Onasander

Thanks

Doubt it very much, even from day one a patriarchal lines would of been quite diverse (I'm given to the Roman's being a bunch of Brigands theory, for the reason of... I like it, and it's just as plausable as any other.) However, thier wives, they can be traced.

Better than building a damn wall, imagine what social works they could of built in the Isles other than a long fence. I know it cost the Roman's next to nothing to erect that given the legion's engineering capabilities... but, come on! A freaken wall? They could of built a road system into the highlands easily, or public baths, or fortify a town, or reduce the garrisions and costs of upkeeping the fortifications.... something other than a well. It would of cost more in beginning to launch the offensive, but the returns over time from a decrease in the defense budget would of paid for it, turning England from a martial dependent into a producer of legions. What, the Scots wouldn't fight if their Roman conquers brought them to Europe on a Campaign?

Rome's economy seems to be indo-european... though it could be so from association. If I remember correctly, there was a old cattle market in Rome... correct me if I'm wrong. I don't see the roman's being cowboys though. Plus, I really like the Trojan story. --------- Having done considerable research into the Aryan Migration Theory, and exposed to both racist and non-racist positions in support of it, I frankly don't care if people are racists or not, they've contributed massive amounts to the research of the subject, and even if they do find a smoking gun their looking for, nobody will acknowledge the logical political consequences that they would put forth; it's to late for these theories to present serious sociological obstacles within the next few generations. We won't go back to apartheid if we one day we suddenly discovered that every civilization that appeared in Africa was the result of Pheonicans, so I see no harm in looking time. Let's also explore the theories that the first Europeans before the iceage were black, or the Irish are from the same steppes as the Mongols, or the Chinese come are decendents of Homo Erectus and not from Africa..... I TIRED OF BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT!! It's time to be independent of nationalism and racism, I fear not looking into them or talking about them, and if I'm to preach the annals of history to others, I will preach it to whoever wants it, without conforming it to any political or theological ideology save perhaps that of the subject people I'm talking about. Racists and liberals alike are equally justified to learning history and making a suggesting, asking questions, or offering opinions. Political Correctness is a danger to history if we become afraid to ask or acknowledge it for what it was.

Damn, the topic died. Now well never know how far this topic would of went! To the underworld with this I say!

Did any of Mithra's theologians write an apology that survives to the present day, or at least fragments? I really don't know too much about them cause everything I've read is by a second hand source that doesn't seem to know a whole lot about them... it's like learning about Krishna from a Mormon.

Ohh, I didn't know ninty percent of Geronimo's tribe died.... this is really bad, since my unit is the 1-501 Geronimo. I'm embarrassed now.

Their navy and regular army sucked, but their special forces are in my opinion the best that ever exsisted; their R&D was highly inventive, and their SF were quite receptive to the advances. This accomplishment is overlooked today, though It's now being trumped by a much slower and more ambitious (in magnitude{though, in my opinion, less daring, and more expensive, and time consuming}) force transformation. You got Strykers and on the horizon, Digitalized networking for the individual soldier on the battlefield. They had specialized parachutes, amphibious assualt ships with mobile shields mounted on them so you wouldn't get shot once exiting the ship (something I'm sure a couple of guys at V-Day were thinking about as thier ships neared shore), ect.

How much of the city is still intact? Is it just a few pillars and a whole lot of sand, or does it look like a freeze-dried roman city?

I actually know one of the guys who was in the movie cause I tried out for the Rangers (and failed horribly, I won't lie to you). His scene where he was walking out the door where the father and kid were waiting didn't go down that way. I never even watched the whole movie through because I had doubts after hearing him talk to us, though I know a lot of guys who are fanatic about it.

Make it pink and neon green.

Mabey the roman's were better at draining the lands? I know the had to do it at Arles. A superiority in numbers and mobility and yet an inferiority in Arms would in my opinion force a defence in depth, nebulous in relation to terrain and would require a continious numetical flux, yet always making it's presence known in certain sections near the opposition. You'ld nevrt know how many are working and how many are patrolling, and recon would be pointless. As to Caldonia, no....I see it's climate and topology being similar to what it is today... Germany before Barbarossa.... cold and wet.

