Kosmo

There are not two types of communism, that is communist propaganda. Only one existed in several forms and all were criminal. I have first hand experience of communism ans so did my parents and grandparents and I had read a lot about it in the last 16 years. So, I'm in the same time biased against it and well informed. Lumumba and Leopold have nothing to do with Angola. Check again! Romania did not have a nobilty since middle 19 century! It was the third world producer of oil and this was not monopolised by the 7 Sisters. French, german, hungarian etc capital was present on a free market. Before WW2 Romania had a prosper capitalist agriculture based on small farms and capitalist cooperatives while now 1/3 of arable land it's not used. Industry covered the consumption needs for key sectors like siderurgy, textile, food etc. This made it possible that before and during WW2 Romania produce her own fighter and bomber planes like IAR-80, IAR-81 or, under licence, Me 109-E. Of course the devastation of WW1, the problems after the unification, military expenditure because of conflicts in the area and the Great Depression prevent it to have the prosperity of other areas, but it was decent and romanians did not emigrate, but italians, greeks etc came to work here. Hungary had in 1914 the densest railroad network and Cehoslovakia was a democracy and an industrial power. Communism it's similar to nazism in the extent of crimes and worse in the longlasting effects of his duration and destruction. People don't dare to say that they are nazis, but the communists have no shame. They never realized that the foundation of communism it's hate against everything different and they did killed and destroyed everything and everyone that stood out. Hate the rich, hate the church, hate the writers, hate the painters, hate the minority. Hate was the key word. Do you see any dfference between german painting during Hitler's rule and the realism socialist dogma that lasted in communist art until 1990? Or the expulsion of millions of germans from Central Europe at the end of WW2 it's a humane gesture? If you admit that you like a doctrine that was the one of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Beria, Hodgea, Cioibalsan, Brejnev, Racz, Sartre, Malroux, Pol Pot and Ceausescu it's your moral problem not mine.

All I can say it's this is a hot political debate between today greeks and macedonians. The internet it's full of it and this smalls like arena if we hava contenders here. For me the important thing it's that macedonians (at least the elite) were hellenized. Macedonian conquest added to the already established greek influence in the east and not created a macedonian distinct culture. I think that hellenism was really important in the Middle East and romans, armenians and parthians kept the greek language, culture and even political organisation that they inherited from hellenistic empires. The scene with Crassus head at a wedding party between top parthians and armenians it's telling enough and so it's the survival for sometime of large hellenized cities in Parthia like Seleucia. The greek influence faded slowly with the increase use of aramaic and coptic in Christianity and with antiroman and zarathustrian Sasanid dinasty in the East. The final blow was, of course, the Islamic conquest and the new lnguage and culture that he brought. A culture that borrowed some few things from hellenism. An important part of hellenistic heritage was in Bactria that influenced India, Central Asia and even China. But this influence was not as strong as in the Middle East where hellenism dominated for almost a 1.000 years.

Thank you guys, I never heard of rupture before. I wonder what the romanian word it's for this :baby:

If the map shows the maximum areas were celts reached or raided it's fairly accurate with the exception that they don't show them in the area East of Carphatian mountains. If this is intended to show compact majoritar populations it's seriously wrong. They never controlled this areas in the same time and in many regions their presence was short lived. For example the kingdom of Tylis in Thracia never had authority north of the Balakan mountains and it ruled just some 80 years. In Pannonian basin celts were scattered and did not dominate the area. This was done by illyric tribes and later in the Alfold by sarmatians. Their strongest presence was in today Slovacia until Buresbisat's dacians subdued them, but not in Bosnia and Croatia, homeland of fearsome illyrian pirates. Overall in the East they had a rather short and localized presence. But, I still believe that bastarnae (peucini) on Prut river in Modova were celtic and not germanic, but they are hard to destinguish.

