sylla

Most of those 14 territories are tiny islands (Greenland is "tiny" by population standards) and most are current residual (mostly European) dependencies (Timor has only recently been released by Indonesia); additionally, two francophone countries of west Africa and a central Asia former Soviet republic. One can only guess if some visitors may actually have marked their metropolitan country: ie, Finland for the Aland Islanders, Denmark for the Greenlanders and so on. I suppose the "202" figure before Samoa implies UNRV visitors from another 201 countries.

Nicomedia.

very true... i think he was more interested in hes pet chickens then the empire. For all we know, Honorius seems to have been a terrible ruler; however, as usual, we are probably giving too much credit to the personal abilities (or the lack of them) of any Roman Emperor. The Roman Empire (both included) has been by then a centuries-long mature administrative and bureaucratic unit that has survived from many huge threats, notoriously the III century military chaos; its government tended to thrive even under nasty rulers. After all, Arcadius in Constantinople seems to have not been a far better ruler than his brother. The complex processes that eventually determined the Fall of the Western Empire were presumably quite advanced by the early V century. As Mr. Ward-Perkins suggested, there was probably no absolute point of no return until the Arab conquest of Syria and Egypt by Umar in the VII century, when the Roman Empire was definitively deprived from the economic input required for massive military movements.

The mere suggestion that seven hundred centuries ago there was something akin to empirical chemical design deliberately applied to tools' development is indeed fascinating by itself. However, we should better still hold our horses; if I understood it rightly, a regular Paleolithic industry of tools made with the red-ochre/acacia-gum adhesive has not been identified yet; ie, the "superglue" may just have been a one-time lucky accident. In any case, as other UNRV members I also find Mr. Wadley's commentary on Stone Age intelligence unnecessary; presumably much more time is required for any significant change on the biological basis of human cognition.

Caesarea.

All that said, the original question was quite specific: On the overall comparison of the military perfomance of those two tactical units, I would think the unqualified general consesus has overly favoured the Legion from the very first moment. Now, this thread had almost immediately derived to a far more complex issue: why did the Roman Republic defeated the Kingdom of Macedonia? In addition to the legion superiority as a tactical uniy, many advantages were evidently on the Roman side, beginning by the raw numbers; Italy was far more populated than Macedonia. Rome had also the support of the powerful Numidian kingdom and its army, especiallly from its cavalry and elephant units, essentially the same veteran "mercenaries" from the campaigns of Hannibal. Many Greek armies (notoriously the Etolian cavalry) fought on the Roman side too. Probably for the first time, huge auxiliary units share the battlefront with the legions, including the famous Cretan archers and Balearic slingers; even Gaulish hosrsemen were there. Besides, Rome had the economic and naval support from Egypt and even the subjugated Carthage. Last but not least, commander's expertise seems to have been predominantly on the Roman side. It should be noted that the armies of some Greek allies, integrated themselves by phalanx units, had a fair performance under Roman command and even defeated the Macedonians on their own more than once. Even so, the Roman victory was hardly as easy as our romanophile sources want us to believe; after all, there was more than half a century between the beginning of Macedonian War I and the definitive conquest of Pella. IMHO, by now a more interesting question would be why the Macedonians were still able to win some significant battles over the Roman legions, notoriously when Perseus routed Crassus at Callicinus.

I tend to agree with Donald Earl: "Caesar... projected an invasion to Rarthia. Had he lived to carry out this design, the result would almost certainly have been total defeat for the Roman Armiy". As the whole historic fiction literature; for the record, we entirely agree. That's a good point too. Now that is an open question. Out of fiction, Romans actually came very close of fighting the Hellenistic King Alexander when he invaded Italy ... Alexander Molossus of Epirus, the quasi-Macedonian uncle and brother-in-law of the contemporary homonymous Great King of Macedonia. He even attacked the Samnites (at almost the same time than the Romans did) and signed a treaty with the Senate. The available evidence suggests that Alexander Magnus had left the western conquests for his Epirote relatives; Roman historians were well aware that they were at the brink of facing phalanges "in its prime" when Molossus was opportunely killed by a solitary assassin, as predicted by the Zeus oracle in Dodona if we believe in Livy, who unsurprisingly adds Molossus would have been defeated had he faced the Romans. Highly unlikely; the Romans that eventually conquered the West were as hellenophiles as the Macedonians, if not even more. Now with Pyrrhus (Alexander Magnus' cousin) we certainly have a phalanx "in its prime"; he was not "easily" defeated at all; the added forces of Rome and Carthage (the Western Mediterranean superpowers) plus minor allies were required. Each of both Superpowers could easily outnumber any army that Epirus and its Greek allies would have been able to levy. That Pyrrhus was eventually routed when he exhausted his resources, by Dentatus or anyone else, was no surprise; the amazing fact is that so many years were required. I have still to see any objective military analysis that effectively documents such downward evolution. As usual when we try anachronic comparisons, the conclusions are up even before the questions were asked. Such comparisons are heavily biased by the value judgements of later sources; it is unquestionably stated in advance that Alex III was a winner and Phil V was a loser.

