Favonius Cornelius

Here is a thread for general questions on one of the biggest names in the Roman Republic. I'll open with an inquery. What is known of the man's military career? Also check out this election year paraphanalia: Vote Cato! Isn't the use of such handouts the same species as the bribery which Cato classically was opposed to?

Heh, I wonder if Mel got any inspiration from the Getty. Thanks for the info Plautus, sounds like it's going to turn out to be a blast. Look out Getty, here comes a representitive of the UNRV!

Yep, capitalism is the way to go. I just hate it when the ultra-capitalists think that the system requires no adjustments from time to time, and want to make every last function of government a business. What's next, corporate armies? There is nothing wrong with infrastructure being run by the government. Look what has happened with the privatization of telcom and energy. Now you have shitty quality service monopolies like Time Warner who do nothing to improve since they don't have too, brownouts and gouging with power. The capitalist will tell you of all the benefits of this, but I for one don't see it happening. You just give a business, which is always fundamentally greedy, control of something too important to everyone. Ever hear that sound clip of the energy executive joking about robbing old ladies of their money? Priceless.

This was not true until the dawn of the industrial age. Italy, northern Italy especially in the Middle Ages, has always been something of a nucleus of the western world with the largest populations.

Just as in ancient times, the forges and bridges are vitally important. Course, you are fighting just a computer. It's really too bad they never made a multiplayer campaign mode.

Truth be told, they are both fairly comparable I think. Culturally both have great accomplishments in the arts and sciences, however some like to think that the Han had more progress in this area since they have more records to prove it. Unfortunately after the fall of the Roman Empire much of this was lost forever, but with what we do have you can tell the degree of advancement in this area. Religiously both had somewhat open systems of spirituality with comparable Emperor worship. Philosophically the Empire tended towards individualistic and independent outlook from Greek influence, whereas the Han has more of a communal, family oriented look at the world as seen with Confucius. Imperial administration may have been more efficient with the Han system than the Roman, and due to the communal outlook of Chinese philosophy, and more ready willingness to accept the status quo. Only somewhat however; the Chinese Empires had just as many civil wars. Militarily speaking however, the Romans do indeed seem far superior. The Chinese army really was not much more than a mostly spear wielding organized mob. Do just don't see the professionalism nor the same strategy of the Romans during any time period. This is because the Romans far more had to defend and conquer, in conjunction with the nature of the Mediterranean topology, leads to a more practiced fighting form. In the end the Roman influence is vastly greater. You can say that the Roman way has imprinted Europe, all the Americas, somewhat Africa, and even in the East (governmental forms, western cultural aspects). China really only has much to show in the east. I believe this is to do with the fundamental difference of philosophical underpinning. With the individualistic outlook (thank you Greeks), you have peoples always trying to push the limits and advance. China has always relied on tradition, on maintaining the status quo of an agrarian society that ebbs and flows with the harvests. This leads to a stagnation of new ideas and efforts. This is why Europe rose to rule most of the world, while China was always just an overgrown and out of date Empire towards the modern era. This is changing though today, the Chinese are adopting western ways, and now with their preponderant population could possibly rise to greatness if they can deal with the issues of population and energy. Addendum: Stress the geography of both empires. Therein I believe lay the fundamental reasons why each developed as it did. The Mediterranean provided a fast way to connect with vast stretches of land, leading to rapid diffusion of ideas, materials, peoples, and lead to easy conflict and the need to become better. China is one large self-contained land, which lends itself to maintenance of the status quo.

Neat link. I'm sort of questioning your potential saex source though. Damascus steel? Thought even to this day it's exact composition was still a mystery. Blade has a very nice temper though.

