[Hannibal's Invasion Of Italy]

...Varro's argument was how could the Romans expect to keep their federation intact, which relied on promising protection for obediance, if they couldn't protect their own people? Actually, Hannibal was indirectly enriching Fabius and his fellow aristocrats as farmers fled the land and crowded into Rome. Their farms were sold for a mere pittance, and the senators etc. were incorporating them into their already vast estates, known as latifundia, and working them with slaves. Sorry - this really isn't the point, but interesting trivia. Moreover, Fabius' style was not the Roman way. Varro did what was expected of him -be aggressive. Fabius' wisdom, though, was indeed appreciated after the lesson of Cannae. He certainly never 'outwitted' Hannibal, as many seem to feel. It was somewhat the other way around, as evidenced by the breakout at the ager Falernus...

 

We know what happened to poor Varro and his army that dreadful day for Rome, but he displayed admirable distinction in defeat, rallying survivors at Venusia and helping to keep order. He was relatively excused and given posts of command throughout the rest of the war. After the war, he was sent on diplomatic missions to Greece and Africa.

 

Food for thought. Thanks, Spartan JKM

 

I appreciate your well thought out arguments JKM, but I do have to dispute the issue with Varro. The Romans had already lost several armies to Hannibal and Polybius makes very clear in the parapgraph before the election of Varro and Paullus that the Romans understood Fabius prudence, especially after his rescue of Minucius from total defeat by Hannibal. Fabius strategy was appreciated and not only by Paullus but by none other than Minucius who Appian states finally understood his wisdom.

 

You make a good argument about the pressures Varro thought should force him into battle, but the primary responsibility of a good general is to access the tactical situation according to the terrain/position, the enemy, his army's capabilities and finally his own abilities and experience. Varro ignored his position which Paullus found unfavorable, was faced with one of the greatest enemies anyone has ever faced, he had an army where a large number had little or no combat experience and he himself had no military experience, ignoring the advice of his own co-consul who did. His reputation further suffered from the fact that Paullus, who opposed the battle, fought and died alongside plebes, senators and equestrians while he fled the field.

 

To me the evidence is conclusive that Varro had made a serious error and disregarded solid advice. His mistake not only caused a great disaster, it stripped Rome temporarily of an army to defend it.

[Did Caesar Ultimately]

I always had the feeling that he was pandering to the populous. He certainly gained strencth by winning over the plebes. Every man he promoted to senatorial rank was a potential ally. I would say that he was filling the senate with freinds somewhat similar to George W. Bush's judicial appointments.

 

He certainly was pandering and the poster boy for the word "opportunistic". But I believe his stance with the populares was genuine, though no less opportunistic because of it. When Sulla held the cards he was given the choice of going over to the side of the optimates and divorcing his wife Cornelia, daughter of Marius' ally Cinna, thereby saving his neck-- he refused. A pure opportunist wouldn't have chosen that path. For all his ego-centered faults he remained constant in his support of the masses and many of his attempts at reforms seem moderate measures compared to what can only be described as the reactionary Senate of that time period.

[Careers In History]

...a university lecturer, teacher or historical writer...

 

When it comes to classical history you've pretty much covered it with the exception of museums perhaps. With a graduate history degree you can get-- here in the U.S.-- a government job depending on your area of specialization. I worked with a several Phds in the Army who were civilians and who's degree concentrations ranged from Balkan and Russian to Middle Eastern history. They spent a lot of time doing nothing but reading as far as I could see. I also know both the State and Defense departments as well as the CIA have hired history MAs and Phds. Perhaps Australia has something equivalent in its civil service.

 

There's always a law degree, here in the U.S. a law degree is a three-year graduate program that leads to a Juris Doctor. I think in Australia lawyers practice with a bachelor's degree (horror!), but some schools offer JDs as well though I think they're only two years. When I received my JD something like 20% of law students I knew, including me, were undergraduate history degree holders. Trust me, lots of coffee and time in the library.

 

On the other hand a good friend of mine's husband has a Master's in history from a city college in the Northwest. He sells insurance. When you find that job that allows you to drink coffee in the library, read and write in solitude--without a Phd in history or the classics-- and it pays well, let me know.

[Your Predictions For Future...]

