Kosmo

Romans could not have infantry formations to fight heavy cavalry as there was no heavy cavary at their time. The armored cavalry used by sarmatians, parthians, persians and romans was still not build for head-on charge but firstly for missile fire and other missions. Alexander's Companions and Thessalians were a heavier type that could charge other horseman but not head-on a phalanx. MA knights were trained and equiped only for charge against infantry and other cavalry units. They had large, strong horses that could carry them with all the armor and that mass would break enemy lines. The high sadle and straight stirups gave them a god grip on the horse so they could take the impact and do not fly away. They had long weapons that allowed them to attack from some distance and shorter ones for close combat. Strong armor gave horse and man a lot of protection against missiles. Pole weapons and powerful projectiles were the only things that infantry could use against them in favorable conditions (swiss crossbowmen, english longbowmen, halebardiers, pikeman, husite war chariots and fire weapons) As I already told you, there is a big difference between the strenghts of Masada and Krak de Chevaliers.

The advances in sailing ships with the development of battleships with lots of guns was probably more important then anything. The raid of the english fleet led by Blake, as ordered by the Lord Protector, it's a good example.

Armenia was under roman influence since the times of Lucullus until Menzinkert. It was a province at the time of Trajan's death and as the map shows the empire of 117 it should be there. The other option, leaving it outside the empire will not explein much. Mesopotamia proper it's another problem as the border moved from time to time, but at the 117 moment it was on the Gulf. The other option will be to show roman border during Pompey, Augustus, Nero, Trajan, Hadrian etc. No map can hold so much information and still be readable. Romans borders were not like that of today to be able to accuratly point them. For example, romans usually held points on the North side of the Danube and maybe some teritorries but this is a level of detail unuseful on a general map. Not even a limes proves that the empire ends there as political authority usually extended outside provincial borders. Can you give some evidence to the claim that Rome lost control in the East after 450? Any jewish rebellion after Hadrian? Any heretics that really sized power and defeated the army? Roman grip was fermly felt in the 600's in desert areas like Negev and Sinai.

The patriarch of Constantinopole it is not superior in any way to the others. All orthodox countries have their own patriarchs. Like that of Russia (that also it's patriarch for other former soviet countries) Serbia etc. Moscow was the Third Rome for propaganda reasons. They had no connnection with the first and very little with the second as the Old Rus followed bulgarian orthodoxy not byzantine. The tzar was more a succesor of the Golden Horde Khan that of an roman/byzantine emperor.

Neither Lepanto, not the first siege of Vienna were decisive. After Lepanto the ottoman fleet was still the largest on the Med. sea, but the lucrative piracy that made it possible was coming to an end. If there are no targets to bee looted there was no ottoman fleet and by the end of the century the coasts were well defended and what could not be defended was abandoned. Christian sea trade was also seriously restricted. They had problems attacking the ocean fleets of England, Dutch and Spain but they tried when targets in the Med brought no profits. Actally ottomans did not have much to do with this large pirate fleets. They were made in North Afrcia by locals and christian renegates without ottoman help. They had political relations at high level but the ottoman fleet was made of a smaller fleet in the East build and mened by ottomans and north african auxiliaries better led and equiped but largely independent. The first attack on Vienna was made, without proper siege equipment, to force Ferdinand of Habsburg to give up his claim on the hungarian crown in favor of ottoman protege Ioan Zapolya. The Habsburg claim on the hungarian crown was for the ottomans a disastrous side effect of the great Mohacs victory. Before the second siege of Vienna, thruout the XVII century, the Habsburg where much more interested by problems in the West within Germany. The 30 Years War and other conflicts made them interested of peace in the East and the division of Hungary was not bad for them. After the siege they pushed the ottomans out of Hungary and Croatia, got control of Transilvania then pushed further south taking for a while Belgrade and Oltenia (Little Valachia). This shows their strenght comparing with ottomans so they could defend Vienna even without poles. Ottomans had little with to fight against the european armies created after the 30 years war based on massed fire power. After the Habsburgs took what they wanted they fought several wars with the ottomans giving up some of the gains and establishing a lasting peace trubled only by their attempts to balance and control russian expansion.

