Severus
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Severus
-
-
An interesting and heated debate. Something I found interesting was this. . .
Image what may have occured had Caesar not shown Brutus mercy at Pharsalus, and instead put Brutus to death as was his right as the victor. Not that I think Caesar could have avoided assasination, it would just been an interesting alteration to the timing of the assasination and what could have been done or not done during that time.I never considered it before but if Caesar had been as ruthless and efficient at exterminating his enemies as Sulla had been before him, then perhaps he would have lived out the natural course of his life. I have always sympathized with Marius and loathed Sulla. I also approve of Caesar's magnanimous and open-handed policy of forgiving his enemies, but I am now forced to consider that if Caesar had killed all of his enemies he could possibly have gone about his work for a much longer time and possibly avoided the whole second set of triumvirs. . . thus saving more Romans from civil war.
Those spared by Caesar were not grateful in the least. Letting them live turned out to be a mistake (but I approve of Caesar's intention to spare fellow Romans)
Severus
-
I think we have to consider would there be the USA if Rome survived. Perhaps Britain would not exist, and the formation of USA could not make sense. Suppose she is here today, I agree with Severus that Rome and the USA are very unlike. They are culturally different, but I do not think Rome would have a lower technology level since she would still develop just like Europe today. One more thing, remember if Europe is unified, WWI & II would not take place and she would not be weakened; USA would not gain benefits; Europe Union could be just like the US.
Miguel,
I think you are missing the point entirely. My post has nothing to do with the existence of America or what would have happened to the world if Rome survived. My post was simply to refute TCB's statement that because both Rome and the USA are of roughly similar size and the US is governed by a Republic and exists that Rome too could have existed under a Republic.
My point about technology is Rome existed in a time of lower technology (no phones, no mass transit, no medicine, etc) making it difficult to sustain such a vast empire. I am not implying that Rome's technology would be worse if it had made it farther.
-
Haha no way...I totally forgot that that was a part of that movie! Good call, sir. Marcus Aurelius was a student of philosophy, and as far as I know he was a proponent of decentralized power in government.
Being a student of philosphy is true. But Marcus Aurelius never gives us any hint that he was a proponent of decentralized government. That is just wishful thinking. Marcus Aurelius saw the benefits of a strong centralized government (being a part of the 5 adoptive emperors who, arguably, are the "best" in Roman history) and hoped it would continue with the appointment of his son Commodus. . .
I have to take issue with another quote
While they might be roughly similar in size, Rome and the USA are dissimilar in hundreds of other aspects. a Majority of the Roman empire was borders with very little interior. They had a hundreds of wildly different cultures within the empire, they had a low level of technology, a much smaller population density, and active enemies that sought to attack at any sign of weakness. Them's just a few of the differences!If you look at a map, the size of the empire at its peak seems similar to our great American republic - and we seem to be doin alright!Simply saying "If the USA's republican government can run a big hunk of land so could the ancient Roman Republic" is not a logical argument.
-
The reason I say a Republican Rome would survive better is pretty simple - By the end of the 2nd century and the reign of Commodus, the empire was in decline anyways. Since the monarchy had already been rejected by the people, and Rome had enjoyed some of its greatest prosperity as a republic in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC (besides, of course, the Pax), a republican form of government seems most logical to me if the government of Rome were to again switch in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD.
The Roman Republic was only capable of "working well" when it governed a relatively small territory. It was still wracked with revolts (angry plebs and soldiery getting the shaft by the arsitocrats) military failures, and poor leadership. As Rome grew it became obvious that the Republican system was woefully inadequate to govern an empire. By the Time of Marius and Sulla you had a standing, professional army (necessary to defend the ever growing Roman borders) that were liable to side with a single man instead of always protecting the state itself (a huge problem), By the end the Republic was rife with corruption, awash in bloody civil wars, proscriptions, and the whole government could be brought to a dead halt by a single tribune's veto. Political issues were decided by who had the stronger gang of thugs or who could buy enough votes in the senate. Does this sound like a government capable of running an empire?
