barca
-
Posts
383 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by barca
-
-
I know that the Spartans founded a colony (their only colony, I believe) on the Italian Peninsula when Rome was still in its infancy.... It seems unlikely since I also recall that that colony did not carry on the most well-known aspects of Spartan culture and were more into the arts. I want to say that the colony was Tarentum, but I am probably wrong.
I think you're right about that, and they certainly didn't carry on Sparta's martial tradition. When they came into conlict with Rome, they called in Pyrrhus to do their fighting for them, and they were less than enthusiastic about contributing to the war effort themselves. In fact, Pyrrhus had to rely on other Italian allies to supplement his troops.
-
Thanks Lanista. I'll be sure to check out that book.
I also suggest that you look at Matyszac's book on the Roman Conquest of Macedon and Greece
http://www.unrv.com/index.php?p=728
Sparta made a resurgence under Cleomenes (235-222 BC) He reformed their military system and introduced the sarissa into their formation, but he was ultimatelly defeated.
Greek warfare had changed considerably from the classical period. The Galatians intoduced some changes in the arms and armor. The Aetolian league used mostly light troops, which may have been influenced somewhat by the Galatians.
The Achaean league under Philopoemen upgraded to the Sarissa or at least some form of a longer pike. I don't know if any Greeks still went into battle along the lines of the original hoplite phalanx, with the large hoplon shield and relatively short spear.
-
http://cclbsebes.ro/docs/sebus/08_Borangic.pdf
This one is about the even more famous "Falx Dacica", as well have a short article in english, from page 10 on, and present most of the falx blades (very few, unfortunately) discovered until now, with images and dimensions
This was the "national" weapons of Dacians, made famous especialy during Daco-Roman wars from 101-102 and 105-106 AD, a feared weapons who had a sinister fame among roman soldiers.
The Falx is an interesting weapon. The curvature is in the opposite direction of the Katana (Japanese Samurai Sword)
-
... John Hannah (Batiatus) continues to amaze with his performance. In last night's episode, he was scarier than any of his gladiators.
Batiatus is one slimy character. Vile yet somewhat likable at the same time. He is scary but not really intimidating. He has a sort of charm that can be disarming. He could smile in your face while slitting your jugular.
And I loved the part when he was snubbed by the senator who told him to stay out of politics and stick to what he does best. In reality he probabaly would do well in politics, where high level backstabbing is a prerequisite.
-
Since Antiquity there was always a fascination about spartan totalitarianism that has little to do with Sparta's realities or spartan military qualities.
The first volume of "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper has some interesting points about this and there are several other analyses on why even Athenian historians and philosophers idolized Sparta. It has do mostly with a political preference of what was perceived as a traditionalist, stable, orderly, egalitarian, rational and moral society in contrast with messy and fluctuating democracies and tyrannies.
A totalitarian society can be tradionalist, stable, orderly, but I'm not sure about egalitarian. I generally think of a totalitarian system as elitist.
Rational? I would think that the free-thinking Athenians were more advanced from an intellectual standpoint.
Moral? Maybe, depending what aspects of morality you place emphasis? The work ethic, which is what the Spartans valued most is only one aspect of morality.
-
...a highly lucrative business tastefully catering to the predilections of New York governors and other loaded politicians.
-- Nephele
Hmm. And what sort of club are you talking about?
-
An interesting question to raise on a forum devoted to ancient Roman history...
How does this topic relate to Roman History? The Hellenistic period is closely tied to Roman History. Many basic physical science concepts were initially described by the Hellenistic Greeks. For example, look at this early description of a siphon:
-
Were there any other cities or towns etc, that had Spartan like soldiers, or such dedications to soldiering?
I am not that educated in Greek history, and I find it odd that the Spartans are all we hear about. Surely the Athenians had good soldiers also, as they won the Battle of Marathon, but were there any other places in Greece that had extremely good soldiers? Because the Spartans seem to be the only ones we hear about these days.
