Valens

Not sure I've had enough consistant posting to fit into any generation.

Am I the only one who though Christian Bale was utterly insipid in Batman Begins? Anyway though, I thought the was on the overall fairly good. I'm also pleased to see the Joker will make his return in the next installment, but like you, Ursus, I can't imagine who could play him properly.

The glaring difference would be that the Roman Caliga was a sandal, being made and fastened by straps, whereas the Iphicratids were more similar to a boot, enclosing the foot and lower shin except for the toes.

I've always liked the name "Valens". No real attachment to the inept emperor or anything of the sort.

Not only that, Pyrrhos' army was no where near the level's of Alexander's. In terms of quality and numbers. I discussed differences in Pyrrhos' army in the Greeks Or the Romans thread.

How do you suppose that? Had the Makedonians gone west they would inevitably have come into conflict with Carthage. If you were interested in Sicily or Southern Italy, then Carthage was interested in you. They showed several times that they were willing to pounce on the Greeks if they struck into Eastern Sicily, so I can't see the sitting by as the powerful Makedonians attempted to build an empire in the area.

Very few Macedonians of the Roman era would've been wearing a bronze cuirass (they were well out of date by the late 4th Century). In fact, a greater percentage than you may think wouldn't have been wearing any cuirass at all.

The massed cavalry strike (led by Antiochus himself) wasn't what left the Seleucid phalanx open to the Roman cavalry force. The phalanx was open because the cavalry support on the left was routed and chased off.

The Seleucid army at Magnesia was standing firm until the disorderly retreat of their elephants caused confusion and disorder in their phalanx. The loss wasn't a failure of the formation. Correct. When the exiled Spartan King, Demaratos, was asked why it was considered more dishonourable to lose one's shield than cuirass or weapon, he replied: "Because the latter they put on for their own protection, but the shield for the common good of the whole line."

On the contrary, it was an extremely effective slasher in close combat. In fact, Xenophon even found it's size quite sufficient to be effective on horseback. But why focus on the kopis? It was the more versatile xiphos that the majority of hoplites used. No. In the Classical era, if a hoplite wore a cuirass it was generally a bronze type (bell or muscled) or maybe a composite suit of linen, canvas, and supporting plates/scales.

The later Hellenistic foes (especially the Makedonians) became increasingly lacking in cavalry, and as a result had to rely nearly completely on the phalanx as an offensive force much as their ancestors of centuries before had done (also as a result of this, the phalangites came to be armed more like the hoplites of old). They became very different from the diverse, more cavalry-focused Greek armies of the early Hellenistic period. Not positive, but it would seem likely. Especially given that we know a good portion of the later Spartan army comprised of mercenary phalangites and phalangites supplied by Ptolemy II. As for a definitive source on later Spartan armies, there isn't one. Primary sources are rather sketchy, so modern scholars have made a lot of assumptions. If you'd like a modern source, try and find a copy of J.F. Lazenby's The spartan Army. Likely the most complete coverage of the Spartan army the casual reader will find. Let's keep in mind Iphicrates' reforms didn't sreally spride wide, far, or quickly. The more traditional hoplite panolpy remained as popular as ever during the 4th C. As far as we can tell, the Spartans never really lingered in between hoplite and phalangite (though their hoplites had been more lightly armed since the Peloponnesian War) . In the mid 4th Century, for example, we still see the Spartans combating the traditional Theban hoplites with traditional hoplites of their own.

The Manipular Legion evolve? No, I'd said later Roman victories had more to do with the ebbing of Greek tactical science. Hmm, doubtful Xanthippus would've ushered in hoplite tactics. By this time, Sparta had certainly made the transition to a phalangite-based phalanx, so if indeed he was a Spartan, he would likely have used phalangites anyway.

Well, I had said a little bit about this above: "Anyway, the Kingdom of Pontus was founded by Mithridates Ktistes in 281 BC. He was the son of the Persian satrap in Kios (of the same name), who was killed by Antigonus late in the 4th C." As for the "how?": After his father's death, Mithridates Ktistes fled to a fort in Paphlagonia where he drew supporters (to defend against the imminent attack of Antigonus), and his territories and followers eventually grew to include most of Pontus.

Oh, the screenshots are actually a very good representation of a 3rd or 2nd C. hastati. All that's missing is the left leg greave. Yes, but the velites(skirmishers) weren't one of the three ordines Yes. The pectorale you have represented there would be an example of more affordable protection.