The Imperial system could be equally as bad, but in the hands of a capable leader, who chose his subordinates and successors well, it was much more efficient & stable than the Republic could have ever been. I think if we are putting forward the idea of an eternal Rome, a refined Imperial succession and some kind of checks and balances of the Army would helped
As for Marcus Aurelius restoring the Republic. . .
I think someone has been watching too much "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe. -
To fight without full armor is to fight expedetii , allowing fast assault ahead of a main battle line , or to be a flexible javelin throwing aid to same.I understand that Tacitus mentions heavy troops fighting expeditii to increase manoeuvrability.
Good point Pertinax.
I have heard the term expeditii before but I don't recall Caesar ever using his legions in such a fashion (but I haven't read The Gallic Wars in 10 years. . .) probably the best lead so far. When I get home I will do some reading. . .
Thanks
-
P.Pilus
The person I emailed was probably a sales rep who had nothing to do with the sculpting of the figures or any detailed knowledge of the history behind them. The person who had sculpted the line was not part of the company.
I must say that the Foundry models I have seen have very good attention to detail (lorica hamata is correctly portrayed, wearing the right type of helmet, swords.. . even down to the Centurion wearing his scabbard on the left while rank and file wear them on the right) in Romans and other cultures (Trojan War Greeks, Spartans, Late Imperials) that seem to coincide with the facts as I have learned them. That is why when I saw the unarmored legionaires I assumed I was lacking in my knowledge of the equipment of Caesar's troops.
I don't see it as an attempt to earn more revenue (they offer a full stocked properly armored version of his troops) and there is no repeat of this in any other model set (republican, Imperial, or Late Roman armies)
It's a mystery. . . .
-
Thanks for the help guys. From my own knowledge of Ceasars troops I have no recollection of unarmored troops.
I emailed the company that made the models. They had no answers and the sculptors have since left the employ of Foundry.
I have also found that another model maker (Gripping Beast) also has a line of unarmored Caesareans.
I will assume that no one has any ready knowledge of unarmored Romans and that the model makers have been taking some liberties (shame on them!)
Look forward to more interesting debates and informative posts.
-
Read the second half of my post please...
You edited your original post and added the second half about Marius as I was typing a reply. I have quoted your original post in my post above . . .
Severus
-
In the republican army, the armor you got was the stuff you could afford. Perhaps they were poor men.
I disagree with your statement. Since Marius' reforms of the army and the use of landless citizens in the legions soldiers were, for the most part, issued their gear. Before the time of Marius Roman soldiers were responsible for equipping themselves. I do not think it was so during the time of Caesar's Gallic wars.
P.S. Lost Warrior, I am collecting an army but I have already decided on Caesarean Romans from either the Foundry or Gripping Beast line of miniatures
Severus
-
If I recall Marcus Aurelius had a whole cinnamon tree in his personal effects, on campaign!
The same Marcus Aurelius also strongly encourages the use of oppium in "Meditations".
That must have been some Contubernium to chill in.
I don't recall where I read this (whether it was taken from Meditations or some other speculative source) but I have a vague recollection that the oppium was also enjoyed while mixed into the wine.
I think the picture of Commodus' later lunacy begins to unfold.
Primi Pilus
I have read the Meditations and don't recall Marcus Aurelius ever referring to using opium nor the cinnamon tree reference. Do you have any historical documents to back this up?
Severus
-
Another site you may want to check out for similar figures is Lead Warrior I have a few of their figurines, they are top quality (though unpainted) and they even come wrapped in bits of Russian newspaper!
Thanks for the link but I am not looking for miniatures, I am looking for the reasons (historical hopefully) that caused foundry to cast a whole line of Caesarean legions without any body armor at all?
Severus
-
Could these maybe the slingers or even archers??
Nope check the link
http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/collections/CR/1/index.asp
Top row center and top row left.
Legionaries Throwing Javelin (they have pilums in their hands)
Legionaries Attacking with Sword (they are armed with a gladius)
these are legionaries without body armor. . . Foundry seems like a knowledgable company that bases its molds on historical fact. What gives here?