I would start with the Thebans and the sacred band, since they defeated the Spartans at Leuctra. The Macedonians subsequently defeated the Thebans at Chaeronea.
Greek warfare was evolving. The old hoplite phalanx was gradually replaced by the Sarissa pike phalanx, which was designed as an anti-hoplite formation. Even the Spartans eventually adopted the Sarissa.
-
It's important to remember that when Greek and Roman authors wrote about ancient myths they didn't invent them but use a common version that was known orally while adding to it there own styles and twists. Vergillius didn't invent the story of Aeneas just as Sophocles didn't invent the story of Oedipus.
That's the impression I had, but do we really know for sure?
How well known were Homer's works outside of the the Greek world? Did the Etruscan read about the Trojan War? What about the early Romans prior to their conquest of Magna Graecia, were they familiar with the Trojan war?
-
I'm curious as to why the oval-style scutum changed to a more rectangular model in the early empire. But even moreso, why was the scutum design abandoned for the circular shield design seen in the fourth century? The circular shield looks less protective and harder to use in testudo formation, but maybe there's a good reason why the late army moved over to this design?
It seems to me that the late Roman infantry also used an oval shield.
The Byzantine infantry used an oval shield and later they used a kite-shaped shield.
-
Here's a book I found on Amazon that may answer some of your questions:
http://www.amazon.com/Among-Gentiles-Greco...ader_0300142080
-
It seems that if pre-Christian Romans really fit those descriptions, then their relationships with the gods would have been more of a barter system than the kind of spiritual devotion that exists in the Western world today.
Ethics and spirituality was more prevalent among the philosophers such as the Stoics, who believed in the God of nature; many of them were skeptical of the very existence of pagan gods, but they certainly paid lip service to them. Cicero is credited with the idea of natural law, and probably the first to envision the idea of human rights as we know them today. In reality they didn't put these ideas in practice. They certainly didn't want to pass on these dangerous ideas to the slaves and lower classes. They didn't need another Spartacus.
Philosophical spirituality was different than today's religious spirituality in that it was only for the educated. Christianity adopted many of the ideas from Greco-Roman philosophy, digested them and made them more accessible to commoners.
-
... but it seems like there isn't much which talks about the way Romans felt about their religion: how it shaped their morals, how it directed their behavior in everyday life, etc. While it's clear that the old religion was used as a tool of politicians and the state, I don't buy the notion that pre-christian Romans did not experience their religion on a deeply personal level as many people do today.
The short answer is that we really don't know for sure. The long answer is that you'll get a lot of diverse perspectives on this issue.
For example, the controversial Friedrich Nietzsche praised the Pre-Christian Pagans for their worldly, life-affirming, passionate outlook, which he regarded as superior to the spiritual, life-denying, asceticism of the Christians.
-
I am considering getting a Kindle from Amazon to consolidate my reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Read...;pf_rd_i=507846
I recently found that Barnes & Noble has a similar device:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nook/
Does anyone have any recommendations?
-
Against horse archers foot archers are very effective. Light cavalry was also very good.
When looking at the battle of Carrhae one gets the impression of the Parthians as being invincible because of the futile efforts of the Romans to engage them successfully. It is important to recognize that this was an isolated situation where the Romans were misled by an Arab scout and found themselves stranded in unfavorable terrain.
There were numerous enemies of Rome who also had horse archers, but they weren't able to use them effectively. At Magnesia Antiochus had horse archers and we all know the outcome of that battle. Mithridates and his Armenian allies also had horse archers, but again they weren't very effective against the Romans. It seems to me that they were more effective as part of a pure cavalry army that was was not encumbered by slower-moving infantry, so that they could apply their hit and run tactics.
And these tactics work best in isolated areas such as Carrhae. It seems to me that Lucullus' army performed well against the Parthians when he engaged them in favorable terrain.
