Kosmo

We know how well some roman artifacts survived despite the fact that they were hand made and not mass produced. And so many nuclear plants blowing up without nobody to pour concrete on them will leave a longlasting mark on the enviroment. Adding to this weapon stocks, chemical plants and oil rafineries that will certainly blow or leak sooner or later. So much radiation and polution will definetly produce some interesting new species :baby:

Khazars were a federation of tukish tribes that was based around Volga and controlled east European steppe. Some were jewish, some christians, some muslims. They fought against the arabs and prevented them from moving north of the North Caucasus mountain range. In the process their towns and settlements along the foothills of the mountains were destroyed. The article in wikipedia it's another proof that wiki it's growing despite the accent on judaism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar The impact of khazar resistance it's difficult to establish. They had good conditions as steppe people were rarely defeated by sedentary armies on their own homeland. Byzantine support was helping. If defeated we could see a slow muslim expansion in the steppe and possible muslim invasions from that directions towards Europe. The muslims actually did expand later in this areas first by the conversion of the Volga bulgars and later by the early islamization of the mongol Golden Horde. This muslim state ruled the areas between Nistru/Dniester, Siberia and Central Asia but still was defeated by lithuanians, poles and russians ending as russian land. Khazar resistence was important by tieing down arab forces, by blocking expansion in the steppe in the explosive days of Islam and by helping Byzantium that was the greatest enemy of the Caliphate.

Pyrrhus had a serious problem when tring to control Southern Italy and Sicilly. He was welcomed by the greeks when the enemy was strong and hated after he defeated the enemy. The citizens of Tarent realized they had to choose between being the subjects of Pyrhus or Rome. In this case no wonder that many disliked him. They opposed Rome to defend their freedom and they lost it to the one that helped them (before WW2 Poland refused soviet "help" against Germany for the same reason) So, he could create his western hellenistic empire only if he was strong enough to do it without and against the local greeks. He also had to face the roman army that had a crushing superiority in numbers. Not to mention carthaginians and their strong navy. He came to Tarent with less then 30.000 men and was faced by 80.000 romans divided in several armies. His chances were slim and he did a great job against overwhelming odds.

Outside today Greece there were many city-states. In those of Ionia started the greek science, Ephes was rich, Milet founded many colonies thruout Mediterranean and the Black Sea, Troia was a tourist attraction and Halicarnas was an important city. Rhodes flourished during the hellenistic period and it was the most important trade center of the time, it had a famous rethoric school and his trade law was the base for roman and modern laws. Colonial city-states often became very important like did Tarent, Syracusa or Cyrene.

I think history it's a complex and fascianting study even when you stick to proven reality. A building with 4 towers in the conrners it's a mosque with minarets. The Ankor Wat was build according to the theories of muslims from neighbouring Champa region of Mekong Delta. Also the buidings you mention in the british islands are build under the guidance of fenician and carthaginian wisemen of semitic stock. In fact the Moscow University building you mention, afectionally called Lomonosov, was build by a visionary dervish from Central Asia of post-tocharian origins, a sufi muslim in his hart and a top comsomolist in his NKVD file. The truth is that all this has no IE (indo european or Internet Explorer)connection but a semitic protomuslim one that you in your imperialistic europocentrism try to hide. The true origins of the word marble came not from IE but from the ancient word "mellon". And no, it is not about that big watery vegetable but from the elvish word for friend. What, you did not knew that elves are criptomuslims?

That was not a seccesionist but an exiled goverment of Rome. There was no Iberic identity to build on and Sertorius was a Roman (as most of his followers) not an Iberian. His political goal was not an independendent Hispania (I think the concept did not make sense then) but seizing power in Rome.

The most strking part it is not that the powers granted to Pompey were exceptional and not neccesary, but the fact that he secured the submission of the pirates without defeating them but almost thru enlisting them. I don't have the sources at hand but I remember that he helped the pirates defend themselves against a Roman governor. No wonder that his son will be the lider of the pirates after his death. He clearly misused the powers he was given after a scare and became the most influential mem in Rome. I think that after becaming so powerfull he made it difficult for anybody else to rule Rome and he was behind comotions and intrigues that weekend the Senate and opened the way for Caesar's coup that suited him well. If he could defeat Caesar, and he had any chance to do it, he would became the undisputed ruler without raising the opposition that Caesar did. I largely agree with Harris as Lex Gabinia was one of the events that led to the downfall of the Republic, but his omission of the events of Marius-Sulla, Antonius-Brutus and Octavian-Antonius civil wars that were unrelated to this law it's what makes his statement weak. The fall of the Republic was a long and complex process.

