Kosmo

If the models of a hellenistic king were Alexander and Bachuss we can see that Marcus Antonius respected that, but Caligula and Nero did not. A hellenistic king was martial and wanted military glory. Nero and Caligula never led an army on the battlefield like Augustus, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius. A "bachic" king will be generous with his friends. The two killed many of those around them. And none of them drinked to much!

Disciplina Augusta. Not sure of many aspects, but sounds nice.

According to our test, you would be a perfect match for Mia Hamm. Born: March 17, 1972 Dominates the Soccer Field. Helped motivate women's soccer around the United States by winning gold at the 1996 Atlanta games. Your next closest matches were: Sheryl Swoopes Ashley Judd Nicole Kidman Bumer! I don't like to much any of them. Anyone wants to trade?

Some roman "emperors" kept the fiction of the republic while others behaved more autoritharian. Some authoritarian emperors behaved strangely. What does this prove? Was the behaviour of Caligula and Nero in the line of ideal hellenistic kings? Being a warior was the main character of a macedonian, seleucid or pontic king while a king of Egypt or Ephes will have a more religious role. How many hellenistic kings raced chariots themselves and played music in public? To prove that those roman emperors adopted a hellenistic model you must show how this model was used by the hellenistic kings themselves.

At Alamein Rommel had no chance of wining. The numers were so great on the british said that it was a metter of time to crush the Afrika Corps. The war in the desert was fought amaizingly well by the outnumbered germans with little equipment. I think the best description comes from B.L. Hart. A clear proof of what leadership means.

I remember something about power struggles in the kingdoms of merovigians franks in which queens played an important part. Have to check it. I don't think that we could find an era when high placed women did not played a major role in Europe. Even slaves that made it to the harem of the ottoman sultans sometimes became powerfull (like the ukrainean Roxellena).

The weapons were partially tempered. I found some time ago a nice indepth look: http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public...oger/BLOOM4.htm I rember seeing a Discovery documentary about high quality saxon swords. The swords were very similar with those of the samurai. Still I don't think this differences played a vital part in war.

Pico dela Mirandolla for the great interpretation of Platon's dialogue "The Banquet". I liked him more then I liked Platon. And I have a book about renaissance where the author defines the renaissance as the time between the beginning of the XIV century and 1620.

Metal bucket? That will rust instantly if it's from iron and will be expansive if it's bronze or lead. They probably used cheap clay and wood pots. Maybe he was doing forced labor with some tools in his cell and he could use them for his own purposes. Not to romantic is it. But I'm not sure about roman jails. A man will usually stay in a "jail" for a short term during trial and then off to the punishment.

I see your point, but he and his allies failed to provide a long term solution for the survival of that important hellenic area. Greek individualism was again selfdefeating. He needed to convince Tarentum of the importance of Syracusa and Syracusa of the importance of Tarentum. And also to make the smaller cities of Sicilly and South Italy to see his rule as better then that of "barbarians" or larger cities. Possibly monarchy was disliked in those areas and in the moment that he failed to take Lilybaeum the cities of Sicilly considered themselves safer without cartagian pressure and broke the alliance. Not a bad move if they could defend themselves against Rome and Carthage while keeping the locals quiet. But they, obviously, could not do that anymore. Tarentum had reasons to keep the alliance as Rome had no intention to stop fighting. An interesting example was the faith of the cities of the west Black Sea. They came under some degree of macedonian authority under Filip II and Alexander. After the death of Alexander they were ruled by Lysimah the diadoh of Thracia. His high taxes made those cities that usually fighted against each other to revolt against Lysimah with the help of the getic (eastern dacians) kings from the north of Danube. This alliance fought Lysimah and his two attacks to the north of Danube were defeated. Lysimah was able to control them finnaly, but his state failed to resist after his death. The area south of the Balkan Mountains came under the rule of the celtic kings of Tylis that asked for huge amounts of money as tribute, while the areas north of the mountains came incresingly under pressure of getic/dacic kings. The attempts to use the pontic federation that Mithridates set up against the inland barbarians that were bankrupting the cities brought the wrath of Rome and the devastating attacks of Burebista that destroyed some of this cities. In my opinion, the greeks failed to see the increasing power of "barbarians" and the threat that this power represented for them. They fiercely kept their independence against each other or the hellenistic kings and were defeated one by one until Rome became the panhellenic federation that they failed to do.

With a silver blade

What I like it's the fact that I can ignore myself. Sometimes I don't like my posts :stupid: Edit: stupid me! I can't ignore myself despite the icon. How could I shave myself if I ignore myself?

I think that aliens are bussy killing humans in computer games like Duke Nukem. So, no energy left for long distance space tourism.

I don't believe a word about this bosnian piramids. How will a primitive neolitic group build such large and many pyramids. To build something that large with little tehnolgy you needs lots of people. Where could someone find in the middle of a mountainous region so many people? Why would someone build pyramids in the middle of a mountain range where nobody could see them? Those at Gizah are on a high platform overlooking the Nile. They are highly visible and not overshadowed by anything.

Not a tyrant, but a king of Epyrrhus, Pirus tried to unite all Sicilly by defeating the Cartaginians. He also tried to control the South of Italy, but was opposed by Rome. His campaign in Sicilly was victorious and he was able to control all Sicilly except the western town of Lilybaeum. A thing that I don't understand was his failure to keep this areas when he was unopposed and how he left without any benefit. Some conflicts with his allies are recorded, but still, his failure it's surprising.

