sylla

A truly fascinating article. He does seem to be heavily focused on South American antiquities though (surely his personal area of expertise), and while he does mention other artifacts, I wonder if the same sort of results are occurring in other archaeological theaters or areas of study (ie numismatics). Let me see if I got it right: based on the anecdotic account of a personal series, the projection of the illegal international archaeological trade market is expected to be the mutual neutralization of two international felonies (forgery and looting) pushed by the invisible hand... Frankly, the capitalist-anarchist utopian (or dystopian?) solution seems a little too naive to me; the old-fashioned hard policy of the Israeli government might be a better tested alternative.

Dr. Conard said: "They suggested that by increasing the social cohesion of early modern humans, music may have contributed to the demise of the Neanderthals". From the mere cronology, those flutes may actually have been from the Neanderthals themselves.

Nuff' said!

It seems a bigger picture is being drawn by now. No hate is greater than that from former lovers; Carthage and Rome had a centuries-long history of seemingly cordial cooperation in common affairs. Their VI century treaty may be mythical, as any other issue from so remote Roman narrative; but the reported treaties from the IV and III centuries BC had probably more substance behind them. And there's no doubt that a close Roman-Punic alliance against the Hellenic-Epirote forces of Pyrrhus was fully operative for many years, scarcely a decade before the opening of the Punic Wars. Even if the many differences between the huge Semitic trade port and the large Latin agricultural community were evident, their close social and political parallels were paramount; our limited sources talked about Punic vote, senate, magistrates and even dictators. It's hard to determine how much of this parallel stuff was for real or was instead due to the cultural bias from our sources (ie, the Punic culture as seen through and depicted by Roman eyes); however, it's quite unlikely it can be wholly attributable just to the later mechanism. Then, it would suggest a quite close mutual influence far beyond the mere military association. In fact, it seems both societies were in the process of Hellenic acculturation by the time they clashed against each other. A great deal of what was stated by the currently lost original pro-Punic sources like Philinus, Silenos and others (always in Greek) can be reasonably inferred from the eloquent Polybian response written against them; - They were presumably at least as supremacist on their own side as Polybius and the Roman Annalists. - They probably concluded the Carthaginian constitution was the best one ever. - They undoubtedly presented the Punic army as courageous soldiers under able commanders that were routed by the Romans solely for: -- Their vast numerical superiority. -- The treason and/or cowardice of the Numidians, Iberians and other former allies. -- Sheer bad luck. -- And maybe even some Roman cheating. Across history and with the development of specialized military units, specific weapons have been idealized by societies and rulers of different nations, like the heavy cavalry by the Persians or the aviators in WWI. When comparing what we know about both the contemporary Punic and Roman armies and societies, the little differences became more significant; - The Carthaginian thalassocracy favored the naval service for their citizen elite. - The Roman landowners favored the heavy infantry service for their own. Conversely, both the Punic heavy infantry and the Roman navy were mostly auxiliary units, as most other weapons in both armies. Hence, to some extent both armies seem to have been a little distorted mirror image one of the other. Interestingly, we can easily find analogous selections for the heavy infantry and/or the navy among the Hellenic poleis; Athens itself selected both options. Any additional sourced evidence from any other UNRV member for or against this model would be highly appreciated; needless to say, unsourced statements are not essential.

I wasn't aware that the Roman arbitrages were required so late; when you mentioned the Livy's reference, were you talking about a Book or a Periocha? I wasn't able to find it. Thanks, but I am not currently able to post images; so if any other UNRV member would be kind enough to take the hand, I will be forever in debt. BTW, I'm not sure if any specific rule applies for the this case, so please ask Maladict or any other veteran member.

Now that is news to me; why can't the US Department of Defense measure the Commies' economies, like any other social variable around the World? After all, the economic analysis is hardly restricted to the official statistics or the reported exchange rate. The market is always there, irrespectively if the commies or any other animal farm ruler tries to deny it. The Soviet Space Program budget was not just an abstraction; the expenditure was for real, and certainly big enough to have a global impact. I used the Department of Defense stats because as far as I know it is currently considered the standard source for this topic not only by the American intelligence, but by the international scholar community as a whole. If you know any other better source, please don't keep it for yourself; if you don't, then we don't have any other option.

