Favonius Cornelius

Interesting concept! Doesn't quite feel right though. For instance beer presented like that in America would probably be laughed at by most of the 'tough guys' around here.

Well, I'm not sure it relates in any way to the Fetials, but you are right many do believe that the sack of Rome was a turning point. I've been looking for a thread where we might have talked about this concept formally, but can't find one. Truth is it's probably been discussed in unrelated threads. Maybe start one to discuss the idea if you are interested?

I just thought of an example of what I mean. Here at work we have a very multicultural company with people of every stripe. We have a number of Chinese scientists here, and they have a speaking pattern that is fast and does not seem to 'take turns' when talking. So when they are speaking in their native tounge its as if they are almost talking over each other on a constant basis. They do this with English a lot too and don't realize that it is considered rude. It took me a long while not to be insulted by this trait, but I now realize that it's just a speaking pattern, not arrogance (most of the time lol).

Yes, cultural identity, especially in America, is a difficult thing to tack down, since it changes as each year goes by. You could argue until you were blue in the face about what exactly constitutes an 'Americanized' citizen. Despite it all, almost like some primordial tribal instinct, isn't it easy to pick out folks born in other countries? Anything from an off accent to a slightly different hair style, to wearing your pants wrong. The details don't matter, but what does matter is societal glue. It's human instinct to reject someone not of one's tribe, and when this instinct is triggered it causes societal stress. Day to day we can use our reason to say 'this is just another human, he is no different from me' but not all of us are intelligent nor logical, and even the best of us can let our emotions get the better of us on a bad day. This glue is worth preserving in whatever way you can, because it builds a community spirit and cooperation, which leads to a strong nation. When you admit large populations of people who fall into this 'other tribe' category, you will cause societal instability no matter how illogical it might seem to one's well meaning ideology.

Did the Romans use paper of some kind or was papyrus the only paper form?

Heh. Ya, the ritual dates back to a time when you could potentially run back to the city behind the walls all in a day's time. Back when war was typically declared on a nearby city or town which held similar rites, rituals and background.

Old man Pan at the helm.

If you lived in southern California you might see why people out on the border are paranoid of the Mexican migration. There are many parts which are totally Spanish speaking and not of an American culture as it is. More importantly you also have desperate people running the border on a constant basis by any means possible, leading to death and shoot outs. Couple that with drug running, and you have a situation that isn't just about illegality, you have a real threat to your way of life. In a way it is like an invasion. Individually people vote to protect their identity by voting for tough measures on the national scale to stop this. The argument that the nation needs them to have a strong economy is false. What using this second class citizen labor really does is create a false economy for the future, and it focuses more wealth into the rich who own the corporations which exploit. If these corporations had to hire American citizens, then they would be forced to pay real wages, which would have to increase since the minimum wage is a joke right now. Illegal immigration has much greater implications than some honest folk looking for work.

That's fine MCP, then I think we are in agreement. I was responding to your previous post (in the parent thread now separated), and through our discussions I think the original points may have been lost.

The point I am getting at is people in the ancient world had far better immunity than today, because those who would have died for lack of modern medicine and methods would be gone, and the strong left. Our modern medicine in its various forms leads people to be weaker over all, and it gets worse for the western nations. That's why people have more allergies and asthma in the western world as opposed to third world nations, because we are too isolated from the impurities of the world and don't let our bodies become strong from the struggle against infections. The company I work for specifically develops pharmaceuticals for inflammatory symptoms, so I

Don't really know what you are referring to with 'this sort of thing.' There is nothing wrong with a nation to wanting to maintain its identity. Its funny only America gets criticized for such concepts because everyone forces it to perpetually be the melting pot of the world, while other countries across the world its natural and accepted for them to maintain their cultural heritage and identity, from France to Austria to Japan.

If we put our resources and mind to it in a serious manner, we could control the border and the people currently within the country illegally easily. It's a failure now because it is designed to be such. All politicians are interested in appeasing big farms and big business, which profit well off of manipulating those without citizen rights, which in turn hurts all Americans and America in the long run. America always has this problem with long term sight. All its solutions always seem to be geared to the next election cycle, and I think this is becoming more and more of a problem in a world that seems to be expanding in various ways ever faster. Now, if America wants to maintain the status quo, it will slow immigration and make it easier for families to prosper as opposed to the middle class crunch going on today. Population would rise much slower than with immigration. If America does not care about the status quo, all it need to is open the gates to immigration and the minority populations will rise dramatically, as will population.

