Kosmo

I am from Bucharest, Romania. Good wines, girls and football. Cheese is not so great.

And Italy has many important sites with conservation problems: Venice, Pisa, Firenze, Milan, Siracusa, Pompei etc The most beautiful country I've been in.

Difference is the source of both conflict and progress. A global society it's a great place for stagnation. As prosperous a uniform, peacefull universal culture might be usually it finds a balance that stops progress. See China, Egypt and even Rome.

God like power to change history? I'll embark the newly united Egypt of 3000 BC in an expansionist policy in the Middle East from Anatolia to Elam. Adopt summerian improvements and spread civilsation on a huge area. Or maybe not

Of course that women postponing their child-bearing will be an important factor, but I think that has to do with the social position of the women. If she can take a decision like that she has a lot of power overherself and in imperial Rome they had a lot of independence. The abandoned children were often eaten by dogs and pigs. It was not very economic to raise a slave from birth.

Pax Romana was much longer then the reign of Commodus because it was the mediteranean world that had peace not the borders. War was limited to the border regions that never had a long period of peace (for example Dacia in 150 years had suffered 4 major invasions and many other wars) while the most important regions like Italia, Iberia, Africa, Greece, Asia Minor had centuries of peace broken only by brief civil wars.

Maybe, a more exact knoledge of the area were the goths first setlled will give us some light. Maybe they just bought the right to passage to the Bosporan kingdom and only later became masters of steppe. I have some maps showing goth migrations or the area controlled by goths, but they don't seem to bee based on arheological evidence.

It's very convicing what you say about not throwing the money spent on the training of a gladiator on the window, buit it's sure that they killed huge numbers of animals brought from the four corners of the world. I don't know for sure if an elephant or a giraffe was cheaper then a slave, but I bet it was not.

The greatest advantage was the republican sistem that gave unprecedented stability to the city. Nobody was very important. A consul was killed or incompetent? Elect a new one. No kings favorits as generals. Everyone had to work his way up and the law was applied to everybody. Compare this with the comotions of Athens, Macedon and Syracusa or with the passivity and gelosy of Carthage. When the republican sistem died the end of the game was near despite the monumental look of Imperial Rome. This and no good opposition to steal ideas from led to stagnation and decline. The Golden Peace of pax romana was an evolutionary dead end.

In order to be abandoned this custom must become illegal/imoral. I don't think that poverty playes any part in this. We know that many people with enough money used it and that many poorer civilisations never had such a custom. Actually, always richer people have fewer children. Compare Sweden and Sudan, urban vs rural and today rich versus poor.

It's a good theory but alans were in the Volga region until the huns pushed them aside. So, I'm not convinced. If the mercenaries are doing the job what is stoping them to crush the goths later? Or to defeat the sarmatians by themselves? How can the goths rule the sarmatians if the alans go home? I believe that goths played a bigger part in this, but I have no ideea how.

Antonescu was Conducatorul=the leader, driver Ceausecu was president of RSR, sercretary general of PCR, supreme comander of the armed forces....

The fate of Byzantium was sealed by the progress of artillery. Not only this made it possible to destroy the walls, but the guns of Rumely Hissar cut the suplly lines. If the attack on the walls failed the ottomans could simply cut the naval trafic in Bosphor and Dardanelles.

I don't belive in a moral law perfect and unchangeble. I say that one did something wrong refering to the accepted morals of his age. Sacking Corinth was accepted in that era by law and morality. Killing jews in the 40's was illegal and imoral for the 40's. I can say that Nero was a criminal for killing his mother, but Trajan was a decent men despite slaughtering thousends of dacian POW's in the arena. The romans had two legal principles that are still used today: "nulla poena, nullum crimen sine lege" no punishment, no crime without a law and "the new law makes effect only for the future". Before judging you must have the standard and the standard must be there before the crime was comitted.