Sorry. Lato?

That's an excellent idea; propose it to the admins.From what I have seen, you have many ideas developed more than enough to begin some topics.

It was only a joke, I expected someone to ask for the second place; I'm not good for this, I guess. Of course it's an excellent idea; I'll try my best.

Why the third person?

Vagi's is a nice book and we entirely agree on the contents of your last post, but hardly on its heading ("Some more useless facts"???). Numismatics are invaluable (no pun intended) for the analysis of the chronology, prosopography, sociology, economics, culture, technology politics and even the army from any culture whenever available, and a great deal of what we actually know about such topics on the ancient Roman world is due to the careful study of their coins.

Talking on both Cannae and naval warfare, we shouldn

We would be running for the third place at best, because I don't think anyone would be able to take the first place from Eusebius Pamphylus.

To be honest, Scylla, you don't come across as very objective. Trying to find a neat definition of supremacism isn't really going to work, it isn't a black or white issue (pun intended). What we should be concerned about is the extremity of the views expressed. Most people think they're better drivers for instance, even after they bump into something. Our social instinctt is a positive thing but it does have a nasty underside. The two go together in any society. Polybius expresses no more than you'd expect from a Roman who was proud of his nation, no worse than a modern person describing his patriotic pride. Supremacist? No. Not even close. Go and read Meine Kampf and discover what a supremacist actually is. To be honest, I seriously doubt you can quote "Meine Kampf" any better than Polybius the "Roman".

And on a related not-so-minor frequently overlooked point; the ignored auxiliary Roman navy that consistently bested not only the Punic citizen navy but also those from Macedonia and their Greek and Illyrian allies, unquestionably ruling over all the Mare Nostrum from the Pillars of Hercules to the Nile Delta across all those years of Punic War II. After all, the deadly toll of the Alpine crossings (by Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Mago) was required to avoid the sea route. There's certain analogy to the US in WWII here; a new power simultaneously fighting two almost unrelated but powerful enemies based fundamentally on its naval supremacy. In Punic War II, this fact meant that Carthage and Macedonia were almost entirely prevented from helping each other and from attempting any concerted action. In fact, almost all the responsibility for the Eastern front (aka "First Macedonian War") rested on the navy shoulders. At the same time, the vital supply from Sicily and Egypt was guaranteed. The Roman navy bested their enemies from the very first moment, beginning with the victory at Lilybaeum under Sempronius' command, (yes, the same one defeated at Trebbia) with a little help from his friends, as the song goes (Livy 21, 49-50): "... military and naval actions were taking place around Sicily and the islands fringing Italy, both under the conduct of Sempronius and also before his arrival. Twenty quinqueremes with a thousand soldiers on board had been despatched by the Carthaginians to Italy, nine of them to Liparae, eight to the island of Vulcanus, and three had been carried by the currents into the Straits of Messana. These were sighted from Messana, and Hiero, the King of Syracuse, who happened to be there at the time waiting for the consul, despatched twelve ships against them, and they were taken without any opposition and brought into the harbour of Messana. It was ascertained from the prisoners, that besides the fleet of twenty ships to which they belonged which had sailed for Italy thirty-five quinqueremes were also on the way to Sicily with the object of stirring up the old allies of Carthage. Their main anxiety was to secure Lilybaeum, and the prisoners were of opinion that the storm which had separated them from the rest had also driven that fleet up to the Aegates. The king communicated this information just as he had received it to M. Aemilius, the praetor, whose province Sicily was, and advised him to throw a strong garrison into Lilybaeum... So it came to pass that although the Carthaginians had purposely lessened the speed of their vessels, so that they might approach Lilybaeum before daylight, they were descried in the offing owing to there being a moon all night, and also because they were coming with their sails set... As the Carthaginians saw that they would have to deal with people who were anything but unprepared, they stood out from the harbour till daylight, and spent the time in lowering their masts and preparing for action. When it grew light they put out to sea that they might have sufficient room for fighting, and that the enemy's ships might be free to issue from the harbour. The Romans did not decline battle, encouraged as they were by the recollection of their former conflicts in this very place, and full of confidence in the numbers and courage of their men. When they had sailed out to sea the Romans were eager to come to close quarters and make a hand-to-hand fight of it; the Carthaginians, on the other hand, sought to avoid this and to succeed by maneuvering and not by direct attack; they preferred to make it a battle of ships rather than of soldiers. For their fleet was amply provided with seamen, but only scantily manned by soldiers, and whenever a ship was laid alongside one of the enemy's they were very unequally matched in fighting men. When this became generally known, the spirits of the Romans rose as they realised how many of their military were on board, whilst the Carthaginians lost heart when they remembered how few they had. Seven of their ships were captured in a very short time, the rest took to flight. In the seven ships there were 1700 soldiers and sailors, amongst them three members of the Carthaginian nobility. The Roman fleet returned undamaged into port, with the exception of one which had been rammed, but even that was brought in. Immediately after this battle Tiberius Sempronius, the consul, arrived at Messana before those in the town had heard of it. King Hiero went to meet him at the entrance of the Straits with his fleet fully equipped and manned, and went on board the consul's vessel to congratulate him on having safely arrived with his fleet and his army, and to wish him a prosperous and successful passage to Sicily."

