Antiochus III

Timbuktu not being included is kinda dumb. But I think having Cahokia in there is great--for its time in 1100 A.D. it could very well have been one of the greatest cities around. Perhaps I am being biased being an Illinoisan. Having Athens listed second I think was way too high. yes, it had the parthenon, but what else? some crappy huts and a couple of temples. The cities should have great wonders or great cultural buildings of some other sort. Or have something like a large population (like Rome, not like 25000). Athens just gets all the glory for Greece, and I think other cities had just as much greatness. Oh, and another one that may be worth mention--Palmyra. Antiochus III

Bah, you need to come back to NYC to experience serious panhandling. Like the guy below, who was panhandling at Columbus Circle when I snapped this pic. I gave him money, mostly to feed his cat. Bet you would've, too. -- Nephele Oh my GOD, that looks EXACTLY like how I picture Caligula in my mind!!! Please send in some experts to determine if he's time-traveling. ATG

I would buy some cool shirts--BUT--they HAVE to be black (please no crappy white tshirts!!), and they should be extremely well planned out and should feature some object or artifact. ATG

Actually many books have been written on this issue; no big deal. The "negroid" features of the wonderful Olmec heads (flat wide noses and thick fleshy lips) are not uncommon among many Native american groups, which as any other human ethnic group are hardly uniform. There has never been found any hard evidence of any kind supporting ethnic negroid presence before Columbus, and it's quite unlikely that it may happen in the future. In fact, such evidence would pose more questions and create more more problems that it would solve, specially of the "why didn't" kind; eg, "why didn't the Africans brought their cattle and the wheel to America with them"? The pseudocientific theories that have been proposing the African origin of the Olmecs since the 1970s are a good example of the dangers of mixing ideology with research; being the Olmecs presented as evidence of some purported ancient deeds from a currently discriminated ethnic group (like the "black Cleopatra" theory), denying such "theories" can be explained just by inherent racism. Very interesting. I have really only scratched the surface on this one--I would like to which Native american groups have the negroid (which, by the way apparently is an offensive word) features you mentioned, and of course where you found that. I can think that there have been african chips that reached south america-and other places. Which brings up another question--where did teh aboriginees come from, and how the heck did they get to australia? Same goes for the polynesians/pacific islander groups. I find the answers behind the questions of human origin and migration fascinating, so if we have an expert who has been hiding out there, come and show off!! ATG

I definitely think there is a question that needs to be asked here: What about those olmec statues that have an African facial structure? If anyone can answer that one with evidence to back themselves up, they should write a book. On the topic of the sphinx and the pyramids, I think that some random tribe made the sphinx, and the egyptians made the pyramids. Its clearly not a case of "advanced civilization" moving in and then suddenly disappearing. ATG

I Think GOD built it. hahahaha anti

Very interesting-I wonder if they might use other animal DNA to track other migrations of humans. This could definitely provide some useful insight to human migration. ATG

I would be quite interested in your commments about ROBERT WRIGHT'S LECTURE regarding the question if History has been directed towards both moral progress and self-interest. Well, I don't agree with Robert Wright on this topic; do humans really HAVE to make moral strides in the coming years as he says? He's basically saying that humans will become less violent as we move on--something that comes from the philosophical view that humans are inherently good moral creatures. I do not agree with this. I think that the overall aggressiveness of humans will not change; in fact I believe that some of the institutions which humans use to promote tranquility are violent. I do believe that there exist people who do not have feelings like you or me, be it because of the choices their mother made , or the environment in which they grew up. I believe that there exist people who would willingly cause a world calamity, and unfortunately, our present world lends itself to the allowance of this possibility. That is not to say that changes cannot be made to prevent this; I simply believe that these changes have a slim chance of coming to pass. Antiochus III

There is a great documentary out there, which I believe was posted on these forums. It has some fascinated information on what gladiators' lives were like, using bones to determine levels of certain elements, and to search for marking left by gladitorial instruments. Great video, I hope you find it. Antiochus III

In your battle list, you state that Telamon was fought in 224 B.C., and I am just wondering where you got this info. I have seen 225 a lot, including in a book by Adrian Goldsworthy (the title escapes me). I just want to know what the ancient sources, which date is most probable, and why there is such a discrepancy between dates. Thanks. ATG

Chi-town, IL. I bet many are from here. ATG

I think Herculaneum is fairly well-known to many. the others are flying under the radar, but not herculaneum as much. I'm interested to know what tthe fate of the other sites was; i was taught that herculaneum was covered in 66 ft of hot mud, while ash and fumes covered pompei. ATG

