Virgil61
-
Posts
851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Virgil61
-
-
...
Perhaps this is oart of why Roman soldiers later could not as easily counter the formations of germanic and gualic invaders?...
My guess is that it had little to do with it. The later Roman legions were a different animal than those of the principate with a larger emphasis on cavalry, Germans and Goths in the ranks and evidence--at least to me -- that the foot soldiers were not as well-trained.
The Romans maintained an interest in the phalanx probably due to the fascination with Alexander. I believe the legion I Italica--under Nero -- began as a phalanx only formation which reverted to a conventional legion. Aelianus Tacticus dedicated his drill manual on the phalanx to Hadrian. If I remember correctly Caracalla had at least one phalanx-trained formation (they may have been Greeks). Julian also had a very keen interest in the phalanx, being the a great admirer of Alexander. At the battle of Strasbourg in 357 AD his Roman army may have used modified phalanx-like formations to defeat the Germans.
-
My reaction to Rubicon was much less positive than either Ursus or yourself. I'm especially sensitive to a well-rounded and analytical portrayal of the last years of the Republic since so much as been written comparing contemporary America to that era (It's been a few months since I've read it).
My position on the end of the Republic's been stated before and some of my arguments might sound like a broken record but at the risk of repeating some of my themes I thought it was a fairly conservative portrayal more akin to an 18th century view of the Republic than a modern analytical study although it was as well written as any history I've read this year. As Ursus had noted (although we might be on different sides of the divide on this), the Republic had some serious issues. Politically, as you probably already know, it was more an oligarchy of families endlessly fighting each other and more so the enfranchisement of the populares than anything else. His charicature of Cato, who it can be argued is as responsible as anyone for the end of the Republic, was far to sympathetic in my opinion. Holland didn't seem to give much sympathy to the masses. This mild distrust of the lower classes coupled with an dislike for the despotism of empire struck me as the sort of position held by so many 18th century gentlemen in the enlightenment, the era that held Cato in such high regard.
His portrait of Caesar didn't strike me as very positive and he was distrustful of his capacity for mercy. Certainly he was ambitious, but Holland seemed to cast him as an opportunist rather than a proponent of the populares or at least greater inclusion of economic and social benefits for them. He was an opportunist, but he'd also spent his life giving them the benefit of his sympathies. In my pro-populares stance I've been accused of viewing the Republic with contemporary eyes, something I strongly disagree with. The Gracchi and many others before and after them knew there was disenfranchisement, understood the nature of the struggle and fought against it.
In the end I think it's the issue that I started with that bothers me the most. There's a lot of "the end of the Roman Republic and it's relationship to contemporary America" talk making the rounds and an honest portrayal of that era complete with a modern analysis would go far to set things right. Holland doesn't do that, and more importantly, with a Phd in classics I hold him to a higher standard in historical analysis. Maybe I'm being to hard on the author, but that's my take on Rubicon.
-
I love dogs, have a Doberman myself.
So lets talk about dogs. What other nations valued particular dogs, and which did the Romans prefer?
I know that there's a breed of Italian sheep dog called the Maremma that comes from the province of Maremma (formerly part of Etruria now southern Tuscany) and a larger sub-breed called the Maremmano Abruzzese from the province of Abruzzo, where my family is from (and, interestingly, a source for many of the tribes fighting for citizenship during the Social Wars and later a base of support for Pompey's father and Pompey).
All the sites claim the Meremma are mentioned by Varrone in 116 BC, but I haven't confirmed it.
-
I'm no military expert ( or dog expert )but I can tell you this. A pack of dogs is completely useless in a true combat role....
...but if I was a Roman soldier ( or any soldier ) going into battle I would not be worried about a pack of bloody dogs.
I'm thinking that maybe it isn't the actual harm a pack of dogs can do, it's the psychological impact of them on an army less disciplined or experienced. Maybe it's slightly analogous to cover fire in combat. Cover fire isn't always very accurate, guys are just throwing lead down-range in the direction of fire and often not a lot of harm really comes from it. Mainly it's an attempt to make the enemy keep his head down while the second friendly element moves out to an assault position or moves out of a hairy situation.
I can imagine a scenario during combat where packs approach an oncoming group of the enemy. Some will lash out at the dogs breaking whatever formation they have and others might simply hesitate or get freaked out a bit. Whatever else is going on it might work in breaking the concentration of the attacking force. A lot of time would go into training and I imagine the payoff wasn't worth all the effort, especially if armies had faced it more than once or so.
Against a group of disciplined Romans or a seasoned force it may not work as well.
-
...Most of the worst, in the deep South. Heh...
Don't be to hard on the South though. NC didn't fare very well overall, but the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill (RTP) area is on the Forbes ten best places for business, always seems to make all the "most liveable cities" lists and the most "phds per capita" lists. I'm not a big fan of New England but I've got to admit Boston is an incredible city.
-
Armenia is probably the key to deciding whether the Roman forces or the Parthian forces are victorious in any Parthian campaign.
You're absolutely right. I was in that part of what is now western Turkey and Northern Iraq that was Armenia in early 90's during Kurdish Relief and what is now Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The passes through the mountains have probably been traveled for thousands of years and the land between the Tigris and Euphrates is laced with primitive canals even today (I can't imagine it being much different then). A logical avenue of approach for any invading army. You really get an understanding of the value of Armenia to both sides.
-
I really hate carpet bombings, there's no use to it. I mean you are already winning the war, what strategic importance would you need in demoralizing and murduring innocent civilians. Actually, the death toll from the Dresden conflageration was 500,000 people.
I've got to admit that after living in Russia, seeing what was done to them in WWII and hearing stories of surviving the Leningrad siege by my friend's parents and grandparents my sympathy for German civilian suffering has diminished substantially.
-
But in Trajan and Servius' time the Parthian Empire was not as strong as it used to be.
If Caesar was to launch an assult of the Parthians he would have faced a much stronger amry than Trajan did.
Maybe so, but again, both in Asia Minor and in Syria, Roman forces-- immediately after Carrhae-- defeated and drove back Parthian armies. One victory was by Cassius, the same one who told Crassus not to fall into the trap of leaving the Tigris and who had survived Carrhae (and later plotted against Julius Caesar). Those victories don't get the press, so no one inputs them into their thought process when coming up with theories of Parthian dominance.
Attacking Parthia was a tougher nut to crack but doable. Parthians were a one-trick pony to a large extent, but it was a very good trick. Keep a keen eye on your logistics--especially water, bring lots of archers/missiles, some good cavalry and attack from the north straddling the Tigris/Euphrates and you make things tough on the Parthians. When Roman generals understood this they were often successful, when they didn't--like Crassus-- they weren't.
While no one can know for certain, Caesar was flexible enough and understood logistics enough (important for Mesopotamia) that my gut feeling is he would've adapted.
-
I personally believe that is Caesar...
If you don't believe me look at how many Roman military disasters there were against parthia:
-CRASSUS 53BC, Legions anialated by Parthia at Carrahe
-DECIDUS SAXA 40BC, Lost Roman standards to Parthia
-MARK ANOTONY 36BC, Was deafeated by the Parthians in Armenia
No wonder Augustus wanted to create a peace with the Parthians in 20 BC
That's the popular misconception. Romans were far more successful against the Parthians than the dramatic defeats above. After Crassus the Parthians were forced from Syria and Asia Minor [against a combined Parthian and rebel legions army] to retreat back to their borders. Antony's campaign wasn't a completely one-sided route, he'd entered Parthia and besieged several cities. The true disaster was the harrassment during retreat. Under Nero Corbulo was successful enough to force Parthia to back down and acquiese to Roman demands on Armenia. Marcus Aurelius was successful against them and both Trajan and Septimius Severus captured the Parthian capital.
The key to fighting Parthians seems to be bringing enough auxiliary archers to neutralize their tactical advantage. I think the myth of Parthian dominance over Rome is just that-- a myth whose foundation lies in Carrhae. When it came to Parthia Rome gave as good as it got.
-
Did he actually kill every tenth man in the legion though or he just let them off the hook?I also recount that the legion that was based in Egypt during Diocletion's reign was decimated because the whole legion was Christian and so Diocletion who commanded they worship decimated them unmercifully knowing the full consequences.
I dont' think he killed them, but I can't remember. He wanted to conduct a decimation but didn't target every tenth man in the legion, only ten men in total, which is a good indication that he or the rest weren't up to speed on the decimation thing by the late 4th century.
The story of the Theban Christian legion is what I think you're talking about and I think it was Emperor Maximian that supposedly ordered it. I don't think there's any evidence it ever happened or that the that particular legion existed; the incident was written about 200 years later in a rather iffy tome about Christian martyrs which I think is the only account. If anyone knows otherwise please chime in.
Quick question.... how do you convince a legion that it should be decimated?It's actually a good point. It could only occur if the social mores dictated it, like under the Republic at it's height when the old Roman civic culture was still intact, or when discipline is strict and command and control is strong like many of the legions in the early principate.
My guess is after the legions got a big taste of rebellion and making (and killing) emperors in the 3rd century the decimation thing was largely a thing of the past. Legions had rebelled before of course, but by the 3rd century the killing the emperor stuff got out of control.
-
...I'm applauding the writers ability to maintain historical persepctive while developing plausible details.
Absolutely, that is what impresses me most about the series. In spite of my disappointment about the lack of any combat scenes, the attention to the smallest details and keeping the soap opera portion pretty much within what we know of Roman culture deserves kudos.
