Onasander

I doubt it pure drivel, but many of the people who pursue it are. The med sea was well known to Egyptians, who took mercenaries regularly into their employment west of Italy, and phonecians were already active. We had island civilizations too in what is now Greece, as well as troy that exploited the sea lane trade. Its very, very hard to explain Troy if we take your premise as fact, that the ancient world before the Greek dark ages didn't explore. Furthermore, there are some late (albeit to my understanding, no expert) Spanish and north African cities that collapsed in either the 8th or Ninth century BC, which holds a strong possibility for hosting an Atlantis site discovered not that long ago. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42072469/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/lost-city-atlantis-believed-found-spain/ I feel this is logically the best candidate, as it appears to really match the records. I recall someone saying it also matched cities from the old testament (not referenced to the Atlantis myth obviously). Again, only recently discovered.... But it could explain why the Romans and Carthage kept coming across walled cities in Spain, and the origin of the gladius. Not an Iberian expert in the least. What matters here however, is that.... Its a damn useful myth for archeologists and historians to keep looking. Every time they are out looking for a ancient site called Atlantis, they are intentionally looking, for an ancient site, and have a much better chance of success of finding something, anything in these absurd spots, than people not looking at all. This increases our archeological data in the short term. Yes, you gotta put up with guys claiming obviously naturally hillsides at Pyramids, or some round circular site in the desert is Atlantis, or a cattle enclosure in South Africa is Stone Henge, but hey.... these wacky personalities give guys like you something to write about and dispute, and both you and they will age and die, but archeologists and historians will be aware of such sires, as its now in their radar. A lot of these naturally forming pyrimids have archeological sites built on them.... like in Indonesia. Very legit work, same for the fake Bosnian pyrimid, had legit medieval sites on it. Lastly, we learned a great lesson from completely disregarding nay-sayers like you in the pursuit of finding ancient biblical sites. Had we taken a more atheistic standpoint, we would have a horribly deficient understanding of the history of mesopotamia, as no one would of dug out there, or worst, blamed any artifacts found as fajes implanted by Christian fundamentalists to distract the public from the truth. It is very valid to look at historical texts, and search out cities mentioned in them. We have a very good track record in finding them. Some obvious exceptions, El Dorado, Atlantis, Ottawa, Shang Ra LA, but these searches found alit if other things, and are still pursued to this day with more and more discovery. Its a useful myth, and as a myth is far more tangible and real than a nay-sayer attitude that has been proven so very wrong countless times when cities have been discovered, like Troy. In fact, this absurd, A Priori skepticism might underline a cognitive disorder, as it sure the heck isn't based on science or methodology other than a bahumbug attitude. I say keep looking. Just don't dig if your not a archeologist. Apparently the Honduras explorers recently found at least, a few statues. This is good. No one would of found them otherwise. http://p1cdn02.thewrap.com/images/2015/03/bill-benenson-ancient-civilization.jpg

You may be right, I wrote that right before I went to work and Google searched a source: Polybius, Histories, book 2, Tactics Against the Gauls www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc... Capture of Mediolanum and End of the War ... Battle of Sellasia ...... rendered impossible a manœuvre characteristic of Roman tactics, because he left the lines no room for their deliberate ... I'm not sure what went wrong. As I pledged to look this weekend, I still will. A little red faced now, was bothering me today just how utterly swell it turned out, even though in the John Malalas thread it didn't. But I trusted the authority of Perseus.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/03/17/oldest-roman-fort-protected-soldiers-from-infamous-pirates/?intcmp=features A better researched article on this story.

I can't read French, but the name might be same as what is listed in this French book as establishing the colony: https://books.google.com/books?id=RR4OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=Sextus+Julius+Caesar+Tergeste&source=bl&ots=dxcc8F8KbQ&sig=gSbQ4-PjEDYkNg8B7xp2jBwCY54&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f7wMVYvtK5XqoATD7IDwCA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw All I did was Google: Sextus Julius Caesar Tergeste Only three links even suggested the possibility, but two merely lead to books on Julius Caesar, just means the word pops up somewhere in the text. I'll obviously bow out if this French texts says it, as I have really no reason to dismiss a 19th century French historian on this, just I can't find English evidence.

