Kosmo

A warm sun shines everyday in the sky. Until now only few cold days and some snow that melts when touches the warm land. Usually winter it's very cold here with blizzards blowing from Scythia. Last winter the sea was so frozen in Tomis (Constanta) yacht port that cars could drive over it and it was like this for weeks. Yesterday, the sun was so bright that I could hardly play Rome Total War because of the light in the room so I went in the park with my dog and I was too dressed for the 15 C. A sweter it's enough! here in Bucharest! in mid january! I don't recall any winter like this.

The display habit came to Dacia from Germania Posterior brought by a jewish trader called Frankincensestain. After geting rich by trading with germans he was a Marcomaniac. The disese (see - J. Walker, J. Daniel, Ballantine - Aqua caliente in patria cannabiorum indica et sativa) gave him some dark looks that also influenced the goths that spread his style thruout the world.

1. Ilipa. 2. Lucullus campaign in Asia. Usually romans were smart enough not to fight when outnumbered. Cannae it's a good one.

Of course a christian writer said bad things about an emperor that violently persecuted christians, but it's not necessary true. Actually I don't believe it. Even his dacian origins are doubtfull. If he was born in Serdica (Sofia) in 250 that was in Moesia Superior. Only after 265 Aurelian abandoned Dacia proper and created a new province with this name south of Danube. The inhabitants of the area were thracians and illyrians at the time of his birth, not dacians. Some say that Aurelian colonised people from Dacia south of Danube, but this depends on the control Aurelian had on former Dacia. It is very likely that Dacia (or large parts of it) was already abandoned before Aurelian's reign. If the withdrowal was made by mutinous units under pressure from barbarians it is unlikely that a massive withdrowal of civilians could be made. Later barbarian kings claimed and used roman heritage. A co-emperor could not do less.

Propaganda was not only made by the state or the emperor. Graves, public monuments, statues, graffity, games etc all were used by most people to embelish the image of themselfs and of their family. Most things that arheolgy tells us it's about this lesser people propaganda. Even a poor freedman could have a nice tomb made with an inscrition that sometimes it's in bad latin. Also cities made propaganda.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. This is my image of the classical roman legion: each man with a pilum and with a gladius. I do not know enough about the weapon of the auxiliaries and I'm sure cavalry used spears. I tried to be as clear as possible: what the roman cavalry of Pompey did at Pharsalus it's not relevant to knights. Apples and oranges. I agree that combined arms it's the best way. Being too strict on one type of soldier means a difficult time against a new enemy. A army with many types of unites can find that many are useless in a particular type of terrain or enemy but still has something against anyone, everywhere.

Happy Birthday! Valpolicella? I thought brigantes drink hot beer made from bee hives! So romans did left a mark up there...

To my surprise when seing in a museum a spatha and a gladius toghether the difference in lenght was not much. I guess that your 20 cm estimate it's correct. More important, spatha was a slashing weapon usefull in looser formations. Hastatii and triarii had pikes but this were abandoned with the Marian reforms and the generalization of pilum. Pilum was 1,5 - 2 m long and this is too short for a pike because it cannot be held by the end. So, from the hand to the end it will be a maximum of 1-1,5 m. Some say it bent or break at impact and this means that it could not be used for repeated blows i hand-to-hand combat, this is a feature common to throwing weapons. A lance could be between 3 - 4,5 m long. Some was also lost for balance, but still the lance would have been seriously longer. A sarissa carring phalanx would have been much better against lance cavalry. The Pharsalus story it's strange because a large cavalry force fled when attacked at the face. But this does not combat my point as I claimed that roman cavalry was not similar to knights.

Titus001 - Many medieval battles were fought only by cavalry. Even when infantry was on the field sometimes was employed just by one army. And I repeat, medieval armies had high quality, proffesional infantry. Roman wargamer - Our opinions on roman infantry weapons of the principate are different. I do not believe that thay carried so many spears, just a pilum and that was for throwing. So, I see them rather defenceless against impact cavalry. GO - Condotieri of late middle ages/early renaissance were not interested in fighting major battles because they losed man (what their power was based on) for a victory that brought little profits (they wanted war to continue to keep their jobs). Other battles were bitterly fought.

I've read that most of the tin trade was carried thru Gaul to Massalia by greeks. Probably etruscans were also part in this trade in earlier phases. Carthage did not developed serious Atlantic trade routes. Gades/Cadis was small and probably focused on local trade before the First Punic War and I know no other punic settlement north of it on the Atlantic coast. I think that the sea route Gades-Cornwall would be to difficult in dangerous waters and with hostile barbarians for an usual trader. Was tin so valuable to be worth it? Maybe in the Bronze Age, but in the Iron Age? The overland road thru Gaul will be much safer and shorter and could use water transport on rivers. The contacts between the celts on both sides of the Channel would make it even easier. I believe that this story, as the ones with carthaginian sea trade in West Africa and the transsaharian overland rute are exagerations. Contacts, direct or indirect, explorations sure, but large scale trade... I don't think so.

It was a movie, but also a large animation series. Actually I know them mostly from the animation. It was funny.

I love Rammstein, but I have no ideea what they're saying.

Islamists

OK. Yes, of course, political groups are capable of conspiracies. What else would one call Watergate? Stupidity?

So, both are correct and have been used by romans. Thank you. From the wiki quote seems that IX had also a different writen form. That will be VIIII ?

