Valens

Not sure I've had enough consistant posting to fit into any generation.

Am I the only one who though Christian Bale was utterly insipid in Batman Begins? Anyway though, I thought the was on the overall fairly good. I'm also pleased to see the Joker will make his return in the next installment, but like you, Ursus, I can't imagine who could play him properly.

The glaring difference would be that the Roman Caliga was a sandal, being made and fastened by straps, whereas the Iphicratids were more similar to a boot, enclosing the foot and lower shin except for the toes.

I've always liked the name "Valens". No real attachment to the inept emperor or anything of the sort.

Not only that, Pyrrhos' army was no where near the level's of Alexander's. In terms of quality and numbers. I discussed differences in Pyrrhos' army in the Greeks Or the Romans thread.

How do you suppose that? Had the Makedonians gone west they would inevitably have come into conflict with Carthage. If you were interested in Sicily or Southern Italy, then Carthage was interested in you. They showed several times that they were willing to pounce on the Greeks if they struck into Eastern Sicily, so I can't see the sitting by as the powerful Makedonians attempted to build an empire in the area.

Very few Macedonians of the Roman era would've been wearing a bronze cuirass (they were well out of date by the late 4th Century). In fact, a greater percentage than you may think wouldn't have been wearing any cuirass at all.

The massed cavalry strike (led by Antiochus himself) wasn't what left the Seleucid phalanx open to the Roman cavalry force. The phalanx was open because the cavalry support on the left was routed and chased off.

The Seleucid army at Magnesia was standing firm until the disorderly retreat of their elephants caused confusion and disorder in their phalanx. The loss wasn't a failure of the formation. Correct. When the exiled Spartan King, Demaratos, was asked why it was considered more dishonourable to lose one's shield than cuirass or weapon, he replied: "Because the latter they put on for their own protection, but the shield for the common good of the whole line."

On the contrary, it was an extremely effective slasher in close combat. In fact, Xenophon even found it's size quite sufficient to be effective on horseback. But why focus on the kopis? It was the more versatile xiphos that the majority of hoplites used. No. In the Classical era, if a hoplite wore a cuirass it was generally a bronze type (bell or muscled) or maybe a composite suit of linen, canvas, and supporting plates/scales.

The later Hellenistic foes (especially the Makedonians) became increasingly lacking in cavalry, and as a result had to rely nearly completely on the phalanx as an offensive force much as their ancestors of centuries before had done (also as a result of this, the phalangites came to be armed more like the hoplites of old). They became very different from the diverse, more cavalry-focused Greek armies of the early Hellenistic period. Not positive, but it would seem likely. Especially given that we know a good portion of the later Spartan army comprised of mercenary phalangites and phalangites supplied by Ptolemy II. As for a definitive source on later Spartan armies, there isn't one. Primary sources are rather sketchy, so modern scholars have made a lot of assumptions. If you'd like a modern source, try and find a copy of J.F. Lazenby's The spartan Army. Likely the most complete coverage of the Spartan army the casual reader will find. Let's keep in mind Iphicrates' reforms didn't sreally spride wide, far, or quickly. The more traditional hoplite panolpy remained as popular as ever during the 4th C. As far as we can tell, the Spartans never really lingered in between hoplite and phalangite (though their hoplites had been more lightly armed since the Peloponnesian War) . In the mid 4th Century, for example, we still see the Spartans combating the traditional Theban hoplites with traditional hoplites of their own.

The Manipular Legion evolve? No, I'd said later Roman victories had more to do with the ebbing of Greek tactical science. Hmm, doubtful Xanthippus would've ushered in hoplite tactics. By this time, Sparta had certainly made the transition to a phalangite-based phalanx, so if indeed he was a Spartan, he would likely have used phalangites anyway.

Well, I had said a little bit about this above: "Anyway, the Kingdom of Pontus was founded by Mithridates Ktistes in 281 BC. He was the son of the Persian satrap in Kios (of the same name), who was killed by Antigonus late in the 4th C." As for the "how?": After his father's death, Mithridates Ktistes fled to a fort in Paphlagonia where he drew supporters (to defend against the imminent attack of Antigonus), and his territories and followers eventually grew to include most of Pontus.

Oh, the screenshots are actually a very good representation of a 3rd or 2nd C. hastati. All that's missing is the left leg greave. Yes, but the velites(skirmishers) weren't one of the three ordines Yes. The pectorale you have represented there would be an example of more affordable protection.

Better protected than who? The other ordines? No. You have to keep in mind that these men were generally the youngest, and subsequently the poorest of the ordines. As such, they couldn't afford the same armor that the triarii and princeps used. Indeed, they even seem to have been used as a sort of light infantry on occasion, hinting at a lighter panolpy. For example, Flamininus sent his hastati on a rapid, stealthy march to reach Boeotian League amabassadors and frighten them over to the Roman side.