Furius Venator

You'll have to bear with me as I'm moving house and so am in the middle of unpacking all my books. PM me in a couple of days, if you'd be so kind, and that'll remind me to look some out for you. 'and believed it was inappropriate to execute rebellious Veneti in France.' might well be one though. Inappropriate in the C19 perhaps (though of course the Spanish guerillas were executed if captured by the French) but pretty common in more ancient times.

I didn't know youd seen it already Cato... As to your other question, I've read various commentaries on Napoleon's commentaries in other works and most of the quoted criticisms would be fair enough were Caesar commanding a C18 or 19 army but are hardly fair if one considers the Late Republican Army.

http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/textonlyar...f_His_Views.txt might possibly be of use. Napoleon seems to be rather anachronistic in his assessment of Caesar as a commander (as of course Fuller was too, though Fuller had more of an axe to grind I suspect). EDIT. Link doesn't go to page- sorry. Text here: NAPOLEON ON CAESAR: MAGAZINE PUBLISHES FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF HIS VIEWS CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., July 28 -- What did Napoleon Bonaparte think of Julius Caesar? In its August issue, Military History magazine reveals Napoleon's opinion of Caesar -- the first time his notes have been published in English, according to the magazine's editor, C. Brian Kelly, a University of Virginia lecturer. "Although all publications like to boast about their writers, we feel it's a special honor to have an article with Napoleon's byline," said Kelly, who has been editor of the magazine since its inception in August 1984. After analyzing "The Commentaries of Caesar on The Gallic War," Napoleon criticized the Roman general's military judgment and occasional brutal treatment of defeated enemy leaders. He felt that Caesar invaded Britain with inadequate forces and believed it was inappropriate to execute rebellious Veneti in France. While in exile on St. Helena Island, Napoleon dictated notes on Caesar's third-person commentary. The notes, first published in 1836, were translated from the original French by classical scholar Smith Palmer Bovie for the magazine. The notes do offer some praise for Caesar. Napoleon described Caesar's army as being disciplined and well organized. He also acknowledged the successes Caesar had in his military campaign, calling attention to the differences in warfare between the last century B.C. and that of Napoleon's era, nearly 2,000 years later. ### July 27, 1994 FOR MORE INFORMATION, contact Kelly at (804) 924-7105 or (804) 980-3745. Karen A. Castle University News Office kac@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu (804) 924-7116

Books by Dando-Collins? If so- beware. Though vastly entertaining and full of interesting snippets, many of his assertions and conclusions are either unfounded conjecture (which would be ok if he pointed out it was conjecture) or just plain wrong. Which is a shame because they are a good read and his idea of a book on the history of each legion is an excellent one.

Every yellow card bar one was justified. The ref didn't assert himself enough early on I think which probably led to the very high level of bookable offences.

Servilia, mother of Marcus Junius Brutus. It was she who sent Caesar a torrid love letter which Cato mistook for a secret letter from Catiline (or one of his fellow conspiritors) and demanded Casear read out to the senate. Caesar (for some reason) spared Cato by merely handing him the note. Cato apparently hurled it back with the cry 'Take that you drunkard'. Strange since Caesar was notably absetmious whereas Cato was fond of a drink of several.

Or even literally...

Most certainly.

A Bridge Too Far, Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers, Black Hawk Down and A Walk in the Sun seem to me the most realistic of the moderns bar Band of Brothers. I don't think there's any decent representation of pre-gunpowder combat on screen, though pre battle manoeuverings are sometimes well done (Spartacus especially). Gladiator started promisingly (apart from the fire-missiles) but degenerated into the usual silly mass brawl (not that it wasn't an excellent film despite that).

How do you work that out? it may have impeded funding for IQ testing but that's about it. As a former teacher I doubt that IQ is actually very useful as a measure. It has some merit in distinguishing the brighter from the stupider and it might allow the occasional child who is not fulfilling their potential to be caught, but to be honest any sensible adult (let alone teacher) will pick up whether a child is bright or not pretty quickly. The London borough of Croydon was still IQ testing 11 year olds in the early 90s (it may be doing so still). They had removed tha mathematical component and administered two tests. One was a crude fill in the blanks verbal reasoning and the other was a spacial awareness test that was meant to show absolute potential (personally I'd have thought it showed aptitude for spatial awareness if it showed anything) but there you go. The scores were ten weighted for age. Thus an early September child who got just one answer wrong was condemned to a maximum of 124 (had the got them all right, they'd have scored 140). An august child could afford to get nine incorrect and still beat the September child who had a single error. IQ testing tells us very little that commnon sense does not.

Given that Caesar slept with the wives of both Pompey and Crassus, I'm not sure that political humiliation was necessarily a consequence. An exception might be Cato demanding to see love letter send from Servilia to Caesar during the debate on the fate of the Catiline conspirators thinking that it was a missive that would implicate Caesar in the conspiracy. Even then, although hilarious, it was not very politically damaging to Cato. Given Caesar's extraordinary successes, I don't see that Roman women were 'jealously guarded' at all. Divorce seems to have been easy and commonplace and women such as Servilia were not kept 'in purdah', rather being influential persons in their own right. No doubt sexual scandal was exaggerated (as it always is) but affairs were commonplace.

Couldn't agree more. It was about that time if I recall correctly that the USA was frightened that waves of ignorant immigrants were destined to outbreed the 'native' Anglo-Saxons, thus reducing IQ and causing collapse of the nation. Gould's Mismeasure of Man was good on denouncing this sort of stuff (as well as the idiocy of IQ testing).

