Maximus_Superbus_Bongus
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Maximus_Superbus_Bongus
-
-
I thought it was Brutus' brother who was quaestor in Gaul at that time? I know when Caesar was killed he was. AM I wrong?
Regardless of the circumstance, I just don't find it unreasonable that Caesar would've offered a position to Brutus. Perhaps it was shrewd, perhaps it was at the request of Servilia, perhaps the source is wrong, perhaps it was cunning, or perhaps it was simply one more of many head scratching moments by Caesar. -
I read Tacitus annals a while ago and plan on a refrsher because I forgot alot of his annals. But from what I remember Germanicus was beloved by the Legions. He must of had some good virtue for this to be so. And I also think I remember Tactitus saying "he was beloved by the romans".paraphrase. AM I remembering my studies wrong?
As for mediocrity, I think any man who refuses the purple and honors Augustus' wishes is a great man, at least morally. How many generals plundered and cast Rome into Civil War for this very reason?As I said before much of Germanicus "greatness" is a result of the anti-Tiberian attitude of historians, true Tacitus say that the German legion support him: "For the memory of Drusus was held in honour by the Roman people, and they believed that had he obtained empire, he would have restored freedom. Hence they regarded Germanicus with favour and with the same hope" (Annales, 1.33) however from other comments this assessment seem baseless:
"As soon as he touched on the mutiny and asked what had become of soldierly obedience, of the glory of ancient discipline, whither they had driven their tribunes and centurions, they all bared their bodies and taunted him with the scars of their wounds and the marks of the lash. And then with confused exclamations they spoke bitterly of the prices of exemptions, of their scanty pay, of the severity of their tasks, with special mention of the entrenchment, the fosse, the conveyance of fodder, building-timber, firewood, and whatever else had to be procured from necessity, or as a check on idleness in the camp. The fiercest clamour arose from the veteran soldiers, who, as they counted their thirty campaigns or more, implored him to relieve worn-out men, and not let them die under the same hardships, but have an end of such harassing service, and repose without beggary. Some even claimed the legacy of the Divine Augustus, with words of good omen for Germanicus, and, should he wish for empire, they showed themselves abundantly willing. Thereupon, as though he were contracting the pollution of guilt, he leapt impetuously from the tribunal. The men opposed his departure with their weapons, threatening him repeatedly if he would not go back. But Germanicus protesting that he would die rather than cast off his loyalty, plucked his sword from his side, raised it aloft and was plunging it into his breast, when those nearest him seized his hand and held it by force. The remotest and most densely crowded part of the throng, and, what almost passes belief, some, who came close up to him, urged him to strike the blow, and a soldier, by name Calusidius, offered him a drawn sword, saying that it was sharper than his own. Even in their fury, this seemed to them a savage act and one of evil precedent, and there was a pause during which Caesar's friends hurried him into his tent." (Annales, 1.35)
Despite the claims of support for him as an emperor we could see that the main claims of the legion was their bad service conditions and when Germanicus "threaten" to end his life it's hardly raise a shock among the troops, hardly a reaction you would expect if Germanicus was indeed their knight in shining armor, in sharp contrast the prestige of his wife Agrippina and toddler son Gaius was greater than his (Tacitus, Annales, 1.41).
In the end Germanicus only manage to get a hold over the legions by surrendering to their demands (Tacitus, Annales, 1.37).
As for his battles, they all seem to have gone well. His objectives were met, Arminius defanged, and the lost standards recovered. There were some losses, but that is war. Tiberius ended the Campaigns in Germania, most likely out of jealousy or fear of his adopted son's rising popularity and fame. So he did not leave in defeat.And again while Tacitus is hostile to Tiberius and sympathize with Germanicus he doesn't hide the great failures of his campaigns against the Germans (for example see Annales, 2.8) and at best we could say his campaigns had mixed results (another example is Annales, 1.55-74) the hostile Tacitus condemn the recalling of Germanicus by Tiberius, but in fact it was the continuation of Augustus policy not to get involved in a long costly war over territory which the benefits to Rome from it are extremely small.
