Kosmo

I disliked the US intervention in Iraq and I still do. It was a very poor decision, but should not mean that now US can pack and leave the place a mess. Both the confilct between sunni, shia and kurds and the increase in Jihadism were easy to predict events. Not for me, of course, but the roots of today conflict were visible for a trained eye. Maybe the Iraq blunder it's not just an error, but a test for decision taking on foreign policy for US and other major players. If the US could find internal resources to change his aproach on decision taking in foreign policy it will continue to be the world's superpower. If not, both the system of alliances and internal public opinion will force a withdrow of US power from abroad. Things do not go so bad in Afghanistan and nasty talibans and terrorists made the attack more justified, but it was as well a bad decision because the presence of NATO forces depends on Pakistan and Pakistan has no intention or capability of leting those insurgents down. Taliban forces are on a steady rise and they will force an increase in international forces to keep up. The War on Terror got stuck in 2 conflicts with no solution in sight. But neither the opponents have a solution and so the wars are still open ended.

There is a very difficult question here. First of all, even official histories are wrong, sometimes willingly and sometimes from misinterpretation, unfounded generalisiations etc For example the marxist view of history was fed on a large part of Earth population for a lot of time. Nationalism, racism, various religious, anticolonialism, liberalism, antifascism etc all were beliefs that distorted the view over historical events. Even worse, all are based on history so are very interested to rewrite her. Pseudo-history, even if we use the term only for histories that are limited to weird aspects, it is more popular then the science of history. Only the templars are the source of a huge mytholgy that Umberto Eco made fun of as I pointed, not long ago, to user Chimera. Maybe it is more fun to read about misterious secrets then about the production of bricks in Roman Britain. The decrease of formal religion led to a host of beliefs that are not only pseudohistory, wicca, vodoo, jedi or scientolgy, but also more common beliefs in zodiac signs, feng-shui, crystal power, physical exercises based on cosmic energy (karate, taiji etc,), yoga, acupuncture etc. This uses no scientific evidence and no source in main stream cultural life, but are so spread as nobody even notices them anymore. I see this decline of both rationalist thinking and teologically structured religion as a very dangerous cultural evolution. Most people have good knowledge of their object of proffesional activity and hold weird beliefs on almost all other subjects. I pointed once to my wife and my mother that it is a contradiction between christianity and astrology, but I was not convincing and the fact is that astrolgy it's older and with better chances of survival than christianity. Even scientifical activity it is influenced by this beliefs. For example acupuncture it is a common practice and it is endorsed by trained proffesionals like the doctor of Romania's soccer team. To see them go from acupuncture to a monastry to pray before a game it is a contradiction between three sistems of belief. Chakra's, orthodox saints and a science based on evolutionist theories can be harmonized easily if you don't believe much in something, but a little bit in everything.

Thank you! I have some good wine waiting for me home. I have to wait to run away from work...

Dentatus for wining against an army superior in generalship, training, cavalry and elefants. I'll say Scipio because he defeated the best foreign general and did a lot to improve the army. Caesar for defeating large armies with similar equipament, training, officer corps etc. Trajan for his brilliant use of the clasical imperial army living no chance to worthy and dangerous opponents. Aurelian for the speed with wich he defeated barbarians and usurpers alike. Heraclius for sheer stuberness and will against overwhelming odds. Alexios Commnen for his ability to win major battles and, even more impresing, to recover after defeates. And Constantin Dragasses for his decision to die fighting at the gates of his city. Narrow enough?

Using a deep formation was the only sound decision for romans. They could not overstrech because Hannibal could mass his cavalry forces and puncture the roman line. Alexander did the same at Gaugamela when, because of inferior numbers in cavalry, he created a deep formation. The difference it's that he succeded in breaking the persian center before persian cavalry destroyed his rear units. On this same subforum many boast the superiority of roman imperial proffesional army over levies. Still, we should remember that in that war romans were concripts while Hannibal had a hardened proffesional army. With that formation the romans could still win if they broke the center of the enemy and keep the formation against flank attacks. Of course, they should have kept the weak cavary they had in the spaces between the infantry formations and not on the flanks where they could be driven off. But, if the carthaginian infantry was forced off the field fast the returning cavalry had to flee as well. I still believe that the decision to fight was the right one and with better trainining and morale and superior generalship that day could have been the end of Hannibal. Maybe romans won at Zama because the numid cavalry gave them vital support in an aspect where they never were brilliant. And because Scipio trained his man a lot.

