Kosmo

Our problem it's that you believe that it does looks like that while I dont. Before finding out how it was done we should check if the map resembles the coastline or not. And I pointed another flaw before in this thread. If Antarctica is ice fee the earth coastline it's very different because of raising sea levels. For me the critic was convincing especially because it mentioned what enthusiasts ommited: in the "Antarctica" area the map says that the portuguese did not land on the coast because of large snakes. This points to a portuguese recent exploration of the area and portuguese expeditions are documented. Mentioning snakes in the context of "Antactica" it's convincing enough.

We should never forget that greco-roman polytheism was very much a civic/political religion rather then an individual belief. For a foreigner taking part in many city official ceremonies was impossible and uninteresting. He could still pray to Hermes for a safe trip, but he will not worship the particular aspect of a certain god that the city favored. Critics of Hesiod style view of the gods were constant and diverse philosophies and mystic initiations and religions were increasingly popular. Christian victory came after a competition with other cults (Sol Invictus, Mithra etc) rather then with traditional paganism that had lost his appeal long ago. I'm sure that some atheism always existed especially in the greek cities.

The second half of the last century was one of "small wars" while preparing for the big one. Unlike the period before it did not produce famous military leaders. Still, I propose this poll on military leaders, generals or politicians that had taken command of the armies of their countries/parties. If you think of other ones put them here.

Very sad event. If violence in any society it's to some extent normal this kind of useless mass murder it's imposible to explain. A tragic waste made by a person who literally run amok killing strangers with whom he had no quarrel or interest. Beside the gun discussion this event will be bringing fuel on the american debate on the role of culture in triggering murder especially if it is true that the criminal was a chinese student from Shanghai.

Kosmo, wearing a greek stola, looks interested at the mice and asks for some honey to keep him busy while waiting for the stuffed boar. The wine is great!

The patriarh of Rome lost North Africa for good and most of Spain for 700 years. He also had under his authority, in the begining the west and south of the Balkans including Greece, Macedonia and today Serbia.

He did not! Ottomans had a very limited knowledge of the world, but their expansion in the Middle East forced them to gather info for the sustained effort to expand in the Indian Ocean. So, they used many sources, but the most important were the european ones. This map shows the level of knowledge at it's making, but also the fact that neither explorations or map making were at their best level. N.N. Your source it's, obviously, not to be trusted and quoting the claims of misteries fans it's not an evidence in itself. For a critical view see here: http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_eng.htm

When the Piri Reis map was made America was discovered already and the route to India thru South Africa was quite common. Also, at the time there was a great interest in maps while information was largely incorect so many maps look really strange and awfully wrong. California was an island and America, from north to south was a narrow strip of land. A french explorer, a little later, believed that some Great Lakes indian chief was the emperor of China! Those who "discovered" the map decided that it looks like Antarctica but without ice. No human could know how it looks before XX century because of the Ice Shelf that looks like land. Also if it was no ice in Antarctica the coastline of the earth would have been different. So, a cartoghrapher mistake was turned in a pseudohistory gold mine.

You did not mentions the africans as proven by the olmec statues For sure carthaginians are serious contenders with good naval skills, apetite for exploration and one of the first to realy sail in the Atlantic. The problem is that even if they got there, by chance, there was of little interest to them and hence little remains that could be spotted today. So, if no undisputed written evidence will be found in a source the queston remains just a possibility. Viking presence was well attested in written sources and highly probable, but the arheological finds are quite limited. A small, short lived hamlet with a handfull of objects it's all that was found.

Most high profile romans were upper class and often of noble origin regardless of political affiliaton. The struggle was within the elite all the time. The populares thought plebeian support in their aristocratic competition, not plebeian rule. This competitors used "ideolgies" as propaganda tools and not as political programs. If the goal of the optimates it's easier to define: to mantain the status quo, the goal of the populares it's vague. Only self promotion it's constant. Neither in the political debates or after conflicts did they propose or accomplish programs deeper then mere capture of the popular good will. Setting up colonies, corn dole, games, limited land reforms, clearing of debts are tools used by populares, and sometimes by their competitors to get public support, not as a project for a change of roman society. Something similar was common long before this struglle in the internal life of many greek cities. Aristocratic demagogs used popular support to defeat the aristocracy and the oligarhic insitutions in order to get absolute power as tyrants. So, the populares were less a party and more the clients/followers of a strong leader who tried to topple the Senate while the optimates were the defenders of staus quo. But to drow the line between the two sides it's difficult because positions shifted constantly as every politician thought a better position.

I remember reading something about agrarian populations having many more people colour blind then pastoral ones. The explanation was that the harsh conditions of pastoral life eliminated the colour blind people from the gene pool. Maybe even for a young roman been unable to spot a flying pilum would reduce the chances of having offspring. I believe that the lifestyle put much less pressure on eyes then it does for somebody today. No TV, video games, working on computer and much less reading. Less chances of destroying the eyes. In a book (My Name is Black - O. Pamuk) about ottoman miniaturists of XVI C blindness it's seen as faith of all of them because of the stress put on eyes by the job.

Viking attacks were lightning speed raids in the begining, but for most of the viking history their attacks were carried by field armies. They used the roman roads to move on horse thru Britain, not rivers, and they conquered and settled most of it. The same might be said about their activity in Ireland were they created cities and also on the continent were they spend increasing amounts of time, fight royal armies and laid sieges to cities until they ruled large areas. The early Middle Ages, despite the existence of some church scholars, were times of generalised illiteracy and ruralisation. There is a distinction between the south of Europe and the northern region. Further away from the Med urbanisation and general quality of material and spiritual culture it's much lower.

