Onasander

I can't wait till they make a movie of this expedition.... It's hot, lots of desert.... army marching. A few mud huts, a occasional caveman the army roughs up for little apparent reason.... and at the end a big old stinking desolate swamp of stagnant death. Slap up a mud statue of Nero in the swampy desolation, "worship it with curses" and march back. I think the US had it right with Louise and Clarke. A few canoes, and cartography. The Romans had a grasp on mapping, they could of pulled this off on the cheap.... Or just asked around. Sure someone got bored and decided to walk that sidistance.

Is your mod during the Republic, or after Augustus? Augustus was a tyrant and made a mockery of the offices, toying with this office in particular. Ten years was expected but not always the case in the republic. Under the empire, it varied Dynasty by Dynasty, becoming in the end a worthless imperial rank in Byzantine Courts. You'll have to be pretty specific for which era you want for more info. Or check out the wikipedia page. I wonder if any consul ever tried to Veto a emperor..... it was after all, a "republic".... isn't that right Caldrail.

http://www.iraqinews.com/features/exclusive-isis-document-sets-prices-christian-yazidi-slaves/ So.... did ancient armies try to do this too? Any evidence of it?

Exactly... you can't pinpoint it. Why? Cause the Senate survived until the Latin invasions of the Roman capital of Constantinople. It went through repeated purges, over and over again. It wasn't a republic anymore, anymore than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a republic. He purged too, changing from a democracy to a dictatorship. I really don't know how you can seriously take this ludicrous "Flat Earther" argument, one you utterly lack any reasonable stance in, to pretend the republic went on for centuries after it very clearly ceased to be, and blame Constantine of all people for it's disappearance.... the Senate in Rome continued on long after that. Just wasn't a republic anymore under the Emperors or the Goths. Reason it's so hard to pinpoint is because the dictators themselves made it purposely obsfucant. It was very clearly their design to make it look like they were protecting Rome and it's institutions.... but they were also recording smashing them into bits and holding them as trophies, ejaculating and outright ignoring them.... at times toying with them. The Senate of Cato wasn't the Senate of Claudius, or even that of Marcus Aurelius. If the Senate mattered, it was because a Emperor wanted to make them matter. They purged it unashamedly too many times. It was a forum of yes men.... not the ruling, leading organ of state. And no, they never quite developed a balanced set of mutually independent yet interdependent systems of checks and balances.... Emperor was ultimately charge of all. It's how it is. Feel free to challenge me on any point, but for your sake I can't let you professor carry on with this silliness. Consider yourself lucky it was just me cursing and not a thousand peers responding to a lecture or book by you. If you want to see what a purge looks like, watch the first 20 minutes of "The House of Saddam" as he systematically wipes out the opposition in the Baath Party in Iraq.... you honestly can claim the electorate from that point on laid in the voters, or Saddam's whims? How did that fear and obedience differ from other dictators, Like Mao or Pinochet? Do you buy Qaddafi, his argument.... that Libya was a bona fide Anarchist state? That was pure paradoxical bullshit of the highest order, but that is exactly what the Libyan propaganda claims. Some Tyrants run with themes. In Rome, Augustus and Tiberius ran with a Stoic theme, gave a level of toleration to dissent directed at the emperor in the small circle of peers.... as long as it was words, and not actual threats against their body or capacity to assert. Nero was some sorta gangster hedonist manchild. Some of the best moments in Cynic Philosophy occurred when Cynics would stand up and denounce flippant actions of officials in these forums. Alot of stuff afloated, and different takes were taken on just how, and which, aspects of the old republican democracy could be resurrected and participated in the real.... but these were few occasions... and we only know about them from the scandal they provoked. Boethius supposedly reaching out to support the Eastern Emperor and being executed is a late case. The senators and the republican faction fleeing to Africa before being hunted down is a early example. Mostly just candle in between. I wish more records survived... I'd like to see how the Senate morphed under each Emperor to the next. How often they were subordinated as part of the imperial administration, how often they gained instances of independence, so on and so on.... even in tyrannies a legislator can evolve into a interesting and useful bureaucratic entity. What makes Rome so interesting to me is whereas such Tyrannies burn out rather fast, a few years to few generations in the modern world.... they dragged this out for a thousand years, from Caesar to the Fall of Constantinople to the Latins. Infinite time to morph. But at no point did the Senate reexert independence. At no point in this 1000 year period did the Republic reemergence. It was always under a imperial house from that point on..... and that 100% disqualifies it from being a republic. In the same sense England isn't a republic, even if in England's case it seems to be slowly evolving in that direction.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrian

