Scaevola

I was given to understand that the cohort somehow choose the men. That it could be either a popularity contest or a way to get rid of bad legionaires (your fellows voting to kill you or the Centurian taking the Decurions' advice on who to execute). That adds an even more chilling thought to the concept of decimation. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me...my sources aren't good on this detail. Then again how different were the mutiny executions by the French Army in WWI compared to this, other than the percentage of troops executed? The "guilty" were chosen by the company comanders and then shot in front of the brigades.

If the reason for non-payment was due to bad weather, natural disaster, or the actions of criminals...you could probably get a reduction or remission with a good explaination. Failing that, or in conjuntion with this attempt, you could also ask your patron for help in repayment in exchange for long term debt servitude. Or offer yourself,land and family to a local wealthy patron if you don't have one. If however you didn't pay tax on purpose and don't have a patron for defense, your best way to go may be suicide to protect your family as much as possible.

My interests: From earliest founding through Augustus with special emphasis on Pre-Punic Rome and the Greek colonies. Though most anything can float my boat .

Spartacus Seeing if the acts happened, how they happened, and the feel of the crowd would enable me to make a firmer personal call on their morality. My morality is not set or measured by a TV show, film, theatre, etc. I feel my morality is set by my actions in real life. As I stated, even though it's real to the people, to me it's very far gone. While I can view and judge their reactions, it will not affect mine by a measurable amount...or at least I hope. I would not like to contemplate how I would feel if I found myself attracted to the acts as opposed to studying the actors. If that were the case, perhaps it would be a good thing I found out about a hidden darkside to my being. Poste Script edit Moonlapse That is a primary motivation, observing history and knowing it is history without the actual people involved knowing. A blind if you will.

A very small crisis, but not on my opinion both sides of the fence. Going back in time, in essence I am viewing things that have already passed millenia before I was born. It would be like watching a TV show, I might be interested or revolted but it so far removed from me and beyond my ability to change (other than looking away) that it matters little...outside of a theological/philosophy debate. Call me cold blooded but being able to be there to see the events and people outweighs the moral issue. In fact, it would probably reinforce my current objections and give me a stronger sense of how our society progressed to where I find the acts atrocious. I guess I am not a black and white person.

Would that be Brennus? If so, I yield the next question to someone else, since I had a go at it already. If not, feel free to ignore my ignorance at will!

I'll take that one for an answer, though the one I was thinking of was Gratian (the Emperor of the West before Theodosius I). One of my sources had Gratian assuming the title at 8-years-old, another at 16. So Honorius is a good compromise

Well, it seems like you are aiming for a morality question here, so I'll give my answer. Go back to ancient times and watch a full day's games, executions, etc.? Yes I would, with probably only a little guilt and remorse. By and large, I would remember that they were dead and buried almost 2000 years before I was born. Regardless of what I do or don't watch, they're just as dead. For a confirmation (though undocumentable) of activities that occured both in the arena and in the stands and hallways of the Coliseum , an opportunity like this would not be missed. Modern day bloodsports (boxing, full contact martial arts, fighting championships, etc.)? I haven't watched them in years. I used to find them entertaining, now they seem pointless and mildly offensive. I love contact sports (playing and watching from the stands, not TV) like rugby, american football, golf (hey, watch "Happy Gilmore" ), but bloodsports are not my bag. I also no longer support the death penalty (too many mistakes coupled with not enough punishment). So I would not attend a modern version of the games.

Almost correct, but there was one younger, though near the end of the western empire.

Would Crassus sought glory in Parthia? Could he have recruited an Anthony to do it instead?

I think Graves used the triple stutter paraphrasing to denote this relationship. Or I could be just drooling...

clau-clau-clau-Claudius was the Great-Great-Great-Nephew of Julius. or Julius was the Great-Great-Great-Uncle of Claudius. The order falls as thus: Julius's sister Julia (M. Atius Balbus)-->Atia (C. Octavius)-->Octavia (M. Antonius)-->Antonia minor (Nero Drusus)--> Claudius . or Atia= Niece, Octavia=Great Niece, Antonia=Great-Great-Niece, Claudius= Great-Great-Great-Nephew I'll await confirmation, but here is my question if applicable: Who was the youngest emperor and age to take the imperium? (edited for clarity of bloodline)

Mine should be rolling in this weekend: The great Roman nov..er, brief....

Yahoo News Link Apparently, after decades of work, archaeologists have pieced together that Mari near the Euphrates was a purpose built "one phase" city for metallurgical activity. It apparently had three canals (one over 75 miles long), a flood control levy and double rampart walls. Very sophisticated design and economic purpose well in advance of the rest of the world.

Hmmm...E S t J "Administrator" Extroverted( E) 51.43% Introverted (I) 48.57% = E (mixed, used to test stronger introverted) Sensing (S) 56.76% Intuitive (N) 43.24% = S (wow, used to be almost reversed) Thinking (T) 50% Feeling (F) 50% = i (always was about 50/50) Judging (J) 61.11% Perceiving (P) 38.89% = J (always been very this way) I used to get " Field Marshall" on these tests. I guess either I'm getting old or my job is making me into a prig. (I vote the latter :1eye:) Life changes your role....

