Kosmo

NEW YORK: Britain and Ireland are so thoroughly divided in their histories that there is no single word to refer to the inhabitants of both islands. Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different peoples: the Irish from the Celts and the English from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded from Northern Europe and drove the Celts to the western and northern fringes. But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans... http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/05/new...5BRITS.full.php He also adopts Forster's argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion.

Not so sure about that US naval superiority. Royal Navy still ruled the waves for at least a century after that. I don't know much about this war and maybe because was considered pointless by many and the result was very unspectacular. It's something ironic that the greatest battle was fought after the peace was signed. I guess that this war goes against the wilsonian theories that fueld so much of US and western international idealist policies: democracies don't fight each other. This was a politically incorect war with related, democratic countries fighting without serious reason and with no result after a prolonged waste of human and material resources.

I don't know what his status in Kazakhstan is, but if romanian autorithies find him he is going to spend some time in a computer free enviroment. It's a Borat reference. Isn't the DVD out now? Borat? You mean that famous succes movie that was partially shot in Romania? Never heard of it!

Do you know any terrorist act/open revolt carried by christians? Saying that between christians and jews was no big difference (but we know not of jew persecution then or christian persecutions at jewish revolts) and afterwards christians rewrote history, makes it hard to argue against this theory, but for me looks like an attempt to equate christianity with extremist islam. Not mentioning that we have only christian sources for executions and something that might be a christian modification.

There might be a statistical answer to his question. How many triumphs were celebrated over romans and how many over enemies?

The governor had enormous powers, both civil and military. I think that everything depended on them and the rest of the administration and this was a problem. Romans had no efficient and formalized education system. The only way to see the capabilities of the high officials was a very good one, practice, but also that meant imprecision because of the difficulties of establishment of performance. In the same time, the personal way in which the administration was carried meant that roman had no established civil service and probably had continuity problems. So, at a high level the quality depended on how good the emperor was at picking and supervising the right officials while the rest of the bureaucracy had no performance standards or formalised structure. This way slaves and freedman got a lot of power and could become a nuissance for provincials.

Of course, every generation tries to bring something new and does that by either climbing on the shoulders of those before them or by hammering them to pieces. I agree that any historian has a point to prove and he might interpret the facts to fit in his story, but a history book without a point it's even harder to digest, a pile of informations and unconnected conclusions. A illegitimate agenda is present only when his purpose has nothing to do with the subject, but with various -ism's and this the fault of all generations (Gibbon and his republican, antichristian agenda it's an obvious example). There is also a style problem. The older generations made history like a story, easy to follow and to comprehend with accent on politics. The newer ones focus on specific aspects and their interest it's spread to directions that the old ones ignored (like private life or female status). That's why I find Mommsen still usable if I want to know the broad lines of a political event, but I know I must look to a recent study if I want to know the detailes. What it's often put in a phrase (or not mentioned at all) by him, a contemporary writer made a book about. The fact that some recent books and theories make no sense or do not help at all it's more a matter of poor writing then a general problem (the britons - celts/iron age tribes debate it's similar with another book I've just read and I have problems locating the conclusions of the book) in tune with this preocupation with exact wording. Who knows unsuccesfull historians of XIX-XX centuries? Nobody could tell that about Peter Heather and many (I dare say most) today historians.

Latifundia, usually signaled by rural villa's were found thruout the empire, to a lesser extent in the border areas. After all, the roman empire was an aristocratic empire.

"We are working closely with Romanian law enforcement. ... He's a well-known fraudster there" - from romanians news reports this looks like wishfull thinking, nobody knows who he is. The replies to the article show that this is a bigger and older problem. I'm distrustful of anything having to do with the Internet and my money. This guy did not look like being up to fraud showing off like this, but I met some time ago a guy who was in a scaming scheme. They were spoted by FBI, tracked down by the romanian intelligence service and arrested by the police. Funny enough, he told me that one of the prosecutors asked for mIRC to be called for interogation. I don't know what his status in Kazakhstan is, but if romanian autorithies find him he is going to spend some time in a computer free enviroment.

I liked most the last one. Old School historians have a great way to provide data and broader views. For a specific detail and for informed readers I think the narrow focus and better data tip the advantage for the contemporary ones.

Yes, it sounds great. Good info could really change the way many things are viewed from athenian imperialism to the breakdown of the West in the V century.

Neither. It was more honourable to win. Except for Cato! Actually Caesar's late triumph over romans was badly viewed by many. So, at least for his time it was not a glorious thing to gain victory in civil wars. Are there any known public monuments for the dead war heroes (not private self commissioned ones) or monumental collective graves?

I've seen several historical psychanalisis done for other people like Hitler and Stalin, and I'm not convinced that this type of question it's fruitful. I say question because it can not deliever an answer. 1. No people could be considered perfectly normal. Behaviour it's changing constantly between some limits. Only what goes beyond this limit can be considered significant. If we believe psychology all great man have problems and with proper care they might became normal. That means not great at all. And also means that what we say about Caesar could be said about many other leaders. All had their weirdness and a lot of ego... 2. Certain types of man can get power in a type of society. For example Hitler, the most psychanalized character, got full power largely because of his peculiar capabilities and the way they fit in his society. Streissman was probably a lot smarter and balanced, but he did not left much impression. Also the dull and boring Stalin could achieve power only in a society where his ruthless birocratic skills made him important. Maybe the type of weirdness Caesar had was what romans need. What impression would have Byron made 50 years earlier? Anyway, GO it's right, to know him we must look at his antourage. Let's see: Catallina, Clodius, Curion, M. Antonius, Dollabela, Caelius, his "cinedos" Otto & co. etc. Not very nice people.

