Virgil61
-
Posts
851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Virgil61
-
-
Sounds good to me. It would make sense that it was the Germans' wall.
As far as finding remains goes, I understand there probably wouldnt' be much there now. I was under the impression that Romans found the site after the fight. I was just thinking that some of them would've studied the area and determined what happened.
As far as not taking personal gear into battle I base that off of today. I don't know if the Romans dropped their personals before they went into the fray. Today, in the infantry, you do drop your rucksack or leave it with your Bradley before deploying for combat. All you take with you is your chemical protective gear if applicable, Weapon, ammo, and load carrying vest. THe mess kit, needle and thread, MRE's stay behind when it's time to pull the trigger.
Leave it with the Bradley? Mech's always had it nice. In Iraq [both times] all our gear was strapped along side the HMMWV and after consolidation, left in camp during missions.
Here's someone's recreation of a Roman on the march, and yeah, I'm sure they dropped it before going into the fray;
-
It is interesting to note that the idea of the family having numerous specific deities never really died out. The way Roman Catholics "venerate" different Saints and the Blessed Virgin alongside the Trinity is a direct descendent of this form of worship.
Most Roman Catholic families have a number of Saints that they have traditionally venerated, often through many generations.
The idea of a "Patron Saint" is also reminiscent of the ancient pre-Christian Roman tradition. The individual Catholic will often have a a specific Saint with which he/she identifies strongly and has a strong relationship with that will often last a lifetime, just as the pre-Christian Romans had their own personal deity.
I'm a pretty strong proponent of the link between Catholicism and Roman culture, especially in the late empire. The structure of the church hierarchy, the titles, feast days, holidays and much of the symbolism owes a lot to Roman paganism and cults. Of course I should point out that Catholics don't worship their saints as deities, as you obviously know but thought I'd should state for non-Catholics.
Edit: I should add this wonderful quote found on another site: "The conversion of a Roman emperor to Christianity, of Constantine in 312, might not have happened, or, if it had, it would have taken on a totally different meaning if it had not been preceded, for two generations, by the conversion of Christianity to the culture and ideals of the Roman world" (Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity, A.D. 150-750, London and New York, 1971, p. 82).
-
It certainly comes down to Caesar or Scipion in my opinion, with the edge to JC in my opinion. The dark horse would be Trajan, not listed, with his conquest of Dacia and sacking of the Parthian capital. Unfortunately for him he has no battles that make anyone's "greatest battles of..." list which always boosts a generals reputation.
Pompey isn't listed as well, which is unfortunate. Plutarch says something along the line of Pompey having been judged the greatest if he had died at the age of forty.
In my edit I'd like to add I see no reason why Augustus/Octavian is listed.
-
I haven't read the book. But from what Virgil posted I have one issue I want to talk about. You commented on the ramparts found at the battle site and whether they were Roman built or if they were mistaken for the ones built by the Germans to conceal the ambush.
I need to clarify since I missed it the first time. Tacitus is the one who may have misunderstood the wall used in the ambush as the German wall, he wasn't there but relied on second hand accounts. The possibility of a Roman wall as a defensive site may still be valid but it hasn't been found. I think everyone agrees the wall along the ambush route is the German wall.
-
I haven't read the book. But from what Virgil posted I have one issue I want to talk about. You commented on the ramparts found at the battle site and whether they were Roman built or if they were mistaken for the ones built by the Germans to conceal the ambush. I'm not an archaelologist, anthropologist or historian, but I would think that the answer to this question would be very easy for an anthropologist like Wells to figure out. By the way, I'm not taking sides on this because I don't know. I'm just offering things to think about.
If the walls were used to conceal the ambush, that would lead me to believe that the Germans left these ramparts to conduct the attack. Which would further lead me to believe there would be no dead bodies in their vicinity.
If the Romans built them, there should be a great deal of dead bodies around them because they obviously would've been attacked there.
Also, does not the manner in which the Romans and Germans build ramparts differ? If the experts that study this stuff take the time to study the manner in which both sides construct defensive fortifications this could shed light on it and mitigate the need to speculate.
