Spurius

Danno thanks for the info on phalerae sets. Upon research, they were handed out for valor or service. I had thought that they were just worn as decorations or on parade, not during routine or battle situations. As far as the speculations on the pictures, it's just for sheer fun and critique of the reenactors. I like it when people ask or comment about my American Civil War uniform (76th Ohio Infantry Regiment). We're just trying to figure out pictures taken out of context and adding 'You are there' style comments.

Actually, I'm wondering what this centurion is doing. He isn't going to battle, but he has the greaves on. If he were dressed as modern armed forces, he'd have a on starched shirt while leading a work detail. Maybe he's just giving encouragement to the men digging camp or doing drill. Looks like he could use some of that PT too. But, as far as I know, the decoration is just decoration. Centurions were allowed some vanities as long as it didn't offend the higher-ups.

Looks like a centurion in front of an auxlia unit. Decked out like that, and with the torques on the shields, it might be a unit that won a big victory in its past with a major general leading/raising it. Of course, it looks like something out of Museum Replicas too

I'd like to add a mystery to the list, a book that I enjoyed: Search the Seven Hills or originally The Quirinal Hill Affair , by Barbara Hambly, 1984. This story is full of the wonderful texture of Rome during early Christianity. Hambly researches thuroughly and writes well.

Rolling with the theme is genrally what I try to do, but it was hard with Gladiator when you suck in history by involving an emperor. I don't know why, but I like Quo Vadis better than Gladiator . While I loved the house gods bit and the fatalism of Maximus but, Senator Gracchus? Elected by the people of Rome? BWAHAHAHAHAHA....>sigh< In the Passion, it looked like that was a Centurions whip not a regular scurge. People died after 5 strokes, much less dozens. Sorry, nitpicking... Gibson put virtually every iconic image I've seen into that movie. That impressed me even if I thought the subject material was improperly presented. Longbow I liked 13th Warrior too, simply because it made no pretense but action adventure with NON-comedic norsemen. Now I'd like to see a remake of Waterloo with full tilt costumes and CGI battlefield. I'd propably faint away at the Charge of the Scots Greys or the French Lancers. Or bleed dry with the repulse of the Old Guard. Ah, well...if only.

We'll see about Alexander. I heard that they really cut down on the Hephaestion angle just to try and preserve action/adventure box office draw. I found Arthur silly, Troy boring and badly re-written, and Gladiator, while written better than the others, suffered from dislexic history. So, while I like the big budget looks PLEASE get a writer!

I think that Edward III falls outside of Ancient generals. Crecy is one of the great victories of Medieval times though.

I agree that "interesting" is the key phrase here. I find the phalangular and manipular legions the most interesting in composition and usage. The titles Hastati, Principes and Triarii excite vivd pictures in my mind. Also the Punic and Macedonian Wars, as well as the early wars against the Hellenist cities in Italy, draw my attention more than later conflicts. Just a quirk I suppose.

Obviously, slavery did become a major concern of the Romans, but why have free people working? 1) Tradition. 2) Patronage. It is better to set someone up and have have them in debt to you than to be forced to pay for their upkeep. You set someone up in business, say a smith, and you can call on their services for free or very cheaply. If you own a slave smith, you have to pay care and upkeep on the forge, the smith and his family need to fed and clothed, and you have to buy the materials for him to forge. Plus, if you are climbing the public office ladder the more people in patronage to you the more voices in your favor. If you have a big enough following, someone more powerful than you may let you go into patronage to him. Then more doors open to wealth and power. It's after you get greed on an epic scale that the teams of slaves and bondsmen start working huge estates. It became cost efficient to keep and move around teams of specialized men to work larger areas than resident slaves or freemen. Patronage shifted from services to currency when tax farming in the eastern empire made coins more important than grain to the mega-rich. Hence, grinding agricultural slavery became normal instead of family servitude. So, patronage was smarter than slavery until coin became more important than grain or service. At least that is my understanding, as always...there is room for error. That change over was during the time of the late republic and made people like Crassus possible. Men like Marius, Sulla and Pompey Strabo made eastern exploitation possible. So, like a broken record I keep coming back to: Sulla. Like a dead carp's smell you can't avoid.