I see, I'll look into it this weekend. Its important when looking at a battle to consider how both sides came to blows in the first place, as armies just don't (usually) bump into one another by accident and duel it out without a sense of the larger end game beyond. Whether a army is created ad hoc, or preformed and already in garrison, it still needs to be brought together, mobilized, and idealized in how its goring to proceed foreward. Just knowing the enemy is out there, at location A at X time, doesn't give all army the data it needs to positively and successfully meet up and walk away. You need to know your advance, how much supplies you have, allowing for a length of engagement (usually measured by ratiins carried), resupply and where to meet up. You can't assume the enemy will cooperate in creating the most economic and ideal circumstances for you force, or that he isn't going to break up his force and raid periphial aspects you depend upon to maintain your forces in the field while the main force keeps your force distracted. Likewise, how much of their strategy is based on restricting Romakn movements, limiting intelligence, giving false intelligence, denial of advantages, giving false advantages, appearing to be weakened when not, and the enemies' cunning awareness of your state's ability to replenish your forces in both men and supplies in a timely manner. If they know four example, you have a enemy on the far periphery of your state opposite of yours, they may try to coordinate or at least exploit your divided attention till your state's ability to coordinate and maintain its system snaps. Likeowise, they may fight to deny you potential allies, protect their own alliances, or break up yours. Obviously lots of issues beyond this can pop up. I never look just at the official cause of war, or stated prejudices, but the entirety of the state engine, and the known prejudices inherent in personality types, which are know much better known per situation in statecraft via kinds of government, in each era. Only then does a battle make sense, that it can be rationalized and reason. Every army, no matter howi primitive, has a sense of idealized ldogic too it, but not that many ancient ahrmies had a sense of logic so broad to have a teleology that micromanaged every aspect from A to Z in a campaign that also looked beyond the campaign into the long term, beyond that campaign into long term cycles of war and peace, in the maintence and replenishing of its force. I consider of all ancient states, Zhuge Liang of Western Shu was the most advanced in his understanding of this, as he created a force capable of infinitely campaigning to objectives (willy nilly objectives if need be) while only losing a very small percentage of their forces, be they successful or not, while the enemy ALWAYS experienced painful attrition, had they succeeded or not. A wise state will build a system that eventually drifts into this pattern of lop sided differation, where they can always choose to campaign with the health of their armies intact. His only weakness was his lack of a war college to train new tiger generals, when they died, they never were properly replenished. The Romans were aware their system snapped in this battle. If I recall the Senate tried to make its own army even, like in the days of the republic. Something went terribly off, but I can't say just what it was unless I knew the whole scheme. I'd need to know why certain units were NOT fighting, placed in the rear, where the reinforcements came from, the political rhetoric prior to the engadgment of hostilities, why the Romans netted their assumptions as they did, and relied on the strengths they perceived. A whole tactical synthesis of the politics involved, before I knew what went on in terms of tactical assessments in the battle. Of the battle itself, his scouts or spies found them at Medio, but they didn't apparently have the advantage of surprise, as thus link shows: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D33 They formed up at a river, and rather poorly by Roman thinking- however, it also likely gave the Romans on that wing a major defensive advantage psychologically, as they had no where to run and had to stand their ground. This wasn't a concept Roman Armies consciously knew, but was long exploited with infantry in the east. What it suggests is the Romans, knowing they faced a 5 to 1 numerical disadvantage, didn't launch immediately into an genocidal attack against an unorganized enemy, but rather took a strong, yet obnoxious position impossible to ignore. However, given the 5 to 1 advantage the opposition possessed included women and children, it becomes immediately questionable why they didn't immeiodiately send their families TO THE REAR in retreat prior to engadgment. After all, this wasn't a ignorant force, it invaded the Po valley, damn well knew who the Romans were, and had prior engagements with and without the Romans, keeping the essence of their group together. Sometimes you keep them together, sometimes you send them off. In this case, they clearly couldn't, or thought the Roman army too pussy to seriously worry about. I doubt the latter. They likely prior to the battle corralled them to this location with calvary, causing a contraction of their foraging. The Romans cut off any outside communications and scouting, and made it very apparent any segmenting and sending their women and children away would fail horribly. So they corralled together, and while formulating a plan, the Romans showed up in an impossible position to defeat, but just small enough to entice the men to desperate enough desire to find a way out to counterattack. It ended in 1 day. However, it took more tphan onze day to plan this. Where are the high points within visual vicinity of this city ? In order to give a proper assessment of enemy numbers, both day time observation and night time observation of the number of fires are needed. Spies (or captured enemy, likely women foragers) are good. Spotting good land to defend, and all route in, and route out if it goes bad is needed as well. Its a good idea to get the guys ready to move as soon as they rest, before the enemy is observant enough to figure out their intentions. So wherever this command nexus was, it didn't start the beginning of the operations (calvary did), but it was a crucial beginning phase. Killing and enslaving 300,000 people was just one of the last steps. But this battle none the less shook the Romans. Of left a lasting impact, caused them to adjust how they operated. It effectively ushered in a change between eras. Was it for the better? Note their primary weakness wasn't their inability to fight a war on two fronts, as to do so without military commanders leading insurrections. Prior to this battle the Romans easily had two armies within range, but hlad to fight a civil war instead. Did their reforms change this? No. So did the tactics fit the strategy? Maybe, only if the strategy was limited and didn't unfold into the necessary reforms necessary for avoiding such repeats. It clearly didn't, as all it did was treat the symptoms and not the disease. The fact the Roman senate started building a army shows other possibilities were considered, and that this battle was part and parcel to ending that alternative. So in many ways, the Romans lost by losing the initiative to change when circumstances for change clearly presented themselves. The battle was fought in this backdrop. It wasnt just a movement of men and statistics, on the medium of terrain, but had much larger objectives. My presumptions if course stem from the psychology and known behavior of armies in general from around the world throughout history. It could of unfolded differently, and with better data, which I'll look into this weekend for, I may find something that causes me to change my mind, but it is how I see it now.