Better protected than who? The other ordines? No. You have to keep in mind that these men were generally the youngest, and subsequently the poorest of the ordines. As such, they couldn't afford the same armor that the triarii and princeps used. Indeed, they even seem to have been used as a sort of light infantry on occasion, hinting at a lighter panolpy. For example, Flamininus sent his hastati on a rapid, stealthy march to reach Boeotian League amabassadors and frighten them over to the Roman side.

We could also mention that some legions took on a sort of 'elite' status. Most notably Legio II Parthica.

I'm fairly certain I was Googling for info on the First Punic War. The forums were fairly dead when I first arrived, but were too perfect to pass up nonetheless.

Thrace came close, but was never completely unified. The most powerful Thracian tribe, the Odrysai, were the ones to briefly unite most of Thrace, under their second king, Sitalkes the Great. However, when he died fairly late in the 5th Century BC, the kingdom was promptly divided amongst his family. The savage, northern Thracian tribes were generally what stood in the way of a unified Thrace, in fact, Sitalkes was leading a campaign against the notorious Triballi tribe when he died.

You're right, in fact, Mithridates fought (and defeated) the Scythians in the Crimea in the late 2nd C.

Yep, just like the Seleucids and Antigonids around them, they made use of a huge variety of troops. Anyway, the Kingdom of Pontus was founded by Mithridates Ktistes in 281 BC. He was the son of the Persian satrap in Kios (of the same name), who was killed by Antigonus late in the 4th C. The kingdom was made notable by Mithridates VI and his wars with Rome.

Or maybe a National Month Until College Football Starts Day for early August?

That the Romans primarily used the gladius at Pydna is well-noted. Hmm, I was actually just assuming the Romans had adopted the standard manipular tactics by the time of Magnesia, but you could be right. Though, given that the commander of the Asian force was Scipio himself, I think my assumption was fair.

Just a term I picked up from Thucydides. These natives reigned supreme in many interior cities (Entella, Segesta, Enna, Agyrium, Aetna, etc.), at least as long as a Greek tyrant wasn't pestering them. I know nothing about their culture, but I know that at least some adopted Hellenic cultural aspects (I'd guess most were evntually Hellenized). A good example is Ducetius, the most famous native ruler. He allowed his realm to become Hellenized militarily, administratively (in fact, sources say he reigned in a similar fashion to the Greek tyrants), and likely culturally. Interestingly enough, embracing Hellenistic adminstration and war waging gave him the ability to fight and defeat the Greeks in the east. And indeed, he did, campaigning unblemished until Syracuse and Acragas were able to defeat him in 451BC. Yep.