I would recommend reading Arrian. You will not come to this conclusion that he had a simple tactical repertoire. This being said, I think your underestimating the Oblique Attack.... works till this day, and modern militaries, from large unit movements to the smallest formation, prepare themselves against this maneuver. Well.... the good armies at least. Over reliance isn't an issue if it works either time and time again.... being a one trick pony is what is worrisome.... unable or unintelligent enough to change when needed. But given Alexander's record shows a diverse array of methods, we can hardly discredit him on this basis. If we took your position as the historic reality, that he only used this one method to win all his battles, then the focus would quickly swing to just how on earth.... despite all those cultures, with some great minds like Chanakya (the equal to Aristotle) resisting him, no one figured this out. You would think natural chaos, variability and local specialization would of caused someone, somewhere to call him on his technique and smash his otherwise worthless army.... Why do you assume greatness has to align with the sensation of variable, complex newness? This is a cognitive question, seeking to know why you expect this pleasurable affirmation.... by now a conditioned response, to occur each time you read up on the tactics and strategems of historic figures? This pleasurable impulse will contort and sort your understandings if your not aware of what it is doing. Be a good Stoic, and get a hold of this vice.... it's bad to be unaware of our interpretive impulses when approaching history. Arrian is a good author as he was also a well educated Stoic. He delved deeply into the psychology of Alexander. It's all too often the case I have to examine how classical historians filtered and focused on aspects of subjects, and get a feel for them as writers and thinkers before I get a serious feel about the subject they are presenting. They inevitably impresse their own outlook on the subject matter at hand. In Arrians case, you know very well his outlook, and just how deep his competency runs. The Stoics had by his era developed the best understanding of how the mind works. Be handles both fronts well.

From the Roman Republic wiki, Caldrail.... your welcome to go and rewrite it however you deem fit, just don't be surprised when you become a outcast for trying something so obviously wrong. Roman Empire can be a matter of interpretation. Historians have variously proposed Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River in 49 BC, Caesar's appointment as dictator for life in 44 BC, and the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. Most, however, use the same date as did the ancient Romans themselves, the Roman Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian and his adopting the title Augustus in 27 BC, as the defining event ending the Republic. I'm reminded of the scene from Starwars when Palpatine declares the empire..... you can go argue as Moff Caldrail all you want to the Rebel Alliance and the Jedi the Sith and their death star is indeed the true galactic republic, and that it never went away. Let me know when you finally win the wiki wars, extending the roman republic up to Constantine. I'll be checking the arguments and how well everyone is taking your arguments. You gotta be able to walk on water to win this one.

And for anyone (including Caldrail) who isn't aware, my position is a very Roman concept, adapted from the Kyklos Cycle. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos It is still actively disgussed to this day, mostly by those who favor republics vs Nietzscheans who want prides of supermen ruling over slaves.... it's a theory that never died out, just don't think Caldrail has any idea what he is actually trying to assert here, the repercussions, and which party his sets himself up in. Every era had a different take on it. It wasn't until the republic fell that the Romans and later ages started taking stock in just how a republic sits in this. Know Caldrail holds no reputable position in this argument, it's extreme foolishness, and if your reading this thread, and adopt his arguments, don't be surprised if you fail that paper. No self respecting historian will ever make the claim the republic survived. It's ludicrous. Has no place in honest history.

