frankq

I'm in the same boat. And learning it a certain way has much to do with it, too. I'm convinced it hits a subconscious vein. Case in point, I saw Ben Hur when it first came out, I was 9. The ending after the director's credit blazed ''Anno Domini'' into my brain. It started my love for Roman history.

Can anyone pinpoint the shift from employing BC and AD and replacing it with BCE and CE? As far as I can discern this shift has been a gradual thing over the course of the last ten to twenty years. We're at the midpoint now, some use the old way, some the new. There seems to be no set rule yet about the matter. While I am more than eager to release history from the bonds of Christian dominance in dating things, I have to admit that BC and AD have more, well ''MGM'' punch. Some authors and historians of course employ the old plus and minus technique, but this seems horribly numerical and too left-brained. Any case, any comments to the above would be welcomed. I'm curious how other members of the forum feel about the technique in dating things.

I read it in a biography about Herod. And by an author who has a habit of throwing radical things like that out.

I read somewhere that Augustus Caesar wore a protective under garment, kind of like antiquity's version of a bullet-proof vest. Anyone come across this?

Actually, ancient torture techniques is not unbefitting this particular forum, since it does involve ethics and man's behavior with his fellow man. Any case, does anyone know if the rack was employed at this early date? What devices were used to loosen a man's tongue and soul? Normally, most of the devices we association with a grim torture chamber hail from references from the Middle Ages.

Naval skill and nautical talents for Roman commanders wasn

What is the ''vitis''?

No, actually, what I meant was an actual staff or wand, a symbolic ornament to signify an imperator or general's power. I didn't put my question out properly, sorry. I meant the same thing as a standard signifying a legion. That type of thing.

I have two military questions. Did Roman imperators or generals have some kind of staff that was a sign of their command and status? Next: After Antony's defeat at Actium, a group of gladiators loyal to his cause and busy training in Asia Minor attempted to make their way east to join him in Egypt. Herod had them cut down as a sign of his new loyalty to Octavian. So, my second question is this: was this a norm for gladiators to train for combat in the field? I know Marius employed gladiators in his take over of Rome. But was this some kind of tradition, or a spur of the moment thing?

Here's something that can lead to speculation and varied opinion; Antony's behavior at Actium. Seeing Cleopatra breaking through Agrippa's blockade, he abandoned the battle and moving from his flagship to a swifter vessel, followed her out to sea. However, the game plan was not to engage and win, it was to break the blockade and regroup later on. Seeing all as hopeless, do you think Antony's behavior was bad? Do you think he should have gone down fighting with his men? What purpose would that have served? By taking flight, he could fight another day (despite the fact that his 19 legions went over to Octavian). So what do you think? Also, is there anyone in the forum old enough to possibly have been around in Greece at that time and seen the combat? (LOL)

This work is intended to be non-fiction. My first try at it, too. The Net helps things immensely. This site, too. Your writing and ability to encapsule whole time periods is excellent, by the way. Back to Antony and the Parthian thing, just think on it for a moment. He's going try and avoid Crassus' mistake by not going onto flat turf so he can evade the cavalry, ok, cool----but then how, had he taken the Medians down, did he plan to carry out the rest of his plans? There had to be some plan that Caesar cooked up in that genius brain of his and that, like you say, Augustan propaganda blotted out. But what? A pincer movement was out. He was leading all his legions in one direction. I had a hunch the RTW was just that. Interesting to note, in my searches on battles, some of the best leads come from posts by RTW players.

What's RTW? First, I have read Plutarch's account of the campaign. It does not, however, explain the actual strategy on how he intended to conquer the heart of the Parthian realm. It gives great detail about the retreat. As to my project? I'm writing a book about a specific period and I treat the wisdom and knowledge of this forum the same as I would a Google search. There are a lot of knowledgeable members here and, as you've seen, I post things looking for an answer while, at the same time, I go on and continue searching and answer many of my own questions myself. Still, much of the feedback points me in the right direction. Or tells me things I might not so easily find elsewhere.

Anyone know what the actual strategy was behind Antony's Parthian expedition? I know his initial plan was actually a plan Caesar had intended, enlist the Armenians, then hit Parthia to the north by subduing the Medians. But after that, how did he plan to strike into Parthian territory itself?