Dragan's story it's worth a movie. He studied law in Bucharest and in 1941 started to sell romanian oil to Italia (some say he run away with the money of the extremist Iron Guard defeated in a coup attempt then). He made a fortune in lichefied metan gas with Butan Gas a very important company In Italy and other Western European countries. He was a respected (I think) character in the study of marketing, publishing books and heading international conferences. In the same time he was interested by the pseudoscience of tracology and with this he befrended Ceausescu and convinced him in the study. So, a capitalist billionaire with far right simpaties and a proletarian almost iliterate dictator joined toghether to create a new fake science: tracology. I remeber that the only history magazine then ( of course named History Magazine) had the first page with a picture of C. (like all books) then some behind liking from cronies. After that it was a serial of articles by a univeristy proffesor, Ion Popescu-Puturi, about dacians. They used the confusion that Jordanes made between geti and gothi to prove that dacians lived in Scandinavia and conquered the roman empire. After revolution Dragan continued to support and promote this kind of ideas. He married at the age of 78 a young romanian named Gus(h)a. She is the daughter of army general Gusa that ordered the repression in Timisoara in december 1989 and was Chieff of Staff of the romanian army. Some say that the conflict between general Gusa and another general, Stanculescu, for the office of Ministry of Defence was one of the factors behind the violence in Romania between 22-28 december 1989. The so called terrorist attacks. Back to Dragan, he desapaired in the last period being rumoured that his wife and other people from her anturage, including former military intelligence officers, have secluded him taking advantage of his senility in order to drain money from his fortune. His fortune it's estimeted at 1,5 billion euros.

Whenever I go to a library I'm disgusted to see that at the history section most books are of pseudohistory. Templars, cabala, Mossad and the Wise Man of Sion, etc. Even worse is the use of history for political agendas. I will say that a large majority of true history books are not scientifical views, but try to prove or combat something for some other motif. National histories in schoolbooks are often outright forgeries. Goverments invested in historical research to create evidence for wild theories not to really find what happened. This is because many political regimes or parties use history as means of legitimation or propaganda (national states and nations as myths, historical ideologies like marxism etc). For example Ceausescu used history to promote strong leadership and national independance. So, romanian historians placed a lot of interest in dacians, as a national opposition to the corrupt West, and some Middle Age rulers that fought against the ottomans and the aristocrats like Vlad Tepes (the Impaler), Stefan the Great and Mihai the Brave. The historians that ate a lot of brown stuff making a life chasing wild ideas found new support from extreme right nationalists like Iosif C-tin Dragan, a pal of Ceausescu and Romania's richest man. He owns an university and sponsors historical studies whith mindblowing conclusions. This books are writen by history proffesors with official credentials and they give for this type of works doctor degrees etc. They carved a collosal face of Decebal in Danube Iron Gates. I could keep like that for ages with examples from all countries and all eras.

Very nice! Thank you! Some of them are really great.

Trajan was very succesful in his campaign. He was very close to a victory as he conquered Armenia and Mesopotamia up to the Golf and established alliances with several kings of west Parthia. The jewish rebellion in the eastern areas of the empire delivered a serious blow to his plans as he had to send some troops back. His illness and the fact that parthian army was largely intact compounded the problems. If Hadrian had felt more secure of the purple a victory was still possible but Mesopotamia would still be exposed to attacks. It was an open terrain loosly connected with the rest of the empire, an easy target for cavalry attack from the safety of Zagros mountains. So, for romans to hold it they needed to conquer the iranian hinterland. Not a fun prospect.

I think that this kind of duels are very likely to have happened. Pyrhhus asked Antigonas Gonatas to fight men against men shortly before he died. Before the battle of Varna between Ottomans and "crusaders" a turnir like duel was fought. Of course what happened to the defeated was probably better then if he lost the war. Not like 'OK! my man won so all of you and your wifes surrender weapons and march to the slave market" Duel as a proof of divine favor was used thruout Europe to settle law suites in court from the time of german invasions almost to the french revolution. God used to pick the one who was right by giving them victory in duel. Other evidence for proving god favor were walking on fire and drinking poison.

AEGYPTUS - Physicians, Teachers, and Craftsmen were sometimes slaves. This proffesions were usually frowned upon by the elite like any other phyisical labour. If one loves a sexslave from Clazomenai this does not make him a admirer of greek culture. Acces to power was the key to status and wealth. Romans denied that to greeks. They gave small administrative position to hellenistic minorities in some areas of the East like Syria and Egypt. They also displaced greek language from many areas and replace it with latin and carried this as a deliberate policy that it's not tolerant but looks at greek subjects as potential opponents. So, I guess that DC comparison with Japan-China relation it's correct.

caldrail - The exodus of bullion was rduced when exports of pretious metals were prohibited. I think that they hed no concept of political reform as we have. As in other societies they made reform look like a return to good old days. Their political thinking and reform options were seriously reduced by this traditionalist view of political procces.

If we agree that in this hypotetical paths there was no emperor we must assume that a major army and province administration occured. If so, I vote yes because the roman republic, unlike the empire, could count on her citizens to fight for her. The german migration would have been stopped in their tracks if the huge and populous republic behaved like Italy during the Second Punic War. But this also required a different moral and political attitude brcause in the last days of the republic plebs were not the foundation of the state but a greedy mob.

