Marcus Regulus

Have to agree with longbow. Dogs are pack minded and they react to defending their pack. War Dogs did exist, but everyone that used them was mindful of the fact that they were unpredictable. They were however a great terror type weapon that caused more fear than actual damage. The best use for dogs in military situations is guard duty and scouting becasue this is something they do naturally. Fighting in packs has only one purpose surround one opponent and take him down from all sides. This does not work too well against formations of troops.

Octavian was a little late because many of the slum areas had eight or nine story buildings, but they would often colapse from overcrowding. Later the height of buildings was indeed limited to correct this problem -- stone and wood is no match for steel.

Augur, Well posted, I agree Commodus becomes the beginning of the decline of Imperial power. Rome still lasted fora long time but it seems his reign gets the Dirty Dog award in more ways than one.

Actually this is quite exciting but PP is right this will be caught up in beurcratic red tape for a while as everybody fights for rights to look at them. Could be great though. Yeah maybe, but what if they turn out to be originals and/or exemplars of the original writtings and confirm the Greek New Testament as it stands? One way or another this is going to get interesting. The Dead Sea Scrolls did that for the Old Testament. The Gnostic gospels were dismissed for good reasons and I might point out that none of them disproved the existing gospels, but I have a question: what if the above happens and the gospels discovered confirm the current New Testament as is? -- my guess is that others will dismiss them as unauthentic . Denial knows no religion.

Whoever has the most money is Crassus -- and don't forget you weekly donation to Marcus Regulus to have my continued support in the senate.

Ain't it grand. People will do the same stupid things that others ahve done thinking this time it will be different.

Sulla tops my list. Nothing like ignoring the constitution to reestablish it.

Can't remember what started it. I am getting to old I guess. My interest in history stems from the fact that it seems ot repeat itself. I guess I have never found a pattern to history, but things do repeat themselves. Like Ursus, I think people wh do not have an interest in the past are a little short sighted and can realize that people have been people for a long time. Civilizations rise and fall and will continue to do so. I find it funny that such people think they have found something new that is going to revolutionize the world for ever and then I point out ot them it has already been done by someone else in another time and it didn't revolutionize the world then. People who have noconcern for the past are doomed to waste a lot of time, in my opinion, thinking they are doing something new and then getting surprised that it doesn't have the affect they desire. "There is nothing new under the sun " is what it has taught me and the real issue is putting the right thing to do with the right time to do it. History helps me a lot when doing that.

Thanx guys, I will give some sort of post when I am done reading it from my own mind. Such as it is.

I just picked up Livy's account of the early Roman period from the kings to the early republic and I was wondering what assessment people have of Livy as a historian. What do you say?

I think what the Romans learned over time was to develop a province so that its income was regular and increased. In the early going they plundered a lot, but later they learned that while this was short ranged benefit you couldn't generate long term with this. The republic had a habit of being shortsighted abotu this and the plundered more than the Empire which understood the benefits of development.

LOL. No it wasn't -- it has been said that English has the most swear words of any language, but then again the English speaking people of the world have more to swear about perhaps.

I think the one thing Sulla's little rule did was set the stage of possibility for a person to take power. Caeser certainly remembered it and I think it is possible that he wanted to do what Sulla had done only in a different way -- Sulla's was an anti populars movement. Is it possible that Caeser was motivated to do the same thing in an opposite dirrection?

I guess it depends on what part of Rome you are talking about. I personally believe that the Roman empire ever really died completely until the Middle ages. It evolved and adapted over the years. Republic to Imperium, to divided Empire (East and West). etc. The Byzantine Empire was definitely Roman. On and on it goes. As to what caused it to struggle -- how about existence. It could be said that its struggles made it strong as well as weak. it greatly depended on how it adapted after those struggles. Like all civilizations I would say. As for the military part of the problem the fact remains that legions existed through the republic and Empire and they built both. A nation without a strong military will be the slave of others. Rome was no slave to anyone becasue of their military. It was when they forgot to remain strong that they became a nation to which one could dictate terms. The price they paid for legions, whatever the cost was the price they were paying for freedom from others and to determine their own destiny. I think any price paid on such things is worth the cost.

Now, I don't know if he wanted to be king but he certainly wanted to be the Man. If he had followed tradition he would have been killed and he would have been remembered as the guy who got slaughtered for Rome. Personally he had nothing to gain from going home peacefully -- I think the Republic should have welcomed him home to save the Republic. If Pompey had been alive greating him home instead of meeting him in battle things would have had a very different end. I think Caeser just was acting in his own interests like so many politicians before him -- he had to do what he did to save himself from destruction. The problem is that it spelled doom on the Republic in the end, but I don't think it was all his fault --- the seeds for that were sown by Sulla, Caeser just reaped the harvest.

I hear you -- I think Michigan has reenactors in everything except this -- very frustrating. But I too do not have the time to start one.

Brutus. I would like ot know what really motivated him and his fellow conspiitors. I also think an interview with Cato would be enlightening. I think anyone in the Republic era would be great.

Even as a Protestant I have like John Paul II. He has been very open in his dealing with all faiths and other Christians outside the Catholic church. He has been one of the more 'spiritual' of the popes as well.

Perry. Michigan USA

Well, that isn't abad thing right? hey, I am not too far behind

Alexander would ahve never had an opportunity to do what he did if it hadn't been for his father -- I personally beleive that any son with any ambition could have carved out some sort of Empire with the army that was built by him. If Alexander had met the Romans -- hmm. The Romans would beat him, they understood tactics better but calvary might have been a problem for them. The fact was that most of Alexanders opponents were outclassed or stupid the only one worth anything was Darius.

it is a great testamony to Roman engineering that these roads are still there. Between these and their aquaducts and bridges I think we can qualify them as great builders and smart ones too. There are of course no Romans roads in the US. Wish there were, in Michigan the snow and heat make for soem great potholes.

I don't think I can claim expertise yet but i am somewhat knowledgable on the Republic Period. I also have don extensive work on the Early Christian faith in the Roman Empire from the 1st to 3rd centuries. I know a little about the some of the major characters. Part of the reason I joined this site is that I am woefully ignorant on many things. Thanks to all who have made this site great.

Scanderbeg, I agree with you assessment of the Battle of Zama, but truth is many of the other battles I am still learning about so It might help to have a little on each of them.

Zama -- it is the one I am most familiar with and became the decisive finally for Carthage. If it had gone the other way. Don't want to think about it.