But that's still 200 years after the Romans left, isn't it? Yes. As everywhere the situation got worse in time. After roman departure from most areas some cities continued to exist albeit greatly reduced like it happened in the West later. Sometimes the theater was fortified and houses were build inside it. Probably agriculture was the most important activity in this "cities". Legionary fortifications were settled by nomads while small auxiliary ones by locals. Soon most villages close to the roads were abandoned. The last tiny cities disapeared around 400 AD when the huns moved in and the romans lost the extensive bridgeheads north of Danube. A similar pattern happened in the Balkans. After the III century raids some large cities remained only in Thrace and Greece. After 500 a sharp demographic decline is obvious. There is a large difference between the poor inland areas and more prosperous coasts. Inside the peninsula small cities depend on the army supplies and on religious authority. The army resorts to hunting, agriculture and on raiding the enemy to increase her resources that local production can not meet. Constant enemy raiding it's coupled with a brekdown of comunications and trade it's limited to the seaports. The army of the Balkans and the cities depend on supplies of egyptian grain. When the great persian war starts in early 600's the roman positions collapse in the interior while keeping most of the coasts. This decadence starts often while the cities are still roman. Roman return does not mean an improving of the situation as Justinian expansion in the West was not coupled with a return of prosperity.

A nice explanation of the Atlantis myth was made by Pierre Vidal Naquet. It's about a comparison of old pre-Marathon Athens with a land based society, army and economy and a post-Salamina Athens based on sea trade and sea power under the name of Atlantis. The faith of Atlantis reflects Platon's view of his contemporary society and his bad feelings about it. One of the first distopia's of literature. The article it's very well written and absolutly convincing and it's written by someone who actually had read Plato. Of course, it's borish compared to the fantastic theories that are fed to the general public by sensational books and Discovery channel programs.

What period and what area? Not outside Europe anyway. Dark Ages started in the III century crisis, not after 400, and was different for every area. If classical civilisation was urban and the medieval one rural the change starts with the III C crisis and the urban decadence and continues until the amazing european explosion of the XI century. Ostrogot or frankish kingdoms in 520 AD were much better then Pannonia, Dacia or Britannia. What surprises me it's not the gradual "darkening" of Gaul and Italy, but the fact that some areas were far worse after the romans then before them. In Dacia post roman material culture it's greatly inferior to that before them. Wheel pottery, bricks, local coins, high stone and metal crafting, military and religious arhitecture and long distance trade disapear by 450 despite the near roman border and the proximity of Constantinopole. Still, it was a continous rural habitation in many villages.

In the beginnings gladiatorial games had a religious function (funerary) and theatrical and sports competitions had for greeks. I have no ideea if they kept any religious meaning, or they became purely entrateinment, but were often performed during religious festivals.

At first the roman themselves were the barbarians, at least for the greeks that were those called the names early.

They were sacrificed to the god-consul! Romans had mixed feelings about human sacrifice, but gladiator games had, in the begining, the aspect of religious sacrifice. So, romans did used human sacrifice a lot even when it looks to us more like a sport.

After sunny days the sky over Bucharest it's cloudy and a cold wind blows.

American isolationism played a minor part in the begining of WW2 by withdrowing from Europe after WW1. Germans lost WW1 in the West but won in the East. After the war it was little that could stop germans and russians knocking out the small and weak East european countries. It all depended on the conflict or agreement between the two powers that could actually influence the region. So, the position of France and UK of support of status quo was not tenneble in the long run. They accepted german revision of the borders, but eventually started to get nervous. Hitler wanted to prove they cannot do anything and Stalin achieved a great victory without opposition in a masterpiece of diplomacy. British made a disatrous decison and the war was declared.

Kosmo: So, how did you like the soccer game? roman: I do not understand why the gladiator fight it's in the seat area and not on the nice grass in the middle !

Caesar was good at making his men fight for him. As I don't believe the roman army was a manouvering force I see the battles as largely determined by the morale of the troops and this was a strong point of Caesar. Caesar was quick to use his succes in battle without giving the enemies a chance to regroup and recover. After the decisive victorious battle the campaign was over. I agree with MPC that he often faced supply problems, but this was maybe more because of his adventurous style that of logistic difficulties.

:bag: I don't find words to express my surprise that someone collects this kind of stuff and has a website about it.

Japan and Britain were allies. So, Britain, that was in control of most bases on the road to the East did not let the russians use their coaling stations for the long trip. Also the treaty between the Japan and UK stated that Britain will be neutral in the case of a conflict with a single power, but will fight against other ones. As nobody wanted to fight the RN the russians could not call their french allies. Some ships used the Suez for the trip, but most were to big for it. The surprise attack on Port Athur was a failure with little results. Japonese fleet was bigger, newer and with better trained crews. Also Japan had a geographical advantage dominating the coast. Russian fleet was divided between three far away seas and faced mutinies and later a Revolution. They fought for Coreea that Japan was dominating since they defeated the chinese in 1895, but where the russians were traying to expand. US agreed with Japonese plans on Coreea in exchenge for a free hand in the Phillipines. Actualy most powers were against russian asiatic expansion supporting the Open Doors policy on China. Russian defeat opened the way for a russian-british treaty regarding the current issues: Afghanistan, Iran, Tibet and China, followed by a loose, informal alliance, the Entante. The russian-british treaty was a momentous change in european policy after almost a century of conflicts and distrust between the two powers. And a huge step closer to 1914. Dreadnought was build as a result of Tsushima lessons.

"a tactic to inspire fear" it's not terrorism, but a page in the military and politic book that was applied by most states/organisations.