If you do an image search on google you can find this: Gold Marcus

Hopefully the recent return of some Getty art work to Italy has not depleated its store of items. This Labor Day weekend I have made a reservation to visit. Anyone been there? I'll bring my camera and hopefully I can set up a photo log of my visit. Getty Malibu

Yes, there are many people who simply didn't have the chance to follow god's teachings, and they are given the chance at that time, not a second chance, check out the spirit of slumber/stupor. I'm also telling you that you're getting out random verses, interpreting them to what you heard from a friend, some priest, word of mouth or maybe even a hollywood movie. You argue the bible is illogical, but for you to argue against the teachings of the scripture based on third party sources is more illogical, and frankly a bit hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if not for the fact that I constantly admit the possibility of my own incorrectness on this subject, (a stark contrast to those who have religious convictions), and my asking for other input on the matter from those who might be better versed in the area. Be that as it may, I've read a number of chapters a few days ago in Revelations, and the ambiguity of the wording makes it IMO a rash statement to say much of anything is certain of it's meaning.

Here in San Diego we let all the killin go on in Tijuana.

They are there to preach god's word for those who will accept it. So you're telling me that Revelations states that just before the end, God will choose some 150,000 folks to go around and do some last chance preaching before he starts splitting people into teams? Heh, guess that is as plausible as anything else. As for the Rupture jokes, there are some very serious minded Christians out there who believe in Rapture. Shame on you!

They are also having some rather large clearance sale it seems, but I haven't had a chance to check around for items and prices. It's still much cheaper at Amazon. 62.99 with free shipping. Oh really? Thanks for the warning, I was close to buying.

Seems that the 'author' has a very limited vocabulary. I'd read some of his books before being sure of that.

Hey folks just as a heads-up, if you open an account right now with online Barnes and Nobel, you can buy Rome at 10% off with free shipping.

I agree with ya, the equites were prestigious, but there is a difference between prestige and effectiveness.

Hmm sounds like a challange to me!

"In a nation run by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely." - Hunter S. Thompson

Because a group of about 30,000 Celts swept through southeastern Europe into Asia Minor in search for loot & land, eventually got spanked then settled and became mercenaries for various local kingdoms. Yes but isn't it true that these invaders came from the Thrace area? I could be wrong, I do not specialize in the Celts, but from what I know I do believe all these peoples are related enough in cultural background to verify my original point. Came from Gallia by way of Thrace is a little more accurate. Ah I think you are right my friend, I've been digging through some books and online and it looks like they are probably Cisalpine Gauls? At any rate, same difference in defence of my point. Rameses the Turks are an entirely different ethnic group than Greek. Much of Greece is actually really Greek and not a mixture. I think we had a discussion on this somewhere.

I think it important to specify exact time periods before saying that. For instance, during the regal period I bet most shields resembled the Greek round shields. Later they became more oblong/oval, (by perhaps Celtic influence) and was similar throughout most other Italian shields with the exception of Eturia and the southern Greek cities. Later during the empire we see the large tower shield form, which curved slightly and was roughly square. (For the infantry that is, I believe cavalry retained the oblong shape). Then towards the end of the empire the shields may have become all oblong/oval again

Because a group of about 30,000 Celts swept through southeastern Europe into Asia Minor in search for loot & land, eventually got spanked then settled and became mercenaries for various local kingdoms. Yes but isn't it true that these invaders came from the Thrace area? I could be wrong, I do not specialize in the Celts, but from what I know I do believe all these peoples are related enough in cultural background to verify my original point.

Teutonic? What do you base this on? The Romans had a lot more Celtic contact.

"My answer is bring them on."

Wow you guys give me so little credit. I did not mean to suggest that there was a verifiable empire as represented in that map. I should have been more clear. I know full well that all the area in that red consists of various kingdoms, tribes, chiefs, brew houses and whatever else. What the map does nicely show however is a general area where Celtic cultural and ethnic peoples lived. A fundamental part of that culture is the honor of battle. With that in mind, if we say that the Danubian/Thracian peoples are not a part of the Celt mix, they why are the blond Galatians in Asia Minor referred to as Gauls and or Celts?