I too will celebrate by making a Jello Mold of Obama as Nero.

http://www.spyghana.com/has-atlantis-truly-existed-on-the-moroccan-coast/ Hmmm.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Celsus I've been going through footnotes in the Celsius library page, and I need to make it clear it wasn't odd, a special honor, or even illogical that it was a Library-Tomb dedicated to his father, the first Greek Roman Senator. He couldn't really deify his dad, as that process was just for Emperors at this point (please point out if I'm wrong, as I only know of Emperors being deified in this era) and the idea of a Saint in the Christian sense was likely on the periphery at best. Next best option is the Library of Alexandria option. It WAS a tomb. And scholars were hooked to it, we maintain to this day fond memories of its inner ceiling. It was one of the very few luxurious indulgents you'll likely find philosophers otherwise voluntarily impoverished accepting during long hours of study. You can't hope for a imperial divination, but as a proud, priestly Greek family, they would of known about Alexandria, and it was a clever option to take. It gave the family a higher and more enduring fame that lasts even to this day. You have to factor this parallel to Alexandria into this, as well as the fact people are still fascinated by it. It worked, better in fact than many imperial tombs.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/03/18/experts-harness-3d-printing-to-recreate-ancient-artifacts-destroyed-by-isis/ Clever graphics artists have decided to retaliate against ISIS destroying Iraqi artifacts once displayed in a museum online by making 3-D representations of each artifact from user provided pictures. I myself still have a bunch of Saddam era museum tour books and pamphlets (no actual pictures, smart phones were forbidden (as well as dumb phones), so any site I saw, resides just in my head. I see a obvious issue with this however. The Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, for example, has long supported having plaster copies of columns and and thrones in its museum, but they never painted them or tried a large scale replication of a site beyond tiny tiny rooms in its Egyptian exhibit (its fake igloo upstairs is bigger, and warmer). Were entering into an era where a museum, however wrongly, has lost its best pieces for display, and we are in retaliation.... Gonna put online every artifact in 3-D? I'm sure future Museum Directors and Tourism Ministers will absolutely love this! Now, nobody has a reason to visit, ever. Maybe this idea should be restricted, to say..... Highly realistic real world models, incorporating found fragments of the destruction, before and after. Can't wait till people start making 3-D models of the museum in Cairo.... always wanted to visit, but couldn't find sunscreen with a high enough rating to keep out the shrapnel when someone decides to body bomb me for visiting. The museums in London and Paris too, Moscow.... now nobody will ever have to visit a museum ever again! Just think of the lack of funding, they archeologist attached to museums, their archives forgotten, warehoused artifacts not being guarded, all because we no longer have museums. I think we can safely say ISIS has won this war against the museum, every museum. Millions of photos, from every angle. Bye-Bye Museums.

