longshotgene
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by longshotgene
-
-
Thanks guys for the info. The premis of my paper is the history of the Ancient Greek war machine, and how one of the reasons the Greek states fell was due to stagnancy in the military. The phalanx was an outdated formation. The Greeks insisted on using. The Macedonians insisted on using it. They continued making the same spear bigger and longer. It kind of reminds me of the German Me-109 during World War II. For its time during the Spanish Civil War and the Battle of Britain, it was a fine machine. But the Germans wouldn't let the design die. They kept modifying it, which eventually led to more deaths. Back to the original point, I want to show that this lack of change amongst other things led to the eventual outflanking and defeat manuever by the Romans. I think I can prove all of this, but I need to get the details. That is why I thought I would ask the pros. Thank you for the help by the way.
-
So what would have been the first major battle the Greeks lost to the Romans? I am starting my paper, and have been searching for this battle, but cannot find it. I know there was one major battle that showed the end of Greek supremacy.
-
Actually the name Nero was quite common. If you look where Nero is placed, that is not his family name. If I remember correctly, Nero was more or less a nickname. Kind of like Maximus, Caesar, etc. These names all connotated something special about that person. The first name was the name he would have been given as a child. Gaius, Sextus, Octavius, etc. The second name would be the family name, Julii, Claudii, Brutii, Tarquinii, etc. Does this make sense?
-
Does anyone know when the first alleged Greek and Roman battle took place? I thought it might have been the battle of Pydna, but was unsure. Also, when did the Greeks finally submit to the Romans?
-
If I remember correctly though, Sulla was given the same opportunity as Caesar. His term as dictator set a new precedent. He too had no time limit like Caesar. He did in fact resign from his position. But he did not have to do so.
-
Not really. Britons and vikings had the same culture while inca were in the bronze age. The huge difference allowed 180 spaniards to conquer the empire without losing a single man in the first stages.
Anyway there were no inca around 1000 AD. They started 2 centuries later.
Actually the huge difference was the fact that when the Inca were visited by the stinky white man, they were in a state of Civil War. The Inca could have easily whomped on the Spaniards except for two reasons besides this. One-Incan warriors fought like European athletes played sports. Strictly one on one. There was no unified body. Soldier would fight soldier in combat. There was no team work. And they played sports like the Europeans like the Europeans fought. See the irony? Two the biggest thing of them all, the Incan population had been decimated by that great European addition, Small Pox! But the Incans did strike back with syphillis.
-
^ Some say one century, some say two. However, I've always been intrigued by the Incas, and I've ofen wondered how mystical really were they. If we were to believe a very respectable gentleman, Bill Sullivan, the Inca Empire should never have existed and that its only purpose was to change its faith: according to a profecy of Wirracocha Inca in 1432 the Empire will be destroyed as a result of heavy raining. Now, Pachacuti Inca, Wirracocha's son, rejected his father's profecy, but also accepted it. And thus started secret ceremonies like capa cocha during the winter solstice, which involved human sacrifice, especially children. They thought that the childer's soul was pure, and they were the only ones who could travel to their ancestors and convince them to change their faith. ( or so I've heard
)Strictly speaking, "Inca" was the title of their ruler, like "Emperor" at Rome. The ethnic group is Quechua (their endonym is Runa, "people") and the official name of the "empire" was Tawantisuyu ("four regions").
Actually the emperor was called the "Sapa Inca".
-
Actually the name of the bone you are looking for is coincidentally called the "Inca" bone. This bone is actually found on anyone with Asian decadency. That is how we know the Native Americans are descendants of the Asians. However, there is a strange anomaly in the U.S. Along the eastern coast, all the way up to Virginia; there have been found the remains of several Caucasian bodies. These bodies actually predate the Asian Native Americans by several thousand years. Now that is interesting!