Yngwie Malmsteen, Uli Jon Roth (it was part in the rather disapointing Therion concert 2 weeks ago and he did not look happy), Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, Al Di Meola and Gary Moore. I should also mention Santana.

When the political byzantine institutions ended it was not the end for all things byzantine. "Byzantium after Byzantium" how it was called played a major part in the history of Balkans. First, the fall of the city brought an end to the attempt of christian unity. The anti western faction was supported by Mehmet Fatih and the authority of the patriarh extended over other orthodox people (like serbs and bulgarians that previously created their own patriarchs) under ottoman authority. The patriarh was the head of the christian "millet" and had huge authority. As the ottoman empire extended his authority became strong in the Holy Land and Sinai, but Athos retained his important status. Greeks held all high positions in the church and they got that even in areas where they had no previous authority like the romanian states. They also were used as ambassadors and foreign ministers. Greeks also played, much more then armenians and jews, the role of an ottoman third class as traders and money lenders. Money lending was extremly important because most officials brought their jobs from the sultan and they needed to get money to acces power. Once they got their jobs they had to get enough money to pay back loans and the high interest rates, to send tribute and giftd to the sultan and many other important people. This brought social problems like rebellions and corruption. Between 1600 and 1820's the romanian states, Moldova and Valachia, were in a large extent ruled and expoloated by greeks, the so called "fanariots" from the Fanar area of Istanbul. They filled most church high positions, archbishops, bishops, abbots and gave properties and monatries to monastries in Greece and Holy Land. They lend money to rulers that brought their authority from the sultan and got in exchenge money, large land properties and political power filling the majority of high positions. In the end they became rulers from early 1700's until 1821. They also benefited from the monopolies that the ottomans got over trade, selling timber to british and grains on Istanbul market. There are 3 periods in ottoman history. In the first the ottomans themselves were mostly renegate christians, slaves of the sultan (himself the son of a slave) in the "devsirme" system and so greeks could by converting acces positions of power. After 1650, this system was abolished and power was reserved to those born muslims and to the children of the ottoman elite. This still alowed christians to became powerfull thru the millet system and by the functions they had. Finally, after napoleonian wars, nationalism was spread to greeks and later to other people including turks bringing the collapse of the millet system and of the ottoman empire. So, after the fall of Byzantium and the moping up, the impact was gradual and romaioi were integreted in new systems.

The difference between West and East it's in the battle line. In strategic thinking they are the same. If the enemy attacks a vital center the defender it's forced to fight and a set battle takes place. "Western" forces used skirmish and delay many times. See Rome vs Hannibal (aka second punic war), France in late 100 years war, Spain after 1809, Russia in 1812 and 1941 etc. This is not the same with Vietnam War or Afghanistan where an outside force (N. Vietnam & CCCP, Pakistan & US) could haress with impunity. BH - still you push the term asymetric war to a past where it does not belong. Guerilla and terorism had no meaning, for let's say Rome, that could easily break the Geneva convention and use scorched earth policy against civilians and did not perceived the safety of her citizens as an obstacle. For example - IIIrd Burma War, The Boer War. PS. The losses in Afganistan were low enough for soviet forces to still be there, provided Soviet Union still existed. So, the war in Afghanistan, as Vietnam, was ended not by the victory of guerilla but by political decision at home. If the Soviet Union decided to stop the war, let's say, at the procentage of population lost in WW2, they could fight for a 1.000 years.

My poor english had me miss a "r" in the thread title and I was ready for the call. Still, since I'm here, can you tell me who is turmenting youngsters with ancient greek? And a reason why will help me.

Had no ideea that Pravda still exists. The giant squid picture got me. If "the Truth" claims it, I believe it! I did not laugh that much since the bosnians were looking for pyramids.

Merry Christmas everyone and enjoy yourself.