Yes, same here with funding. Plus, there are a billion other sites. I think it would be wise that they make this info public on a forum like this, people aware of financial and organizational techniques around the planet can compare methods used for maintaining and furthering cost effective, and efficient archeology and liaison to the public (public more or less makes it happen here, dragging the archeologist out and funding it in part). Wouldn't the romans have rabbits too? If it was just rabbits, and I'm guessing the turf wall was built upon by stone, wouldn't the stonework experience seeping and cracking due to rabbits? Secondly, wooden walls, IF they existed, would need to be short enough to look over (or a stable step on the inside).... is it to stop a infantry ambush at a weak point, or to stop missiles such as slings, darts, or arrows? If the latter, then I'm guessing some would of landed BEHIND the wall, as well as in front of it. That behind it may be UNDER the wall, or in the sediment in the ditch to the rear of the wall. It will be hard to date the rear elements, but not the forward elements in my opinion (the ones that fell short). Also, given the archeological experiment in turf seepage, the solution to such repairs seem simple enough. Any evidence the Romans had to repair them too? Who was the Romans real enemy, the Barbarians or the Rabbits?

I don't think Carthage did, primarily for two reasons. 1) They were a colony, with its mother country still intact and influential, speaking a presumably very similar tongue. In addition, it was a merchant society, and the ocean currents in the Med Sea along North Africa push West to East. It would of been very easy for Carthage to spread its ideas East, influence say, the Gaza or Alexandrian Philosophers, and left a greater literary impact. 2) Active populations, in Alexandria, Athens, Pergamum were very open to foreign philosophers and ideas. Very little till late came in, and what did come looked pretty heavily influenced by Greek thought. Sorry. I really do wish it was otherwise. Their Gods were widely worshipped, even in Asia Minor. Just, nobody much cared for their intellectual capacity. Sorta like Thailand, popular religion that makes inroads around the world, but people don't exactly come running to Thailand anytime an international crisis occurs and great foresight in planning and leadership is needed. They aren't known for this. Doesn't mean they exist in a void, but relative to some other countries they are definitely hurting in this category. But I doubt either Carthage or Thailand could care less, as its not their focus.

Oh... I need to add, at the site of Ft. Steuben (Steubenville, Ohio) they fundraised building much of the fort by letting people or organizations buy each individual beam, and got a little plaque hammered to each palisade with their name (or in memory of) in return. It didn't build the whole fort, but a big chunk of it. After a while, it became a Hugh historic part, towith a museum added and people paying to enter, and the fort in real life was temporary and didn't do squat. I think such a method could work along your wall, IF they have funding issues. Can you find the results of the turf Sinkage in relation to the wall? It would be nice to know the official tally.

Umm.... If the wooden wall may 'not' of existed then a big chunk of my objection would fall away. Don't see much value in a turf wall, but if it was the base for a stone, then yeah.

The first line is a date in the month of January, already passed. Second is a line from Ovid. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/28771-perfer-et-obdura-dolor-hic-tibi-proderit-olim-be-patient It's not a riddle in and of itself. I took a second to Google these lines you provided, and people are scanning barcodes to get text readoffs, Its likely just gonna lead everyone at midnight to travel to a swamp with shovels to dig up the final piece of the puzzle, just to find the shallow graves of some prostitutes who dissapeared in the 80s. Its got creepy crime motivation written all over it. http://www.reddit.com/r/dnbhl/comments/2yq751/solution_37_puzzle_warning_contains_spoilers/

No. No no no. Julius Caesar did not colonize it in 177BC, that's when it joined the republic. Secondly, it may be a old fort in Italy (barely in Italy as the modern country, but wouldn't say its in the peninsula) but I think other sites have an older right to being called oldest fortification by the Romans. They need to clarify what they are stating here. Do they mean an ENTIRE fort, as it a purely military base unmodified in later generations? Then maybe. But I remember talking about older fortifications in Italy on this site.