Severus
-
Looking to start collecting a Caesarean army of 28mm figures. I went to the foundry site and came across models that are shown with the hamata armor I am familiar with, but there are also units of legionnaires shown wearing only a cloth tunic, helm and shield. Could anyone enlighten me on this and point me to some source that would show Caesar's legions going to battle without armor?
http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/collections/CR/1/index.asp
I have read the Gallic Wars and Civil Wars (not recently mind you) and I have no recollection of this sort of attire.
Thanks in advance,
Severus
-
I'd just like to say this board has been a great source of information and discussion. I am glad to have stumbled upon it.
My question is this (and I've looked through threads on the forum but couldn't find one that answered it)
Can anyone help clarify who was allowed into the senate in regards to Plebians/Patricians? I am sure this question will have different answers depending on the time frame but I have no good sources on this and would like to clarify the info. Also what were the requirements for becoming a magistrate (any part of the cursus honorem)
Any good websites or books that might help would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance
-
From Tenney Frank, Race Mixture in the Roman Empire.
According to him, the original Latin population suffered a massive and devastating displacement from the Servile Wars onwards. By the 2nd century, the overwhelming part of the Italian population was of Oriental or mixed-race stock, which has led to the embrace of foreign cults, chronic laziness, and lower ethic.
I'd need to see facts about the "overwhelming" number of oriental or mixed stock citizens in Italy, Firstly I would say that the temperment and mores of Roman Italy was changed by endless war, an influx of wealth and prosperity from those wars, and changing values of successive generations (which is present in all cultures). Embracing foreign cults was common in the ancient world. Chronic laziness become apparent even in the time of Augustus, there was difficulty raising legions in Italy during the disaster in Germany. People gave up working on their farms (partly due to the giant slave tended latifundia) to live shiftless lives in the city where they were provided free bread and games. Is there evidence to blame this shirking of duty on orientals or mixed race citizens?
That is, the Romans did not change their mood and soul, it was the people who changed dramatically.I believe this is an incorrect assumption. Rome was still a vital and functioning empire in the 2nd century A.D., when did the orientals show up and start polluting the gene pool? Roman citizens (people of Italian stock) were tired of serving in the legions, they wanted to enjoy the benefits of society; peace, prosperity, law, etc.
This hypothesis is very tempting,Tempting to who?
-
To go a step further, even armies of the Middle Republic made use of cavalry. It could be argued that a portion of Hannibal's success could be attributed to his superior cavalry and Rome's inability to field some decent horse units. . . also good cavalry support could lead to victory. . .
Here is a link to the battle of Zama. Rome's allied and native cavalry (the Romans did field cavalry after all!?!?) were an important aspect of Scipio's victory. If Scipio had regarded cavalry as "useless" the world would be a very different place right now. . .
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/zama.htm
Matt
-
In its conquering days at the waning end of the republic and the Augustan age of the empire, Rome utilized cavalry very little during campaigns. In fact, Roman cavalry was all auxilary, so there were no true Roman cavalry attached to a Roman legion,
Incorrect. Roman armies of the late republic and empire nearly always made use of cavalry. The argument that the cavalry used by Rome was not made up of Romans (or people from the surrounding area in Italy) has no bearing whether or not the Romans made use of cavalry.
Furthermore, these same horseless armies defeated time and time again gallic, germanic, galatian, and countless other forces heavily dependent on mounted troops. don't forget even the germans were defeated munerous times by Marius, Caesar, Germanicus, and others.A reference to Horseless armies is incorrect. Read your Conquest of Gaul or Civil Wars by Caesar to see how much the Romans relied on cavalry. I opened it quickly to scan some lines and immediately came upon this passage. . .Check book IV (Invasions of Germany and Britain)passage 7 of Conquest of Gaul. After securing his food (arguably one of the most important aspects of military planning) the next thing Caesar makes sure of is his cavalry detachment. If Late Republican Armies did not make use of cavalry, why would Caesar mention them over and over?
While cavalry did not make up a majority of troops in a legionary army it was an invaluable piece of the entire system, and one that cannot be removed from the whole. . .
P.S. Not sure about posting rules, but just making broad blanket statements without any facts is probably not a good thing. . .
