Valens

My thoughts exactly. Tried to make a similar point in this thread a while back. Keeping in mind he usually had large numbers of Greek allies and mercenaries formed up in a phalanx, it's more like 22,000+ of his 40,000-strong army. Indeed. Porus's Pauravan infantry would've been primarily bow-armed. Interestingly, he also went up against large numbers of Sakae cavalry in his conquests (who were certainly amongst the top horsemen in the ancient world).

Fianlly! I'm going on vacation for a week! (leaving tomorrow morning)

Certainly, they fought very much like normal legionaries in the Persian/Parthian Campaigns of Caracalla and Severus Alexander (in fact, some of the Phalangarii were legionaries of Legio II Parthica and Praetorians). I don't know any real details on their combat in these campaigns though. My source mentions the phalangarii as 'serving with success' in Severus Alexander's Persian War (231-233), and that's really all I know .

A multitude of different Turks, in fact (Uzes, Patzinaks, Seljuks, etc.). During the Middle Byzantine period, Patzinaks constituted the majority of the Empire's Asiatic mercenaries (disappeared from Byzantine armies in the 12th C.). Starting in the 14th Century (lasting until the Empire's fall), Turks became the largest foreign force in the army (interestingly, most Turks of the period were generally auxilia forces, rather than mercenaries).

Aha! I've solved my own mystery(or rather, the young scholar, Ross Cowan, has). Both Dio and Herodian recorded a few Severan Emperors forming 'phalanxes'. Dio says Caracalla formed a 15,000 strong Makedonian phalanx (made up of Makedonians), and Herdodian suggests there was a further phalanx of Spartans. And though both authors attribute archaic arms and armor to these units, it seems they were just using odd terms to describe normal armorment (though their reference to 'linen cuirasses' could hold true, being a special cuirass designed for the heat of the Near East or referring to troops wearing only their thoracomachus for body armor). In all actuality, the term phalanx (and the corresponding term 'phalangarii' used to describe the soldiers) was probably just used by a few emperors embarking on campaigns against the Parthians/Persians to emulate Alexander the Great (since he had had such success in the Near East).

I recently read that the Emperor Caracalla attempted to recreate a Makedonian-style phalanx at one point. I was astonished when the author didn't explain this or back it up. After a bit of searching, I found this text from Herodian (describing a levy): "[Caracalla] issued an edict that all the young men should assemble on an open area of ground, saying that he wished to enrol a phalanx in honour of Alexander [the Great]..." So, I'd be curious to know if anyone else knows something about this? Or better yet, if the phalanx was really ever made?

He would get a discharge bonus of 3,000 denarii. Or, as Lacertus mentioned, in earlier times he would get a land grant.

Alright, just got done typing this one. I originally posted it on another history forum I go to, but I figured it may have use to someone here. Likely somewhat confusing as I couldn't find numbers for the individual units I've listed. --- Battle of Paraitacene Background: 317 BC. Antigonus has begun his expansion. Moves towards Persia to confront Eumenes. Antigonus's Army: 28, 000 heavy infantry; 10, 600 cavalry (3, 700 heavy); 65 elephants; and an unspecified number of light infantry. His lineup: The left wing comprises of nearly 7, 000 light cavalry and some supporting light infantry (specifically, from farthest left heading right: Median/Parthian mounted lancers and archers, Tarentine cavalry, a Phrygian and Lydian cavalry force, another force of Median cavalry, the Lysanias, and the Asthippoi); the center consists of the 28, 000 heavy infantry with 35 elephants and some light infantry in front (the heavy infantry going from left to right: Mercenaries farthest left, small force of Lycians and Pamphylians, a large unit of mixed race, and the Makedonian infantry to the far right); the right wing consists of the 3, 700 heavy cavalry, the remaining 30 elephants, and a force of light infantry (from left to the right end of the battle line: force of mercenary cavalrymen, larger force of Thracian cavalry, Greek cavalry, and the Companions under Antigonus's son, Demetrios. To the right of the Companions, there is an interesting setup of light infantry and cavalry which is flanked on the right by an oblique line of elephants. I'll describe the aforementioned light infantry/heavy cavalry setup from front to back: three ilai [150] of slave cavalry, 300-strong cavalry force led by Antigonus himself, another three ilai of slave cavalry, and a force of 100 Tarentine cavalry to the rear). Eumenes's Army: 6, 000 cavalry; 85+ elephants; 17, 000 heavy infantry; and in excess of 10, 000 light infantry. His lineup: He has 3, 000 heavy cavalry with 6, 000 light infantry and 45 elephants on his left wing (from farthest left heading right towards the center: Elephants and light infantry support the flank, to their right are two ilai[100] of lancers with Eudamus's Agema behind it, heading right is a force of Areian and Drangianan cavalry, next is the Mesopotamian and Arbelitian cavalry, then Arachosian cavalry, then the Paropanisadian cavalry force, and to the farthest right is a force of Thracian cavalry); his ceneter has the 17, 000 heavy infantry with 40 elephants and another large force of light infantry in front (the heavy infantry from left to right: Mercenaries on far right, unit of mixed race, Argyraspid infantry force is next, and farthest right are the Hypaspists); the right wing has around 3, 000 cavalry with part of the elephant force (extending from the center) and a large force of light infantry in front (the cavalry from left to right: Carmanian cavalry, to its right are the Companions, continuing right is an agema of cavalry [300], to its right is an agema led by Eumenes with a 300-strong force of specially selected cavalry behind it and a force of slave cavalry in front of it, and farthest right is another small force of picked cavalry). The Battle: Antigonus intends to advance in an oblique line(refusing the left) so that his force of 3, 700 heavy cavalry on thr right can use their numerical advantage over Eumenes's left. However, the commander of Antigonus's large light cavalry force on the left, Pithon, decides to engage anyway. Eumenes decides to bring some cavalry from his left over to his right to launch a counterattack on Pithon, and, after some initial success, Pithon is routed. When the two center forces of heavy infantry met, Eumenes's force routed the Antigonid infantry. Meanwhile, on the Antigonid right, Antigonus takes advanatge of the gap created by the advance of Eumenes's center, and attacks Eumenes's isolated left. Antigonus routes the isolated force. Thus, Eumenes has to regather his pursuing center and right to regroup. Likewise, Antigonus regathers his fleeing army. However, Eumenes's army refused to restart the battle and march back to camp. So, Antigonus marches back onto the empty battlefield and claims victory. Note: I haven't proofread this yet, making the chance for errors high. Corrections are welcome.

