ASCLEPIADES

Salve, Amici. An interesting point about Hildinger's book is its treatment of the Patronus-cliens relationship, particularly (but hardly exclusively) on the Metelllus-Marius case.

Salve, Amici. Agreed, Antoninus very well may have authorized the Caledonian advance simply to gain personal military clout, but, on the surface at least, it doesn't really seem to fit his character. (The quote from the Historia Augusta provided above carries a considerable impact here). Unlike Claudius, Antoninus never made his presence felt anywhere near the battlefield and as you suggest there is very little commemoration or glorification of the campaign (at least that survives). Interestingly though and perhaps quite telling in its own right... the largest physical testament is the remains of the wall, which of course, did bear the name of the emperor. It's very presence could give a wide impression throughout the empire of a grandiose operation despite it's relative lack of of a lasting impression as a border. Real problem here is of course that we know almost nothing on Antoninus Pius and his reign. Anyway, it's clear that for any Roman emperor peace was a relative term. Here comes the Historiae Augusta again (cp. V, sec. IV): "He waged a number of wars, but all of them through his legates. For Lollius Urbicus, his legate, overcame the Britons and built a second wall, one of turf, after driving back the barbarians. Through other legates or governors, he forced the Moors to sue for peace, and crushed the Germans and the Dacians and many other tribes, and also the Jews, who were in revolt. In Achaea also and in Egypt38 he put down rebellions and many a time sharply checked the Alani in their raiding". Legio VIII Hispana disappeared in or around Antoninus' reign; maybe in Cappadocia in 161, or during a revolt on the Danube in 162 The hard work of erecting the Antonine Wall by Legio II Augusta, Legio VI victrix and Legio XX Valeria Victrix in 138-142 just to withdrew to Hadrian's Wall in 162 at most, makes one wonder if it wouldn't have been easier to just conquer Caledonia. All these legions had to face the large uprising of the Brigantes (158-162) Legio III Augusta seemed to have been active indeed at Lambaesis against the Moors, as it required Syrian reinforcements and even vexillationes from Legio III Cyrenaica from Egypt and Legio IIII Flavia Felix from Moesia. The latter's presence suggests the Danube frontier was not so unstable. Ioannes Malalas reported that Antoninus began a campaign against the Egyptians who had rebelled and killed the Augustalios deinarchos (probably a prefect). Talmud stated to have been in Antoninus' reign that the Jews were deprived of the right to have their own courts (Yer. Sanh. vii.

No; almost seven years of war, more than two million casualties, the utter havoc of Japan by conventional bombs, the unbreakable Chinese resistance, the opportunist Soviet attack and two nukes were required for that. Even so, the most radical Japanese leaders and soldiers had to been reduced by force or driven to suicide by their more rational fellow compatriots, their sacred Emperor included. No. If you check any etology ("animal psychology") study on violence, you will confirm the universal development of deterrence biological mechanisms that mostly prevents intra-species lethal injury under almost any conceivable natural condition. Arguably, we humans haven't had enough biological time to develop analogous mechanisms in evolutionary terms. In Biology the "survival of the fittest" implies obtaining the best net profit from the available resources, not the physical destruction of the "enemy".

Salve, M Did they really ever have the chance of doing so? Depends what you mean by "did they ever have a chance". The Charge of the Light Brigade had several elements in common with the landings at Gallipoli; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallipoli That was of course an extraordinary post and we entirely agree, but what I was actually meaning by "did they ever have a chance?" is if as British subjects the Australians (and New Zealanders) did really ever had the chance of "easily dismissing" that war as "European" and "irrelevant" to them.

Salve, Amici Do you consider there's really a good reason for beginning a war? (Self-defense is not, because it implies, by definition, that the enemy attacked first).

Indeed, a people who considered themselves to be the genuine successors or descendants of Rome (What we call the "Byzantines") were still in existence, and were indeed a force in Mediaeval Europe. That's inexact; those people considered themselves ROMANS, just as the western Europeans did at least up to 800, and absolutely all other countries did up to Constantinople's last day. And for a good reason; there's no discontinuity in the Imperial succession line, at least up to Alexios V.

Not being an expert, that's certainly my impression too: non-indoeuropean names so alien to English may have many alternative spellings for its transliteration; it depends mainly on the linguistic steps across their translation way. En.wikipedia "Abasgians" redirects you to the "Abkhaz people" page. Google searchs on any of both terms are fundamentally interchangeable. The mountainous terrain plus the constant contact with multiple cultures in both the Balkans and the Caucasus favour the geopolitical phenomenom called... Balkanization, ie. the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other (Merriam-Webster).

