Explanation: Mark Antony and Cleopatra were the enemies of the future Roman Emperor Augustus. For obvious reasons, he was pleased with their deaths, though he may have wanted to parade Cleopatra in a triumph before killing her instead of having her go out by suicide.
Explanation: Titus was in charge of suppressing the Iudean rebellion in the First Roman-Jewish War, but also carried on a long-term affair with the Iudean queen Berenice. Titus would later become Emperor after the death of his father, Vespasian.
In my childhood i have mostly played Final Fantasy and Kingdom Herts games. So i’m still lacking in some knowledge about older games. What retro games would you recommend or are must plays in your opinion?...
I mean, unless the plan is to leave them half in the grave and ready for burial, them dying is going to be beneficial to the system which will no longer need to sustain them.
The criticism you're looking for, I think, has more to do with profit motive and the delegation of decision-making to those who, well, profit by it - ie "We're going to let this person die because another .01% profit this quarter will let me get a new yacht" kind of thinking
Yeah, the Turkish Brigade was one of the hardest pressed of the UN's forces in the Korean War. Took heavy casualties, hard missions, very highly decorated. I imagine those men have been through the wringer.
No worries! In the early Imperial era, great attention is paid to Roman wars, and they certainly made a few opportunistic men very rich, but generally were inconsequential to the Empire as a whole.
"Transportation-economic aspects of Roman highway development: The case of Via Appia"
Of special interest is the top layer (summacrusta), made of lava stones. These stones, polygonal in shape, were reasonably flat on the upper side and fairly pyramidal on the bottom side in order to penetrate the ground easily. These blocks were 30–90 cm (1–3 ft) in diameter and 15.2–20.3 cm (6–8 in.) thick. Sometimes slabs of lava of 25–40 cm (9–16 in.) were used instead. Together with the cement the stones made a stable surface that formed the road pavement. Von Hagen (1967) points out that experienced masons, who supervised the cutting of the massive paving stones, carried out the actual finishing. This was precision work as each stone had to be fitted to and aligned with the others to form a mosaic pattern. Via Appia, being such an important road was carefully paved with these stones as we can still see today (see Fig. 3).
Of course, many ancient Roman roads were not always paved, especially along difficult stretches. But when possible, the roads were paved at least with gravel, though flint and other small stones were also used to pave the road. Slabs of stone were used too, but this technique appeared only in the early 2nd century BC (Adam, 1994). Margary (1973) notes that in areas where iron was being used, the hard slag (the waste metal created in the production of iron) provided an almost ideal surfacing material (called metalling), whose effectiveness was increased in some cases by the material rusting into a reinforced concrete-like mass. Some roads were paved with a sort of rough concrete, a combination of gravel bound with mortar
Via terrena were not the main highways used, via terrena were not made with multiple layers stone like that, Roman roads were made for foot-traffic, not horses or wagons, Romans definitely did have protection for horse hooves, and there are literally still existing Roman roads today you can fucking look at, guy, most of which are stone-paved highways that are quite clearly constructed to be used as-is, not covered with another layer, which would render much of the details of their construction pointless.
Not sure, unfortunately. Reverse google search shows the picture in some image galleries of the Turkish Brigade in the Korean War, but I can't find any information on the specific picture.
I don't care if someone is obscenely wealthy so long as I have everything I need and some of what I want.
Wealth is power, and extreme power imbalances inevitably lead to abuses. That's why modern constitutional government is based around the idea of checks and balances. Apply the same principle to society at large - any sector or group that accumulates too much power becomes a threat to the system as a whole.
What happened in the 90s and 2000s then? The west had been propagandized for half a century that Russia was the enemy, so had Russians, so neither side was going to hold out there hand and try for cooperation.
Both sides did, actually. The refrain in the US was always that Russians weren't the enemy, that Communism was - we learned our lesson with our propaganda campaigns against Germany in WW1. Even Reagan, anti-Soviet agitator extraordinaire, stuck to that line. Yeltsin expressed strong interest in joining the international order - even Putin claims that he raised the issue of NATO, though he wanted special fast-track status for Russia, which was a non-starter. God, I don't know how to express the sheer triumphalism of 90s academia on the subject. Communism was defeated. Russia was free. That was what the West told itself.
If the west was serious about incorporating Russia they would’ve done some sort of marshall plan to modernize them before bringing them into the fold like Poland.
There was no Marshall Plan for Poland. Or any of the ex-Sovs or Warsaw Pact states. The Soviet Union refused all aid when the Marshall Plan was implemented in the 40s, and there was neither the political will nor interest in the 90s in extending generous aid terms. Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, the Baltic States - they all managed to escape not only the horrendous effects of 'Shock Therapy', but also half a century of Soviet exploitation, if not necessarily evenly. Yet Russia, and Belarus, did not. One might then begin looking for reasons why Russia and Belarus failed to integrate, rather than reasons why the West failed to welcome, with that in mind.
