Kosmo

No Ralla, no greedy soldier would put his hands on my wine. The wine will be carried by a couple of thousends fearless vestals recruited from the brothels of Alexandria and Pireus. No gaul would resist the power of Bachus, the deadly sweetness of the magic herbs and the diseases brought by the wrath of Venere.

I'm Aghatocles Ulpius from Histria, a wine trader, and I propose, you, sacred son of gods a cheaper plan for a greater victory. I can sell you a lot of wine that we will divide in two great parts. The first we give to the filthy tribesman that annoy you, as a gift for peace. Of course, a men of terryfing skill named Pertinax will spice this wine with some special "flavours". The other part of the wine will be given to the tribe north of this scums after they finish of the drunken survivors in exchenge for the slaves they capture for me. This way no general will got the leadership of an army that he could bribe, with loads of wine, to march on your rich imperial palace rather then on the desolate lands of the barbarians.

Poland's case it's different compared to other Eastern European countries. When they recreated their state in 1918 they were highly nationalistic and promoted catholicism while treating ruff the minorities (germans, jews, ukrainians) and promoting an expansionist policy. The catholic church was the backbone of a revived polish nation that have been divided before that beetwen 3 states. After the war with the Soviets they got Eastern Ukraine and other areas with ukrainian and bielorussian majorities, also parts of Lithuania including Vilinus. They tried to annex Cehoslovakian Silesia and refused to return Upper Silesia to Germany despite the fact that the population voted for Germany in a Ligue referendum. The conflict with Cehoslovacia was a serious blow to the french plan of a larger European alliance to keep the soviets and germans confined. Poland was active in the desmemberment of Cehoslovacia that was the prologue of WW2 and this shows how stupid Chamberlain was when he started the war for Poland. After the war they had no more national minorities but even the communists showed a shocking antisemitism that no other communist country had. The catholic church of Poland was very strong and became the focus of anticomunist oppostion. Their influence grow when one of them became pope. When communists fell the church became extremly strong and the collapse of Solidarity only helped them. At the moment Poland looks like a teocratic state with catholic morality gaining legal force. The interdiction of abortion it's one example. The doctors refused to perform abortions as being imoral and that became law. The polish religious nationalism it's at odds with european values of secularism and human rights and that is why they try to keep the EU as weak as possible while they benefit the economical advantages of the Union. Compared with the catholic church of Poland the romanian orthodox clergy are fluffy bunnies (and now the patriarh it's dead, the same one that worshipped Ceausescu in every service while the dictator was busy demolishing old churches) The polish atitude had more to do with the way they created their national/religious identity then with their geographic location. Cehia, Hungary, Slovenia etc have a comparable history but a very different attitude towards religion. P.S. Ursus I fully agree with what you said. The radical islamists are not a security danger from the outside of the West but from the inside. The funniest thing it's that OUR rights are at risk because the goverments in their liberalist blindess of difference refuse to accept that terorists are muslim, male, with Middle East origins.

Poland it's seriously under threat from christian catholic fundamentalism interwined with xenophobia. As someone noted shortly after the birth of the modern polish state the only thing Poland exports it's antisemitism. I'll add fanatical catholicism. After they put the European Constitutional at risk and delayed european reform for 7 years many people think that Poland might be the first ever country to be rejected from the EU. A cautious opinion in IHT http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/26/news/letter.php

Salve A. Your links don't work, but I'm familiar with this cartoon. Despite the violence in it I think it's irelevant to what romans did. There is a huge difference between imaginary violence and the real thing and even more between something that you watch on a screen and what happens before your eyes. Sadly, I believe that cruelty it's a common human trait and by that I want to say that many people in all civilisations enjoyed to see other humans suffer. I still feel sick when I remeber reading about a XIV C French small city that payed another city for a criminal so they can brutally execute him. Still, the way in which diferent civilisations reacted to this desire it's very important. Maybe, real gladiatorial shows will have some succes today but the morality of our civilisation would not let that happen no matter how much imaginary violence and documentaries get us used with the image of violence. And some of the greek subjects of the Empire despised the gladiatorial games where death was always present because they had a different mind set.

Germanic barbarism. Nimphae and horny satyrs were much better.

I think it's uselees to make a boycott, Gadafi it's doing a fine job by himself. Anyway, I would love to see Leptis Magna.

I had chosen Kosmo because of the famous character Kosmo Kramer from Seinfeld and because it's close to my real name - Cosmin. My first option was Digenis Akritas but I thought it's to byzantine for a roman place like this one. Also I had no ideea that I will became addicted to this place and thought that if I don't use my usual screen name I will forget my name and be unable to sign in later - it happened to me several times in other places where I was going rarely.

