Kosmo

I do not believe that the capitol could be moved away from Rome because roman aristocracy (and other groups) were much more influential in the time of the Civil Wars then 350 years later when monarchy was strongly established and the "barbarised" army ruled unopposed. Between the power of Augustus and Nero and that of Diocletian and Constantin I see a great difference.

I always thought that romans did not use water mills. I was wrong. The greeks used them and romans had a more efficient type around I century AD. They were used to great effect with aquaducts. They did not used the most efficient model, the overshot watermill. An article about watermills in Rome on an aquaduct: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~corp0057/JaniculumMills.html

If we could agree that by ancestors of the vikings we understand people of german descent living in Scandinavia, Jutland an nearby areas then we could say that they had a lot of contact with romans. First we have goths and other East germans that left the areas Scandinavia and areas around the Baltic sea and ended deep in roman teritorries. Some of the goths still remained, maybe, in Sweden as many place names show. Saxons raided roman Britain and Gaul and, despite being in areas more to the South then later vikings, resamble vikings very well and could be considered as a first stage. Others people that attacked post roman Britain were angli and juti from the same areas were later the great dane raids will start. Maybe people of Danemark and Norway were parts of saxon raids from the beggining and romans labeled all with the most familliar name. Maybe saxon pirates run away from the francs and stated to use bases more to the North. I do not see any pause between the attacks against romans, the invasions of Britain and the viking raids. There is only one big movement for maybe 800 years.

The Ptolemaic dinasty was strong and able. This was maybe a base from which a mix dinasty of roman and ptolemaic members could become the new ruling dinasty of the mediterranean basin in a hellenistic manner. I think Phil got a point about individual members of the family having almost independent kingdoms, at least in the beginning. Rome was to powerfull for another center of political power to emerge. If he wanted to rule the East he had to do it from Rome and keep some other family members in positions in Asia. Maybe the end would have been a stable, strong dinasty as Rome, divided by the reality of military dictatorship and the ideal of the republic, never had. But if this was his goal he had to face a lot of opposition from the roman aristcracy. P.S. Rome was never dependent on Egypt for food. Sicilly and Africa were the main sources of grains for her.

I've seen svaztika as a decoration in a roman mosaic from a market in Tomis (today Constanta) and chained szvastika's are a decoration on many orthodox churches as a solar symbol of defence against evil.

Caesar sent to Pompey 2 legions and this were used against him. The army of the empire despite not being dependent on generals still rebeled. Some of the rebel leaders were centurions that could not pay in advance. The problem was that the greatest riches could be made by wining power and not fighting the enemy. When the soldiers and officers that made up the army had no interest or convinction to defend the political order thay could follow anyone who made them a good promise. Some soldiers of Caesar rebeled against him and asked for money and an equestrian ring. This is why they fought for: money and status. What political goal has someone who helps establishing a dictator that could kill him anytime? There was no ideology, no different view of public power, no religious belief. Just some attachement to a leader, a lot of loyalty to comrades and a promise for some money.

All of us, wherever we live, are the offspring of smart emigrants. And small Europe survived becuse she fought back not because she surrendered. I make a distinction between the survival of a nation and that of the state. A state could flourish benefiting from cheap labour and kebab expertise that migrants bring while the "natives" fade in the back seat and from there... France and Holland are prosperous despite (or maybe because) the large numbers of imigrants, but the prospect of the french and the dutch that created those states and the bases for todays prosperity are not that great.

