M. Porcius Cato

I meant also to ask: If Dacia wasn't 'backwards', who was?

Maybe not strong evidence, but apparently the best we have?

The original issue (in a nutshell) was whether imperialism is (1) potentially good but not always good; (2) always bad; or (3) never good or bad because all that matters is power. Here's a fourth possibility that I think comes close to the truth. Imperialism is most often much better in the long run for the conquered than the conquering.

I agree with PP--atheism is not a religion. It's not even a whole philosophy. It's just one position, but one that opens up so many other philosophical issues (e.g., if there's no divine punishment, why be moral?) that it's an awfully fundamental position. As for the difference between agnosticism and atheism, I think there is a major and important difference: whether one believes it is possible that there is an omnipotent/omniscient/creator (i.e., one or more beings with godly properties) or whether one believes it is impossible. As an atheist, my opinion is that a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient is impossible, in the same way that it's impossible for something to be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. If a being is capable of doing anything, then it is capable of learning; but if it is capable of learning, then it is not all-knowing; therefore, there cannot be a being that is simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. QED.

But doesn't the high degree of specialization in metalwoking suggest that the Dacians were producing these goldworks for trade? If so, who were their trading partners.

I disagree. The Triumvirates were symptoms of a corrupt oligarchy, an extreme solution to an even more extreme problem. Given that an oligarchy is the rule of the few, the decemvirs and triumvirs were by definition an oligarchy, end of story (as you like to say ).

But is there any evidence that they actually did?

Any evidence that these Greek colonies were defended by fortified walls?

Funny, I heard the generalizaiton from three different professors of linguistics. Latin obviously had an enormous army.

The triumvirate, therefore, was a true oligarchy (ruling over many with oligarchical ambitions). Tflex, you really hate the patricians and love the plebeians?

Atheist.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of all places, I'd expect that ignorant excuse for a generalization to NOT occur here! I think I'll shoot the next person who uses that!!!!! OK, calm down and explain why you think this generalization is incorrect.

Actually, it's rule by the few. Rule by the wealthy would be a plutocracy. And I was asking for Clodius' intended meaning. I know what the word means.

When Texans get their own "nucular" weapons (as they would say), I won't argue with them!

Historical linguistics isn't my specialization, but I'd guess (almost wildly) that up until a few hundred years ago the relatively isolated communities that spoke Ladin and Romansch would be the closest. And, please, nobody tell me that these are dialects and not languages. A "language" is simply a dialect with an army!

That my friend looks grounds for debate unto itself. Maybe I should first ask you to define "oligarchy" as you were using it earlier.

Bingo! And, I'd add, vice-versa.

Perfect! That's what I'm talking about! Then provide the proofs. Until then, I don't buy it at all. They didn't have siege works, so as long as the Romans could call in reinforcements, the northern tribes had to stick to their typical raiding campaigns.

A person who participates in the economy by buying and selling goods/labor/etc.

Another important lesson from the "secession of the plebs" is that Roman economic agents were not isolated but mutually dependent on one another, as you would expect in any society with a fair degree of specialization.

Even better for my point! BTW, did anyone find anything in the Gallic Wars about the Celts possessing siege works?

A race is not a group with distinct physical features. The various physical features alluded to do not cluster for various genetic reasons. The only meaningful definition of race is as a sort of super-family (a family of family of familiy of ...families), and the Romans were positively obsessed with descent.

Fair question -- always question assumptions -- but no, that doesn't work as an explanation, I don't think, because Romans in the north could have made bread in the same way that it was made all over the Roman world. So why go to the fag of making beer, as part of that process, in the outlying provinces only? Maybe in the outlying provinces, where soldiers were on garrison duty, individual soldiers had to make their own bread, but to get the bread to rise, they had to use yeast, which was too difficult for individual soldiers to keep active. Therefore, soldiers lit upon the solution of using the local yokels' smelly alcoholic beverage (glorious beer to us barbarians) for baking bread, and thus great quantities of the stuff were kept on hand for soldiers on the frontier. Also, maybe (in a pinch) they drank some too.

What's your source on that?

Languages do evolve, but that should be the beginning of the story not the end! Among modern languages, the rate of linguisitic change differs under different conditions. The same was almost certainly true of ancient languages as well. For example, compare the vocabulary of the earliest Latin literature in Rome (say, The Twelve Tables) to the literature of Romans 500 years later, 1000 years later, 1500 years later, and so on. Do the same for the literature in Spain, Gaul, Africa, and so forth. I'd bet that any objective measures of linguistic similarity would show that the rate of change differs dramatically based on population factors such as isolation, immigration, social mobility, and so on.