Bryaxis Hecatee

We have some elements pertaining to the other Diamond's factors, including climate change ( a trend in a worse climate beginning in late empire and which is clearly still in effect until the Carolingian but shall only stops only two or three centuries later ), environmental mismanagement and damages ( exhausted mines in Gaul, reduction of Fayoum's area productivity in Egypt, ... ). About the loss of critical allies and/or trade partner one may say that the barbarian were trade partners and protected the Romans from direct contact with the steppes' tribes until they got pushed too hard and forced to flee, thus invading Rome. But factor 5 seems to be the most damaging one in the roman case, for even 3 is partly an evolution of 5 : until the barbarisation of the army Rome could still reform herself and produce great things as the 4th century Constantine's renewal showed.

Mummification was more common in the Greek and Roman periods, we have many examples which gave us the wonderful paintings on papers that covered the face of the mummified body found in the oasis and dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries for example.

Well indeed the roman had a different view toward death, but it evolved with time. First they had lamentations at the time of the funeral, often cremated their death ( then later adopted burials ), organized themselves in collegia to take care of the deceased, put goods in the tombs that referred to a funeral banquet, and held yearly dinners on the deceased's tombs in order to pacify their shade in order that the evil spirit of the dead did not come to haunt them. They also made small daily offerings to the manes, the good spirit of the dead which helped them in their daily life. But by the first century AD new conceptions about the dead had come to Rome, speaking of an afterlife and of salvation of the spirit : cult of the Magna Mater, of Cybele, of Mithra, and such which paved the way for the christians. This had consequences in the rituals made for the deceased, but the biggest change came with the Christians who needed the corpse to come back again at Armageddon and thus built long catacombs in which they lay their dead. We must also remember that during the Empire all regions did not use the same traditions : in Egypt for example momification was still used.

I see many of you are mixing things up : periods and civilizations are thrown in the debate when it is more complex than that. First let's remember some chronology : after the neolithic period the first cultural group we can identify in Greece is the Minoan culture in Crete. They had numerous contacts with the near east and Egypt, as shown both by objects found in Crete and Minoan elements found in Egypt or the Levant. For example one may think about Ramses II the Great's palace at Pi Ramses which was decorated by Minoan frescoes, as were other palaces of the amarnian period ( give or take one century before Ramses the Great ) found in Syria. At the same period we can see in Cyprus many influences coming from Anatolia and the Hittite culture. Then the peoples on the mainland of Greece got themselves organized, build cities and states, made war, and conquered Crete which, by this time, had been weakened by unknown elements, one of which might have been the Thera/Santorin volcano explosion. The Mycenaean culture then achieved it's greatest period, including maybe the Trojan War ( of which some think they have found traces in Hittites archives ) before succumbing to the dorian invasion which destroyed most areas and made writing ( Linear B script ) disappear from Greece, thus beginning the "dark ages". During this period massive population movements happens, including intensive colonial activity, leading to the occupation of western Anatolia by peoples linked with Attica, the only area of Greece which seems to have avoided destruction during the doric invasion. During this period more near-eastern elements are incorporated into the Greek culture as shown by the apparition of some gods like Diane/Artemis, honored at Ephesus and clearly an incorporation of the Anatolian Great Godess. The lay of the land and the fact no one was able to dominate the neighboring areas outside of a small radius then meant that land property came to many small landowners, and soon there was not enough land for everyone. This had two consequences : the first was the second colonization wave, from the 8th century to the 6th, the one we know under the name of "Apoikia" during which southern Italy was colonized and cities like Massalia or Cyrene were founded. This period led to a renewal of contact with areas with which contact had been almost completely severed such as Phenicia and Egypt, including the sending of mercenaries to the Pharaos. The second consequence was the rise of a specific kind of warfare born out of agricultural necessities : the hoplite warfare when well to do farmers clashed in a battle supposed to decide of the ownership of an area without protracted warfare. This kind of warfare had political implications too since it was a battle between equals, not servants of a lord. This led to new concepts build around participation of every landowner to the state's decisions. Thus were formed oligarchies and later, when factions fought for power, tyranies. In some cities, this process stopped rather early ( Sparta for example ). But in others like Athens they sought definite solutions to these troubles. The hopplite warfare proved to be most superior to the oriental warfare methods as shown at Marathon. But by this time some athenians had understood that the lands available to Athens were too small to feed it's growing population. Thus they depended increasingly upon the sea, which meant they needed a fleet. This in turn meant manpower, more than the landowners ( who had to work their fields ) could provide : the job was given to the poors who, after Salamine, grew aware of their power and asked for an access to the decisions concerning the State's affairs : democracy was born. During the same period, in Anatolia, Greek cities were able to produce enough riches to support an aristocratic caste which had not to work and thus had a lot of time on their hands, time they spent in thinking about the world around them. They initiated a new kind of thinking, philosophy, which had consequences on the way they saw the world and interacted with it, leading to scientific discoveries, mostly in the mathematics. The contacts with the rest of the Mediterranean world in the 8th to 6th century BC also gave ideas to artists who did then looked at Egyptian statues and developed their own version of it, the archaic Kouroi and Kore, which they sculpted in an increasingly detailed way. They also build new concepts on what statue should show, and decided that it needed to show an idealized view of the world and mostly of the human being, not a realistic one ( Roman pathway ) nor a stylized one ( Egyptian pathway ). This led to classical sculpture, culminating in the 4th century before the hellenistic period which had other canons. The elements I gave here are a rapid presentation of elements put in their chronological order, showing multiples phases of developments and multiples influences, with some examples for each, but are in no way a complete presentation of this very interesting topic.

