Julius Ratus
-
Posts
290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Julius Ratus
-
-
Nebrasca is there, spelled with a 'c' instead of a 'k'. Great, Nebraskans have a hard enough time spelling without the added confusion. Omaha stays the same in Latin but the caput becomes Lincolnia.
-
You can have my gladius when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. -- NGA
-
Severus was definately from North Africa... Lepcis Magna (in modern Libya) to be precise. The speculation is more about his ethnicity, but its most likely that he was of largely of Phoenician stock. His mother's family (Fulvius) was originally from Italy indicating his Italian roots, but mixed Berber ancestry is also a possibility. Though due to numerous adoptions in the political world, it's difficult to be absolutely certain.
Interesting. Thanks.
-
And then there was the Kaminski Brigade. Kaminski was a drunken lout who collected a bunch of Nazi Ukranian sadists and thugs that went on a rampage during the Warsaw uprising. They were real heroes when it came to killing women and children but in combat these gangsters were the first to turn tail and run.
Kaminski was eventually shot by the Germans.
The Army of National Liberation was the official name of the Kaminski Brigade.
Edit -- Sorry G.O., I missed the point of your earlier post. While the Germans did use some Slavic soldiers, the patriotic, anti-Soviet ones were used piecemeal if at all. The only unit that was used to any great extent was aforementioned Kaminski Brigade.
-
I look forward to reading the review on Anthony Birley's The African Emperor: Septimius Severus. I had heard about speculation that he may have been from North Africa but not much beyond that it was speculation. ANy more information would be interesting.
-
I do not think the fall of the Republic was entirely inevitable, but the Republic needed much more maintenence than it was being given. Murdering Tiberius Gracchus set of a chain reaction, which could have been cut at anytime, but wasn't.
I agree that the 'fall' of the Republic was not entirely inevitable, but the 'chain reaction' metaphor certainly suggests a kind of deterministic inevitability. If we look just at the events immediately following the murder of Ti Gracchus, it's clear that the faction in the Senate responsible had completely overplayed its hand, and the rest of the Senate did everything they could to clean up the mess (e.g., in supporting Livius Drusus). Moreover, between G. Gracchus and the Marian slaughter, there was a very long period of time without political violence in Rome (which, again, doesn't support the 'chain reaction' metaphor).
There were a number of flare-ups of violence between the death of Gracchus and the "Marian slaughter". T. Gracchus died in 132 BC. In 121 BC Gaius Gracchus was killed, after some violent acts of his own. In 100 BC there was the fight between Saturninus and the Senate, which Marius had to put down bloodily, costing him an ally. In 91 BC Livius Drusus was assassinated and then the blood bath of 91-88 took place. In 88 BC Sulla illegally marched on Rome. Then in 87-86 BC Marius returned to aid the Consul, Cinna, regain power. In about half a century there were six major outbreaks of violence. Furthermore, the episodes of violence got bigger on each occasion.
-
The mercenary cavalry used in the civil wars were a rather hit and miss proposition. Labienus' Numidians were a very potent force. I wrote:
Appian says that Caesar -
The Blame for the Fall of the 'Roman Republic' should be placed in the hands of Slave trading capitalist. The Gracchi brothers merely tried to re-establish land laws that kept the farm in the hands of citizens. The Gracchi' were all murdered throw in the Tiber by the ruling elitist party. Human trafficing was BIG business. Whole towns would be enslaved by the payed-raiders looking for human merchandise. War was BIG business.
Greed had everything to do with the social decay that is today defined as the Fall of the Roman Republic.
The social decay argument goes way back but I don't think it was a moral deficiency which killed the Republi, it was a political issue. I likewise do not see how slavery destroyed the Republic. Had Spartacus overthrown the state and set up his own government then maybe salvery could be credited for its fall. Rather, slavery was a part of the culture of Rome, and indeed of most of the Mediterranean. While the issue of slavery is distasteful to us modern folk, in Rome it was part of life.
The murder of the Tiberius Gracchus was what set off the fall of the Republic. The Senate decided to use violence when they couldn't with through votes, so the Populares copied this tactic. Sulla took the violence to a whole new level, so Marius and Cinna followed in step.
I do not think the fall of the Republic was entirely inevitable, but the Republic needed much more maintenence than it was being given. Murdering Tiberius Gracchus set of a chain reaction, which could have been cut at anytime, but wasn't.
