Divi Filius

For my nothing beats the cynical but genius works of Machiavelli. My blood started pumping when reading "The Prince". Almost everything in it was quotable. It embodies almost all the principles which brought about the rise of great men and shows the faults which brought about their fall.

As primus said, this books detail is massive. Chapters will fly by with only small mentions of Caesar. It is far more then a biography, its a whole understanding of the time period inwhich the man lived and was shaped in. He will repeat his points often though and that can get tiresome but often necessary to completely keep you in touch with the moment(the issue of the "outsider" is a recurring theme) I recently got my order of Grants bio of Caesar and from the small bits I read, its far more accessable. Though Im loving Meier.

Considering India comes from the Hindu Kush which is in modern Pakistan means he was in what wa sthen India. Infact then it was religiously Indian also. Culturally the same as say deeper India. Yes its Pakistan today, but India until Islaminization.

In 1400, Constantinople but have been but a spek of its former size and splendor. The preceeding centuries had plundered it clean and in the present it had to simply stumble to maintain its depopulation and erosion, on top of the raiding done on it by various Balkan people. Its bankaccount dwindling and its population running. I cant imagine seeing any beauty in the city then to be honest. it must have been a dreadful site to walk in the walls of Theodosius and see the vast land where buildings once stood occupied by "urban farmers". The city was a dead zone. Rome... not yet. The city was still relling from the after effects of the pitiful Avignon Papacy, the "Babylonian Captivity" which Petrarch commented on, and still needed some time before the gorgeous remodelling and "Renaissance" which reawakened its splendor in a short period. Tough to say, in this period most of the once great cities had dwindled and declined( the east muslims were still relling from the various steppe conquests and what was once the most beautiful city in the world, Baghdad, was toppled by the mongols centuries earlier) and the modern great cities were still in developed and heading into the transition which would morph them from small urban quarters of the feudal world to the sprawling urban learning centers of the enlightenment. Tough choice. Cant really say. Maybe Venice?

I personally believe that Alex would infact have been defeated. Maybe not in an actual battle, but the Indians were on a completely different level from the persians. Much more unaccepting of a foreigner. The religious crusade inwhich the Brahmin priests took up against Alex is a testament to this. By 300 BC nearly all of the Macedonian outposts in India were massacred and even Alexander saw the difficulties. On sail through hindu kush was the most violent campiagn he had ever untaken. He took no interest in diplomacy, just simple raping and violent conquest and even then there was nothing but rebellion in the eyes of the Indians. The various tribes and kingdoms within India were still powerful and warlike with no intention of giving in to Alexander.

Albanian

I heard that one of thing the youth practiced heavily in was swimming in the Tiber. Okay just read it in the link after writing this.

From Soghdia on nothing Alexander won was by ease. The battle of Jhelum was by far one of the most difficult he ever fought, if not the most difficult. Crossing the river, facing massive armies of elaphants, the massive Indian storms, the mountain guerilla warfare. The casualties in that time till Gedrosia were emmense. Infact I would say Alexander had a relatively easy time till Soghdia(which took two years to pacify) What most of his men had endured was more then any man wanted to considering at that point they had realized this war was nothing more then one for Alexander's ambitions. The massive storms of India, the elaphants, the endless mountain ranges and guerilla tribes, the fear in the unknown(alexander was walking on unchartered land). They were worn out and tired. So wasted infact that when they were requipped, Alexander said to burn the older ones. They had fought an endless war for over 11 years and from what they saw, the real war was just beginning. It goes beyond the point as who made the person turn back. This isnt the issue on getting someone to cross the street but rather one of which street would be safest to cross. Not to mention Alex men were not exactly too thrilled about marching again. Alexander had an agenda in his mind when crossing the Gedrosian desert, one which I mentioned above, not to mention further pacification. Infact by then his men were dreading every single disembarkment.

Are all these mods for RTW Barbarian invasion?

I recently found this link while looking around. If anyone knows anyother kind of journal studies on Rome or even the Hellenistic wold/era post them here JSTOR: The Journal of Roman Studies

