Demson

I remember how unrv started out. It was a fansite for RV made by Viggen. I still don't quite understand how it ended up as today's encyclopedia and for what reason, but I'm happy with it all the same.

Personally I see what would become the Celtic 'culture' as the continuation of an phenomenon that happened when metalworking techniques became avaible to humankind. I've studied the Celts and Romans in comparison to each and it's really quite remarkable how similar they were. Almost every trait possessed by the Celts were also possessed by the Romans. The Romans possessed other traits too however, which is why I say they ended up dominating the Celts. Consider the Celts grew to become a major part of the Roman empire (well, except near the Hadrian and Antonine) after their leadership was dealt with, and it makes sense. It's said the Roman and Celtic cultures were rivals; I say they complemented each other. Then again, I'm generally not taken very seriousily, hahah

Inspiration.

The gladiatrix.

Sorry Lacertus. It was a joke The plan for me was to enlist for a few years and then work as bodyguard to build up a small fortune. I imagined living fairly simplistic and spartan, using my income to invest. I don't have much family, even less friends. So it would be an ideal lifestyle. Eventually, when it's time to build a family, I would look for a different career, something with plenty of family time. I'm having second thoughts though. It's not that I don't want to go down that path, it's that I wouldn't be able to stay in touch with a very close friend. I really can't accustom to the thought of having to go without her. So I'm looking for another career path, one with future as well as the oppertunity to stay in touch. Problem is I don't have the financial backing for an extensive education, so I have to do something where I can learn and develop as I go.

What was your original premise exactly? What made them different from other cultures? Or what made Roman, Roman? If so - that's answered by summing up the events the Romans dealt with throughout history. The oppression by foreign kings, the creation of the republic, the conquest of other tribes, the sack of Rome, the conquest of the penisuela, the Punic wars, the greek wars, the gaulic conquest, etc. I'm really not sure from what angle you're coming from. Why is the discussion we had so far off-topic?

I'm considering to migrate to Russia and become a Bearded Intelligentsia

That makes sense. And as the Romans happened to be the best at being the better, it's especially true for Romans.

Believe it or not, the notion that western and northern Europeans lived as neanderthalers before the Romans came is quite widespread. I agree that the Romans considered few other cultures to be civilised. But the Celtic, Germanic, Iberian societies were great civilisations in their own right. There might be a link between the decline of slavery and the decline of the Empire. The empire was an agricultural society unified by urban administration and power. Rome seem to have prospered after wars, when there were spoils and slaves to support urban life. But when the slaves ran out, and serfdom came into play... The Empire disintigrated and the feudal age began.

Wasn't it mostly about freedom from foreign oppression? IE freedom from another community? The republic was also found on the idea of freedom from a monarch. Rulers were to be rulers because of merit rather than bloodline. For allot of Emperors, this was true I think.

Perhaps it was used for the rampart/archers cover of the walls. I don't know anything about Roman engineering though. You might want to try to contact a university specialised in archeology with it.

Interesting how the majority of the settlements are near the coast or waterways. It kind of shows how important the Mediterranean was to the classical civilisations. Seafaring was the most effective and efficient mode of transport until the steam age. It's central sea access is part of what made Rome's italy so great, in my opinion. But I'm rambling

General Roman history, though I'm trying to 'specialise' in the Roman-Celtic relationship. There are allot of Roman historians, and a few Celtic ones too. The whole Roman-Celtic area seems to be pretty oppertunity rich. Celtic historians tend to see of the Romanisation from a Celtic viewpoint, and Roman historians share the same supiority complexes. I have the fortune of being (reasonably) unbiassed with this, since I maintain a pretty simple viewpoint on them; they were from two completely different era's. Who knows, maybe one day I'll write a book on it. /points at his weblog.

I understand the point fully. My point was that if you want to define a Roman, you might want to consider what the Romans thought of the matter themselves. Citizenship doesn't automatically mean people thought of themselves as Romans in a cultural sense. I know plenty of people who have Dutch nationality but consider themselves to be Morrocan, or German, or Japanese. The hoplites of Greece acted to futher the glory of their city to prove their city state's superiority as well. A Celtic 'freemen' followed a noblemen to prove his valour and honour and perhaps earn the right to take care of his nobleman's cattle, making him a bondsman. When a bondsman earned enough cattle, he could futher elivate himself to noblemen by leasing his cattle to freemen, making them his bondsman. As nobleman, he leads the freemen and bondsman of his tribe so that they can prove their valour and honour. Romans had certain charactaristics, but it wasn't the uniqueness of their traits that made them Roman. Rather the whole combination of those traits and more importantly, their success with those traits. The sense of nationalism and teamwork is the first trait I think of when speaking of Romans. Of course, other classical cultures had this sense too but as I'm 'specialising' in the Celtic-Roman relationships I tend to look at Romans in that light. Celts were highly individual, Romans were much more collective. I guess it means different things to different people. Could you please elaborate?

