Virgil61

I must admit I find these comments somewhat disturbing coming from what I consider to be two 'core' members. And I certainly don't mean that in a critical way, but in a developmental way. I guess it underscores to some extent what interests us the most about Roman history and the adage Each to his own springs to mind. However, for me and I'm sure others, the late republic is the meat and potatos of Roman history. I know there is MUCH more to Rome than Caesar/late Republic, but I would council there is also much more to Caesar/late Rebublic also. I thought I knew everything there was to know about the subject, but to-ing and fro-ing with Cato has been fun yes, frustrating at times, but above all challenging and I have thoroughly enjoyed the thought provoking experience and I hope it continues. Because of these 'idiological' clashes I am now backlogged in books, books that I cannot wait to delve into. I have learned and re-learned and I for one look forward to the next 'clash'! Fair enough. In my case I should have phrased it better, there is a lot more to be said on the topic of course. I frankly got bored with the JC good/evil thing, call me human. I have my own 'ducks in a row' in my mind and knew at some point I wouldn' t convince Cato of my position nor could he convince me. I really didn't want to spend every time I visit this forum arguing as JC's defense counsel and arguing the point with Cato. I made my views known, knew where Cato was coming from and decided I'd let the topic lie fallow until some later time.

I'm sure it was very regionally specific and as usual the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle between the barbarian yearning to be a Roman and the foaming at the mouth pillagers. It's academia, new scholars have to make their mark so what's old is often new again and so on. The area north and northwest of Macedonia got hit pretty hard as well when the Goths crossed over and set up shop for a couple of years. I'll look up Liebeschuetz and see what he's written.

No kidding, what else can be said? And I'm a friggin' lawyer at that. That being said you'd probably want to vet a jury, not just anyone should be allowed on it. Preferably six, or whatever number, members of UNRV who'll admit to not having made up their minds on the issue--good luck finding them. A decent mock-trial will have opening statements, calling a witness and giving them a direct and cross examination and a then closing argument. A judge could limit each sides attempts at exam to either say twenty questions or perhaps a 24 hour period and the final statements to say 500 words. The judge would also make sure that no non-sourced evidence be allowed ton be referenced during the trial. It might be effective to have individuals play two of the conspirators (keep the number down to make it easy), each taking the stand and responding--honestly--in the manner one would think was reflective of Brutus, Cato and company. The above is a simple but doable I think if people were interested.

Hey, there's always this option. It's how I funded my education but, all things considered, perhaps the timing isn't right for that sort of commitment.

Recent scholarship seems to be pulling back from the view that it wasn't all that dark with barbarians aspiring to be Romans in favor of a more violent interpretation of the era. One thing comes through, in spite of the barbarian leaders supposed affinity for Roman culture the rank-and-file were far less admiring and prone to looting, pillaging and all those sorts of things. Both Professors Peter Heather--whose book I've recently read--and Brad Ward-Perkins have weighed in on the side of the incursions being definitely on the ugly side of things. Carthage and it's province weren't quite a walkover, the Vandals landed in Africa in 428 AD and the city didn't fall until 439 AD.

Six years isn't too bad, it took me a lot longer before my BA. I flew through grad school in the required amount of time I'm happy to say.

A lot of the good ones have been taken. I'll chime in with crucifixion, maybe not quite in the spirit of what you asked for. A particulalry nasty method of executing convicts, enemies, etc.

For the longest time Egypt was vital for it's grain production which basically fed much of Italy and I believe supplied the grain for the public dole. Armenia and Cappadocia were strategically important being at the source of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers--important avenues of approach for incursions into Parthia. In the later empire Carthage (Africa Proconsularis) performed the same function of supplying grain as Egypt for the Western Empire. In Late Antiquity Dalmatia and the Pannonias were major sources of recruits for the Roman armies.

Just a poll taken out of curiousity, what level of education are you at currently? JD UNC-Chapel Hill

Because of the vast number of artifacts found and the apparent conformity of the location to ancient sources most historians and archaeologists are now convinced it was the site of the ambush.

I have over 2500 cds and albums of almost every genre from classical to jazz to punk rock and reggae. I don't think I've been guilty of liking only the music from my youth. Having said that the Stones aren't quite my generation as I was three years old when their first album came out--I'm at that cusp where I'm just behind the baby-boomers and not quite a part of Gen X. I like the Stones because I think they were very good in their prime. Frankly, although I like bands like Wilco and Drive-by Truckers, I don't think that music is generally at the same level it was twenty years ago.

Somewhere I remember reading that Batavian infantry was trained similar to legions by the time of the Batavian revolt in 69 BC. Can't recall the source though.

Hagia Sophia becoming Orthodox again would be incredibly symbolic but I don't think it would ever happen. After WWI I think the Greeks came close to gaining control over Istanbul/Constatinople because of the Treaty of Sevres which was revised after they were defeated in a war with Turkey.

