Centurion-Macro

Why did Nero add two more teams?

Thanks, I shall read up on those old posts now.

I have never heard of it...when exactly was is conquered?

A few hours ago I was talking with my uncle and he said that the Romans used to have separate cohorts for left handed soldiers. I was unsure if he was telling the truth so I did a google search, which turned up nothing. So I ask you, were there left handed Roman units and if so do you know anything about them?

I know that with Chariot racing there were usually 4 colours: blue, red, green and yellow I think. People used to go around the stands asking people for bets on who they wanted to win. The names were recorded and the winners would come to collect their winnings or pay up at the end I believe. There were also unregistered bettings as well. But like modern racing they used to have odds, eg red will lose 200:1 or green has a 6:7 chance of winning. ~But you might want to check with others just incase my facts are wrong.

Thank you! I shall have a look at the site.

You definitely have a point, I agree that Augustuses 28 Legions were already stretched and so taking Germania would not have been a very good idea. However if they did take it and Romanise it then they would have quite a lot of strong Axillary troops to recruit. But I don't think he was the Greatest Roman figure. That's a very fair point about the recruitment of auxiliaries. Additionally, in not gaining control of Germania, the Empire was left with basically the long Rhine-Danube line as its border which came under immense pressure from the 4th century onwards. So much might have been achieved if the Antonine Emperors had been able to capitalise on Trajan's conquest of Dacia and push the border north. If that boundary had started at say, the mouth of the Elbe and run South-East to Dacia, the Northern frontier would have been shorter, more manageable and easier to defend. I agree, if they had reached and garrisoned the Elba it would have been easier by far to defend the frontier from attack. It would also have given the Romans a bigger influence in Central Europe and give them better trade routes.

Is it Tarentium?

I have always wanted to learn Latin.

Yeah I played the game all I could think was...that is truly insane. For the first thing Sparta was under siege so how did he get a battalion of Spartans out through the Romans. Also it is 300bc and in one mission you have to fight in the Colloseum...which had not been built yet. You also fight against Tiberius, who is not even born yet?! there is not even an Empire yet as it is still a Republic. Not to mention the fact that the Centurions are about 5 times the size of normal men and the recruits are the size of little kids.

You definitely have a point, I agree that Augustuses 28 Legions were already stretched and so taking Germania would not have been a very good idea. However if they did take it and Romanise it then they would have quite a lot of strong Axillary troops to recruit. But I don't think he was the Greatest Roman figure.

Pretty good thanks, it is now the weekend over here so I have a lot of spare time. Hows your life going?

Whoa thanks for all the suggestions! that Men of Bronze book looks awesome and so do the others!

I think it looks cool, but it is very one sided, and I would rather be fighting with the Legionaries than against them.

I agree, Hannibal was trying to get the Romans to surrender by destroying their armies and creating fear in all the Romans. I also did surprise Rome a lot by outflanking them, athough I lost almost half his force doing so.

No problem. Just be sure to read them in order though as the books all follow on from each other.

From your lack of references and with all due respect, I suppose all you have is a general impression that you haven't dismissed yet for not having had the chance of checking out the relevant sources. If you really want to deep into this stuff, an excellent introduction would be The Roman Cavalry By Karen R. Dixon, Pat Southern for an specific approach on this topic and The grand strategy of the Roman Empire from the first century A.D. to the third By Edward N. Luttwak for a global review of the Roman Army as a whole. There are of course plenty of classical sources available (eg, Polybius, Josephus, Hyginius & Vegetius); the narrative of most well-attested major battles included the description of the actual use of the Roman, auxiliary and allied cavalries; and there are literally hundreds of posts all along UNRV related to this topic, including references and links to many excellent books. As far as I know, previous to the politic and social disintegration of the Empire (itself due to complex but essentially intrinsic factors) the Romans were never bested on the long run by any of their enemies, Persians included (just ask Trajan and Julian); I can't understand how they would have been any better than that. If they didn't conquer 100% of the surface of the Earth (or at least of Eurasia and Africa) that was basically for logistic and physical restraints, not for any particular military shortcoming, their cavalry most obviously included. Alright I shall look at those books.