I don't believe in moral washing like that. So, if assyrians killed people it's ok for Stalin to do so? Can you compare the bloddiest thing brits did, the Boer War with what Pol Pot did? Did the US imprisioned and executed milions of french and dutch after WW2? Did they killed most german, romanian etc prisoners, including returning soviet prisoners? Do the CIA fave 10% percent of the population hired as informers behind closed borders. Do they recruit 12 years old to spy on their parents? Do you have a personnality cult with mass rallies at your president birthday? The republican leadership makes bloody purges in the party with public admissions of guilt before the firing squad? I don't know what you call comunism, but I know what comunism was and is and it's not pretty. I'll rather be in a american style consumer society then in a soviet prison society. It's absurd to consider them even remotelly similar. Yes, soviets did send some tractors to Africa, but many more weapons and this was done not for the love of africans, but to control them and to start or countinue wars. And the russians at home had little food because of the generous help that a poor country give to other poor countries for stupid political ambitions. They left a lot of rubbles after "helping" Ethiopia, Angola, Tanzania etc. I understand that your political disappointment with your goverment makes you over critical to it, but don't tell me that what was extremly bad can compare with something that was mostly good.

At first I gave you a long response, but it got lost. All I can say it's that you focus on the unavoidable errors of your society and project a biased or uninformed image on communism. Communist goverments were the greatest killers in human history and they destroyed the societies they ruled upon. The Gulag in the Soviet Union, the great famines of Ukraine and China, The Great Leap Forward, the killing fields of Cambodja or the Katyn massacre are just just some well known examples. Communists killed the best of their subjects and forced the rest in moral abjection (maybe a reason for the wide spread prostitution you mentioned) and large scale slavery (not like that in chinese factories, but like that in chinese prisons). They made people spy and denounce each other and ruled thru fear. They were totally inept in economic policy and banckrupt prosperous countries like Cehia, Germany and Romania. They carried many wars of agression and despised human lifes of enemy or subject alike. Please, read more, not leftist propaganda, but the true stories of how this countries were before them, how people lived for 70 or 50 years under them and how difficult still is to recover. Information it's the key that they tried, and partially succeded, in falsifing and hiding.

Thracians were indo-europeans like celts, but they have no other connection being of different ethnic stock. Never heard before of Danubians.

Sorry, I did not get to read all the posts in this topic as I became very angry, but I have some things to say. First- Cuban comunism was always an economic disaster. During the existence of the Soviet Union and the Warshaw pact the countries of east Europe payed up to 7 times more for sugar then the world market prices and sold oil, industrial and military equipment at ridicoulosly low prices. For example Cuba was buying from Romania glass at a price so low that they only wanted the wooden boxes that kept the glass safe during trip, but it was cheaper to buy the boxes with the glass inside from Romania then to buy just the timber from other areas. Not to mention loanes at no interest, direct financing, scholarships, advisors etc. From Castro rise to power until the early 90's Cuba was living from other people money. As to communist statistics they were always made up. Romania was in '89 a major world producer of sunflower oil and sugar, but this were on rations for the romanians. In statictics east germans lived better then west germans, but this was far from true. After East Europe stop paying for Cuba the economy crushed. They use now ox carts and other animal driven vehicules while all the factories build by soviets, romanians etc are good for scrap. People are starving there and prostitution it's rampant. It's a disaster. Anyone remembers when Castro was sending his army in Angola or when he was leading the nonalligned movement despite being a soviet allie? I wish he dies like Ceausescu did and the people of Cuba have a chance for a decent life. If not for communists Cuba could have been a great country now with a large turist industry as it was the most developed country in the islands and it was very close economically and politically from the US. It could have became a Las Vegas of the Caraibeean as it started. PS I lived in a dictatorship and it was really bad. I've seen other countries like Egipt that still have it and it was not bad for a tourist. Now staying at my desk I can admire a dictator in a distant corner of the earth. But living again in a dictatorship...never.

It's many times stated around here that cavalry was not very effective during roman era, but we know that before Rome became a major power Alexander and Hannibal used cavalry with good effect. Alexander's cavalry was using sarissa as a lance and was used for impact not missile attacks despite not heaving stirrups.

Dogs were used by spaniards during the conquest of America. Using them in heavy infantry battles by the romans it's doubtfull. But they still could perform some important tasks.

5.000 men it's not much for a major victory. Most of the bitter battles were much bloodier. But, 5000 kills meant that the enemy was forced to flee because only in the front line engagement the casualties were smaller. This is a sign of the extended use of reason that it's specific for the romans and that made them effective conquerors.