Also remember, it's always easier to be in the head of the column when dealing with unpaved/wilderness areas than in the train; esp. if the ground is softened or too dry (slogging through deep mud churned by units in front or sucking in dust clouds kicked up by the van). That's why you rotate units in marching order. The forward units would be marching for a shorter period of time than the back of the train, so they could be employed for work details sooner and longer than the rest. Details of day-to-day life are what bring history to life for me.

I agree with preservation not restoration. There are materials available that can stave-off pollution damage, but they are expensive. I think it should be more of an international effort, perhaps coordinated through the UN. Maybe or not... I would like to get a sense of the Colosso in full size however, maybe a Virtual restoration or a Disney World / Studio / Theme Park situation. ( I can see it now "Roman World" with android people, and a Yul Brenner gunslinger, and... ) Anyway, I was impressed with it and loved the cats there. The only place in the area we weren't mugged by pidgeons for food items.

"Traces of a royal palace discovered in the Roman Forum have been dated to roughly the period of the eternal city's legendary foundation. Andrea Carandini, a professor of archaeology at Rome's Sapienza University who has been conducting excavations at the Forum for more than 20 years, said he made the discovery over the past month at the spot where the Temple of Romulus stands today." from the AP news site. This could be interesting if this is a palace structure dating from 8th century BCE. Might not be Romulus and Remus, but it would show that the early city was more sophisticated than currently thought.

That's their new thesis, to be proven by new evidence and re-evaluation of old. In essence, yes... an attempt at revision. All histories are reflective of the time period they were written in and not necessarily about the period in question. The question that interests me is what their reasoning is for jumping to such new conclusions. An attempt to lessen the two Olafs and what ever they stand for? We'll see. I personally hope that the accepted view of history changes within the next 50 years and keeps cycling through. "Bad" history leads to "good" history being re-evaluated and made stronger from the examination. If this turns out to be "bad" history, then the current "good" view of noregian religious history will be strengthened. IMHO, of course.

I would speak to them during 306 BCE and warn them to negotiate freedom of action on Sicily with their Carthaginian allies, since Italy is naturally invaded through Messana and its environs. Also I would urge them to take decisive against the greek colonies in the south. Bring them into the league by hard negotiation or military force before they can call once again to their greek homeland for military aid.

He was no more of a red-handed maniac than other powerful men of that age. Mainly I would see him dead so that Augustus could have his day without Julius keeping him down, or even possibly eliminating him when Augustus starts to have supporters. History must roll.....

I would first make sure the communication barrier didn't exsist and then I want to walk and talk with Julius Caesar during his last hour; and make sure that he is dead by the end.

Hmmm, I can't combine or compare non-modern battle scenes with modern....so I'll cheat a bit . Saving Private Ryan has many good scenes in it, but it still has a bit too much Hollywood...especially the Normandy fight. Very scary, chaotic and leaves a big impression...but ultimately it leaves me shaking my head. (Note: I'm not a combat vet so I have about as much to say about realism as the next clown. I'm just going off of my father's stories and sometimes very vivid descriptions of WWII fights. He was in the 101st from Market-Garden onward.) Don't get me wrong, Ryan is a good movie and I was grimly glad that someone finally was showing how modern weapons chop-up people, but it still comes across feeling a bit too propogandized. That being said, I still rate it in my top tier for battle scenes. Also there: The house to house fighting in A Bridge Too Far and the seige in We Were Soldiers . Now for non-modern wars- The island fight in Glory and the sweeping shot of Antietam. The Charge of the Scot's Greys in Waterloo . The final battle in Heaven and Earth (the Japanese warlord movie, not the Tommy Lee Jones Vietnam one). I especially like seeing the fencing with pikes as two groups of spearmen meet. Note I left out Gladiator, Braveheart, Troy, etc. because their fights were too disorganized and individual heavy. Colorful but not as enjoyable for me. As always, IMHO.

Quick Reply: Any system where I get everything I want with little to no work. Long Reply: You're expecting one from me? ( see Quick Reply)

If we ignore the obvious questions of who is invading whom, how far are they from supply points, and how do the natives of the area feel about each side...then we are left with a plain of conflict exisiting in isolation. Now the prime determiners in success of Han vs Rome is the penetration of Han arrows and their relative supply. From what I've been able to determine, the Han crossbow and regular bow would have been able to penetrate Roman armor at good range and even the shields up close (under 30 meters). That puts the Roman cavalry at a disadvantage. So the horse will favor the Han. That leaves the foot legionaires. To get through their armor the Han missile troops have to be close enough to either be charged by cavalry, or be advanced on and either pilumed or closed with by the footmen. If there are sufficent missiles on hand, the Han may be able to break the Roman morale, but if the Roamns can do a tactical retreat back to camp the fight would be a draw. If it ever came to a slugging match of infantry vs infantry, generally the result will favor the Romans. Historically, since classical Greek onward, western infantry and arms outshine and defeat eastern infantry. So, I estimate that if all outside problems of supply and support are equal: 1/3 of the time the Hans will win, 1/3 it will be a draw, 1/3 the Romans win. Long winded way of saying...About equal