I've been typing up Numerius of Apamea's works the last two nights, as a Neo-Pythagorean, he is a massive influence on Christianity. They even built basilicas that look very similar to Christian churches. St. Bede and Alfred the Great were deeply indebted to the classics, as well as William of Ochkam. I don't actually know of any British philosopher who rejected the classics. However, however bad her presentation ultimately was, I have to agree with part of her ideal. It's important to study a wide range of classics. I've read several Upanishads and Vedantic works, works on statecraft from India, China, and the middle east, and am a strong supporter of reading Arabic and Persian philosophers. This doesn't mean I'm not critical of them, I'm critical of everything, but I go out of my way to learn as much as possible as if every society was my society. That's the Cosmopolitan ideal. I would not recommend decreasing time spent on the classics, but rather a push for greater awareness that other civilizations produced great thinkers worthy of inclusion into our core of study. It's something well near impossible to sell these days, no one is interested in learning new things, we specialize and hide within cubby holes of expertise.

You can get cattle back even without the wall, there is no where to run when your leaving a obvious trail. And I don't think it's intimidating one bit to build a wall on a cliff. Intact, I think that rather shows inflexibility in command's unyielding adherence to the plan designed far, far away, poorly rationalized per each situation. Evidence for this is when you get closer to imperial power, such as Aurelian's wall, you see just how willing they were to take shortcuts, incorporating buildings and even a pyramid into the wall. When people get yelled and cursed at from higher up, they will intentionally disregard reason, even when verbalized and presented to them, and will carry through with any stupid plan that is forced on them just to get the monkey off their back. In the case of say, they great wall of China, they had a real, perennial threat from nomads. They built on impossible crests at high expense. Romans obviously didn't begin to face such a threat from barbarian landings in England at that time. Persians had real offensive threats too from nomads, but didn't build on impossible terrain. And the expense of the wall doesn't begin to justify the cost of protecting some cattle. I know the medieval Scots and Irish loved their cattle raids, but umm.... Its cheaper just to import some new cattle and send the occasional retalitorial raid. Heck, your stuck doing such raids with and for allies north of a wall wherever you place it eventually anyway.... you want friends up there and so you gotta bleed a little on occasion to keep them friendly.

Ummm.... I've started reading this today. And.... I've googled some of the historians mentioned, fully expecting to only find them mentioned in this text, suggesting it's a fake, praying it is, but I keep coming back with positive hits, as fragments and mentions exist elsewhere. I had to stop reading it when it mentioned a Etruscan Princess parachuted off a wall using her dress puffed up to drift down, where she was promptly raped upon landing by a Roman General. I've jumped out of airplanes before.... it doesn't work that way, though admittedly there are some creepy farmers with ladders on the Alabama Side outside of Fryers Field down in Fort Benning.... but I won't believe the puffy dress as a parachute part. So.... anyone know of any studies down on this text? I only recognized one part, the solo battle on the bridge, but don't recall the arrow in the eye detail. Just.... of all the good books to of been lost from Antiquity, this one somehow survived.... shame.

Well, apparently Stupidville (Stubenville), Ohio has a large population of people from Icaria (explains a few things) and was just informed by them that a whole city held out on the Island of Karpathos, a mountaintop community called Olympus, whereas the rest of the island was conquered. They claim to of never of been conquered by anyone up there. Of course, this is Stupidville talk. I can only affirm the place exists, but can't find any evidence of this.

