Onasander

I start back to work today, no more leave.

I've always wondered about that, from Eastern Strategy works of the same era, encirclement of one's forces was encouraged in thier manuals as a motivating force. Some ever suggested blocking off the routes of escape with chains so the troops would feel trapped and fight harder.... suppose different weaponry and formations were used.

Is that the reason the British have such bad teeth, to make their heads as unattractive as possible to the hummis? Gingivitis seems like it would be an awful STD, having to brush those delicate organs three times a day....ooooohhhh!

I think it's good that this topic hit's both modern and ancient Imperialism, gives us more examples, please don't splice or close the thread if this one later on starts hitting more modern empires, imperialism is timeless. Anybody worried about Africa? Soon or later, most likely within our lifetimes, something is going to erupt there and set about reshaping the borders building up one or two little alliance/empires. Africa just doesn't make sense with modern weaponry, it's bound to happen sooner or later.

Progress without aim? You know, if blaim is to fall on someone for the ideological wars that turned the world upside down from 1776 to the present, it's gotta be the historian with a philosophical bent. We look at history though a set of ideological lens, automatically denying certain strains of logic from comming into exsistance. I'm not going to say we're all marxist in our frame of historical thought; the problem I think goes back even further to the defeat of the Republican forces in the English revolution when ideology was forced to hide in the commentaries of the classics. We judge what came before on how we think the proper way should be. What is progressive to me or you today is a result of our values and perspective of the world on how it should be going, and where we want it to go. When we look back in time, we say "this is good" or "this is bad" of this or that society. They suddenly become progressive in our view. We might not even understand their aims in freeing the slaves or serfs, or in changing the tax code or laws. To complicate this, we add the qustion of civilization to this, something we have the least understanding of all (even modern civilization). I can't judge the question of Imperialism in and of itself because it's an mode of activity and not usually an aim in which to judge progressiveness or regressiveness; the gressiveness held in relationship to the dominate political entities, thier state of affairs, and needs in ralationship to thier wants . For the Romans, at certain stages where the campaign aimed for vital intersections or against geographically isolated entities in Spain or North Africa, it could be considered in light of the Roman ideal of morality a good idea for it's positive effects on stabilizing trade routes and thier resulting increase usage, as well as reducing the longterm costs of defense; but a bad idea for the poorer classes concentrated in the worst of places, the capital where they could interfer with politics. Once the numerical ratio between mercanaries and roman troops began to dip in favor of the mercenaries, this would of been a very good time for an offensive... not only would it of helped rebalance the ratio if they used the mercanaries a bit more liberally, but a stab at reducing the northern borders in the west and central europe by quickly conquering and assimilating (a balance of rotating a certain number to other parts of the empire would be needed of course)them, putting them back into the field may of worked, if done quickly enough, say within a 70 year time period.... instead of dragging it out, forever, killing the enertia of it. The plunder would of paid for the armies and some of the cost of refortifying the new frontier, as well as producing a new economic climate, giving the barbarian tribes in the rear the peace they needed to finally settle down in security. But they didn't take on central Europe quickly enough, instead perfering to concentrate in Palistine and Egypy, and resultingly, the Parthians.... So, in the end, unwise imperialitic actions did not do much to benifit longterm expansion/ security for Rome. They perfered to temporize their northern borders then taking thier opposition on piecemeal. Plus, given that the highest ofice of the empire was usually gained from insurrection from these far flunged regions by power hungry generals, and you'ld be able to see the problem. Had the border been smaller, with further troops needed and the commands more consentrated in thier relationship to one another, it would of been rather easy to prevent these military takeovers.

What techniques have been developed for archeological operations in the Cryosphere (the portion of the earth's surface where water exsists in a solid form). I'm gearing towards doing archeology once I get out of the military, I volunteered for digs as a kid, and loved it. But, I couldn't help but notice that most operations took place during the summer.... a rather productive season with companies wanting to build during the prime of the year. Winter time hits, and it's became processing time, looking over soil samples and piecing together shards of pottery and so on. Now, the best time to do this would be in the winter months in urbanized zones. However, given the "ruggedness" (as opposed to the daily life of a software programmer) of the average college archeologist, limitations in equipment and the warmth factor would keep them away from attempting this, as would the hardness of the soil. I suspect countries like Russia and the Scandanavian/Baltic states have found a way around this, even if just from a few eccentric individuals whose techniques arn't mainstream. I know more elite archeologist can do it, take the iceman for example, he was in a glacier! I want to know if it's possible to take the lesson's learned from these few occasions and see if they could help the urban archeologist in more temperate climates? Also, if your ever just brainstorming one day and manage to come up with something, please drop it here, even if it's stupid, we might be able to further the line of thought into something great.

Best place for a site like this is under a golf course, so long as they don't do to many modifications to the soil. The golf course should benefit from this as well given the history would add to their prestige. It reminds me of Ft. Holiday from where I used to live, it's underneath a baseball field right now, and a old Mingo Indian village that George Washington discovered is under the football field.... sure a golf course is a lot more spacious and thus more conductive for a longterm excavation providing they keep it small in area than a football or baseball field, but even they at least gives the archeologist time to prepare for the off season, or if not allowed, when they close the field. I supose a strategem could be taken from this example.

I think bordom was the motivation for the vandalism.... why does everything have to be so political? Was the Roman youth so much different from American youth of today? There was a hole, and something the right size to plug it; add a few bored teenagers at 2 A.M. in the morning.....

Ah, it was hard at first, but I don't think it was until you guys burnt down the whitehouse that we finally felt that we could finally 'move on' with our lives and make something of ourselves.

