Primus Pilus

I agree that Cannae stands far above Pharsalus. I guess, despite there being no question to Hannibal's greatness.... In the end... Alexander didnt lose. He died. Caesar didn't lose, he was assassinated. Scipio didn't lose, he was politically disgraced. Hannibal won many victories, but lost in the end, both for Carthage and for Seleucia (though his role was minor). That doesn't take away from his ability, I just view the entire package as a piece of the overall picture. Had Hannibal truly 'beaten' the Romans, then he would stand far above all in the history of warfare. Had Hannibal known when to force the Romans to peace, he would've extended the life of Carthage, perhaps as much as another few generations. By the time he really tried, the Romans knew he couldn't beat them, even though they couldn't beat him.

The Roman armies of the Second Punic War were mixed in professionalism. When Hannibal first crossed the Alps, its safe to assume that the Roman forces were properly trained and semi professional. Later, after many losses, the Roman levies were pre-cursors to the Marian reforms. They were taken from any class of people and quickly trained for emergency service. Hannibal's great victory at Cannae was in small part because of this. Caesar's and Pompey's armies were fully professional with career soldiers. That's why I tend to give the nod to Caesar over Hannibal. Caesar proved his brilliance in many tactical situations and against many opponents. The Helvetti, Belgae, Suebi and fellow Roman all proved their own unique tactial challenges. The siege of Alesia stands as one of the most brilliant tactical victories in the history of warfare. Hannibal never had to face such differing opposition. His opponents fought in similar style throughout. His one engagement against a competent Roman at Zama, unfortanetly never gave us a better picture however, as he was stuck with mainly raw recruits and without his vaunted cavalry.

Me in charge of everything? Seriously, though, democracy/republican style of government is ideal, but I don't think a united world would ever occur unless it was some sort of despotism. At least not with the modern socio-political environment.

Except, of course, the proscription of all opposition. Though that primarily occured earlier in the Second Triumvirate. Still, Augustus not making the same mistake as Caesar by showing leniency towards his opponents allowed his rule to take hold in relative stability. Without that, who knows how long the civil wars would've lasted.

Great to hear Jug! Thanks, and we promise not to lose any future orders in Belgium customs

It certainly would've been a logistics nightmare. And the potential for disaster in the west while the emperor was gallavanting around the far east certainly would've been an issue.

Ahh thanks for the edit on the question Nero and Caligula... hmm I suppose it could've been 'fun' to be acquainted with these guys... but umm, who really knows where that hand has been Tiberius would be interesting to meet, but depending on the time of his reign, you could lose your hand just trying to greet him. Augustus is the obvious choice. However, I think I'd like to meet a man who rose from ridicule to the most powerful office in the world. Overcoming the stigmatism of his own defects in order to become a very effective ruler. Of course, being a Julio-Claudian helped. Had he been born into a less influential family, he may not have had any opportunity at all, but I still think I'd like to meet Claudius and ask him about his book on the Etruscans.

Severus.. Not only did he 'win' the civil war by defeating Pescennius Niger and the rebellion of Clodius Albinus, but he expanded Roman authority throughout the east. He reformed the Praetorian guard, a necessary event after the murder of Pertinax, and increased the urban cohorts. He also increased the standard pay of legionaries and allowed them to marry officially for the first time. These acts, though expensive, increased military moral and helped stabilize a situation that was on the brink of collapse. Though Constantine is ultimately more recognized for his reshaping of the religious atmosphere and his stabilization of the empire, I think that Severus proved his generalship simply through his life as a career general and his many campaigns. Constantine's victory over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge is among world history's most important battles, and victories over Licinius certainly prove Constantine's ability and eventually secured the stability of the Empire. While Constantine stands as one of the most influential leaders in history, as well as a great general, Severus' was simply a soldier. His life was being a general, and I think his campaigns outshine the success of Constantine on a pure military level.

Pompeius isnt a Muslim, he's a christian protestant. hehe We don't need a new forum guys, happily debate religion in the appropriate topics.

As the Roman History section of the site is just now getting into Caesar (the first of many pages mind you), I thought it might be a decent idea to discuss some what if possibilites.... What if Sulla proscribed Caesar? It's well known that Sulla had the young patrician on his lists, but was talked out of it by various friends and family. How would the Roman world, and the future of Europe had changed if Caesar was killed as a young man? Would someone have taken his place, would the Republic have survived, would Rome have fell completely?

If anyone could have, it would've been Trajan, but even if he had been able to, the success would've been short lived. After his death, even much of the Dacian conquest was given up, so eastern additions would certainly not have lasted.

I've got a bad feeling about this thread.

I don't know, maybe RTW did a couple of semi-exclusive deals with other game sellers for pre-orders.

Yeah, not heated, just quality discussion. We apparantly need a more controversial topic to spark some intense arguments

Many places in the ancient world were named after the people who lived there. Italia is no different, likely being adapted from the Itali tribe as discussed in the post Viggen mentioned.

Whether you like the US or not, one nice advantage is you're free to leave any time you like.

Well, don't mean to alarm you, but you'll find some of that around here as well. Christianity was very much a part of the Roman Empire, but became prominent only very late. Prior to Christianity, pagan faiths and some other monotheistic cults, such as that of Mithra were the main beliefs. You'll find that there are many people that are ancient history buffs, scholars or re-enactors that aren't Christians so you'll likely get many conflicting views. Thats ok though, just as life was in the Roman Empire, re-enactment groups should be very diverse. Just be prepared to discuss or be exposed to various views

Are you looking for re-enactment from the Roman army or as a cultural living history group? I'm really not sure if legion re-enactors follow any sort of Christian philosophy but there are probably Christian living history groups.

Yes, good example lovedone. I suppose its inevitable in the course of human history that there will be many parallels. But its almost frightening how the decline of Roman Republican virtue so closely resembles that of the United States. Many comparisons have been made, but that quote by Cicero is perhaps the most ominous. Its also important to note, I think, that the quote tells us that moral code was no longer reigning in Roman society. The written law had replaced general common sense and responsibilty. Today we have thousands of laws on the books. When they are broken, in many cases the offenders go unpunished, or the punishment doesn't act as a deterrent to others. More laws are introduced which do virtually the same things as those that already exist, simply because enforcement or repurcussion isnt working. Laws, as Cicero says, do not provide justice if they aren't obeyed and enforced.

Just moved some things around... the original post is as follows....

Not a clue, but as I liked 'Cicero' I'm sure Augustus will be good as well. As I'm slowly getting into the Augustan age with our Roman History section, I wouldn't mind the refresher either.

Pyrrhus of Epirus after his final defeat to Rome... "What a battlefield I leave for Rome and Carthage"

Make it a new post with the book title Pompeius. Look forward to your opinion, as I've also read it. Though its been a while for me.

Welcome to forum lovedone. Perhaps you could share what you think the quote means as well? I have many personal favorite quotes, but I'm partial to Sulla's (via Suetonius) quote "...for in this one Caesar, you will find many a Marius." Quite the premonition and sort of hypocritical statement from Rome's ruthless dictator. Yet, it makes me wonder how history would've changed if Sulla had proscribed Caesar as he intended to do.

Btw, welcome to forum Spurius. Look forward to reading your battle description, as I have the previous entries.