Furius Venator

Not at all. At Granicus and Issus the phalanx had to overcome river obstacles and was thrown into disorder. At Gaugamela the ehelon advance was dislocated creating a gap between units large enough for the Persians to penetrate in some force. The Roman formations were more flexible (sub units of 80 and 160) wheras the smallest Macedonian phalangite unit was approx 500 men (or possibly 1000 at the Roman period). This meant the Romans could 'tease' the phalanx unit into breaking it's solid line by engaging only part of a unit and/or prt of the lineof units was dislocated the Romans could threaten the flanks. The Alexandrian phalangites seem to have coped with disruption of their unit or dislocation of their line better than their latter day successors. The Roman heavy infantry could move faster over rough terrain, especially in open ordergiving battle on open ground, just like the phalanx.

I shouldn't worry about it, it's an easy mistake to have made given that English isn't your first language.

In fact muzzle loaders could be loaded from the prone posttion, British riflemen in the Peninsula occasionally did so, lying on their backs and holding the stock between theri feet. It was hardly commonplace though and as a general rule, yes, muzzle loaders were reloaded standing. Breech loaders became more common as the war went on, and these were often used by cavalry units (who tended to dismount and act like mounted infantry, though of course they would still sometimes charge). Given that breech loaders were qute often repeaters, a unit lying down in open order could (in theory) still put out a considerable number of rounds whether they actually did or not brings us back to the 'gutful men'/command control issues for small units. But yes, as the conflict went on, trench systems began to proliferate.

Seconded

I'm not so sure. Napoleon used mass conscription and the French state was geared toward war production at various times during his reign. I see there being more of a 'slide' towards 'total war' rather than there being a precise point at which we have a definite switch, though there's no doubt that the more industrialised the country, the more 'total war' is waged by it.

That is not my recollection (but I don't have it to hand). Though to be fair, I'm not a fan of the idea of an 'arms' race between the various arms so I'm probably biased. I see the general idea but I think there's too many exceptions to it. For instance it was more likely a decline in the quality of Roman infantry coupled with a rising number of cavalry dominant foes that causes the Late Roman/Dark Age 'rise of cavalry' rather than an actual improvement in the abilities or equipment of the cavalry. Further, regional exceptions are rife.

Not exactly... Column was used by the revolutionaries because their men could not manoeuvre at all in line (though sometimes two revolutionary columns would be supported by an ancien regime regiment in line). Column had gone out of favour in C18th Europe because the small professional, ludicrously well drilled armies could actually manoeuvre regiments in line reasonably well, if slowly and hence bring more muskets to bear. The elan of the French columns and their more rapid assault with the bayonet, pushed home after skirmishers had cecimated the skirmisher-free lines of the old style troops tended to make the other armies rout before contact. The distinction became blurred as the other armies modernised and adopted skirmish tactics to counter those of the French (the British excelled at this early on) and also began to manoeuvre in column for more rapid mobility (the Allied reserves at Waterloo spent much of the battle in column), meanwhile the French troops became more disciplined and able to fight in line. But if you meant that column was the only real option for conscripts then, yes I agree (though their screen of skirmishers was crucial.).

But heavier for winners than at any time previously, surely? By the end of the Napoleonic era, virtually every nation was manoeuvring/assaulting in column (except in the case of counter attacks upon the repulse of an enemy column by a line).

The French revolutionary troops won because they manoeuvred so quickly in column (despite a lack of discipline). The rigid slow moving but better disciplined linear formations of the C18th armies opposing them just could not cope. Modern war is almost certainly the most trying on the nerves, because there are so many 'remote' hazards to cope with.

It's certainly not airtight in my view, though it is an interesting way of looking at things. It of course ignores cultural factors in ancient/medieval times which were what largely determined the prominece of certain troop types. It holds better, as many of these 'general theories' do for the gunpowder age, but even then it only works if 'infantry' includes artillery (which is really a separate arm). One could argue that from Napoleonic times onward the 'evolution' of most effective units has been Infantry giving way to armour which gives way to air power which is still dominant. The Swiss for instance were one of the best armies of their time, but they had very few cavalry or missile troops. The English of the early-mid Hundred Years were missile/heavy foot dominated with cavalry having a very minor role. There's just too much variation in ancient/medieval to draw a general theory like this I think, except that missile heavy armies were generally poor performers, their being mitigating factors in the successes of for example, the Huns and English.

My glasses. My spare glasses. An English/Latin dictionary. But let's face it, whatever you take you're likely going to end up on the slave block. Except for the gun freaks, if you're very lucky and establish some way to communicate, you might just survive. Otherwise they'll come for you in the dark and if you've killed someone it'll be the cross (or similar gruesome way to go) and if you've just fired for effect, you'll be with the rest of us on the slave block. Th only folk with a chance are those with a working knowledge of Latin or ancient Greek as they were spoke.

