sylla

Rhodes.

Looking for an approximate modern equivalent, left-handedness is regularly considered a well established advantage for fencers; Azemar reported that one third of the elite fencers were left-handed. The most elloquent case is probably Edoardo Mangiarotti, who has won more fencing Olympic titles and World championships than anyone else; he is a natural right-hander who was deliberately converted into a left-hander by his father (and trainer).

Was it hard for you to get the attention of the right "higher-level" editors?

The information on Mithra from that article seems to have been taken, sometimes almost verbatim, from the works of Franz Cumont (died 1947).

By "ultimately fixed it", do you mean the plagiarized information was eventually deleted from Wikipaedia?

Funny that you mention this, in the ancient Jewish sources the Roman emperor is often called a "King". It's seem that some of the people which lived under the empire rule were also confused on this subject. I also believe the Greeks referred to Roman emperors as Basileus, which means king or sovereign. The word "Basileus" is an excellent example of the complex nature of Classical translation; its meaning evolved significantly across the centuries and there' plainly not a single English (or Latin) term adequate enough for any single translation; it was something like "chieftain" for the Myceanians, and Classical Greeks used it for many oligarchic and even democratic magistracies. It was indeed used as a Greek equivalent for both "Rex" and "Imperator". While Caesar wasn't a Princeps some ancient authors like Suetonius saw his as the founder the imperial power in Rome. Founder, perhaps yes, and I can agree well enough. There is a distinct but subtle enough line dividing Caesar's position with what could be considered the role of an emperor, a line which remains irrevocably important. Or at least in my mind. I suppose I've created a small pet peeve about it. You are correct of course, my point is that most books are refer to Rome from a very "legal" and "official" point of view that was could be understand by the Roman aristocracy but probably wasn't shared by the masses who lived under Roman rule. Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret. Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

We agree, and I also find the evidence dubious at best; I was only trying to explain why the unnamed author of the article posted above might have quoted the "300 years" lapse.

Let me guess; now the Parthenon sculptures will turn out to be a forgery from Elgin.

If you are talking about Naupaktos, that would be either the late III century BC (ie, like 217 BC) or the early II century BC (ie, 191 BC).

It should be patently obvious by now that Polybius and other Roman sources were extremely biased and chauvinistic, and also that they never seriously tried to study Carthage, just to embarrass it. The obvious problem for any supremacist agenda (children, please don't try them at home) is that they are inevitably full of holes when compared against hard evidence. Trying to analyze the Carthaginian society based on such sources is in many ways like trying to study the history of the European Jews based solely on Mein Kampf. BTW, Melvadius faced the same problem when analyzing the evidence for the Punic child sacrifice.

From where I am, we couldn't agree more . Money is handy because it let wealth be measured; in fact, any measure of wealth is by definition money; your analogy with the chemical notation is apt.Hot water is clearly one of those goods and services that Wealth consists of and are therefore measured by money. The wealth measured by some millions of rubles or any other currency would undoubtedly have brought plenty of hot water to the Soviet citizens; that the Soviet economy worked right was an obvious requisite for such hypothetical scenario. Clearly, their huge Space Program budget didn't help. The US Department of Defense a trusthworthy source on Soviet expenditure ? Are you serious ? I wouldn't even trust those guys to give me the right time. I've already explained why their numbers are a complete fantasy, but if you think you can learn something from them, go ahead. I don't have them and I am not the least bit interested in them. They are probably even less trustworthy than the numbers the soviets themselves gave. As any other quality, trustworthiness is relative, and I am deadly seriously stating the US Department of Defense is presumably the more trustworthy (or the less unreliable, if you like) source for the Soviet financial data available to us. Then you're most welcomed to quote such figures in this thread.Figures would be handy for comparing the relative economic impact of the various economic factors ongoing when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Other than yours? The information I have, which comes from published works on the subject, suggests that Carthage did not have anything like the proportion of citizens that Rome did at the time. Citizens defend out of public obligation more often than not, so yes, for the record, in front of the whole UNRV community, Carthage lacked a citizen army. Was that simple enough? Well, it's evident that Carthage did have plenty of citizen military men for their navy, not to talk about the army that kept the legions at bay for three full years in Punic War III; not even Polybius (the main primary source for all those published works) denied such evidence. The fallacy of appeal to prestige (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) is always worth a try whenever the evidence doesn't back you, but sadly it is usually not enough.