I tend to agree with Donald Earl: "Caesar... projected an invasion to Rarthia. Had he lived to carry out this design, the result would almost certainly have been total defeat for the Roman Armiy". As the whole historic fiction literature; for the record, we entirely agree. That's a good point too. Now that is an open question. Out of fiction, Romans actually came very close of fighting the Hellenistic King Alexander when he invaded Italy ... Alexander Molossus of Epirus, the quasi-Macedonian uncle and brother-in-law of the contemporary homonymous Great King of Macedonia. H even attacked the Samnites (at almost the same time than the Romans did) and signed a treaty with the Senate. The available evidence suggests that Alexander Magnus has left the western conquests for his Epirote relatives; Roman historians were well aware that they were at the brink of facing phalanges in its prime when Molossus was opportunely killed by a solitary assesin, as predicted by the Zeus oracle in Dodona if we believe in Livy, who unsurprisingly adds Molossus would have been defeated had he faced the Romans.

I'm just curious; is the name of the represented country priviliged information?

It's sad that William passed away so young; on the other hand, I'm pretty sure he was well known in and out of the Swindon area even before his name was posted here. Besides, he was presumably well aware that he had infected some people with the love for history.

It's not hard to find many serious and careful scholar reviews on the social and cultural implications of the use of torture all along history. Schulz's article and (as far as I can tell) Zimmerman

Antiochia.

...as is my daughter. I am the first generation, in this case! I must agree with Formosus, though. Religion tends to perpetuate itself far more efficiently than Atheism, and the views of the small minority of the truly devout tend to drown out the views of the (recently estimated) 30% who are knowingly or otherwise atheist, and the other 65% who really dont care. On the other hand, no atheist so far as I am aware was ever a suicide bomber who murdered other atheists, who happened to believe in a different kind of atheism... so there is no self destructivity built into the atheist psyche! all mind boggling stuff. Getting back to topic, I am somewhat puzzled as to why this fossil, beautiful and intact as it is, is being lauded as 'the missing link' or as a revolutionary find of a human ancestor. Surely, any primate fossil (and there must be at least a few) from 40 million BCE or before must, by definition, be a human ancestor - Just like the mammalian reptiles of the Triassic, or the lungfish of the Devonian. The intense debate usually surfaces much more recently, when one tries to untangle the branches of the hominid line. Personally, I dont like the term 'missing link'. For me the fossil chain from distinctly ape-like to definitely, albeit primitively human, seems more or less continuous. Maybe we should move this debate to THIS THREAD. As usual, the main problem when comparing atheists and religious people ("theists") is in the basic definitions. First of all; what is God? Any God. Even more important; what do regular people think God is? My personal experience is that, by using more or less stringent criteria, both active theists and active atheists are minority. The vast majority of regular people would be more aptly described as passive agnostics; personally, they couldn't care less if any divinity exists at all.

You know, Biology is not Philosophy; it's hard science. If you don't know what evolution is, there's no way you can disguise it by circular argumentation.

As it was, the Macedonian phalanges were utterly defeated by pre-Marian legions.

A far more serious note indeed; it deserves a most serious treatment.It might take some time. IMHO The slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity by WL Westermann is the obligatory reference text for us here, not only for its extensive research, unimpeachable reasoning and easy explanation, but also because it currently has OPEN FULL ACCESS. Slavery is an incredible complex issue that embraces an immense range of seemingly divergent social structures, even within the same geographical and chronological context, the same in Rome as in Greece, and even in the XVIII century. Its mere operative definition has been the object of much research; we don't have anything remotely similar nowadays. When you read about "modern slavery", it's mostly a metaphorical term for some kinds of human rights abuse, entirely different from the Classical concept. As Slavery unavoidably implies the double condition of being simultaneously human and object to some extent, it deeply affected any imaginable social and legal aspect of the Roman life. In a nutshell, Classical society, culture and economy cannot be understood without thoroughly dealing with this topic. And, as you may have perceived by now, this topic fascinates me, even if I ignore so much about it.

As Holocaust denial seems to be banned in Romania, maybe we should continue this conversation by PM, if you like.

Debate: "a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers". You can debate science vs science or faith vs faith, because those would be homogenous propositions. Science vs Faith is not a debate, no matter how those pamphlets call it. Besides, "biblical science" is an oxymoron. If you disagree, just post your operative definition for "debate", so each of us can select one; thanks in advance. That's because you think that evolution goes there jumping from step to step; wrong. Mama ape didn't give birth to a baby human one day. Evolution is happening all the time; the change of one species into another is a looong gradual transition. We're little different from our parents and offspring. It's a never-ending "chain", and each one of us is a "link" (yes, even the dead ends). By "us" I mean "living beings" (even the quasi-living Virus). Here is an excellent example: please read it carefully. If you disagree, please post your source. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the salute, but you are misquoting me; just check out my post. I said what I said; no less, no more. Lets repeat my first post as clear as possible; the denial of the suffering of the slaves, Roman or otherwise (for example, by you) is as absurd as the denial of the pain of the victims of the Holocaust. ("Reductio ad Nazium", said you) Crystal clear now?