-
I am known that by the time Alaric and the Visigoth's were becoming a substantial threat the state of the Roman army was not so well, but how changed was it from the old 'golden years' of the empire? Did they still have the set-up of legions with centurions and such? Also, was it possible that a person in this army could be transfurred to another camp/place (say they were stationed in Britain and wanted to go to Rhine instead). Finally, does anyone know the name of the legion/army that Stilicho led at battle of Pollentia?
Thanks to you in advance for any help. It would be very appreciated!
*apologies for spelling/grammer error. English is a second language.
A recent article by Ross Cowan in Ancient Warfare Magazine addresses some of these issues:
Special: Ross Cowan, 'Changing formations and Specialists. Aspects of later Roman battle tactics'. Illustrated by Andrew Brozyna.
This article examines three aspects of Roman b ttle tactics in the second to fourth centuries AD. First, what is the evidence in this period for the triplex acies, the classic triple battleline? Second,
how did Roman light cavalry and clubmen operate against cataphracts and Clibanarii? Third, what were forfex, orbis and cuneus formations?
http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/issues/...are-6-2009.html
-
I recently started reading Matyszak's Roman Conquests: Macedonia and Greece and I found his reconstruction of the Battle of Callicinus fascinating.
It was a indecisive victory for Perseus, who has been criticized by some historians for not taking more decisive action to followup his initial success. Only the light troops and cavalry were involved. The Romans suffered significant losses whereas the Macedonians had minimal losses. Both the Macedonian Phalanx and the Roman legions were held in reserve. The Macedonian phalanx moved up and was about to join the fighting, but Perseus held it back.
So what would have happened if he had turned it loose? Would it have swept away the retreating light troops and smashed the legions that by then may have also been retreating? Or would there be the same outcome as later at Pydna, where the phalanx had initial success, but eventually cracked in several places, allowing the Romans to carve it up from inside?
-
People people I find always amusing the way people like to glorify the Muslims at that time.
That's a ridiculous statement. No one here is trying to glorify Islam.
Having said that, I actually agree with most of your other statements. Particularly about the plagiarism with regard to "arabic" numbers which came from India.
Why so much of the Eastern Empire fell so quickly to the Arabs is hard to explain. The Battle of Yarmouk was one of the key events that left the Byzantines at their mercy.
-
Of course christianity was never fully unified as later history demonstrates, but there was a powerful central authority that almost, so very nearly, established a pan-european religious dictatorship at the end of the eleventh century, and the migratory madness of those first crusades demonstrates that very vividly.
Islam has not been so political to the best of my knowledge and essentially remains a faith of confederation rather than central authority, which is one reason why it's proving so difficult to establish a rapport with in the anti-americanism we see on tv. Now we should look closely at the rapid expansion of islamic empires in the dark ages that reached Spain. However much their religious beliefs fired their enthusiam for conquest, I doubt very much that the territorial gain in Africa, Asia Minor, and Europe was entirely to spread the Last Word Of God. In much the same was the later Christian crusades, the islamic conquests had at their heart very worldy objectives.
The persistence of the Monophysites in the Middle East may have been part of the reason why Islam was able to take hold so easily there. They felt oppressed by Orthodox Christianity and they viewed the Moslems as liberators.
-
Crusades, I don't see it as aggression[/b] because of religious intolerance but because these land didn't belonged to the Arabs from first place it was a Part of the Byzantine empire which was Christian.
and sure a lot can say it was Jewish before them and kanhanian even earlier but when the Arabs conquered it the most significant population was Christian).
Unfortunately the Crusades didn't work out too well for the Byzantines. Alexius Comnenus would have liked to use the Crusaders as allies to reconquer the lost territories of the Byzantine Empire, but they really never worked together very well. The Crusaders went out on their own, and to the surprise of the Byzantines, they actually performed quite well against the Turks. They ended up forming their own little kingdoms with some sort of quasi allegiance to Byzantium, but they certainly were not considered part of the empire.
And not all of the Moslems were intolerant. Saladin was thought of as magnanimous victor. Islamic Spain had long been regarded as culture where Islam, Christianity, and Judaism coexisted.
