Arduumresgestasscriber

My book says he was able to bribe Roman senators?! Why would Roman senators accept money from him? Or was that demagoguery excuses? Did the Roman senators have no better place to get clean graft?biggrin.gif "War broke out between Numidia and the Roman Republic and several legions were dispatched to North Africa under the command of the Consul Quintus Caecilius Metellus. The war dragged out into a long and seemingly endless campaign as the Romans tried to inflict a decisive defeat on Jugurtha." from wikipedia My book says that there were rumors about Metellus dragging out the war just to be commander in chief for a prolonged period of time. My book says this is clearly false, though it did not give that many reasons. In Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine did enlengthen the war for personal gain. I suppose there were historical precedents. So when do we know it is inability of the general and not shrewd calculation?

Crassus. I want to ask him if he has any hidden treasure buried anywhere..."I build a monument for you 2000 years later sir, if you just tell me where X is on the map."

Supposing you were leading the revolting side circa 90 BC. You could A) Attack other areas that are still allies to Rome and force them to join the insurgency Lay siege to Rome's fortresses C) ??? Which one would you choose and why? I have some problem figuring out what would be the best decision for the Italia.

Yes, I know this appears to be a rather odd combination but hear me out... In "History of Rome" by Theodore Mommsen, he states that Marius was never a populist so to speak(he was never exceptionally close to the proletariat, but was just of a just and fair nature), but due to being rather "coarse" and despised by the more refined aristocracy, he was pushed forward as the champion of the Populares. But in the same book as above, it states that Marius was not a competent politician, and therefore he tried to take a middle path between the old aristocratic families, the moneyed elite/merchants and the proletariat and led to the destruction of his movement. However, I dispute this statement. Gracchus, especially Tiberius, was a hardliner reformer. Of course in the latter stages he did so in order to gain protection from the elite he had challenged. But his hardline reforms actually led to death and an even more divided republic. So... Moderate reforms or hardline diehards? Where do we draw the line? Any other examples in Roman history?

I think the ability of calvary as an actual effective battle unit is overrated(at least in the earlier periods), a man on the ground with a spear can attack more effectively than the mounted man with a sword. I think the major impact of calvary is causing chaos in the enemy's lines, causing the lines to break and perhaps force a rout. My example would be the Battle at Pharsalus. So the major impact of the defeat of Lebianus's calvary would be morale and confusion. Any comments?

Whatever happened to Pompey Magnus the GREAT in literal terms?

I'd be prophet. People would rever me as the greatest prophet till 4/29/2008 AD where my prophecies end(and the rest after those suddenly start becoming inaccurate:D)

I see no one has mentioned General. I won't feint modesty. Units, MARCH!