Germanicus
-
Posts
827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Germanicus
-
-
It's a very hard "what if" to answer. There are so many variables. I think Sparticus' question is more like - If there was an AMICABLE Rome-Carthage pact - that was workable - what would the outcome have been in terms of expansion, trade and Governance ? Most of Sparticus speculation involved expanded borders and conquest. I agree that it sounds illogical, but then an agreement for military co-operation between Germany and Japan would have sounded pretty unlikely considering their totally differnt cultures, and yet - it happened.
-
As the paterfamilias had the right of life or death over his entire family - how could woman have any real rights ? I think it was a PP said, women had influence throught their husbands and sons for the most part, with minimal protection from the state from major abuses. That being said there were elements of religeon that gave certain women power - the Vestal virgins and the festival of bona dea, that men other than the Pontifex Maximus really had no power over.
-
Did the velites throw pilum as their long range attack or some other kind of spear ?
Regarding the celts - I agree with you, they were highly sophisticated in a lot of ways. I think the RTW representation is probably as accurate as they could make it. Particulary the British, who I believe did actually fight naked and were heavily tattooed.
-
Silentium,
Yes, if I had been born in Iraq I would probably not be writing this. But I think for those who live in the west, it is hard to justify not taking responsibility for ones own circumstances. "Luck" is something intangible, that is not supernatural in my opinion, merely a random convergence of events that happen to bring about an outcome. What is considered ":good luck" for the lottery winner, is "bad luck" for the other entrants. But this is really getting into mathematics, rather than Roman belief in spirits...sorry
-
Now that Spartacus is an interesting question ! I believe that people who had psycological problems were generally cared for by the Romans, who learnt all they knew from the Greeks. A lot of doctors in Rome were actually Greek. The treatments depending on the symtoms I guess were things like changing diet, exercise, and use of sedatives. I think in terms of reaction to violence though (how old were boys enlisted into the legions ?) that the more the exposure the less effect it would have on the soldier mentally, other than to deaden his senses to it. This would probably have insulated battle hardened legionaries. When initially exposed when young, particularly after they started using the plebecite to build armies, I think the boys may have already seen a bit of melee and bloodshed. Was there a legal age for entry into the arena to see the games ? Another thing that I believe plays a large part in producing shock and trauma in modern soldiers is the noise involved in present day warfare. What was the noise on a Roman battlefield like I wonder. Yelling, screaming, the clash of shields and arrows/pilum on shields, horns and trumpets ? I don't think it would have been so loud as to burst an eardrum, unlike artillery firing all around you or explosives going off and machine gun fire.
-
I don't know a lot about the Carthagenian empire Zeke. So Carthage had quite good relations with Macedonia and Greece ? Do you know if they were involved at all in concert with the Romans over Syracuse ? Do you think Roman culture would have influenced Carthageian culture to much of an extent if the two had signed some sort of military treaty - to co-operate ? Would it have been a melding of the two ? The Romans were pretty extensive traders too. More trading between provinces in the end though I suppose, rather than foreign nations ?
-
Sure thing pp. noted.
Germanicus
-
Hi Dogmatix, never heard that before, can't imagine the scared, superstitious roman seamen crossing all that ocean. Sounds like a hoax to me.
-
-
Thanks Skenderbeg,
In the battle at Zama, Hannibal's frontline started running away the second it saw hastitii pull out their pillumsWow, the hastitii must have been pretty accurate to generate that kind of fear in an enemy.
The pictures are great as is your infomation.
Were the commands the general was giving relayed by word of mouth or by some sort of flag system like in later warfare ? Word of mouth doesn't seem plausible ?
Germanicus
-
I read the Gates of Rome also, and if I knew nothing of the historical record regarding Julius Caesar, may have found it entertaining. As it was, like primuspilus, I couldn't get past the glaring inaccuracy. It's more like formula written fantasy than a historical novel. Just a few months research on the topic and the author could have made it worth reading.
-
It's interesting that the article mentions that Romans had no tradition of decapitation - I know they chopped off heads to use the heads themselves as proof of death. I've also heard that Trajans soldiers are suspected of engaging in head hunting during the Dacian campaigns, as evidenced by some of the reliefs on his colunmn. But then, 49 people in a cemetary??
-
haven't seen ultimate fighting, but I have heard about it, sounds dangerous - do people die in the ring or get permenantly maimed ?. People often comment that competative sport replaces combat for todays males, but unless that sport is full contact and violent, I can't see how one can fill in for the other. In one you are under iminant threat of violence and death, in the other you or your team are in danger of losing the match. Not really the same thing.
-
I have not read a lot of general military books, and while passingly familiar with tactics/formations used by the Roman military, mostly from major historical battle descriptions, I have no idea what sort of advantage the Legions had over "barbarian" nations in terms of the hardware they used. I know the gladius was suited to their way of fighting, but was the steel in it, and the armour superior ? How did the Gallic sword match up ? Also, with regard to artillery, did the Gauls employ catapults and scorpions like the Romans ? I can't recall Caesar mentioning it in his commentary and would like to know.