So far that link has been a really good read. Very insightful. I have yet to detect revisionisme. It's pretty obvious that the Celts did indeed practise human sacrifise. Am I happy to live in the 21-st century. It will be a worthwhile past time in Roma Victor though.

Hmmm, I admit I haven't read the full link yet. The first bit about the reasons for human sacrifise looks quite good. I agree that the harcore Wiccans tend to close their eyes to history and facts (revisionist historians as Favonius put it). It's a common trait amongst followers of religions. It's especially true for a religion that has been outdated for over 4000 years, longer then relevant human history itself. The workshop seems to have little in common with the practise of Wicca though. It does explore the spiritual site of human sacrifise. Which is very valid, as the Celtic spirituality is what made them so unique. Why exactly would it be wiccan?

No, no, it can not be true! Nice research list. I'm posting it at the Tuatha. Where is it that you read about these things? I have yet to find a good source, and am too lazy to monitor more then one. I will lower the rep of anyone that dares to fall into that bait.

I was under the impression Romans didn't make steel (consiousily and efficiently) neither. Helmets were commonly of bronze. Protection to the head was very important, so it makes sense if they would use the best resource (and economically viable) they had. I imagine low quality iron was easier to work then bronze, this more common in body armor (for the sake of replacement and maintaince) and everyday items. They probably figured high-quality iron was a strong as bronze and choose them according to avaibility. If officers would be equiped with bronze instead of making high-quality iron (and steel) avaible, it makes sense. Just my interpretation of course.

I always thought iron was superior to bronze in every way. Wikipedia however:

... Did you win...?

Don't be silly, Favonius. Who can't like the Romans? They invented stuff like running water and sliced bread! Back on-topic: doesn't it depend on time period? In their early stage, they were brigands or a latin tribe. Or perhaps a brigand tribe, who wasn't back then? In the early republic, it where the inhabitants of Rome. In the late republic, it were the Italians. At the end of the Empire, all were 'Romans'. We ought to look at the standards the people used back then instead of set our own. Who considered themselves to be Roman, half-Roman or non-Roman? Did a Gaul or Greek in 50 AD see himself as Roman? Did a Gaul or Greek in 350 AD see himself as Roman?

Celts, Germanics, Iberians, etc. were not civilised? Of coure not. They wore fur loincloths and spend their days headbutting each other over the domination of females. Right? Right?

Saxon raids did occur but there was no full-scale migration/invasion going on until after the Western Roman Empire fell. Most Anglo-Saxons were actually invited to Britain as mercenaries under a Romano-Celtic king. That's when they settled and became dominant. Kick me if I don't have my facts straight. The Roman Empire was already overstretched by the time it reached Caledonia. My impression is that they lacked the resources and capability for a Romanisation of Caledonia, so instead they build a nice wall and loaded it with auxiliary to keep the Caledonians out.

Tough one. I think there's a truth in all of them. Not only is that the easiest and safest thing to say ( ), it's also quite vallid in my case. Personally, I regard statemanship and government as a communication method. If you have 10 people, you can do things as a group. If you have a hundred people, it will become tricky. If you have several million, you need government. And that's where aristocracy, royalty and imperial courts come in. We needed, and sometimes still need them for prosperity. As long as it works and is actually needed, an empire is as justified as royalties and aristocracies and any other form of government. However, when it stops being benefitial, than it's not. We say the soviet union was an parasitic empire, yet allot of technological progression took place under the regime of the politburo's. Take spacecraft and aerocraft, for example. While the soviet union failed to keep it's people fed, it still left a benificial legacy. We say the Roman Empire contributed to the world, but it's Christian legacy left Europe in the Dark Ages for centuries. Just look at Islamic culture to see how much potential development was suppressed. Only after the rennaisance did Europe began to prosper again. Empires are phenomena. We should look for a more benificial substitute, but we shouldn't write them off either. It has it's uses.

The Dutch forces were located in the province Al Muthanna and had some officers in Bagdhad. Here's a map: http://www.nldetirak.nl/kaart_inzetgebied/.../irak_final.jpg I know the Airmobile Brigade set up a cement factory (for 3000 workers). Besides that I haven't heard of anything else from them. They purely furfilled a policing responsibility. Our 'military police' (they're a bit more then that, actually) is also training police officers (they're still present). They also helped re-establishing the local politicla infrastructure. Our forces were redeployed after the Dutch-trained Iraqi police units were operational and could take over the Dutch responsibilities (in theory, anyway). The Royal Dutch Marines were in Iraq prior to the Airmobile Brigade (because of rotation, they have the same function).