Marcus Regulus

It boils my blood and makes me want to launch a scathing counterstrike, but I can't as this is not the string for it. oh well, I guess Marcus Regulus got in first with his two cents. Aw come now. I thought this was a a friendly vote.

Well sparticus I am close -- 36.

Conservative Optimate. Got to go with what works.

That is an excellent observation -- the late republic because of his actions was a place fo loyalties to the individual rather than the state like the Early and Middle Republics. The power became more concentrated in the few rather than the Senate. Gaius' reforms paved the way for the chaos that followed -- he wasn't thinking long term which does tend to be a weakness of republics. The Empire did well in the early going but it began to fall out when the Emporers began to take their people for granted -- the problems with dictatorships is that when benevolent they rarely remain so and never permanently in any case.

Love Greeks under Alexander. Ancient Greek and Roman History -- that's me.

I think it boils down to character above all else. PP is right about it is not a mear statement of republic verses empire but i think the systems do have their pitfalls. In the republic it requires that a person put the state above his own interests or it will fail. Someone with personal ambition with no concern for the Republic will cause it to tremble -- See Julius Caeser. In the Empire --the absolute power of the Emporers could be used for good or evil. But what it was used for depended greatly on the person who was the Emporer and what they would do with that power. Character wins the day -- it is possible for a person to have a great deal of power but use it for the interests of others. On the other hand they could use it for themselves. The choice was up to them.

Wow! Great pictures and it really puts it into perspective.

I became interestied in Ancient Rome and Greek civilization because of its place in history in the western world and becasue of it's culture particularly in the republic days. Over the years I like all aspects of it not just military but language (so a work to learn latin), culture, religion, etc. It seems to me that Rome becames the center of all western civilization to even now. There are a lot of parrallels to the histories of a lot of other nations as well.

Skenderbeg, Pretty good theory, better than the others I hear about this. I think that Empires have to maintain a couple of things ot keep going. 1) You have to tell your soldiers either comeback in victory or dead. There is peace only on the other side of victory over enemies. 2) You better make sure that your economy can grow. 3) Leadership has to have vision, not be a idiot that just wants more stuff for himself. 4) When barbarians come -- don't pay them off -- kill them. Simple, brutal but effective -- hate to say it but that is what made Rome great in the first place and when they lost it they lost it.

I have never read anything that talked even about the possibility of this. In that society it seems that such a thing would have been unthinkable or so rare that the person would indeed commit suicide or run away. The fact was that duty to the state was drummed into every kids head from the time he was little till they went off to join the legion. I am not sure any excuse would be possible.

I believe it was Socrates that pointed out the folly of growing a state too large so as not to be able to defend it. This I think is the ultimate end for Rome. Ursus makes a great point. I personally beleive that as a republic they expanded more and were able to hold more because they had more people to draw from to take charge of it. Empires are dicey things that depend too much on one person's leadership and resolve to maintain. It wasn't long after becoming empire minded that expansion stopped and I don't think this is accidental -- they had reached their limit. Then it became about holding on not conquest and when that change in mentality is made you are going to be doomed in the ancient world. Maybe not today but ultimately down the road.

Makes me wander if the military salute we use has been universal for a long time? Now that would be tradition wouldn't it.

Your sphere is Knight (Know Loyalty and Respect), and your class is Arms Master (Pragmatic and Stout). You are an Advisor. Your great sense of ethics and honor, as well as your practical knowledge of the world, makes you an excellent advisor and confidant to the people who are respectful of your ways, and to whom you will show respect in return. Liu Bei, the well-meaning King of the ancient Shu kingdom in China, was not famous for his own accomplishments, but for the excellent quality of his generals, and the brilliance of his advisor of special repute, Zhuge Liang. Secondary -- Retainer, Henchman Wow. What a great test.

My Namesake -- Marcus Atilius Regulus. Legend has it that during the First Punic War while campaigning in North Africa he was captured and his army destroyed. He agreed to argue for the Carthiginian terms and if they were not accepted then he agreed to return to Carthage for whatever punishment was required. Rome refused the terms and Marcus returned true to his word where he was killed by brutal torture. This is the legend. The Real Marcus of antiquity based on literary and historical study was an expereinced and able general who was elected several times. He is credited with the first use of the corvus (raven) in battle at sea. Basically he kicked butt and in the end put the Carthiginians in a bad spot where he gave them terms os severe that they refused. The outmatched Carthage hired the Spartian mercenary general -- Xanthippus who final beat Marcus and had him captured. He died in captivity. Good General, multiple Consulships and an inspiring legend -- not bad.