You are being banal and foolish, falling for propaganda designed for synophants in every age. The Novgorad princes couldn't get rid of the boyars "easily", but that doesn't mean they couldn't. The institutions of the Roman Republic grew out of the ministries of the Tarquins. Romans, Byzantine, Russians, and a few other groups maintained, emulated, and developed mixed parlimentry systems.... all very much MONARCHIES. The US House of burgesses developed from such a system. Yet were were educated and well read enough even in the colonial era to call the farce your pretending to.... we didn't declare ourselves a republic till we booted your kings from our soil. The evidence? Every author from Augustus reign on.... fuck, I just watched a English documentry this morning (Amazon Prime just got activated with my new kindle)called "Rome: Order From Chaos/ Years of Trial"..... every british historian in that say exactly the oposite of you. Go and prove your national peers wrong, grow your hail long, and chain yourself like Sampson to the pillars of a university, and cry out to the astonished crowd the Roman Republic did not fall.... it was merely hiding underneath the Emperors Silks and Behind their Throne.... and that the Roman Republic infact exists to this day, perched upon the Popes Head, under that big old hat, hidden from history.... The Roman Senate was a Vestigial Organ, sometimes indulged and reappropriated by clever emperors for good causes, but too often by syncophants who's only occupation it seems was to secure their position by raining down praises. It was highly elastic..... sharply contracting and expanding at times, the target of pogroms from Marc Anthony to Sejanus.... all too often the central spectacle of disturbing mental disorders and vices by emperors seeking verification of their delusions of grandeur. I'd like to believe the senate was also a object of emulation for the senates in cities across the empire. Only evidence I can find for this unfortunately are these petite senates offering flatteries to the Emperors birthday or longevity. They apparently didn't much care for the big senate in Rome beyond the governors insistence and dictates. Many countries call themselves a republic, that are not republics. I already used North Korea as a example, but pointed out the Soviet Union was... but the Soviet Union wasn't a Democracy. It's not necessary to be a democracy with universal sufferage to be a republic.... as even the US excludes some residents from vote and participation. You need a senate.... that votes. That senate can come from most anything.... but it generally is representative and partisan in relation to aspects of society. Your arguments are horrible, and shows a deep susceptibility to buying off the flimsiest propaganda given. If Hitler said he was the friend of the Jews, would you believe him? Or do you have enough awareness of facts beyond the rhetoric to pick up on the con game? Your own countrymen, your historians, your peers.... made a documentry that backs the near universal concensus. Rome became a dynastic monarchy. Thats the very words they used, check it out. That means..... NOT A REPUBLIC. The Senate was purged way too many times and filled with yes men. And all Nero had to do was strike the Senate first. He could of easily of done it. The boy was clearly mad, and everyone knew it. He didn't, cause he was a mad duck. The Senate was still a circle of near peers to the imperial family, even without much meaningful state power, all the rich and influential people in society would still be in the senate, or trying to get in. When the emperor goes mad, it had a history of government and men who wrre of a higher esteem and education than your average member of the mob. As I pointed out on this site in the past, an emperor would be absurd to not rely and grow the senate in capacity. It originated as a Monarchial instrument, and the empire was just too big. Sadly, many emperors didn't do this. As to why SPQR survived in name (and largely name only).... vestigial organs in government survive all the time, and morph in meaning. The state of Delaware here in the states has all but abolished the office of sheriff, the courts won't even allow him to files police reports.... but he is still the only elected police officer in the state elected by popular vote. Perhaps you should visit the sheriffs office, sit with him and tell him of your theory, then the two of you can press your faces against the window and look out as the real "unconstitutional" police drive by.... Or you can pick up a copy of Ibn Khaldun's history, read it, and understand a society changes, but leaves vestigial elements of older orders behind. Doesn't mean they are that old system. My town still has a masdive steel mill standing, doesn't make us a steel town anymore. The Roman Republic fell..... thus sayeth history.

Republic did fall, and there is no such thing as "Logical Fallacies", the idea is preposterous.... there isn't anything wrong with the human brain, we all evolved to think. Again.... Caldrail, your from a Monarchy, it's been shoved down your throat since birth a Monarchy isn't that big of a deal, infact, all the pagentry and honours, and silliness, not to mention the tax blackholes for a few families that everyone has to pay into, is perfectly natural and commonsense. People born into freedom don't accept this silliness. The Romans under the heart of the republic were just such a people, they would be utterly disgusted at such a provocative insult against their values and political orientation. In one system.... the Republic, state institutions were reigned in and empowered by the people.... they knew ultimately they were in charge and had no one but themselves to answer to, except Gods and tradition. In a monarchy, the people are the ones who get reigned in, like worthless dogs to their masters leash. Senators yabbering and jabbering "serve" at the consent of their overlords.... sometimes competently, sometimes farcical. In Rome, too often farcical. The only advantage the British Monarchy has is it's learned to give up political power piecemeal in exchange for the furtherance of it's exploitation of wealth. It gives up a little now and then, in balance for something else. It's a dying monarchy, but I won't put it in the hospice just yet, or expect to see the Republic of the English declared any time soon. In a republic, they people know they are infact incharge. The orientation and style of debates differ. You can tell when a republic starts slipping into a tyranny when it starts to hold a individual in awe and high respectability outside the normal scope of said office, or when a Monarchy is about to turn republic, when they stop caring to give courtesy to such baffoons and send them merrily on their high and mighty way. Have no doubt, under any circumstances, do not get list in fruitless semantics or confused linguistics, know with all certainty,beyond any reasonable doubt.... the Roman Republic did fall. There is no place to debate this with reasonable assertion, as the argument is of the same class and caliber as "Did the Flavians invent Jesus".