What I had initially is from him. I did, however, probe deeper and got more info from Justin and Florus. But not enough. Seems crafty old Ventidius lured the Parthians in. But the tactics are still quite sketchy. Ventidius is quite the study. A real old war horse.

Does anybody know of a source that gives a blow by blow account of the Battle of Gindarus (Gindaros?sp?) where Ventidius avenged Crassus' defeat?

Was the Kingdom of Commagene the Greek version for the Kingdom of Cappadocia? Or did the Kingdom of Commagene simply lay within Cappadocia?

I did some extra checking since I always find lots of inconsistencies between Josephus' Antiquities and his War of the Jews. He seems to be correcting in the latter work all the mistakes he made in the former. Regarding those figures, read now in War of the Jews: ''Sosius also joined him with a large army, both of horsemen and footmen, which he sent before him through the midland parts, while he marched himself along Phoenicia; and when the whole army was gotten together, which were eleven regiments of footmen, and six thousand horsemen, besides the Syrian auxiliaries, which were no small part of the army, they pitched their camp near...'' Note the difference, regiments versus legions. Did Joe mean cohorts? Still, with 6000 horse, it means a lot of Roman foot soldiers.

I have a problem with the reliability of ancients figures. Case in point, Josephus states that in Herod and Sosius' 37BC siege of Jerusalem involved 11 legions. 11 legions? Like we're talking about 66,000 men. Plus 6000 horse and not to mention Herod's mercenaries and Judean allies. My God, the population of Rome alone at that time was only around 1.4 million. Herod had to pay the Romans off out of his own purse less they slaughtered everyone in the city. 66,000 dudes at like what---? It's not possible. Is it? Feedback. Anything.

To once again answer my own question (I end up going out and researching invariably) the reasons for the differences are actually quite grounded. Cicero had Antony's father-in-law from his first marriage executed during the Caitline Conspiracy. Then, he married Fulvia, who had been going toe to toe with Cicero ever since she had been married to Clodius Pulcher, the consul and demagogue. Ironically, Fulvia had originally been employed by Cicero as a spy. They went way back. My next separate thread is gonna be about Cicero's death. I have almost 4 completely different versions already about how he died at the hands of Antony's hit squad.

Chris, Thanks for the link. Now I see why you arranged your fine depiction the way you did at UNRV. It's not an easy battle to describe in detail, like Carrhae. The battle doesnt lend itself well to sweeping descriptions save for the way you and others have related it. Valuable link. I had missed Appian's account of the purges in Rome and have been drawing from Dio Cassius'.

Here's something interesting, I can find no detailed description of the Battle of Phillipi. Done a search, here, with Google. One of the better depictions is here at UNRV. But it's basic, like everywhere else. If you check Wikipedia, they sometimes have battles in detail with a list of legions, numbers, the whole nine yards. Not so Phillipi. And considering the fact that the Big T was throwing like 28 legions at B&C's 19, we're talking a lot of men. If anyone knows of a detailed account, please, put it in this thread.

Good link. So what would be the feminine form of Flaccus?

Can anyone help me with Roman names? I've always been thrown by the process. I assume it's silmilar to Spanish where like Antonio Bandelero Gonzalez, the middle name is the family name of the father. An example, Antony's wife, Fulvia, was daughter of Fulvius Flaccus Bambulus. So what would her name be? Her mother was Sempronia. Would that name play into it, too?

Were there any personal differences between Antony and Cicero aside from political ones? I remember reading in Plutarch I think something to that effect. I did a search here but couldnt find anything (or I missed it.)

In answer to both posts, I am using everyone from Appian to Dio Cassius to Livy on this, plus Cyril E. Robinson (a superb old book), plus numerous websites including the fine chronology given at UNRV. Things didn't jive and parallel in many cases. Why the interest? I don't consider this an obscure issue. The fact that Octavian went toe to toe with Antony before the triumvirate always interested me. Without a true chronology, Antony's behavior with Decimus Brutus didn't make full sense. But the real zeroing in is needed because I need it to equate time wise with events back in Judea with Cassius.