What? That is absurdly expensive. It doesn't cost that much to rent some horses and slap on some recreational body armor. We build an Indian village every few years here for free, and across the river they set up pioneer and revolutionary war tents and dress the part.... FOR FREE. Teepees, costume, muskets.... Just where is this money being sucked away to? It's like the Queens absurdly expensive train.... I don't understand why everything has to cost a million bucks in England that can be done free or very cheap elsewhere.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mediolanum I would start with that link, and click on the blue hyperlinks, and rephrase the question using tiers. Tier 1 is your original question, Tier 2 is in reference to your added hyperlink insight. This makes your question much more narrow, and makes any answer we offer up far more pertinent to your particular interests, with an added bonus that it offers you two links for sources, and aids in convincing your teacher your aware of the subject matter and did the research yourself. If you can't find the topic of your particular interest available on wiki, you can Google.... Adding a term that interests you in addition to "The Battle of Mediolanum". If you see a Google book pop up, scroll down and look for the yellow highlighted text, as it is what is actually related to your search. You can source this page number and title too. Or you can ask us a very technical question, even if you don't know the exact words for it, describe the basic idea. It's best to find a element that interests and excites you in any research topic, because if your excited, your forming a storyline effortlessly, and will be a more interesting read for both you and your teacher. Excitement follows it's own, more natural literary formulas, so it's harder to mess up (but hardly impossibly) than trying for a blander, more academic style. You can tell if a author loves their topic, so always try to, even if you initially don't. If I was to approach this very wide topic, my interest would fall on why it provoked such a strong reaction in how the state administered and maintained armies AFTER it. I would compare the reforms POST-BATTLE to the actualities of the battle, and isolate where they backfired, then go look into the ideological assumptions that PRECEED it, and explain why the Romans thought it was such a good idea, but didn't turn out so well in this battle, causing change. It would be an explanation of chain of effects, looking back to a cause, explained in the framework of this battle. If its a long essay, you can also tackle personality traits of historical characters involved, background on factions, include a pic or two from wikipedia (check on the bottom to make sure its public domain, almost always are) and adjust the pics with added info, such as saying (Figure 1) or (Figure 2) with arrows or battle lines drawn. That's just me though, as it would interest me. Many ways to approach this battle, try to figure out what interests you.

(Edit: I've been adding notes to the review and this post, will continue for a few days as I realised most people wouldn't immediately grasp my references. I guess this book review thus becomes a guide to understanding nuances and references in the text itself. My ticked off style in criticizing blends in poorly with the constant link references, so I apologize, as I'm adding them after the text has been written.) I'm still stumped on a few issues in the book. Photius said it was a unique work that laid outside the traditional Kyklos Cycle http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos , which is your basic Machiavellian transitions between Monarchy, Republics, Oligarchs, etc.... we still deal with variants to thus day, such as in Marxist theory.... In this case, he is supposed to be using, as per Photius.... some concept inherited by Dicaearchus of Messana http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicaearchus He was a philosopher of Aristotle's school, and had a ideological divide with Aristotle's successor, Theophrastus.... Theophrastus took a more abstract ideal as the true good, whereas Dicaearchus was 'more real' in regards to making a ideal state. Cicero is known to of been influenced by Dicaearchus, but were not quite sure how. This work in particular is supposed to be a Dicaearchan constitution.... but I'm scratching my head at this comment, as the author doesn't seem to of read his theory on how history evolves.... he assumes everything a state does produces unpredictable future conditions that may underline a state's ability to function under it's status quo. A example would be, if I make a highly efficient farm, capable of feeding 1 million people, I can keep 1 million people from starving for a time, but they will have 2-4 million kids. The repercussions of this is starvation, and perhaps militanism and even war. Unfortunately, our author doesn't seem any what aware that his clever system stinks. It encourages stagnation and complacency, and severely limits the intelligentsia beneath the senatorial class. He doesn't outright ban recruiting smart lower class individuals from within society or even foreign.... but it's limited to the scope of what the upper class can even detect as a worthy person to promote.... the lack of freedom in such a stagnant society would drive such people into cynical isolation and depression, whereas in a more free society with greater flexibility to markets (market flexibility allowing innovation) or ability to express their ideas an individual can do a lot to promote themselves and climb up to a higher station on their own. But not in this silly little society. I think you would have to either go into exile, or kill each and every last optimate. He structures the various trades the optimates supervise (they supervise the magistrates, not the people from what I gather) into Centuries. During the Roman republic, voting was done by an individual's economic wealth. The richest had the first votes in the first Century, then the slightly poorer in the next, down till you hit the Proletarii.... who were dead broke and rarely got to make a meaningful vote, as apparently the upper classes votes decided things. After Gaius Marius opened up the legions to the proletarii.... They flooded the republic's army, and created a army loyal to the local general. After Caesar in Augustus, the plebeians more or less got sidelined.... Whereas before they could make binding votes on all romans, after the emperors came around I just cease to hear of them. In our authors system, he appears to NOT include them in any century. He seems to of merged the republic's Senatorial advisory capacity with that if the tribunes.... I actually think the powers they have are more plebian. Does this mean no longer bicameral? Yes.... purely from how he structures the Centuries. It looks like the people have no say, excluded. Yet, however.... He also says there are three classes, and seems to include the 'people' as eligible for putting forth a vote for a candidate for emperor (selected from the senatorial class). So does this mean the plebeians have political offices? I don't know. It could be the magistrates, but I'm guessing here. What are the three classes? I don't know. He is aware the Equestrians existed just beneath the Senators in the republic, but I'm doubtful anyone could be equestrian in said society.... Their economy would stagnate into socialist ruin fast from a Austrian Economics standpoint fast, especially if the chief economic engine was aristocratic nous of all things. Could on of the classes be the priesthood? Perhaps. Army? Perhaps. The optimates are divided by trades/functions they oversee, into groups of ten.... Not economic status like for the voting centuries in the republic. He divides the state into ten rough offices, but we don't have a complete listing. It appears he tries to organize the state via a decimal system, like how the army does by S-Shops and G-Shops. Does this mean each rung has ten? I dunno. The Emperor does appear rather ceremonial, a spiritually perfected individual who talks of wide governing principles, but also appears to of retained some commander-in-chief abilities. I've been stumped on this.... As the author himself is aware the eastern roman empire isn't a city-state anymore, but a larger entity. He likes to think in terms that any society could adopt this system. If you have his emperor, in the field instructing and micromanaging troops, with the officer corps by your side, everyone within hearing shot.... and yet expects the emperor to run everywhere up and down the lines, forward and back.... You would expect him to have a bodyguard unit with Facses to do the punishing in training (or combat?). How wide apart are these formations? Why not just pick a good vantage point easy to defend, and use runners to communicate with subordinate officers? Or different horns and drums? Likewise, if he is with the Army.... and they have to fight a two front war, what keeps whoever is in command of Army B from proclaiming themselves Emperor, being undoubtedly a optimate, if Army A falls, or the emperor dies. Are you really going to hold elections, then move to fight off the enemies on two fronts? Yeah.... Likewise what just outright stops anyone from declaring themselves Emperor even if the old one isn't dead? Problem is, I'm not even certain if this guy thought about two front wars, or if the empire would just be under a legion lead by 1 emperor. Only time you would have two emperors legitimately would be when the senior emperor would be between 57-60 years old. You really want this old guy squinting, running his horse around in battles? I'm very intrigued by this book. He seems aware of the republican era institutions, he is trying to adapt it to an era where that system devolved under the various monarchies that ruled since Caesar..... but he doesn't convince me in the least that the Senators are in a position of possessing the awareness necessary to lead. I assume the author is a petite senator, clearly not within Emperor Justinian's administration .... or even rubbing shoulders with it. Is somewhat aware of the happenings, but is also isolated and fed a little too much of his own bull, with few people to offer him a serious counterpoint and call him on it. So I'm doubting a neo-platonic philosopher teaching locally, but rather an aristocrat on an estate (where?) living on his ancestors estate, visiting other lower ranking senators who are no longer invited to decide on issues, kindly asked to stay home. They bumpkin senators would know how things really ought to be, like in the old days. He was very much against circus and political factions. Seems remarkably oblivious to their power being independent of his system. I don't think Nous is going to calm a crowd informed chariot games are not happening from now. He thinks his system will make everything more stable, whereas if it was influenced by Dicaearchus, you think he would know it would rapidly fall apart. Even if wildly successful, you quickly end up within a few generations of their breeding program with a who lit of Optimates, and only so much Acropolis to house them on. You inevitably end up having to boot them into the lower orders, or start a optimate colony.... which brings up issues on voting and organization, as well as synchronization of policies. Eastern and Western Roman Empire had these issues. More likely though, the breeding stock would rapidly diminish from starvation due to bad policies resulting from Nous'in around all the time, and general attrition from illness, plague, sterility, battlefield deaths, horrific inbreeding, etc. Same for everyone else being bred for their station in life. The text bothers me, but it's very interesting. Worth reading. He resurrects the idea of checks to power (won't call it checks and balances, as only his precious, undoubtedly largely ignorant by our standards optimates win) and tries to fit the emperor into a constitution. He becomes a counterpart to the nobles who selfishly forced the Magna Carta to be signed, I think a good comparison could be made. He effectively beats The Holy Roman Empire in figuring out the need to constitutionally stabilize and elect an emperor, instead of letting anyone try for the spot. His system of selecting ten men reminds me of the Han Eunuch councils http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_regular_attendants It has firm roots in the Republican system, but doesn't seem very well thought out. It seems like a constitutional monarchy in all honesty, and perhaps without a Parliament even beyond electing the emperor or evicting a fellow optimate from his status/role. His understanding of basic military tactics, especially calvary, is horrible too. He thinks all they do is fan out from either wing and looks for ambushes, but the infantry.... which his army is primarily built on, just stays still. This is a really stupid strategy to use against the Persians and huns. I hope he included strong point defenses, like holding the high ground in the list part of the book, but even then, eventually a army of mounted archers are gonna call your bluff and NOT storm that hill, they WILL shadow you, they will mess with your lines of communications back to the rear, they will destroy your resupply, they will kill your men foraging, they will hareass and pick your men off day and night. It will end badly if they decide not to storm a impossible position, which is more or less what the infantry of this era needed to fight of a mobile calvary archer army. All those cav he sent off to look for ambush? Dead, cause they successfully found it, and died, and now no calvary defend the infantry flanks and rear. Meh.... Defeat.