For most of the history of the steppe in the North of Black Sea there are just two occasions when the steppe nomads were conquered by other people. This events are the goth conquest in Late antiquity and the russian one in the end of the XVIII century. The goths moved from the forested marshland of the Baltic Sea to the open plains of the Black Sea. How were they able to defeat the fast cavalry of the sarmatians that was such a terrible foe for the roman legions? The first gothic attacks against the Empire were made over the sea with the help of the greeeks from the Bosporan kingdom, so, this gives no clue about their cavalry. Later they used heavy cavalry in the battle of Adrianopole. How good was gothic cavalry in the time when they migrated from the Baltic Sea? How where they able to defeat the excelent sarmatic cavalry in open land? Some arheological information about gothic sites in Poland: http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm

I want to know when this custom of discarding unwanted children in a pot came to end and if this has something to do with christianity. I know some emperors financed 'colona lactaria', a place were abandoned children were taken in care, but this custom of discarding children was not considered a crime or morally wrong.

You can find something in Mircea Eliade "History of religious ideas" vol 2, chapter 20. "Roman Religion: From Its Origin to the Prosecution of the Bacchanals (ca. 186)."

This means I have to shave my bodyhair?

The offical settelment as foederati is not a conquest so is not covered in what I'm talking about when I'm refering to open resistance to an invader. Raiding was limited to border area where resistance was harder then in the depth of teritory. For exemple vandals and there allies suebians and alans broke the Rhine limes then thru Noricum to Italy where were defeated and their leader killed then to Southern Gaul towards Iberic peninsula. If a defeated army with loose components was able to carry such a trip thru the Western Empire it means that no serious resistance was offered after the army was pulled to Italy. No prolonged sieges, they just gave what were asked. And no guerilla campaigns or destruction of supllies to starve them, either. Again I'm not alking about the resistance of the roman army So, they were willing to give up being a part of Rome and christianity and to submit themselves to "pagans" and "barbarians" that they knew nothing about. Later persecutions started until christianity and local hellenistic and coptic groups were assimilated or destroyed. That is what i'm talking about, they did not care being "romans". [just edited the quote tags = PP]

When looking at the large losses of terittory suffered by the romans from germans in the West and later from persians and arabs in the East I wonder how this large areas with many inhabitants were taken so fast by the small invading forces. In later ages conquests will be much slower despite smaller and poorer populations. I'm not talking of the resistance of the army, but that of the civilian population. If we look at the jewish revolts we see remarcable resistence of the civilian population against romans, but little resistance of romans against "barbarians". I know some of the reasons: the long military service meant few had military experience, fortifications were built during the crisis, emperors were gelous to any other military force, there was no established militia. My opinion is that beside this reasons was the fact that many romans of late empire did not care much about being a part of the empire and that their view of invaders was not so dark as we see it today. The inhabitants of Byzantium resisted alone the forces of Septimius Sever for three years, long after Niger was killed. They had a good defensive position, is true, but so had Carthage that was taken so swift by vandals after a long campaign in unfamiliar conditions. The only example I know of bitter resistance was that of the christians in Lebanon against the first arabian caliphs in contrast with Egypt that was taken and holded very easily.

It's interesting that despite two centuries and a half of existance and some serious infighting it was ruled by just one dinasty. That is more then any other roman/byzantine dinasty. Even the infighting was not so bitter like in the proper empire. Another special thing it's his open foreign policy forging close contacts with mongols, georgians, turks etc. They had some important possesions in Crimeea.

I know they stand on a side. On a couch, at banquets, there are three men on one couch overlapping with the highest ranking on top. They used spoons and knifes, but no fork.

Italy was the most important Depends on the time frame and for whom. As tax money, natural riches, crafts and trade Siria and Egypt were the most important. Because Syria was on the parthian border and the start of the silk road I think it was more important then Egypt. From a military point I think the regions on the middle Danube were critical as were close to Rome with harsh weather and dangerous enemies.

Sacking of the resisting towns was a common practice in Europe even later and to destroy the people of the future capital was a cruel precaution. A factor was the fact that the ottoman army was far larger then the number of inhabitants and that, despite fame, the Mother of the Cities was quite poor. Many fled across the Golden Horn to Galata and others simply survived the three days ordeal. Some were freed or bought from captivity. The fall of the great metropolis is a very important part of the orthodox faith being still depicted in old paintings in many churches. A trauma that never healed. Good thing that they were brave and fought to the last because that was great inspiration for the poor generations that came later.

The picture of Byzantion http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/...le_shepherd.jpg