I did not said that romans made stupid people generals. Being the commanding officer of the roman army was not seen as a position that required technical knowledge and experience (a professional officer), but as a political position in a system of checks and balances. So, two politicans became consuls, that means also leaders of the army, regardless of their military qualities and just for a year (actually a campaign season). This had two results: some nasty defeats occured because of bad leadership (while proven leaders were on hold) and the consul could not tranform his mandate in dictatorship because of loose connection with the soldiers. The elected politicians of the city were the leaders of an army made from the citizens. They changed this system because of the need to improve army leadership and because of the distant wars and this way created a new important caracter unknown to them but popular in the hellenistic world: the victorious general. I have the feeling that I did not make myself any clearer, but if we compare Dentatus that fought against Pyrhhus and Scipio that defeated Hannibal the situation will became clearer.

Aha! Eyebrows. It is an interesting ideea.

The republic was a system that brought profits to many thru healthy competition. The aristocrats kept each other in balance while poorer people used the oportunities brought by expansion. Balance of power and division of profits were the key stones and this were deliberatly and purposly followed. For just an example- the leadership of the army by elected and unexperienced consuls when facing experienced generals was not a mistake but a deliberate policy. Similar policies toward generals were carried by Athens and Carthage.

Thank you, Pantagathus! What do you mean Pertinax? What are brows?

Can someone, please, tell me how and since when the laurel crown and the olive branch got their symbolic value.

"which once included the Phillipines, Cuba etc and still includes Puerto Rico and Havana." I knew that El Lidero Maximo it'a US spy! Under that beard anybody could hide, even the US Marines! You can not compare the majesty of the expansionistic roman empire with the pitifull US one. The emperor ruled the known world while the president just Fox News. And the power of the European Union looks more like Byzantium in his worse days. Buying peace from barbarians and setteling them inside the walls.

Most of roman agriculure in the Mediterranean was based on irrigation and that needs lots of money. Also private mine owners or those who rented public mines needed to invest loads of money for the large mines used in first to centuries AD. Why do you think that they did not invest in their properties? Nobody today wants to make a foolish investment.

You say the oath everyday? Not even communists asked that! Something like the oath was made from time to time at very special occasions not everyday. That's unbelievable! Can you change the oath? Say gods instead of God? How do satanists make the pledge?

The excelent article on Dacia mentions that it was used as a base for wars on Parthia. I don't think that is correct or even possible. (americans recently established an airbase in Scythia Minor for control of the Middle East, but romans had no jetfighters) The provided map of the province in the article it is debatable as it is not known if the regions east of Carpathians mountains were ever under roman control. If they were this lasted for only ten years when Hadrian partialy withdrew. The same with some western parts of Dacia. The UNRV wallpaper map shows Dacia's borders more accurate.

India was seriouselly inluenced by hellenistic art. First when Alexander and his succesors controled areas in the west of India. Later the greek kings of Bactria established a strong control of even larger areas and finnally during the Kushan kingdom, of scythian origins, that kept hellenistic tradition and developed extensive realations with the romans. Kushans had at a point control of today Pakistan, much of Gange valley in India, whole Afghanistan, large areas in Central Asia including the Tarim Basin in today China. The kings called themself Caesar, had send several embassies at Rome concluding treaties with romans, possibly even an alliance against parthians with Trajan, minted coines similar with aureus including depictions of Minerva and greek inscriptions. As the Silk road crossed their Central Asia domein much of the silk from China crossed the Hindukush and from there down the Indus River and across the Indian Ocean to Egypt. Romans had excelent knowledge of this friendly kingdom. In a kushan palace arheologists unearthed many roman-hellenistic art products toghether with chinese ones in what has been an art\curiosities kingly collection. Many other roman objects were found in Gandahara area the heartland of the kingdom.

Happy Birthday! and have fun with those fine wines!

Egypt had a highly developed agriculture based on an old tradition and seriously improved by hellenistic rulers that used the Museion as research center for new irrigation devices that lifted water. Also they introduced new crops. This agriculture was based on mediterranean models and products and had to face limitations in fertile soil and water. Gauls lived in a temperate wet climate with an abundence of rich fertile soil and had no need for irrigation. They needed axes and saws for deforestation, heavy ploughs with a iron knife and some more efficient way to transfer animal force to the plough. This is the base for european agriculture and it's not specific to Gaul. From Late Iron Age until the XVII century this was hardly changed depending on few elements like availabilty of iron tools and the gradual increased use of horse power as new stronger breeds and harnasses were developed. Horticulture was the only area with an earlier improvement thanks to the dutch.The most important late development was the introduction of new plant and animal species. In the time of Augustus the level of Gaul was the same with other areas from the rest of Europe with comparable climate.