Demson

Roman honour had much to do with patriotism, preserving the state, furfilling your duty. Celtic honour had more to do with personal valour and achievement. Japanese honour was all about servitude. German honour is about brewing beer and eating sausages. American honour is about drinking beer the German's brew. Alright, that's all I can think of on this early morning.

They just dumped it into the grounds? I can hardly believe that. There must have been some technique they used. Otherwise their harvest would just rot away like all other biological matter that disappears underground. Unless you can conserve grain with salt, they must have used some sort of technique.

This is a question, I'm not proposing a debate. How did the ancient people preserve their harvest in Northern Europe? I remember reading they used sealed pottery, then stored it partially submerged barns. I'm not sure if this is the case though. I imagine it was hard to preserve cereals in the moist North. Which could explain (amongst other things) why livestock seemed to be so important in the Celtic societies. Question then is - how did they feed the livestock during winter?

You people are obsessed. It's an very intrigueing discovery though.

That's one interesting paper you're writing Link.

Saw it yesterday. I enjoyed it. The main character was played well. He acted with consience, almost child-like innocence. He had a certain charisma, but nothing quite like the King, Saladin or that leader of the templars. Historically, it was not that bad at all. It focussed mostly on the personal experiences to portrait the situation of 1184 as it could have been. BTW, the templars indeed were blood-sucking vampires. They were bankers with swords and chainmail, for crying out loud. I really don't see how Europe was portraited as uncivilised and backward compared to the Muslim society. I watched the shortened version, which showed in the transition in the sceneplay. I didn't really mind though. It was easy to follow. I guess I could make some bad remarks. But I quite enjoyed, and wil prefer to remember it that way. BTW, some of the music has indeed been used before in other movies. However, remember that those are masterpieces that were not made for the movie industry to begin with. I didn't mind - they fitted in nicely.

1) Depends on the avaibility of ICT. Oligarchy is a form of management. Management is essentially a trick to communicate more easily. In a group of 10, you can rely on teamwork. In a group of hundred, you'll need management. Why? We simply don't have the ability to communicate effectively. The more advanced or ICT becomes, the less management we'll need. 2) The US is an oligarchy. Not only that, it's a mild aristocracy. Most, if not all western republics/democraties are. 3) Of course they dictate, that's what management does. The question is - do they dictate in the best interest of everybody involved or will dictate according to self interest? The bit of democracy we have (elections) is supposed to ensure the former. However, our bureaucracy (at least in Europe) is becoming increasingly powerful (once again). If our government officials can't be hold accountable, how can they act responsible? Oligarchy doesn't neccesarily mean management by the rich. It's not neccearily evil either. It's simply government/management by the few. If they govern in self-interest, that's when the problems arise... Resulting in events such as the October Revolution. It's interesting to note the paralels between the invention and widespread use of the printing press, telegrams, telecommunication etc. and the development of republics and representative democracy. Taking in mind the internet and weblogs, I wonder what develop,ment the future holds for us.

Wealth and to some extend bloodline seems to have been a first. Accomplishments also accounted for something, and could replace bloodline. Wealth was a prequisite though. I'm too lazy to reason my opinion.

Thanks PP.

For my essay, I need to define the different classes in Imperial Roman society. What I need; 1) confirmation that my source (below) is right. 2) Perhaps some pointers to historical Roman m, but I thought I should ask anyway I'm not very informed about this aspect of Roman society. Therefor I am using another essay as source. The question is - is the source right I intend to use direct translations and/or interpretations (like unrv's lawlist) to prove the social classes existed in the Roman Empire. If I can't find enough of these, I'll look for the writings of some credible professor as source. I'm doing the same with Brehon Law. I prefer to use direct proof though. So any pointers would be highly appriciated. Eventually I'll write a summary of my knowledge on Roman laws regarding social classes.

Pompeius - I'm not sure what you meant, but it made me chuckle regardless Considering the reactions, I guess my topic didn't make allot of sense.

