Tobias

That's a very interesting breakdown of the article. It certainly does simplify things. One notices these days that the Iraq war has little coverage in the press (at least in Australia), but the things that do come to light are that America is not making much headway. Although they have the advantage of numbers, technology and plenty of money, how do you know they won't do as Hannibal did, and pull out of the country they are invading? The roles are reversed in this comparison; it is Carthage invading the the Roman Republic, and America invading Iraq. It's hard to know if America holds that moral advantage that 9/11 gave them, whereas the Romans certainly had a moral advantage; they were defending their country from invasion (if you can call the tactics adopted to be defense) when Hannibal was wandering around southern italy. All i'm saying is that although it seems that Rome was bound to win, as America seems bound to win, one shouldn't fall into the trap of saying that Rome and America were in the same position. That argument was perhaps a little irrelevant however, so i'll just stop now.

I'd agree with that. He was perhaps inspired not just by Cassius but by the idea that he'd be doing what one of his ancestors, Lucius Junius Brutus, had done; ridding Rome of a king. Although i would disagree that caesar wanted to be king of rome, that was no doubt how Brutus saw it.

Thanks from me too, i'm not a citizen, but i was curious as to what the differences were in the groups.

Yes, that was how i meant it. I don't care what time it was said, or by whom, i'm just interested in people's favourite quotes. You might say i'm doing a little bit of a philosophy study

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. He was a good general, but he didn't (in my opinion) cross that difficult to define line to great. He certainly was a very efficient organizer, and he was gifted with a number of extraordinary commands, and he was determined to make his name greater then it was. For his efforts i commend him. I just can't decide whether he is a first rate general though. I'm inclined to say no, but he did have some shining examples of his skill when he was at his peak, and he was blatantly outshone by Julius Caesar, so it is difficult to come to a decision. I'd have to say that at his peak he was a first rate general, but by the time he was facing Caesar at Pharsalus, he had slipped downwards; a man lacking in decision and inspiration. Is it true that Labienus did the majority of the planning for the tactics used by Pompey's army at Pharsalus? I read that somewhere, i just wanted to ask if it was true.

I have just thought that i should widen this thread; Any quotes at all i would love to hear, not just Latin ones:)

G'day everyone I was just looking at a website of latin quotes. Some of them are quite amusing, so i thought "maybe some of the members have their own amusing or interesting latin sayings, so i decided to start this topic and find out some quotable quotes from people. Please provide a translation, i'm not a master at latin (yet!) I like mine by Horace, so that's a start.

This site is extremely informative and satisfying. There's little i enjoy more than discussing history with people, although as a 16 year old student, it's a bit daunting putting my opinions up against some of the very learned people who inhabit this site! I'd have to agree, however, that this site could do with some more promotion; their are plenty of people who i know would love to part of this site.

Imagine the people in the time of St Benedict etc. who had to write these laws down

As well as getting the augurs to check bird, sheep or bull entrails for signs:)

That's a fascinating account. I have to confess i have read little on this area of Roman History, being more devoted to the Late Republic to Eastern Empire period, but that is a really interesting and detailed account. You've persuaded me to look more into Early Republican Rome Hamilcar

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I thought Manzikert as well, because the Empire could never again raise the kind of numbers of troops it needed to defend the empire from external foes, as well as inspiring a large amount of confidence in the Empire's defeat. The Fourth Crusade's sacking of Constantinople was one of the most mortal blows to the Empire i think though. It never recovered, never could recover, from this blow.

G'day everyone, this is my first poll, i hope to get some interesting thoughts on the topic. The Byzantines suffered many defeats, so which one was the worst for the Empire?

Ah ok, thank you, curiosity sated

I have a question for Primus Pilus; I'm very sorry for asking it, it's just my natural curiosity What is you avatar? I'm sure i've seen that picture elsewhere, i just can't for the life of me remember.

That link on Salic laws is fascinating. It really does show the times doesn't it? Just one question regarding Odovacer's state: Did it have an official currency of it's own, or did it use something else, or a combination of foreign coins?

When i say freak, i mean someone who departs from the norm, not someone who is mentally affected. Just clearing that up:).

You're right, he was not good for Rome. His proscriptions were numerous and unmerciful, and he obviously lost it with the power he came to control. Story of many lives. unfortunately.

The Eastern Roman Empire under Emperor Zeno (before and after he regained the throne from Basiliscus) was sent the imperial regalia by Odovacer, himself saying that one Emperor was enough for the world. I believe Odovacer created a state that was still part of the Roman Empire, or at least strongly linked to it. If you want an account of the fall and politics of the time, i recommend "The Last Legion" by Valerio Massimo Manfredi. I know that the plot of Romulus Augustus being rescued and taken elsewhere is fictitious, but the book gives an accurate idea of the times, and the attitudes of the people.

I live in a small town in Western New South Wales in Australia, so i've never experienced anything along the hurricane lines in person. I send my deepest sympathies to those in that area of America who have suffered due to the hurricane, although i can never fully appreciate how much damage it must have done.

I agree that Vercingetorix's war chiefs didn't help things. I believe the chief druid, (named Cathbad i think) tried to have Vercingetorix crowned as king. If he had succeded, and his chiefs acknowledged him as absolute ruler, perhaps things would have been different. But he wasn't, and Gaul was not permanently united. Yes, Gergorvia may have been a significant accomplishment against Caesar, but it didn't stop him did it? It certainly didn't cripple him. It probably had a good effect on Vercingetorix's warriors, however.

I wouldn't agree that Verciongetorix was having great success against Caesar. Basically all he managed to do was stop him taking Gergorvia. He underestimated far to much, and overestimated the advantage of numbers. The debarcle at Avaricum was proof of this. One of his chiefs reasoned that Avaricum couldn't fall, and thus it didn't have to follow Vercingetorix's scorched earth policy. What did Caesar do? He made a siege terrace, and took the city. Large amounts of food and supplies fell into Caesar's hands, and Vercingetorix was taken aback. Another of Vercingetorix's policies was to not allow his men to be shut up in their oppida, and what did he do? He got himself trapped in Alesia, again assured that Caesar could not take it. And it was taken. Vercingetorix would have lost at any rate, if not at Alesia then somewhere else, if only because of his inexperience and underestimating.

It certainly was close. Obviously the Fabian tactics were the best course of action until a competent enough general could found to be sent against Hannibal. Hannibal did not always make use of his opprtunities however, and was perhaps bound to be beaten or at least called away from Italy. I agree with most said above, especially that of the senate not supporting him.

Sulla was definetly different; a freak he could be called. He was a brilliant general and a cunning person, but he was perhaps a bit too unstable. Evil? Perhaps that's an accurate description, but in my opinion it's a bit strong...

It is widely known that when Caesar was assasinated, he was planning to head east to begin a campaign against the Parthians. I believe he would have been successful eventually, and a huge source of wealth would finally have been tapped. I believe the glory gained by Caesar would inspire the beginning of an empire. When (or if!) Caesar conquered the Parthian Empire, then who knows. Caesar could have conquered India then moved on to China. The sky's the limit! However, by the time Caesar had done all this, he most likely will have died, whether from old age or assasination. Either way, a vast territory and vast wealth is now under Rome's control, and the guiding force, Caesar, is dead. Thus, many rivals (Octavian, Antony if he's still alive, etc) would fight for control of the empire, and that would finish off the Republic. I believe there's been a thread similar to this before, perhaps you should consult it as well?