Even if such so different populations have been under the same country since the late XII century (more than eight centuries; are they really so different?). Then just think in Croatia and Serbia, same language, centuries-long common history, two Christian varieties; would anyone contest the Croatian rights? We have plenty of such kind of examples both in the Balkans and the Caucasus. I think previous posts showed the general idea is that we should support Georgia basically for economic and geopolitical reasons; that makes perfect sense to me. It seems the Iranic ethnic group of the Ossetians has been widely recognized since the Middle Ages. Not to talk about the Abkhaz people. Nor in the long term either. Agreeing with the sound logic of Mr Lennon's quotation doesn't make me think Imagine has anything beyond naive utopian idealism. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The sudetenland technique is despicable, no matter who applies it. But again, if you're playing the minorities' national rights game, you have at least to be consistent.

They do, but there are other considerations. Abkhazians and Georgians are the same ethnically and share a common linguistic heritage (Caucasian group). Today their languages have about the same degree of separation as English from Dutch. Does Abkhazia really want to be swllowed up by a Russia with which it shares few linguistic and cultural links? Do you mean like Kosovo, Serbia and US? Rings any bell? Personally, I agree with Mr. Lennon: Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for But as far as nationalities' rights are there to deal with, we ought to be consistent and use the same rule everywhere. Powers' fights by proxies are as despicable now as they were back in the Cold War years.

Salve, Amici. From en.wikipedia: "Along with the rest of Colchis, Abkhazia was conquered by Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus between c. 110 and 63 BC, and then taken by the Roman commander Pompey. With the downfall of the Roman Empire, the tribes living in the region gained some independence, nominating their rulers who were to be confirmed by Rome. In the 3rd century AD, the western Georgian tribe of Lazoi came to dominate most of Colchis, establishing the kingdom of Lazica, locally known as Egrisi. According to Procopius, the Abasgoi chieftains were also subdued by the Lazic kings. Colchis was a scene of the protracted rivalry between the Eastern Roman/Byzantine and Sassanid empires, culminating in the well-known Lazic War from 542 to 562. The war resulted in the decline of Lazica, and the Abasgoi in their dense forests won a degree of autonomy under the Byzantine authority. During this era the Byzantines built Sebastopolis in the region. Their land, known to the Byzantines as Abasgia, was a prime source of eunuchs for the empire. The people remained pagan until a mission sent by the emperor Justinian I (527-565) converted the people to Christianity, though at the 325 Council of Nicaea a bishop had attended from the port city of Pityus As the Abasgoi tribe grew in relative strength, the name Abasgia came to denote much larger area populated by the various ethnic segments including Mingrelian- and Svan-speaking Georgian tribes, and subordinated to the Byzantine-appointed princes (Greek: archon, Georgian: eristavi) who resided in Anacopia and were viewed as major champions of the empire

This quotation is from Athenaeus of Naucratis The deipnosophists, volume III, Book XIV. This cheesecake is called Tyroscinum, from the fusion of the Greek words for Cheese (τυρov) and sieve (κόσκινο). In the same chapter, Athenaeus mentioned many other varieties of cheesecakes; in fact, he quoted a whole treatise on cheesecakes by Harpocration the Mendesian.

Salve, Amici Would fruit, such as figs (which are very sweet) be in order? Or were cakes sweetened with honey more likely? Something else entirely? I think they drank their desert, but metaphorically conversation filled the bill. But further, "....Apicius, the foremost Roman gastronome, included a very elaborate dish among his recipes, served cold, in which the cheese was blended with honey, peppermint, watermelon, vinegar and many other ingredients." It could be one of these; Here comes (Marcus Gavius?) Apicius, De Re Coquinaria, Liber IV Pandecter cp. I Sala Cattabia, sec. I-II: I. SALA CATTABIA. Piper, mentam, apium, puleium aridum, caseum, nucleos pineos, mel, acetum, liquamen, ovorum vitella, aquam recentem. Panem ex posca maceratum exprimes, caseum bubulum, cucumeres in caccabulo compones, interpositis nucleis. Mittes concisi capparisminuti iocusculis gallinarum. Ius profundes, super frigidam collocabis et sic apones. Pepper, fresh mint, celery, dry pennyroyal, cheese, pignolia nuts, honey, vinegar, broth, yolks of egg, fresh water, soaked bread and the liquid pressed out, cow's cheese and cucumbers are arranged in a dish, alternately, with the nuts; also add finely chopped capers, chicken livers; cover completely with a lukewarm, congealing broth, place on ice and when congealed unmould and serve up. II. ALITER SALA CATTABIA APICIANA. Adicies in mortario apii semen, puleium aridum, mentam aridam, gingiber, coriandrum viridem, uvam passam enucleatam, mel, acetum, oleum et vinum, conteres. Adicies in caccabulo panis Picentini frusta, interpones pulpas pulli, glandulas haedinas, caseum Vestinum, nucleos pinos, cucumeres, cepas aridas minute concisas. Ius supra perfundes. Insuper nivem sub hora asparges et inferes. Put in the mortar celery seed, dry pennyroyal, dry mint, ginger, fresh coriander, seedless raisins, honey, vinegar, oil and wine; crush it together in order to make a dressing of it. Now Place 3 pieces of Picentian bread in a mould, interlined with pieces of cooked chicken, cooked sweetbreads of calf or lamb, cheese, pignolia nuts, cucumbers [pickles], finely chopped dry onions [shallots] covering the whole with jellified broth. Bury the mould in snow up to the rim; unmould, sprinkle with the above dressing and serve.