I think that the main agricultural improvement of which the original poster thought were two devices invented in northern Gaul : the neck yoke ( http://www.humanist.de/rome/rts/neck.html ) and the Treviri harvester. Both were described by Pliny and are represented on many stones engravings but were not commonly used outside of the area where they were invented. For a complete documentation I recommend you to look for Pr. G. Raepsaet works for he is the world expert on both of those devices on which he spent a lifetime ( he'll be retreated by the end of this year ). His studies are not only theorical but also practical and those have proved the validity of his theories. There is even a video showing him harvesting some fields using a reconstructed treveri harvester and a neck yoke with his donkey Marius, hilarious video for those who know him like his students

Aediles were elected magistrates who served for one year, like any other regular roman magistrate. In order to accomplish their task they used both their own private slaves and those ( very few ) owned by the state. As magistrates they could take edicts, and impose small fines on peoples not respecting them. One occasion when we see them ( as well as several other lower local magistrates ) is the bacchanal scandal : read Livius account or an edition of the senatorial decree on the subject which was found, for it gives an idea on how they did their job.

I'll enter the contest too with a submission currently titled "the use of religion to fool the people : comparison between Marius's prophetess Martha and the second return of Pisistrate in Athens".

The main thing about elephants is prestige. Why ? Because they were big, powerfull, and connected with far away lands. Having them cost a lot, they were of fragile health, but they terrified enemy soldiers on the battlefield with their noise, size, and the damages they could do to tightly packed infantry. Also horses were afraid by them, thus making them a good counter cavalry force. About the prestige value of elephant I suggest you look at the main roman use of elephants : games. Pompey wanted to enter Rome on a vehicle drawn by elephants and was only deterred when it was shown the triumph arcs in the city were too low to give way to such a convoy. Then in the imperial time they were mostly taken for games in the arena. This image of prestige did survive for centuries, as shown by Charlemagne's request of an elephant from the muslim caliph in Baghdad, elephant he used ( and lost ) during campaigns in northern Holland.

Cities in the Empire were numerous and of various origins. Some were older than Rome herself, others had a rich history before the roman conquest, some even had a rich history after their conquest. Other still were founded by romans, be it in order to control an area, to settle veterans soldiers. Their monuments could make cities look pretty good, their infrastructure was well developed ( sewers, roads with passages for walking peoples, water distribution network, ect... ), their population often rather important ( 10 000 peoples cities were common, with some cities going to over 100 000, even as far as 500 000, not speaking of Rome herself who went up to one million peoples, exceptional in an age where large concentration of peoples caused massive feeding problems ). Famous cities of the Roman Empire you may consider as the greatest are cities like Alexandria, Athens and Antiochus in the east, Lugdunum (Lyon ), Carthago and Tarraco in the west. But other cities like Aphrodisias, Ephesus, Corinth, Lutecia ( Paris ), Treves, Koln, and dozens of other cities were also great urban centers. So maybe giving your criters for greatness would be better in order to allow us to tell you which cities were the greatest.

It depend on how we see things : what is the greatest battle ? For me it must be a gallant fight with large consequences on history. Cannae was not such a battle since ultimately it did nothing to change the situation and Hannibal was defeated due to his shortcomings. Thermopylae on the other hand is a great battle because it allowed the greek fleet's retreat and ultimately Salamine : as such it has all the characteristics of a great battle. But the most important in that fight is either Salamine or Platea since they allowed the survival of the greek culture and mind, and paved the way the the great Pericles' Century.