I would also assume if later Romans showed up to the site of the battle they would be able to determine from the positions of the dead bodies where they were at and who was defending and who was attacking.
Now, the hole in my argument about the presence of bodies around the ramparts would be if the Germans attacked, but the Romans beat them back to the walls. Still I'd imagine one could deduce who built them from body position and other things such as the presence of equipment around the ramparts. If the Romans built them some of their personal items would be there. If the Romans attacked the wall, there would be nothing but military equipment found there and no personal stuff would be because you don't carry personal items into battle.
Has anybody done a study like this? I'm just curious.
Good questions and here's my answers and take on them.
There are no human remains surviving except for those found buried, probably by Germanicus, in two or three mass graves. I know I've read this and remembered it either from the book or from another source; apparently individual bodies left out on the field have not survived.
It's fair to say the ramparts built along the pathway are those of the ambushing unit- the Germans. The Germans, according to sources, did not immediately leave these ramparts but launched a sustained missile attack of javelins, spears and arrows first.
I'm not sure that "you don't carry personal items into battle", which normally would make sense, necessarily applies when the ambush and battlespace is measured in meters. Along an ambush route of several hundred meters I'm certain some unlucky ones were near or next to the wall, while others further away. They are carrying equipment, personal effects, baggage trains, etc., when ambushed.
I'll add that the amateur archeologist who found the site, a British Army Major, has written his story up. I haven't read it yet but aim to:
-
The music. I never saw the thing lol. (I do know its in the gladiator soundtrack which i have...but could be the same people that did the music)
I don't remember much about the music played on Empire. It's interesting that I was doing some searching last month on music from Rome and Greece. Not much survives, but I do know that the Romans, as usual, drew a lot from the Greeks. If you're interested there is a very small amount of Greek musical notation discovered that has been deciphered to the best of anyone's ability. There are even some surviving vocals. The site has some music and vocal samples you can listen to:
Here's a decent page:
There's also a small sampling of some scant surviving works of a musician from Hadrian's era named Mesomedes from Crete:
-
Just some ridiculousness...
"Arkham" gladiator dungeon.. LOL
General Magonius
Brutus as Pontifex Maximus
The depiction of the Senate and its strange 'control' of the Republic
What happened to Antonius
etc. etc.
Bad. Really, really bad.
-
Wonderful review Virgil. May I assume you wouldn't mind if it had its own unique page in the 'review' section of the site?
Not at all, thank you very much.
-
Excellent review.
Thank you very much Ursus. The book was a bit of a disappointment in the last half. Of course after rereading it I've found grammatical errors and a couple of places where I cut and pasted but didn't check the sentences for clarity of thought. I'll get around to fixing them later.
-
The Battle that Stopped Rome
by Peter S. Wells
In the "Battle that Stopped Rome" Professor Peter Wells brings to light discoveries in the recent find of one of the most famous and influential battles of the ancient world known as the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. This should be a welcome work, the battlefield is the most complete one of its kind ever found, located in a semi-rural area of Germany and undisturbed for two thousand years. Unfortunately rather than stating the discoveries and giving a view to all possible theories, which would have made this a seminal work, Wells misses this opportunity by embarking on an opinionated interpretation of the event. Judicious and balanced this work is not. Perhaps this is possibly explained by his area of concentration in anthropology; his writings are almost exclusively dedicated to the northern barbarians of antiquity. In spite of their victory, Wells seems somewhat defensive of the German tribes in his portrayal of the battle....
...read the full review of The Battle that stopped Rome by Peter S. Wells
-
1
-
-
*sigh*
This forum is to discuss ancient history, specifically Roman history. We try to keep an informal though still somewhat scholarly atmosphere around here.
We give a little latitude for off topic posts on the "after hours" board, which is a place to relax for the regulars who otherwise engage in meaningful discussion elsewhere in the site. However, lately there has been a rash of posts which have crossed the even lax standards of the site. Particularly on this forum. We aren't blaming any one person. But in the sum of things there has been an upsurge in the types of posts we find irrelevant, or perhaps even annoying, relative to the purpose of this site.
