Julius Ratus

How big do you think the force of PanAchaians was? It probobly wasn't that big of a war, more of a prolonged raid. My professor suggested that it wasn't Helen's golden curls they were fighting over, but the golden fields of grain in the Crimea on the Black Sea.

Rome had been the guiding star of the west since the fall of the Empire. Throughout history there have been phases of Roman interest. Just 70 years ago or so Mussolini wanted to resurect the Roman empire. Napoleon, likewise, emulated Rome with his golden eagles and Imperial ambitions. What was the Rennaisannce if not a ressurection of Greco-Roman culture?

I had read once that the steel weapons and armour were far more effective than the guns. The arquebusses that the Spaniards used made a terrific noise and belched flames, but the powder was easily ruined, and the box that the Indios used had a far higher rate of fire. Any weapon the Spaniards carried could penetrate native armour, and conversely none of the native weapons could penetrate Spanish steel armour. A few (very few) Conquistadores would have had full plate mail (mostly in the early days in the Carribean and Mexico) and would have been nearly impervious. Many writings left by the natives mention that the Spanish were made of metal, refering to their armour.

I have always admired the Conquistadores, because it was people like them that made Europe strong. I will admit, they were nasty bastards, but they had cojones. Yes Cortes relied heavily upon native levies when fighting the Aztecs (or Mexica as they called themselves), but for the first few battles, when he had no auxiliaries, it was a few hundred Spaniard veterans vs thousands of indigs, and Cortes won. Even if he used deciet to gain enterance into Tenochtitlan, pretending he was a god, that was a cunning strategy, not an underhanded trick. Know your enemy. For all who are interested, Mel Gibson is making a movie about the fall/self-distruction of the Maya. It should be out before too long.

IIRC, some Gallo-Galatian horsemen were used in the Battle of Pharsalus by Pompey Magnus against Caesar.

The problem with Herodotus, is that he lumps all of the achievements of the earlier Assyrian monarchs together, and attributes them to a woman who ruled for probobly more than five years until her son was old enough to rule. All in all, I enjoyed writing the paper on them and think that they were a fascinating culture. The main book I read was Ancient Iraq by a Frenchman, Georges Roux. A very good read for any who are interested in the Ancient Near East. Also, the report gave me an excuse to buy the Osprey book, The Ancient Assyrians, iluustrated by the magnificent Angus McBride. I think that the illustrations in this one are some of his best.

I have been doing a short paper on the Assyrians for my Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt class, and have found the Assyrians to be a very interesting culture. They had the first professional army to my knollege and dominated the Ancient Near East for several centuries. One thing I was wondering, did the Romans have any knollege of the Assyrians? Surely they had no contact because the Neo-Assyrian empire fell during the Regal period of Rome, but did they have any knollege of the Assyrians as historical figures. I know Herodotus wrote about them, ut his account was mostly innaccurate, attributing most of Assyria's accomplishments to Semiramis, who probobly reigned for no more than a few years. Anyway, I will shut up now and let any discussion that form proceed.

Even if Alexander did counquer Rome (which he probobly could have), he would eventually die (all men do). None of his successors were able to hold the empire together, so I think that the Romans would have been back under their own rule in less than a generation. I think that Rome would have developed differently as a result, but how they would have is hard to say.

On which Carribean Island did they try to set up a theocracy? Do you know? The whole situation is just so messed up. The Pope calls them violent so in retalliation they commit arson and murder?! And even worse, the first pope in nearly a thousand years says something I agree with, and then he goes and recants. If only the pope would have recanted the Filoque instead.

Thanks again, my friends shall be pleased.

If I remember correctly, Atia wasn't like she was in the show, she was rather poor, and didn't want little Octavian running around with Caesar bacause he "came from a bad crowd".

The Romans' key strenghth was not that they won all the time, it was that when they fought, they fought until they won. To the Romans a defeat was not the end, it was the beginning of the next war. When Rome fell to the Gauls, the Romans got back up. In the Phyrric wars the Romans lost almost every battle. They just kept on trying to the point that Phyrrus decided that one more victory would be the end of him. In the first two Punic Wars the Romans lost many battles, but they kept on throwing men into the fray until they won (some would compare them to the Soviets in the Second World War). The Roman way of war is summed up in the story where at the beginning of a seige they were told that the city had enough suplies to hold out for 24 months. The Roman general said that he would wait on the enemy king for 25 months!

A number of my friends were interested in your incredible Roman name making abilities, so if you need more anagram-fodder: vddia rnya enka tnsriat sjeam oslonom etwmtha loius dydwo Omnes tres viri sunt.

Gratias ago

I liked every actor that played in Rome, so Hinds is my favorite Caesar.

eofjs inehz ensafft yddow There is first last and both middle names, I am male.

Where in Nebraska did you live? I am a current resident of the Land of Corn (and not much else).

Whenever the Moslems become the majority in an area they want to rule it with a theocracy, abuse women, and chop off the heads of anyone who disagrees with them. All of us in the civilized west need to be alert and watchful. The next century is going to get very interesting.

When did Rome begin trading with India and China?

Atia would win.

I have the Simkins book at home, unfortunatly I am not there, but will look at it when I get there.

The "leaf-shaped" blade of the early roman swords was not unlike the Greek swords. They were not really "curved" - per se like a sabre, but bulged out at the end. To the best of my knollege, the falcata (Gr. Machaira) was never used by the Romans to any large scale, if at all. It was more of a Celtiberian weapon, though the Greeks had a version. As far as getting duped by armourer, I think that by the 3rd C. A.D. the Romans had state armouries. Before this I believe that each legion had its own craftsmen.