Mongu, that was about the biggest piece of crap I ever read. Haven’t been on the forum for a while, but seems like the quality of post is reaching the level of the ‘alarm button’.

Actually, what the Britons did to Australia was a lot worse than what China has done to Tibet. After all, the Dalai Lama is selling thousands of his crap-books 😀 (sorry, I’m not into that Moby – nirvana stuff), but few Aboriginals are still alive.

And you say colonisation is not as bad as invasion. Indeed, colonisation is a modern term, used by the west and Japan during the territorial expansion of the 19th century in Africa and Asia. This colonisations was more violent than any other invasion in history, including that of the Romans and the Spaniards. So, because Australia is now one of the best countries to live in, unlike Africa or Latin-America, doesn’t mean that there’s less blood on its soil.

China has got a huge history, and during that history, they knew peace thousand years before us Europeans ever thought such a thing existed. The Han Empire in 206 B.C. united the Chinese world, including Tibet, Mongolia and parts of Russia.

I don’t think that some people can imagine what a disaster ‘liberal democracy’ could mean to China. China doesn’t need democracy, this will only erupt civil wars. However, the west (which thinks that freedom and democracy go hand in hand) should put pressure on China to respect the human rights. Imposing ‘liberal democracy’ on states which are not familiar with it is an utopia. The Chinese are no individualists, unlike people in the west (thanks to Greac-Roman and Judeo-Christian influences). Therefor the average Chinese is not waiting for democracy, he just wants a better quality of life. The best for China would be to liberalise the economy first, and maybe then, after a couple of decades, think about introducing democracy.

The economic differences between North and South Italy are not something new. In the North, cities like Siena and Florence in the 15the century, and Genua and Venice from the 16th century on, have always been centres of cultural, financial and economical might. The Renaissance being one example, but also the thousands of banks situated there, who controlled most of Western Europe’s money (including that of the King/Emperors, as there was not public treasery).

The South, however, has always been backward. Even the Romans didn’t consider the people living here as Romans, but more as ‘allies’. Greek settlers in the 8th century AD created cities like Nicapolis, Tarentum and Syracuse (Sicilie). The Romans destroyed most of these cities during the 2nd Punic war, but never rebuild them. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Southern Italy was seperated from the rest of Italy through the ‘Papal’ state (Vatican). After the Middle Ages, the area of Napels (= Southern Italy) became a part the Kingdom of Aragon (Spain).

The best thing to do for Italy is to become a federal state. However, this doesn’t garantuee that all problems will be solved, in fact, more will erupt. Fact is that Northern Italy is a very rich and prosperous region, and the South is ruled by ‘the family’.

Heard the latest, Mr. Berlusconi now also wants presidential power. MM, the last time a chancellor took over presidential power, when was that?

Seems like someone is a bit chauvenistic here. 😀 Roman history a story of betrayel and military succes. I agree with the second part, but betrayel ? Actually, Rome almost never `declared` war, it has always been challenged by a foreign power, like the Chartagians, the Persians or the Macedonians. The reason why Rome became big was not imperialism. Imperialism is something which originates from the 18th century. Rome had a defence policy, I would call it.

s

You said Amphipolis. Well, than Aristotle was Athenian after all. Amphipolis was a colony created by Athens after the Persian War to controll the region of Macedonia and Thracia. This `apoika` was set up under the leadership of Clisthenes.

Well, I didn`t fail. That`s for sure. 😀

And I do know Demosthenes was an oppenent of Philippus, and not of Alexander.
Didn`t know Aristotle was Macedonian. Anyway, the areas of Thessalia, Achaeia and Boeitia were not democratic, I never said that. They were known as `ethnos`, countries without a rural capital. Thebai became the centre of Beoitia later though.

To be honest. I find Roman history more interesting. Probably because I`m more inspired by the idea of a huge `imperium`. Alexanders imperium was not well organised, therefor it wouldn`t make a chance to survive. The Roman empire was well structured on the other hand.

Hi, well, right on. But give me some time to explain a few things.

AD means `Ante Domine` in Latin. Do you think English has a monopoly on history ? AD is the right term used in archeology and history.

The Trojan war is NOT a historical fact. It was Titus Livius who created the myth around the city of Troje, mainly because of Augustus` whish to create a national story which would relate the destruction of Troje in 1183 AD, the foundation of the city of Rome in 753 AD and the transition from monarchy to republic in 509 AD. The `Ad urbe condita` is full of historical mistakes, so we can not just use this as a fact.

There are multiple waves of colonialism. The first one indeed started in 1200 AD, Ionians, Arcadians and Dorians moved to Asia Minor. Halicarnassus and Cnidos were Dorian cities, not Ionian.

Well, the Greekness of the cities. The first Persian war (490 AD) was meant to seperate the cities of Asia Minor from Europe. Darius I thought this would probably put a halt to the chaos in the Greek cities (Ionians destroyed the city of Sardus). But after the Peloppenesian war, which Sparta won, the Persians took over most of the cities in Asia Minor. Sparta had no international ambitions, unlike Athens, so they did not give any support to these cities, mainly because it was thanks to the Persian Fleet they won the war.

And if Alexander was considered to be a Greek, then why did Demosthenos, one of Athen`s political leaders, called him a barbarian ? Greece was never `united`, but most of the poleis felt very related (especially after the Persian War). Even the archrivals Athens and Sparta admired one others achievements. But Macedonia was ruled by a king, not by a democratic or aristocratic regime. Macedonians were not considered as Greeks, but Philippus wanted to change that. Therefor he invited many Greeks to his palace, including Aristotle, who was appointed to educate Alexander. Strange, however, Alexander did about all the opposite things Aristotle wrote about in his `politica`.

And Alexander did not export the Greek culture to Asia. Otherwise he would not call himself the new Persian King. In fact, the Leucides ruled much like the Persians, and the Ptolemaeic dynasty looked a lot like the farao`s of old `old` days. Most Greeks didn`t like Alexander, because of this. Alexander had to kill many opponents who didn`t want this Persian King. Alexander felt more Persian than Greek, one of the reasons why he married a Persian, and forced his soldiers to do the same.

And yes, the Romas conquered most of the Hellenistic states in weeks. OK, they didn`t conquer it, since Egypt only became a province after the struggle between Antonius and Octavianus. But after the `Battle of Pydna`, in 168, the Romans defeated the Macedonian King Perseus. When the Syrian King Antiochus III wanted to take over Egypt from Ptolemaeus VI, the senat gave the former a warning that if he would do that, Rome would respond `manu militari`. So he gave up his plans, which meant that in just a couple of days, Rome became the one and only superpower in the Mediterranian, making Syria, Egypt and Macedonia look weak. The Romans already defeated Carthago 40 years earlier during the second Punic War.

The reason why the Ptolemaeic dynasty was able to rule for another 150 years was very simple. Rome had no ambitions to colonise it at that time, but the real decissions were already made in Rome, and not in Alexandria. This explains why Cleopatra wanted to save her kingdom through a relationship, first with Caeser, later with Antonius. When August became emperor, he installed the `provincia Aegypta`.

much like the Dutch can understand German, but not the other way around. Or South Africans can understand Dutch easily, but we don’t understand them (unless it’s written).