-
Reading this article brings only one rude word to mind.
This is not about history ! It's about Apologists Propaganda , that tries to suggest that Christians are no better then Muslim extremists. That under other circumstances we would be like them or they would be like us.
But this is not true.
I agree that a lot of the ruling religions today started very violently, but they gradually developed into more humane and tolerant forms of religion that favor tolerance and peace.
But some religions staid the same from the period they started without any strong changes.
Do you think that Islam is still evolving, and will gradually develop into a more tolerant form of religion? I bring this up because Islam is relatively new in the world stage (7th century) compared to Christianity (1st century), Buddhism and Hinduism (several centuries BC)
Looking back at the early Christian Emperors such as Constantine and Theodosius, I can see how they envisioned a more stable Christian Empire unified under a single God compared to the pantheon of multiple Pagan Gods. I doubt that they expected the divisiveness that developed in religious controversies surrounding the nature of Christ. It seems to me that much of the Empire's intellectual energy in the 5th century was devoted in trying to resolve these issues, while at the same time they were abdicating much of their political and military responsibilities to the Germanic militias.
-
This is so wrong, especially because he is justifying present day murder because other morons did it 1 and 1/2 millennium ago!
Hypatia looks like she is the new found hero/martyr of feminism. I bet that her future career will make envious even Spartacus the marxist hero turned in to consumer goods (like Che).
I agree with Melvadius on this one. I didn't think he was justifying present day murder at all. He was showing how fanatics of any religion can get out of hand and do evil things.
Hypatia as a hero/martyr of feminism? I thought of her more as a proponent of reason over faith, regardless of her gender.
-
I really really really want to respond to misconceptions regarding Soviet and Nazi technological prowess, but ... this is supposed to be a site on ancient Rome. So, let's try this another way -- among the ancient Hellenistic states, which relied MOST on slave labor? Which relied LEAST on slave labor? Among these states, where was technological innovation highest and where was it lowest?
I agree that we got away from the issue at hand. We could probably open a separate discussion in another category.
Which relied most/least on slave labor? That's a goood question. I would defer to the scholars.
It seems to me that technological innovation was greatest in Hellenistic Egypt. But let's not forget about Archimedes who as I recall lived in Sicily.
-
I'd just point out that the rockets used by Americans were VASTLY superor, capable of landing a man on the moon and with no use of slave labor.
What rockets did the Americans have in 1944?
If you're going to denegrate the V2 because it couldn't land a man on the moon, why not dismiss the Wright brothers since their plane was incapable of a transatlantic flight?
Rocket science had to evolve over the years, and of course it was more advanced in 1969 when we landed on the moon. The V2 remains historically the prototype from which modern rockets evolved.
And no I don't regard the 3rd Reich as the paragon of the 20th century. I used them as an example of a regime that was technologically advanced despite being oppressive. One could also use Soviet Russia as another example.
"judeo-Christian vs Greco-Roman influences and the American Revol
in Historia in Universum
Posted · Edited by barca
I couldn't help but remember your comment when I heard about the revised history curriculum in the state of Texas. Mcleroy who is the main proponent of the new curriculum is one of those individuals you described above.
Ill send some relevant links as a followup. What is unfortunate is that in the arguments of the democrats and republicans, what really got lost? The greco-roman or classical influence on US history.
Here are the links:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/21/texas.textbook.vote/
http://www.aolnews.com/story/texas-board-a...-studies/673391
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...1001.blake.html
There may be an element of truth to Mcleroy's comment about "liberal" (whatever that means) inclinations in the previous history books, but he's certainly not an Historian himself. In my opinion, history should be about trying to get the facts right, not about promoting a political ideology, right or left.
From the aol article U.S. government be referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than "democratic." Does everyone agree with this? They do have a valid point. The founding fathers admired the stable Roman Republic much more than the Greek Democracies which tended to become free-for-alls.