We've tried dealing with this through humor and good natured criticism. It doesn't seem to be working. We therefore have decided certain posts will be simply locked and removed without warning at the discretion of the moderators.
That is how its going to be from now on throughout the site.
I rarely follow or join in the After Hours lounge, but what exactly is it's purpose? I ask because it is apparently the place for off-topic discussions. The forum states very clearly that it is:
"The relaxed place where anything and everything can be talked about".
The site shouldn't state the above and then have threads yanked because someone's tired of them or doesn't like the topic, etc. Perhaps the admin's intentions for the After Hours forum conflicts with the introduction sentence above?
-
A world-class archaeological exhibition opened this week in Calabria, in the toe of Italy.
Its subject is Magna Graecia, or Greater Greece - the name given to parts of southern Italy colonised by the ancient Greeks 2,500 years ago.
The migrations of modern Europe are nothing new.
But for the ancient Greeks, southern Italy was their America...
From the BBC
What's extremely interesting is there are two communities in Southern Italy that still speak Greek based on the Doric dialect. Here's the wikipedia link:
-
There's a good paper written by a Stanford undergrad on taxation from the late Republic to Augustus at:
-
Particularly if that analysis is OVERLY critical!
Out of curiosity, do you have any better ideas for parallels for America's situation, or even a different matchup that works better for your seemingly impossible standards?
I didn't start out to be overly critical but the problem with your parallel is it seemed somewhat absolute in terms of similarities and the accuracy of some of the claims was suspect. The implication of a possible outcome based on them was obvious; when that happens and you post it on this board then it's going to be dismantled and analyzed pretty thoroughly. It's not a "seemingly impossible" standard, it's a valid criticism of a popular old thesis vis-a-vis Rome and America. It's an old thesis that's been used a lot to support political ideologies and notions on decline [your's is certainly a cut above most I've read]. You tried to field a somewhat comprehensive draft thesis for parallels and it deserves scrutiny. For example your reply:
Rome was an agricultural based economy, and it was the fundamental of what fueled its economy. The fundamental of the American economy are corporations. Same patterns of wealth distribution, matters not if its in grain or software.Agriculture is an economic sector and it was the basics of the Roman economy, while the U.S. economy has a variety of different sectors. Corporations on the other hand are legal, financial and organizational entities to manage and conduct business, they aren't an economic sector. That�s comparing apples and oranges. Wealth distribution patterns aren't the same, while 1% of the population in the U.S. own 1/3 of the wealth, in Rome the top 1% owned a substantial majority of it, if I remember correctly well over 90%. You argue that farmers in Rome and America lost their farms but don�t follow up the obvious vitally important difference; The Roman farmer was often left destitute while the American left for a job in industry.
The mechanisms of why something happens are as important as the surface similarities. Just because both threw off the yoke of a king doesn't give their parallel situations meaning except on the most shallow basis. While mingling of races occur in both Rome and the U.S. [and other countries] the question of why, what forces are at work and the context tell a more complex story and determine the outcomes differently for each. I'm not sure what sort of "blood aristocracy" we have in the U.S. that is similar to Rome but is different than anyone else's or a mingling of the races that puts us closer to them than to Britain, South Africa, Canada, et. al. I don't think digging beneath surface similarities conveys an "impossible standard".
Making close parallels between civilizations is fun and instructive, but it can rarely be done without highlighting the differences as well. When that's done it becomes comparative history. I think tightening up the factual accuracies and including both similarities and contrasts between the Empire or the Republic and the U.S. would make the last statement; "I wonder what America's fate will be" more powerful.
To answer your last question, I don't believe there's any decent parallel you can make about America�s situation, what can be done is a comparative history- a subtle but important difference. Niall Ferguson does this when comparing British and American imperialism in "Colossus". If you get a chance try reading "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy or "Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World" by Barrington Moore. Both are flawed but still great comparative histories; they highlight similarities and then they contrast differences that lead to the outcomes of the respective nation or class depending on the book.
-
Apparently the flag most flown in the USA is the Mexican flag....perhaps the fall of the USA will be the absorption of too many people who are culturally not American? Does anyone see any similarities here?
I don't mean to be offensive here but I see a similarity between Romes absorption of barbarians in their territories and Americas absorption of non-Europeans in theirs.
The most commonly flown flag isnt' the Mexican, at least nowhere I've ever lived in the South, the East coast or the Northwest. I'm not sure what a "culturally not American" immigrant is. Say black and brown if that's what you mean.
Studies show that in 45 years the USA will no longer have a white majority...No, studies show that using the criteria AT THE TIME OF THE STUDY will result in a certain type of growth. It doesn't take into account changes that happen a year [or ten years] later in birthrates, intermarriage, etc.
I don't think there is any more similarity to Rome than the similarities between it and the influx in immigration of Africans and Indians to England, Africans and Algerians to France [both of which are actually more "parallel" to Rome] or even Zimbabweans into South Africa. People move, it's happened throughout history. I think the relevance of this issue is floating away from the topic anyway.
-
I honestly see a LOT of close compairisons between the fall of the Roman Republic and the situation America is in right now. I am going to post something I wrote a while back. It could be edited and expanded, but I don't quite have the time right now. It does lay the groundwork for the parallels I speak of.
I think you've fell into the trap that most young historians fall into, parallels are the easy way to analyze history; they're clever, you can find linkages anywhere and make things fit into a nice pattern. Unfortunately the devil is in the details.
********************
The Parallels Between the American and Roman Republic
When I read my Roman history and think about our modern times, I am always struck with the remarkable similarity of the history timeline of both. I believe it's the Chinese who believe that all history is cyclical, and if you do any reading of the history of man I think you will indeed notice the pattern. I'm not sure I ever listed out the similarities, so here it is:
The idea that history is cyclical isn't exclusive to the Chinese; take a historiography course at the graduate level or at a decent undergrad college. Toybee, Spengler, et al., were talking about historical cycles one hundred years ago. There are patterns, but I think you're far too simplistic in your analysis. I could easily make a link between the Rome and British Empire, the Chinese and the Aztecs and so on. I'm not saying that there aren't commonalities between historical entities, but the link between the U.S. and Rome doesn't parallel as closely as you've made out.
First think of the origins of both nations. The Roman Republic was created from the grip of Kings after they threw out the last Etruscan overlord, Tarquinus Superbus. So too in America did we throw off the regal control of the English crown to maintain our independence. After both of these occurrences, the structure of the Republic was formed. For the Romans it was more of a gradual development, but the Americans had the benefit of previous experience and much of the original structure is still there to this day, but even our Republic has undergone change over time.Tarquinus was an Etruscan not a Roman; both the colonials and George III were English, same society, same language and same political culture. The colonies had self-government for over 100 years before the revolution with sanction and charter from the king. If you don't believe me take a look at the colonial histories of the legislatures of Mass, RI, NY, Virginia, et al. Democracy- of some form- was alive and well before the revolution both in the colonies and in George III's English parliament.
The Roman government was composed of the Senate, the elected magistrates with 'Imperium,' and had courts and a state religion. American government has basically the same thing, except that we have a congress of two houses rather than one, electe[d magistrates who are the executive branch, and the judicial branch, which in many ways functions just like the courts, tribunes, assemblies and religious leaders of the Roman Republic combined.I'm not sure how this counts [though I know of no "state religion"]; sure the Founders based part of the structure and much of the terminology on Roman institutions but they also had years experience in running colonial governments. As I wrote above, colonial legislatures had been in existence since the first colonies. Our judicial branch wasn't created out of scratch, colonial courts and judges had also been in existence in the U.S. and based their standards and conduct on English legal traditions and common-law. I think it's a real stretch to think the judicial branch is anything like the tribunes, assemblies etc. of the Republic.
In politics there developed two general factions in Rome, the optimates and the populares. Now historians get pissed about this when you compare them to American Republicans and Democrats, but you have to admit, especially today, there are remarkable similarities. For instance the optimates were a conservative bunch, favoring the status quo and the rich and the old customs. The populares favored attaining their goals through the voice of the people by using the power of the tribunes and the assemblies except in the broadest of definitions. If you ever study law and the U.S. court system you'll note that they are worlds apart.The distinction between optimates and populares is a economic and political split common from ancient Athens to the U.S. or even a newer democracy like Poland.
They were also rabble rousers who didn't think anything of antiestablishment rhetoric to attain their own goals. (And really for both parties those goals always boiled down to personal power as it does today).Those who were actually elected to high office in both Republics are a part of the aristocracy. Clearly with Anglo-Saxon names predominating the government of America we can see this old money and old blood influence, though in the outlaying 'provinces' of the American republic, such as California, you get leaders of a different stamp, just as local leaders of Further Hispania could be expected to have Iberian ties.
Except for the fact that the Romans and U.S. started with somewhat homogenous cultural groups doesn't make it some sort of deep parallel. The forces behind U.S. immigration were vastly different politically, culturally and economically from conquered peoples moving within Roman borders.
The moral fiber of the Roman Republic was based on the citizen farmer who had an share in the function of the government and its administration. So too was America founded upon an agrarian base, and we romantically view the farmer's life as a simple and Godly way of life. Over time the successes of the Romans, with the treasuries of foreign kings pouring into the pockets of rich and ever richer Romans, brought an end to the idealistic farmer past. Huge farms called latifundia were formed by rich men buying out all the land from citizens who eventually could not keep up with the money power of the rich, who populated their farms with slaves. So too in America have we seen the effect of industrialization squeeze out the small farmer as during the industrial revolution during the turn of the century. Mega monopolies grasping all control and enforcing ever stricter work hours and conditions on their workers.Again forces at work are so different in time, quality, technology etc, that I think the comparing the loss of Roman farms to a major economic and technological force like the Industrial Revolution which touched across nations and boundaries makes the parallel very flimsy at best.
Rome had a convenient way of rationalizing its empire building: it was all defensive. THEY started the war, and Rome must complete it for its own defense. I know of no wars America has started without giving the same 'moral' pretext.A Rome-America parallel? Most nations use the same rationalization. Even Hitler rationalized the attack on the Soviet Union with the same argument.
Then came the revolutionary change started by the brothers Gracchi. They realized that this trend could not continue, and so too did America impose monopoly and social reform from late 1800s to the 1960s.The better question is what country hasn�t conducted a spree of social, legal and economic reforms or indeed an upheaval based on similar forces such as the French and Russian revolutions?
The old ways however could not be revived, because Rome swelled with money, foreigners, and foreign ideas which so besieged the collective Roman conscience that it lost its old identity, and the only social glue which kept it all together was the universal concept of greed. So too in America, after the liberation of African slaves, immigration of Asian, Latin and other peoples from across the world mixed up the united conscience of the Anglo-Saxon colony into one of world metropolitanism. America has more social problems than many for the simple fact that all are so different from one another. But as America swells with power from the fact that it alone is the only super power in the world, the remaining trait that all share in common is greed.The availability of open lands, slavery, a labor shortage in our early history, political unrest and poverty in other countries brought immigrants to the U.S. Romans were more apt to colonize overseas.
So in Rome the old morals were thrown out the window, and the decadent Roman ways became more popular. So too do we see a social relaxation of the classic morals of America's yesteryear. Shocking is not shocking enough, ideas of sexuality become blurred, and we are bombarded with a blitzkrieg of extravagant crap on the TV that tell us a million vapid messages about how inadequate we are, how we need more and more, how we must buy ever larger vehicles, make ever bigger boobs and biceps.I don't see how Gibbon's and Suetonius' imagery of a few decadent Romans compares to the social movements of today except in the most general sociological manner.
And so the Roman Republic ended when one man of military standing, leading legions who could not be beat, who dominated the world, made a grab for it all.I wonder what America's fate will be.
It's a nice try, but I honestly think you've chosen poor thesis. The Rome-America parallel isn't new and while it looks good on the surface I don't think it's ever stood up well to critical analysis.
-
Do you have access to some of the basic studies on the Roman Army? A good start is The Roman Army at War: 100 Bc-Ad 200 by Adrian Goldsworthy, it's flawed but very informative.