I think calling Domitian Caesar and Titus Augustus would be corect but totaly confusing for someone who is not a romanophile. And there is not much to tell us how were they really called in day-to-day life. Primary sources use often the name or the full name even when writing a book that is destined to make happy the ruler. I guess that the best option would be to be called by name - Domitian. After he gets power "dominus et deus" will do. Maybe "dominus" was in use already when adressing powerful people. "Lord of the flies" would be nice especially if you use the hebrew translation - Belzebut

The nightlife district, Taksim, it's really amazing. Few great cities have something similar and none the spectacular views. I remeber being in an open air night club on the shore of Bosphorus. The sea was reflecting the countless lights of the city, you could see high above the great span of a bridge over the sea and on the other side of The Straits the bright lights of Dombahce Palace while a very good oriental house music filled the air. I'll always remember that but also the rich had-to-toe vailed women that were guests at the hotel we stayed in Istanbul, the agresivity in the air of a male dominated crowded street or the poor mudbrick villages of Anatolia. Turkey it's a great and contrasting country that it's again at a crossroad trying to integrate most of her people in a new political order.

First of all they are mistrusted because they are coming from outside the kemalist elite that ruled since the 20's. They are also from the poorer interior regions not the prosperous west ones like before. The secularist fear that they will use their greater grip on power to end the secularism. And it is highly possible to use democratic means to do that. Think about Algeria or Hamas. Pushing the army out of politics and bringing a greater democracy to Turkey were recquired by EU but also suited their goals of taking the power from the old elite. It's no telling what will they do if their power goes unchecked. Turkey joining the EU was good for Bush Middle East Master Plan (and for his mistreated puddel too) but know with Blair gone and with Sarkozy and Merkel taking center stage there is no chance of Turkey joining the EU. Foremost, not because they are muslims, but because there are 70-80 million of turks. Probably, we will see in some years some mainly muslim countries joining the EU (Albania, Bosnia) but not Turkey. Someday this fact will became obvious and internal and external pressure for democracy will be less relevant giving turkish politicians a great freedom of choice in their plans. This could mean an islamization of the country. But, it can also mean a great thing: The first liberal democracy in a muslim country. If this is possible Turkey it's the best candidate for the spot with loads of people with an open mind. I'll not shed a tear for the old elite. They are authoritarian, nationalistic, xenophobic, paternalistic and militaristic. They carried for a huge period of time a protectionist economic policy that failed miserably in the 90's while this new leaders brought unprecedented properity. In the last 4 years the national product doubled. They also created a nationalist propaganda machine with a personality cult for Kemal Ataturk and many stalinist features including turning history in propaganda. This extreme nationalist propaganda makes many ordinary turks fanatics and this means that dialogue with the greeks it's highly unlikely. This political change will mean also an identity change with less emphasis on nationalism. So, I believe that it's much more likely for Egypt to became radical islamic then Turkey.

The medicine might be viewed as a practice since the dawn of humanity or as a science invented by the modern West. The egyptian skill in medicine, especially on healing injuries, it's long known. Still, the books of greeks and romans were the bases of modern medicine. Even if those books conteined some informations originating in Egypt their main ideeas are from the philosophical debates of Greece.

Greek boxing was a sport that was brutal and dangerous. Even more so was chariot racing the most appreciated sport in Antiquity. Still the greeks had other sports that did not involved violence like athletics. The romans did not like those soft sports. They turned boxing more violent, they loved the chariot races and the spectacular crashes and they added the ultimate violence, gladiatorial combat, a sport that many greeks really hated. For greeks some of the sports were violent while most were not. For romans sport was a violent entrateinment. The romans were seriously more brutal then the greeks. I really don't think that in an theatrical competition in Athens you would see a man burned at a stake on the stage like we know it happened during a show in imperial Rome. Romans had a different view of human life and this is visible in their ferocious sports, in cruel public executions turned in entrateinment, in their dull but violent plays etc.

It's strange to see the emphasis that the treaties between Dacians and Rome put on the return of deserters and the war machines. It's very likely that the dacian army had lots of roman desertors in it (soldiers or civilians?) and they were maybe the ones that builded war machines for dacians.

Could a cantitative increase of inteligence led to a calitative jump? I think this is case for humans. They became smarter and smarter and after a certain point intelligence becames different not only greater.

The first Tapae battle was a roman disaster when the dacians made some type of ambush, but the next two Tapae battles were roman victories. They learned their lesson.

Right--the rationale is understandable, but the remedy makes no sense. To protect sites, the Cypriot government can pass all the laws they like, erect barriers, whatever. That might even prove successful. I'm sure that they will love to put fences around arheological sites in the North, like they did in Paphos, but they can't because the turkish army will not let them. If they cannot control the source they try to control the destination. A futile attempt that will make life difficult only for legitimate dealers.

