Scaevola

Hmmm, 6 out of 10. And a lot of the mistakes were of this nature: :stupid: Ah well, there goes my intellectual smugness for the day.

Here's a book suggestion (you've probably read it though): The Western Way of War by Victor Davis Hanson, 2000. Connections with modern times: The Romans seemed to employ training and formation to lessen the impact of death close at hand. For instance- you knew that if everyone maintained their intervals and the ranks filled as necessary, your actual fighting time could be fairly brief as reinforcements could move up and exhausted troops pull back for a breather. Or, just stick to your job, do it like in drill and concentrate on doing it right rather than worrying about death or injury. That is why rigid formations were, for so very long, necessary on the battlefield...even after relative killing power made them more dangerous than an open skirmish line. I would also hazard to guess that delaying stress, just like today, would have had some similar results on the men. Dreams, sweats and mood swings...which if I remember correctly some surviving plays mention as well as some classical histories. The professional legionaires of imperial times would have had more support from each other than the citizen soldiers of early Rome...being that later legions spent longer and longer terms of service with each other and in ranks of other long term veterans. The citizen soldier experience would have been closer to the greek experience detailed in Hanson's book, imho. A common bond of living and working together, as well as family ties, with other citizen soldiers, but not necessarily the understanding that the more professional legionaires had for each other. Of course the latter legions were subjected to far more brutal treatment, so that too may have stoked the delayed stress reaction. Maybe delayed stress reaction was a proximal cause in legion revolts since units that had more fighting under their belts had a lower rate of insubordination...implying more experience in dealing with delayed stress. I'll have to see if that thesis holds any water.

Yes it is does make sense to me. That is 200 odd families willing to thumb their noses at Roman rule. If they were left in peace to continue to defy Rome, how could Rome maintain order? It would not just be 250 men, they still had significant support from their neighbors. If not active fighting, then passive supply and hiding holes. Any group that stood against imperial power had to be eliminated. Quite simple actually. Would you have simply starved them out? That probably would not have sent a strong message. Let them be? Then it appears that the proceeding conflicts had wore the empire out and now was the time to take some action. So, a strong military response does make sense to me. IMHO as always

Well, see if this makes a bit more sense to you. In your first post you say there were a thousand or so zealots inside of Masada. That's a thousand people who would otherwise be dispersed across the countryside raiding caravans, burning houses, ambushing patrols of soldiers and otherwise making Rome appear impotent even after the seige of Jerusalem. Rome should've be grateful that the zealots gave it the chance to do a decisive stroke against them. If the zealots had remained dispersed, Rome would have been stuck shadow boxing with smoke. After the cost, loss and time to take Jerusalem, Rome needed a quick decisive and easy victory to impress the local powers helping them with occupation. They saw Masada as fitting that bill. In a way it was an egotistical ploy, but it was necessary to shore up support from local lackeys of the empire.

How about a time period? They overlap each other for a several centuries so a time frame would help.

Hmm, mine are: 1) Scipio Africanus 2) Seneca 3) Augustus I would have thought Seneca more so than Scipio, but hey...it's good company!

That reminds me, have they started shooting Hannibal yet? Or are they still hashing out a script? Talk about sweeping epic, true history, massive fight scenes... It could easily be made as two, even three pictures.

Isn't english pretty much a lingua franca today? For instance, you have to speak english for any international air traffic control any where in the world. Oh, and: Je suis un Am

Since he had spent a large amount of time as hostage to the Goths and then to the Huns, he had a good grasp of their society and its leadership stuggles. He played a good Machiavellian game as king maker and by playing the Germans against each other. As far as defeating Attila, I would say he blew it. Fortunantely Attila died a year or so later while still sacking Italy. While he was able to get a Goth king (Thorismund) his throne, there were still the Huns...bloody but still just as dangerous. Aetius was acting like a powerful roman of imperial times, so I can't say that Valentinian killing him was a bad idea...from his perspective. Could Aetius have become emperor? Yes, and he might have been a good one, but the world was already turning away from Rome and roman ways. Aetius the Emperor, an interesting idea.