barca

I'm sure many of you heard of the brutal outcome of the most recent UFC fight: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mma/news/20131229/chris-weidman-tko-anderson-silva-broken-leg-ronda-rousey-meisha-tate/ One individual expressed disappointment for missing the fight saying "the best fights are when people bleed or break" Is this not the same mentality exhibited by the ancient Romans? One difference perhaps is that many of the gladiators were criminals anyway who were at least given a fighting chance instead of being summarily executed. UFC fighters are consenting adults, but do they really understand the risks?

It seems to me that Parmenion played a significant role as a subordinate of Alexander. He commanded the left wing of the Macedonian formations, communicating with Alexander when he was in peril.

Isn't that what happened at Hastings? The Anglo-Saxons were doing OK until they decided to charge after the "retreating" Norman Cavalry...

Interesting question. I agree that a lot of people are willing to take up a particular religion or philosophy because it is in vogue, but never gaining an in depth understanding. I don't really have an answer. I will say that one of my Hindu friends has told me that in India, they have had to deal with Hindu fundamentalists who as rigid and intolerant as their Western Christian Counterparts.

Do we know anything about Alexander's Epirote army? Did they fight in Macedonian Phalanx formation?

The two of you may be correct. here's a profile view And here's a profile from the internet They both seem to have that characteristic bump in the nose bridge.

I recently bought this bronze replica and an antiques show. My first impression is that it is a copy of Septimus Severus because of the bifurcation in the beard, but I was also thinking possibly Marcus Aurelius. The antiques dealers had no clue. Any thoughts?

Oman, no doubt got his ideas from reading Machiavelli's Art of War, in which he recommends using a combination of pikemen as well as swordsmen for a complete infantry. The late Macedonian phalanx used the sarissa which required 2 hands, therefore it was hard for them to carry a shield, so it is believed that their shields were therefore very small and offered much less protection than the Roman scutum. I don't think that Renaissance Pikemen carried shields at all, but they made up for it by wearing good plate armor (at least in the front ranks) and they also carried swords. As for swords, in my opinion there is no reason why the phalangites could not have carried a gladius as a secondary weapon to defend themselves once the cohesion of the phalanx was broken, so that they could at least put up some kind of a fight rather than subject themselves to wholesale slaughter. It is also possible that the casualties described are exaggerated, i.e. the Romans losing a few hundred compared to the Macedonians losing almost their entire army. What do you think of the old hoplite phalanx vs legion? Here the hoplites carried a one-handed spear along with a large heavy hoplon shield. How would these hoplites fare against the legionnaires under similar circumstances?

Considering all the womanizing, I would say: Bill Clinton/Julius Caesar. Here's another: Donald Trump/Crassus - both very wealthy, but somewhat ineffective in other areas Just my thoughts. I do think it would make a great work to compare the characters of the ancients to those of the modern day.

Throughout the ages there were numerous codes or manuals for appropriate behavior. From the middle ages, chivalry; from the renaissance, Castiglione's Book of the Courtier, to George Washington's rules of civility and decent behavior. And many other works throughout the ages. Were there any such manuals in ancient world form Greece or Rome? Plutarch wrote a number of essays on the conduct of life in general, but were there any more explicit writings?

Let's first make a distinction between "knights" and "mounted warriors". Long before Eleanor of Aquitaine, all European Warlords had their mounted armored horsemen or Loricati, as Tom Holland described them. They were generally described as thugs who offered "protection" to the local farmers, and they would take all their produce to serve their masters in their castles. These warlords evolved into the Counts and Dukes of the high middle ages. With the Crusades, the loricati evolved into what we think of as knights. There was a Code of Chivalry which was similar to the Code of Bushido in Japan. The main difference was a reverence toward women and God. http://www.weaponsemporium.com/WE-Codes%20of%20Chivalry.htm http://www.christianjujitsu.com/Code_of_Bushido/Code_of_Bushido.html

There was nothing novel about the cavalry that the late Roman Legions faced if not perhaps for the Huns with their asymmetric hunnic bow, which allowed for a much stronger draw strength in the pre-stirrup era. The legions of old were very successful against numerous foes that vastly outnumbered them in cavalry. Look at the battles of Lucullus, Ventidius, Pompei, against their eastern foes and see how well they handled armies that were vastly superior in cavalry. And of course there were exceptions such as Crassus' blunder, but overall, the legions of old did fairly well against cavalry. Also, javelins throwing would not be the best counter for cavalry. A tightly knit pike formation would be the way to go.