Economically the U.S. will probably continue coming along as the leading economy. I'm not a big fan of capitalism, but the U.S. economy's uncanny ability to efficiently utilize capital, the financial framework in place to raise that capital, its ability to implement technical knowledge into the market (such as the internet/computer boom of the '90s which, although it finally burst left more wealth, higher efficencies and created new markets) its reaction to market challenges like those from Japan twenty years ago, and-- in spite of the varying quality of our primary/secondary education system (from very baaaad to excellent schools)-- a great university system will continue to give it a strong economic engine. In other words I don't see a great move away from capitalism here.

 

The WHO will become more all encompassing in it's power to mediate between nations and continue to eliminate some barriers but allow others due to demands within economic sectors of some nations for protection of national importance, such as agriculture.

 

If the EU can get its act together and deal with some rising social issues, it may be a big contender, especially if its intellectual capital is used to greater capacity. I fear that the presence of a rising Islamic population there will lead to a serious backlash against them among Europeans that might become ugly. As for Russia; I've studied, lived there, dated them here, have Russian friends and have worked on Russian issues in the Army and my the civilian world for most of my adult life. I have no idea where they'll be, still can't figure them out.

 

I'm not so sure about China, they're hopping along but I think there'll be some major changes there as the population's expectations rise. Their economy is moving but it's so based on exports that small changes in the economies or import laws by the U.S., Japan and the EU would effect it greatly. I've got greater hope for India, language and technical expertise may be their way up. I think Japan, which has been having economic difficulties in the last ten years, will have to change many of it's imporation laws and internal barriers to foreign investment and ownership or be countered with economic sanctions.

 

Except for South Africa, the rest of Africa will remain a hellhole. The South Africans may possibly be a big success story. They have a very good technical base, universities and natural resource. They're trying to lure white professionals who left in the last ten years back, Cape Town seems to be a new tourist mecca for Europeans and the increasing participation of black Africans in universities and technical schools means they may have a bright future if they can get their social issues straighted out--AIDS, crime, etc.

 

Ursus comment on Islam is interesting. I think Islam is going to come to a crossroads soon. Either they adapt to the modern world and more moderate Islam becomes the mainstream or they'll be relegated to economic hell. I think other sources of energy will be discovered besides oil, due to some technological breakthrough, and after that the Islamic world will be with even less resources or any reason the rest of the world is interested in them. If they don't moderate, then I think Christianity and Islam will come to serious conflict in Africa where both religions are booming.

 

I also somewhat agree on his prospects for Christianity, especially in the U.S. although I think it will continue to boom in Africa, possibly causing problems with Islam. It also looks like it may boom in Asia perhaps causing social problems while cultures adjust. I also think that Catholicism will continue to grow in the third world. Once a non-European becomes Pope I think the trend will continue, maybe permanently, and may become a great draw.

 

South America will become a hodge-podge of ecnomically successful nations alongside poor ones.

 

Australia will have Disneyland, be a retirement community for Americans and become the 56th U.S. state after Puerto Rico, British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan.

[Did Caesar Ultimately]

Leaving aside the state of the republic for another discussion, Caesar deserves absolutely no thanks for his genocidal policies in Gaul. During the 100 years BEFORE Caesar's adventures, the Gauls were not only no threat to Rome, they provided Rome with excellent trade, taxes, auxiliaries, and were being rapidly Italicized northward of Narbonensis. For this we may thank noble Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus. Caesar, far from deserving thanks, simply made a desert and called it peace.

 

Genocide? Surely you have figures besides Plutarch

[Did Caesar Ultimately]

Wow, the selfless Caesar, that's a new one on me. However, Caesar had no intent of relinquishing power of the state to the people or the senate. Your right then when you say that the real end of the republic was not when the legions crossed the Rubicon, though in fact the republic was held hostage by powerful men throughout it's history and I think it is more in debate as to whether it actually existed as a republic aside from it's very early days of independence.

 

I believe his point seemed to be that the rich oligarchs feared JC because he'd thrown in his lot with the populares at a fairly young age. He may not have been "selfless" but there's ample evidence that he was keen on reforming the system by leveling the playing field between populares and optimates with land reforms, debt reduction, etc. He extended the benefits of citizenship on a relatively wide scale and I believe he was the first to appoint a Gaul as Senator much to the consternation of many in the Senate.