Since the begining Rome borrowed heavily from the greeks until in many aspects became hellenic. Still, from the begining until the end many romans despised the greeks. Rome claimed to protect hellenism, but nobody else destroyed so many greek cities. Tarent, Syracusa and Corinth or the wide destruction of W. Greece show that romans used a heavy hand on greeks. Thruout the imperial era people from various nations gained high ranks and even the purple, but I know no greeks among them. Hadrian used a greek in a high position and this was unusual for an empire that soon was led by a african with a punic accent and his syrian wife. For example, greeks from the cities along the west Black Sea coast kept their institutions long, but had to accept the tribe of romans along the traditional ones and many gained roman citizenship in the time of Traian when most of the elites became named Ulpius Trajanus. In many areas romans tried to romanize greeks or hellenized people like it happened in Macedonia, S. Italy and Sicilly. Even Hadrian founded a roman colony with a greek name, Adrianopolis, in the middle of hellenized tracians. Some roman writers despised the greeks and the hellenized people of the East regarding them as girly, trecherous, unrational, cruel, cowerds and weak. This people and their philosophers spread corruption and immorality. Marcus Aurelius comments on egyptians (no doubt the hellenic elite from Alexandria) are quite racist. Despite the fact that Rhodos, the most important trading center of the east, was always their friend and fought along side romans in all wars, Rome ruined his trade with no pity. So, I believe that romans took what ever they liked from the greek culture and keeping an attitude of formal respect destroyed the greek political entities and tried to replace their language and influence with her own.

Roman women had unusual rights and could dispose of themselves and of their money. If roman education for girls was not high the same thing can be said about boys education that was rather basic. If a rich women wanted to get a education I don't think that something stopped her.

Godfather? I thought it was Bismark!

Multiculturalist propaganda it's building a long term threat for some short term benefits. In Europe unemployment it's high and migrants have a landlord attitude. Anyone who points to the fact that soon in most major cities locals will be a minority it's a racist and a nazy. The fact that this minorities, and especially the muslims, have an openly agressive to the hosts cultural and political values it's undeniable. Theo van Goghs death and other killings, the Denmark magazine problem, the riots in France, London and Madrid bombings prove that a deep conflict it's on the way and violence from "oppressed" minorities against the excessive liberalism of the stupid "nations" will continues. Goverments favor this acts of agrresion to curtail the basic freedoms of the outnumbered, outspoken and demoralised "majorities" When Segoline Royale will became president of France I will be so happy! France would have her elegant way to surrender because now they would like that but there is nobody to recive their surrender. And this is because they wanted to be more numerous then the germans and to lead Europe (to the islamic caliphate) So, you guys in US ar fortunate, West Europe it's under siege. Sorry for the rant, but this things make me sick.

Congrats, a well deserved and welcomed promotion! I'll drink a beer to that!

His definitions of empire and starting and ending dates are weird! To say that the third roman empire, the german one, lasted from 800 to 1806? What imperial authority the Habsburg still had outside his domain? And the ottomans were not an empire before 1453 while the fledging Byzantium was?

I don't think that japonese public it is ready for nuclear weapons and US were never willing to share nuclear tehnology to allies. If Japan becames a nuclear power and rearmes it will mean the end of US influence in Asia. As it is Japan has to rely on US to counter the increasing threats from China and N. Correa. I think that nuclear Correa it is not a major concern for US and they want multipartite negotiations because they don't want to act in case of failure.

People are willing to believe what it is in their interest. If he says that it does not mean that he could not think different if he will benefit from something else. This was a wrong way to tell that people often lie others and more often lie themselves. It is sad when high officials are like that, but even worse when people had to be like that to be high officials.

You had some guts to shout at a cornered criminal with knives. Maybe you don't sharpen them so you felt safe? Hehe, you got the blunt ones! I'm glad you're safe!