They didn’t, they did let a bunch of their business men buy former public property for pennies on the dollar, which I guess is investment but only really for the corrupt officials who got rich off it.
This I agree with. 'Shock therapy' was nothing but a plundering of the old Soviet states by a plutocratic elite who could generously be said to have gotten high on their own supply of free market fetishism, or more cynically to simply have done what the faithless dogs would do with any weakened state - strip it bare for short term gain.
There was no path to EU membership, especially after Poland and the baltics joined because they, justifiably, hate Russia for all the imperial oppression they’ve done over the centuries.
Man, you put too much stock in old grudges. As much as I enjoy ragging on Old Worlders for their ancient blood feuds, it's not actually that prominent in terms of diplomatic behavior. International relations are predicated almost exclusively on "What can you offer me NOW?" If they weren't, Germany would never have snuggled up to Russia, France would currently be blockading Britain, and Spain would have cut off the New World colonies which kicked them out. In the 30s and 40s, Ukrainians and Poles were genociding each other, independent of Nazi-led initiatives - now the relation between the two countries is very warm.
History matters for context - but speaking as a History Major, it rarely matters more than present circumstances.
My point wasn't to refute that shock therapy caused the war, but to refute that shock therapy caused the modern Russian state in general. Shock therapy was economically damaging, but the root causes of the Russian kleptocracy are much, much deeper and more severe.
Where am I wrong about Ukraine, do you think E.U. and NATO are going to let them in even after all this?
Yes, definitely. NATO expansion has long been a goal of NATO hardliners, and NATO support in NATO countries has shot up to a degree few would have expected before Russia made the dubious decision of validating the purpose of the old alliance, which had become lethargic and uncertain in recent years.
What reason is there to exclude Ukraine from NATO once the war is over? Do you think the West wants to deal with a land-grab like this bullshit again, disrupting international markets? Or do you think we'd much prefer to station a token 'tripwire' force in Ukraine and ensure that Russia can't do this bullshit again in ten years?
The EU I'm less informed on the nuances of, but it seems to me they're pretty forward about opening a path to EU membership to Ukraine. I'd be more concerned on the EU trying to stall on including them in the Schengen Area than excluding them from the EU entirely.
I’m not a tanky , the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific and unjustified, that doesn’t mean the west’s response to it is benevolent and with the ukrainians best interest.
I appreciate that you aren't a tankie, or a Russian bootlicker, but sometimes national (or international) interests and the right thing line up. Western hegemony benefits most from countries deeply connected to the international market (ie Russia and Ukraine) NOT invading each other and disrupting world trade. As Russia is the aggressor, it is in the interests of the West to discourage further aggression, both practically (supporting Ukraine to end the war faster) and in principle (assuring other countries that their sovereignty will be reinforced in the case of blatant outside interference).
Explanation: The Emperor Claudius had a highly successful reign in which he successfully reformed key parts of Roman law, established precedents for centuries to come, expanded the Empire, and ran a successful and financially responsible administration.
He also had terrible luck in his love life. As he was physically disabled and had a stutter, both traits deeply disliked by traditional Roman society, he was not regarded as a particular 'catch', even though he was part of a well-born family. His first wife cheated on him - his second wife abused him - his third wife cheated on him AND attempted to coup him - and his fourth wife assassinated him. Poor Uncle Claudius!
Anti-communist fighter pursuing a suspected member of the 'Securitate' secret police, Bucharest, Romania, 1989 (lemmy.world)
Scottish Claymore, 16th-17th century AD (lemmy.world)
LOL REKT (lemmy.world)
"America First" hasn't changed much (lemmy.world)
When the Iudean queen is straight fire (lemmy.world)
Must play retro JRPG's?
In my childhood i have mostly played Final Fantasy and Kingdom Herts games. So i’m still lacking in some knowledge about older games. What retro games would you recommend or are must plays in your opinion?...
DESTROY THE CHILD (lemmy.world)
Alright, raise your hand if this is you (lemmy.world)
wojak compass of some stoic quotes
East German guards carry away a refugee wounded by machine-gun fire after trying to escape East Berlin, 1971 (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Painting of an interracial German couple, 1890 AD (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Troops of the Turkish Brigade around a campfire in the Korean War, 1951? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Replica of a Roman military diploma discharging an auxiliary and granting him citizenship, bronze, based on 1st century AD original (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
"I trade with the West - he cannot. Great success!" (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Roman Legion on the march, 1st-2nd century AD (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Bronze and silver fish ornament, Meiji-era Japan, ~1900 AD (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Depiction of a boy catching grasshoppers, Meiji-era Japan, ~1890 AD (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Soldier of the Turkish Brigade showing American comics to a girl, 1951, Korean War (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
The Hardest Thing in the World (lemmy.world)
"All you had to do was stick to oppressing your own people, and we would've kept looking the other way..." (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
Poor Uncle Claudius (lemmy.dbzer0.com)