I have consider this possibility and have rejected it -- because it is not rational to base an entire theory on percieved simularities, it relies of on a look at these similarities but no historical finding backs it up -- it is not rational as you think. I consider every possibility, but in the end there is one thing that this view does not have -- facts to back it up. As far as the person being a devote Roman Catholic -- I think the Pope and the Cardinals may find that she is not. Faith is also belief as defined by Greek language as well -- pistis -- a conviction based on hearing. My point is this that there are four gospels writing in historical format that say the Christ and Caeser are two different people. This person's work is based on their observations of similarities between the two individuals -- but similarities between the two individuals do not mean they are the same person -- that is a leap of faith and belief that I feel is irrational. My life is similar to Detrich Bonhoffer -- doesn't mean we are the same person as an example. It is more beleiveable that the two are seperate individuals and these authors are going to make a mint on people that will hear their theory for the novilty of it -- I suppose you bought their book? No offense taken, but I dislike the steriotype that some athiests have of Chrsitians -- we have just as much historical reason to beleive what we beleive as you do. Our sources are historically accurate on many points that do not have to do with miracles or faith. I think the study of Roman history (getting back to the topic at hand) loses much becasue they gospels and Acts will not be treated as equals with other writers of antiquity. It also loses whne the benefits of Christianization are not discussed and only the negative. Good grief the writers of some of these Roman histories say Julius Caeser's ancestor was the goddess Venus. Is that rational to you, but it does not stop you from considering the rest of it. I think you cannot dismiss the gospels with a wave of your hand for the same reason. But if you do then this theory does not make much sense does it?

Based on what? Your own belief that it is more realistic? Because that is really all you have -- you believe (have faith that it is) and so it is. But there is not one shread of real evidinece for this guy's theory to be true. History is what we are discussing here not conjecture. You need to catch up with the times -- in the Eisteinian universe anything is possible. Even walking on water. Seems like your living in the Neutonian past. How is it that you do not consider the possibility that the reason Chrisitainity became the force it is is that it is true? Maybe Jesus did come out of the tomb and that is the reality. This is not about fairy tales my friend -- I have witnesses more witnesses than many other events of ancient antiquity to back it up. Are you saying that over 500 people lied and were lying when they saw Jesus after he was crucified. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians that if you didn't beleive him you could go to them and they would tell you to this day in his time. That's a pretty big lie and one that cost most of them their lives. This was not just mere religious fervor there was something more to it. No offense to the athiests in the room but this is the kind of athiesim that I can't stand -- sitting in intellectual elitist towers and calling condemnation on the 'poor religious masses who are misguided." Hate to break the news to you there are great deal of very smart, educated and knowledgable people that beleive in what I am saying and many of them started out like yourselves as athiests. The least you could do in your 'openmindedness' is consider all the possibilities not rule the miraculous out because it doesn't fit your worldview. I much rather sit accross an athiest who will here the evidence and just dismiss something as -- not realistic. Sorry, didn't mean to vent, but it does burn me a little. People of faith are not stupid or misguided they simply have faith in something -- just like everyone does.

PP hit it on the head - -there is a great deal we all take on faith -- like it or not.

A historian did -- his name was Matthew and that's the point. You have to give the gospels their place because if you don't you might as well throw out Tacitus, Flavius Josephus and every other ancient historian. What Roman historian would report that event -- it would add to a growing reputation of a movement they were trying to suppress? What you think revisionist history is only a modern phenom.? There are a lot of events that are only recorded by one historian of eyewitness. Tacitus is a notable example of a person who is the only historical witness to some events that are recorded. There are only few good ones for the Roman republic. Polybius, Cicero, Livy, Valerius Maximus, and Plutarch. Most of them wrote after the fact as well but while parts of them are doubted the fact is most historians believe that their information is useful. Why are the gospels any different. Prejudice against Christianity is the only answer. Maybe the Romans thought because it was recorded in the gospels and they treated them as history there was no need to record it again because the history had been already done. There are a hundred explainations. There is nothing scientific about this work you mention I have looked at it before. It is pure conjecture. There is no historian that says what he says either. Ancient or modern. It is his beleif and if you beleive it you have more faith than me. How can a person be so open minded about this piece of conjecture and then so narrow minded about the gospels? Luke in particular writes as a classical historian and follows historical method in writing his gospel and the book of Acts. Luke 1:1-4 gives us his method. As a Chrisitan I am supposed to love everyone like a brother or sister but this is a clear case of bigotry and prejudice and I am going to call it such. I get very tired of this. If any other event in history had four seperate accounts of it that did not contradict each other and were different enough to say they did not copy each other it would be an iron clad case for the event. But because the event is the life of Jesus and we don't like Christianity we are going to question it. Amazing. There is no evidence that you can't take them literally either. There is no ancient historian that says what you saying at all or that the gospels are untrue either. By the way I am one that takes them literally if you couldn't guess because people have been trying to disprove them for 2000 years and in the end every one of them goes away frustrated because all they have is theory and no facts to prove them at all. And so it continues to this day.

