Marcus Regulus

Now this is one of the great 'what if's' of history. If Celtic civilization had developed a little farther it might have caused problems for Rome, much like Carthage. Some of Celtic society did survive fora while in Britiana in areas like Wales and Scotland. God bless those Picts. But because they were always fighting Rome it seems they had to become more warlike if that is possible. In War societies develop the culture side a little slower at times. The question gets you think about what Caeser's effect on history was and what might have been.

Others can correct me, but everything I have read seems to indicate in the early republic they were Roman citizens. Later Greeks were added as Aux. Troops. The republic was pretty proud of its citizen army. Seems to be part of the problem became the hring outside of the fold if you will. The Barbarians became us and that caused problems.

Probably most significantly Rome might have remained a Republic for a little longer. This may have changed things considerably. There were still some pretty ambitious types running around. Yes, my Celtic friends in France might be still alive and maybe more united. Tribalism ran pretty deep before he got there. The who crossing the Rubicon phrase does not make it into our vocabulary or the idea of the die is cast.

paolo, You know I don't know -- last I heard she had married some guy and was pregnant but that was 10 years ago. She wouldn't give me the time of day because I was was skinny back then -- 175lbs. and 6 foot 3 inches. Since then I have put on 80 lbs of muscle from lifting weights and I am looking forward to my class reunion in a couple years. Hope she is there. It's too bad you can't download D'ooge becasue it's pretty easy at least so far. Look for it somewhere else.

All, Unless you count Luke the gospel historian who also wrote and account the early Church called -- Acts of the Apostiles. Tacitus who wrote in the second century about the first, Flavious Josephus who wrote in the first and a host of others. Most were Chrsitians or Jews -- so they must be liars --right? Chrsitianity first appears in Judea and Galilee in the first century, not in Rome in the second. Nice try, but it seems biased based on the fact that it wont even consider what Christianity has to say or historians that wrote in that time frame. I suppose anyone who wants to read into the gospels and see Caeser could do so, but I could do that with any leader or ruler -- they used to say that Jesus was Socrates made Jewish fifty years ago and now that is not even considered only as fanciful -- this will be too. the proof offered -- 'Well, this looks like this or that to me'. There is a lot of speculation and connects with no historical writer saying this is so. I am amazed that people will sit around saying there is no historical proof for Jesus but will beleive this speculation that also has no historical backing by ancient historians. Seems two faced to me. This is not history -- it is historical speculation and their is a difference.

paolo, Took one year of French in High School -- I don't remember much becasue I took it becasue there was a girl I liked in the class. Two years of Greek (Konie) and now I am teaching myself Latin. Want to reveiw my Greek and get more Classical Greek. German and Itailian I would like ot add -- I want to go to Rome and Athens before and there is Ph.D in Rome and Greek History with my name on it. All this is prep work for it.

paolo, Latin for Beginner's by BEN D'OOGE, it was designed to be used with kids in Junior High at the beginning of the 1900's so it is public domain and you can get an e-book copy at www.textkit.com for free. It is really simple and breaks it down real well, at least so far. Imagine-- there was atime in US history where latin was taught at the Junior High level -- well now we can truly see the effect of the subtitle prejudice of low expectations.

Ursus, Quite true. The brits definitely play Shakespere better, but I still don't trust them, My family coming over on the boat from Wales and all.

Ok, I am with palo -- but i just started learning latin a week ago. 5 for 10 -- .500 thatwould be good in baseball.

Valens at Adrianople was high on my list, but I don't know if this was poor generalship or the Roman arrogance of the time. It was certainly a decisive blow that cause the Roman world to shake. For plain poor generalship in a situation -- Crassus. Let's march a bunch of miles in the hot desert without proper water supply and fight on ground of the enemy's choosing. DUMB. And then let's not adapt well to the tactics of our enemy but stick ridgedly to what we know. Then in retreat lets not listen to expereinced officers. Only the discipline of thel egionares saved them. Crassus was better on the battle field of the politics of the Republic and he should have stayed there.