 

When seen in the light of the optimates history of disenfranchisement of a large portion of the populace, JC comes off as a much more sympathetic figure.

[Worst General Or Politician In Roman History]

...

The point I was making was to set aside military expertise in favor of political. I apologize for being taken so literally but could have outlined my views more precisely. However as a point of note Cicero did engage in a few military campaigns and was nearly awarded a triumph but recieved a supplicatio for his military campaign while governing Cilicia.

 

I'd forgotten Cilicia, still he was a bit of a self-promoter on the triumph thing. He was never shy of self-promotion that's for sure.

[Roman History Of My Family's Hometown]

I hope this is the correct forum for this, you're all the perfect group to share this with.

 

My brother and I are planning on visiting relatives in Italy next summer. Both of my parent

[Worst General Or Politician In Roman History]

...

Obviosly the many years that Cicero spent as the most powerful and efficient man in Rome escape you as well as the coup he put asunder without blood lost from the just. I resign in awe of the the great man Cicero.

As Augustus called him,"a learned man, my child, a learned man and a lover of his country."

 

It escapes few on UNRV, but it still has little relation with "generalship" in the military sense. In Roman history, along the spectrum of politician to general, Cicero stands as close to pure politician as any Roman and almost utterly devoid of military skill. Cicero's inability to "control" the outbreak of civil war and the outcome at Pharsalus or the Second Triumvirate makes him less than the greatest general or politician-- according to your own hazy definition.

[Uruguay Defeated]

...

Awaken the sleeping giant, Australia, to the soccer world!

GO AUSTRALIA

 

Now why would you want to cheer your country on in this? You have a wonderfully chaotic and respectably violent sport in rugby.

[Ask The Expert - Dr Bryan Ward Perkins]

Hello Professor Ward-Perkins and welcome to the forum. I

[Worst General Or Politician In Roman History]

Ya 50,000 Romans dead because of overconfidence and bad leadership is nuts. Facing Hannibal on the field of his choosing is about as stupid as it gets, regardless of the number advantage you have over him. If Hannibal would have beseiged the capital after Cannae history could have been vastly different

 

Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro were the two consuls. Don't be to hard on Lucius Paullus, he'd tried to talk Varro into avoiding battle knowing that the Roman army wasn't trained up to speed (according to Polybius) and wary of Hannibal's generalship. But according to the consular system it was Varro's day to command. Varro fled the battle to "warn Rome", while Lucius Paullus stood and fought (and was killed).

[Changing Forum Titles]

Indeed, its something I want to do, just haven't yet wanted to punish myself enough to actually go through and start moving topics around We'll get to it eventually though I'm sure.

 

I wonder if splitting it into the Republic, the Principate and the Dominate (or just late Roman Empire) might be feasible. They're quite distinct eras, although we tend to focus on the first two much more than the last one. It might just fracture the topic of empire a bit too much at this time, but might be something to keep in mind if traffic increases on UNRV at the pace it's been going.

[Claymores]

"...if they tried to resist the auxiliaries they were mown down by the swords and javelins of the legionaries, and, if they turned toward the latter, by the claymores and spears of the auxiliaries."

 

Tacitus, The Annals, 12, 35.3.

 

A google of AJ Woodman shows that he was a prof at University of Durham in northern England near the border with Scotland. I suspect that influenced his choice of the word claymore, it may be more commonly used there then here. Anyone from that island want to chime in?

[Claymores]

I did find this: Scottish Claymore Sword. This and other google returns seem to show it's the Scottish sword Flavius described and used in the 14th - 16th centuries. Learn something new everday.

[Claymores]

My translation by Moses Hadas says

 

"...When they faced the auxiliaries, they were felled by the swords and javelins of our legionaries; if they wheeled round, they were again met by the sabres and spears of the auxiliaries."

 

So it appears to mean sabres.

 

I've seen claymores in action, they're a Vietnam-era piece of ordinance with the famous "Front Toward Enemy" label on them; you give me about six well-placed claymores and I'd cause carnage in any ancient armies ranks!

[Where Is Every One From?]

Born in Italy and lived there for six years, family is from the Pacific Northwest, live in Northern Virginia (DC area) and lived in North Carolina the longest. NC-- Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill-- is without a doubt the best place I've ever lived.