Well archeology goes on even in Iraq, despite the huge troubles met by the country since the invasion. So if archeology can take place there, why not elsewhere ? Also I do notice that archeology is very active in Syria ( my own university leads two projects there ) and archeology in Israel is well known ( and can be a cause of troubles as shown by the current events in Jerusalem ). In Lebanon a recently graduated student of my university was also able to go study in southern lebanon last July, after he asked permission from both the lebanese government and the Hezbollah who agreed. In Iran also is archeology rather active, as shown by the massive ( but very oriented ) operations led to discover a new culture which was shown to be an independent culture born between Mesopotamia and Indus at the same time as those ( Jiroft culture ). Operations in Jordan are also possible and are often led without troubles. And last but not least archeological operations in the Arabic peninsula ( both in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States, and Yemen ) are possible and being led by various team, even if they are some risks involved in Yemen ( mostly kidnapping by tribes who wants something from the government but do not kill or maim their captives ).

A question I ask myself is this : what if the main role of Britain was to provide a strategic intervention force for the Rhine border while not using too much of the gallic grain ? Indeed we saw interventions from Britain to Gaul in very short time and with rather good efficiency so it might have been a reason if not of the invasion at least of the keeping of the land. It would allow for grain storage in Gaul for offensive operations without living too much on the reserves.

I think you make a mistake here : the hoplite spear is not as long as you think, you are thinking about the macedonian pike here, much longer indeed ! We are speaking of a 2 meters and a half long spear, the doru. And we have proof the hoplite did charge like a rugby team : the battle of Marathon where it is said in many texts, including some written by fighters of the battle, that the Athenian did run to get on the persians.

True, the macedonian cavalry was very powerful and would have been a major problem for the Romans, especially since at the time their own cavalry was very few in numbers and far from being trained as the macedonian cavalry was. But we must remember that this cavalry would have gone against the flank or the rear of the roman formation, against the old formation of the roman legion, against the hastati force with it's long spear which might have been able to halt the charge due to it's good organization. Nowhere did the macedonian meet as disciplined a force as the roman, so while numbers would finally play into the macedonians favor they would suffer heavy losses. What could be the final trouble for the romans might have more to do with the defection of the greek cities like Capua, essential for the army's training, and other along the coast which stayed loyal during the hanibalic war but might well have taken a different course of action with a greek invasion of the area.

Would it not have been Cinna instead of Cincinatus ? It would suit better as he was a noble demagogue which would chronologically fall in line with the two others, coming as he does after the rise of Marius...

Well the texts speaking of shields and spears exploding might be literary exaggeration but it's mentioned by the texts so we can't discount it. Also we must remember that hoplite battle was really a large rugby charge where two lines of men in armor with a large round and bombed shield ran into each other, weapons and shields hitting weapons and shields. I would not be that surprised to discover that many shields and spears did indeed shatter. About a rout indeed an army commander may choose not to pursue it's enemy, and this would lower the casualties but even so the moment when the enemy decides to flee is a time when he shall suffer the most losses by presenting his back to the swords and spears.

The numbers given into the book you give does strike me as more able to represent a Greek hoplite battle than a roman versus barbarian battle. Indeed a hoplitic fight will see little weapon throwing, a run toward the enemy, a violent contact ( we are told of shields and spears exploding under the force of the impact ), then a long "quite" period when spears and then swords try to find holes in the enemy's defense, then when fatigue sets in either unit disorganization or shield wall breaking and the front being pierced, resulting in a rout and then a lot of casualities. A roman fight would not go the same way for after an initial missile fire part the enemy would run toward the romans, usually in a disorganized mass, trying to use the speed as a advantage against the immobile romans. Then the pila volley would come and hurt, slow down some barbarians, confuse them for an instant, just enough for the legionaries to begin their own shorter run and allow them to crash into the enemy were the romans shorter swords would allow them to fight at closer range, inside the turn radius of most barbarian swords, and allow the romans a higher killing ratio. When enemies had shorter weapons, like in Spain or Thracia, and were thus able to fight more effectively against the Romans they did inflict higher casualties ( other reasons may have heightened the casualties rate, like the fact those barbarians preferred ambushes against which the romans had less success )

Well I myself am in the last year of my Classical History Masters from what I see here in Brussels I'd tell you to look at some scientific specializations like geology, petrology, botanic, or something like that in order to make you competent in some rather rare specialization, which should open many field excavation teams. For example archeology with geology or petrology could make you an expert in ceramics, especially the microscopic study of the ceramics and the studies linked with it ( origin of the clay, cooking techniques, ... ). A specialization such as the one here described is not very common and the only program I know of for P.h.D. or post P.h.D. formation in this particular realm is given at Oxford.

This is a product of the current trend in anglo-saxon academic circles to do gender studies, something which was first noticed in the USA but is now coming in many other areas of the world, including the french speaking academic circles. Something else I did notice was the growing number of studies about the late roman empire, both in French and English.