So far this is the most accurate statement about the movie I have heard. I think the soldiers were just exacting what they had been told to do and doing what soldiers do. I don't blame them -- Jesus himself forgave them and said they didn't know what they were doing. I don't think I have went to Gibson's movies for historical accuracy -- they, like all movies, are ment to be inspiring in some emotional way. The fact is that Bravehart was worse historically than this movie. Good grief where was the bridge at Stirling. that wasn't an open field battle. But in the movie it was more grand than picking off the enemy units one at a time as they go across the bridge. Same thing for this movie -- it has its moments but it is definitely emotionally charged.

TMPikachu, Then maybe the the movie is more accurate on that point -- if he enjoyed offending the Jewish leaders then he would have wanted Jesus to get off free so they would be offended -- they were the ones that wanted him dead. You could look at it as Pilate trying to make them mad. The big thing to remember -- Pilate could not have a rebellion happen on his watch! It would have been the end of his life as a Roman official. Palastine being a backwater provence no one wanted to be at in the first place. Pilate would have wanted to do his time and do well to get back to Rome and another assignment. If the Jews were look like they were about to rebel and the soldiers not looking like they could control the situation it was gonig to be doom on Pilate. I think this is the overarching problem facing Pilate and it dominates his decisions.

I highlighted the historical documents that record these things. I beleive the Bible because it proves itself historically accurate regularly, not everything to be sure, but over time it does. The fact is that Christianity depends of things being historical -- no historical resurrection -- no reason to beleive (1 Corinithians 15). Mel's interprestion is subjective that was my problem with it as well. I am a conservitive Chrisitan, but no one has ever called me a fundamentalist and I have a lot of problems with the film, but some parts of it were OK historically. Note the word -- novel -- work of fiction as I recall. It is as subjective as Mel's. There is absolutely no historical evidence for what he says any more than Mel's. That would be correct - you have a God given right to choose to beleive or not -- I will not condemn you for it, that is not my place. Listen guys you must understand I will defend my faith, but I am not going to go looking for a fight here.

The other alternative is that the Jews were particularly mad a Jesus and wanted to make an example of him by Crucifixion -- which seems ot be the case -- the gospel record shows an increase of hostilities by the Jews toward Jesus over time and he silenced them often. They didn't want this upstart's example to spread. Incorrect he had both happen to him. You obviously need to study your Roman torture and punishment devices -- the flail with the pointy nails is called a scourge and it was actual designed to kill by torture by doing what you say -- ripping the flesh of the body. Pilate scourged Jesus because he figured that would be enough for the Jews and he might die anyway. They didn't think it was enough -- it ended in crucifixion. That part was one of the more accurate things in the movie.

Ditto. I have had a Noble Roman's Pizza though Hope to do a tour of Europe someday and they all are on top of my list.

They didn't have the authority to execute someone, they were under Roman rule. As such they could not put Jesus to death. They even admit that why they came ot him in the first place in gospels. (John 18:28-32) He was treated as a traitor to the Roman govenement because that is the charge he was charged with before Pilate -- calling himself the King of the Jews (although Jesus never does call himself that -- others do)meant he was trator to the Roman govenment, after all he had been born under the Roman rule of Augustus. This is exactly the charge that was placed upon his cross above his head. Rebels since Spartacus at least had all been crucified and the fact was Jesus was convicted of being a rebel. Crucifixion was the standard punishment for this crime.

Spatacus, Let's see -- the Romans in Palastine were a million miles from home, in a hostile environment with Zealots trying to kill them, revotuion was everywhere and it was a backwater province where there was little hope of advancement -- that might make you a bit testy. I don't think they were Evil, I just think they were doing what they were told and being they didn't care for the Jews that much as the Jews didn't care for them. A chance to take out their frustrations on the King of the Jews might have been relished. They were, after all, human. Mel has taken a lot of flack from Hollywood on this one which I have to admire, but at the same time I had a lot of problems as a Christian and historian with the movie. 1) The Biblical record was not followed so much as Catholic tradition and that bothered me. 2) It was more of the gospel according to Mel than according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 3) I felt the anger of the soldiers was a little over the top. Some maybe, but not all. Historically accurate -- 1) The instruments of torture used -- first time I have seen a genuine Roman scourge in a Passion movie and its effects on the human body 2) I think the private meeting with Pilate and Jesus was right on with the way it would have happened. Pilate was well portrayed as a guy trying to get Jesus off, but realizing that ifa riot took place he would lose his position. He was trying to execute Roman justice of law but he was being pragmatic. Very Roman. 3) The effects of Crucifixion on a human being were portrayed accurately. 4) The Roman chain of command was well represented. 5) The language was accurately portrayed.