The other politicians you mention MPC were held in check by balance of power between official positions and between politicians and by their limited control over the army. Imagine Dentatus after defeating Pyrhhus telling his army, oficers and soldiers, "I've led you to victory now let's go disband the Senate and divide Campania among us" He would have been brought in Rome chained, not in triumph.

Sulla did what all politicians do! He used whatever means he could to get as much power possible and to keep it for him and his succesors. The problem in any open political system it's to stop politicians to do their thing. There are several means like forcing them to stop killing each other and balancing their legal powers. But, the only effective way is to have as many people possible interested in that order. Sulla was as uninterested as Marius in a democracy or republic or whatever you might want to call it. Why? He used military power to get political power, but none of his reforms was destined to curb the ability to get to much military power. He could change the reform of Marius and return the army to the old ways, or to create a new way of recruiting a political citizen army. The security threats against Rome were minimal. He choose to keep the things as they were and this was what made Marius strong, what gave him unprecedented power and what gave the next generations of politicians their tools. Neither the plebs or other political players were interested in something else that quick selfgratfication. So, I don't see Sulla very different from Marius, Crassus, Pompey, Caesar, Antonius etc

Let's create a Foundation to gather all significant information of today's world in an Enciclopedia to shorten the span of the New Dark Age. I think that the world today has unprecedented levels of prosperity and peace. This is not only in the West, but also in Asia as the dragons (Japan, S. Coreea, Taiwan) were folowed by those in the SE (Thailand, Malaya, Indonesia etc) and now the big ones are growing (India and China) S. America it's both democratic and steadily growing. Only subsaharan Africa lags behind with constant warfare, desrtification and epidemics, but not even there the situation it is not as bad as the media makes it look. The number of humans always depended on the food available so this nothing new. Climate change it's a recent problem because it was recently noticed that climate fluctuates. But Earth it's a thermodinamic machine even without human activity. Remember the Ice Age? either it had nothing to do with humans or the activities of the Neanderthalians and Erectus were causing it. I don't say that it is impossible for something bad to happen, I say that is very unlikely or beyond our capacity to solve it. So, no dooms day worries for me.

In the field - any decent roman force would seriously outnumber the largest armies of the Middle Ages. If we have 4 legions, alae, independent cohorts and auxila this will mean a force of, at least, 50.000 men against, let's say, french army at Azincourt 8-12.000 men. The roman army was made of profesional soldiers while the french one was made of levies. Even given the training a knight received from childhood the diference between formal training and how it was done in the Middle Ages will be visible. The roman army of the early empire was a manouvering force with a clear chain of command. A medieval army was a conglomerate of armies conected by political relations were some might choose to run away like at Poitiers where a third of the army fled without enemy contact. Roman generals were usually good, selected in time and trial while medieval armies were led by the sovereign, that could be good like the Black Prince, or by apointees like the extremly young Boucicoult. The medieval armies had superior horsmanship and could deliver a lot of missiles (long bow archers, crossbowman, some mercenaries like the genovese) So, if they are of a resonably close size, and with equal leadership, on open terrarain the medieval army has a good chance. It could shower with missiles and the charge and break roman formation. The pilum will thin the first line, but when the heavy horses break the formation the advantages of the long lances and of long swords against the gladius will tell a diferent story. Of course, if there are enough romans they would outflank the kights, drove the infantry away and encircle the stationary cavalry. Once they are tightly packed the gladius will deliver deadly blows while the knights must abandon swords and lances and use iron whips and axes. Siege warfare - major Midlle Ages fortifications far exceded roman ones in hight of walls and towers and thru the use of stone. But when someone it's so well locked that no one can came in, that means that it can not get out. So, blocking and walling will be the first roman option and then the waiting game. Of course, this does not mean that active siege will not be undertaken despite the difference in the walls between the abandoned Massada and the famous Krak. The sieges of Byzantium and Hatra by Sever show the problems the romans might have when sieging a well defended fortification. Well...this was fun!

