longshotgene

I am not saying they count for nothing, but how many movies were made about Scipio? Caesar's tactics are taught all over as well. I just think Caesar was better. Besides, Scipio's dealing with Hannibal was like Grant's dealing with Lee in the American Civil War. How many generals were sent against Lee? He out-foxed general after general with little reinforcement much like Hannibal. I would have to say that Hannibal was the better general in that case. Scipio was there for the glory after everyone else had chipped away at Hannibal. I still think Caesar was the better man.

Sorry guys, but I can't agree with Scipio Africanus. Scipio dealt with the tattered remains of Hannibal's army. Germanicus was good, but we really never got to see he blossom fully due to his mysterious death. I would have to say Julius Caesar. The odds he faced with only a handful Romans. That takes tact and ability. And the key is that he did it over and over. Not only did he beat Gauls repeatedly, but he wiped out an entire German Army. Plus, don't forget the bridge he built in no time! What other General can boast this, other than possible Constantine.

Naughty naughty Pertinax. People aren't supposed to take pictures of the objects in the cases at Vindolanda. I must admit that the horse armour was hard to resist, as was the many phalic symbols. Still, naughty naughty! P.S.-How do I place photos on here? I have a whole bunch from northern England.

If you had a chance to do archaeology in any Roman city, which one would it be and why? This is a dig where you can go anywhere you want. I am getting ready to do some grant writing and would just like to see what you guys would do.

Now I like most people realize that the movie 'Gladiator' was mostly fictitious. However, in the opening battle scene I find it interesting that they used the catapults for infantry assault. Was this part accurate at all?

You want hard-nosed, read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. King Arthur leaps to the table to challenge the Green Knight without knowing what is being fully asked. One thing I have noticed is Bamburgh Castle in the far north. On my travels in the U.K. it is the only one I have come across that was rumoured to be the home of Lancelot. Correct me if I am wrong. I know if I had been Lancelot, I would not have found a better place. I hope to go back there soon.

Surely the Romans would have had the ability to build bigger and larger things. If what Josephus describe was true, then they had this ability. I guess it probably came down to the fact that Rome was not as big on siege equipment as was countries were in the middle ages.

According to what I learned this past summer, Hadrian's Wall was never totally abandoned. The forts there were used as a secondary line of defense. The number of troops may not have been as strong when the Antonine line was being built, but it was never totally abandoned.

O.K. I know the Romans had the onager, the ballista and the scorpion, but did they have the trebuchet at the time? Did they ever have it towards the end of the empire? I watched the movie Attila last night, and could have sworn that he had trebuchets. I always thought those were more a middle ages siege machine?

I guess I see your points on the Germans. Here is my question that I cannot answer through my research. Maybe you guys can recommend some articles or books. How did Rome get to a state where the army was mostly composed of foreigners? Was it all bad policy, or was it something more? Was it the fact that she was invaded over and over again in such a short time span? I agree that the Germans infiltrated and killed the system from within, but how did it get to this point? Was it like the Southern United States during the Civil War? Southern 'gentlemen' just did not want to fight? I know there are many factors that led to the downfall of Rome, but what do you guys think?

I can't say it was anyone from the East. The Persians, the Sassinids never posed a threat like the northern peoples. I still stick with the Gauls. Yes, Caesar wiped them out, but they were the first to truly sack Rome. They set the example, and everyone followed.

Here is one for you guys. I was looking over some of my new textbooks for my masters' degree in Classical Studies. The thought came to me. Which Roman enemy was the worst? Which one do you guys think was the worst and why? I thought the Germans at first, but when looking at the Gauls, it is easy to see them as the worst. In my opinion, they were the worst because they were around the longest.