The results of the short rule of the dinasty were the greatest disaster for the empire. The succesful rebellion in Bulgaria, led by the Asan brothers, was a huge blow to the empire. And this was a direct result of the policy they made. The brothers were vlachs, that is romanian speakers in the Balkans, a group that lived mostly in the mountains (from the Balkan mountains, to Macedonia and Epirus) being shephards. They had military privileges, but the emperor tried to tax them. When the Asan brothers that were leaders of group in the Balkan mountains protested the emperor slapped on the face one of them. The bad thing was that this vlachs living in the mountains were hard to reach and to defeat. They were also military organized. So, the emperor thru his tax policy and bad understanding started a revolt that he found hard to defeat. The rebels were persistent and they survived all attempts to defeat them, another proof of the byzantine weak leadership. Their succes drew more groups to join them and soon the empire had o admit defeat and lose some of their northern provinces to a group of rebels that created a competing bulgarian state. The bulgarian victory over the crusaders in 1205 it's a good indication that even the empire did not had to face the IV crusade they would have had troubles with bulgarians, serbians etc. I'll say that the bulgarian rebellion was a disaster that the empire never had before or after. Sure, outside enemies defeated the empire many times with hard effects, but to push your subjects in a succesful revolt it's a huge mistake that proves bad administration and weak leadership. Not to mention 1204 when they had a lot to do with it. So, it was the Angeloi.

He was nicer with the orthodox churches calling them apostolic churches. The thing about the supremacy of the pope it's the strangest, the bishop of Rome never had authority over the patriarhs of the East. I really don't see how the churches could come closer even if they really wanted to. There are many problems...

OK, take the example of law school if you'd like (although the principle applies to any professional degree). First, in hiring law professors, American universities compete with law firms for talent. Given a choice between making partner and making tenure, a young person with a law degree will not look favorably on a large salary cut for choosing to teach. Thus, law professor salaries are typically very high. I don't now how it's done in US universities, but here law teachers are not top lawyers. They are people that have went with the diferent stages of univarsitary curriculum, write books about the theory of law, they have PhD's and they are, sometimes, lawyers, but this comes easy because of the name they make as teachers. So, it's not a good lawyer that becames a teacher, but a good teacher that uses his fame to make money as a lawyer. Second, the cost of a good isn't the cost of producing the good. If it costs me $1 to make a widget, and you can use the widget to make $100, I'll charge you as close to $100 as I can (if I even sell it to you at all). Given the high salaries of American lawyers, potential lawyers in the US are willing to pay a very high price to go to law school. If you're talking about a famous brand like "Harvard", it's true, because you can rise the price as you have monoply. If you are talking about the product "law school" it's untrue because the competion on the market will drop the price. "All you need is good teachers" wrongly implies that good teachers are in ample supply and willing to forego the opportunities of practicing their valuable knowledge (and, by creating competitors, diminish the market value of their knowledge) for a low price. Of course, the world isn't filled with selfless lawyers (ha!), so you better bet that law school is going to cost you an arm and a leg. Again, I disagree with law teachers being lawyers. Good teachers are often made by the university by picking good students and growing them.

I paid for each year around 150 $. Now it's much more expansive, around 500 Euro. Not only that it is cheap but it is generally easy to go thru as well. But i still think that tutition it's too expansive in the US. What conditions they provide for someone who studies law or other theorethical studies to ask for that amount of money? All you need it's good teachers and a decent library. If someones studies nuclear phisics, sure, laboratory expanses are high but why does a history student pay for the reactor in the science lab. What advantage it's for a student to have a teacher that has a Nobel prize and who makes some research with a handfull of students in the project, a theoretical research that will bring money to some private companies that convert it to useful technolgies? I see this as a case of branding. You get the same product as in a cheaper place, but you can show off with it. And this brand might by very important when you look for a job. So, go to Oxbridge if you can. It's cheaper and it has a great brand... and you are much closer to a lot of roman stuff. I fully agree with Ursus on the purposes of higher education, especially his last point.

Oracle here. 0% Extroversion, 100% Intuition, 27% Emotiveness, 90% Perceptiveness The procentage it's a little extreme.

From PP excelent work it's easy to see that, to a large extent, the conquests in the North and West were more direct and rapid then the gradual increase of roman authority in the East and South. It's true that N and W were late conquests and Rome herself was changed, including the reasons of foreign policy. Claudius brought the end of lots of states in the East! ASCLEPIADES - Many times Rome did not behaved like an agressor because they did not tried to annex imediately the regions they conquered. Between Roman military/political intervention and the establishement of direct rule it's a period of time too long to consider them both part of a plan. What was the Senate decision? "we reorganize the region and in a 100 years we move in". The reasons of roman intervention did not required direct and imediate conquest, but changing the situation acording to roman desire and that did include a lot of defensive strategy.

At no time the greeks ruled the entire island. Pyrrhus brought good support, but he was not able to throw the carthaginians of the island. Aghatocles was a real danger with his attack on Carthage herself. Syracusa was a great power for a greek city state, but inferior to Carthage. Keeping a stalemate against a much stronger foe was a remarkable feat. All decisive battles were won by greeks.

Fraud it's a gipsy tradition. The clients believe in it, so it's a spiritual belief. Rodica it's an educated lady compared with the others "witches". From a legal standpoint they were prosecuted during communism for fraud, but they are not any longer. What's the difference between their claims and the claims of oficial churches? From a feminist point of view they are a group made of sacred women while the main orthodox culture sees women as unholy and the priesthood it's reserved for men. Greedines and credulity made the orthodox church own 1/3 of total land in Romania in 1850's. The fraud it's so rude that I feel no sympathy for those who give them their money.