She looks like a witch! A bad one!

Bastarnae (peucini). This people lived in what is today romanian Moldova and afterwords in the Danube Delta. There are some literary sources that consider them germans and other as celts. Arheologists digged many bastarnae sites, but just from finds could not tell if they were celts or germans. I personally believe them to be celts as they appeared in an era when eastern celts were still present in this area while germans did not appeared yet, but this is pure conjecture. It is extremly difficult to tell the "ethnicity" of somebody just from the material culture. This is a great thing for pseudohistorians and for nationalist fake history.

I thought danes used to be germans long time ago.

The consul made a nice donation for the intelectual elite of SPQR, but we the plebs would also like some bloody games and something fancy to eat. And of course some money... gold coins will do. You're the consul, it's your duty to make us happy. If you can't afford gladiators use your lictors!

It should have been the end of story, but now the marketing machine it's rolling. The end of story will be a year and many million dollars later :angel: The relevance of the story it's 0. Even if they found an afidavit of a man named Jesus made in the presence of Pilat and The Synhedrion stating that it's not God, christians will still believe in their God. I read just the first article, but the math don't go like MPC said. You don't find a submarine with four names, but a dockyard with many names. How many bones/names were in that tomb? What it's the chance of some of the names beeing the most popular ones? If there are 20 names for sure you will have at least one Mary If you go to any romanian cemetery you will definetly find a Popescu Ion (like John Smith). In a rural area, a century ago, most peasants had a just a few names (with no family names). So, if your looking for the names Ion, Maria, Gheorghe, Vasile you will find them instantly. All you have to do is to forget about the others names unconnected with the story.

Religious controversy sells well, so they might be up something big, worth millions of dollars and with self assured promotion. Smart guys Most people don't know and don't care about evidence. If Inquisition was around this guys would make documentaries exposing witches and heretics. Now they pick on christianity :fish:

"Caesar" by Al. Dumas.

I imagine Caesar like a Freedy Mercury of politics, full of charm and energy . To be among the most moraly depraved persons in Rome was no easy task, but he did it. What is shocking is that after a life like this he became a great general.

Have a nice birthday and keep remembering the glory of Byzantium.

In 523 AD Justinian send a delegation to the Lakhmid king to conclude peace with this Sasanid subject and to ransom two roman dukes captured by the arabs. The conference also had a religious subject and was attended by a roman bishop and the heads of persian orthodox, nestorian and monophisite churches and a mandean leader. Also a sassanid envoy was present. During the conference an envoy from the king of South Arabia came that announced the massacre of christians and asked that the Lakhmid king do the same and offered 3.000 dinari as an incentive. The author list some possible motives for the killings: -personal. The kings mother was, one source claims, a captive jew from Nisibis and maybe was sold by christians or the previous ethiophian attack when the future king, Masruq, had to claim to be christian to save his life from antijewish attacks. -religious. The rabbis from Tiberias that lived in Yemen used this to improve the standing of the jews in the empire -politics. Judaism and christianity fought for centuries for control of the area. Christians represented a threat to the jewish king that succesfully toppled a christian king. In the letter to the lakhmid king he asked for an alliance with Persia against romans. This meant conflict with the christian empire and a need to destroy christian internal opposition. The request to the lakhmid king to kill the christians was not received well by the christian majority of the capital and by the head of the lakhmid army that rebelled. The king was also more interested in collecting the ransom for the dukes and in peace with the empire so he refused to ally with the yemenite king. This jewish king was left isolated when the orthodox emperor allied with the monophisite ethiopians against him. A roman fleet of 60 ships from the Red Sea cities carried an ethiopian army over the sea and helped conquere Yemen.

Arabs were influenced by Rome and Parthia/Sasanid Persia and their conflicts. The areas of Jordan with the magnicficent capital at Petra were conquered by Trajan and made a province. The kingdom Charax in south mesoptamia was roman allie in Trajan campaign against Parthia. Later christianity had spread to the most important arab states of the late period. The ghassanid kingdom was created by Justinian in South Syria and were monophysites. This led to conflict with orthodox emperors that led to the demise of the kingdom. Their enemys were the Lakhmids of South Irak and Northern Arabia, vassals to the Sasanids, and they had a large christian population especially in the capital, Hirah. The kingdom was destroyed and annexed directely by the Sasanid king in 602. The last of the kingdoms in Yemen was the one of the Himyar. His last king was Jewish and he carried a massacre of christians in the city of Najran. An interesting article about a international diplomatic conference held at the Lakhmid kings on Jstore "Byzantino-Arabica: The Conference of Ramla, A. D. 524", Irfan Shah

Shouldn't the comparison be between the two at the same time? Abbasid vs. Carolingian Empire and succesors.