Caldrail, It is interesting that you posted this topic. Part of my research this summer was chasing the myth of King Arthur throughout the U.K. I can honestly say if there was any place King Arthur would have lived, it would have to have been the far north. Sorry to any one from the south. Holy Island was the first place the Saxons really started to invade according to historical references. There was a group of monks who lived there for a long time preaching the good word. They were attacked in succession over a number of years. If that is where the trouble began, most likely any help would have gone there. Here in Indiana, which happens to be in the United States, we have the legend of Johnny Appleseed. No one knows for sure where he was, but every where one looks, there is a mentioning of the traveler. In fact, we have Johnny Appleseed days in my town. King Arthur was the same way. You have Tintagel castle in the extreme south west. You have the supposed round table in Winchester. You have another round table in Caerleon, Wales. In the far north, there is the legend of King Arthur being on the Wall. In Bamburgh castle next to Seahouses, you have the once was home of Sir Lancelot. This is the same home Arthur had to go to, to get Lancelot on his side. Amazingly, Holy Island is next to Bamburgh. The list goes on and on. There are even legends of him around the White Cliffs. Hence the Saxon church which lies inside the Dove castle grounds. Like I said, it goes on and on. If you ask me if King Arthur existed?, I would definitely have to say yes. Where?, you might ask. I personally would say the north. Why?, you would ask. I would have to say it is the most beautiful part of the U.K. That is where I would have lived. Trying to catch King Arthur is like trying to catch smoke. You think you have him, and all you have is a small remnant, which leaves you wanting more. Hope this makes sense. I just woke up, and was interested by this string. And yes, I do believe Arthur was part Roman and part Briton.

I wasn't quite sure where to place this one, but I thought here would be as good a spot as any. This past summer I was in England doing research and had to stop by the famous Stonehenge. I also stopped by the larger and less known Avebury Henge, next to Marlboro. I noticed something fascinating about the henges. Were they really built for Star watching, or solstice observing only? The guide kept insisting that was what the research stated, but I have a hard time swallowing that. I am determined to believe the henges were used for a defensive nature. The guide kept saying, "But the sun comes up right over this spot every year." I said, "let's be practical." Who in their right mind, thousands of years ago would spend thousands upon thousands of man hours building a structure out of hewn stone just to watch the stars and the sun rise? Especially considering the fact there were no telescopes back then, and there were no real magnifying glasses to magnify the stars or any celestial object for that fact. I then proceeded to ask him if any excavation had been done extensively outside of the circle. He claimed there had not been. All they found were antler pieces, some left over arrow heads inside the ditch and other minor artifacts. He claimed if the henge was used for a defensive nature, there would be all kinds of stuff on the inside. I said he was quite right, except for the fact what we see today are the burned out timbers of a structure that existed long ago. The wood that covered it has long since dissappeared. Plus, if you really want to see the weapons that were used, one would need to lead an extensive dig outside of the ditch. That is where the weapons will be. Unfortunately, the massive graves lying around will prove nothing as the genetic composition of the people will be too close to differentiate. However, I feel if the graves were excavated, I believe the archaeologist would find that the bodies did not all die from natural causes. Tell me your thoughts.

O.K. I didn't know. Here in the U.S. it is sometimes hard to put things into perspective elsewhere in the world. For instance, where I live it is composed of a thin top soil (4 inches) and then on down it is made up for good old grey clay. If you travel further south, the top soil increases to around 1 American foot or more, with a rocky sub-soil underneath. Below that is bedrock. Where I live, it was affected by the glaciers. Afterwards, it became a swamp. Then it was drained off and became farm land. England is much different from what I experienced. I remember as a kid in Germany seeing the rocky white cliffs in the northern part of the country, much like the White Cliffs of Dover. In the south, it becomes extremely mountainous.

Pertinax, is it possible by your living 100 miles away that the soil could in fact be that much different? Just by going from Dover to London to Avesbury you encounter several soil types. Just a thought. I do agree with the fact that the graves probably have just not been found. If I remember correctly though about the Bactrians, they did not expose their dead like the native American indians did. I believe they were a inhumation-based culture. The Sarmatians were as well.