What a great little article. It seems significant that the Romans viewed war, and especially battle, as a chancy business at best. Defeat doing one's duty would be better than not serving in command at all. I did wonder if the presence of Hannibal skews the data somewhat, a good number of the generals considered must have lost to the Carthaginians, and the Second Punic War was unusually disaster ridden for Rome I think. I might check through if I've time. It would appear not, Hannibal was responsible for the defeat of 8 of the men (handily beaten by Spartacus who sent 12 Romans about their business) and Spanish and Gallic tribesmen seem to have been responsible for about ten defeats each, about the same number as Carthage. Sicilaian slaves seem to have been bad news too, inflicting half a dozen defeats, more than Mithradates.

Another point Goldsworthy makes is that when Caesar stood for consul it was in conjunction with the 'wealthy but uncharismatic Lucius Lucceius'. It is not necessary to assume that either Crassus or Pompey supported Caesar's bid to become consul. Although it is likely that Crassus and Caesar still had some kind of accord, the accomodation with Pompey seems to have been reached after Caesar was elected, not before. Indeed it seems unlikely that if Crassus was backing Caesar for consul that Pompety would to, given his dislike of Crassus.

Goldsworthy prefers 100 to 102. He seems to think there is no definite evidence for the year of Caesar's quaestorship. He thinks it most likely that he was elected to office in 70 when he was 30. He became aedile in 65, so would have been 35 if born in 100. Goldsworthy rejects any notion of collusion with Pompey at this stage. He further says that Caesar was granted a likely granted a two year dispensation but that such dispensations 'seem to have been reasonably common, so much so that in 67 a tribune has passed a law barring the senate from granting such dispensations unless a quorum of 200 senators were present.' Basically, if we assume that Caesar recieved a two year dispensation for every office beyond quaestor then 100 fits. It is not illegal if he has gained either senatorial dispensation or there was a general dispensation for patricians. Otherwise we must assume that he failed the (relatively easy) task of becoming quaestor in his year but then managed to gain every other office in 'his year'.

Must be space aliens then... (why is it always 'space' aliens? Are there earth aliens do you think?). Where's von Daniken when you need him? He'd have this little mystery solved in a trice... Surely nobody can believe that hills occur naturally? Particularly not ones made of rock and covered in trees. Maybe Slartibartfast made them as a warm up for Norwegian fjords.

'It is often assumed that all soldiers wore tunics of a standard colour. In fact, there is no positive evidence for this... There is some direct evidence for soldiers wearing white or off-white tunics, and a little, though far less, for red. A papyrus from Egypt records a unit ordering pure white...and white is the most common colour for soldiers appearing in pictures or mosaics...Tacitus [describes]...camp prefects, tribunes and senior centurions in dazzling white uniforms, which suggests the higher ranks had brighter, better quality tunics than ordinary soldiers.' Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army p.121

The labour is 'free' (the legions needed maintained anyway). There would be a marginal extra cost for materials but good heavens, the wall is complete overkill (given that it wasn't defended, merely a barrier).

Or that he anticipated trouble in the future. Or that, like Hadrian, he wanted to keep the troops active. Or both...

What you've got might be enough if you take a number of angles on each: For instance, does the withdrawal of troops signify a relaxing of grip on the province, or is it a sign that the province is well under control anyway? Did Domitian withdraw the troops because he had no other alternative, or did he do it because Britain was well enough under control that it could stand the removal of a legion and some support troops? Is the withdrawal from Inchtutal a sign of grip relaxed or is it a case of 'job done we can now move it back to more central location'? Was it withdrawn through necessity or choice? Id Domitian's murder of a governor unique to Britain? If it is, is there any evidence for corruption or is it Domitian actually asserting his control? Abandonment of S Scotland. As for Inchtutal... Concept of the frontier, was the withdrawal from Scotland perhaps a precursor to formalising the frontier? Does this perhaps mean that Britain proper was sufficiently Romanised to be formally set apart from the north? Really I think you need to try and find as much evidence both pro and anti loss of control so you can write a 'on the one hand, on the other' kind of answer but with a slant to your own preferred take. I suppose a simple answer might be 'how much actual sorting out did Hadrian have to do?' As an aside, I kind of think that the solidity of Hadrian's wall as opposed to the other limes rather indicates that the legions needed to be kept busy in Britain (ie they didn't have much campaigning to do and that Britain was thus pretty well under control).

I think, as has been mentioned, that the geography of Wales makes it difficult to hold and conquer (Edawrd I was near bankrupted by the cost of subjegating Wales). Even today, communication are difficult, especially north-south, only the north and south coasts giving rapid transit.

I'd disagree. It would be a bizarre tradition indeed that decreed only officers should wear their swords on the most convenient side of their body. The Romans were keen on tradition, there's no doubt of that but in military affairs they were also keen on practicality.

The Roman legionary wore his sword high also so that it wouldn't impede him. The right side high position really is very effective for a shortsword and is easily used in close formation. Given that the centurion wore his sword on the left, perhaps that is a sign that he stood forward of his men until the time for close combat came thus having more elbow room to draw his sword with a cross body action.

The bottom of scabbard seems to have been 'free floating' so that all that was required to draw was to grasp the hilt and pull downwards. Fast and easy (watch a re-enactor). Also it does not interfere with the shield, neither does it require much elbow room.

I'd overlooked that. Sorry. They probably are worth a top 20 place. They're not a bad side, Turkey But they're not really that great either. Too old now, they need to rebuild. They've got some very promising youngsters but I agree, they're overrated by Fifa.