We're dealing again with the persistent confusion of the use of the word "Empire" for two quite different applications: - Geopolitically (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"; such definition would encompass both the Roman Republic (509-31 BC) and the contemporary United States; ie, they both rule over other countries. - The domain ruled by an emperor (or empress), ie. a monarch with a particular title; this is what we commonly mean by "the Roman Empire" (31 BC - 1453 AD). The latter fulfilled of course the geopolitical definition quoted above, but that's not always the case;ie, as for Japan after 1945. In spite of the recurrent allusion to the so-called "dynasties" of American presidents (a metaphorical term at best), I can see no sign that the US may be evolving into a monarchy; au contraire, they are quite more representative now than in 1776. Well, we may be more democratic in 2008 than in 1776, but the case has remained the same: whoever wins the elections will have used methods of vote prevention, cheating, etc. to have gained the office. I believe there is a new documentary out about how GWB stole Florida in 2000. You can choose to believe you live in a true democracy, but the truth remains that it is extremely oligarchal. ATG

Good show Tobias! It's good to know some of us still stand up for and understand honor, duty, courage, and a willingness to risk all for a noble cause and a national purpose. There was an ancient quote that I think is very relevant to both ancient and modern soldiers: (not exact quote, I'll do my best) Brave men are a city's strongest tower of defense(alcaeus?). there is antoher quote as well: the brave are cut down in battle the cowards flee to safety and live (again, just a loose reproduction). both quotes i think are excellent, and from them I gather that some bravery and nationalism is warranted in certain situations. However, it would not be wise to go to war too early or too often. take a look at another more well known quote: quinctilius varus, give me back my legions! - Augustus after the Tuetoberg wald disaster. this is comparable to the casualties taken and lack of gains made during the gallipoli campaign. I am well aware that the gallipoli campaign and the varus disaster were fairly different in many respects, but the overall results were comparable. in both, the invaders were forced to retreat/were killed. both were unbelievable costly in monetary and human resources. people argue that in the teutoberg ambush few germans were killed, while during gallipoli, the sides counted similar casualties. my counterpoint: does it even matter? the two were both offensive failures, and the price was too high. does it matter that the ottomans were experiencing brutal losses as well? Finally-some australians believe it was a sign of the emergence of their modern state, that it created a sense of national unity and pride, a national identity. Fighting wars to "unite" or to strengthen a nation is barbarism. Having a strong sense of national cutlure and pride helps to fight a succesful war. Modern bureaucrats and some US presidents say (and believe) that waging war will create a stronger national identity, will strengthen cultural bonds, and may even help the economy. The reverse of this is actually true; those things will help a nation wage war. Poorly run governments tend to rely on war, and especially primitive (barbarian) cultures relied on their armies prowess to determine the success of the state. what separates these barbarian states from developed nations is economic prosperity, national unity, and well developed education, coupled with less corruption, and less military spending. Warfare actually is harmful to economies, increases military funding (thereby reducing educatory opportunities for the poor), decreases national unity, and increases corruption. Classic examples of these points are th vietnam and the iraq wars, though other wars, esp. long ones support these points as well. Another characteristic of barbarism is a monarch or person with political power with the ability send troops to countries at will, who is not the best suited person to be in a powerful position, and who is willing to sacrifice the economic prosperity and schooling opportunites of the general population. They back corrupt policies, spend more on the military, and unknowingly create rifts in the population. These persons generally have personal interests in mind, or interests of the people that have them in their back pocket. The nation is hurt, fighting a long and crippling war, and the general population is being virtually extorted. However, the propaganda is good, and people believe in their failure of a nation, usually acknowledging that they think their country is still the best because of vague reasons, (more free, etc.) and fail to see fundamental problems with their govermental structure, due to excessive propaganda and certain forms of even more extreme brainwashing. It is in this way that these people in positions of power keep their power, keep the wars continuing in a perpetual fashion, weaken their state and citizens, while increasing their own wealth and hte wealth of their friends and patronizers. They also endorse war profiteering through cash incentives, but I've written enought for the time being. ATG (please ask me to further explain things about this that you have Q's about!)