For the most part what I see is that they did imporve tactics and exisiting weapons as Jimbow mentioned, what I don't see is is any attempt to create new weapons or different weapons. There are a few exceptions to this (The corvus on ships for example), but for the most part they seem to be content with improvement but not innovation. How much this contibuted to the downfall of Rome is debateable

I think the fact was the Romans had a better political system and midset for conquest and backed it with what could be termed one of the best professional armies of the time. The Greeks did everything else better -- language (as evidence by the fact that more people spoke Greek than Latin even at the height of the empire), culture, music, poetry and especially philosophy still rulled in Athens not in Rome. The Roman's knew this an copied everything Greek but changed the names to Latin. The only person to really disrespect the Greeks was Sulla who burned the city of Athens, but the funny thing is he took all the Greek stuff with him. I don't know it was more of Rome taking Athens and moving it to Rome in a lot of ways.

Anthrophobia, Hey, thanks for the info on the Han. They had the technology edge that's for sure, but I would say the Romans were better trained, comes down to who was feeling better and who had the high ground then

I was speaking primarily of the early church. The fact remains that the Chrsitians were put to death by the Romans not the other way around. If they were so tolerant, why the death penalty for a sect of people who had not really threatened the Empire at the time? It was Nero that used the christians as a scapegoat for his burning of Rome. I agree the Roman Catholic Church has commited many atrocities which as a Chrsitian I would decry. The Early Chruch was not Catholic in the sense of the Middle ages. This was religious based persecution on the charge that Christians were pagans themselves -- it was religious persecution! The charge they were always convicted on was that -- they were athiests because they would not worship Caeser. It was a religious charge. Pagan societies love bloodshead as much if not more than monotheistic ones -- they kill people for sport -- remember the gladiators. These were religious rites. Pagans hold life (especially of others) very cheep. Celsus' charge was typical and was answered by the early Church Fathers. The Romans had a lot of misconceptions about Christianity. Misconceptions that lead to a lot of misunderstandings. As time went by they were cleared up, but the persecutions didn't stop. I don't know guys your beef seems to be with the Catholic Church not so much Chrisitanity. There are many of us who beleive the Catholic Chruch is a curruption of original Christianity which was not aggressive. In fact one of the chrages leveled against the church was that they wouldn't fight for the empire, but current research indicates that there were soldiers in the legions of Rome who were Christian. But the conception was they were pacifists. Excellent point. I don't think Rome fell becasue of the Christians, it fell because of its own leaders who were incompitent and corrupt. If you subscripe to the evolutionary theory of religion, but I don't I think all types have been around all the time. The fact is that history tells us that pagans do not naturally become monotheists -- the only one who tried was Socrates and he paid for it. There was one Pharoah too , but he was killed and the people went back to the old gods. I guess you would have ot show me acase of a monotheisit religion developing from paganism -- I haven't run across one. Christianity developed as a result of the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ who was already a part of Judism and Judism has no history to show that it was ever not monotheisitic. That is my point -- it wasn't till Chrsitianity became empowered that they did this and maybe as reprisals for all the killing that had been done ot them. Wrong, but just as wrong as the Romans slaughter of the Chrsitians for religious reasons. The church has been different at different times, but in the case. The Crusades were a reaction to assaults by Islam which as fdatboy rightly points out had been agreesively stamping out Christianity in Africa and Asia Minor. But once again is defending youself wrong. It became personal after a while and well just got worse. Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree for now

The fact was at the time it looks like Carthage and Rome were evenly matched and in a battle where the two sides are almost even your going to have a long struggle. In the end Carthage seems to have been done in by one bad strategical move-- the dismantling of their fleet after the first war. Without their fleet, Rome had naval superiority in the Med. Doom on Carthage. Kind of like having air superiority today. It may not make you win, but it sure makes it hard for you to lose.