This is a question that aroused many hot debates and because of this question romanian and hungarian history science was born. Roman rule in Dacia was brief and difficult. In other areas they had a much longer time and better conditions, but latin did not survive. The area of Dacia was for more then a 1000 years after the roman retreat roamed by migrators and still the language was preserved. Hungarians said that romanians are migrators from the Balkan peninsula that setlled today Romania during the Middle Ages. There are some serious proofs that this is not the case, but the question still remain. Here is my view of the things. Dacia was a rough country covered by forests, with mountains and rivers and this provide good cover against steppe nomads for a small population. It had a strong ruling aristocracy that is atested by arheological finds and ancient writers. During the roman conquest some aristocrats surrendered to the romans as depicted on Trajan's column. There was some romanization even before roman conquest. This is what we know. I believe that because of the continous problems that the romans had with the neighbours the dacian aristcracy kept some power in distant areas while romans controlled cities, roads, forts and mines. This aristocracy became latinized, but unlike the aristocracy in other areas of the empire kept local power and real authority.Because of the state of war local levies, fortifications and survival tactics were kept. When the romans were forced out, or left they had no reason to abandon their status and remained as intermediaries between the peasantry and the various migrators keeping their latin language (maybe a sign of status) and spreading it to the peasants. Maybe they also spread the language to the aristocracy of the free dacians that were surrounded from most parts by romans and were to some varying degree under roman authority. This theory it's different from the mainstream romanian theory by placing the accent on the aristocracy in stead of peasantry that I dont think had the time to became latinized and by considering as the main agent of latinzation dacian aristocracy and not roman colonists. So, the brief and weak control kept some local structures in power and this aloud for the survival of a latinized aristocracy. In turn, this arstocracy was able to use local resources to defend the popoulation. In areas were Rome had a long, strong control local structures were destoyed and the population became more reliant on public authority. When this collapsed thay were not able to do much against invaders. By aristocracy I don't mean large landowners but a ruling class that had rights to lavy taxes on trade, to a quota of all production and that held leadership of local armed force made from all able villagers and also had judicial authority. Romanian historians places the beginings of romanian aristocracy with this powers in the period of medieval state formation (X-XIV centuries) but I believe that it was continuous from dacian times.

As others said greeks borrowed many things from others including writing from phoenicians but the bases of their culture were unique. Not only the memories of the micenian world and of Sea Peoples are an explanation. Essential was the emergence of the city states and the shifting power balance. The effects were political division, colonisation but also a completly diferent kind of thinking that combined geometry, philosophy, dinamic politics and heavy infantry with iron weapons. The word revolution it's overused, but it is accurate in this case. Greek civilisation was not tehnolgicaly superior and her tehnical achievements were maybe not impressive, but their thinking was different and that made the difference.

If you use funeral as a indication you must consider Neanderthalians and other hominides.

The only things I know came from Jerome Carcopino "Daily life ...". He had a low opinon on roman education and on roman atitude towards it. The examples he gives from Seneca (the father of the stoic philosopher) are amuzing examples of absurdity in teaching law, an areas where we could expect roman excelance. Carcopino did not liked the ideea of slave teachers.

As one tribe in Ireland was called Belgae it is possible that this influence was spread even further.

Diseases always follow the armies, but is there any evidence that the population of Gaul suffered a large decrese as a result of the war? It is famous the fact that most roman cities in Gaul received the names of local poulations in third century (Lutetia - Paris) and this is a proof that most of the inhabitants were locals more or less romanized. I think that Cesar was boasting and the losses were in the lines that war torn Galia was used with. He conquered a haotic area with many conflicts not a sheltered, peacefull country.

First, for Ceasar an attack on Dacia would have been more difficult. In the time of Trajan roman border was in contact with Daica along the Danube. There were three routes for Caesar and all ment goining thru buffer areas before he could attack the dacians. From the dalmatian coast thru Serbia, from Macedonia north thru Serbia (or NE thru Bulgaria) or from Byzantium along the coast north until the greek cities (that were ruled by dacians) on the coast not far from the Low Danube. Only after this campaigns could he strike at Dacia itself. My guess it's that his campaign goals were to reduce the power of Dacia and to get some gold. Maybe push the border along the Danube like Octavian and his succesors did. Fighting a long campaign with overextended supply lines thru hostile areas against a fanatic, well equiped enemy it's not fun. Trajan had an easier job as later Dacia was smaller and he attacked with many columns from strong positions along the Danube forcing the defenders to divide and giving them no place to withdraw. Despite the numbers of dacians killed in battle and, maybe more, in Trajan triumph. I think that romanized dacians and some romans are the ancestors of romanians.

AD that mountain is full of gold and precious stones and his name, it's in semitic languages, M'r'. It's an obvious proof. Yachh, I think the air contion it's broken. Dam gnomes!

He had plans of attacking Dacia after Parthia (some say instead). Burebista was assainated shortly after Caesar and his kingdom was split first in 4, later in 5 kingdoms.