-
The Germans actually did recruit(?) a Ukrainian army which was used against the Soviets.
There were two, the Army of Liberation, and the Army of National Liberation. The first never got really far because Hitler never trusted them, mostly because they were not entirely corrupt. The second did come into existence because its leaders were on very good terms with Himmler. They were utterly terrible. Their only exploits that come to mind were the raping of an entire cancer ward, and getting so drunk that a regiment fled from a platoon sized partisan unit of Poles.
In addition to these, there were various Cossack units employed by the Germans and the SS had a few Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and Russian units.
-
There were Plebian branches some of the Patrician gentes weren't there? Ex.: Clodii.
-
I agree with Ursus. That's the timeline I usually use.
-
Only unfortunate thing is we barely have 30 loyal members.
True. Keeping people is a problem. But then people have real lives. Our dear friend Germanicus, for instance, a former legate, is pursuing some private vocations which seem to bring him much happiness, and we wish him the best.
On the whole I am very pleased with the "core membership" of the site. The site has grown quite a bit in the almost 3 years I have been here, and I suspect the core membership will continue to grow slowly but surely in the next 3.
Another thing to consider is that very active internet sites tend to be overrun with trolls, fools and contentious twits. We mods try to lay down the hammer and scare away such people. I think most of us would rather have 30 well behaved members than 300 maniacs.
I think that the site is in the comfortable range as far as members go. There are enough that conversation isn't sluggish or galacial, but if I am offline for a couple days I am not terribly out of the loop.
Also, to the MODs, keep that hammer swinging. To all members, thanks for being reasonable, knollegable, and polite.
-
And what was the point behind all the "freedom talk"? Or is that just the same old bit of Americana that makes it into every historical epic made in Holywood?
I refer you to Herodotus. The "freedom talk" was Greek propoganda as well. In Alexander it was out of place, but in the Persian Wars there was a lot of rhetoric going on about Persian slavery.
-
Was Marius any less successful than Caesar? Compare their invasions of Africa, where--contrary to previous claims--Labienus had the initiative against Caesar and soundly trounced him at Ruspina.
Since the object of this thread is to discuss Caesar as a General, Marius was probably Caesar's equal. Caesar was a far better political player than his uncle was, that is why he was so sucessful.
Yes, Labienus did "slightly check" Caesar's offensive in Africa. If you are comparing the two African Campaigns, Marius started winning after a long string of failures perpetrated by his predecessors, and he built upon the sucesses of Metellus. Caesar won his African war far quicker than the Romans won the Jugurthine War.
-
I don't know the names of the last German tanks, but they were superior to the American Shermans in fire power and armor. The German tanks could reach the Shermans before the Shermans could get a shot off and their shells would bounce off the German tanks. The problem for the Germans was their inability to build enough tanks fast enough.
The German 'animals' (Tigers, Panthers, Elefants, etc...) could beat the crap out of the Shermans, but the poor old Pz III's were outdated and the Pz IV's had a superior gun, but that's it. Also, the terrain of Normandy and Northern France made ambush a great tactic, lending itself well to German assault guns and tank destroyers such as the StuG III's and Marders. The Sherman wasn't a bad tank, it was just outdated by 1944, until the M4A3 came out. Even then, the German panzer crews were far better than our tankers.
The Soviets conducted a 'scorched earth' policy and removed all of their war production to the Urals. The Germans, Italians, etc., would probably never have defeated the USSR. The Japanese feared a Soviet entry into the Asian mainland war.
The Germans probably could have beaten the Soviets, had they dropped their stupid racial policies. Had they recruited the 'sub-human Slavs', as they called them, rather than exterminating them, they would have had millions of additional troops. Most Ukrainians and Balts hated the Soviets, and many Russians themselves would have been glad to have seen the Soviet Union go down. If the Germans had been liberators rather than invaders they may have won. Instead, the 'master race' was crushed by those they called 'sub-human'.
-
Julius Ratus, the PzIII was no match for the Matilda II or the CharB.