Rome was also very crowded with maybe an oriental air rather then a geometric modern one. Streets were winded, dirty, crowded and narrow. Sometimes dangerous as people were throwing "things" from the upper levels. There was no urban zoning and people from very different classes will be neighbours. Quite different from how provincial cities with wide streets in a grid plan looked.

I voted for early-middle republic (hellenistic) era, and the Byzantine Era as a second. Also the late republic and the principate eras are interesting. Even the dominate era I like. The regal era it's definetly misterious. Hmmmm what you mean by "other"?

Forget the aliens, I play, now, only heroic fantasy games.

Very nice summary! Apollo and arete are not complete without Dionysos and excess. Achilles, Alcibiade and Alexander were powerfull models of a type of political excess, but greek art and mithology reflect a lot of excess from gods, heroes, men and a miriad of creatures.

Interesting theory. The popularity of those emperors might be an indication that you are right. Septimius Sever at first presented himself as the "son" of moral Pertinax, but after defeating all his oponents he claimed to be the heir of Commodus and punished those guilty of his murder. And his sons behaved like those other "porphyrogenetic" emperors you mentioned. Elegabaal it's a diferent thing, but equally shocking for a roman. Even Hadrian, a great emperor in my opinion, had the beard of a greek philosopher, an official lover that he put on coins and deified and a passion for the mysteries of Eleusos. He was also the first one to rule Rome from a distance as he never stayed much in a place. All things very far from what an emperor like his uncle Trajan was. Maybe they behaved like that because Rome had no sistem of checks and balances and this meant that they believed that was no penality for any behaviour. Even an absolute king in the 1700's had to face the church and his aristocracy as a very serious oposition to any unhonorable public deeds. Or maybe the education was seriously wrong for this extremly high placed persons. I remember the critical opinions of Jerome Carcopino on roman education and what a slave could teach his master. Other people had to obey someone, but this "gods" were never subjected to a higher autorithy and never had to supress their whims. An interesting thing that you point it's the fact that all had many, high quality advisers that sooner or later were killed during the change. Seneca it's well known and so it's the care that Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Sever took in the education of their heirs.

I have to chek, but I remember that a noble family from southern France could trace their origins to the goth kings. A direct line in family usually lasted in Middle Ages for just 150 years. After that the family died out with no direct male succesor or lost her noble status and was recorded no more. It's true that british dinasty it's related to a saxon king, but they are just very distant relatives thru many other families. For sure many (I believe most) of us have roman ancestors but we can not know who was that ancestor.

Edo was a fishing village in 1400 AD. His rise started with the shogun dinasty of Togukawa in 1600's. I can not say Tenochitlian as is little real knoledge about how it looked. Rome would have been the best western city with some reminants of antiquity, but her beuty was much greater 200 years later. London, Paris and other European cities were not to impressive except for a couple of monuments for ewach city. I know that the Forbidden City was built by the founder of the Ming but I have no ideea how it looked that early. Baghdad was a smoldering ruin after the repeated visits of Timur that was still the undisputed leader of the Middle East. Venice had the great advantage of a beutiful natural setting and clean water while Byzantion despite decadence will still be a hub of trade, art and politics. My option is Costantinopole that I found few years ago to still be an incredible place and in 1400 would have been at her best looks. Not new, maybe a little broken in same places, but in all her byzantin form with no turkish alterations. All with the beautiful Bosphorus and the Golden Horn.

No crusade ever reached Alexandria! I think Lara Croft did it! They are still looking for the mausoleum and it could be under the waters of the sea, like it happened with the Pharos and with Cleopatra's palace. Some say it's under an old mosque. Rather hard to believe that so much gold will be in place after so much time.

I'll say that panhellenism never played a political role other that of propaganda. Something like the christian empire dreamed by teologians in the Middle Ages. But, the particularity of the city-state was very often replaced by many larger voluntar asociations, the many leagues that existed in greek history. Some were short lived and just for a purpose. Others have a long history and are remarcable thru their efficiency (like the Achean and Etolian leagues) Sometimes they shared their identity and create a "isopolytea" two cities in which the citizens have something like a double citizenship or a unique citizenship for two, or more, cities. Other times the sovereignity of the city-state was overrun by a greater power. I always wondered how the insititutions of the polis worked when placed under the authority of another state. Sometimes several polis became part of a large greek state like The Bosporan kingdom or under the hegemony of another greek city like Athens or Siracusa. But, other times they became subjugated by "barbarians" like the ionic polis by Persia or the cities of Campania by romans. Many times more the greek colonies kept their freedom, but had to pay large tributes to the neighbouring barbarians like happened to Byzantium, Histria, Olbia, Tarent etc.

I think that, after many years when Alexander was seen as a hero, now he is villified to much. His campaign in India, never reached today India, only today Pakistan. The NW India was a part of the persian empire and for the heir of the persian throne was normal to see it brought under his rule and when he was there with his strong army it was natural to consolidate it by expanding in the nearby regions. The indians were no serious match for his superb army, despite great numbers and those elephants, but his soldiers got tired and wanted to stop. Maybe himself wanted to stop, but needed a justification for that. The march thru Gedrosia it's a strange thing. Maybe he did not knew of the arid nature of that place or maybe it was a supply problem. Anyway Gedrosia and Archosia were under his control when his army was marching thru the desert and this is why he executed so many satraps after that.