Spurius

Hey all, not really a new member but I'm back after a two year hiatus. Hope everything is going well. I'll be posting again here once I take a look around and see if there are any holes I can fill. Glad to see the site is still maintaining its standards. (Don't know why they let me back in though...)

"ROME (Reuters) - Archaelogists have discovered a more than 2,000-year-old Etruscan tomb perfectly preserved in the hills of Tuscany with a treasure trove of artifacts inside, including urns that hold the remains of about 30 people." Story link right here. Though this is long after their height of power, this tomb should bear some great doctoral research in the upcoming years.

Thanks for the replies. Rameses the Great, I mentioned technologically advanced because of the number, standard use and even the design superiority of the Ottomans. It was the muskets of the Janissaires that drove the Hungarian right wing back, despite being caught making camp. In essence, the Hungarians were fighting a medieval battle against a more advanced foe. Despite their bravery, the Hungarians had essentially doomed themselves before the start of the battle and were acting in desperation. The Ottoman combination of numbers and technology sealed the day. And yes, massing of troops was a standard advantage employed by the Ottomans. Good and/or clever opponents could easily take advantage of this but if the opponent had no choice but to go head-to-head, it gave them a very strong hand. That's why seige was so very important to the Ottomans. Seal the opponents up in strongholds and have enough men left over to raid the country. Even as their technology stagnated, numbers still told for the Turks. Kosmo, thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that site before.

Heh, given my age... retired from service or a Triarii. Might be a bit off topic, but given age and marital status my situation reminds me of Kipling's "The Married Man." More specifically the closing line: "So I'd rather fight with the bacheler, An' be nursed by the married man!" (read the poem why).

I'd add a nomination for Both battles of Mohacs (1526 and 1687) as well as the seige of Guns (1532). While not the most important battles, they are overlooked in western history far too much. Mohacs (1532) displayed a technologically advanced and victorious Ottoman army (even if their discipline was rough), killing the king of Hungary and ending it as a country for quite some time, and ultimately setting up circumstances that put a Hapsburg king on the throne of Bohemia (Ferdinand). The seige of Guns (1532) was a three week affair in August 1532. Suleiman had gathered a 200,000 man force to seige Vienna and advanced along a line that included Guns. The cost of the victory, against the well prepared fortress and its 700 man garrison with modern fortifications, convinced Suleiman that Vienna would be too tough to beseige. Instead he raided Styria and lower Austria then retreated back to Istanbul. Mohacs (1687) was the reverse of the first. Mehmet IV was decisively defeated by the Hapsburg forces and thus ended the last expansion by the Ottomans into Europe. After this it was a slow retreat off of the continent. All three of these battles are good examples in micro what was happening in the relationship of the East and West at the time. IMHO.

The military disaster at Al-Kut, with the capture of 10,000 British and Indian troops in April 1916, was more of an under estimation of the Turks than superiority of tactics or equipment. When it was acknowledged that they had to treat the Turks as serious soldiers, the southern Mesopotamian front got turned around and became a large factor in the surrender of the Ottomans in WWI - because the British just chewed up and eliminated any real forces left there. No defenders left = surrender. There were real economic problems that weakened the Ottomans: inflation, declining trade routes, corruption, debasing currency were just the start. Technologically they had to start to rely on foreign hirelings and experts since their learning centers had shifted to the static Islamic model (IE: Moving away from the Hanafi legal model toward the Traditionalist). So when the economic strength of the empire waxed, the Ottomans were a significant power, but when they waned the empire was in more of a depression than most states. Only the seeming fetishism for bureaucracy kept the state relatively intact. In my opinion, of course. (And the Ottoman Empire is a fascinating historical subject with so many archieves just waiting to be re-found and researched.)

Even if it isn't his specific sarcophagus, it is still an interesting dig and site. Lots of research from the dig.

I'm curious, what if anything was taught to you about patriotism in gradeschool? Was it delayed to middle or high school? I throw this out because my childhood experience was different from the norm - army brats while not a small group are definitely a minority. So I'm always curious as to how people come to their conclusions. Since I had patriotism like music (invisible but everywhere) around me as I grew up, my basic beliefs in that area were pretty much set by high school. Not that I haven't examined them - an unexamined life is not worth living - but most of the basic structure is intact. I'm just wondering what age you or anyone else think that patriotism should be taught to kids in school? Is the Pledge of Allegiance not a good tool? Not being defensive just really curious....

Well, it may be the only one with a written text in the Constitution. Article. VI., Clause.3 - The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. This does require an oath, though the text was not specified. (The current oath was set up in law around late 1800s. IIRC.) The Congressional Oath of Office reads: I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. So there is a mention of God, but notice the clause forbids a religious test such as swearing it in an oath. A tricky compromise at best, and I think a member of congress can just omit "So help me God" if they wish. I grew up reciting the Pledge everyday at the start of school until the fifth grade (10-years-old). It didn't feel forced but it did remind me that we were part of a greater country. And people were fighting and dying for it everyday (Vietnam was the war back then). We also went through the whole "Red is for the blood our forefathers shed to keep the country safe...." thing once a month or so. So, I think it's silly to ban the recitation, I think it's silly to get bent out of shape over them banning it. For the record, I come from a military family (Dad was a twenty-year-man). I'm a Republican and consider myself conservative. I grew up a combination of Eastern Orthadox/Southern Baptist , have been an Atheist for 25 years. My wife is Roman Catholic and we send our son to MMF. Some (or all) people may call me warped, but this is a tempest in a tea cup. IMHO.