Jimbow Maybe because it wasn't about armor but the fact the Italian knights had better moral and training. At Agincort the French bunched themlves together and put themselves in lines. The choas that followed was the first line retreating into the other two was probably worth half the casulties alone. Maybe the Italians were just less wimpy about the whole thing or better tacticians. There are so many factors in war and armor is only one of them. In the time of Rome -- arrows were deadly as Crassus' encounter with the Parthians shows. But Roman armor left a lot exposed when it came to missles and was designed for face to face fighting. Armor is rarely designed for arrows, it is about what is in your face. Arrows require shields and formations for proper defense, but that is not the only factor. Arrows whistle and when you fire hudndreds of them at once -- the effect on moral can be devistating.

Fatboy, So all we have really proven is that paganism and monotheistic cultures don't get along. Big surprise because their belief systems are incompatable. I don't think you can find in the first three centuries of Christianity that they used anything they beleived to justify a war. Christianity never went to war with anyone (other than Rome's enemies as part of the legions) until Constantine corrupted it by intermingiling it with paganism. He was the first 'Chrsitian' to do so. Sorry, I beleive that it was this intermingling of beleifs that cause Christianity to be changed, along with the corrupt doctrines and teachings of Augustine. I don't think primitive Christianity, when it was persecuted by Rome, ever went to war with anyone. If anything the pagan Rome butchered them like cattle because they wouldn't bow down to Caeser and worship him -- sounds like a religious motivation to me. What Rome was intolerant of was that Christians would not worship them in a religious sense. The irony is this is one aspect of Christianity bringing down Rome, because Rome got rid of them they got rid of faithful taxpayers, incorrupt judges, brave soldiers (yes Christians were in the army), politicians that actually practice civil service. etc, etc. There is a topic for a thesis. Why doesn't someone write a paper on how much Rome lost in terms of talent, skills and brains by putting Chrsitians to death because they wouldn't worship Caeser (once again religious)? 'Thought police' -- where was this the case in the time of Rome. How about Caesar worship itself -- if you didn't beleive in it or do it you were killed. Seems like thought police to me. In paganism you can justify anything based on feelings about the gods alone. In monotheism there are absolute standards of right and wrong -- law. Paganism has laws, but they are convieniently set aside to justify anything or debated. Islam is a different matter all together. They started out coming up to villages saying -- 'Koran or the sword'. Terrorism from the word go. But this is not true of Christianity or Judism -- they never forced someone to believe as they do they just shared a message. But Caeser after Caeser tried to force Caeser worship down the Christians. Tolerence -- its a myth altogether, but I would say the Christians tolerated pagan Rome far better than pagan Rome tolerated them.

There are three controled factors that determine a units effectiveness in combat. 1) Equipment 2) Training 3) Moral Equipment -- Romans of the legions early Empire were the cream of the crop here. Not sure about the Han Dynasty, but for the sake of argument let's say they are the same. Training -- with the exception of the Spartans I can think of no better trained in all things military than the Romans. They could do it all and often did. They were the world's first truly professinal army. Moral -- This is the key fact, because the best equiped and trained soldier who does not want to fight is uselss compared to one that does. I give the Romans of the Early Empire the edge because they had all three, in the han Dynasty I don't know. But I imagine it would be ugly. Just for the record, the reason the French feared the longbow was not that armor didn't work, but that they had invested so much on calvary which was difficult to armor the horses. Arrows would bounce off French plate of the knight, but against the horses they were riding, armor was too expensive. Many knights died because an arrow found its way into a horse and threw the rider -- being in armor does not really stop crushing attacks like being thrown from a horse. It does prevent you from being cut and bleeding to death. That is its real advantage. Bruises will heal after a battle, Cuts get infected and lead to death given the medicine of the time. Armor allows an army to survive the aftermath better.