As for Piso, I think Germanicus was just too fair and eager to follow the rules, for his own good. With men like Piso, you cant reason.Germanicus behavior in the east was deplorable, he dressed as a greek and flatter the natives (Tacitus, Annales, 2.59), he receive golden crown from the Nabatean king (Annales 2.57) not exactly a behavior worthy of a proper Roman.
Inqsoc. Would Germanicus have been in control of Syria, or Piso as Governor? I am not certain. I would love to see what resources each had at their disposal.Germanucs was given Maius Imperium in the eastern provinces, this mean that in any such province all of the other Roman officials are subjected to his authority. Piso was no different, however Germanicus seem to lack the talent to bend him to his will and make his follow his commands and orders.
-
Alot can be said about every Person mentioned in this thread. But they are all great in their own ways. Caesar was great. Pompey's name says it all and Brutus even. Remember history is written most times by the victors so it is always in their favour and against their foes.
Brutus was hands down a great Roman and gets a bad rap. What he and Cassius and the others wanted was to save the republic. I think if Brutus and Cassius beat antony and Octavian people would have a different view of Brutus. Here was a Man who decided to betray one of his best friends, Caesar. Also he had the name Brutus and had that on his shoulders because it was his ancestor Lucius Brutus who killed the last king of Rome and ushered in the republic. If Brutus and Cassius came out on top I wonder how he would be veiwed. Would he still be the traitor or would he be the savoir of Rome? To bad Caesar was loved by the people. But Dictator for life? Caesar was king in all but name. His biggest error was not killing Brutus after Pompey was defeted. Instead he welcomed him back. If he executed Brutus the history could of changed. Or still Caesar would of been wcked out so to speak. Brutus indeed was a great Roman for trying to save the republic and not letting his feelings for his "Father figure" get in his way.Cicero and many other contemporaries seem to have thought like you, and certainly so did Plutarch. BTW, Cassius was presumably as great or bad Roman as Brutus (with the additional merit of an outstanding performance against Pacorus and his Parthians after Carrhae); even so, he usually gets even worse rap than Brutus.
Anyway, I would think great figures should be defined by their performance, not so much by their intentions. As it was, Cassius and Brutus transformed the relatively balanced peace under Caesar into an even worse Civil War than the last one.
Arguably, they should probably have killed Anthony and even Lepidus; even so, there is no way to predict where the allegiance of the Legions would have fallen. If Brutus and Cassius had beaten Anthony and Octavius, they would all still be remembered as the men responsible for the greatest Roman citizen slaughter ever at Philippi.
More important, we are again probably giving too much weight to individual performances for the Republican outcome; if the centuries-long Republic was eliminated at all, it must be concluded that it lacked the support of the Roman people as a whole.
Had Brutus been executed after Pharsalus, that would have hardly been compatible with the purported contemporizing intentions of Caesar after his victory. Besides, Cassius and the other Liberatores would presumably had still been on their way to magnicide.
I have always been a Caesar fan, and agree that he is probably Rome's most famous son.More and more, as I read and study his life, Africanus is becoming my favorite Roman, though.
Quite few people ever may be compared with the original Caesar on fame's magnitude.
Just be aware the more and more we read on Scipio Africanus Major, the more we read panegyrics; virtually no critical analysis of his figure survived from Classical times; one can only guess if that was the case for the lost Plutarch's biography.