A little digression on the Nazi forced labor system may be in order. The first full year of WWII (1940) when the blitzkrieg crushed France and Germany was still supplied by the neutral USSR, its Gross Domestic Product was 387 billion dollars (adjusted to 1990) and produced 1,788 tank and armored vehicles. Four years later, in the brink of total military defeat and in spite of millions of casualties, immense material losses, absolute economic isolation, the constant advance and territorial gains of the Allies in al the fronts and the heavy permanent bombardment, Germany was still able to increase 13% its GDM and more than eleven times its tank production relative to 1940. Such economic

Joke or not (who cares?): The Caesarian War was a conflict between two former partners that were unable to continue sharing the rule of the already subjugated Roman Republic; as it was inherited by Pompey's sons, technically it continued even after the idus of March (as long as Sextus Pompey was still active) mixing itself with ulterior conflicts. The War(s) after Caesar's death were actually a series of at least three related but independent conflicts; - the Perusine War, - the Triumvirs versus the Liberatores, - the final match between Anthony and Octavius. The Roman Republic was indeed an aristocratic oligarchy, even if with prominent democratic features that cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the rule of Caesar, Augustus and their successors was an unqualified monarchy, not an oligarchy.

The life of Antiochus got a touch of tragedy at the summit of his career, in the seventh year of his reign, when he add the epithet Nikephoros ("bearer of victory") to his titles; he had just seized Memphis and Cyprus after his victorious second Egyptian campaign, profiting from the political instability of that Kingdom, then under two Ptolemies and one Cleopatra. Antiochus was marching on Alexandria, seemingly unstoppable; he was then on the verge of unifying the two remaining major Hellenistic kingdoms, an achievement that would have surpassed even those from his father. However, this was the same year of the definitive Macedonian defeat by Paullus in Pydna; as it was, the immediate Roman diplomatic intervention would entirely turn the tables, and Antiochus' utter humiliation under an isolated Roman senator would became the hallmark of his reign. Here comes the famous account of the episode of Popillius Laenas by Polybius of Megalopolis, who was politically active at the time (29;27): At the time when Antiochus approached Ptolemy and meant to occupy Pelusium, Caius Popilius Laenas, the Roman commander, on Antiochus greeting him from a distance and then holding out his hand, handed to the king, as he had it by him, the copy of the senatus-consultum, and told him to read it first, not thinking it proper, as it seems to me, to make the conventional sign of friendship before he knew if the intentions of him who was greeting him were friendly or hostile. But when the king, after reading it, said he would like to communicate with his friends about this intelligence, Popilius acted in a manner which was thought to be offensive and exceedingly arrogant. He was carrying a stick cut from a vine, and with this he drew a circle round Antiochus and told him he must remain inside this circle until he gave his decision about the contents of the letter. The king was astonished at this authoritative proceeding, but, after a few moments' hesitation, said he would do all that the Romans demanded. Upon this Popilius and his suite all grasped him by the hand and greeted him warmly. The letter ordered him to put an end at once to the war with Ptolemy. So, as a fixed number of days were allowed to him, he led his army back to Syria, deeply hurt and complaining indeed, but yielding to circumstances for the present. Popilius after arranging matters in Alexandria and exhorting the two kings there to act in common, ordering them also to send Polyaratus to Rome, sailed for Cyprus, wishing to lose no time in expelling the Syrian troops that were in the island. When they arrived, finding that Ptolemy's generals had been defeated and that the affairs of Cyprus were generally in a topsy-turvy state, they soon made the Syrian army retire from the country, and waited until the troops took ship for Syria. In this way the Romans saved the kingdom of Ptolemy, which had almost been crushed out of existence: Fortune having so directed the matter of Perseus and Macedonia that when the position of Alexandria and the whole of Egypt was almost desperate, all was again set right simply owing to the fact that the fate of Perseus had been decided. For had this not been so, and had not Antiochus been certain of it, he would never, I think, have obeyed the Roman behests.

This report is everywhere. As paleontology goes, it seems like great stuff, and the "Lemur" and "Tarsius" advocates will certainly have a good time. But the main conclusion of this and many similar articles ("the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists... and creationists)" is simply ludicrous; there has never been such kind of "debate". Science and faith play in different dimensions; period. This only shows the ignorance of the average media. The mere title of this article is absurd too; paleontology must unavoidably "draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record", just because the vast majority (99.9999.... %) of us, living beings, will not make it to the fossil record, for any reason. Only the fossilized

Of course, my horse.

Thanks, Nephele. The slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity by WL Westermann also mentioned it, even if briefly (ie, CIL VI, 30914 for "Gaipor" & 9430 for "Naepor").