Edit: Whoops, title was meant to say "Tyrants of Sicily". If one of the staff could change it I'd give them a shiny apple in return. --- Unlike in most other places around the ancient world, the cities of Ancient Sicily were often dominated by all-powerful 'tyrants'. Despite the thoughts "tyrant" evokes, not all tyrants were especially brutal rulers. And certainly, it doesn't apply that many weren't able. In fact, many built their cities up to positions of great wealth and splendor, many were able generals and commanders, and a few even built large, expasionist states that had the potential to unite Sicily. But which of the many Sicilian tyrants do you think was the greatest? Why? I'll provide a few notable 'tyrants', and some of their feats to aid discussion: Phalaris of Acragas: Ruled Acragas from 570-554 BC. As with most other tyrants of Sicily, he came to absolute power by force of his own army. Immediately he began building projects and aided his economy with an increase of trade. He embarked on military conquests, first capturing the native('Sicel'-inhabited) town of Vessa, and continuing on to the northern coastal city of Himera. The stories of him burning people inside his iron bull have made him legendary as a true evil tyrant. Hippocrates of Gela: Ruled Gela from 498-490 BC. To become the sole-ruler of the southern city of Gela, he used his brother's mercenary army of native Sicilians (his brother was Cleander, the previous tyrant of Gela, who was assassinated). He immediately headed northeast, to conquer all that he could. He conquered large, eastern cities such as Leontini, Naxos, and Zankle. Eventually, all of eastern Sicily was his, save for Syracuse. He laid seige to the Syracusans, and inflicted a defeat on them at the River Helorus, but eventually left the city. Died on a campaign the next year. In each of the cities he conquered, he set up a "puppet tyrant" (a rather odd combination of words). Gelon: Ruled Hippocrates's Gelan Empire from 490-478 BC. Had been the commander of Hippocrates's cavalry. He made Syracuse his capital, and is responsible for making it into the great city it would become. He and his ally, Theron (the newest tyrant of Acragas), became entangled in a conflict with the Carthaginians over the control of the northwestern town of Himera (Theron had captured it, and fearing his power, the Carthaginians decided they wanted to restore the city's old tyrant), which he eventually won (enflicting a disaterous defeat on the Carthaginians under Hamilcar at the Battle of Himera). Hiero I of Syracuse: Ruled Syracuse from 478-467 BC. The brother of Gelon. He was extremely successful in bringing new settlers to his lands, namely to his new city, Aetna. His most notable military achievement was his defeat of the Etruscans at the Battle of Cumae and his subsequent seizure of land on the Island of Pithecusae. Dionysius of Syracuse: Ruled Syracuse from 405-367 BC. The two Sicilian towns of Selinus and Segesta had been having conflicts for years, and, while Hermocrates of Syracuse was off aiding the Spartans against the Athenians, the town of Selinus launched an attack on Segesta, which was initially successful. As a result, the Segestans asked Carthage for aid. In 408 BC, a Carthaginian force, commanded by hannibal (the grandson of the Hamilcar that was defeated by Gelon at Battle of Himera years before) landed in Sicily. He easily defeated Selinus and moved on to take Himera. He captured the city, and made 'proper' sacrifice for his grandfather there. Meanwhile, Syracuse was in turmoil. The radical and moderate Syracusans even begun 'fighting in the streets'. This only encouraged the Carthaginians, and they went on to take the powerful city of Acragas. Under a new general, Himilco, they took Gela. The Syracusans were desperate to stop the Carthaginians, and to do so, they appointed Dionysius to be their sole ruler. In his initial attempt to stop Himilco (tried to relieve Gela), he was defeated. Luckily for the Sicilian Greeks, Himilco's army succomb to a plague before it could move against the northeastern cities. A peace treaty was signed. Many Syracusans had come to despise Dionysius, and to weaken them, he decided to divide them (land reforms). He also liberated many slaves and gave aid to the poorest classes, giving him a large new class of 'friendly' Syracusans. His next move was to prepare for war with Carthage. To do this, he conquered Leontini, Catane, and Naxos, and used diplomacy to ensure the goodwill of Central Italy and Northeast Sicily (worth mentioning too that at this time his engineers are said to have created the catapult, which he armed one of his western forts with). In his first major strike against Carthage, he captured the ancient city of Motya (one of the oldest city's in Sicily. Always Phoenician-held). However, Himilco was able to recapture the city and again struck westwards. Again, a plague struck his army, and Dionysius eventually forced the Carthaginians away. However, the Syracusan-Carthaginian conquest would go on until 392 (peace treaty). During the peace with Carthage, Dionysius conquered Rehgium in southern Italy, as was Croton, Carthage's ally in Italy. He attempted another advance at the Carthaginian but was defeated. He had begun yet another war against Carthage in in 368, but died shortly therafter. Agathocles: Ruled Syracuse from 316-288 BC. After the death of Alexander III, conflicts between the oligarchs and democrats surfaced again in Syracuse. Acting as democratic commander, Agathocles crushed the oligarchs, then turned about and became the city's sole ruler. He immediately conquered some Sicilian towns, but his popularity dwindled anyway. To win support, he launched an attack on Carthage. The Carthaginians pushed him back and laid siege to Syracuse. During the siege, Agathocles sailed to Africa, with the intent of heading to Carthage itself. He won a victory in Africa, and threatened Carthage. However, rather than risk their city, the Carthaginians in Sicily sued for peace. Interestingly, while on his death bed, Agathocles didn't name either of his sons his heir, choosing to restore the democracy instead.

That's what we'd be tempted to think, but the reality is that the legionary's close-range dominance generally wasn't shown until a gap or break in the opposing phalanx was exploited. Head on, the legionaries were generally forced into a stalemate with the phalangites. Battles like Pydna and Magnesia show what I mean. At Pydna, the legionaries and phalangites were at a virtual stalemate until the gap in the Makedonian formation was exploited. At Magnesia, the Seleukid phalanx and Roman Legions were again at a stalemate until the disorderly withdrawl of the Seleukid elephants caused disruption in the phalanx. Just to note, most phalangites had no swords. In some armies, they carried a small dagger as a sidearm, but that offered very little protection from an opponent armed with a real sword.