The praetorians were the amalgamated bodyguards of senior generals from the civil wars, tasked to guard the Princeps (Augustus) as the senior citizen of Rome once the wars were over. Guarding the palace wasn't their primary duty but obviously since that was where the boss spent his time, they guarded it. They weren't rusted though. Even Augustus had them in seperated barracks (though they were brought together later). Some emperors distrusted the praetorians to the extent of employing other units as personal guards, such as Caligulas Germans, or Nero's guards composed of tall men. Bear in mind that the Pratorian Prefect was an important figure in Rome and during the Principate, politically active. Nero's guards were tall men? I never knew that.

How many books, and their titles please, are in the Eagle of the Ninth series? I did a google search and got a little confused as to the sequence of the books. I think I would very much like to read these. There are 3 titles in the Eagle of the ninth series. The Eagle of the Ninth, the Silver Branch and the Lantern Bearers.

Ah I see. So they sort of just became obsolete and had to be disbanded then? or were they taken out by force?

I suppose you all have a point, but I still think that more cavaly would have been better in battles.

Wrong; roman auxiliaries performed outstandingly well under let say Scipio or Caesar's command. I agree, but I am talking about actual Roman cavalry with Roman recruits in it (like the 120 assigned to each Legion). These people were far less well trained for battle and were not a strong force at all.

I have been wondering, did the Romans not care about their cavalry? Do you think they would have fared better with more cavalry? After all, the standard Legions cavalry consisted of 120 men divided into 4 squads of 40. They were only really used as scouts and I wonder if they the Romans should have put more effort into making their cavalry greater. It is evident all throughout Roman history that Roman cavalry was not good enough. For example at the battle of Cannae Hannibal routed the Roman cavalry and destroyed the army. That is only one of many examples of why the Romans should have put more effort into making their cavalry great. Sure the Romans had well trained auxiliaries, but they were mainly posted in the East to protect against the Parthian horsemen who were far superior. If the Romans Legion had put more effort into the Legions cavalry then maybe the Romans could have won many more battles. Instead of 120 horsemen I think the Legion's should have been given at least 500 well trained cavalry. The Romans were good at fighting with infantry, but if it came to cavalry battles then the Roman usually failed miserably (The Parthians easily defeated Roman armys many a time). So I ask you, do you think the Romans would have fared better all across the Empire with more and batter trained cavalry?

The issue with old Spartacus is that the documented evidence is written by the Romans who were never going to be that nice about him. They couldn't even afford him an "honourable foe" status because he was a slave leading a slave army. Many Romanophiles don't like the fact that he evaded senatorial authority for a while and bested their vaunted military machine for a spell - but clearly he did as the written sources (through gritted teeth) will tell us. Of course, they'll also tell us that the troops he defeated were second rate and the slaves used dirty tricks to win. That's probably true, but then if Queens Park Rangers nick a late (and suspect off-side) winner against Man U in the FA Cup, who cares that it was Man U's second string team and the goal was offside. No one'll remember that, they'll only remember that a crap team beat a great team in the cup. Well, except the Man U fans who'll tell you about every nuance and why it was unfair that QPR won - which is what we get with Spartacus. Of course, there's a lot of myth surrounding the man thanks to Howard Fast's novel and more to Kubrick's movie which portray Spartacus as freedom fighter: I'm not convinced that this is the case. He was probably more of a survivalist with a penchant for rhetoric and guerilla warfare. I suspect when he sat in his tent some nights looking at the tens of thousands that had gravitated around him, he must of thought..."This is all getting a bit out of hand." Pity he never kept a diary! Cheers Russ Yeah it would have made things a lot easier if he had kept a diary. If only others (who were not Romans) had wrote about Spartacus, that would make things a lot easier.

But if they used Greek fire at Sea, would not the sea catch fire? (I do not know anything about how Greek fire works so I am probably wrong here).