As you appear to be a student, I won't tell you the underlining facts, but will explain to you in detail what you presented so you can think and present better.... this is 90% of the struggle. It's very clear to me you have a wide range of subjects your interested in, but they are also a mess in your mind, because your not quite certain how they relate, but know they do. In terms of "Theory of Mind", in how I presume how you think from within my own mind, you seem to be sticking on a dichotomy known in western military studies known as "Interior and Exterior Lines". Its a term that looks at warfare fought within your territory, or the enemies. Studies several factors such as economic repercussions, morale, logistics, ability to community and exploit local knowledge, civilian loyalty and hinderance, etc. Each of these are new categories. Each one can be structured into a polarity against a counterpart, or left alone. You structure these ideas via root logic. Root logic is very simple, it's like the branches of a tree. Your original category (you seem to favor Romans fighting on interior lines) is the top. From it, lines branch off, and new ideas pop up, and are examined in condition to the top, down...... some ideas merge, some stay separate. It's a easy way to sort your facts, and see how balanced your ideas are. Your task from here is to use theory of mind of your audience... your teacher, and writes about this root system in a way he can easily grasp. It's important to note the Romans, and their enemies, were a very long lived, fluid civilization that changed alot. For example, technically the islamic caliphates was Romes greatest enemy, followed up by the Gauls.... they threatened their existence much longer, and were much better placed to topple them than Carthage or the Huns, who fought Rome for much shorter periods of time and never managed to override Romes Capitals like the others managed. If you need more categories, especially ones structured on dichotomies, the historians bible is Ralph Sawyers translation of "One Hundred Unorthodox Strategies", download the preview on kindle fir free, each category is listed in the table of contents. Or, read books from authors like Jomini, Sun Tzu, and Clausewitz. Or you can take a more mathematical approach to your logical bearings. You can (I dislike it, pet peeve, but people do it so often anyway) accept a aspect of rome as a Evolutionary Stable Strategy (making it essentially Rome for you, static through the ages) and explore the axiomatic structure and implications. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy That link gets you started. 8000 words is easy. Easier if you tackle this categorically, and work your ideas out in advance, it becomes a web of mutually reinforcing paragraphs that trigger alot of lights in your teachers head. But as your a student, I expect you to do the actual studying yourself. Feel free to post or pm your results for clarification or detection of weaknesses, but the point of this exercise is to see if you can do the research initially yourself.

Republic fell when dynastic generissimos conquered it, repeatedly without avail or respect to the elected republican institutions of the state, when it's offices were pillaged and given into nepotism, when every personal vice and mortal sin of those in power was looked away from, or even applauded as being the frivolties of a dictorial class or even of a divinity, when the membership in the senate could be expanded or contracted dramatically, to fill the demographic and political needs of aatyrant. Have no doubt, let me lay this to rest right now, the Republic fell, but not in one push as a collossus, but piecemeal, one triumph at a time. However democratic England is, it can't be considered a Republic anymore, not since Cromwell. I don't expect any member of a monarchy to grasp just how fundamental of a distinction this is, it's not symmantics, it effects the outlook and morals of everyone in a society in either case. Kyklos Cycle governs the transitions between one state to the next. Soviet Union was at every stage still a republic, never even under stalin gave into corruption of nepotism, maintained merit in advancement, held election. Was definately despitic at times.... North Korea isn't a Republic however, despite the name. They clearly have a dynastic monarch, the constitution is a joke, and the political parties are follised relics, anachronisms, of a earlier era full of yes men that officials are only occasional drawn from. The republics of Northern India had kings, sometimes even dynastic, but were voted in, had constitutional restraints, checks on power.... before Chanakya conwuered them. Carthage was a republic, even under mighty Hannibal.