But mathematically, if they were all that threatened them, given the finiteness of the terrain, it would be in the Roman intrests to take the region and settle it, cause after a shaky early occupation, all the troops used to defend Hadrian's wall could move forward and occupy the north, increasing revenues and the mercenary pool. With this, they'ld be able to reduce the total occupation forces in the British Isles all together, turning it from a region that sucked in troops to one that produced them for attacking mainland Europe. Could the reason they didn't want to take the north be because they wanted them to take the initial punch of the Anglo-Saxon (or perhaps another group) without cost of pressure to retaliate immediately? I'm not denying it was a difficult area to hold, but from a financial/manpower point of view, if the germans look as if they would want to invade, what would be the point of conquering the north?

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public...ANARTILLERY.htm Shows pictures of what I was talking about half way down the page, first five actual pictures, not the drawings.

I doubt it. From memory, it looked from the drawings I saw like two verticle poles with a horizontal one attaced to one of them, with a soldier behind it 'manning' it. I figured the horizantal bar was cranked back and then launched once it slammed into the other vertical bar (in one of the scenes, the horizontal bar goes a little pass the vertical one). The median space in relationship to the horizontal bar and the two vertical bars could act as a leaf site similar to the M203 Grenade Launcher (though that's just pure conjecture on my part). I was impressed that the romans had a piece of machinery that small and flexible enough to be used both for static fortifications and more mobile chariots. I remembered when I studied this (I was sixteen, now 22) I thought there might be the possibility that it was a device used by engineers used in measuring the angles of the fortification, but the fact the chariots had them made it much less likely, unless they used the mobile chariots for some kind of frontline chartographer mapping depositions before (or during) battle; which in my opinion would be even more impressive, but on the other hand, that much more unlikely. I never knew the name for the device, so I just always assumed it was one of the mystery machines listed by Vegetius that nobody seems to know anymore.

1. Which of the city's (camp's) fortifications should be strengthen. 2. ????By no means director but also angles wall fashion???? 3. By what the walls by reason ground connect pile? (something about the deposition of the trenches I'm guessing) I read a translation of some French historian a long time ago discribing the armies of the ancient greeks as having the political authority of a polis, if they settled down, they could establish their own city right from their army. That's what I'm flip flopping on number 1.

I. Ciuitates aut natura aut opere debere muniri. II. Non directos sed angulosos muros faciendos. III. Quemadmodum muris e terra iungatur adgestus. IIII. De cataractis et portis, ne noceantur ab ignibus. V. De fossis faciendis. VI. Ne sagittis hostium homines laedantur in muro. VII. Quibus modis prouidendum sit, ne famem patiantur obsessi. VIII. Quae species praeparandae sint pro defensione murorum. VIIII. Quid faciendum sit, si neruorum defuerit copia. X. Quid faciendum, ne aquae inopiam patiantur obsessi. (1)The same. The community/city/town/states or the nature or to owe to the need to be fortified. (2)They. Not the person given rights by direct procedure but the having an angle or angles walls requiring to be done. 3. In what way to the walls may be he/she/it joinned out of the earth heap/cover up overed. 4. Down/away from the cataract/rapids and by the gates, not they may be harmed by the fires. 5. Down/away from the ditches requiring to be done. To the strength. Not to the arrows of the enemies the men may be striked in the wall. 7. To which/who he/she/it may have been requiring to be foreseed to the manners, not may suffer the hunger blockaded. 8. Which/who the sight may have been requiring to be prepared on behalf of the defense/protection of the walls. 9. Which/who may have been requiring to be done, if will have been wanting/lacking of the sinew/muscle/nerves the plenty. 10. Which/who requiring to be done, not the waters may suffer the lack blockaded.

I've always wondered, what was the reasoning for the Romans not conquering Scotland? I highly doubt tbe inhabitants were that strong. Is there evidence that the Romans were using defense in depth, possibly forseeing germanic tribes making landings in the north?

Hope nobody lived out there.

A little Lysol, a good scrubbing, and it should be good.

It wasn't that bad, I got the basic grasp of that he was trying to say. Thank you You spoke of Trajans Column in detail, it reminded me, a few scenes show the romans in their fortified positions with what looks to be some kind of forked slingshot, then it shows pictures of them on their ROMAN CHARIOTS with what seems to be the same contraption mounted on it. What was the latin name for this?

The only thing I know about the Dutch (though it might be Belgium, sorry) is that their Airborne School is extreamly nerve wrecking, cause instead of jumping out of planes, you jump out of a hot air balloon! The sucker floats with the wind, so it doesn't make much noice, cept for the errie creaking of the platform. You can hear everything way down on the ground. The static lines are tied off to the platform, and when it comes time to jump, they take turns, one right after another. They say all you can hear during that is the sound of the bands holding everything together break, one after another for what seems like an eternity till it's your turn, then when you do jump, since you're not being shot out of a C-130 at a 130 knots, they had to make the static line much longer, cuasing problems with Americans cause we do a four second count after we jump to mark the danger period before we pull our reserve. Needless to say, the people who done it hated it.

I'll finish looking for it later, but I know Gibbon's book is on the net, I've seen it in e-book form a couple years back. http://www.his.com/~z/gibho1.html http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/fallofrome/

Hmmm, the present may be pressing, but nothing but time in the future. Keep bugging him, and he'll crack adventually and do it.

It couldn't hurt if we all chipped in and found a few sources, mabey an index for him?

Bazooka Joe taught me everything I needed to know.

http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/volume...rone/sheba.html

Oh, well... so long as the British agree to use arsenic free paint, I'll guess the U.S. will rejoin the British Empire. Woo Hoo, long live Queen Charles!