-
From what I always read his order of battle was not very orderly, according to the Parthians. The idiot followed a guide who ended up leading him right into the hands of the enemy. It was like shooting ducks in a pickly barrel. The Romans never had a chance. Then when Crassus son lost his head, it really hit the fans. This is one of those battles that the Romans definetely did not like to brag about. It would be like the United States bragging about the Vietnam War. Not a good thing. The problem with Crassus was his rich arrogance. He believed because he had money, that he could be victorious in battle. If I remember correctly, Caesar was very hurt by having to give up a couple legions. But then again, Crassus was jealous of the victories of Pompey and Caesar. He felt he had to make a name for himself. To answer your question, I doubt there really was a battle order. Every time the Romans would advcance, the Parthians would feign a retreat, and shoot over their shoulders. The Romans steadily died of thirst and arrows. When there were few left, I imagine the Parthians either sold them into slavery, or murdered them as a reminder to Rome.
-
Say you were living during the Pax Romana. Where would you have called your home? I would have called Brindisi my home. Beautiful country with an easy going atmosphere.
-
But if this is the case of Caesar being the first Emperor, then he surely is not. Other men came before him and assumed the role of Dictator. Are we not forgetting Sulla? What about the several men who took up the reins during the tragedy of Spartacus? They all accepted the title, 'Imperator'. As has been stated, Imperator just means General. Dictator was someone who came into power in times of crisis. Caesar was just the man to do that. The lands of Rome had just finished a Civil War, and were recovering. Another one was about to begin. I would have to disagree with those who say he was the first Emperor. The emperors ruled for their life until the time of Diocletian, when he put a cap on the term. Hence, Caesar was given a term for 10 years. Another point I think that needs to be made. Don't confuse the real Iulius Caesar with the Shakespearean version. There are several differences.
-
During a streak on Eureka while sitting on the white porcelin god, I had an epiphany. Did the Roman Empire really fall? Much like the Mafia in the U.S., I think it did not. It just changed directions. Instead of having an emperor, you now have the Pope. The Diocese concept from Diocletian still exists to today. I have numerous times over where it says the Barbarian controlled the church. Wasn't it the other way around? Who got the Kings of Europe to join in on a crusade? Who commands the religious obediance of almost a billion people around the WORLD? I have now taken a new view on Rome (Western Half) and have come to the conclusion it never did fall. It realigned its direction from that of a military superpower to that of a religious superpower.
-
In my research, the saddest part of the sacrifice of the children was the wearing of metallic jewelry. Even though they may look peaceful, they generally were blasted by lightning. The jewelry turned them into gigantic lightning rods. Check the photos. You will see black marks around the hands, neck, and ankles were jewelry was. Quite sad really.
-
I believe you guys discredit the human race a little too much. Have you ever heard of the Inuit people? The Inuit live in purely icy conditions. They live off of raw meat from seals, or fish. Hence the derogatory name white people have given them, "Eskimos". I think the people would have been a little more nomadic than permanent, but that is my opinion. The Inuit brave temperatures up to 75 below zero. The original inhabitants of Scotland, which most likely were not Scots, would have done the same.
-
Hello everyone,
I thought I would pose this new question to you. I am getting ready to write a research paper for my classical studies major. The topic is on the Fall of Rome. However, I propose that the fall actually began with the introduction of foreign emperors: namely Trajan and Hadrian. By looking at the research I will show that Trajan expanded the empire into a position it could not hold. Hadrian came along and realized this, and gave most of what Trajan conquered back to the original owners. To mount this, he created a frontier border system, which was the first true sign that the empire had realized its limitations. By doing this, Hadrian began a defensive position in the Empire, and no longer was it an offensive position. I realize the same could be said during the reign of Augustus, but Augustus never set up a gigantic defensive perimeter. Besides, most of Rome's would be enemies were terrified of Rome. Hadrian actually set up man-made defenses, which clearly stated the fear Rome felt. Yes, future emperors did attempt to expand, but all it did was stretch the already thin troop supply even thinner. Tell me what you think.
-
Hello everyone,
I am getting ready to write a research paper for my Classical Greek Studies class and was curious if you all could give me some feedback on my topic.
Topic: Decline of the Greek Hero throughout the history of ancient Greece.
Primary Objective of the Paper-I am working to prove that the concept of the Greek Hero (Achilles, Jason, etc.) started to disappear more and more as the Greeks neared the dawn of Macedonian takeover. Once the Romans come on the scene, the Greek Hero has become more of a myth or legend than a reality. According to documented works, these individuals all existed, however time has erased who these individuals were, and left us only with the exaggerated myth.
