) It's no accident that the roman attack on the nearby Gaul was carried in the same time with that against distant Parthia. Syrian ecology was more familiar to romans that the ecology of inner Gaul. With C. I. Caesar and O. Augustus and finally Claudius and Trajan the roman empire expands from the mediterranean to continental Europe. Here, in Britain, Gaul, Germany, Pannonian plains, Northern Balkans, Dacia they find a different climate and less developed people. Here the rains were more abundent, and the plains extensive. Forest covered most of the soils from mountain tops to riverbeds. The agriculture in this areas was not sofisticated. Cattle raising could be made extensively, but the fodder for the winter was a serious problem. The methods that the romans used around the Med could not be used around here. Irrigation was useless in areas where the rains coming from the ocean are abundent. Olives don't grow here and wine struggles. The romans did their best to increase the productivity of this regions and they succeded to a limited extent especially in mining. This regions remained until the end of roman rule much poorer then those around the Med. Still, this provinces held most of the roman army and the army was the main expanse of the empire. Large amounts of money went to the army for payment, supply, veternas lots, colonies etc. This gradualy increased as the role of the army in the roman state augmented. The North was poor and the South had to pay for the army and this benefitted the North. The army had to buy products from the North markets with money from the South. To some extent the empire made a transfer of wealth from South to North. Still, the roman experience in the North was unsuccesfull. After the Third Century Crisis the urbanisation it's seriously reduced. Barbarian raids take their toll on a population that have been moved by the romans from the safety of the hill forts to the defenceless roadside setllements. But the biggest weakness of roman power in the North was the inability to promote an advanced agriculture suited for the conditions of temperate ecology. When the empire fell Europe was still largely a forest. The type of sophisticated agriculture romans had in the South was never duplicated to the conditions of the North until the Middle Ages. If we compare how mediterranean agriculture evolved after the romans we don't see major improvements for a long time. In the North the agriculture improved on a slow, but steady pace until become more varied and productive. The efficient exploatation of the resources of the vast fields would have been great for the empire. The ambitions of some emperors forced Rome in unfamiliar lands that could not be used with good profits and to keep an army there the romans had to transfer resources from the South. The fall of the West can be seen as cost reduction, but it would have made more sense a fall of the North.

I fully agree! Somwhere beetwen 1984 and Catch 22. We fight against famine and diseses in Africa. If we are succesfull this leads to an even greater increase of population. If you have a greater population and with a better living this puts a lot of pressure on the enivroment. But we want a good enviroment and try to preserve what it's there. The development of the Third World (ridiculous name) it's on every international agenda since 1940's. But the development destroys the enviroment (see Brazilian jungles or China) It's obvious that this development will eventualy wipe out all big size animals except those in well protected spaces, real zoo's for tursits and hunters. This happened in Western Europe and the people living there have no intention of repopulating the countryside with large animals. The hunt for a bear was an international event while all repopulation programs met fierce resistance. It's no coincidence that Romania and Poland hold almost the entire populations of bears, wolfs, lynx etc in the EU. Going back to the global worming I think that the Nobel prize for peace was given on a political agenda and with no attention to the facts that those people claim. A huge political machine has it's propaganda in full swing. This officialy supported hysteria would work even if the temperature drops.

Support for the resolution it's droping in The House, but turkish Parliament allowed military operations. The difference beetwen a symbolic act and a real one. PS. The edile of Rome can not sign a peace treaty. He should by flogged and send in exile to Kurdistan.

Happy Birthday! Have fun!

If I use my romanian knowledge the meanings for luppa will be she-wolf and prostititute. Omnipotenta- all powerfull. Heaving in mid that even the she-wolf it's a bitch I'm not sure which it's the positive translation.n

An excellent proff of the dangers of making general asumptions from particular cases.

How can you tell that those animals depicted on the Standard are horses and not donkeys? They look small to me, but first horses were small. I ask because horses can be used in battle while donkeys can not. A horse drown chariot can be used on the battlefield while a donkey chariot it's a battletaxi. Even an unsteerable chariot can be send head on against the enemy. The chariots in the pictures have a big board to the front and that can be seen as a defensive shield against frontal attacks (or maybe against the donkeys kicking back). It makes no sense heaving a shield on a battletaxi.

Happy Birthday!

So, the beasts in the picture are donkeys (asses).

Many things changed in this world since the time of the Principate, but the church it's still here, a creature from before the Deluge. Time moves different for this institution compared with mortal humans and states. No need to rush things when you have 2 millenia behind and a secure future. 700 years to remake a trial... Still pointless for those burned at stake. Those "heirs" of the templar don't care about reality, so there will be no dramatic chage here. The UN inspectors might find WMD in the Vatican Library and we'll see a fight between the Swiss Guard with their funny costumes and the US Marines.

Did they have horses? I thought donkeys or oxen were used.

I also agree that EU will never willingly accept Turkey, but I don't see how the US will get concesions from Turkey by aggravating them. Before the Congress vote, the turkish goverment asked the turkish parliament for permission to send a military force in the Irakian Kurdistan. The US decision makes the turkish decision much easier. So, we will see the turkish army raiding Kurdistan. This might not be a problem as it happened before, but what if the kurdish units of the Irak army fight back? It will be a tense situation. How deep the turks will go, will they strike public installations, what the kurds will do, will US consider this a threat, what the iraq goverment will do about this break of their soveraignity will be happy - sad etc ? Today on IHT they did not say that turkish ambasador in Washington was recalled for consultations. But they spoke about the turkish pressure on Israel and the not-so-vailed threat to breake the de facto alliance that is in place beetwen the two countries.