I have question that is probably to basic for this, but I'll go for it anyway: was latin written without spaces? I know it was writtten in all caps, but it seems on here there are no spaces either. if there were no spaces, wouldnt it be difficult to read? ATG

NOT THAT I CONDONE THIS, but you can easily get Rosetta Stone for free, we did it by downloading a bittorrent file (or something like that). Heck, my borther got final cut pro for free off the internet. I advise that you dont go wasting money you dont need to waste. good luck on learning latin. ATG

I do not know of any such maps, but I would love to see them if they exist. Adrian Goldsworthy shows diagrams of battles bsaed on ancient sources, whcih are very useful, and quite interesting. if you're jsut looking for how the battles played out, his books are good (esp. cannae). His analyzations of battles are great, because they show some misconceptions about battels and prove them wrong (like cannae and the whole half moon thing.) I hope others have more information regarding this. ATG

It is my belief that this topic should be under the empire category considering the changes the US has undergone, and the foreign policy it currently has. As in the Roman Republic, the US empire has kept certain republican institutions, but if analyzed thoroughly, it has clearly made the change from republic to empire. ATG

My high school teacher didn't even allow me to use this site or livius.org. i was pretty disappointed, because tehy tell us to use "databases" some of whcih are very poor sources to use, and some of which have blatantly false info. they say, dont use google, use dot edu sites even thoough some edu sites areTERRIBLE and say things like pilums (instead of pila) and say things like caesar was an emperor (and much much worse, i just cant htink of examples). it is my opinion that ou should be able to use any site that looks like its got good info, even if you found it through google. heck, they said i could not use a dot com source that actually had scanned copies of original sources from the ussr during operation barbarossa just because it had some ads and was a dot com. obviously if you are an idiot and use crappy dot com sources found using google, then that's a problem. if teachers really care, why don't they just check and make sure it was a good source? instead of being ridiculous and saaying only .org and .edu, and automatically grading down without even CHECKING THE SOURCE!!! btw, my school is fairly wealthy has nearly 4000 students, and is ranked very high in the state, has a newspaper and magazine ranekd super high in the nation, yet it only has an ap eurpean history class, ap us history class, while not having any class about any anicents(no, the euro class is only renaissance to present), and no military or ancient rome class. its terrible. and they place absolutely NO emphasis on the military at all. now i know that the battles and wars of peoples isn't all that mattters in history; but not learning ANYHING about it ever (except a couple dates of battles) is just overlooking an important part of history. how can you learn abouth e hundred years war and only learn about agincourt, and at that only learn the DATE???? they think theyre teaching history, i htink they about a select few ideas, purposely not giving us the big picture. this is only a small bit of a rant that could have gone on for pages and pages, so be thankful, and if you have any ideas about this, let me know. i definitely want to have a converstaion about this to explain some of my points. A3TG

For those of you that live in or near chicago, there is the chf starting soon, with many lectures scheduled, including one about Rome and one about the parthenon. Last year I was able to attend a lecture on the environmental reasons for the fall of rome, and was pleasantly surprised by the content of hte lecture as well as the atmosphere (I am only 15, but people treated me like I was a knowledgeable person, and were interested in what i had to say.) for those of you that arent aware of this, i suggest you look into purchasing tickets to a lecture and trying it out. Antiochus III

What a great book, written by a great author. Antiochus the Great

I will be posting a version of this paper on Tuesday night or Wednesday. Due to some requirements/limitations, it will not be exactly what I want/perfect in my own eyes, but I hope to revise it again for personal reasons using some of your advice, too. Having seen some of the essays written on this topic, I think if I write a good one, it will be a great tool for some people to use. Look for the edit of this post as it will contain the essay (in a preliminary stage). Antiochus III

My dad said there is no way this would have been used. Antiochus III the Great

Thank you all so much. Our teacher said Writers Inc. bibliography style. It is kind of basic and I don't know if it will tel me how to properly cite a documentary. If the essay I write is good, then I will probably post it. I do have a limitied time, though, but I hope it will be excellent nonetheless. Antiochus III

As usual, ad hoc Roman legislation can give us some idea of their attitudes. Here comes XII Tabularum Leges: I.3. If illness or old age is the hindrance, let the summoner (before the magistrate) provide a team. He need not provide a covered carriage with a pallet unless he chooses. IV.1. A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed. V.7. If one is mad but has no guardian, the power over him and his money shall belong to his agnates and the members of his gens. VIII.2. If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins If he has broken the bone of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins. If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins. I have a question about the "let there be retaliation" part of the last law you mentioned. The other conseqences seem to be relatively straight forward, but that is SO ambiguous. Could someone explain the reason for this to me? Antiochus III the Great