You got me. I looked it up and the Pz III's in use in '40 were the Ausf A's and E's, with the 3.7 cm KwK 36 L/46.5 gun. I was thinking of the intermediate models with the 5 cm KwK 38 L/42. I had thought that a few of the 50's were out by then but it seems they weren't. Still, the 15mm of armour on the Pz III would stop the puny 2 pndr's used by the Matilda. The 75's (despite their low velocity) used by the Char's was a different story.
If I'm not mistaken the German tanks were invincible to Allied forces until the Soviets took those tanks out of Siberia.The German tanks were not invincible to the allied tanks, as my above discussion with Gladius xx points out, but, on average, pre-Tiger the Soviets had better tanks than anyone else, just not alot of the good ones.
The Soviets were paranoid that the Germans were super advanced so they kept on building bigger and better tanks. They thought that the T-34's and the KV-1's would be obsolete by the beginning of the war. Instead they were better than anything the Germans or the Allies had at that point.
A minor correction, the tanks weren't laying around in Siberia. Most of the tanks of the Soviet Union were in the West, and were destroyed in the early phase of the war. The salvation that came from Siberia were the Siberian Divisions, some of which were tank units. The main advantage of the Siberian Divisions was that they were a whole bunch of already trained units for the Soviets to throw into battle, and plus, they had mostly escaped Stalin's purges intact.
-
Could they be rather serious about filling their pockets?
Indeed, but getting a P.h.D. requires alot of work. There are far easier ways to fill one's pockets.
-
Caesar was always willing to risk his own life to achieve his goals. Suetonius tells how when he ran for Pontifex Maximus, he told his mother that he would come home having won the election or not at all. In the Gallic Wars he was always at the fore of the fighting.
-
JR: Alright Marius, we call this an A.L.I.C.E. pack.
Marius: Very nice.
-
French tanks were superior to German tanks and so were British.
The Stuka was one of the most overrated planes of the War. It was very slow, poorly armoured, and highly vulnerable to fighter attack as was proved in the Battle of Britain, where it got massacred.
Yes the French, and to a lesser extent the British, tanks were better to the German tanks, on average. The bulk of the Panzerwaffe was equipped with the Pzkpfw II and the Pzkpfw '38 (a Czech design) which were light tanks. The British Matildas and Crusaders and the French Chars were superior to these, but the upgunned Pzkpfw III's and IV D's could hold their ground. More importantly, the Germans used their tanks better. Both the Brits and French used their tanks as infantry support. The Germans had combined arms. They used tank formations, supported by mobile infantry in halftracks, trucks, or on motorcycles, supported by dive bombers, which were used as aerial artillary.
Which brings me to my second point. How was the Stuka overrated? If you want to use it as a fighter you are SOL (unless your name is Hans-Ilrich Rudel
). Comparing the Stuka to the Spitfire or the Warhawk is entirely inappropriate. It was to be used as a tank killer or as aerial artillary. When put in those terms, if you put a French Char d'Rupture versus a Stuka, my money is on the Stuka. Just try hitting a plane with a low-velocity 75mm cannon 
. -
I agree, Season Two wasn't as good as one, but it was rushed, and at least it still kept me interested. If they make a third season, I wish they would do a prequel and go back to Marius and Sulla, but this is probably just wishful thinking. Now I will need to re-watch I Clavdivs.
-
I'm still here I'm a Tribunus Laticlavius.
Ah, false alarm, no worries, JR. It's just some crazy kid who thinks he's Patton, who thinks he's Ramses.
Sigh. I am relieved. Just like Russia had "False Dmitri", the UNRV has the "False Rameses".
-
1. What do you think about the concept of an alternative history ?
It is a fun but ultimately useless exercise, best left to fiction authors and armchair enthusiasts than serious historians.
To write good historical fiction, one must have a good grasp of the real events to make the story believeable. Harry Turtledove, who some call the master of alternate history, has a P.h.D. in Byzantine History. I consider most people that spend the time to achieve a P.h.D. to be rather serious.
-
Everyone wants to point to Julius, or Sulla or whoever, but if we take it from the point where the Republic could no longer be restored in any shape or form, I would have to give the title to Augustus.
I voted with you (and as of yet am the only other one). While I believe that the Republic's fall started with the Gracchi, who started the revolutionary period, it was little 'Thurinus' who pulled the trigger.
abyssus bonus populus
in Lingua Latina
Posted
Non nuper dixi in linguam latinam. Dico melior lingua Russorum quam lingua Latina
.