Matt
-
It seems the argument is becoming fractured.
Some people are comparing the legion itself vs. cavalry (horse archers in particular)
Other people are comparing Roman armies vs. cavalry (the Parthians in particular)
The legion itself without auxilliary support would be at a decided disadvantage vs. horse archers (ala Carrhae) for the simple reason that the horsemen would be able to inflict casualties at will on the legion while neutralizing the strengths of the legion (close quarter killing). This scenario, of course, would be modified by the terrain, objectives, generals, etc. It's not like we can throw these two military elements into a vaccuum and have them duke it out. What if the horse archer based army was holding a city and the Legion was looking to capture it? Suddenly the match-up between these two armies is swung 180 degrees. . .
Comparing the Roman army (legions and their allies) against cavalry (horse archers) opens a whole other argument. I would assume the use of the legions might/discipline in conjunction with supporting missile troops and cavalry was a pretty solid combination. Trajan seems to have done quite well against the Parthians. As to Rome's failing against the mounted hordes in the 4th and 5th century it is very hard to say. The equasion had changed so greatly. These were no longer legionnaires or legions of the early empire. Any theories on what might have happened if the Huns had met the Roman's at the height of their Imperial power? I've often wondered about it. . .
I would be interested in reading any historical documents that explain the effect of cataphracts vs. legions. Any suggestions?
In my opinion legions would be capable of holding their own against heavy cavalry(depending on all the variable factors of course) but I don't believe that the battle's result would be a foregone conclusion in favor of the legions. . .
Matt
-
Not sure what the tie in with the Saturnalia is. Romans attempted to meld Christianity with their pagan beliefs and did so quite successfully. The Catholic Church is littered with saints (pray to this saint for travel, that saint for business transactions, this saint for soldiers. . . our saints are the equivalent of Hermes, Mercury, & Mars. . . ploytheism anyone?)
What is fact and what isn't is hard for me to say with any sense of authority. I know that the Sun god was worshipped around the time of the Winter Solstice which roughlu coincides with our Christmastime.
Winter was always a time for celebration due to weather factors. When the cold weather came in you would have to slaughter extra animals you could not provide for over the harsh winter months and eat up all the foods that would not keep after the harvest, this seasonal bounty gave way to feasting and merriment. . .
Again I'm no expert on the subject, but that's what I've been told. . .
Matt
-
I'm rather suprised no one's mentioned cornmeal as the basic staple of the Republican legions. JC certainly hints to this in his works when he describes over and over again the importance of gathering corn for the legions. This cornmeal is basically a type of thick yellow grits called pulmentum and is still found today on the tables of Italian families called polenta. It's very versatile and you can add whatever else is available to eat with it. It's hearty peasant food that's not changed much over twenty-five hundred years and if you've never eaten it pick up some. Along with pasta I grew up on the stuff.
I guess I am confused by this reference to "corn". Corn, as we Americans know it, is yellow stuff that grows on a cob and originated in MesoAmerica and didn't reach Europe until after Columbus' "discovery"
What the heck are the Romans referring to when they say corn in ancient texts? I have always assumed that it was some kind of cereal or grain. However Virgil61's postulation that it is the same as polenta (which is made from cornmeal?) So I guess my question is.
1. What exactly was the Roman "corn" as it is not the "corn" people state-side think of.
2. What is polenta made from?
Matt
-
Praetorians did not kill off only "crazy" emperors nor did they preserve "good" emperors. The Praetorians made decisions on who ascended to throne judging from their own self-interest and the fullness of their purses. Emperors who did not pay them a hefty donative were at risk of being "removed".
Septimius Severus disbanded the Praetorians because of the instability they caused and their inordinate power they wielded.
P.S. this seems like a great forum, glad I stumbled across it
Matt
Gladiator Factions?
in Romana Humanitas
Posted
Were there factions among gladiators and their schools that would be akin to the chariot races?
If not were there any famous historical gladiator schools or owners outside the 4 they name in Rome (magnus, dacicus, Gallic, and Matutinus)?
any names or references is much appreciated.