I think there's more evidence to refute his opinions then there is to support it. The chief archaeologist stated that she thought only around 10,000 men could have occupied the immediate ambush area. So if the army was around 20,000 that would leave a large number surviving the initial onslaught. It's not impossible to speculate on, as far as ancient battlefields go Teutoburg Forest is unique in being the most well-preserved--in fact I don't think any other ancient battlefield comes close. I'm glad you see the same holes in his theory, he seems to have gotten it very wrong. Like you mentioned, they'd need a few machine guns to slaughter 20,000 men in a couple of hours! It's a shame that he chose to speculate so much, there are some very worthwhile chapters in the book.

Here's the link. I think the evidence indicates the battle took more than a day as survivors of the initial onslaught left the area and set up some sort of defensive perimeter. There's another site that shows the dispersion pattern of objects that sort of hints at a direction of flight. There's good info in the book but it comes in for a lot of criticism as well.

I went to Roma Victor in hopes that there might be some info on the outage and found a post by you and your email (I've rarely visited that site).

How soon we forget. Listen to some of their stuff from the late '60s and '70s, some of the greatest rock music ever made. Try any of these albums--Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street or Some Girls-- and you'll see what I mean.

Not the best show but the man is in incredible shape for 62 years old.

I don't think I've posted this before, this give quite a perspective on casualties in Iraq. Iraq Coalition Casualty Map

I wrote a review on it here on UNRV. The chief archaeologist of the site has made statements that disagree with the author stated outcome of two hours and I think even the evidence leans against his analysis. There are some great chapters within the book, but his speculation needs a lot of work. His background focuses on the Germanic tribes of the region and he seems to bend over backwards to try paint them in a positive light going to far as to ignore the fact Varus was a bonehead conducting movement through a narrow passage. In fact he seems to hint, if I remember correctly, that blaming Varus' incompetence is akin to doubting the military prowess of the Germans. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other.

I hate the fact that I actually know something about this topic. Not strictly relevant to Rome but as an example that this does happen during warfare in some cultures. In '91 I was in Turkey/Northern Iraq for Operation Provide Comfort. I worked with Special Forces A-teams who were training the Kurdish guerrillas against the Iraqis. The Iraqis had been very harsh on the Kurds exterminating whole villages, gassing, raping, etc. The SF guys were pretty taken aback about the fact that the Kurds bragged about raping captured male Iraqi soldiers before executing them. Harsh and disturbing but apparently it happens in warfare even in our time.

I think it's commonly accepted among linguists that Italian is the closest to latin in general, somewhere I've read that it has the highest percentage of latin roots of any Romance language. I've also seen the argument on the 'net that Romanian is grammatically closer. The original home of the language in Latium now located in the Lazio region provinces of Roma and Latina. Looking at Italian, with my admittedly moderate skill level, and Latin they seem to have the same relationship as Old English just after the Normans and contemporary English. In fact the English model may be instructive, no one doubts the evolution between modern British English and earlier versions of English but apparently there are words used in the American Southern dialect--most whites there were descendents from English/Scots-Irish stock--that keep certain words from that era where the Brits have long ago dropped them from use. In the same sense remember seeing a few words from Spanish, French and Portugese that were descendent from Latin but were replaced in Italian.

I'm not sure what the proof is. Although it can be guessed that the Goths of the 5th century were able to lay siege to smaller cities with lesser defensive works perhaps, just after Adrianople they marched on Constantinople and on seeing the city walls promptly turned around realizing they didn't couldn't lay siege to it and later in the early 5th century in Northern Italy they couldn't take Milan in a siege Alaric's "sack" of Rome, during his fourth "siege", was because the Salarian Gate was opened for him by an inside job of one sort or another. It should be noted that by this time it wasn't even the seat of the emperor, Ravenna was. Rome was undermanned so much so that during one of the earlier sieges by Alaric 6,000 Roman soldiers had tried to fight their way into the city to help man the defensive works.

All long as we're having some fun speculation what would you bring back after your journey to 1 AD? Remember the rule is it must fit in a backpack. Off the top of my head as many lost histories as I could stuff into the pack. If i could find lost Polybius, Livy, Flavious Arrianus' history of the Parthians and the post-Alexander period. The Spartan Sosylus' lost 9 books on the history of Hannibal's invasion and Silenus version (they both accompanied him). Many other historians are mentioned by Polybius and other writers. whose works are gone--I'd gather what I could. If I could access and copy Roman state documents that would be a serious bonus. Yes I'm aware the papyrii are fairly bulky, but I'd fold, crush and push as much as I could into that pack and let the researchers sort them out. Oh, and a copy of JC's Anti-Cato just to drive UNRV's Cato nuts!

Sacked the same year as Carthage, part of Roman decision to get brutal with their foreign policy and, in the case of Corinth, the culmination of Roman wrath in dealing with the Greeks and their back-biting politicking. Corinth was the leading player in supporting a revolt against Roman hegemony and when the Romans sent envoys to try and talk things over, they were hissed, booed, and had garbage thrown on them on their way through the streets. ... I think the sacking was preceded by a battle outside the city walls just before. The envoys were sent to the Achean League with instructions that Corinth and a few other cities be removed as members if I remember correctly. But you're right, what with fighting the Macedonians the Romans were tired of the on-again/off-again acquiescence of the Greek cities. Clue to Rome's enemies; Never throw garbage on their envoys, the Romans tend to take this kind of thing personally.