Well the relationship between the ancient men and their past was most different. The first archaeological-like reasoning appears in Grece when Athenians lands on Delos, emptied graves and collect the bones to purify the island. Following the description of the event Herodote ( or is it Thucydide ? ) explain who the dead were through analysis of the grave material and history of the area and deduce that the bones are those of Carian pirates. Other than that there is no know attempt to dig in order to find ancient material and study of it. But the greek and the romans do have a tendency to re-use ancient material or keep ancient material for as long as possible : the old wooden statue of Athena in the Erechteion temple in Athene is one example. They also try to keep the trace of their victories : trophy are kept in temples long after the dead of the warrior who took them and sometime they are restored as was the trophy of Romulus in the temple of Jupiter at Rome under Augustus as recounted by Livy ( whether this was not a fiction made by Augustus is still in debate ). The ancient also re-used buildings from the past to serve present needs, often religious ones. The best example is all the mycenian tombs converted into heroes' shrines during the archaic and classical periods. We also see numerous cases of old greek statues taken as prize by the romans, including 4 or 5 centuries old pieces. So one could say no the ancient did not have the same approach than us regarding objects from the past but what they kept they tried to keep as much as possible.

Many solutions were in use through the time and civilizations to store the grain. The purpose built building, called silo, was the most commonly used, in with various kind of silos being built. They can be divided in two main categories : - dug silos - built silos The dug silos could be pits in the ground covered by, for example, a clay or ceramic cap as described above. A more refined variant could be large ceramics dug in which the grain would later be put, the neck of the ceramics coming over the ground level, thus providing a protection against small scale inundations ( rain ). The built silos could take many forms. We find them as early as the Egyptian Ancient Empire and early Mesopotamian civilizations. A wide range of shapes could be used. They could be directly on the ground or on a raised platform ( to keep rodents out ). When the silos reach a certain size are called granaries for they are no longer built for private ( or family ) use but for collective use, in which case they are a strong indication of centralized state organization. We have medieval examples of Moroccan granaries also being fortified and being the strong point of the village, the point to which everyone fell back in case of raids. Those are very interesting granaries with a complex organization inside made of dozens of individual grain chests cut inside the walls, on chest per family. About beer production it has mainly been studied in the Egyptian context, thus you should look there for informations.

propaganda meaning "lie" is only a modern interpretation, it is first of all the art of portraying oneself in a good light and painting the enemies in a bad one. To glorify oneself while diminishing the rivals.

They are many pieces of evidence relating to earlier acts of propaganda, since at least the war of the Peloponnese in the 5th century BC, and even the war against the Persians at the turn of the 6th century. Be it by building huge tombs for the fallen at Marathon or by erecting inscribed stones glorifying those who died at Platea, be it by singing praise of the Athenians in theater performances or by claiming to fight "for the freedom of the Greeks" as the Spartan did during their long struggle against Athens, be it by building huge buildings like the Attalea stoa in the hellenistic time, greek examples of propaganda abound. But we have even earlier examples of propaganda : simply looks at the monuments of ancient near and middle east ( Assyrians, Babylonians, ... ) or to those build in Egypt, like those of Rameses II where he always speak of his great battle at Quadesh some 1000 years before the roman began to rise. So propaganda is old, very old. Now in roman context, do we have lot's of examples of propaganda ? Yes we do. One of the first to come to the mind is Flamininus proclamation at the Isthmus games where he told the Greeks he had freed them from the Macedonian, 198 BC. Money minted some years before depicting Hannibal's elephant in order to recall the victory over the Carthaginians was another propaganda example. Earlier we've got another example of romans recalling their triumph over an enemy by depicting an elephant on a coin : it's Pyrrus' elephants which are shown. But one of the most ancient roman example of propaganda is probably the institution of the triumph, something that was probably one of the most institutionalized show of propaganda of the whole ancient world.

Well the consuls came in two brands : the ordinarii ( normally elected consuls ) and the suffectii, named or elected in case of crisis ( death of both consuls for example ). That at least was the situation under the Republic. Caesar was the first to see that despite having 10 praetors and two consuls plus ex magistrates he lacked enough high ranking officials to take charge of the Empire. Thus he named prefects under his direct responsibility. This was seen as a quasi regal power and Octavian saw it and choose another way : he had consuls elected at the start of the year, to which they would give their name, then he would order them to leave their post and name other consuls, the suffectii, sometimes as much as 8 per year. We see that often the Emperor himself was ordinary consul ( or eponymous if you prefer to use that term ) and it was a privilege to hold such a post. We see that it was often used to give a second, more prestigious consulate to a very good official.

Spatha could be as long as one full meter, the shorter version being some 75cm, thus some 20cm longer than the common gladius.