What are your sources on this one MCP? Johns Hopkins epidemiologist Les Roberts' work on the effects of war in the Congo (see CNN for some popular coverage) is my source for the general claim that war kills far more by spreading disease/famine than by spreading bullets. From these better-established facts, we can evaluate less certain, prior historical claims regarding mortality figures. For example, in the European conquest of the New World, we have reports of enormously high fatality numbers corresponding with relatively small number conflicts. An easy way to reconcile these two sets of figures is to suppose that a large number of casaulties were caused by disease and famine, and we do have independent evidence for epidemics spread by Europeans in the New World (see Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel). Given the universal--war kills more than just those on the battlefield--we can deduce that more were killed by Caesar's troops than would have been found on the battlefield. How much more? Again, we can proceed from the known to the unknown. In the Roberts work, it was often an order of magnitude or more. Therefore, even if Caesar were overestimating the number he killed by a "mere" 50%, we can guess with a fair amount of certainty that Caesar's overestimate is still an underestimate. I am not familiar with the results seen in that Congo example, but the state of immunity in the ancient world as opposed to the modern, even in the Congo, is a very different thing I think making a comparison difficult. Even people in the Congo have access to vaccinations, and also the current state of the world's infectious biomass is a different thing. As far as the New World example is concerned, as Virgil pointed out, intercontinental contact is a much different thing than a few hundred miles away. In order to prove your point MCP you would have to give ancient examples of such a phenomenon (and given your track record for pointing out what you believe to be proper and expert historical analysis, I find your provided proof here a little surprising). It would seem to be fair to look for epidemics in Hispania when the Romans fought in the area, or in Greece and Macedonia when Flaminimus fought Philip. Or in the East when Pompey or Caesar were marching around. I do not recall anything extraordinary in any of these cases to my knowledge. That's not to say that people did not get sick or had a tough time, but its not to say either that the lands were depopulated. Gaul and the Italians had much contact in trade, so if sickness was to be spread you would have imagined it would have happened already by that route. Even when Caesar's legions were marching through Gaul, they tended to stick to their own camps rather than excessively intermingle. Surely if all the Gauls were busy getting sick, he would not have to fight any wars to begin with.

Health is important. Some people seem to think that a large population is vital to future power in the world. I do not believe this, because that same population, while an ample labor pool, is also a massive weight dragging the state down. The US is in a unique position, yet again in history, to tailor and control its population to suit its changing needs, unlike China or India for instance.

What's this, conjecture from Cato?! Common sense perhaps? What are your sources on this one MCP?

The nature of US population growth is a touchy topic. Population is a good thing for America in total I think, but just how should that population grow? Is it right that the Hispanic population can cross the border and get into the US more easily than new African, Asian or caucasian populations? Is it right to maintain the current cultural makeup of the US (white dominant with minority highlights)? With interracial marriage becoming ever more common, does it really matter? My own progeny will be a near equal mix of Italian, Polish, German, French, Irish and Korean.

Stonehenge makes list in new seven wonders vote LONDON (Reuters) - Only one of the ancient wonders of the world still survives -- now history lovers are being invited to choose a new list of seven. Among 21 locations shortlisted for the worldwide vote is Stonehenge, the only British landmark selected. The 5,000-year-old stones on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire, will be up against sites including the Acropolis in Athens; the Statue of Liberty in New York; and the last remaining original wonder, the Pyramids of Giza in Cairo. (Reuters)

I was wondering if you were working on this Decimus, nice work!

There is no evidence to suggest that Gaul was left anything close to a desert. Now how you consider Spain's 100 years war (200-100BC of constant conflict), and Africa after the destruction of Carthrage, as shining examples of settlement, is beyond me. Considering the size and population of Gaul, the fact that he had to deal with only one major rebellion in that time and the inheritors of empire after him with little more, his conquest of Gaul was one of the lesser bloody conquests. Hispania, Britannia, Judea, Pannonia, Moesa, Italia, all I think saw worse in total.

Compared to Gaul, Dacia and environs is not different. Actually a tactically easier situation. Parthia is another matter, but then Caesar had the entire empire at his beck and call at this point. Hardly a stretch of the imagination, since later lesser men pulled off at least one of those.

That's good to hear. I always have wondered about this one, does anyone have any pictures? From what I understand it's mostly just an earth mound, not much to look at or protect.

Your a long time member and you've contributed much to the military knowledge of this forum. Thanks for being around my friend.

Da Bears first and always. It's hard to care about basketball after the 90's Bulls, just like it's hard to care about football after the '86 Bears. Seriously, that was one of the most famous combinations of players and coach of all time. I remember as a kid, watching the Fridge literally just wade his way through the defense to make a touchdown. Sheer and brutal determination to win...beautiful. This year though the Bears are lookin good, I'll be watching though I'm not much of a sports guy.

Wow bravo Sertorius, nice post! Since you are as well read on the man, in your opinion what was his biggest weakness as a leader and general?

Why thank you! Er....huh? Ya I know I've been lazy, I will get to it give me some time. I promise.