I would agree whole-heartedly with you, but the amount of artifacts which have been found there point to different facts. Whole headdresses of horses have been found at Vindolanda. Mounds of leather shoes have been found as well. To mount on top of this, remnants of horse hair and Centurion headdress have been found. The ground at Vindolanda I have discovered to be prime for the preservation of artifacts. There is a lot of water there. I will grant you that, but the conditions almost seem to be like a bog in nature. I remember from my experiences in Northern Germany that the bogs preserve everything. The ground along the Vindolanda, Birdoswald, and Chesters section seems to be prime for preservation. In fact, at Chesters Fort they have found remains. Not as many as I theorize they should have found, but many. I do know that many of the auxillaries serving at those forts and those areas were still pagan all the way up to the Roman pullout in 410. I wonder if cremation was a big thing up there? The question comes then, were the bones ground up and disposed of, or did something happen chemically after the cremation that caused the bones to break down? Again, where would the pyres have taken place, and where are the remains? So many questions, sorry.

Does anyone here go to or know a school where one can do their PhD in Roman Archaeology or Classical Studies in the U.S.A? I saw a university online at Leicester, U.K., but I am not sure about the price. What is the going cost on doing a PhD?

I spent some time at Vindolanda this summer doing research. One question that has plagued me since my return to the United States is, where are all the graves? Over the course of a couple hundred years thousands of people would have been buried or burned up there. Where are their remains? They have a few grave stones, but nothing to warrant many bodies. And plus, the tombs are all of officers and rich women. The bodies were obviously not deported back to their homes. The burial of the well to do is evidence of that. So where did they go?

From what I gathered, the place they stayed in was like the American White House. Each emperor did what he wanted to the place. Augustus had pretty simple tastes. In fact, in his later years he let his appearance go. On the other hand, Nero went nutts with materialism. Trajan levelled a hill to make his market. The emperors were all different for the most part. Some humble, and some not-so humble.

I would have to say they just had to stop. It is like a balloon. You can only blow it up so far before it pops. The same with the Romans or anyone else. Also, what do you stand to gain by conquering endless sand and pine trees? Remember, a large part of Germany, especially the northern part was swampy. It was an untamed land. Why would you want that? Plus, there comes a point when it is just not efficient. Look at the legion counts when the emperors you mentioned had those extra lands. Caesar Augustus originally had around fifty legions, which he then cut down to around 25-27. He put a cap on it like America's George Washington did with his terms of presidency. He also stated that the borders of Rome should never progress past those he created. But look what happened. Cladius conquered Britain. Trajan conquered ungodly amounts of land and people. And Hadrian gave most of it back. Why did he give it back? It was too much to handle without a valuable reason for keeping it. Does this make sense? I hiked Hadrian's Wall this summer and visited a ton of arch. sites. I can tell you, the Romans were only interested in prime real estate. The area around Hadrian's Wall was pushing it.

It could have been as well that since Virgil was penniless due to the Battle of Phillipi, he saw this as a way to get back some of the money he lost. Remember, he was not a slave. He was actually paid to do this. As was Ovid, and we all remember what happened to him. BANISHMENT! Not because he didn't write, but because he did write. Plus, was Virgil's family name on Anthony's list or Octavius?

I would imagine the Romans would have had forts or stations in the far north. It is not impossible to see. I have a book I bought in Germany called Der Romische Limes. On the map there, they show forts extending to the left-hand side of Denmark. Plus you have to figure, there comes a point where you have to ask yourself, "What the heck is there here that worth conquering"? All the Romans would have had up there was pine trees, pissed off people, and desolation. Not a good place for a soothing bath.

I would want to have been a Centurion in the Army. Just a beginning Centurion. I wouldn't have to come from a rich family or anything. Then I would have served in every legion I could have gotten into. Minus the three that were slaughtered in Germania.

The stirrup didn't take root until the time of Charlemagne. He adopted the use of it from the eastern cultures. That is what allowed his heavy cavalry to be so destructive, which gave way to his freeing of France.