I don't believe that social unrest it's the direct result of social injustice. People sometimes revolt against good or reformist goverments. Usually revolutions occured during ages of prosperity. Ancient greeks were rarely able to have stability despite sometimes being prosperous. Social peace it's more of a matter of the political organisation of a state, of legitimity of goverment and his military power. Urban riots were a rare event maybe because of the different origins and status of the city inhabitants. Annona and ludis replaced the random contributions that the plebs received form politicians during the Republic with a single donor, the only power holder of Rome. So, this were gifts given to the plebs to replace their lost political power and a benefit for those who conquered the world and claimed some benfits from it.

You are right in what you say about the wild story of Josephus, but by refuting the only source you are left to speculate with no evidence. It is logical that things happened as you say, but logical it's not good enough.

I have a theory! In the mediterranean area with steep mountains the control of the roads and of the small plains was very important. So, the greeks, and after them, romans etc, used heavy infantry to block this confined spaces as flanking was difficult. Alexander and Hannibal made use of the fact that they were in contact zones between mediterranean mountainous areas and more open areas and created the best armies of antiquity. Armies capable of using the potential of cavalry, missile and heavy infantry to the full. Romans conquered the mediterranean with their great legions and auxiliary cavalry, but still had a problem defending the large river valleys that were the new borders of the empire. Here it was difficult for the infantry to catch up with the fast moving horse archers form Sarmatia or the german tribes raiding thru forests and marshes. Romans addapted and used, for example, palmyrian horse archers to defend SE Dacia from the fast sarmatians (yazigi) of Pannonia. This system later failed as political problems and separations made recruiting from different parts of empire difficult. As I always say Pax Romana was never felt at the northern borders where war was almost constant. This shows the inability to proper defend this areas and to defeat the enemy to gain a lasting peace. The defence sistem put in place by Augustus was not good for a stagnant and defensive empire and some major changes were needed. You don't need highly trained soldiers to defend strong walls and an army placed along a border can not concentrate to fight a strong enemy. More cavalry, local autonomous armies in depth and a non proffessional army. This was all in place by 700 AD to defend what was left of the roman world.

I think that the internal politics of Carthage are very important in the grand picture. As much as the romans the carthaginians feared succesfull generals and were not sure if they want Hannibal to win the war. Maybe they considered that Barcid rule was a price to high to pay for winning the war and they did not do much to reinforce Hannibal that was acting independent as a warlord and not as a carthaginian general. Another point it's that Carthage was never a major expansionistic military power. They were defeated many times by greeks of Sicilly, Pyrhhus etc. The most important lesson it's that the simpathy of the conquered people it's very important. If the italians would have turned against Rome that would have been the end of it. But this was something that romans knew well already. I think that the roman decision to fight at Cannae was a sound one because you don't win a war by leting the opponent destroy your country. To wait was very risky as he could get reinforced and establish a secure supply line. This did not happened, maybe for the political reasons that I mentioned. We should remeber that many changed their attitude to Hannibal after Cannae and he got the simpathy of the most important cities of S. Italy and Sicilly (the price was the end of hellenism in the West). The romans had to face him in the field sometime, but the error was that they did not trained for his brilliant envelopement tactics that they faced before. What should fave been the lesson of Cannae, the need for a strong roman cavalry, was never understood.

I had tried resinato in Greece. Quite a strong pine taste. I did not like it.

It is true that in the East celts showed some skill for political organisation. The kingdom of Tylis controlled Thracia for almost a 100 years and Galatia in Central Anatolia existed even longer. This is maybe because of the need to control the local populations and because they were already organised as an army. Anyway, I think that between the Eastern and Western Celts were large differences.

The greatness of the empire with the determined and heroic republicans and the powerfull but human emperors fascinated my as a child. Later I fell in love with the roman mosaics, but also with Classical and Hellenistic Greece and Byzantium periods that I never separate from Rome. I'm interested in many aspects of history, but Rome it's my dearest. I think that Rome still has many things to teach us. They made some of the mistakes we make and did better in other aspects.