Pompey Strabo achieved his sucess by becoming Counsul and supporting Sulla during the civil wars. Even as he was dying, he came to Sulla's aid in his fight against Marius. Gnaeus was active during this time and reaped the riches and veteran warriors of his father's legions. Gnaeus firmly attached himself to Sulla, he even married Sulla's step-daughter. And after Gnaeus had more or less switched sides, Sulla still still tolerated him. I still hold that the "Social Wars" down to the battle at Colline Gate killed the Republic. Caesar, for instance, was replaying what Sulla had already done...we just know more about it because JC was one of the best PR people in history. It was Sulla, IMHO, who killed the Republic. The ones who followed just pushed the corpse over and stood on it. BTW: This doesn't mean Sulla was particularly good at governing. It just meant he wielded the blunt force that let the corruption overtake the body of the Republic.

I cast a vote for Sulla. He was the prototype for the sucessful seizing of power principably through force. Pompey and Crassus rose to power under his wings, and while Caesar avoided death he used Sulla as a model...changing Sulla's cruelty for political forgiveness. If Sulla had chose to simply overthrow the Republic instead of reactionary reformation in his image...then we may have been berift of Julius and had no Octavian to stabilize the Empire and become Augustus. In any event, after Sulla the Republic was dead. The Empire was just waiting for someone to take off its mask.

Roman Preatorian Guard Well, their equipment was the same as the basic legionaire, except probably...spiffy. That would have been: - the normal Galea (Helm) with whatever style was in fashion, -Lorica Segmentata or Hamata (iron bands or chainmail) though some satrists mentioned Preatorians looking like officers in Greek tragedies...implying lots of use of Musculata. - Sporran (apron covering groin) - Scutum (shield) - Gladius/Drusus or Spatha later (sword) - Pugio (dagger/knife)- though most legionaires didn't carry it, the Preatorians usually did. - Pilum (javelin) -Caligae (heavy sandals)- famous for Caligula "little boots" The Preatorian Guard went through a couple evolutions after Augutus formed them. First king makers, then becoming an elite unit after Severus disbanded them and their reconstitution under other emperors. Finally the guard was effectively wiped out and disbanded after Milvian Bridge in 312 CE. Next unit- Cataphract (any nationality)

I haven't been able to find out if anything is being done to preserve what is left of the city of Merv. There was a drive to make it a world historical site, but I don't know if this has come to pass. Anything new on this important but abused site?

Also known as a net and trident man he represented a fisherman, as his usual opponent was a Secutor whose smooth helm looked a bit like a fish. The Retarius had a trident, net and dagger as his only weapons and a manica, wide belt and galerus for defence. The manica a metal covering on the shoulder and galerus being a padded leather covering and strips from shoulder to hand on the left arm. He was the lighest armored (no helment, shield or leg cover) and armed of the gladiators and seemed to have mostly fought in a harrassment style to wear down heavier armored opponents instead of a toe-to-toe match. Generally they were regarded as second class gladiators though some were momentarily popular with the crowds. Next... the Secutor

By 120 CE Roman holdings included what would be the most of the area of Bavaria today. That is why Germany is listed in the partially conquered region list, not one of the long terms. The list is not complete, and the random method used did not choose the UK. In the future I hope to add all the countries to the listings. Did anything strike you about the differences in economies within Europe itself and the possibility of long term trends set in motion by the Empire's economy? Now as to UK nobility, interesting question. I'll have to look at it. Thanks.

A little while back, in the discussion of effects of the Roman Empire, a question was posed about any modern effects possibly being seen. Well, I've been away and busy for a bit, but it niggled in the back of my mind. So here is a small statistical sample I called up to see if any empirical data could be found for that question. Here is the data and averages, numbers come from the CIA Factbook and I randomly generated the countries involved based on maps of the Empire 1st through 6th century CE. The regions break down as follows: 1=Core Areas of the Empire, 2= Long Term Provinces, 3= Border Areas partially conquered, 4= Adjacent Areas never conquered. The figures are displayed in this order: Country

Damnit, The Question should be: " Which Julio-Claudian emperors' hand would you most like to shake? "