On his return from India Alexander decided to bypass the territory of the southwest Pakistan and southeast Iran then called Gedrosia with its capitol in Pura. Alexander left his navy 10 supplies and marched into the territory out of need to fully pacify the province and out on the conquest to achieve glory by surpassing Cyrus the Great whos last march through the land ended with only 7 men of his entire escort party having survived. A misscalculation on the part of Alexander and a delay on the part of his Navy(who is said to have incurred attacks from nearby tribes and from natural forces after his leave, this was mentioned by its leader Nearchus) forced Alexander to march into the desert territory incurring more casulaties then in his hole conquest put together. Out of a army of 86,000(counting "camp people"). Barely 20,000 survived the trip, His own Macedonian guard suffered massively and flew from 1700, to 1000. Green, in his historical bio of Alex compared this to Napoleon's march from Moscow in 1812. Alexander's personality in general took a huge toll for this march. The fear and paranoia of being conspired against reached its peak after this due not only to the navy never making it but also from the lack of response he attained from any of the nearby Satrapies. I have to say this part seems to never even be mentioned by lighter sources. Those who do mention it seem to play it off by stating it was Alexanders intention in order to punish his army. This was not out of character of Alex but it also shows misscalculation on his part for a failure to properly inform himself on the terain. Infact this cost alexander quite the loss of face. He had lost his image of invincibility and later events showed he still needed the army which he had. Another view is to see it through Alexander's own ambitious need to top everything and all. Alexander knew already that the territory was perilous since he knew the events of Cyrus quite well, yet rather then push him away from the territory he chose his gamble to push through it to further prove his greatness and unlike most of the things in his career, this completely flew back to bite him in the rear. Here Alexander took the challenge and it ended as an incredible failure. A failure that his his prestige and mental state. I would say if anything, considering Alexander showed he was clearly going against this and its odd, I would say Alex did infact lose a battle in his career. The opponent doesnt have to be a rival general... There are also many other things that added to this disaster. For one a massive sand storm covered up the path which the guides were following. Others say the guides were in on a conspiracy, which Alexander was likely to have believed since at that point he thought everyone was against him. But for me the idea that he would purposely do that to spite his army due to their revusal to go further into India sounds way to farfetched,.

Olny srmatpoelpe can. I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I wasrdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in therghit pclae. The rset can be ataotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

I managed to get the first three books in translation through this http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081172194...ng=UTF8&s=books But books 4 and 5 were taken out unfortunately. Those were short little books involving sieging and naval operations.

Ah, thanks to finditn this subject. I just managed to find a copy of Grants bio of Caesar. Yes. I've been waiting for amazon to restock for months.

I just recently picked up a book on Caesar which I will now start reading. Its by Christian Meier translated from German into English. Ill give a review as soon as I can after.

Umm. I ordered Goldsworthy but one question(lol) Does the book offer incites on the military organization et al? Or is it battles and their setup. I wanted to get a book telling me not just how a certian battle in general, but how the battle would be carried out, how each command went from general to the maniple and down to each legionary. Im going to read this since Im a fan of Goldsworthy but Im also looking for something in that regard. mainly because I hope to eventually write a fictional story on this, but i want all the research done and done right before hand.

Happy Birthday Guys!!!!!!!!!

The idea of the Greeks being fully displaced by conquering people is just as ridiculous as the idea that Greeks are pure. According to chroniclers of the Byzantine era, areas such as Thessolonika were considered "Roman hotbeds in a slavic sea". Infact, slavs were said to have gone deep into the Pelopenesus for a while before the Byzantines took them back. What followed afterwards was infact a purge, but on top of that also a level of assimilation. There have been a slew of slavic placenames down as south as the Pelopenesus. But the fact is is that Greeks still speak there language closest to their historical form then say Italians to latin today(though to what full extent the language has been preserved I cannot say).

I think we should be very careful about what we take as true and false in regards to the Annalic Histories of Tacitus and the Life of Caesars by Suetonius. While the latter had access to a large amount of info of the imperial palace, he was still far too inclined to believe rumors based on how widespread they were, since his mentality was if its popular, it had to be true. This can infact hinder much of what we perceive as truth from Suetonius. As for her relations to Gaius, Im actually going to the median. I really dont know what to add as I just can't find a point I fully agree with.

History is as is. It occurs without reason, but for us it gives us the opportunity to make sure the mistakes of the past are never repeated, however often we fail in maintaning this. I wouldnt change a thing, because if I did, history would not be as fun if I knew th events afterwards were doctored, the irrational events that unfold throughout keep me interested. Bah, Im so damn cliche and corny lol The accouts differ and the result is occasional finger pointing. Plutarch does comment that during the time when he was sieged in Alexandria, a fire did occur that got to the libraries. I couldnt imagine the Arabs being so heavily against the pagan teachings since many Arab philosophers based their studies on ancient greek ones, imbuing Islamic teachings with it(like Ibn Sina).

Last time I saw it, I taped it. Quite a show. I ordered a copy for my uncle, whom I recently got into a huge interest in the history of the people.

Is there anyway to hand in independant reviews? Without them being assigned?

The sheer unorganized setup of the crusading movement added to the already fustrated latin feel against the Byzantines were really the main reasons. If we look at the Crusade history before the sacking youll find that the western crusaders were getting more and more angered in the "two-faced" character of the Byzantine Emperors. Some crusaders that passed through constantinople were so fustrated than that right there and then thought to siege it. Even those who were on semi friendly terms were annoyed at the Byzantine attitude. As for the onorganization of the crusades deeply annoyed the Venetians who spent for an enormously large fleet to siege Alexandria. The failure of the Crusade put them in a bad bind. It was really a straw that broke the camels back.

Thanks. Gods of Ancient ROme is good but its focus on cults seems weak. I will look at the other one however

Where can I check the book reviews? Is it on the Roman books section? I guess ill check it out. Thanks though.