Supposedly the Genoans held it, but the issue with that is, well.... It has no port. It has a tower built by Alexander the Great, at least one byzantine fortress, and then switched apparently with the Byzantines concent over to Genoa to keep the Turkish navy out.... but then reverted to a feral state when Genoa pulled out. All I can find as evidence for this is assumptions Genoa "built forts", but how this set up actually exerted sovereignty is doubtful given how isolated the island's population was.... Plus the turks made a map long after the Genoese pulled out assuming they were still there. The islanders also begged the knights of st. john, wanting to move to Rhodes. The knights said no, but somehow or another the island was incorporated into their holdings..... again, without a port and a interior isolated population. They killed the first Turkish tax collector, got away with it. Never really paid taxes except a ecclesiastical tax via the church, as they were too poor. Got hit up by pirates, a lot.... Which is expected. They claim to be of royal blood, and refuse to marry outside the island. Had a very peculiar dialect of Greek, studies had been done, showing it to be the most classical of all Greek dialects. So it appears the center of this quite worthless island managed to avoid the collapse of the roman empire and carried on long after the rest of the world fell, but lead a very miserable existence in doing so, and nearly went extinct a few times in the following centuries in their isolation. It was in the 18th century (not 1800s) that they came into a more regular control under the ottomans, via 1 official, and this was eventually replaced by a local Greek dictator who was eventually disposed of. So.... this isn't certain, as I can't find out just howmuch or what Genoa did on Icaria, much less the Knights of St. John other than sit a few men down in rotation in a remarkably useless hill fort on a port less, remarkably poor island. I'm really feeling bad reading this background information. It was hell in those last days of the empire. Refugees had no idea of where to go. They appear to of been freely given to Genoa, but were abandoned. Couldn't get the knights to take them in. Undoubtedly were surprised that Turkish invasion fleet never quite showed up. Very tough incorporating such a community into the Trebazond was last free outpost. These people lived free, in brutal poverty but free without a master in their villages for centuries on, save for the occasional dissapointed pirate raid. They made certain no pirate bases were set up on the island by launching raids on them from what I've read whenever they settled.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5HPY20ksNcwC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=byzantines+icaria&source=bl&ots=ytxhufaEgi&sig=bfo04Pcw_7XlWbA18sPI2-Gg5SE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QSQDVcSELYyqyASZxIGQCw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ Honestly, I can't find evidence anywhere Icaria was conquered. I went Island by Island for when the East Roman Empire was conquered, but can't find any evidence Turks even showed up till a century after Trebazon fell, and that was by a Turkish tax collector who was quickly hanged, and this book focusing on it's history shows instead of thriving, they more or less devolved. I recall them having built towers to fight off the Venetians, and the link given to the Knights of St. John looks rather loose and unconvincing that they held any control over them other than some trade contacts. So what do we do with trying to trace the collapse of the Roman Empire, territory by territory, when it's last remaining holding just.... hid really really well, but kept independence, and just.... went badly downhill?

Yeah.... the Romans only took a corner of that fort, then abandoned it 6 years later. I'm guessing not a lot of astrological alignment is happening if your building withing the area of an already established community, your more or less going after the strongest position with the least amount of additional refortification efforts. I bet those troops slept in those huts for several months after while the villagers cut down trees for walls and dug trenches for them.