Like everything else, there's an element of truth in Oman's theories, but it really wasn't quite that simple. I suggest reading War Horse: A History of the Military Horse and Rider by Louis A. DiMarco. He suggests that shock cavalry dates back to Alexander the Great who essentially used close ordered infantry tactics to his cavalry formations. As horsemanship evolved through the ages, heavy cavalry became more and more effective. Not only stirrups, but saddles, bits, and snaffles all led to better control of the horse and more stability of the rider. The heavy cavalry of the Romans were the cataphracts and the clibnari. The latter being so heavily armored that they lacked mobility. In reality though, the Late Romans seemed to favor horse archers more. Aetius had his huns as mercenaries. Belisarius had his own Byzantine horse archers based to a large extent on the model of the huns.

Modern Symposia involve lectures, workshops, and discussion of a particular discipline. A reception with cocktail usually follows such event for a more informal get together. It seems to me that in the ancient world a symposium combined academics, intellectual discussion, entertainment in the arts, cabaret-style entertainment, and debauchery. Xenophon's symposium is a good example. Am I correct?

I recommend a book entitled Christianizing the Roman Empire by Ramsay McMullen He points out that unlike Paganism, Christianity presented ideas that demanded a choice, not tolerance. There was a sharp and consistent attack on the idols of Paganism. Eusebius writes of the "mis-named 'gods'" Erected at Epheseus was an inscription "Destroying the delusive image of Artemis, Demeas has erected a symbol of truth, the God that drives away idols, and the Cross of Priests, deathless and victorious sign of Christ." God was pictured as being at war against all rivals. St Paul issued a summons to struggle to defeat the powers of darkness. Artemis, also known as Diana was resurrected in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance with the renewed appreciation for Classical Literature. somehow later Christians were able to reconcile pagan literature while maintaining Christian faith.

I think it comes down to adequate training. The quintessential pikemen were the Swiss mercenaries, who frequently got the better of heavy cavalry. I somehow doubt that those makeshift formations shown in Braveheat would have been all that effective. The Scots did use Schiltrons, a somewhat circular pike formation that was very effective against cavaalry, but it required appropriate training to be effective. If you look at some of Belisarius' battles in the 6th century, there were instnaces of his ill-diciplined infantry running away from cavalry charges. Again, a matter of training and discipline.

Can you gives us a link to these discussions?

It seems to me that the Roman Catholic church is always blamed for all of the attrocities committed by Christians. There is no question that in the so-called "dark ages" or "age of faith" there was a decline in intellectualism, living standards, etc. However during the late Middle Ages and early renaissance the Catholic Church actually promoted humanism as intellectuals left form the declining Byzantium. Pope Nichols V, for example was responsible for much of the Vatican Library. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11058a.htm Protestants were no less intolerant. Reformers were concerned that the church was becoming too Roman or too pagan as it promoted humanism during the Renaissance. A example of Protestant intolerance was the execution of Michael Servetus by the Calvinists because of his controversial views on the Trinity: http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

I'm sure many of you have seen this website http://www.brainyquote.com/ it has famous quotes from various writers from ancient times through modern. Unfortunately, they don't always list the precise source of the quote. I usually like to look at the entire source in order to fully appreciate its context. does anyone have any info on the accuracy and reliability of this site?

I would go back further to the Battle of Allia and the reforms of Camillus, which was the beginning of the reorganization of the Roman Army.

Good concise summary of Early Rome, but it included some unnecessary moralizing statements: "The city of Rome was at this time still largely uninfluenced by eastern decadence and the corruptions of wealth; and the Republican virtues of courage, patriotism, and piety were at their peak...By the time Rome conquered all of Italy, it was at its height of civic rectitude, and public morality...The city of Rome was prosperous, but had not given in to the luxurious vices." It is generally accepted that Livy tended to exaggerate the virtues of Republican Rome.

The Sassanid empire fell quickly but the Eastern Roman Empire survived. As far as I know, we have very little surviving literature from the Sassanids. Did the Islamic empire destroy them? Would they have also destroyed much of the Greco-Roman literature if they had conquered Constantinople?

That's a very open ended question. The early history of Rome is somewhat sketchy. It seems to me that after the second punic war they dominated numerous opponents that had previously been considered very strong.

The arena was probably the most popular. But there is historical evidence for crucifixion as a form of punishment. Didn't Crassus execute thousands of Spartacus' followers by crucifixion?