[Phalanx Vs. Legions]

...Like Germanicus stated, the legion and maniple/cohort system was designed to be highly flexible, capable of defeating any opposing army type. The Phalanx was not flexible, it was rigid, immouvarable and every time the Greeko-Macedonian armies attempted to use it against the Romans they lost, spectaculuary...

 

It's ironic that 1500 years later Europeans resurrected the idea of the phalanx modifiying it by making it smaller, faster and a bit more flexible and then gradually adding other weapons into the formation alongside pikes.

[Music And Brain Tangents]

It's strange- I've never really listened to New Order much. Not sure why- I'll have to give them a go. We have ITUNES music store in Australia now, so you can just buy music over the net. Tempting. I'll have to make sure I'm never intoxicated in my bedroom with a credit card or a lot of money could be spent on music!

I'll also have a look at The Band. What's their best CD?

 

I'd recommend Power, Corruption and Lies by New Order. Hands down my favorite New Order cd. Joy Division-- the band the surviving members of New Order came from-- is great but can be a little intense depending on your tastes.

 

The Band was an influential "band" from the late 60s and early 70s that played with Bob Dylan and backed him on a couple of albums. If you like Dylan or Neil Young you might like them, I'd recommend their first albums called "The Band" or "Music from the Big Pink". Both routinely make the best 100 albums lists but they aren't like much music being played on MTV today or on the charts today; country-rock-folk might be the best way to describe them.

[Music And Brain Tangents]

But the classics allso get as much airtime in our house

the doors

The Rolling stones

The band

The Cure

Nirvana

The Stone roses

The Smiths

Van Morrison

 

The Smiths and Stone Roses are now considered "classics", man I'm getting old.

 

I've got a fairly wide range of music from punk to classical to jazz/blues etc. that I listen to with over 2,500 cds, tapes and records (those vinyl things) collected so far. I have a decent stereo system with Quad and ACI speakers, an NAD integrated amp, old Nakamichi tape deck, old McIntosh tuner and Pioneer Elite cd player. I try to give it good workout every once in a while.

 

Bands sitting on my cd player, tape deck, turntable and mp3 player lately:

 

Mahavishnu Orchestra- The Inner Mounting Flame (great guitar jamming fusion)

Allman Brothers Band- Live at the Fillmore East and Eat a Peach. Duane Allman comes close to Hendrix.

Jimi Hendrix- Band of Gypsys and First Rays of the New Rising Sun. Late Hendrix at his best.

John Hiatt- Master of Disaster

New Pornographers- everything

Rory Gallagher- outstanding but forgotten blues-rocker.

Hawkwind- mid-70s Pink Floyd meets Black Sabbath.

And recently as well a lot of Neil Young, Uncle Tupelo, The Connells and Warren Zevon.

 

I'm a big Howling Wold fan, listen to him and you'll hear where Zepplin got their inspiration. I'm also partial to a lot of early-punk and post-punk like Sex Pistols, Ramones, Wire, The Replacements, Guided by Voices and Husker Du.

[Phalanx Vs. Legions]

Yes an early Roman Empire army would beat a phalanx but

a late Roman Army due to the lack of discipline would have been defeated by the phalanx.

 

The phalanx actually existed as an effective force during the legions of the Republic and possibly the Principate. Since the Macedonian-type phalanx wasn't used by enemies of the late empire it was a hypothetical which I didn't address.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say late Roman armies lacked discipline except compared to earlier legions who set much higher standards. Vegetius makes it clear that many men shunned the late legions because of discipline in favor of auxiliaries. One test of discipline is how armies react when the going gets tough on them. Julian's legions were in a difficult position against the Persians but seem to have kept their unit integrity intact throughout. Of course the late legions weren't on par with the earlier ones, there's a lot of evidence showing a definite change in the quality of organizational leadership and training.

[Universities And Or Scholarships]

Thanks for your posts guys. Well I dont got a 4.0 GPA so that can be an issue and I havent taken my SAT/ACT's yet so im not sure. I live in boise and I know BSU has a decent program as thats where all my Latin teachers have graduated but im not sure. The money issue I have no clue yet. I am still pondering joining the military. and if thats the case I think I can broaden my horizon monetarily. I do appreciate your guys responses. I had no clue on what schools to look at.

