Virgil61

Fascinating article. A bit chilling as well when you realize how fleeting our impact is, except for the extinctions we've caused.

Looks hacked to me.

It worked for Newt Gingrich [who has a Phd in history from Tulane]. I suppose historians have as much right to do dictate policy as lawyers, economists and ministers do now in DC. Guys like Victor Hanson or Paul Kennedy have been somewhat influential in putting in their own opinions out there. In the end, from my experience in the Federal gov't in DC, I think it boils down to individual skill sets in areas that transcend formal educational training--how you interact with others, interpersonal politics, knowing when to 'fall on your sword' and when not to over an issue, getting a consensus, getting others to go along with your plan and so on.

Could be, but our decline has been foretold several times in the last thirty years. If you use long-term economic strength for one measure of power and influence than studies such as the one put out recently by Deutche Bank show the US economy predicted to have healthy growth for the next 20 years. The 'human' dynamo states of Asia (I think you meant China and India) have some very serious issues facing them in the next 20-25 years.

The evidence and any reference to Picts (PP's post) may be in the book.

Although this risks another 'origins' debate I'd rather not see the article was to interesting not to show here at UNRV. Stephen Oppenheimer is an expert in the field of DNA studies and the author of The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa. The Myth of British Ancestry. Excerpt: Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage? Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Read up on the history of Italian immigration to America. Around the 20's and 30's Italians made up just under 10% of the population and there was concern about their 'foreigness' and ability to assimilate amongst other things. Columbus was Italian,or at least the CW of the day thought so, and an indication of the importance Italians held in American history and hence a source of pride to new immigrants. Not that difficult to fathom really.

Hold my previous comment, it's working for me now.

I think I've done this already and it didn't work. I'll give it another try and see what happens.

Well of course, God bless the science geeks. But my thoughts aren't of the zero sum variety, liberal arts suffering at the gain of the sciences, but rather what constitutes a common core of an educated individuals knowledge. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with works from the classical era making a reappearance in a common-core curriculum.

My first thoughts were similar to your post. A good read is the "Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom. Love it or hate it it was one of the first to lament the abandonment of a traditional 'liberal education' which included more classical elements.

Understanding that there are several different and valid measurements of what the end of late antiquity might be I still think that 476 AD is as good a measurement--not perfect perhaps but chock full of symbolism--as any out there.

Empires with Expiration Dates An article in Foreign Policy from Ferguson's hyperactive mind that may be of interest to some. Exerpt: Empires drive history. But the empires of the past 100 years were short lived, none surviving to see the dawn of the new century. Today, there are no empires, at least not officially. But that could soon change if the United States

Nice thorough review FC, thanks.

I don't think we disagree in general. Remember that in Greece and Africa both opponents had a head start in monopolizing the procurement of supplies. But you're right he never did get a decent supply train going it seems. I left our a portion of my post that stated he wasn't adverse to risk-taking. I think both PP, P and you hit on it. He's got a choice, build up a decent supply train which takes precious time and he diminishes one of his strengths--speed. Or he gambles as P says and takes the risk of living off the land in order to maximize his stregth. His strength (speed) exposes his weakness or his weakness (logistics) exposes his strength. Still, it takes commander with supreme confidence enough to make it work (not to make this a Caesar good/bad debate).

I'm inclined to think it's not either deliberate nor a weakness so much as a reflection of the type of war he was fighting. He's conducting operations on enemy or non-friendly territory and my suspicion is his the rear area of his army wasn't always secured enough for a stable logistical resupply. So much of the Gallic Wars contains mentions of the issue of food and fodder that it's obvious it pre-occupied his mind. Living off the land of your enemy or having allies resupply you with food and fodder wasn't a revolutionary approach, armies had been doing that for centuries. Criticism can be leveled at him but the proof is in the pudding; he won battles. Napoleon tried the same living off the land approach in Russia with disasterous results.

I avoided looking at this thread till now because I thought "not another racial discussion". Having observed that there have been so many serious contributors participating, I began to read and soon realised that there must really be something of interest here. But, Virgil, your first link doesn't work any more (at least, not for me). Have I missed the bus? To the rescue!!!. The link seems to have changed. Go HERE and click on 'Le 101 finaliste...' in the upper right hand corner. Here it is on this LINK in a different format. Or use this for a different perspective on the theory.

Thank you. True scholarship is a thankless job but I do it for the better understanding of mankind really. Indeed, although I believe the results of #29 from the Lombard region seems to be more closely related to my area of specialization.

Out of scientific and historical curiosity I've recently conducted some serious research into the physical traits of present day Italians that might be of some interest to some vis-a-vis traits in ancient Italy. Here are the results of my inquiry (then click on 'Le 101 finaliste di Salsomaggiore' in the upper right hand corner) along with a map showing their respective regions. The results, I think most will agree, are very interesting. [Edited to update correct link]

Krauthammer often strikes me as a bit of a right-wing nutjob but he always seems to make a decent point or two. In this case a lot of points. Edit: I've been to the Middle East several times in both war and peacetime. Frankly I've nothing good to say about Islam as it's practiced today. It's a religion that empowers rage-filled males to express themselves in violence and is envious of any other culture who shares a different religious background. It's never reconciled itself with science or reason as Christianity was forced to do around the 17th century. The subjugation of women is the hardest part to deal with. It isn't just common, it's the standard in any predominately muslim country I've visited with perhaps the exception of western Turkey and a few neighborhoods in Baghdad and Cairo. Granted, getting shot at, mortared and fired upon with RPG's then raining steel on them or having IEDs explode around my convoys by some of these guys may cloud my POV.

What a fantastic movie, as intense as anything I've ever watched. Hernan Cortez is an incredibly fascinating figure. Ruthless, energetic, driven, with great leadership skills and mean as hell, he may be among the toughest characters I've ever read up on.

Well Boorman did direct 'Deliverance' and...never mind.

Mom and fat kid.

Very cool FC. Thanks for sharing it.

If you've ordered the Cornell book you'll really want to read "A Critical History of Early Rome..." by Gary Forsythe. I'm halfway through it and the author takes Cornell to task on his liberal acceptance of Roman sources. He's extremely critical of Livy of course but also of most of Roman's view of their own beginnings as a Republic. He lays out some persuasive arguments about the nature of the struggle of the orders, the early interactions between the Etruscans and Rome as well as the beginnings of the patrician/plebian split. While I'm not convinced he's completely correct in his arguments I admire his no-nonsense process of critically approaching the subject matter.