All my Love - Led Zeppelin Crazy - Aerosmith Sweet Child Of Mine

Usually 4 as a roman number it's IV, but I've seen on some watches as IIII. How is corect ? Are they both accepted?

If you don't mind I pay you in cash. I just changed 10 turkish lira for 10.000 brand new dollars. And forget about Mona Lisa, I got 5 of them.

GO I'll buy it if you throw also a kilo of those original diamonds in.

NN that Wendii invading England thing it's interesting. They were not seafearing and they did not had acces to the North Sea. How did they get there? Thru the saxons?

Muslims fight the christians of Middle East and those of the West, but christianity has more serious problems like many people giving it up. Seeing the wars in Jugoslavia as religiously motivated it's wrong. Neither the combatant nor their leaders were motivated by religion but by nationalism. As they spoke, practically, the same language it was formal religion what defined their national identity. Do you really think that former comunists like Milosevici, Izetbegovici and Tudjman cared about any religion? They fought because those leaders wanted power and got it by unleashing violence. The conflict between West and radical Islam it's not based on religion as the West has no religion but on power and ideology. Ottomans had the right to turn Hagia Sophia in a mosque and the spaniards had the right to turn the Cordoba mosque in a cathedral and no one living then would have questioned this. Asking now, in postcolonialist fashion, to correct the string of injustices that make up history it's dumb. What Ataturk did was a measure of his skill in befrending former enemies but also of his policy of laicization. He also striped the sultan of his title of calif. He placed the bow and other artifacts of prophet Mohamed in a museum exhibition instead of a worshiping place. He changed the language, the alfabet, the laws and everything else creating a new nation and a new state where religion was much less important. There is no similarity between Turkey then and Spain now. A good muslim will regard christians and jews as the People of the Book, that have the right of protection as second class citizens. He could never share a holy place with them because it is in his religion to see them as inferiors. So no brotherhood of men because that implies equality. About hinduists and other "idol worshippers" the Coran asks him to destroy them. After making Mezquita a joint worship place soon enough will have to be "returned" to the "rightfull" owners (and that will be arian visighots )

For most arab nations, especially the small oil rich countries of the Gulf, a weak Iran it's great news. And the teocratic goverment does a great job at keeping it weak and isolated. They were a great power in the times of the last shah, Reza Pahlavi, and other countries like Iraq, Oman and Bahrain had to bow to it. Now it's a beckwater forced to do what Syria asks them to get some influence on a terorist group based on a local libanese comunity. Even if they get some nukes they can not change much. Middle East it's not nuke free. Israel has lots of them. Pakistan it's building up. Across the Caspian sea Russia has a couple or more. US it's very present in the Gulf, Irak, Afghanistan and Turkey it's a NATO member.

The West has the right to shape the world as much as anybody else. Defending and expanding his political, cultural and economic interests it is vital for it's survival. Even if US traped Sadam, that I doubt, this was it's right in reaching the goals of it's policy. International metters should not be judged on the basis of morality, but in terms of efficiency in protecting national interest. Wilson was very wrong about it. Sadam was not only the favorite of the West but also of the East. Most of his weapons were made by comunist countries and so were many of his factories including those that produced chemical weapons. He was seen as the one that stopped the spread of iranian islamic revolution and his baasist socialism was close to the national comunism of some countries. The fact that US toppled a laic nationalist regime, albeit murderous, to replace it with a islamic teocracy, that is already criminal thru his militias, shows both a misunderstanding and a confusion about goals and purposes. US and UK soldiers die to establish an islamic state that will hate them. That's not smart. What is fancy explained with conspiracy theories is much more easy to understand as stupidity. US institutions, like those of most other democracies, do not have the skill or the mentality to carry complex plots and to mentain secrecy. Even the simplest actions fail or end up in media or Congress. Only in Hollywood movies they are succesfull and invincible. Sadam got what he gave to others. I really doubt that will benefit anyone especially after he was humiliated. I have no ideea about his crimes as most of what I heard was propaganda.

As NN pointed Hagia Sophia it's a museum. Nearby Irene Church, older then Hagia Sophia, it was used as a storage area by sultans (it's inside first area of Topkapi Palace) Sometimes turks used it as a concert hall but now it's in bad shape. Mesquita, the Cordoba Cathedral has a very different story. It was initially a visigot church taken over by muslims and gradually expanded. After spaniards reconquered Cordoba they build a huge cathedral without walls inside the mosque. If Hagia Sophia is largely the same (they build the ugly minarets, fountains for washing, wrote inscriptions from Coran) as when muslims made it a mosque Cordoba Cathedral it is seriously modified. Spaniards keep many policeman inside to disallow muslims to pray at the eastern wall. I confess praying in Hagia Sophia but I did it in my mind and any muslim could do that even in St. Peter. All this is postcolonial blur and islamic agressivity. And Turkey it's not the usual islamic country, they look to me as fanatic nationalists and less as religious ones.

It depends on what you call heavy cavalry. I think that heavy cavalry has to be heavy meaning armor, large horses, ways to use effectively a lance while charging. Regardless how we call it romans never had or met something similar with knights because those were the result of a long evolution. Some medieval armies used low quality levies as infantry support. Other units of non nobles could be highly proffesional like town militias in Spain during Reconquista or english longbowmen. In large battles no side used untreined soldiers : Poitiers, Crecy, Agincourt, Varna, Los Navas de Tolosa etc. Ottomans used succesfully untrained troops fighting only for loot - bashi bouzouk. They were used as skirmishers or as a human wave being usually the first to fight the enemy (Nicopole).