-
Brutus was hands down a great Roman and gets a bad rap. What he and Cassius and the others wanted was to save the republic. I think if Brutus and Cassius beat antony and Octavian people would have a different view of Brutus. Here was a Man who decided to betray one of his best friends, Caesar. Also he had the name Brutus and had that on his shoulders because it was his ancestor Lucius Brutus who killed the last king of Rome and ushered in the republic. If Brutus and Cassius came out on top I wonder how he would be veiwed. Would he still be the traitor or would he be the savoir of Rome? To bad Caesar was loved by the people. But Dictator for life? Caesar was king in all but name. His biggest error was not killing Brutus after Pompey was defeted. Instead he welcomed him back. If he executed Brutus the history could of changed. Or still Caesar would of been wcked out so to speak. Brutus indeed was a great Roman for trying to save the republic and not letting his feelings for his "Father figure" get in his way.
I have always been a Caesar fan, and agree that he is probably Rome's most famous son.More and more, as I read and study his life, Africanus is becoming my favorite Roman, though.
-
I think they used piked, not sure, anyway the hastatii did as hastat means pike/spear.
Riiped from wikipedia.....I don't steal. Anyway>>>>Hastati (Singular: Hastatus) were a class of infantry in the armies of the early Roman Republic who originally fought as spearmen, and later as swordsmen. They were originally some of the poorest men in the legion, and could afford only modest equipment, comprised of light armour and a large shield, in their service as the lighter infantry of the legion. Later, the hastati contained the younger men rather than just the poorer, though most men of their age were relatively poor. Their usual position was the first battle line. They fought in a quincunx formation, supported by light troops. They were eventually done away with after the Marian reforms of 107 BC.
-
Thank you. I searched and searched for the answer before I posted. I thank you for you're time.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?s=&...ost&p=39308Basically, they are the two introductory ranks.
-
What does this mean where it says groups and then a class name next to it like pleb. What does this mean? It's a dumb question but I am new here please help.
-
I have a problem with the rich running and owning everything. So guess where I would be?
Moderate populare. I am fully for the Popularis cause but anything done to excess is problematic at best. I have a conservative streak but have no use for the "old blood", especially when all they do is squabble amongst themselves.
And how would you have had the senate conduct its business if it were not to debate matters? Were the right policies simply to emerge from the head of Jove, or is it possible that all that "squabbling" was actually productive and in the best interests of the republic?
Seeing that Athena sprouted form Joves head, maybe that would have been a good policy for the senate, figureatively speaking. Maybe if they had sprouted more wisdom and less wit they might have gotten someting done.
The best example I can think of is the B.S. where the Senate gave Scipio command of Sicilia knowing that he intended to invade Africa from there, but did not give him the right to levy troops. I don't know how they expected him to properly execute the war without men, and luckily for the republic he was able to find volunteers and the Cannae legions, without which all he would have had was Massinissa's Numidians (keep in mind that at this point Massinissa had no kingdom). It's that type of crap that caused the frustration of so many of Rome's greatest men, who were trying to help but were stifled by the "old men".
Aw, come on, Julius - it kept the Republic occupied for 500 years!Much like celebrities today.
-
I think you're right. And there is a difference between the tactics before and after the marian reforms.
Wasn't the Cohort just a structural unit until the "Marian reforms" ?"Marius exchanged the manipular formation for a different organization based on the cohort. There were precedents...in the war with Hannibal...but only as a temporary arrangement, and a "cohort" at this period may not have signified unit of a standard size." (the Roman army, Pat Southern, 2006) .
So, it is a Legion/Maniples against "Phalanx" at pydna and before
-
Very well said matt. When an army has a phalanx formation it is only prudent to have either cavalry and/or light infantry on the flanks. Alexander the Great was a master at utilizing the phalanx. I do wonder if you take Alexander the Greats best army and put it up against say Pompey's best or Caesars what the outcome would be.
