[Roman Special Troops]

I believe that teh cavalry did things like that. harassment, raids, cutting supply lines and such. they also did reconnaissance. All things that spec forces do today.

[Truth In Historical Strategies & Tactics.]

I don't think you can get a completely objective and realistic view of what happened.

 

Historians can recreate an approximation of what may have happened based on the enemy's version (not always objective). Where bodies are found plays a big role in determining what may or may not of happened and where units were arrayed. Survivor's testimony helps as part of what may have happened. Non combatant witnesses also add to the picture.

 

As long as you don't just rely on one source you can attempt to get an overall picture. Assumptions are also used to fill in the gaps but can sometimes be changed as new evidence comes to light.

 

You just have to try and get as close to the truth as possible.

 

I don't think we are relying on lies per se but we might be using erronious info in some cases.

[The Greatest Roman General]

I went for Caesar. Based on what I know of Roman history, I am astonished that Germanicus hasn't got any votes. If the question had been "who was Romes greatest military leader" I would have picked Corbulo, for his triumph at Actium (I think it was Corbulo, but I have a nagging feeling that Corbulo may have been the guy that Nero forced to commit suicide. Maybe he did both actually). Anyway, I would have gone for the victor at Actium, whoever it was.

 

Corbulo did commit suicide upon reading his own death sentence from Nero. He had some atonishing success against the Armenians and Parthians. I'm with you on this one. Corbulo was a general's general. Soldiering and leading men seemed to be his passion and he did it well, garnmering respect and admiration from friend and foe alike.

 

But he wasn't on the list so Scipio it is.