In my essay, I will regard the Celtic and Roman society according to the services they maintained for the individual. I have distiguished 5 needs that the services of ancient society provided for. These needs are: - Nutrition. - Shelter from the elements. - Security. - Ease of mind through state religion. - Commerce. Nutrition is an obvious need which society provides for. Shelter from the elements is more sketchy. This includes housing and healthcare. Shelter from the elements is everything that relates to protection from influences from nature. Security from any kind of human violance (destruction of your provisions) is a service. Note: Defense wars are part of this service. Offensive wars are part of the other services, as they serve to provide for the other needs. Religion (not to be confused with spirituality) has always been an affair of society. It was a tool to ease the mind. This was to ensure the other services were not neglected. After the basic needs of nutrition, shelter and security were well-provided for, commerce as a service to build up wealth came into play. Commerce has several purposes. I will regard it for it's oppertunity to build up a reserve of provision (for the other services). ____ I am not content with my understanding of the needs society provided for. I am especially skeptical about my understanding of commerce*. Understanding this is pretty important for the first two chapters in my essay; namely day-to-day life (how the individual contributed to society) and government (how the individual managed the services ). Therefor, I would like your philosophical input on this. It I realise it does not relate to the subject of history, but I will need to understand the purpose of wealth** better in order to understand what commerce is about. And the best way to come to understanding is debate. So, here is my point of arguement: Wealth is a waste of resources better spend on the development of technology***. * Commerce: after the basic needs are provided for, commerce is the gathering and exchanging of wealth. ** Wealth: an abundance of material possessions and resources. *** Technology serves to make the provision of the other needs more efficient and effective. P.S. Critism on any of the other services I distuingished is also welcome.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q...tnG=Search+News

That's me. Welcome aboard.

At the moment, I'm creating a paper on the Celts and Romans. I've been intrigued with history since an early age and thought I should do something constructive with it. The paper is part of a bigger project to study Celts/Romans. I haven't had much oppertunity yet to work on it, but I expect this to change the coming summer. As I also need to make an paper for my English teacher (also a hobbiest historian), my paper will serve this purpose too. Read about it here. The reason why I'm posting this is twofold: Considering the immense knowledge of UNRV's collected minds, I though it would be wise to ask for input here thoughout the coming process of writing All I have at present is a plan-of-action, but I intend to work on it regurly throughout the coming weeks. I also thought this would interest fellow information junks. So, be interested. I intend to work on this regurly throughout the coming weeks.

Read more about it here. Edit: This might be more appropiate for Archaeological News: The World.

A nice site indeed. Obviousily and fortunately not very biased by Celtic nationalism.

I would say no. The democraty of the US, no matter how troubled by the oil and weapon lobby, is too subtile for imperialism. Futhermore, although the military power of the US in unrivaled in terms of destructive power, it's not a super power. Look at Iraq, where a reasonably small contigency pins down an entire army by clever use of ak-47's, improvised bombs and RPG's. The success of the Empire was it's ability to project not only military power, but also police power and authority. This is something the US can not achive. In terms of economic and technological advantage, the US is not as advanced as people might think. That said, they're still a major player. But a hegemon? If the US is, it's rapidly changing.

That settles it then. 'You (are) cursed dogs' is what the line meant. It's German.

It sounded German/Dutch to me, something according to the lines 'you (are) cursed dogs'.

After I'm dead, I'll probably wait again until all my atoms and molocules are back together again. It could be a while, but hey, time flies by when you're all over the place

The basic of Christian faith, the ten commands, recorded universal vallues that everybody can aspire to. Some time ago it was argued that as Hellenistic knowledge 'de-mystified' the world, a gap was created. Humans need something to believe in. Christianity gave it by renewing their perspective on a 'better world'. Does this make them a humanitarian initiative, perhaps even the first one?

So it was not an April Fools then? (hahah...) I'm not a religious person, but Paulus has my respect. I liked his initiatives to bring more multiculture to the Vatican and the way he tried to sooth the three major monoisthic religions.

My hobby is daydreaming about the hobbies I could have.

Well, I'm not sure if this helps, Spartacus. I'm seventeen but I feel like sixty.