Virgil61

There may be not confirmed indicators but there is substantial circumstantial evidence that lends credence to the theory that Roman infantry wasn't at the high standards it was under the Principate. Rather than repost them here you can read an earlier post by me on the subject. While Vegetius shouldn't be a sole source because of his background and intent one can suppose he certainly would have been acquainted on whether the older training and tactics he wrote about where still in effect. While I would take his writings with some caution, whatever his background, he was a contemporary and wasn't writing in a vacuum.

That is the next chapter of the story, unfortunately no one could have really foreseen that outcome. The rise of the Persians was also bad timing coinciding with Rome's 3rd century troubles. Like the old saying says; Better the devil you know then the one you don't.

Quite frankly after the establishment of the Principate and the military figured out how to deal with their tactics it becomes more and more difficult to find a war with Parthia that the Romans didn't win. Not only did Rome sack the capital, it did so at least three times (maybe four) and the final sacking under Septimius Severus arguably led to the downfall of the Parthian dynasty to the Persians.

Sorry to snap at you Cato, I got it. Caesar with T-34s...that'd be an interesting thread, not this site though.

Going out with a bang aye? Jk. Apparently, your expecting to shoot a few people for fun or show them some magic. Rule one is to stay alive, everything else follows. My leatherman has come in very handy here and overseas, it can always be used for trade. And I acquired an M-17 med kit in Iraq stuffed full of first aid goodies that would be irreplaceable on this sort of mission.

You're wrong to make blanket statements like the first sentence above. I and a few others have made arguments with factual content on the postive aspects of Caesar and you know it, feel free to use the search function. You may not agree with them or support the interpretation but just calling the arguments absent is garbage. Painting anyone who defends Caesar part of the 'friends of dictatorship' in the hinted at larger sense of also linking their support to the regimes of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin is just hyperbole on your part.

My leatherman, my Taurus .357 (w/lots of bullets) and my M-17 medical kit.

Hilarous. I spent ten years in active duty Armyand five years in the Reserves jumping out of planes, doing infantry stuff early on, jumpmaster, a zillion special schools, Iraq twice, Somalia, I boxed for a while, privates and my peers were often afraid of me as a senior NCO, played football in high school and a ton of other guy things. Still nothing on this earth scares me worse than a friggin' little cockroach.

I'd interject here that Catholics would argue this is incorrect and that that church, present at the Council of Nicaea is Catholic. Don't want to hijack the thread and turn it into a religious discussion--I much prefer a military one--just need to interject that there is a different view on the matter. Regarding military matters, I think whether you call the end of infantry as the centerpiece of Roman tactical operations occurring at Adrianople or Frigudus River, by this time it had a fraction of the qualitative expertise of its professional ancestors under the Principate.

Good post metforce. I think on the issue above concerning Roman infantry an argument can be made that infantry quality had begun a long decline a century before and Adrianpole was the final fruit of the seeds sown in the previous 100 years. I can't believe such deep-rooted organizational change from infantry to heavy cavalry could have begun only because of Adrianople. The Goths brought nothing to battle the Romans had never faced before, it seems to me the training, tactics and organizational leadership of Roman heavy infantry best represented under a typical legion of the Principate was in such decline that Adrianople was the final nail in the coffin (see my reasoning in my earlier post on this thread).

If you're asking about favorite sites in general then I'd say Art & Letters Daily. One of the best things on the 'net if you ask me, a real feast for the mind.

This is an incredible find, who knew?

There was certainly a change in emphasis and complexion of the legions to the dual-role outlined in the previous post and on heavy cavalry. What caused the change? There are quite a few theories out there about this, some better than others. I don't agree with the speculation it was caused by meeting more heavy-cavalry from new belligerents. Heavy infantry like legions are especially adept at stopping cavalry and to decrease it's usage is subject to some scrutiny in my opinionl. I think there's an underlying cause that maybe hasn't been as delved into. After the unrest of the mid-3rd century there are some clues that might point to a decline in the quality of legion training. Some of the hallmarks of the classic legions of the Republic and Principate are an emphasis on forced marches with daily construction of well planned and defended camps, the ability of small unit leaders at the century and cohort levels to react to tactical changes on the battlefield and so on. Centurians (usually the most senior) during this era of the classic legion were a part of the planning process along with tribunes and legates. Leadership forced down to the lower levels is an indication of good training, organization and dependence. The legion's strength was it's flexible configuration from century up to an army several legions, a configuration that if it was to work needed high levels of experience as well as training. Somewhere in the late 3rd century this broke down. My guess is that there are two reasons for this. First the carnage of legion v. legion combat must've been great. Even with cavalry auxiliaries, foot and horse mounted archers added, it probably came down to infantry combat. Roman infantry combat meant centurians and cohort leaders leading the way and the loss of them during this very continious cycle of combat over a 25 to thirty year period led to a great loss of institutional experience. The second reason is indicated by the number of emperors during this era seated and then unseated by the legions. The legions became emperor makers on a large scale and were bribed and probably pampered more than necessary. I recall reading in one battle in the mid-3rd century ( I think under Decius) the soldiers refused to wear their helmets (too uncomfortable). That's quite an indicator of a loss of experience, discipline, leadership and most importantly training. By the time of Julian, Ammanius indicates that tribunes performed acts of bravery and leadership and were called in for war counsel w/the emperor. What indicative here is the lack of lower-level leader participation--no centurians are mentioned, showing that by this time decisive tactical leadership had been 'pushed up' and to me at least, an indication of less quality in the lower ranks. Equipment also seems to have gone along with this as the shield design changed from the rectangular scuptum to the more oval late-Roman type (the name escapes me). To me the scuptum indicates a more trained soldier, it's flexibility from use in the tortoise to shield to shield and most important protection of the individual soldier in sword combat also indicates a higher requirement of training on the part of that soldier and the experienced veteran's needed to perform that training. The late shield was more suited to the shield-wall formations and I'd argue was probably more in tune with a lesser trained soldier, a shield-wall needing far less training than more flexible tactical arrangements. It's only speculation (isn't is all?) but even Vegetius strongly points out to a loss of quality, whether one can really believe him or not the other clues here point strongly to a loss of quality forcing a dependence on heavy cavalry over infantry. There are arguments against it among them the need for cavalry to deploy quicker but I'd argue that a (well trained) legion traveling at 25 miles or so a day would've been a hell of an asset and not far behind. I doubt legions may have been able to do this by the mid-4th century.