Polybius took a long hard look at this. Basically, the situation appears to be this - a stationary phalanx can't be got at from the front - the legionaries just can't get past the sarissas (pikes. The Romans proved this against the Pontic phalanx at Charonea in the 80s BC. But if you are going to have a stationary phalanx, you need so)mething like Alexander's cavalry on the flanks. At Charonea, what the pontic phalanx got was Murena's legionaries after they had seen off the Pontic brazen shields after some broken field play on the Pontic right. And legionaries on a phalanx flank are like sharks in a school of tunny.On the other hand, a phalanx going forward can't match legionaries going backwards, as was shown in the Macedonian wars. In scenario 1 there is a macro dislocation, as at Cynoscephalae, when one phalanx went forward faster than its companion, allowing Romans to peel off the side of the legion retreating more slowly and hit the Macedonians of the faster moving phalanx in the rear. Or in scenario 2, there are micro-dislocations such as at Pydna, when the advancing phalanx slowly lost its coherent hedge of spears as some parts of the legion retreated faster and others were more stubborn. And as soon as the legionaries could get in through a break in the spear-hedge and amongst just one file of phalangites, the whole thing went to hell in a handbasket.
So generally, the phalanx was doomed standing still, because the Romans could thin their attacking lines and get around its flanks, and it was doomed going forward, because it was impossible to keep the lines perfectly dressed in a battle situation, even allowing for perfectly smooth terrain. And the phalanx had no reverse gear.
There's a book on the Macedonian wars by Pen & Sword coming out towards the end of the year that examines the matter in some detail.(By the bloke who did the Mithridatic wars for them last year, I believe.)
-
I think in a flat ground fight 1 on 1 head to head with good weather the Phalanx has the advantage. They have 16-18 foot sarisa's! The only way I can see a cohort beating the Phalanx is using a wide formation and getting to their sides and rear. The phalanx has to use team work but the cohort can spread out and/or split into 2 or 3 sub units. I think head to head the phalanx takes it but who fights that way? In a real contest the cohort would win because they can attacker all sides at once if they break into sub-formations. Anyone have any thoughts on my opinion?
-
test
Hello. I am new to these fourums so if my question is out of place please tell me.I was always facsinated with this question. Now one on one. 1 cohort of Legionnaires versus 1 unit of silver pikemen. Who has the advantage? Now the cohort has mobility and the phalanx has reach. With no cavalry to support the cohort can they overcome the Phalanx? What do you think? And I am talking late republic cohorts.
Livy's verdict was definitive:
"(The Macedonians) were armed with round shields and long spears, the Romans had the large shield called the scutum, a better protection for the body, and the javelin, a much more effective weapon than the spear whether for hurling or thrusting. In both armies the soldiers fought in line rank by rank, but the Macedonian phalanx lacked mobility and formed a single unit; the Roman army was more elastic, made up of numerous divisions, which could easily act separately or in combination as required."
-
Right now I am reading Titus livius' History of Rome. I do need to brush up on Appians' "On the macedonian wars" There's just to much damn stuff to read. I must of read a million things and feel I have not even scratched the surface. Anyway the matchup between the phalanx and the cohort always facsinated me.
Hello. I am new to these fourums so if my question is out of place please tell me.I was always facsinated with this question. Now one on one. 1 cohort of Legionnaires versus 1 unit of silver pikemen. Who has the advantage? Now the cohort has mobility and the phalanx has reach. With no cavalry to support the cohort can they overcome the Phalanx? What do you think? And I am talking late republic cohorts.
Livy's verdict was definitive:
"(The Macedonians) were armed with round shields and long spears, the Romans had the large shield called the scutum, a better protection for the body, and the javelin, a much more effective weapon than the spear whether for hurling or thrusting. In both armies the soldiers fought in line rank by rank, but the Macedonian phalanx lacked mobility and formed a single unit; the Roman army was more elastic, made up of numerous divisions, which could easily act separately or in combination as required."
-
On flat grassland and in clear weather.
There's a lot to consider. What sort of ground are they fighting on? Who has higher ground? Where is the sun? What weather prevails?In general, the phalanx is fairly formidable provided you meet them head on without missile support (I mean ancient missiles
). Thats why the Romans adopted it earlier to your chosen period. The cohort has a lot of tactical flexibility the phalanx doesn't. That's why the Romans dropped the pikes when they realised just how vulnerable the phalanx can be. -
Hello. I am new to these fourums so if my question is out of place please tell me.