Salve, Amici. Here comes Caius Suetonius Tranquillus Vita Divi Augusti cp. XCII, sec. I: Sed et ostentis praecipue movebatur. Enatam inter iuncturas lapidum ante domum suam palmam in compluvium deorum Penatium transtulit, utque coalesceret magno opere curavit. But he was especially affected by prodigies. When a palm tree sprang up between the crevices of the pavement before his house, he transplanted it to the inner court beside his household gods and took great pains to make it grow.

Salve, L Actually, the four Gospels were quoted above. As with any other account from a sacred text, especially if related with the fulfilment of an ancient text (the Psalm), this story may be taken with a grain of salt by any non-believer. However, if we're not giving credit to the evangelists, it would be far more plausible to just consider Jesus as an actual Roman criminal; because in no other instance have the Romans been depicted as simply innocent bystanders of an execution carried on by them.

Salve, Amici Just in case you eventually decide to give it a try, here comes an extract from the NASA website on the Perseid shower of 2008: "Serious meteor hunters will begin their watch early, on Monday evening, August 11th, around 9 pm when Perseus first rises in the northeast. This is the time to look for Perseid Earthgrazers--meteors that approach from the horizon and skim the atmosphere overhead like a stone skipping across the surface of a pond. "Earthgrazers are long, slow and colorful; they are among the most beautiful of meteors," says Cooke. He cautions that an hour of watching may net only a few of these at most, but seeing even one can make the whole night worthwhile. A warm summer night. Bright meteors skipping overhead. And the peak is yet to come. What could be better? The answer lies halfway up the southern sky: Jupiter and the gibbous Moon converge on August 11th and 12th for a close encounter in the constellation Sagittarius: sky map. It's a grand sight visible even from light-polluted cities. For a while the beautiful Moon will interfere with the Perseids, lunar glare wiping out all but the brightest meteors. Yin-yang. The situation reverses itself at 2 am on Tuesday morning, August 12th, when the Moon sets and leaves behind a dark sky for the Perseids. The shower will surge into the darkness, peppering the sky with dozens and perhaps hundreds of meteors until dawn. For maximum effect, "get away from city lights," Cooke advises. The brightest Perseids can be seen from cities, he allows, but the greater flurry of faint, delicate meteors is visible only from the countryside. (Scouts, this is a good time to go camping.) The Perseids are coming. Enjoy the show!"

Salve, NN Well, both events happened at quite different scales. Even if Mohammed's message had certainly affected the lives of millions of humans across many centuries, the biological mechanisms and processes of Evolution described by Charles Darwin had affected all life for at least 3,7 billion years.

Salve, T Sounds a lot like the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava in 1854 to me. Did they really ever have the chance of doing so?

Julian "the Apostate" wrote the comic work The Caesars for the Saturnalia (361 AD), almost half a century after the Edict of Milan.

Dr Lawrence H. Keeley provides us some exceptionally rigorous archaeological analysis that can profoundly affect our overall conceptions on peace and war (probably that has just happen); of course, time only will tell the impact it might have. From the back cover:"Challenging some of our most dearly held beliefs, Keeley's conclusions are bound to stir controversy". We can only hope such controversy would be based on equally rigorous evidence. Ibid: "To support this point, Keeley provides a wide-ranging look at warfare and brutality in the prehistoric world. He reveals, for instance, that prehistorical tactics favoring raids and ambushes, as opposed to formal battles, often yielded a high death-rate; that adult males falling into the hands of their enemies were almost universally killed; and that surprise raids seldom spared even women and children. Keeley cites evidence of ancient massacres in many areas of the world, including the discovery in South Dakota of a prehistoric mass grave containing the remains of over 500 scalped and mutilated men, women, and children (a slaughter that took place a century and a half before the arrival of Columbus). In addition, Keeley surveys the prevalence of looting, destruction, and trophy-taking in all kinds of warfare and again finds little moral distinction between ancient warriors and civilized armies". Judge by yourselves. And Dr. Keeley's page if anyone wants to contact him.