The movie you're refering to is this one "Julius Caesar" (2003)? Never saw that one.... I think it is one of the few. I don't even remember a Sulla reference in "I, Claudius" - though it's been over a year since I last watched any episode.

Good fun, but they do seem to slam together empires and times that are loosely associated with each other.

I'd be interested in a regional meeting, east coast oriented. The family is planning to go to the Tut exhibit in Philadelphia (because my wife has relatives there), so that might be a date/time. I'll give data if people think this is viable. Heck, M. Porcius Cato lives in the same metro-area as I do and we haven't even thought about getting together over lunch or some such... These things are like herding cats. It takes a while to organize, but actually as the site gets more members it becomes easier to everyone moving in the same direction. Hope to greet some of you in person at some point....

It's an easy illusion, and easy to see through... All you have to do is learn to see things as they are, not like you think they should be :bash: I can spot most illusions like this with a glance, but if I'm concentrating...they fool me everytime.

This article linked here shows a rather humerous translation error. Though it was once believed that cycling did cause bladder disease....

Lot's of fun here. I'm waiting with baited breath.... Full name: MROAYNHDDORWADLOOCWK or First and last: DROAOYWMKOCNODL Male and produce one, two, or as many names as you deem fit.

I can easily see this becoming one of a two pronged approach. If someone gets irritated at nonsense being posted, they'll just say: "I'm taking this to Academia," to post and control content response. This could lead to someone going: "You made a good point, one I didn't think of...so I'll throw it out of my thread after picking it apart for grammar (or other nitpicky issues)." Second, this will create a bit of endemic pretension. So I suggest people stay loosened up and open to comments, otherwise this will ossify and die away. I'll be watching and hopefully posting later.

Write your posts as a good journalist would- Do not write to be understood, write so that you cannot be misunderstood. I too agree with the personal affronts, but as you pointed out there are no facial or body language clues about intent. Since we rely on these signs so much, it's easy to get "bent out of shape." So: :thumbs_up: :shutup: and keep the :boxing: to a level....

Here's one way... But it also could have been an impact, close encounter with another planet or large mass, unstable orbit finally letting it fly, already a rogue moon and captured by sun....several more possibilities.

In the same vein as 1776 I recommend Paul Revere's Ride by Fischer. It gives a good view on the organization of resistance to Britain and the best write-up ever of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and the Retreat to Boston. And more importantly, how the Colonies won the public relations battle after winning the fight. Just what period or intrest are we suggesting books for? (edited for coding)

If your essay has to include all of those topics, it would have to be fairly lengthy. This site has a good search function and you could just type in the topic headings. Posters here do have a tendency to add links to websites or books that bolster their arguments. The Han and Rome comparison threads have a tendency to focus on military and how the "barbarians at the gate" were handled. They usually end up with assertion of superiority of one over the other with the reasoning being "Because I say so." But there is some material to be gleaned. I think that a simple comparison is worthwhile, but the sentiment on this site currently is locked too much in the one side has to be superior to the other mentality. Perhaps we can break this cycle now.

No stranger than christians killing christians, hindus killing hindus, jainists being gentler than jainists...

Thoughts for those having a "Bad History" day.... History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools. Ambrose Bierce History is the sum total of things that could have been avoided. Konrad Adenauer History is a tool used by politicians to justify their intentions. Ted Koppel Historian: an unsuccessful novelist. H. L. Mencken

I'd like to inject a small bit here about the OP... I'll be speaking in general terms, but will try to refine my point as much as possible without lots of re-writes. With the rise of agriculture and (more importantly) means of storage, divisions of labor became more pronounced in societies. As roles evolved, it became apparent that someone had to stay at home and do the dirty work of hulling seeds, salting meats, making usable salt, making flour, and whole bunch of other stuff. It devolved on the females more than the males to do this now necessary work. Perhaps since they were already spending more time domestically with child rearing and various old chores. This was hard work, especially trying to process seed crops into other more useable forms. It also wasn't glamorous, so the leaders didn't do them. So to appear more like a leader, you didn't do those chores. Domestic tasks became looked down upon even as their necessity increased. With women bearing the brunt of the increasingly unpopular or undervalued tasks, is it really that much of a stretch to explain the slow loss of prestige that goddesses seemed to under go? The lower regard in a society for the work that an individual does leads to a lower regard for their lesser gods... Or to put it another way, as the running of a household was percieved by society so too went the goddesses. In rough outlines and IMHO of course...

Here's a Necro-Link to the article. A barrel vault? Here's another link (but for the living this time...) to explain. It's a kid link, but it has good pictures.

That's be cause I have trained a certain part of my anatomy to ask Jeopardy! questions. :smartass: :horse: