ASCLEPIADES

Honestly, I can't see how could such thing ever happen; Frenchmen and Egyptians are not going to vote on this one. America's best selection ought not to be popular among the rest of the world. And that would be true for most if not all countries' elections, for that matter.

We agree.

Salve, K. NOTE: The admins of UNRV have previously made emphatic statements against the posting of jingoistic comparisons, specifically including those between "East" and "West (the kind of "which one is better?"). I here emphatically declare that this is NOT my intention now or ever. Regarding EXCLUSIVELY my provided video, both of us may very well have been reading different documents. For example: (sic) "What is available at the moment indicates that smelted iron definitely was in use in northwest China long before it was used in the south". (sic): "In particular they discovered various ways of making steel by adding carbon into the iron. Once these discoveries had been made, developed, and widely diffused, iron became the material of choice for most weapons and implements". Fortunately (at least for me), this article basically avoids jingoism. (sic): "This is one of the short-swords from Baoji. The blade is of pure iron, with zero carbon, rather than steel, and this was not a better metal for the purpose than bronze. In Roman Europe, Gallic swords were often of pure iron, and were so soft that they bent in use, so that warriors had to fall back from battle and straighten them. The Gauls used soft iron because it was available, not because it was better than bronze..." (sic): "Experience with the new material, cast iron, led to great improvements in its mechanical properties. In particular the development of what we now call malleable cast iron made cast iron a better material than bronze and at least competitive with wrought iron or steel".

It has not started yet unfortunately for I'm currently in London and they closed parts of the roman section to make way for the exhibition... And the worst is that I leave end of this week, one week too early for the exhibition... Salve, Amici. The introductory video page Extract from a BM's note (January 10, 2008); "Following on from the unprecedented success of

Yes, the Romans of the east acted more like Greeks. But by then, why wouldn't the Greeks be culturally identified as Romans. Rome was a multi-ethnic empire and so Greeks calling/considering themselves to be real Romans is reasonable. Honestly, why call the "Romaoi" Byzantine when they didn't know of such a concept. Every time I see the word Byzantine, there should be a footnote regarding its western connotation. Salve, Amici. Honestly? Because when the "Byzantine" pseudo-historical revisionism was developed, it was the only way to try to justify that incredible distortion that was the name of the "Heiliges R

Does the Dime still carry this image? I have an example from th '50s which does Salve, Amici.

polis ? I thought colonies were called "apoikia. And Byzantium was originally a Megarian colony. Then you really have to check your sources. Greek colonies (apoikiai at least) weren't excluded from the πόλις definition; the other class (emporia) were just trading posts. And megarian, megarean, megaric among others are alternative demonym forms for both Megara (the city) and Megaris (the district).

Salve, A. I think you're talking about Klingan.

Here comes Pausanias, Periegesis Hellados, Liber V cp. XV sec IV-VI et Liber VI cp. XX sec VII & X-XV: "... After this is an altar of Zeus of the Market, and before what is called the Front Seats stands an altar of Apollo surnamed Pythian, and after it one of Dionysus. The last altar is said to be not old, and to have been dedicated by private individuals. As you go to the starting-point for the chariot-race there is an altar with an inscription

No, but it's only mercantilism that depicts nations as competitors rather than businesses. Further, mercantilism blinds one to the more important issue, which is that nations contain customers as well as competitors. And killing your customers is bad business.

Here comes the Online Etymology Dictionary: "Semele daughter of Cadmus and mother of Dionysus, from L., from Gk. Semele, a Thraco-Phrygian earth goddess, from Phrygian Zemele "mother of the earth," probably cognate with O.C.S. zemlja "earth," L. humus "earth, ground, soil."

Gratulatio, LJV et Dominae. Little CAM's praenomen is only attested as nomen in the William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology: "CAEDICIA GENS, plebeian. A person of this name was a tribune of the plebs as early as b. c. 475, but the first of the gens who obtained the consulship was Q. Caedicius Noctua, in B. c. 289. The only cognomen occurring in this gens is noctua : for those who have no surname, see caedicius. The name does not occur at all in the later times of the republic; but a Caedicius is mentioned twice by Juvenal (xiii. 197, xvi. 46)". Of course, his nomen come from one of the well known Antonia Gentes (ibid): "ANTONIA GENS, patrician and plebeian. The patrician Antonii bear the cognomen Merenda [merenda] ; the plebeian Antonii bear no sur

Salve, Q et gratiam habeo for that Link; nice site. Considering his area of expertise, I'm sure Caldrail will have a lot to say on all this issue.