I was always facsinated with this question. Now one on one. 1 cohort of Legionnaires versus 1 unit of silver pikemen. Who has the advantage? Now the cohort has mobility and the phalanx has reach. With no cavalry to support the cohort can they overcome the Phalanx? What do you think? And I am talking late republic cohorts.
-
I have always been facsinated with Germanicus. I think he could of been a great leader. He had many good quLITIES FROM WHAT I read. Also, I read he died of natural causes but that Tiberius was suspected of poisoning him. We will never know the truth.
Hello everyone. I was just wondering if the sources said anything about who murdered Germanicus? I don't think it was Caligula. Not sure though, but he wiould had been a young boy at the time. What do you all think happened to him and who did it? I believe it could have been poison that killed him. Not sure.
Brutus and Caesar in 53 BC
in Res Publica
Posted
Wait I thought it was decimus who was the 3rd to strike Caesar and also convinced him to go to the senate. And I thought His brother was in gaul? I am feeling very ignorant now. need to look and read on this.....again for the 13th time.
"
<Pulled from wikipedia>
On the Ides of March (March 15), when Caesar decided not to attend the Senate meeting due to the concerns of his wife, Calpurnia, Decimus Brutus persuaded him to go, dismissing Calpurnia's concerns. When Caesar arrived in Pompey's theatre for the Roman Senate meeting, Decimus and the rest of the conspirators attacked and assassinated him. According to Nicolaus of Damascus, Decimus Brutus was the third to strike Caesar, stabbing him in the side
It was Marcus Junius Brutuswho is the celebrated Conspirator?.I got the 2 confused because of their names. But what I wrote below was pulled from wiki. OKay. I am now being confused. Even reading wikipedia is confusing me. They have the 2 mixed up it seems also. Even in the HBO show rome I thought it was Decimus brutus who with Cassius did the deed. Read these 2 links and tell me what's going on please? IN one it say's Decimus Did the final blow and also convinced Caesar to go into the senate. IN the Marcus Brutus link it says simply "Brutus convinced him" referring to Marcus. Can anyone make this clear for me? I have read PLutarch's "Life Of marcus JUnius Brutus" SO I am not ignorant on the subject. It seems alot of people are confused by the 2 brothers also. Or just me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Junius_Brutus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Julius_Caesar
"
On the Ides of March (March 15), when Caesar decided not to attend the Senate meeting due to the concerns of his wife, Calpurnia, Decimus Brutus persuaded him to go, dismissing Calpurnia's concerns. When Caesar arrived in Pompey's theatre for the Roman Senate meeting, Decimus and the rest of the conspirators attacked and assassinated him. According to Nicolaus of Damascus, Decimus Brutus was the third to strike Caesar, stabbing him in the side
It seems the people who write articles for wiki have the 2 brutus' confused.
I am pretty clear on this now. WHy did I think It was Decimus who was the main conspiritor? Geez. I have read and studied enough I should know!
However there seems to be no confusion in this article that I took a tiny snip from.>>
<<<When Caesar returned to Rome as dictator after the final defeat of the Republican faction in the battle of Munda (45 BC), Decimus Brutus joined the conspiracy against him after being convinced by Marcus Brutus. However, Caesar continued to trust in Decimus Brutus and even mentioned him in his will. On the Ides of March (March 15), when Caesar decided not to attend the Senate meeting due to the concerns of his wife, Calpurnia, Decimus Brutus persuaded him to go, dismissing Calpurnia's concerns. When Caesar arrived in Pompey's theatre for the Roman Senate meeting, Decimus and the rest of the conspirators attacked and assassinated him. According to Nicolaus of Damascus, Decimus Brutus was the third to strike Caesar, stabbing him in the side.>>>>>>credit to wiki.
It seems in the 2 links I gave there's some confusion between the 2 or I just skimmed over it to fast.