I do not think that the roman political system was too good regardless if we talk about the Republic or the Empire. The Republic failed to create a birocracy needed to administer an empire so it used politicians with huge authority over army and locals and that led to further problems. They also had no concept about representative democracy and this meant citizens from increasingly distant areas had no power and no interest in the Republic. The most important problem was the power that plebs got based on their citizenship and military service and could use it to extract bribes from the rich politicians. And the rich got richer on war spoils (misuse of political power) that were bound to end sometime. So the Republic had to change in the forms we see today but this are the fruit of complex political relations started during the Middle Ages and not fit for the expansionist slave based Rome. That's a "what if?" to unrealistic for me. But still fun...

Periodization it's always tricky. We have different events that change some aspects of life while others remain the same. History of Rome it's one of ever changing situations I believe, like Pirrenne, that Islamic conquests and the wars between Islam, Byzantium and the Frankish kingdom are the end of mediterranean unity. Also the use of latin in the east after slavic invasions in the Balkans was reduced. The invasions had a social impact by reducing slavery, decreased urbanisation and trade, increased local autonomy and introduction of foreign laws and languages. It's hard to say when but things really changed. Religion, art, diet, ideology, language, trade and crafts all were different by 750 AD. So, I believe that the time between 200 AD - 750 AD is the Late Antiquity, a long period of change in the mediterranean. What we do wtih areas outside Roman control or those where just briefly connected with it like Crimeea? This kind of big words are useless if we try to define them more precisely. For exemple Renaissance has various starting and ending dates and some historians even dont consider it an age...

From Wiki: 1 Constantinian dynasty (306-363) 1.1 Non-dynastic 2 Valentinian-Theodosian dynasty (364-457) 3 Leonid dynasty (457-518) 4 Justinian dynasty (518-602) 4.1 Non-dynastic 5 Heraclian dynasty (610-695) 5.1 Non-dynastic (695-705) 6 Heraclian dynasty (705-711) 6.1 Non-dynastic (711-717) 7 Isaurian dynasty (717-802) 8 Nikephoros' dynasty (802-813) 8.1 Non-dynastic 9 Phrygian dynasty (820-867) 10 Macedonian dynasty (867-1056) 10.1 Non-dynastic 11 Comnenid dynasty 12 Doukid dynasty (1059-1081) 13 Comnenid dynasty (restored, 1081-1185) 14 Angelid dynasty (1185-1204) 15 Laskarid dynasty (in exile, Empire of Nicaea, 1204-1261) 16 Palaiologan Dynasty (restored to Constantinople, 1259-1453) Another important part it's about the civil wars when the dinasty survived that do not appear here. And also the constant threat that this possiblity represented. Also murders and other conflicts that engaged members of a dinasty and are not represented. If we could have a list of pretendants and claims things will be more obvious. There is no absolute bench mark length in time for a dynasty to be robust. The only ones who ruled over a 100 years the Macedonian and Paleologian had also many conflicts within the dinasty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Emp..._.28867-1056.29 If we compare this with France where only legitimate heirs ruled continuously from 987 to 1789 the difference it's striking. That's 800 years! Even before that the Merovingians and Carolingians ruled from early V century to 987, with a dinastic change in 751.

Between the imperial instititution of Rome and romanian political institution of "domnie" of Middle Ages and Modern Era it's continuity of content. The romans were never able to maintain dinastic continuity and usurpers used what was the fragility of imperial rule and the reduce loyalty of the army to start new dinasties that faced the same problems. The empire was divided in three large areas were succesor states ruled. The West adopted the political forms of the victorious germans based on election of the kings, dinastic succesion or division of the state. The areas under muslim rule used islamic theories. Only the East directly continued the roman imperial tradition. This presented problems that played a great role in the gradual decline of the byzantine state. The inability to secure the legitimacy of any dinasty it's an explanation for the contniuous intrigue and distrust copled with frecvent rebellions and civil wars that plagued the byzantine empire until his fall. Romanian "domnie" was an original institution specific to the two romanian states of Moldova and Valachia (also named Muntenia or Tara Romaneasca) The name it's from the latin "dominus" (eng. master) transformed in romanian "domn" and in itself (togather with "jude" from latin "judex" eng.judge) it's a curios statement of continuos political continuity throut the millenia of migrator rule. Slavic political teminology it's proven by the use by domn of the title of great voivod in parallel and for the title of "cneaz" of the ruler of small teritories. Byzantine political tradition reached the emerging romanian states thru two ways. The first was thru the bulgarian emperors that adopted along with orthodoxy byzantine institutions (and spreaded thru out Eastern Europe after changing it) and thru the direct inflence of byzantine church and byzantine legal codes. So, in the romanian states any member of the ruling dinasty could claim the right to rule and later this was expaned to any aristocrat (boyar). The internal conflicts that this type of goverment made possible had many effects and not all negative. The first was that only able rulers could hold the title as the weak ones were overthrown or did not get to it. Another one was the use of foreign support in internal conflicts. This led to formation of aristocrat parties that had outside alliances. A positive aspect was the fact that foreign powers did not need to conquer the country to controll it, but just to place an everpresent contender on the throne. This made possible indirect rule and tribute gathering so the ottomans kept this tradition in place first by supporting claims and later by naming the rulers. The romanian countries enjoied during ottoman rule a large degree of authomomy and the title of "domn" was only affected by the constitutional reforms of the second half of the 19 century. Romanian states kept their rulers thru out the 4 centuries of ottoman rule and were never turned in ottoman adminstrative units (pasalic, sangiac, raia etc) colonized, or even had turkish land owners or mosques. Many features of "domnie' are direct continuations of roman imperial tradition. Unlike other european rulers the "domn" had almost absolute power and owned the entire land of the country (at least in theory). They had also control over the church.