Sadly, it's essential to realise that Carthage had different priorities to Rome. They had a large navy? Agreed, they did. So if a sizeable portion of the available manpower is pulling oars on galleys, they can't be rounded up to wield swords. Adrian Goldsworthy wrote a book on the Punic Wars that covers this point adequately. Who's talking about the "priorities"? QUOTE: "Unlike Rome, Carthage had no large citizen base". (???) "Plenty of people living amongst them, nominally obedient to their government, but Carthage could not raise a large enough citizen-based army because of that". (???) Simply stated, if Carthage really lacked a citizen army, another explanation would be required.

Unlike Rome, Carthage had no large citizen base. Plenty of people living amongst them, nominally obedient to their government, but Carthage could not raise a large enough citizen-based army because of that. Therefore they recruited anyone willing to fight, and as often happens in these xases, that meant cash incentives. Carthage was after all wealthier than Rome. It's farmland was richer, it's tax base effectively larger, and in the early days close trading links with Britain meant they almost had a monopoly on the manufacture of bronze. By the time the Iberian campaign had ground to a halt, Carthage also had access to silver mines which funded Hannibals campaign in Italy. That is a common line of argumentation; sadly, it is essentially incompatible with the existence of a huge Punic navy (reportedly at some times of 500 ships or more) based almost entirely on the recruitment of thousands of definitively non-mercenary Punic citizens, well attested by Polybius and other sources.

Oh, did they? More or less. In 66 AD, Tiridates of Armenia was crowned at Rome by Nero; he declared that he had come "in order to revere you [Nero] as Mithras" (Dio 63.5.2). According to Pliny (Natural History 30.1.6), Tiridates "initiated him [Nero] into magical feasts". Julian "the Apostate" (died 363) is considered by some scholars (eg, Bidez and Athanassiadi) to have regularly worshipped Mithras.

There are currently 1368 members (not users). The 1988 users online on Jun 26 2007, 10:07 PM included many non-members.

It's the same US Departement of Defense that is regularly considered the standard source for the Soviet financial data; if you know any better source, please don't keep it for yourself. Adam and I fully agree that money is all and all is money, hot water included. The subject is indeed complex, and as we all mostly agree (even if not in full), I will just add a couple of remarks:- If the Soviets fall just for not caring for the people, they wouldn't have lasted up to 1918. - Needless killing has been quite common across History; powers and empires have consistently survived it. It would be interesting to compare (joking aside) the other Soviet annual expenditures previously mentioned (for the 1980's) with their Space program's budget, which we already know.

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret. Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

You're welcome; however, you made a most relevant point; we should remember this thread is for all UNRV members, not just for C & S. If you check on the nice AW link provided by Maty, you will find that such question remained unsettled even in their debate. However, some criteria are consistently used by virtually all contributors. Polybius' argumentation opposed "mercenary" versus "citizen" armies; in practice there is a continuum and specific individuals may have changed theit status, even more than once. For example, Philopemen served as a "citizen soldier" in Megalopolis and a "mercenary" in Crete. For my argumentation I have used relatively stringent criteria, all of them explained in Maty's link; "mercenaries" would then be hired foreign soldiers; no more, no less, The critical terms would then be "foreign" and "hired". I use such criteria because that is what Polybius and other pro-Roman historians did: For example, the Numidians under Punic command were considered "foreign" to Carthage and "hired" by the Punic commanders; However, when exactly the same soldiers fought under Roman command, the same historians considered them now as levied non-citizen Roman subjects, so they were now called "auxiliaries". Pretty tricky, isn't it? C. explained his wider criteria in previous posts; I'm sure he will be more than happy to give additional details as required. Unfortunately, we have no available Punic or even pro-Punic sources, and all our pro-Roman sources are heavily biased, were actually written after Carthage disappeared and they clearly have not much knowledge on the conditions of the Carthaginian army or society; not that they were particularly worried for such fact. "Large" compared with what? Our considerations for the size of the Carthaginian population depends on both demographic estimations and the definition of which populations were actually identified as Punic at the time; estimations vary, but it is regularly admitted for the city itself at least 250,000, and for the whole Punic North Africa at least 750,000-1 million. Some of the other cities (eg, Utica, Hippo, Lepcis) presumably had at least some Punic citizens too; we simply don't know exactly which cities or how many of their men, and we may well never know. In all likelihood the vast majority (or even all) of the peasants were not Punic citizens.