Salve, T. We agree. The so-called "Marian" Reforms basically implied the utter professionalization of the Legions, with the consequent end of the citizen Army; Roman soldiers and civilians were the same people no more. If such reforms were unavoidable or not (ie, due to the huge increase of the conquered territories and populations) is a fascinating question, but that's another story.

Salve. C. Sorry if I got lost: in what exactly do we agree to differ, since I prefer the wider meaning?

Nero did not see hadrians works, they came later. I strongly suggest that had Nero seen such works were possible, he would have ordered bigger ones, and in any case, his redevelopment was grander than what had been there before. Even if you're strongly elucubrating again on a "what if" scenario, it perfectly agrees with my stated point there. Quite. Given the 100' high bronze statue Nero had made of himself, one has to conclude who the main beneficiary of this proganda was intended to be. I give up. Who? Do you really think Nero's was the only huge (potentially pathologic) Ego among all Roman Emperors?

Salve, O Excuse me, but I can't follow the argumentation: If he wanted to rename the city and build some huge`palaces, then he required to set Rome on fire? That makes no sense to me. Land clearance. Nero needed to remain popular so evicting lots of people from their homes and businesses (including the wealthy senatorial properties whose ownsers were an impediment to Nero's magnificence). Makes perfect sense to me, given that Nero's ego was no longer under any restraint whatsoever. He had this image of how things were to be and expected his minions to simply make it happen. They didn't have to. Nero had already made the space Salve C; you're misinformed. Nero actually rebuilt the city, as any other Emperor after any of so many conflagrations. Subsequent Emperors required additional space. It just doesn't make any sense; you're just elucubrating on your perception of Nero's psychology, as you're trying to get any potential explanation on why he would stupidely destroy his own property with no conceivable benefit. You're not bringing any additional evidence, presumably because you couldn't find it. What more can I say?

Salve, T. You're not the only one. IMO your break-point is as arbitrary as any other; it only gives Justinian & Co. (ie, Belisarius) the benefit of being considered Roman and not Greek. The Roman Empire was Greek too from the very beginning. Just check it out. Byzantium was the Hellenic polis founded by the eponymous megarean Byzas that was superseded by Constantine's New Rome. Strictly speaking, the "Byzantine Empire" began at 1557 under Hieronymus Wolf; but that "pro-western" historical construct didn't become popular until le baron de Montesquieu's writings at the XVIII century.

For much of its time though, the Roman Empire did not have a fixed capital or a dominant territory. During the third and early fourth centuries it was not centred on anywhere in particular, and Maxentius unsuccessfully fought for Rome to once again become the dominant political centre. Constantinople as the capital of a dominate period empire addressed this to a degree, but with the (final) division of the Empire, once again the western half lingered on for another few decades without a fixed home territory, at times having Milan as its centre, at others Ravenna. Again, the Germany of the Kaisers runs against this - there was no dominant territory (unless you stretch a point and regard it as Prussia) because the Empire consisted just of Germany. Other similar entities include the Empire of Nicaea, Empire of Trebizond and the Bulgarian Empire. Salve, NN. As Romanophiles, we are always at risk of this kind of confusion between these two quite different acceptions of the word "Empire". My quotation here (actually a little modified secondary quotation from Caldrail) corresponds to the politico-administrative definition; it's from here where th concept of "Imperialism" derive. From the American Heritage Dictionary: "A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority". The other definition is nobiliary; "the territory ruled by an Emperor". Now, being "Emperor" a regnal title (the same as Negus, Tlatoani, Khan or Shah), its definition for any individual ruler is ultimately arbitrary. Napoleon Bonaparte became "Emperor of France" just because he liked this title more than "King". Of course, both definitions then to coincide, but that's not always the case. On the first definition, the Roman Republic extended its Empire over all the Mediterranean world, beginning at least since the capture of Veies circa CCCLVIII AUC / 396 BC, even if it wasn't ruled by Emperors. On the second definition, the territory ruled by the last Roman ("Byzantine") Emperors of the Palaiologos Dynasty was still an "empire", even if only Constantinople, its surrounding area and (to some extent) the Despotate of Morea were included. It's easy to see that at first for the II Reich (Germany of the Kaisers) just the second definition fitted (until they got their overseas colonies), the same as Nicae, Trebizond and Bulgaria. A fixed capital is irrelevant by any definition; the "single supreme authority", even with a nice regnal title, can perfectly be nomad, as Genghis Khan wa

Salve, A. I think Athenian intellectual deeds speak for themselves. With all its limitations, their democratic model was unsurpassed along all Antiquity. Most of the time, they were hardly peaceful.