I don't visit any other exclusively Roman forums, but I do go to some other history sites. If you're looking for traffic and history, check out http://www.allempires.com/forum (though, I've gotta warn you, we sometimes have trouble with nationalists)

I'm not very extreme at all. My fear of heights and my distrust of long stretching cords prevent me from trying something as daring as bungee jumping. (Ironically though, I enjoy roller coasters and plane rides.) As for extreme sports, I've always steared clear of them. Save for skiing, which I attempted a few years ago, and had a bit of fun with after a few hours. More regular sports I have no problem with. Played a bit of everything my first year in high school (that being said, I wasn't especially good at any of the sporta I played ), though I switched pretty much exclusively to track for my last three years.

I know, I was referring to Scythians dealing in Bosporan affairs. Diodorus tells us the Scythians tried to keep very close to Bosporan politics, and as a result, they became involved in a late 4th century (BC) Bosporan dynastic struggle. I recently posted a description of the battle between the two royal sons fighting for the throne (the official heir having with him an army mainly of Scythians) on another site. Maybe someone would find it interesting: Just the river next to which the battle involving the Scythians was fought. Can be spelt "Thates" or "Thatis".

Might be worth mentioning that a Bosporan dynastic struggle between the heirs of Paerisades produced our only full description of Scythian forces in battle (Battle of the Thatis River).

Early Republic. Not sure how early the topic creator meant, but I took the term to mean during the times of the manipular legion.

What? If the tablet describing the situla says the warriors depicted are "typical", then it is very incorrect...

Fairly certain Marcus Martialis said that one. New quote: "Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears."

No, the situla depicts Venetic warriors and processions. Here's a link: http://www.prah.net/europaveneta/situla/pi...ictureindex.htm (the information about the certosa situla is under #4)

Sociopath You are 71% Rational, 14% Extroverted, 100% Brutal, and 71% Arrogant. You are the Sociopath! As a result of your cold, calculating rationality, your introversion (and ability to keep quiet), your brutality, and your arrogance, you would make a very cunning serial killer. You care very little for the feelings of others, possibly because you are not a very emotional person. You are also very calculating and intelligent, making you a perfect criminal mastermind. Also, you are a very arrogant person, tending to see yourself as better than others, providing you a strong ability to perceive others as weak little animals, thus making it easier to kill them. In short, your personality defect is the fact that you could easily be a sociopath, because you are calculating, unemotional, brutal, and arrogant. Please don't kill me for writing mean things about you! Serial killer? Nah, I'm too lazy...

The Certosa Situla is dated to the 5th Century.

Thinking about it, that number must be a little high. An estimated strength of the Samnite army that fought the Romans at Apulonia was 36, 000+(and, in fact, this could be high). Given the stipulations for not going to war in Samnitic society, it is probably pretty fair to assume this was the vast majority of Samnite manpower. Nicholas Sekunda (granted, he can be quite sketchy at times) puts the Roman army at the same time from about 16, 000 to 20, 000 strong. Not really sure what a fair estimate of total manpower would be given this number...

That seems low, as Polybius tells us that only about 70 years later (at the start of the 2nd Punic War), the Romans had some 700, 000 men liable to military service (granted, the number would be a bit high).

An estimate of Romans liable to military service at the beginning of the 3rd Century... Obviously, this is a hypothetical situation calling for us to assume Romans lost at these two battles.

Hmm, doesn't look like a Niederbieber to me. The cheeks don't wrap the face in the characteristic Niederbieber fashion, the brow rim isnt as prominent as usuaully depicted on Niederbieber helmets, and while you are correct that the neck guard didn't jut out as far on the Niederbieber style as it had in previous styles (Niederm

Anyone have any figures for Romans liable to military service in the early 3rd Century BC (I've had horrible luck; maybe someone here can do better)? The purpose of these numbers would be to see if Rome could've staged one of their trademark comebacks after a defeat at Sentinum (which they actually won in 295) or Apulonia (which they actually won in 293).

That is a very good Osprey book, BTW. Doesn't contain as much info. as the Scythian or Thracian books, but certainly one of my favorite Osprey books.