-
On a mass scale, I would say decimation is probably the worst in the legion. I don't get why an emperor would want to destroy his own legion.
There's evidence that decimation was more a punishment in the Republic's legions and became less common as time went on under the empire. When Julian decided to apply the ancient punishment of decimation on his soldiers in the 4th century-- he thought it meant that only ten soldiers were to be killed-- pretty strong indication that it hadn't been used in some time.
-
Thanks for the invite Primus. I've joined, but I don't get involved much except watch my nation grow.
-
the republic was over when Caesar crossed the rubicon. There was not going to be more senators once that happened. Octavian played no role in whether or not there was going to be a series of Empoeres
You may have not meant it, but there were certainly senators after the Rubicon and until the 6th century I believe.
I think Octavian played a very key role establishment of the rule of emperors. He centralized power on himself, decreased the power of the Senate to a rubber-stamp council, had the legions establish loyalty to him personally, etc. He may not have meant to establish an empire, and he may have even loathed the thought, but he set the ground work for it.
By the way, I am an alumni of the university in that "small town named after a little church on a hill" in your "from" blurb.
-
Are you looking for small unit tactics or what? Theodore Ayrault Dodge in his books on Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander talks a lot about tactics at least at the command level.
Very interesting. He's definitely my favorite historian of the 3 great captains.
Sidenote. I just returned from Egypt. Hated it. I highly don't recommend visiting it.
I've seen his books around for years but just never picked one up to read. Maybe I'll try the one on Caesar.
Agreed on Egypt, it's a pit. Bright Star?
-
A single battle scene to be shown for a few minutes in one episode out of 12 would be quite an expense, I would imagine. Perhaps a small scale battle (shown through a memory of one of the soldiers) would probably cut the costs a bit but still, you would have viewers still complaining about the 'lack of spectacle'.
As I said in an earlier post, the opening sequence of the series would have sufficed. It was a small scale engagement with no more actors involved-- less than 150 I'd guess-- than a dozen other scenes in the series so far. I think someone just made a bad call on the script-- at least from the perspective of those of us who are interested in seeing battles depicted.
-
Does anyone know of a good resource for battlefield tactics? It would really help me.
In case you're still wondering Googling "Roman Battlefield Tactics" brings up two very good sites:
Victori: The Roman Military - Strategy and Tactics
-
Finally,got episode five and six downloading now,im sooo looking forward to watching them
I'm disappointed with the lack of any real battle sequences at Pharsalus, not that they needed to be epic in scale, but at least something along the lines of the opening scenes of the series. They did wrap Pompey's role up rather quickly.
-
Augustus was moderate enough a military commander, in my opinion. That is definitely debatable, particularly as I place Agrippa, his right-hand man, very high. I don't know Tiberius Caesar Augustus, unless by another name.
Tiberius Caesar Augustus, better known as the Emperor Tiberius. His campaigns in Germany and especially to suppress the Pannonian revolt were fairly successful although they're probably just not enough to make the list. Had his successful brother Drusus not died from an accident he would've been a contender.
I've never been able to make sense of Augustus' strength as a general. Perhaps it was his moral presence as JC's adopted son that gave him an edge. He was generally able to pick good men to lead his armies tactically-- Agrippa, Drusus, Tiberius-- which is a talent in itself. Varus being an exception.
-
Einstien should have Magnus added to his name.
Many people will think wrongly of me for this, but Adolf Hitler.
I would reserve Magnus for positive achievements of greatness. No question of his (ignoble) accomplishments, perhaps Adolf the Terrible might be a better name.
-
Gee, now that's someone with a lot of time on their hands, the person who runs that website
My name is Orophin Melwas
-
That's a lot of work. Nice list, my initial impression is I'd put Pomepy up into the second tier; his campaigns up until his first retirement are impressive. For the Romans I'd add Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa [and delete Augustus], Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo [under Claudius and Nero] and Vespasian [i may have missed them if they were listed] to the group. Tiberius Caesar Augustus might be worth a mention, it's often forgotten he was a fairly successful general in his own right when he was younger.
-
A centurian of the late Republic or early Empire who in retirement writes a history of his campaigns.
-
I'm not expected to pay taxes now, am I?
No, but we'll whip you if you don't use your new priviledge to its fullest!!!
I assume "Citizens" are never banned [or crucified] here without a trial or an appeal to the Emperor?
Roman Unions?
in Romana Humanitas
Posted · Edited by Virgil61
My knowledge of Roman guilds parallels P. Clodius' answer to you.
I did find the following paper (it's a pdf), if you're inclined to read these things go to page 10. The author seems to say that professional organizations were fairly common and included guilds of entertainers as well as a religious aspect. According to him guilds seem to have been around in the Greek and Egyptian worlds before the Roman conquests.
Greco-Roman Philosophic, Religious and Voluntary Organizations