Even if what happened to armenians it's a genocide this does not mean nothing. First of all because genocide it's a common occurance in the last centuries. What do you think happened with most turkish/muslim populations of the Balkans or living north of the Black Sea? A break beetwen US and Turkey will spell trouble for Iraq and Israel, will bring down the US plans in the Black Sea and Caspic regions including Central Asia were most nations are turkish. Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova etc will have to bow to Russia as a result of diminishing US power. The energetic independence of the EU will be seriously in peril. A more agresive Turkey can make troubles in the US sponsored muslim states of West Balkans (Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo). It can blow the reconciliation between Greece and Turkey and reignite the Cyprus conflict. Turkey can close ties with Iran with which it shares the concern about the kurd problem and this could mean an agreement beetween Azerbaidjan and Iran at the expanse of Armenia and more troubles for Iraq and the Gulf. US was pressuring europeans to accept Turkey, but most opposed the ideea (except his lap dog). Changes in EU political structure make this a difficult task, but a US/Turkey dispute will bring down the plans to the relish of France and Germany. Hell, Turkey has a foot everywhere around her and an amazing internal freedom of choice. Turkey it's a large mountainous country with 72 million people, the most nationalistic people I had ever seen. Military service it's compulsory and it lasts 3 years. The army's officer corps it's highly influential and well trained. Weapons are state of the art from US, UK, Germany and local production. The tanks are Leopard 2 - the best in the world. So, think again about dividing Turkey...

Yes AD, barley was what dacians used to make mămăligă. I'll search for the origins of the word mămăligă, but it's not on the list of presumed dacian words (br

It seems that US politicians have decided to stir new problems in the quiet Middle East. The vote on the armenian genocide it's pointless and useless, but extremists are sure to profit from it. If Turkey cuts supply lines and atacks kurds in Iraq things don't look good for the US coalition there and any turk that wants a future as a politician it's forced to do it. This time it cannot be blamed on Bush. What next? The house will call a genocide what Rome did when destructed Carthage and blame the "russian" genocide on mongols? "Turkey angry over House Armenian genocide vote Turkey reacted angrily Thursday to a House committee vote in Washington on Wednesday to condemn the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey in World War I as an act of genocide, calling the decision "unacceptable." In a rare and uncharacteristically strong condemnation, President Abdullah Gul criticized the vote by the House Foreign Relations Committee in a statement to the semi-official Anatolian News Agency, and warned that the decision could work against the United States. "Unfortunately, some politicians in the United States have once more dismissed calls for common sense, and made an attempt to sacrifice big issues for minor domestic political games," Gul said. "This is not a type of attitude that works to the benefit of, and suits, representatives of a great power like the Unites States of America. This unacceptable decision of the committee, like similar ones in the past, has no validity and is not worth of the respect of the Turkish people." http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/11/eur...rkey.php?page=1 IHT it's a great news source, but this time it was late to pick on the problem. Turkey it's on a war footing since the kurdish bombing and this comittee decision will not help. The Committee for the Destruction of Foreign Relations it's more adequate. Are they historians and judges now? Amazing shooting oneself in the foot like that! And I thought only romanian politicians are dumb...

What? Eating bread and cheese it's not much a cuisine to talk about... GO, in this place polenta (mămăligă) it's a very popular food and there are many recipes based on it. There are even claims to be a dacian food, but probably not with corn. Next time after you put cheese and stuff, maybe an egg, in the already made polenta, put it in the oven for some minutes. But this is peasant food unfit for an earl. I'm shocked.

I wonder what they mean by "roman" cemetery?

Who will insure an asylum? Nobody in his right mind... Anyway, seeing his condition he will certainly wear a white shirt with long sleeves...

Almost nothing Only a word here and there.

I voted "yes". He will bring joy to our asylum.

Was the athenian navy of the Delian League professional? The rowers at Salamina were levies drawn from the lowest class of citizens - tetes. The boarding parties were hoplites - also levy, while the officers were elected officials. The rich people that were taxed for the building of the ships had just a symbolic function. During the existance of the Delian League, Athens was, almost, all the time in war and that gave the levy a more permanent caracter, including payment, but this does not make them proffesional. A bit like the armies of the Late Republic. The season for naval operations was rather short and the crews were disbanded for the winter even in times of war. The marines, naval hoplites, became a permanent, standing force that can be seen as profesional. Long wars and wars fought far away made levies more permanent and proffesional. As I pointed in another thread, Rome must have had permanent forces of some sort by the time of the Pyrrhic War because the reason for this war was the presence of roman garrisons in the greek cities of the Bay of Tarent.

Salve, K. Most Hellenic states were no democracies; that was especially true for Magna Graecia and Sicily. The Greek winners in Campania (Cumae, 474 BC) over etruscans were the tyrants Aristodemus (local) and Hiero I of Syracuse; at least the latter was really a King by another name. He was also the winner of Himera against the Carthaginians six years before, allied with the tyrant Theron of Agrigentum. In fact, this Aristodemus was the first recorded Greek ruler by T. Livius in Ab Urbe Condita (Liber II, Cp. XXI): "This year (circa CCLVIII AUC / 496 BC) is memorable for the news of Tarquin's death. His death took place at Cuma, whither he had retired, to seek the protection of the tyrant Aristodemus after the power of the Latins was broken." Good point A.! Tyrants are neither kings, nor democrats.

I did not see the show. I remember that the remains of the Hippodrome are above the ground. It's a square with cars going on the 4 sides. Only the layout of the place and the monuments in the middle makes you realize what it was. How was it filled with sewage? It has something underground? Turkey it's a country filled with mistreated arheological remains...

That map it's awfuly inaccurate and should not be given a second look! I think AD had put things clear enough. There is some debate about this 3 defensive lines and their use. They were made from an earthen palisade and a ditch so not much survived. Some even debate they are of roman or principate origins. I would love to know more...