Social Darwinism? Anyway, that analogy is fallacious; the "maturing" of a state (Imperial or not), whatever you may mean, is not biological. Do you need a definition of the word 'analogy'? In any case, you seem to forget the universe functions the way it does because of its fundamental structure. This means that biology will tend to follow certain paths because of the chemistry that underpins it. Since behaviour is part of biology, it too is influenced by the form and enviroment. Since history is the study of the results of human behaviour, we are necessarily studying an analogous subject - although without reference to the medium which produces it - which to my mind is wrong. You can study a subject in isolation and become very knowledgable - but if you don't place that study in context, do you really understand it? A roman pot is found, and someone dates it to a certain period. But what is that pot doing there? What else is there to complete the picture of events at that time in that place, and how does that fit events in the roman world as a whole? This is why context is so important in archaeology. Without it, a great deal of information may be ignored. Therefore, its necessary to place history in context. You can study biology as a life science, as its traditionally taught, or as an extension of the universe and its fundamental rules. Remember - everything is relative. Under the widest possible definition, any Human act is Biology. Under the same kind of definitions, everything is Physics. I was certainly not contending such axioms. ANALOGY (ibid): Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. Your analogy is fallacious because there's no State's equivalent (Empires included) to the predictable and well defined biological maturating process that defines any living being (BTW, that's the main explanation of why viruses are not currently considered "living beings"). For example, you can't define if which step of his "vital cycle" is any political entity at any particular moment; let's say the United States or the European Union; are they today on their "infancy" or their "senescence"? In fact, the "death" of any state or Empire is not a pre-determined absolute. And there's no reason why it must be irreversible. No predictable cyclic pattern has been determined for the Empires' "life". The use of all these biological terms in politics is a metaphor, not a true analogy.

That has been widely discussed in another thread. No evidence has been so far presented of anything remotely like that currently happening. Check it out. No evidence? Have you watched the tv news or read the papers lately? Its happening. Right now. There are european politicians who want ther stake in a european empire and thy're just not going to let the european public stop them. Its only a matter of time if we all shake our heads or stick them in the sand. Sorry, but I do feel very strongly on this issue. As we have discussed on that other thread, there are still some remnants of the previous particular Empires of four individual members of the EU (France, Demark, Netherlands and UK). Those territories are not dependent from the EU as a whole and I suppose you're not talking about them Which specific external territories are under the rule of the European Union as a whole entity? No one has been quoted yet on the other thread. That's required by your own definition of an Empire.

That is an Oxymoron. Peaceful conquest (ie, by bullying) is still conquest. Quite, but diplomacy and deceipt? We're arguing about your definition of conquest, which for the record I regard as military action for the purpose of hostile occupation. That said, the english language contains a lot of variable meaning and conquest can be applied to any situation where an objective is met. If you really want to. Here comes the American Heritage Dictionary; CONQUEST: The act or process of conquering. CONQUER: v(erb) tr(ansitive): 1.- To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms. 2.-To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms. 3.- To overcome or surmount by physical, mental, or moral force: I finally conquered my fear of heights. Subtleties aside, this concept transcends any language: military or not, a conquering country ALWAYS use force, at least in the form of an implicit threat. That includes diplomacy and deceit; it's still conquering. No country remains under the rule of a weaker one. Empires are indeed multiple territories ruled from the dominant member. That always means conquest as the reason for this grouping.

Salve,K. Some claims are based on quite hard evidence and are widely regarded as reliable. In fact, some scholars (ie, Needham) considered that ancient China was the first civilization that produced cast iron. More than 10,000 bronze weapons that have been discovered among the 7,000 soldiers or so are exquisite replicas. The perishable materials have long vanished. The metal proportion of this bronze (cooper, tin, nickel, magnesium, cobalt, chrome, and so on) suggests it was specifically designed to maximize its resistance.