 

If you're in Boise you've got an excellent small college not far from you in Walla Walla called Whitman College. I'm originally from Oregon and I knew a couple of people who attended there. It has a great rep. Look at Reed and UW as well. If you can take a prep course for your SAT/ACT. If you can't, then at least get a prep guide at any bookstore and review it a month or so out from the test.

 

I'll add in this edit that Oregon, Carroll College in Helena and Willamette also look like they've got classics departments. Decent schools. If you're thinking of Oregon or UW see if either state offers a reciprocity agreement with Idaho for in-state tuition.

[Universities And Or Scholarships]

Generally, most universities with quality history programs will have Latin and Greek offered as well. If you're looking to teach at the high school level then I'd worry as much about the schools education program as well. If you're looking to do graduate work then you've really got to pay particular importance to the school you attend and the reputation of it's programs, it'll be vital for job prospects if you've got no other special connections. History, in all eras, was a notoriously difficult area to get a good position in at the university level although it may have changed.

 

I recieved my BA in history from a small college in NC, excellent history program with a couple of good phds from U of Indiana. Because it wasn't in the top tier of small schools I believe that it hurt me a bit when competing to get into a (non-history) professional graduate program. I-- strangely-- got wait listed at Notre Dame and Wake Forest but accepted to UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke and a minor safety school. I chose UNC but I still kick myself for not trying to gain an MA in history along with my other degree. The point is that your undergrad school unfortunately matters in whatever methods admissions departments make to admit grad students. Not insurmountable by any means, but be aware of it when chosing.

 

The very best schools for history and classics are the usual suspects; Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, U of Chicago and Columbia. Other very good choices would be Virginia, Michigan, Washington, Berkley, UCLA, Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Illinois, Northwestern, Cornell and Johns Hopkins. I'd also put Texas, Wisconsin, Penn and Minnesota there as well. That leaves a lot of great schools like Rutgers, Iowa, Maryland etc., still out there.

 

If you're only looking for a basic college level BA then also look to schools like Amherst, Davidson, Williams, Pomona, Reed and other small liberal arts colleges.

 

These are the best of the best, so competition is tough, but to be blunt, you'll increase your options for employability. On the other hand many of the private schools have a lot of endowment money for financial aid.

 

This site might come in handy for you, someone did a listing of undergrad schools that offer classics. I don't know if it's all inclusive, but it looks fairly good: Undergrad Programs in Classics.

 

This conversation takes me back. What do you guys think of the program at University of Chicago (not UIC)? I applied there to get into archaeology and at UIUC to get into biochemistry. Radically different I know, but I love both. Fate decreed I get into science, since I only got on the waiting list for U of C.

 

I think Chicago's got a great rep in a lot of areas, it's one of the top national schools in about a dozen fields from econ to law to history so I'll bet their archeology program is pretty good. It says something that you at least got waitlisted, I'm betting it's a small program with a lot of applicants.

 

Biochemistry? Do well and it's med school for you.

[Claudius - Underestimated And Overlooked]

It strikes me that estimations of Claudius seem to ebb and flow with the times. He was certainly superior to his predecesser and successor, and in attempting to raise the level of political discourse to-- relatively-- more open levels, but suffers from his weaknesses in his familial life that may have led to Nero's ascension. His dependence on freedman for advisors seem to have made him a target as well, although it was a very clever method of insuring their loyalty to him.

 

The tragedy is the loss of his histories of the Etruscans and Carthage as well as his autobiography.

[Phalanx Vs. Legions]

Quite simply, the Legion was founded to defeat anyone the Romans had, or wanted, a beef with. Leadership, and discipline seem to be the other detirmining factors, but with veteran legions, and a general like Caesar, the outdated, outmoded Phalanx would be not just defeated, but slaughtered. Another thing about Caesars veteran legions....they would have enjoyed it.

 

I agree, the legion was an incredibly flexible organization, especially considering the wide variety of both the terrain it operated in and the enemies it went up against.

 

Let's not forget that most important factor of all that no good army can win without; training. Romans set the standard. They trained constantly, emphasizing forced marches for speed with packs that I believe have been estimated to be around 65-80lbs average--similar to what soldiers carry today. They trained individual soldier sword skills--building covered areas so they could continue year round-- and then unit movement and maneuver. Everything, even discipline comes from it, and it allowed even mediocre commanders to gain victories.