I think the speculation was that Suetonius wrote these while still an advisor to Hadrian w/ access to what must have been a treasure trove of information from the early Principate. Once he fell out with Hadrian's wife and was kicked out of service his biographical sketches take a turn for the worse reliability-wise. It's a shame how much information has been lost as a result of this.

I thought Eccleston's portrayal of the Doctor was irreplacable. After seeing David Tennant in one episode I can say I was wrong, he'll fill the shoes nicely and he may even be more popular than Eccleston. I just wish they'd do more extended two and three part stories, less than an hour it and the story line gets packed a little tight.

What does everyone who's had a chance to see it think of the new Doctor Who series? Christopher Eccleston was excellent in the first season and David Tennant looks like he'll as good if not better in the second. Then there's Billie Piper, who'd have thunk she could act? The new series is excellent.

A few years ago I stayed in Toronto for a couple of months. I met a lot of Canadians and noticed they used the term American to refer to those of us from the U.S. Of course in Europe it's not even a question that American is used.

You wouldn't happen to be dealing with Ed.D. and Education Ph.D. are you? They're from another planet. No, I deal with lawyers and MA/Phds in Int'l Relations/Affairs and related fields.

Based on my own experience I'm not so sure the percentage of idiots with degrees is that much less than uneducated idiots, but perhaps working in D.C. has left me jaded. My own field deals with a professional grad degree so the assumption of literacy isn't usually a guess. In lieu of a better methodology I'll still interview, still check backgrounds, still look them in the eye and worry as much about their social skills as professional and so on. Then after their hired mentor them well and give them a year probation to watch their performance. Yeah it's ugly, but it works well enough.

There's a much simpler solution--simply require job applicants to take the GRE. Nice idea in theory. I know numerous individuals in my civilian profession and Phds in related fields who I worked with who'd score extremely high on a GRE--and a lot of them are friggin' worthless. I've found that academic intelligence has little to do with drive, common sense, managerial skills, etc. I'd use it as a baseline only but never without a serious interview with the individual, there are a lot of educated idiots out there.

I would add here that the official name and the description the Vatican uses to describe itself it the "Catholic Church" and not the "Roman" Catholic Church. Technically the Roman Catholic Church is only one of the Catholic rites within the church including Maronite, Byzantine, Ukrainian and so on (there are something like 21 "Catholic" rites under the Pope).

I appreciate the metric system, but it's hardly convenient at times. Miles make much more sense in the US where distances are farther and it's easier to think of using miles instead of kilometers. The same with height of individuals, it's easier to think of 68" or 8" instead of 173 cm. When it comes to shorter distances and walking kilometers comes in much handier for me.

When exactly was this true? I know they have evidence of co-habitation from the finds at Hadrian's Wall, but this doesn't imply that families were travelling with centurions throughout Roman history. My guess is during the Principate when legions were more or less garrisoned at permanent locations, such as along the Rhine, from where they would venture forth for a particular operations, patrols or campaigns. Although we get wrapped around the Roman army and it's battles we tend to overlook that they probably had a certain amount of downtime during more peaceful years and especially in winter. I believe places like Bonn, Mainze and Cologne all began as Roman military towns and suggest long-term residency by the legions.

I never really messed with that. Just go to the article you want to add to, click the 'edit' link above the particular paragraph you want to ammend or the 'edit this page' link if you want to add a section. Then make sure you click the preview to make sure it looks like what you want it to look like. I also add a comment on the discussion page for justification. Make sure to click on the history of this page link to see previous changes and if any of them reflect the one you are trying to make and were re-edited. Wikipedia's a two-edged sword, if you get a page that some wiki-nanny is babysitting and they have a particular POV that's different from your it can get ugly with counter-editing and so on. There's a lot of 'consensus' articles that make for lowest common denominator reading and I find the discussion pages almost as interesting.