My girlfriend just got me a book from her trip in Hawaii called "War in the Pacific" by Retired Brigadier General Jerome T. Hagan, and it has a picture of the Ametican 15th Infantry Regiment saluting Chang Tso-lin, the chinese warlord of Manchuria. I know the US was involved in the boxer rebellion, and occasionally sent ships up rivers to evacuate US citizens, but I never knew we senta whole regiment there for decades long occupation. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/age...army/3-15in.htm On 16 August 1900, most of the regiment arrived in Tientsin, China, for service against the Boxer Rebellion. The 3d Battalion was ordered to Manila in September 1900 to assist in suppressing the Aguinaldo Insurrection. By April 1902, the balance of the regiment joined the 3d Battalion in the Philippines and saw considerable action against the insurgents. In September 1902 the regiment sailed for Monterey, CA, where it built the current Presidio. In 1905, the regiment was again posted to the Pilippines. When the 15th returned to the U.S. in 1907, it was assigned to Fort Douglas, UT. In November 1911, however, the 2d Battalion returned to Tientsin, China, as part of the international peace-keeping mission designed to protect civilians during the Chinese Revolution. The remainder of the regiment followed in 1912. Much of the 15th Infantry's tradition comes from the 26 years in China. The dragon on the regimental crest and the pidgin English motto "Can Do" symbolize the China service. The regiment left China for Fort Lewis, WA, on 2 March 1938.

Marxism does hold some good tools for history, in societies where classes were/are polarized, they do present a few useful tools, as well as in other parts of life; however, I don't tnk in the same format as they do, and see great flaws in their logic. Now, don't take this as me being anti-communist, I'm just anti-marxist.... though I can remain civil discussing stuff with them. is Unfortunately, Marxism isn't dead in the arena of history; they gone underground on the net; most leftist ideological sites I've visited has at least one marxologist on it, and they got little to other than to write now that the Soviet Union is no longer around, and as Karl Marx was a greek historian, many try to mimic their great guru. Given time, this force will re-emerge in the academic community with it's new characteristics, since about 60% of the sites I've visited are run by college students, half of which seem to be Canadian

Juvenile

Imperialism, though not on the scale of conquering Carthage or Greece, did exsist. The Fabs (am I correct with the family?) set out to towards Veii in a campaign of obstuct and conquer early-on in the history of Rome.

Above all else, I have deep respect for Virgil, whenever I see his name, I remember he used to be a 1Sgt and also a member of the airborne community, and is my senior; and in a lot of cases where I don't reply to a topic, its because he already said what I wanted to say, because we agree on a lot of stuff. The only two areas I disagree with him are the Byzantine-Roman continuity issue and this. Any conflict between us has been respectible for the most and only increases our insights into history in areas neither of us might not of bother to look before. I'm not against the historian, but I do believe reforms are needed in not just the historical media in how we interperate things but in the world wide arena of thought. As to Micheal Parentti, I had no idea that he wrote a book on Caesar, I have read his Blackshirts vs Reds though and was extreamly disappointed, only the beginning of the book dealt with the subject, and though I did learn a few things, the book was geared way to much towards propaganda for his political beliefs and his Anti-American stance that for the most part had very little to do with what the title suggested the book was about. Though he was communistic minded, I wouldn't call him a Marxist, a Marxologist perhaps, but he doesn't hold to all of Marx's beliefs, and said so in the book, though he gave reverance to him on several occasions. I support neither the left nor the right, and hold myself to no political parties. I support the republican ideals of our forefathers, but beyond that, my political ideology is my own, carved from what my idea of what right or wrong is. I've read books over the years by a variety of different ideologies and philosophies.... perhaps my favorite historian is Tocquerville in writting the "The Old Regiem and the French Revolution", perhaps the greatest history book I ever read, the standard all should aim for. As to putting down all the left, I certainly wasn't. I first came up with my basic belief from a adaptation of a Anarchist interntet publication (and anarchist are considered farther left than most communist I know) describing how in Europe during the early 1900s how various nationalistic movements gained their dominate political ideologies via the news media; that a small ethnic group within the boundries of a larger nation could have a completely different outlook on world events due to the isolation of thier groups language publications. Communist in Russia, Fascist in Italy, Anarchist in Spain, Monarchist in England, Republicans in France.... and within each nation counter-groups who are isolated from other ideological perspectives that were not attractive to the intelligencia in charge of reporting the news to their populations. It was as if having different colored lens on a map, each lens eliminates a different color, something different will be missing each time you switch to a new color. Another aspect of my disgruntled push (not against anybody on these boards, these have been long established traditions in the academic community and I hold nobody responsible for unknowingly continuing) can be best illustrated through a class I did today on the acronym SALUTE, used in US Army recon for describing a location. The A in SALUTE stands for activity. I had a few pictures of Jedi with their lightsabers pulled out next to Bin Laden. Now, three guys had to describe what they saw from the pictures and write down a quick description of it. All was sightly different from what they interpreted, and the anwsers were not bad, one thought they were all allied, another thought the two jedi were guards watching bin laden, and the third thought the two jedi were ready to fight with Bin Laden stuch in the middle. I was satisfied with the anwsers, since one could interperate the situation those ways from their perspective, but their teamleader said there was no right anwser in observing it, and all three were wrong. Now, I didn't say anyhing then, but I know when it comes to the question of right or wrong, you can report honestly from a subjective standpoint and be justified from what you saw, but from a objective standpoint be horribly wrong. Ideology have a way of contorting and manipulating the verdict of research. In history, if we wanted evidence to support a claim that an ancient people was this kind of grower of wheat, we could go to the history books, in which a historian may very well be justified in repeating what is said. But if we dug thier fields and found great evidence of potatoe farming, but no signs of wheat, we would no longer be justified, and likely wrong... people continuing the wheat theory would be in a tough position trying to show evidence to justify thier position. However, if we said this or that group held themselves or others inclusive to some idenity (such as American or Japanese), as soverigns of thier communial idenity.... and they gave their basis for their ideological standings to the annals od history for us to read, then we have to analysis off their chosen prerequisites, and not from our own standards as outsiders using different ideological standards for their idenity. This crashes strongly against some of the beliefs of Marxists in Camera Obscura. Sovernignty is sociological, the group has to accept it's exsistance, or else they'll unknowingly will act independent of it. Marxist do not see it this way, instead the true power if via the modes of production, there analysis of history can shed a lot of evidence on the stuff of the nature of the wheat field above, but rarely do their analysis prove thier deductions limited to thier own ideology. Changing modes of production with Genetic Ancestory and you get the Nazi belief, which was justifiable to thier group, but not to the standards of others people's, like Canadians who are of two seperate genetic peoples. It's a idea similar to Swami Vivikananda's Name and Form. If the politically recognized sovernignty changes it's form within the group, such as when rome went from kingdom to republic, republic to empire, so long as the members that consituted the idenity before recognize the new sovernign and it's authority to modify the national ideology, such as when allowing the Italic states to become citizens or the population of the empire to become citizens, it's no longer the right of outsiders, be they contemporary of thousands of years in the future, to say otherwise. But, I think there should be continuity between the members of the group that produces the soverign, which would be the most important factor in continuity (in the case of civil wars), as well as the soverign during the reorganization of the standards of inclusiveness. (I should point out, soverign does not have to be the individual, in a true democracy, it would be everyone part-and-parcel, so long as it is socially accepted).

