Valens

But at the same time more uniform than most armies would ever be, which is why it is conceived as uniform today.

Septimius Severus, no doubt. He restored order and brought in military success when Rome was really beginning to decline.

ISTJ. Apparently, being sensible is rare...

I mean: Did the Roman Legions confront the Macedonians head-on, or did they use flanking? How was it that they were able to defeat the sarissas of the Macedonians if their short swords only had short reach? Basically, they either found a way to flank the phalanx or found a gap in the phalanx to pour into.

Just so the topic creator knows, the Romans would've been fighting phalangites rather than hoplites in both the cases primus spoke of. Though the phalangites did ironically start to take on extra armor to the point of being more armored than the old hoplites had been (this would be in the times after Alexander, when cavalry became less abundant in Greek armies).

I chose Italy. Primarily becuase I love to study of the Samnite Wars. The early Italic confederations have always had my admiration (especially Samnium), yet they are always quite hard to learn of due to sketchy sources. Not to mention that I am most familiar with the Early Roman Armies .

Well, I know translation jobs often open up to people with classics majors (in fact, I know the University of the South often sends students with skill in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew to Vatican City to do translation work). Writing and teaching are also very common jobs for a history major. Also, I have a little situation pertinent to going into history fields myself. I'm trying to find a college that has a good history department. Specifically, I'm looking for a school with a great ancient history department. Really, I'd like for my focus of study to be classical military history, but as of yet, I haven't found a school that will allow me to really go into that. So if anyone could help...

I would tend to disagree. At least, I would disagree that he isn't underrated in comparison to Justinian's other Iron General, Narses. I think Narses had a far better grasp on the use of infantry than Belisarius (especially in the way of using infantry as cavalry support).

Mine: 1)Sulla 2)Cato Major 3)Scipio Africanus 4)Julius Caesar I agree, Primus, they ought to say what the correlation is...

Or Scipio Aemilianus' in Spain.

I personally find the concept of the Camillan legion to be more fascinating than the Marian legion. However, the Marian legion was easily more useful as a tactical unit.

He could be inspecting or ordering his lines prior to battle. And I'm hesitant to call this on the shields. I wouldn't expect all that uniformity in shields to have taken its forefront yet if this was in the mid BCs. It would've been nice if the reinactors had chosen to add a more recogniazable auxilia trademark like a leather tunic over the chain, a celtic-style shield, etc.

Hmm, not necessarily early. The soldiers seem to be wearing the Coolus style helmet, meaning they were of the very late republic or into the early empire. I'd put these men as a unit anywhere from 50BC to 75AD(though really, that late a date is unlikely, it is still possible. It is most likely that this unit is from the mid to late BCs).

Hmm, I'm not so sure that's an auxilia unit he's standing in front of... But definately a centurion of some sort(trying to get his rank by plumage won't work unless we have an idea of what time period he is supposed to have been from).

Hmm, I'll do a Parthian Cataphract(from the mid 1st Century BC): The Parthian and his horse are covered in ronze or iron scales(many wore mail), save for on the limbs, on which he was covered by leather(though metal appeared later on). The rider would carry a long spear called a kontos, a sword or axe, and often times, a bow. Next: Chaeonian Guard

This only pertains to the style of phalanx known as the Macedonian phalanx. And to be more specific, the pikes didn't grow to be this long until well into the Hellenistic Age, Alexander the Great's phalangites usually carried sarissa about 2-5ft smaller than these Hellenistic sarissa. This describes the very popular Corinthian type of helmet. However, there were many othe common helemt types: The Lakedaimonians started using the pilos-helmet on a wide scale in the 5th Century BC, many troops developed a Corinthian helmet with earholes, and the Macedonian phlamgites used Phrygian helmets for the most part. Actually, they were usually made of bronze. Also, ther was a growing trend to wear a very light breastplate(or in many cases, no breastplate at all) from the mid 5th century to the 360s(BC).