What if... What if... Yipes. Doesn't change what happened and it take more that the Battle of Cannae to judge Hannibal. The fact is the Roman Republic was quaking in their boots about Hannibal and justifiably so. He was kicking their butt and they knew it. Scipio Africanus was the first Roman commander to be as bold as some of the things Hannibal did. He remains me favorite strategic and tactical commander of Roman Republic. It was the same type of bold move strategically (invade Carthage) and then adjusting tactics (break the Roman lines to flank the elephants) that Hannibal had used in crossing the Alps and then at the battle of Cannae and others that the Romans lost to him. But such a Roman invasion would have been very difficult if the Carthaginian navy had been in better shape. Part of this was do to the losses in the previous wars, the other part due to the shortsightedness of the Senate in Carthage who did disband some of their navy. It was politics and I often wondered had Hannibal learned to play politics better, he might have got more support. Listen what made Rome great was not that they took on some wimps and kicked them to the curb, what made them great was the fact that they took on one tough opponent after another and won over and over again. It is a testamony to their greateness to me that they took on a great opponent like Hannibal and won. Cannae was a product of Hannibal's greatness and Roman mistakes, but one of the greatnesses of any commander is to take full advantage of your enemy's mistakes -- this Hannibal did.

Boy that's an understatement. The Cannae is still to this day a classified military manuever that all generals dream of executing. It is very rare for it to actually take place. Hannibal was the first and might I say still the greatest to do so. My only problem with Hannibal was not his tactical brilliance, but his stategic thinking. He did so great things, but the fact is Carthage disbanded a huge chunk of their navy and it lead to their downfall. I don't know how much Hannibal had to do with it, but it was decisive. Otherwise this site would be dedicated to Carthaginian History. It would be like a major power today disbanding a large chunk of its Air Force.

Not true, the gospels themselves have every right to stand as evidence and witnesses (multiple ones I might add) of Jesus existence. Not to mention Tacitus and Jospehus and Philo all attest to his existence. No Roman ever denies Jesus' existence. The real issue here is prejudice against Chrsitianity. If you impose the same critique on the writings about Julius Caeser as you do these others we could denounce his existence as well. Maybe someone made them up to justify the Caeser cult. Maybe the fact is that Julius Caeser was created by the Romans because Chrsit was getting so popular that they neeeded their own hero to cash in. Maybe the crossing of the Rubicon to his assassination to his apotheosis is actually an attempt to steal Jesus' thunder in his Crossing the Jordan crucifixion and resurrection to get to people to look back to Rome. As a Christian I could easily make the same arguments in reverse and contest each point just a verhemently the other way. The reason for this is simple all history is a study of the accounts of witnesses. In the gospels we have four witnesses who say Jesus existed and did certain things, they do not contradict each other, but they are not completely alike either so they did not just copy each other either. Dating and scholarship of texts now confirms the gospels were written in the 1st century. The real issue is people deny the gospels because of the miracles -- miracles do not happen so they must be false. However, such a view does not take into account the fact that in our universe things may be improbable but not impossible. That is Einstein's theory. The fact remains if such evidence that was indiputable were presented for Jesus' existence were given, people would still not beleive, because they do not want to face the reality of who he is. There are only three possible conclusions -- he is either a liar, a lunatic or he is what he said he is -- the SON of God. You say Jesus does not exist with such conviction -- how do you know? were you there? No you were not so what source of antiquity (what witness do you have) that says Jesus did not exist in the time he is said to live. Answer -- none. It is purely the product of your reason, which could be wrong. The fact is there is good evidence that the both of them existed in their own right and while their are some simularities there are also many important differences that amke them two different men.

For worst commanders Tiberius tops my list, but Tiberius makes higher grades in being and able administrator of the Empire. But he is definitely bad in the field.

I think the notion that the persecution of the Christians was mostly political is nonsense -- it was political and religious. The problem I am having with most of the observations here is that there is the modern western assumption of seperation of religion and state. This was not the Roman mindset, the two were a cohesive whole. It was Christians that seperated the two and that is what the Romans could not understand or I might add tolerate. A Chrsitian could be a good citizen to the Empire (politically) and yet would not be a good citizen because they would not worship (note this is a religious word and charge by the very idea) Caeser. I think what we have here is a pagan society that did not separate the two. Religion and politics were the same thing to them in many ways. Rember Julius Caeser's first public office -- Pontifex Maximus (Head Priest of Rome). This is what launched his career as a public official and it was a political and religious office all in one. While the motives of the various Emperors may have been political thay got them on a religious charge and this indicates the two were more linked than our Westen mindset often likes or can even comprehend. I simply see the same thing as always two groups of people with different worldviews and the one with power tried to take the other out.

There is a lot of mysteries to the period of Republic life and so I gravitate there. Once things get imperial the politics dies down considerably except at the change of Emporers. Each Caesar does what he is capable of and a lot of creativity comes down to them alone and some of them were just dictators with no imagination. In the republic this is not the case. Some of the political campaigns in the Middle and Late Republic make some of the things in the U.S. and England today look as a tame as kittens. It makes for interesting reading that is for sure.

That seems ot be the progression -- in the early days of the early republic there were more Italians, but as time goes by this gets to be very rare as citizenship begins to be offered more and more to those in the borders and not so much to those in Rome itself. For a freeman the fastest way of advancement for his family was very often a military course. It enabled many to leave a legacy for their children to build on.