Better US than them; now that's Roman talk.

As to the rest of this thread which is edging into hyperbole on modern politics, I am sending it to the Baths. Who can resist it? Here comes Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History (1832), Introduction: "What experience and history teach is this

Salve, DC With all due respect, and judging by the power balance in both battles, I just can't disagree more with the previous statement. A more apt classical comparison for the First Gulf War would be some of the Roman attacks against the native Sardinians after Punic War I. The flattering of comparing Saddam's troops with Varro & Paullus' legions is just nonsense. The only explanation I can imagine is that someone was trying to flatter General Schwarzkopf. But again, if you decide to absolutely ignore all possible differences, you may find parallels wherever you want. After all, any time a battle is won, the winning side is being "inspired" by Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Maior, since he had no recorded defeat.

Salve, EG As a general pattern there was a progressive shift of administrative and executive functions toward the Church all along the Western Empire during its last days; eg, the appointment of provincial governors was committed to the bishops. Paradoxically, the Germanic conquest improved the administrative status of the still extant Roman Senate, as a real partner and helper of the barbarian chieftains/kings at Ravenna, like the Heruli Odoacer and the Goth Theoderic (always as patricians under the nominal Imperial authority from Constantinople), presumably largely because those Arrian kings didn't trust the regular Christian clergy. As you rightly pointed out, the fierce subsequent struggle between the Germanic kingdoms and the Empire ravaged all that; there are only four known references to the Roman Senate after the restoration of the Imperial rule on Italy, mostly reduced to a municipal status. Both sides now considered Rome and its region as an early feudal administrative unit, a "duchy". The last senatorial decree ever was a 603 acclamation of the emperor Phocas and wife's statues, where it was made clear the real power at Rome was then Pope Gregory I. It is not known when the Senate actually disappeared. During the first half pf the VII century, the lessened Imperial influence was nevertheless still extant, and most Popes were actually Greek. We're now talking on the darkest of the Dark Ages. The administrative status of the city of Rome seems to have been nothing less than chaotic most often than not; the general impression given by ecclesiastical sources is the gangs and mobs' rule.

I think modern Peace theories are a direct development of the study on ancient and modern War. Verbi gratia, here come some of LH Keeley conclusions in his War Before Civilization (1996): Myth 1: Modern warfare is more deadly to the combatants than primitive warfare, because of technology. In fact, says Keeley, the attrition rate of numerous close-quarter clashes, which characterize primitive war, produces casualty rates of up to 60%, compared to 1% of the combatants as is typical in modern warfare. Despite the undeniable carnage and effectiveness of modern warfare, the evidence shows that primitive warfare is on average 20 times more deadly than 20th century warfare, whether calculated as a percentage of total deaths due to war or as average deaths per year from war as a percentage of the total population. Myth 2: Primitive warfare was infrequent. In fact, Keeley says, even among the supposedly peaceful North American Indians, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year. This is about the same rate as for the most bellicose of modern states. The average modern state is at war, in contrast, only one year out of five. Myth 3: Warfare was introduced to previously peaceful primitive societies by Western colonizers. This view is associated with scholars such as Brian Ferguson and others who argued, implausibly, that warfare was unknown until contact with the West. Keeley shows convincingly that nothing could be farther from the truth. Myth 4: Precivilized war was conducted in a fitful, amateurish way, using ineffectual tactics, and usually ended after a handful of casualties. This view, says Keeley, began with ethnographers such as Quincy Wright and Harry Turney-High, who created the concept of the benign primitive war distinguished as being amateurish, undisciplined and not particularly bloody. While there was the occasional use of bizarre and quaint tactics, such as the use of giant flying whoopie cushions that the Inuit used to drive the Vikings from Vinland (page 72), in general the tactics used were brutally efficient; and because of their more precarious situation with regard to food, war often led to tribal annihilation. Myth 5: Modern organized military strategy is more effective than the guerrilla strategies employed by primitive societies. In fact, Keeley argues that the greater success of Western military campaigns has been largely due to their greater resources, not to any tactical advantages.