If you can put the blame on anyone one individual, it wouldn't be Pompey, Caesar, or Mark Anthony, or even Augustus.... I'd have to say it was Cicero. No other man is more responsible for smashing the republican into bits. He began, and hardly without cultural consequences as the leading intellectual of his age, the process of introducing and exploring how to deify a great messianic leader into a Godking. He started humbly and innocently enough with his daughter. Then he brought Scipio Africanus into his myths.... making him just such a Godman. Pompey went first, testing the waters. The Caesar. Mark Anthony became a God Pharoah.... well established tradition. Augustus showed considerable hesitancy, playing to the conservatives in Rome. He hardly banished the short lived tradition, but refused most flattery outright to himself and his grand children, but allowed a easy path to deification once he passed away, were the threat of a assassination mattered considerably less. You can't have a republic of virtues, independence, shared social commitments, and restraint as best idealized in the tension of the republic with living gods holding political office and intentionally tossing every caution and legal safeguard to the wind when they feel like social climbing. Sulla and Marius Gaius did alot to destabilize the republic, but we see in modern times class struggle doesn't necessarily lead to a collapse of a republic, they can carry on as banana republics just fine with change of command between feuding personalities. The handful of those who most supported the republic, such as Asinius Polloi, knew very well the game was up, and were very Machiavellian about which faction they backed, out of self interest.... prior and during the actual collapse. They managed to insert themselves, still quite human, as familiar deputies much loved and cherished, retained for their intelligence and administrative skills. You skip ahead a few generations, a administrator like Pliny the Younger greatly resembles Pollio. That's how subtle the change was between republic and empire. In the Romans case, it came down to theocracy as the defining characteristic of their bond to the state. The "how" must inform a "why", and our "why" needs to be able in be inverted sociological to similar societies who came near, flirted and turned away, or took a similar yet different plunge. Most obvious modern example, Cezar Chavez turning into a little angelic bird.... How did the Roman Republic fall into such a narrow minded mess, and why was Cicero so destructive? Well.... I would have to say, the Roman underclass was superstitious, and already prone to this under the Tarquin.... one king even tried to deify himself. The Greeks to the South, and Alexander looming large in everyone's mind certainly nudged them.... but the Romans seemed collectively jealous enough to remain paranoid and hostile. Carthage likewise never took that plunge, despite Hannibal. Scipio built a awesome propaganda machine to bring the Romans nearly to Total War, idealized like a son of Jupitor, like Hercules. Marius and Sulla merely took notice in their war and instituted the best methods of the cult of the leader. General MacAuthur did no worst. It wasn't the land reforms, or the pride or greed, or the pogroms. Many republics, like Russia, do just that. US fought a war over Slaves.... property, concept of wages vs slavery..... we sit into two well functioning republics, not into a Imperium. So I can't help but point to Cicero. For the entirety of the republic, it behaved like a monarchy without a king. They maintained their class divisions, and merely self appointed their ministers.... their religion remained monarchical, their priesthood remained as such.... I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did. It shows both Rome and Carthage began to succumb to the cult of the divine ruler the Greeks and Egyptians had roughly the same time. Both Hannibal and Scipio seemed similarly disposed and equally aloof to such a interesting alien concept. The Romans were the victors, and they ultimately took that plunge. Both Rome and Carthage were making inroads to Greek philosophy at this time as well. Such seems to be the motivations of history. A good question to ask is, why would Cataline conspiracy fail, yet be endlessly emulated? Why would Severus Alexander become a Christian, and be killed for looking weak? Why were the most troubled years of Rome thereafter be linked to Pagan insurgencies and revolts, and upsurpations of power, and just why was Marcus Aureus, with his Syrian Sun Cult, and Constantine, with Christianity..... cause so much relative calm and renewal? Why was Julian tolerated yet forsaken? Why did kingship in feudal Europe dance around such topics, and what made it so attractive to Pagan rulers to convert? Runs back to Cicero.... and his unique ability to collapse the republic. It seems alien to secular republics, as our modern mindset is oriented there now.... but that evolved out of it, and is still deeply tainted by it..... it's still a very powerful force in modern times. A look into how Romans viewed the afterlife, such as Manes, family progress via Genius to ever higher heavenly status will be a real eye opener.