Sources-Anything you guys could recomend on the topic. I have numerous sources myself, but I didn't know if any of you could recomend any books that would hit on this type of historical character or topic? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-
Why do many teachers of Social Studies and History confuse Julius Caesar for being an emperor? I have had numerous students come to me and swear up and down he was in fact the first Roman Emperor.
-
Caldrail, you say being a farmer or hunter would have been tricky back then. Why on God's Green Earth would you waste man-power hours to create a giant circle, out of stone no less, to view the rising of the sun? I keep hearing that the stars would have been brighter and the sun would have been brighter. The individuals who say this make it sound like it was day light when it was night time. Now I do remember from my travels that there is a lot of twilight in the U.K., especially the farther north you go. I just cannot accept a theory that men who just emerged from the caves would waster valuable time erecting a giant stone circle so they could tell the seasons. Do you guys think Avebury was used for the same purposes as well? In a circle the sun is always going to rise from one point and settle in another. The heel stones could have been added a little later. Also, the henge is not far from a river, which could also add to the defensive theory. In fact, if you look at the geography it is possible the river could have been situated much closer to the henge. This would also explain the 'water being under the henge' theory. It would be possible since the henge sits on higher ground than the basin of the river, that there is an underground supply of fresh water. If the ancients knew this, it could be possible that the henge once housed a well of some sort. I have heard theories about the henges we have in the U.S. of being star worship centers. I think these are nothing more than fanciful theories created by tree huggers from the sixties. We are a war like people today. There is no reason to believe that the people back then would have been flower toting peace lovers. What sense would it make to abandon your worship center to seek refuge in a hill fort? If this were the case, I as an approaching enemy would have pulled the stones down, and burnt the wood poles that stood around it, all in plain site of the helpless natives who locked themselves in a fort. To top it off, when they came back to rebuild the fort, I would launch another attack, and bury them in their worship center. Just my thoughts. This is kind of interesting. You are making me work harder to defend my theory.
-
I was thinking about this the other day. Comparing defenses from the Rhine and Hadrian's Wall I have noticed their are slight differences. My question is, were the Romans ever heavily influenced by the cultures that surrounded them to adopt different architecture techniques? When they were in the east, did they still only build their watch towers from stone and wood, or did they adopt the adobe type construction? Just curious.
-
I don't know about the whole past thing being greater in the UK necessarily. If it wasn't for a bunch of europeans spreading disease, religion and many other pestilences across North America, there might be more 'History' around. By the way, is top soil really two feet think in northern England? The people I saw digging were digging deep.
-
It just seems kind of primitive in the approach. I have excavated in numerous layers of strata and never once use a shovel to remove the dirt. It has always been hands and knees with hand tools. You cannot afford to damage anything of value.
-
Or could it be the famous amphitheatre in Orange? They hold a lot of concerts there.
-
I know what one that is! It is the Bosra Amphitheatre. It is the best preserved one in the world. You will have to try harder than that!
-
Is that the Roman amphitheatre in Athens, Greece?
Hadrian
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
I would have to say Hadrian was a great emperor. He knew the limitations of the Roman Empire. Trajan expanded the borders, and Hadrian contracted them. The reason he never put on games in Rome was because he was hardly ever there. I think according to the biography written on Hadrian, he was only ever in Rome twice. I did find that he liked spending a lot of time in Greece and the near east, but does this make him a bad emperor? He was bi-sexual as were all but about 6 emperors, does this make him bad? He lashed out at certain people. Does this make him bad? I think we criticize a culture we are not part of too harshly. I would have to say that Hadrian was an excellent emperor. No other emperor spent more time going through out the empire strengthening its borders, and making it aesthetically more beautiful. And honestly, what Roman emperor ever cared about the peasants? I mean they cared about them not revolting, and paying their taxes. But what emperor actually gave a rat's rear about the vulgar? I have been to the Pantheon, Hadrian's Wall, the Limes of the Rhine as well as many other places Hadrian frequented. For that time period, the man would have covered a heck of a lot of land. I can't really remember an American president having done this except during election time.