fair enough. But even then, winning is not the true greatness of a general. How you win is. But the difference between Hannibal and the generals you named, is that he was the underdog inn most of his battles. And when you read about him, its a wonder that he could last so long against Rome. It is however, true that, in the end Hannibal lost. But I would say that any general, even Ceaser, Alexander, or Scipio, would have also lost, and probably with less results than even Hannibal managed to achieve. Again, winning is not the true mark of greatness, how well you stand up to adversary is. That is why I admire Hannibal's ability as a General. He nearly toppled the greatest civilization that the world has known, with the greatest tactics the world has ever known (e.g. Rommel, Napoleon, and Schwartzkopf are three of many in history who have studied and admired the genius of Hannibal's tactics). In the end, its not truley about winning (if it is that would make Napoleon a lesser general than Wellington), its what he managed to acheive as a general which puts him above all others. BTW. here's my list 1)Hanninal 2) Phyrus 3) Belisarius 4) Ceaser 5)Marcellus 6) Trajan 7)Vespasian 8)Alexander TG 9) Scipio 10) Euyephues (sp?/Thebes) Nah, Philip II has got to make his way on this list somehow. He was certainly every bit the tactician his son was, and was without a doubt the greater military reformer.

Maybe you'd be interested in this? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...KX0DER&st=books I bought it, and am very pleased with it. If you can't find anything you like in the way of books or internet sites, feel free to ask us some questions.

I chose "Military Affairs." I've always been fascinated by nations known for their disciplined armies. Usually, I only learn cultural facts that have some relation to the military when studying Rome.

Rome's zenith was really in the Late 1st Century AD to the Early Second Century AD.

Totally disagree, Hannibal's greatest successes came against rather lackluster Roman counterparts(Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae all being prime exaomples of Hannibal against inferior opposition). Caesar's decisive victories at Munda and Thapsus saw Caesar fighting commanders much greater than the likes of Flaminius or Varro. The ones that defeated Hannibal were very well-trained, but the legions at Trebia and Lake Trasimene were certainly not all too formidable, and rather unprepared when the battles actually began. Pompey's seven vetrean legions in Spain were certainly formidable foes, and in general, the professional legions of the 1st Century BC and onwards were far more flexible and better trained than the militia of early centuries. Also, it seems very fair to say the Pompey's losses came only becuase he was fighting a commander that could've beaten him at any time during his life, and not becuase he was losing his touch.

Got a few: Agesilaus II Pausanias Lysander Brasidas Epaminondas Philip II Alexander III Pyrrhus Antiochus III Cincinnatus Scipio Africanus Scipio Aemilianus Gaius Marius Septimius Severus Flavius Vespasian Pompeius Magnus Domitius Corbulo Julius Caesar Narses

I'm not very sure, but there were always mercenaries to recruit.

Let's see if we can find out who the greatest Militant Roman Emeperor was through discussion. How this will work- I will provide the names of two Roman Emperors that were known for their generalship, and will ask you to decide who was the better Emperor(based on their generalship). Hopefully, we will be able to decide on who the winner is through debate or discussion. The winner of the round will continue on to the next round, facing another of the militant emperors, and so on. Eventually, we should be able to narrow it down to one through our discussion, and thusly, choose a champion of all the militant emperors. First Round: Septimius Severus vs. Constantine I Overview of Severus: Severus' rise to power can be attributed to his victory in the Civil War that followed Commodus' murder. He led a very successful campaign against Parthia, and established a new province in Mesopotamia. The last years of his life were spent in Eboracum, fighting Caledonian tribes. Overview of Constantine: Spent nearly half his reign as a usurper, before he could actually solidify himself as a sole ruler. His greatest military achievemants can be seen in these Civil wars, his victory over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge in 312 being the most impressive victory of his in my mind. (Be sure you can back your selection up, as discussions will fail if you can't.)

I would say he could not have invaded India. His supply lines would've been stretched too far, making them easy tragets for the Ligh Cavalry of Parthia. Not to mention that he would surely face the problem that Alexander had in India, troop weariness.