LIvy's book IX : Alexander vs Rome (now it's personal) should be there.

Supremacism is "the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, species, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not". It is therefore an objective definition that leaves little place to subjectivity. If you have any doubt on Polybius' supremacism, it means you have not even read his Book 6. The point here is not if he was right or wrong; the point is that it is wholly a justification on why the Romans should rule the world. BTW, that also explains why you haven't been able to find the evidence that Carthage uses citizens to man their oars yet. I have already written some of its supremacist statements in post # 25 from this same thread. I can of course post some more, but frankly, it would be better if you check them for yourself from the primary source. Naturally, the Roman supremacism was hardly original; as for ancient cultures goes, it was most likely the rule than the exception. On the "Punic "mercenaries" issue... let's call them "auxiliaries" to avoid any additional unrequired stress, ok? I think no additional explanation for this action would be necessary by now. BTW, Polybius referred at least one definitive bona fide Punic mercenary unit from Punic War II that was eventually hired by both sides, a fact that confused the Romans and provoked an unexpected reaction; with a little patience, you may spot the passage within his Histories . A hint; they were neither Gaulish nor African.

Dyme.

Yep. And when you're fighting, if both opponents are right handed and one guy throws a punch (for example) with his right hand, your left hand is on the same side for an effective block while still leaving your right hand free for a counter attack. If one is a righty and one is a lefty? Both are attacking on the same side- making blocks and counterattacks awkward if you're not used to fighting someone who's "opposite handed". I suppose you mean we agree; in general terms, lefties are used to fight "opposite handed" opponents and righties aren't, from a purely statistical effect.

It would be hard to disagree, but such problem goes far beyond Spartacus or even Ancient History itself; some years ago, an editorial from no less than the New England Journal of Medicine was complaining about CPR depiction in TV medical shows like ER and Chicago Hope.

No one taken .

Agreed 110% with that- anyone who has been in any form of combat can probably understand why. In one-to-one combat, left handedness would be a distinct advantage (in formation, not so much.) True, a left hander has the exact same difficulty fighting a right handed fighter, as the right handed fighter has with the lefty. The difference is in the training. Advantage is basically in raw numbers (especially for fast sports); lefties are perfectly used to playing right-handers but for right-handers, a left-handed opponent is a very tricky exception. There are plenty of additional neurological and/or psychological explanations for such advantage; my personal impression is that for now most if not all of them are just educated guesses at best.

Really??? I simply can't understand how using "Mein Kampf" as an example of extreme irrational chauvinism can in any way "sanitise" it.A social study cannot be based solely on hostile chauvinistic texts; that's the whole and only idea behind my analogy, which I still find perfectly valid. From what I remember, Mein Kampf has far more unpolluted idiocy than anything else, and it is certainly not an Holocaust manual (that was a late improvisation from the F

Malia?