Pompey loaned his legion to Caesar in Gaul (and wanted them back). I would imagine that a governor would appeal to Rome or, if the need was immediate, to the governor or military commander next door
Don't forget that while commanders might ask for and get reinforcements they often resorted to creating new units from the locals [Caesar in Gaul is the first example that comes to mind].
-
Thanks to wonderful research already prepared by Jona Lendering over at Livius.org..
Caesar's Legions prepared to go east were
II, III, IIII, XXVII, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII (At this point Caesar's long term veteran legions had been settled... Legions VI - XIV)
Very interesting. What a great job he's done on that site.
-
Awesome, more power to them. Any Italian/Roman equivalent you think? Doubtful probably in the face of Catholic power.
Attend a mass, read up on Catholic theology, history and heirarchical structure. Much of it is based on Roman custom and co-opted pagan ritual.
-
Was Caesar's planned invasion of Parthia an attempt to ultimatly outdo Alexander? When you think about it, if he could pull off conquering the Parthian empire then he would indeed have claim as the greatest conqueror in the world.
I'm actually sad he did not get the chance.
It's one of the great "what ifs" of ancient history in my opinion.
Plutarch (if I remember correctly) wrote that he wanted to crush the Parthians, move through Armenia into the land of the Scythians and come back through the Germans to Gaul. Whether he could have succeeded or not, there's no one else I could imagine more capable of it in his era.
-
If terrorists were running rampant in the city it would be the national guards job to quell that. That is part of their charter.
I'll add that while the National Guard traditionally handles civil disturbances, under Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations, civilian authorities can request the use of active duty military forces to assist them (as in the 1968 riots).
-
A more interesting question, for me at least, is what Julius Caesar would have done had he not been assassinated and conducted his war against Parthia.
Considering the fact that he at least knew of Marius and his tactics vs. Jugertha, and considering his avid use of siege tactics, my guess is he would take a slow and steady approach. Perhaps like Marius constructing fortification in key areas and isolating all important points to eventually scatter and starve the Parthians and their hungery horses.
I agree it's a good guess that Caesar would have concentrated on limiting foraging resources for the Parthians. More than anyone I think, Caesar had a sixth sense about using the logistics in his area of to his advantage and the detriment of the enemy. And he was never shy about conducting (and succeeding) at seige warfare either.
I would disagree about one thing; slow and study was never his style.
-
So fellow historians, tell me why the Romans never conquered the Parthians.
I'm not sure if they ever had that idea in their mind, they were more interested in protecting their interests in Armenia; Cassus and Caesar excepted. They were able to successfully defend their frontiers against Parthian incursions, but I think we tend to forget that the Parthians had long periods of peace with Rome as well as treaties that were mutually beneficial. Trajan's attack on Parthia was strated as a direct result of a perceived breach of a treaty over Armenia rather than an intent to conquer
A more interesting question, for me at least, is what Julius Caesar would have done had he not been assassinated and conducted his war against Parthia.
-
If General Schoomaker ordered me right now to march with him on Washington and take over the city, killing my fellow Americans whom I am serving, I would not do it.
Felix, would you say that opinion is shared by all your brothers in arms? Lets say hypothetically that Bush claimed that terrorists were running rampant in some American town and it had to be bombed, or some people killed. Would your brothers follow orders without asking questions? What if they were under orders to apprehend rioters or protestors? What if you were asked to fire on protestors?
I am not trying to be provocative, I am honestly curious about your opinions on this.
I returned from Iraq early last year after a reserve call-up, I spent 9 years at Bragg active duty and keep in close contact with several friends. I don't think many would actively engage in something like the hypothesis he stated [i know it was speculative but Schoomaker is a pretty good leader, he was CDR of USASOC in the 90's when I was on Bragg].
Apprehending rioters and protesters is a completely different issue. This was actually done during the riots in D.C. in 1968 by a brigade of the 82d Airborne.
How Did You Come Across This Site
in Renuntiatio et Consilium Comitiorum
Posted
I was googling for info on Rome- can't remember the specific issue- and one of the returned links brought me here.