Shoot, they could of given much of the northern lands up for settlements with a section of the invading barbarian groups, a joint conquest. Imagine joint roman/barbarian control of the north sea! Speaking of which, how far north are the Romans known to of traveled?

Thanks...

Hmmmm, perhaps it did. Had the roman's stuck to their old ways and kept all the vital work inhouse, manning their armies with their own people, farming their own fields, perhaps they would of stayed a vibrant, republican minded state.

I've read two different versions online, and have done several searches of the internet over the last vew years, in neither of the translations do they provide book 4. Someone is doing a translation of the books online, but are taking a real long time at it, and given the nature of the internet, might not finish it. The only referances I have to book four come from a navy history book that goes through a couple of thousand years of baval battles, and only mentioned it in the introduction. Frankly, I can care less about people's opinions as to whether or not book four is important or not; Saddam's general's showed intrest in greek strategy and tactics. Part's of Vegetius echo's Sun Tzu's Strategies, and author's like Aeneas the Tactician showed at times a deeper understanding of strategy than his near contemporaries in asia that are currently in vogue in the west. I want people to be able to make up their own minds as to whether or not book four was useful to them or not. I just started back to work, so my internet time is going to be radically reduced for translating.... but the wintr is long in Alaska, and I'm sure I'll find time.

If the entire army and government is eradicated, am I constitutionally allowed to as a Private recruit a whole new army complete with officers and so on, and rebuild the executive branch from my own mandate? ------- As to it being legal, under Roman law, well, what emperor was legal, but I think this was even more illegal of than usual; but given nobody was around to put what whould be the same as the U.S. Supreme Court making laws, it WAS legal cause at that point the pope was making the rules as he went along, and the Charlamagne went along with it, given he was soverign in charge. Historically speaking though, the Holy Roman Empire clearly wasn't an continuation like the Russian Federation is of the Soviet Union, so if I was a head of state back then, I'd wouldn't go around upsetting the "roman emperor" argueing his legitimacy, but at the same time, any treaties I had with the former Roman empire would be considered void in the west, though I'ld likely would still honor them for the east. Anybody remember the controversy over president Bush's plan to pull with out of the Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty (MAD) with Russia?

I looked at all the maps on his site and the ladies, and I gotta question his whole claim for continuance of the western empire via the holy roman empire/ later papal lands. (This would pass chinese standards though for continuation of the empire & civilization, if Europe ever reunites, it can put up a claim to be the longest running empire/civilization over china, cause the chinese have been fragmented for a hundreds of years at a time under different nations and cultures.)

Ohhhhh, drills mounted on chariots..... mobile battlefield dentristy. Are their any primary sources in Romania on Roman Siege Tactics during this campaign?