Great Syria was a popular ideea in the aftermath of WW 1 and they never gave up their bid to regional supremacy. Liban it's to divided to have a stable effective goverment facing agressive neighbours. Maybe if the french are more active...

Honey glazed women? Yaammmyy!

Purple remained a sign of soveraignity exclusive to the emperors until the fall of Byzantium when it migrated to the ottoman flag. I don't know if murex dye was the color used but I presume so.

Juliette Binoche should play Antinous, because Faustina it's not around much. I 'll hate it if it's another Alexander with gay love scenes. Hadrian should be more mature and more classy then the tiny desperado.

It's to bad that this loss of power happened. Gradually all christian enclaves in the islamic world are destroyed. This was the story of the greeks and armenians of Anatolia, copts in Egypt, the druz of Syria, christians in South Sudan or Eritrrea, russians from Cecenia and other areas of the empire etc. In the same time strong and scary muslim communities are established thru out Europe, US, Australia etc The end of the civil war and syrian overlords on Liban spell the end for a community that fail to fully unite and that had a smaller growth rate then the muslim. Maybe the extreme islamic opinions of both sunnits and shia made it harder to resist against their union.

Vienna marked the begining of the end for the defeated ottomans, but also for the victorious poles. "Bosnians" are serbs(orthodox) and croats (catholic) that coverted to islam during ottoman rule. They all speak the same language (aprrox.) In Kosovo they are muslim albanians that migrated in an historicaly important serbian region during the ottoman rule when thay were an very important nation. Izetbegovic, like most yugoslav leaders in the '90 s, it's a war criminal that started a bloody war so he can climb a pile of dung.

The hungarians asked the byzantines that in exchange for help against the ottomans they should give them Messembria a port enclave in Thracia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesebar The byzantines were reluctant and the deal was dropped. They also had some islands in the Egeean that the Venetian wanted. Maybe their spirits were high and did not see the situation as desperate as we do. They had no reasonable ideea about how efective ottoman artillery was ans I still do not know how extensive was the damage done to city walls. Maybe with a bit of luck they could have survived that siege, but some strange events brought the fall before they were really defeated. Some say that indonesian Krakatoa volcano blow up and the ash would have made the sky red and strange shadows in the night scaring the defenders. http://www.tughranet.f2s.com/kuwae.htm

The Queensland Government has set up an official book of condolences that will be given to his family. http://www.qld.gov.au/announcements/steve_irwin.html

Some cities like Antioch and Alexandria were hellenistic as much as roman. Others like Ravenna and Constantinopole were great much latter. I voted for Rome.

It is sad, but not really surprising. He was doing a lot of dangerous stuff with wild animals. I have to agree with Princeps, what he was doing was not the approach of a scientist, but of a television star.

Roman expansion left behind many cities or political entities that after defeat or as allies got the status of federated with Rome. Their obligations and rights varied greatly and Rome was not as centralised as it's usually believed. Some had a status that was later lost (like Tarent) This structures were integrated in provinces, but kept their feodus. Something like princely states in British India. What happened with those strucutres? What was the extent of their autonomy (budget, leadership, military, justice)? Was a province divided in federated areas and areas under direct control? Julian the Apostate wrote to the senate of Athens and to that of Sparta so some existed even that late.

For a byzantine "hellene" was an insult and it was used and taken as such. They were "romanoi" not until the ottoman conquest, but until the nationalist revolution of 1821.

The option of the emerors to recruit more barbarians had also political connatations. If you have a "national" army you surrender political power to her. When Rome was a republic this was not a problem, but when it was an empire it was so. Also roman civilians had no military training, experience or weapons, so the call for a general rise would bring a crowd of unwilling, untrained, unequiped, moutinous soldiers. The barbarian succesor kings used the general call to good effect. Even slaves had to came to the call under their owners. But for this Rome needed an ample political revolution that would have shattered her to pieces anyway. The effect of internal conflict on defence of the West it's obvious after 406 when Gaul was overrun by many germanic tribes and the romans fought each other instead of the enemy. They actually made deals with the "barbarians" to use them against each other in the conflict between Honorius and the usurper Constantine III. After this final blow Britain, Gaul and Iberia were really no longer under roman authority and soon Africa will follow.

I was a good show. I don't know why but Byzantium still keeps the image the Latins painted it with during the Middle Ages and so sparks little interest. This show was a wondeful exception despite rarely going to any depth.