Could he forsee the extent that crusades will take? It was no previous experience that he could use. He was in tight spot with attacks from East (selgiuk turks) and West (normans of Sicilly) and harrasment from North (pecenegs). So, he did the smart thing and played the West against the East being ready to reap the benefits. And he was not shy to get control of much of Anatolia, especially the western parts, but also areas in north and south. After that he left the crusaders on their own knowing that whatever the result he could not lose. And the empire got lots of profits from that until internal problems sparked another fall. Manuel and Ioan got soveraignity over the kings of Jerusalem and a return in Syria and the Holy Land of the empire could have been forseen. So, in short and medium term crusades were beneficial for the Empire. The crisis that brought the 1204 takeover had it's causes in the policy of Andronic and Anghelos, the conflict with the western comercial powers, and the rebellion that broke away Bulgaria. And the main cause of defeat was the fact that the army could not defend the City against an enemy with inferior numbers and little cohesion. Of course, that IV-th crusade benefited from the establishement of a crusading tradition and the growth of Venice as a result of the establishment of latin states in the East. And the bases of this tradition and maritime power lay in Alexius call to the pope. But in his time Venice and the knights of Neaples were already dangerous and maybe focusing energies at distant conquest was better for the empire. What would have been the faith of the empire if the turks kept their hold on Niceea and Scutari and their swords pointing at the heart of the empire? Alexios did the right things and with luck and perseverence succeded. What happened 100 years later was the responsablity of his succesors.

Thank you! Whatever book it is, it's welcomed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm Atefah - the story of the hanging of a 16 year old girl for just being unfit in Iran shocked me deeply despite my good knowledge of the horrific side of history. The judge put himself the rope around her neck before she was hoisted up by a crane in a public square. They punish the victims of abuse. They had also the video documantery on the BBC site, but I can't find it.

Why they do have to put a ban on smoking? Because even when people can choose between smoking and non-smokings bars they usually choose the smoking ones. If so many people would feel disgusted by staying in smoke and smelling bad, than non-smoking bars, restaurants, clubs etc would be the booming majority and not a rare thing. Forcing me, either with ban or taxes, to do something or to refrain from something legitimate it's tyranical. Of course, nobody should be forced to accept others people smoke, but no one should tell adults what to do and to force them on the right way. I smoke heavily and I try not to disturb others with my smoke, but I have the same right to enjoy myself in a bar like the rest of people. I agree with the ban on smoke in places where people are forced to stay like workplaces and public transport. In the rest of situations special zones should be created, or at least smoking places. But to stop me from having a cigarette or a pipe in a place where I'm supposed to have fun it's unfair and takes away the pleasure from everybody. I dislike to drink without smoking so I would just not go to bars anymore. We should organize and create smokers-only bars. At the entrance you must inhale some burning tobacco product. And no kids alowed, of course.

LOL Britney has a lot of guts singing with people that do have a voice. I like the Pepsi Truck comercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHR0ofxZ1AQ...ted&search=

Hi, my name is Zabalovici Anton Cosmin (don't feel like scrambeling at the moment) and I'm a bloke (in case it was not obvious enough). Hmmm ... I have a roman name and is not hidden...right there in the middle...

The Baux family from S. France claimed to bee descendants of the Balti gothic dinasty. The british dinasty can trace herself to king Offa. Most european noble families can prove genelogies up to the year 1000 when the feudal relations started based on this kind of family lineage.

Christianity brought advantages and disavantages to the roman empire. It gave a sense of religious unity, but also spured religious conflicts inside christianity. Christianity was a factor of romanization for germans, but also created a new identity in wich barbarians were no longer perceived as such. Clergy got very powerfull fast and this helped political stabilisation of the empire but also was sometimes a problem. For the West of the empire christianity did not stop the fall but at least thru church preserved language, culture, cities, diocesal organisations and wide scale political relations. Surprisingly enough, after the fall of the roman empire in the West his culture, religion, law etc started an expansion that the mighty legions failed to do (Ireland and W. Germany C V-VI).

@Bryaxis Hecatee - Lucullus it's one of my favorites also.

Thank you all! It was one of my best birthdays. This weekend is longer as 1 December it's the national holiday so I'm going to keep it up I start the winter celebrations early...