-
Sorry, no I don't live near any Roman sites, decidedly younger. I'm in Australia.
-
I find it interesting to think about what came first, and I think you're right Ursus in what you say about Etruscan origins. I also think that Roman society was highly militaristic, with, particularly after the Marius reforms, a high percentage of male citizens having been in the army. I am no shrink, but judging by the way the semi detatched(comparitively) combat of today can effect soldiers and indeed, the way violence can effect anyone long term, I think all these factors contributed to create a society that could watch 300 days of gladatorial games per year and hundreds if not thousands of lives end in a bloody mess on the arena floor, without flinching.
All that being said, sad as it may seem, I can envisage there being a market in our own time for just such entertainment....hell there probably are such things going on, right now
-
As I understood it there were actually a few treatys if not "pacts" between Rome and Carthage before the showdown ? I could be wrong, but feel the two were somehow linked in the destruction of Syracuse. Feel free to correct me here.
I would agree with you Spartacus on the count that if these pacts had been perhaps more amicable and longer lasting, the outcome of a number of Romes wars could have been very different, with undoubted major expansion as a result. There is however one point I connot agree with :-
prosperity would come to all citizens of both Carthage and Rome, virtually eliminating the poor and lower classesI can't envisage this ever happening back then, just as I can't see it happening in my lifetime. I guess it depends on your definition of "virtually" eh ?? :punk:
-
FYI Jetjon, Hannibal didn't lose and get executed. He lost and somehow ended up serving a foreign king as an advisor. Can't remember which king though.
-
Yes Jetjon, I think that's a better question too. I think, and even hope, that your opinion is closely aligned with my own, in that Caesar was not a despotic man intent upon kingship or dictatorship in the long term. He was ahead of his time in his recognition of the plebians as a potentially powerfull political force to be nurtured, rather than stamped out and stood over, as the Senate continually sought to do through assassination of the brothers Grachi and the proscription lists of Sulla to name a couple. It was Caesar who restored the office of tribune of the plebs to it's rightful position, rolling back Sullas Patrician focused reforms, he did this despite facing massive opposition from, among others , Cicero.
To the actual question:- I guess if Caesar had never lived we would have been waiting a long time for an accurate calendar. As PP suggests, Augustus, who I believe did not follow or was not aware of Caesars actual intentions for the republic would probably never have come to power, but I think the vacuum left without Caesars presence during that time would have been filled by a member or members of the optimate faction. The tribunate would never have regained the powers originally lost to Sulla. The republic, as it was, would have failed anyway, to be replaced by a dictatorship or military junta of sorts.(whether Empire, Kingdom etc etc). Control would have been entirely in the hands of the patrician class.....again. With regard to Gaul, who can say ? I can't think of too many other Generals with the daring and intelligence to accomplish what Caesar did at Alesia ???
All just my opinion of course, and I have a lot more reading to do......
-
Hi Spartacus, yes, familiar with the term and point taken - and thats what I mean. One is largely responsible for ones own circumstances - no spirit or ancestors involved.
-
Ancestor worship seems to me to be the thing that drove all the greats of Rome to such heights.
But no, I can't say I believe there's anyone, spirits or angels watching over me. If there were, I'd have to wonder why I am stuck in an office cube 9 hours a day, those lousy spirits should be sorting out a nice, cushy, well paid job for me. Maybe it was them that put me onto this site......
-
Awesome Spartacus, you truly are a king among slaves !
Once I've got the itinery worked out I will get you to fill me in as you suggest, thankyou !
-
I and am an office worker in Australia. I have been getting increasingly interested in all things Roman over the last two years, and like primuspilus, try to read anything I can get my hands on. I live in Melbourne. No kids. 30 years old. I found the forum when searching for something I don't already know about Caesar(the first ), and pleasantly found that there's still plenty to learn. I've been trying to wean myself off Rome Total War, as all my spare time was dissappearing into it. I like the friendly nature of most of the posts I've seen, and living in Australia, it's a great way to speak to people who actually live near Roman sites I've only dreamt about seeing.
-
I am heading to the UK followed By Italy in the Summer. I'll stay in Rome of course, but would like to know if anyones been to Hadrians Villa ?
And Spartacus - Is Bath worth a visit ?? I'm in the UK for two weeks.
Romanization
in Imperium Romanorum
Posted
Roman ideas, and consequentially Greek ideas were also spread through the provinces by the Legions - and by settlement of veterans in newly pacified lands. Legionaries gaurding the Rhine and Danube for example, often had wives and consequentially children in the neighbouring populations, and most major Military bases had surrounding settlements poulated by these families. This intermixing/marriages would have surely had some influence. The roads and infrastructure certainly would have helped spread roman and greek views/ways of seeing the world, and many Roman ideas were then carried beyond the fall of Rome itself by the Roman Catholic Church who preserved their language. It is interesting just how much you can tell about a culture from the language.