True, celts were one of the reasons for the european expansion of the Roman Empire. Those weaklings were the perfect enemy: disunited, unorganized, heavy drinkers, individualistic and loving a petty fight, but not a major war. If the romans would not wipe them the germans were willing to do it. In my opinion this is the best reason for why the romans moved in Galia. To prevent the germans establishing a strong kingdom there. Never in their history the celts showed any interest in unity and political organisations. Hibernian chieftains attacked by vikings or norman knights were carrying the same small raids and infighting like the britons a 1.000 years earlier when attacked by romans. PS Celts raided Macedonia during the reign of Ptolemeu Keraunos (that they killed) long after the establishment of the powerfull macedonian army by Philip II.

I see the histories about Caligula in the context of all histories about the first to roman dinasties. None of this rulers it's viewed in a positive light despite the fact that Domitian was not much worse then Hadrian. In history there are always this kind of periods that have a good or bad light. For example all ottoman sultans until Soleyman The Magnificent are great, all after him are worthless. The best documented historical event - WW 2 - has some similar distinction with the japonese being considered high quality and imaginative in the first months of the war and rather stupid in the rest of the war. Of course, they were largely the same, only conditions and opponents changed. If marxist materialist-dialectic historical theory disregarded the individual, other theories put to much accent on a person. Seeing the kind of judgement the historians placed on Gaius Caligula it's obvious that he is seen even more bad then the other Iulio-Claudians and perhaps not for nothing. If it's because he was mad or a reformer or both this I can't tell.

Now that we agreed on money and surrogate currency I think that it will be interesting to look at the roman economic policy. Did they had one? If they did how it was put to life? Romans had a great road network and excelent maritime and riverine ports. This was build for military reasons, but also for trade benefits. Mining was another sector that was under goverment supervision because of it's economical and military importance. Colonisation was made also for military reasons but also with added benefits for agriculture and urbanisation. The army and her needs developed lands in border areas for food, livestock, timber, stone and ore supply. Manufacture was also greatly improved. All this reasons made the army an important factor in roman economy. Romans had money landers, but they did not have a banking sistem and no public banks for the needs of the state. A way to gather money was to inflate the coinage. The large urban building projects were used not only for embelishment and prestige, but maybe as a mean to boost the economy in the way Pericle did for Athens. Romans did carry a large external trade, but this was done by private traders with little public interferance. With all this they did not go much over the economical concepts of Aristotel and state interference was low. Sometimes the public policy had bad effects on the econmy like overtaxation, confiscations, inflation and excessive exploatation for the needs of the grain and oil distributions. Banking, accounting, stock exchange and, more important, business legal entities had to wait for the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

The Bosporan kingdom was a hellenistic satellite state of Rome under his own dinasty. The other cities had roman garrisons and "foedus" treaties, but they were not part of a roman province. This garrison forces were usually under the comand of the legatus of Moesia Inferior. Also in eastern Crimmea was a scythic kingdom that I found mentioned only in russian history books and about whom I don't know much.

Romans had control of many areas and places in the North of Black Sea: Tyras, Olbia, Theodosia. Western Crimeea and the Kuban peninsula over the Kerci straits on the Azov Sea were part of the Kingdom of Bosporus (scytians and greeks ruled by a thracian dinasty after the kings of Pontus were defeated by Rome) See: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3164 http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1784

Of course, you are right about the time needed. Another question will be the interest of making such a dangerous expedition as Carthage greatness started with the downfall of Tyre and Phoenicia. Maybe they were not so upset as we might think. I still think that the distance was to great for them to try an expedition. Usually military expeditions traveled only during the day and put their ships on the shore during the night. An expedition from Carthage had to do that for the long trip from Carthage to Egipt on the Libian desert coast where the greeks from Cyrene might be hostile. The route from Athens to Syracusa it's much shorter and easier than this trip thru the entire Eastern Mediterana. They traveled just one day in open sea. Also bases for resupply with food and water were scarce on the libian coast.

An accurate descrition of the waepon and it's use. I might add that it was used with great succes against a russian fleet. The article claims that "... the recipe for this weapon was so closely guarded that within only 50 years of its invention, the knowledge was lost even to the original owners." and I know of the use of the weapon much later. The secret was not lost until the fall of Constantinopole to the ottomans.