Sulla

For me, it's a toss between Augustus and Claudius. Augustus really established and secured the empire and its structure for other generations to come. Whereas Claudius was an unassuming man, who no one would have thought of due to his disabilities. Yet despite the way he was treated, he wasn't a vengeful man as such. Even, apparently, quite gentle and polite (as far as roman emperors are concerned). His people did love him, and he was good at domestic affairs, as well as external. As he did really conquer Britania. But i think I'll have to go Augustus on this one. For the reasons aleady stated. If it wasn't for him, men like Claudius wouldn't have an empire in the first place.

For me it's hard to say. In terms of losses, Paulus and Varro (Cannae) made the worst mistakes, along with Maximus and Caepio (Arausio). As both lost huge numbers of men. Each battle, the equivalent of two army groups. However, the slaughter of Quintus Varus's three legions (20,000 men), had huge consequences. It came in a time when Rome was establishing itself as the worlds greatest empire. This involved expansion of territory on that already held. Including a greater incursion and presence in Germania. During these times, the army was made more professional, and loyal to the emperor, not governors. With a sum of 28 legions standing. Varus's loss made a huge gap in these plans, as well as border security. 10% of romes army was lost, which made a huge impact. This was all due to Varus's incomptence, in leading his men into a trap, in an area that was obviously more to his enemy's advantage. As well, the closed forest did not give room for his men to coordinate counter attacks or defences. Only get cut down. Because of that loss, the Romans had to wait years before they had sufficient forces, to make another incursion, and try to find the slaughtered remains of their army.

It's actually quite interesting. I remember seeing a documentry on barbarian invasions in Rome, and all up, the number of professional soldiers to auxilaries were 500,000 men. But to adequately protect their empire, the romans should have had an army of over a million, which would have been impossible. Particualry when you had cases such as the massacre at the Teutoberg Forest, and Boudicae slaughtering a couple of legions in Britain. it would have been a logistical nightmare. Particulary as in Marcus Aurelius's time, a plague sweeped through the empire killing hundreds of thousands.

Actually mate, I beat you to the punch. I put down Marius before as well. Among others including Scipio and Caeser. What makes it hard to chose, is that each made their own specific contribution. Did something so original, that others only dreamed to accomplish. It is also difficult chosing, due to the fact that each faced different enemies, in different circumstances, all with success.

I've seen shows on Canada, and it just seems like it can be a nice, clean, peaceful part of the world. Of course, though, every country has it's holes. Friends who have been there loved it. People were nice. As one fellow who comes from the Commonwealth also said, it's got a similar form of government, as well as similar history in many respects as other nations including Australia. So it's not as hard to understand or even relate to the society. Could be good for the home sickness By the way. Sorry about not replying sooner. Started back on the 10th, and just on my weekend now.

I have to say, that I wouldn't mind having a second home in Rome or Canada. But first and foremost I'll always be Australian. Born one, raised one and will die one, right in Australia. It's just where my heart is.

I think it all started (the beginning of the end), with Gaius Marius. He essentially created an army that would do anything for him, and he became to made with power (after six consulships), so he marched on rome to get more (including to take command off Sulla in the east). It was even Marius who catapulted Sulla to march on Rome. So in my opinion, the Republic fell because of Gaius Marius.

I'm going for a little bit of everything. Though I am very interested in its history, poilitics, and military.

I think given his age and accomplishments, Scipio Africanus cannot be easily overlooked. I think it's already been said that before him, that Roman Army was very immobile. It mainly focused on going in straight and pounding with sheer strenght in numbers. Scipio Africanus, by learning from the tactics off Hannibal really did put more flexiblilty into the battle tactics of the Roman Army. Not just relying on simple strenght of numbers. Juluis Caeser is without a doubt one of the worlds greatest generals. However, there are others, such as Gaius Marius who saved Rome from barbarian invasions, and resturctured the army. Allowing the Head count to join, and introducing new spears. There is also Constantine the Great, sho reunited the Roman Empire into one. And even managed to defeat an opposing Roman Army at least 4 times his size. Warrants thinking of.

Thanks for the welcome primuspilus. Guess you just run a good sight for us financial guys (and girls) to escape the traps of our monotonous work Actually, Dan's onto a point there. I mainly studied accounting as I was told there would be no work in history. So it's a hobbie now, which for some reason, hardly anyone in the real world takes part in. Well apart from other accountants (and who really wants to talk to them) . See ya in the forums fella's.

Hi, I'm a 22 y/o Australian. I actually work as an accountant. I'm on holidays at the moment and I came across this websight/forum. It's actually a dream for me, as I'm a bit of a nut with ancient (particulary Roman) history. I'm looking forward to having interesting discussions with all of you.