I was just reading the "Imperial Cult" wiki, and it mentioned Phillip II had a cult of worship in Amphipolis.... They just found a "Cenotaph" there... Apparently he put the statue of himself in there, as the 13th Olympian. I'm thinking were about to uncover a scene of Narcissism inside the world in modern times has rarely scene.

Oh, and yeah.... traders trade, so in theory they could of traded anything with one another. The Zoroastrians to this day claim Jesus was a prophet they prophesied, and hence why they were actively searching for him. It is very difficult to prove, as their texts are eaten up (no reference I found, but we know much of their works are gone), and likewise the Vatican and the other patriarchal sees have downplayed this aspects, while relishing the story romantically. It's a great story to tell, just has unnerving implications. My preference is to doubt this happened, but not to the point to deny it. There have been attempts to date a supernova explosion to that night, and the bible has been notorious for collapsing the best atheistic theories out there after a little archaeological work and investigation. They found cuneiform texts listing the location of Eden and Nod, and Gobekli Tepe was eerily found very close to where Abraham was from (his home town), and very close by (twenty miles) is where agriculture began. There has been alot of study of the weather patterns hitting egypt during the the Jewish exodus from Egypt that explains the various plagues, and even the water in the sea separating. There has been a historic renaissance of sorts as of later as confidence in these old texts have been increasingly confirmed. I none the less advocate caution and skepticism, and look at all the factors at play, and read parallel works... ancient and modern. A hustorian does a great disservice to the bible if we take it too literally or on a faith basis alone, it too is a historic work, and needs to be applied to the same pressures any other work receives. It has yielded us so much.... we rediscovered Ur and other Mesopotamian states due to it, gives us a better comprehension of ancient myths and politics.... was the lone text that survived antiquity that even mentioned the Hittites, or our earliest agricultural origins stretching back 12,000 years ago. Very useful text, but our first duty as historians is to be skeptical and raise questions, and not get too dogmatic or accepting.... if you do that, I promise you, it will yield unexpected treasures.

No, the travel routes have never been safe.... ever, up to this day. Period. However, the traders adapted to this, as well as the local governing powers. The trade routes from every direction converged on Judea, and I know the Arabian branch had secure trader facilities along the route so the caravans could receive protection and water,eat a little. Secondly, caravans existed in the first place so as to provide security in numbers. Only people who are going to attack a caravan will be a significantly large military force. A few guys would get beaten easily. I believe the states evolved reciprocity to the local rulers, you keep the bandits in check, and don't attack us, we will each pay a toll tax of sorts. The trade routes were already ancient by time Rome gained control of the region. They inherited a system, one of the advantages of maintaining client kingdoms is you don't lose the local knowledge and have to reinvent the wheel regarding such traditions, great way around economic game theory paradoxes regarding knowing how to manage a trade route in terms of customs, costs, patrolling, and expected responsibilities that will keep the Indian traders coming in.

No. I doubt the Romans were so fearful of their own legal system that they had to skew their own intentions by nailing militant cult leader (as this article supposes) via trumped up charges. I'm trusting in the competency as well of every ancient Anti Christian or Pagan apologist in antiquity would of siezed on this as well. Knives would of been very common, for eating utensils to food. Countryside had wild predators. Roman legions cant ride with every merchant. The Romans were unlikely the only ones policing as well.... whats the point pf keeping a guy like herod around if he doesn't supply conplamentry muscle under Rome's guidance? Just a figurehead parasite sucking up the tax base. I won't begin to deny or affirm if Jesus kept his band partially armed, it's pragmatic and wise. I've been attacked by a black bear camping (got pics), having a machete on hand for just such a case didn't imply I was plotting to overthrow the state.

Not true, the general balance of war swings away from innovative inbalance, after the sides eventually acclimate, adapt, and mimic each others tactics and weaponry. The two sides increasingly look and fight the same. This can take centuries, but it clearly happens. In such wars, the concepts underlining strategy become a universally shared philosophical matrix, and the tactics well known to either side that the other is expected to take. Deposition of terrain often is the crucial aspect in such wars, as opposing commanders are equally competent and want to reduce their risk factors if the blunder. But rarely are such armies completely uniform. Subtle differences in doctrine and tradition, and administration can keep a side perpetually playing the defensive without recognizing why, much less the how of fixing it's "What and Where" issues, and the operational supports that make such considerations happen. The Ottomans did have centuries of near parity against Byzantine and East European powers, and similarly armed western powers. They made advances, but it was always slow. Then they started making massive advances, and the techniques they used to get to their end game backfired, leading to centuries of reversal. Sounds mechanical to me. Just not (likely) of the exact nature of this ptopic. I honestly don't know if there really was this sexual asymmetry for medieval horses.... or if that alone was the root function that caused this realignment.