No, we have differences in opinion. Actually not so many (Please read below); in any case, that was not my point; my point is that you are currently "answering" statements that I have not made (please re-read your last two posts above). Just for the record, the last two statements above are identical, as "activity" does not imply any specific frequency. You originally stated there was no communication on the field (ie, zero activity). Now it seems we're not able to deny such communication any more; period. The frequency of Hasdrubal's communication cannot be implied from Polybius statement; we can only assume such communication was active enough to ensure the right perfomamce of 3 or 4 different Punic units under the new conditions on the field.

We may well have been reading different posts, C. They weren't ballet routines either. Neither was it absent by default; those may be the reasons why I didn't state either. Clearly that was not always the case; just remember what I did actually write and check on Pharsalus. Again, that may be the reason why I didn't say anything as absurd as that. BTW, when I quoted Polybius on Hasdrubal, it was not so much for having taken the initiative but because in doing so the Punic commander had used information retrieved from three of four different units of the Punic army; ergo, active communication was there.

I have read some analogous commentaries on the Romans, but I haven't been able so far to find any Classical source for such statements. In fact, can you provide us your source(s) on your previous statement about the Greeks?

Now you have made a number of good points, C. However, the course of the battle was not entirely preconceived; Polybius explicitly stated Hasdrubal had to use his own initiative (3, 106, 5): "Hasdrubal (commanding the left wing) at this juncture appears to have acted with great skill and prudence; for in view of the fact that the Numidians (the other wing) were very numerous and most efficient and formidable when in pursuit of a flying foe he left them to deal with the Roman cavalry and led his squadrons on to where the infantry were engaged with the object of supporting the Africans (from both wings)". It's clear that the communication of the different units on the field was not impossible; another good example is Caesar at Pharsalus with his famous fourth line. However, the more critical maneuver was at the long Punic center (commanded by Mago and Hannibal himself) because any army is as strong as it weakest link. The weakest links here were the Iberians and especially the half-naked Gauls (some 30,000) facing the bulk of the 80,000 fully armed Roman legionaries. By combating in ordered retreat, they had been able to drive the Romans into the trap. With each step back, their line was becoming thinner and thinner. If they had retreated too much, their line would have inevitably broken, the trap would have vanished and the Roman center would have slaughtered them. If they had stopped too soon, the unbroken line of the vastly superior Roman heavy infantry would have easily crushed the Iberians and the lightly armed Gauls. Then, the Punic center had to stop their retreat exactly when Hasdrubal had encircled the Roman rear and the Legions ought to break their order for facing the attacks coming from every side. BTW, the way of communication was no mystery; that was one of the advantages of having the best cavalry.

According to the US Department of Defense, the Soviet Space Program budget for 1984 was 35 billion dollars, almost the double of the American equivalent for the same year.Have you any figures on the other expeditures mentioned above for that year? (Naturally, for comparative purposes). Actually, the North Koreans are literally right; outer space begins technically at 100 km (the Karman line) and the A-4 missile (aka V2) reached up to 206 km of altitude.Just for the record; the A-4 program was a significant contributor to the collapse of the III Reich, because it was by far their most expensive military project (more than 600 million Reichsmarks) but also the less efficient (in fact, more deaths were caused by its production than by its deployment). The required money was cut down from far more promising (but less romantic) programs, ie jet fighters, radar systems, anti-aircraft guns and even the Fi 106 program (aka V-1). The F