I had a hard time actually picking an answer, so I decided to throw it up to all of you too. First, the obvious choice would be Augustus. In many ways the western world owes him much, and he was seemingly an intelligent man who was a good conversationalist and a shrewd politician. Then I thought, how about the dangerous ones...Caligula or Nero. But I thought that would be too much Hollywood. I settled on Tiberius because he spanned the spectrum of the Julio-Claudians. In his younger days, especially when he carried his brother's body back from Germany, he epitimized the strength and honor of the line. Later his lists and treason trials made him as dangerous as any emperor. I tend to discount the depths of his perversions as listed by Seutonius, but they was no doubt he was a randy goat too. So as a representative of the line, I choose Tiberius Nero Caesar.

Hmmm. In terms of resources, I think Rome was the disadvantaged one. They, however, apparently had more ruthless leaders than Carthage. Let me research a bit more.

Well, when Trajan attacked the Parthians in 113, he was 60 years old. When he stopped almost four years later he was a sick old man who didn't even make it back to Rome. Just based on that, if he had buzzed through Parthia with no problems and held it with no rebellion Trajan still would have been far too old to attack India. He still had a fair chunk of land to go through to get to India and the native peoples have been known since ancient times to be implacable foes while an invader was in their homeland. I say Trajan couldn't have invaded India since his manpower, money, resources and health were against it.

Four of my favorites from two great Romans:

Gaius Mucius Scaevola

I posted this list to the describe a Roman battle heading, but it is appropriate here. In explaination, I think that the list should be broken into two parts at the very least. Great generals if you were a soldier, great generals for the nation. Soldiers List (judgement being made on relative care, feeding, loot and survivability of troops) 1) Caesar- You had a great chance at living through all of his battles if you did what he told you to do. Good $ $ too. 2) Lysander- What can you say about someone who first controlled coasts, pirates and Persians. All without drowning masses of his men. 3) Marius- Father of legions. May not like his discipline but his ideas made being a legionaire survivable. 4) Fabius the Delayer- Didn't have to fear salughter by Hannibal under his command, and he gave confidence back. 5) Aurelianus- Glory and money, with a future emporer no less. National List (judgement being made on national prestige, loot, lifetime effect on nation, long term outcomes) 1) Alexander- History sings of him and the Hellenized world rocked! 2) Caesar- The key spark for the fire of Empire and greater glory than anyone has seen. 3) Hannibal- Beat Rome at its own game and propped Carthage up for years. 4) Cyrus the Great- Thunder from the east and builder of empire. 5) Agrippa- If not for him, no Augustus and perhaps no stable Roman Empire. Bear in mind this is completely unscientific and posted with a bit of thought but no research to back up my oft-times faulty memory. Take as you will the fact that I posted it in another thread Later...

I shall sit down and write up a battle this weekend, with any luck (and cooperation from my son). However, I can add an off-the-cuff (suprious, if you will) list of greatest ancient generals. I think that the list should be broken into two parts at the very least. Great generals if you were a soldier, great generals for the nation. Soldier List (judgement being made on relative care, feeding, loot and survivability of troops) 1) Caesar- You had a great chance at living through all of his battles if you did what he told you to do. Good $ $ too. 2) Lysander- What can you say about someone who first controlled coasts, pirates and Persians. All without drowning masses of his men. 3) Marius- Father of legions. May not like his discipline but his ideas made being a legionaire survivable. 4) Fabius the Delayer- Didn't have to fear salughter by Hannibal under his command, and he gave confidence back. 5) Aurelianus- Glory and money, with a future emporer no less. National List (judgement being made on national prestige, loot, lifetime effect on nation, long term outcomes) 1) Alexander- History sings of him and the Hellenized world rocked! 2) Caesar- The key spark for the fire of Empire and greater glory than anyone has seen. 3) Hannibal- Beat Rome at its own game and propped Carthage up for years. 4) Cyrus the Great- Thunder from the east and builder of empire. 5) Agrippa- If not for him, no Augustus and perhaps no stable Roman Empire. Bear in mind this is completely unscientific and posted with a bit of thought but no research to back up my oft-times faulty memory. Later...