It's a typographical ordering of emotive states into two categories of time.... it has neurological implications then, and is important for the history of neurology. I just don't know it's origins, I came across this after a very long search for something unrelated, and was fascinated by it. Merely compare it to this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6vheim_cube_of_emotion

733. Hinc metuunl. The passions are generally ranked under these four heads: fear and grief; joy and desire. The two first have for their object present or future evil; the two last, present or future good. Autos: in the sense of evlum. http://books.google.com/books?id=qWTRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=manes+vs+soul&source=bl&ots=89rwRUChIY&sig=w4FfgUGrYeDaotLG0F0dSMik8yw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E2E7VN6VB4WXyATdyID4Dw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwCDgK I can sorta understand this, but don't know the origins of this roman understanding of present and future division of emotions. Can anyone tell me what primary source to look at?

From Hippolytus Some indeed, then, attempt likewise to form the hebdomads from the medical (art), being astonished at the dissection of the brain, asserting that the substance of the universe and the power of procreation and the Godhead could be ascertained from the arrangement of the brain. For the brain, being the dominant portion of the entire body, reposes calm and unmoved, containing within itself the spirit. Such an account, then, is not incredible, but widely differs from the conclusions which these (heretics) attempt to deduce from it. For the brain, on being dissected, has within it what may be called a vaulted chamber. And on either side of this are thin membranes, which they term little wings. Now these are gently moved by the spirit, and in turn propel towards the cerebellum the spirit, which, careering through a certain blood-vessel like a reed, advances towards the pineal gland. And near this is situated the entrance of the cerebellum, which admits the current of spirit, and distributes it into what is styled the spinal marrow. But from them the whole frame participates in the spiritual energy, inasmuch as all the arteries, like a branch, are fastened on from this blood-vessel, the extremity of which terminates in the genital blood-vessels, whence all the (animal) seeds proceeding from the brain through the loin are secreted (in the seminal glands). The form, however, of the brain is like the head of a serpent, respecting which a lengthened discussion is maintained by the professors of knowledge, falsely so named, as we shall prove. Six other coupling ligaments grow out of the brain, which, traversing round the head, and having their termination in (the head) itself, hold bodies together; but the seventh (ligament) proceeds from the cerebellum to the lower parts of the rest of the frame, as we have declared. And respecting this there is an enlarged discussion, whence both Simon and Valentinus will be found both to have derived from this source starting-points for their opinions, and, though they may not acknowledge it, to be in the first instance liars, then heretics. Since, then, it appears that we have sufficiently explained these tenets likewise, and that all the reputed opinions of this earthly philosophy have been comprised in four books; it seems expedient to proceed to a consideration of the disciples of these men, nay rather, those who have furtively appropriated their doctrines.312 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iii.ii.li.html

Accidental post

Dio also reports that Seneca had been involved in forcing large loans on the indigenous British aristocracy in the aftermath of Claudius's Roman conquest of Britain, and then calling them in suddenly and aggressively, which he includes as one of the factors that contributed to Boudica's rebellion. This may have contributed as well to his own downfall.[8] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger

I can shrink the research ideologically down for anyone observing Caldrail's differation in approaching history philosophically... We are both advocating different aspects of Collingwood, a member of Vico's historic school. Believe it or not, I do very much grasp your hesitency to apply modern linguistic concepts to poorly explained ancient formulas.... I would not speak openly of questions in the matter I do unless it was a priori asserted as part of a step by step process to evaluate and assert ideas. The worst horror a historian can commit is NOT experimenting, and thus becoming aware of introspectively in our thought process, the cognitive agency of the historical process.... it's underlining heurmeunetics in the intentionality of the chronicler or historian to interpret their world, and "perserve it", and how later ages.... however soon or late, are to take it. The reason why is a mistake is it's a complex mesh of cognitivy agency in competition.... aspects in mutual conpetition in the mind of the reader (whatever era they live in) that are in large part independent, yet interdependent and even linked at odd points in the interpreative process we all engaged in. When we find we accept a concept, we have already done this, for the most part unconsciously. The expert historian doesn't do this uncobsciously. He drags out his acceptance of a single thing, and turns it into things.... and begins to stratify into abstract and concrete facts, and orders them categorically to other forms of facts. A degree of rhetoric is used to convince and smooth out the gaps, for intellectual understanding. It's at this point some of our greatest vices as historians pop up. A resort to scepticism and philological purity is a virtue. I commend you for your attempts towards reductionalism. However, it's only a portion of the cross domain mapping a historic work engadges us in, we have to hunt down all it's influences. A portion of this phenomena takes place in the historical fiction that takes place on this site..... romantic and grime writers take history, and tries to make it real to the modern reader via modern fictional devices. It would be anathema for a historian of primary texts to absorb such a technique... you yourself would cringe at it mixing, but to a philosopher who read a few history of philosophy books himself, I can't help but see the two merging eventually. We're more or less symbiotic as it is. We'll have to more or less dive into cognition.... and examine how the purpose of history has evolved, and the various aspects of mind from other fields pressure us into a reexamination of our methodology and outlook. I use for example, fanciful analogy and logical paradox, comparing old and new outlooks. Our argument of naming a roman squad a squad is evidence of this. I understood your argument, but had to go against Collingwood knowing full well the psychology of a extroverted functioning of a group of men.... roughly 8 to 9, behaved in terms of communication, navigation, identity, and group ownership and dependency... having experienced it. This experience is unique and subjective, but the apparatus.... the human mind, is largely uniform, and the functionality of mind is similar one person to the next. I fully expect the romans to be less evolved than say, the 19th Century's grasp of the psychology of similar massing of men. I also more or less know tactically, a squad didn't exist on the battlefield.... but the Romans none the less made use of it in other affairs of the legion. Hence squads existed. The bigger question is.... why, on a cognitive level? We parallel it now, is there something inate in the functioning of the mind, that it works better at this level? Such a question dares a new epoch in historical examination. More scientific, more historical, made of better facts, and can make much better use of linguistics than conservative reductionism. It still has a place, it's part of the mechanics of a good history, but overzealous use can make it a aspect of bad history as well. History needs to hold itself in parity with other currents of the mind. When it can't keep up, ot inevitably morphs and mutates into something ugly and obscene. Flights of fancy and fiction, and outright lies, become more attractivve to a cultures mode of rationalization. Theologically we see this historical phenomena with the denounciation of Zoroastrian history by Shiites in Iran, Black Nationalist Historians of Western history, British Atheists of Christianity, Marxist and Nazi writers of just about everything.... it's a competition of one faith against another, and were as historians are remarkably unaware of this. Hence my cross disciplinary approach. At root, we ALWAYS are dealing with some sort of cognitive cross domain mapping. It gives us a positive learned response. It feels natural and positive, and sensible. As historians, we make use of axiomatic ideological structures to come to conclusions, and favor the familiar, shun the incomprehensible. We are at root little silly witch doctors babbling on about meaningless specificalities... know that is the origin of our craft, and we have never anywhere escaped this. That is who we are. I advocate a testing of facts logically and realistically, but can't begin to know what a fact is without understanding it's a linguistic phenomena.... and in doing so approach it in part from your direction. I try to reduce and compare it as well in other ways, and if the results are a behavioral paradox that makes no cognitive sense from modern equivalents, texts and schools of thought.... however high and distinguished their pedigree is, it becomes questionable in the very least.... and needs heavy scrutiny. Either the ancients were smarter, or they were lying, or misunderstood the phenomena before them.

So, assuming the knights in the west generically preferred males, and the Turks with the infinite wisdom of the steppe females (I'm shaky about this generalization, and even more shaky about my next), could a underlining mechanical reason for the Ottomans Success after the fall of Constantinople of been they more or less ditched their medieval calvary model, of using females in conbat, with diminishing generational returns if kept in constant warfare.... and instead put more emphasis on their Janissary infantry, than Calvary? No longer dependent on a obviously inferior method of equine reproduction, against a enemy horse oriented culture that.... however politically fragmented it was, was none the less able to field horses quicker, held the supremacy against them using infantry, until western powers sufficiently developed field fortifications capable of razing down ottoman infantry assaults, and develop their own infantry esprite on near equal fanatical grounds.