There are just so many more ways to die today... The Roman was at risk from sword/spear or slingshot/arrow, very occasionally ballista. They pretty much killed/disabled in that order too. Melee weapons caused most fatal or disabling wounds, then missile weapons, artillery a distant third. This holds true right up to gunpowder (yes, including the much over-hyped longbow). The reason that artillery killed so few is because it was very rare, melee and missile weapons were ubiquitous. Once we've moved into musket armed armies, melee weapons are pretty much redundant. The order now goes musket shot, artillery and bayonet (with the bayonet maybe inflicting as many as 1% of dangerous wounds. Slowly, artillery gains in power until by WW1 it is the main killer. Rifles are still second obviously but the machine gun has probably overtaken it by the war's end. we can now ignore melee weapons entirely. Artillery starts coming in all sorts of forms. The howitzer and mortar are old weapons but indirect fire now rules, all the way from the company/platoon mortar up to the really big guns. But airpower starts to make an appearance too. And land mines. And more lethal machine guns. The poor old rifle slips right down the ever growing list. So in modern war, the real killers are artillery, bombs dropped from the air, guided missiles, vehicle mounted guns (bothdirect fire artillery and chain guns), cluster bombs, Virgil's the man to describe all the modern ways of dealing death really. Obviously the rifle still kills, especially in the kind of skirmish that Virgil gave a link to above (but note that it's the machine guns that have the most impact). As an aside, skirmish makes it sound trivial, I wish there was a better word for that sort of small scale engagement. Those men and women did incredibly well.

I'll stick my neck out and suggest that the battlefield/campaign is far more dangerous for the infantryman today but that he is at less risk from opposing infantry than his predecessors (but only if we consider small arms, possibly including light machine guns).

Good so far as it goes (I have a soft spot for Dupuy). But I'm not sure it actually tells us much we didn't know, it's sort of compiling statistics for the sake of it. For instance a Roman legionary had a space three feet wide allocated to him (six feet in open order). Yet a british private at Waterloo had about two feet. He's actually in closer order, although Dupuy's table would have you believe otherwise. Now there's no doubt that post WW1 fighting troops actually used much more open order than they had before when six/twelve feet per man was pretty typical for troops in skirmish order and units still tended to form 'firing lines'. But this certainly didn't mean they were at less risk (though they were at less risk from small arms fire than previous musket/rifle troops). So I suppose your question is are small arms less effective (in terms of killing power) today than previously? Certainly in Napoleonic times the musket was a big killer, more so than artillery whereas today artillery rules with heavy infantry weapons following. Rifle fire brings up the rear. But did the gladius/pilum bring down more men (percentage wise) in battle than the modern rifle? Perhaps, yes (though I'd really have to look at some figures to be convinced). But the gladius/pilum was less effective than the Brown Bess was in Napoleonic times. I'm beginning to ramble a bit now but I think you get my drift.

But a modern battle/pursuit may last days or weeks. Consider two encirclements, Cannae and Stalingrad. Now being on the losers side in either would not be good, massive losses in both cases, though (and this is off the top of my head) I think percentage wise Stalingrad's are worse. But for the winner's, huge contrast. The Russians suffered heavily, the Carthaginians minimally. So overall, battles are more dangerous and further in modern war an infantry unit will rapidly suffer 100% casualties in a drawn out battle/campaign. In an ancient campaign, infantry units did not suffer this degree of attrition.

Quite the reverse I'd say. The losing side suffered heavily in ancient battles but the winners usually had casualty rates of 5% or less, exceptionally as many as 15% (but that is really rare). The defeated might lose half their force, but most of these casualties were inflicted once the battle proper was over (during the pursuit).

Shocking! No wonder we lost the empire with that sort of thing going on. I mean to say, with a native chap too. Disgraceful. None of that sort of thing going on in my neck of the woods I tell you. We play with a straight bat, no funny business. Are there any picyures do you think?

Actually we wanted to stay to ensure a 'proper settlement' and to avoid civil war. Ghandi and Nerhu wanted us out straight away. So we left and there was indeed bloody civil war.

A direct consequence of the Wigram/Marshall findings was that the number of men firing increased dramatically in Korea, and again in Vietnam, as training of officers and ncos improved. It was observed in WWII that one never heard Brens and Spandaus firing at the same time. The mere act of firing, however inaccurate, kept the enemy suppressed.

It does seem (at a quick glance) to indicate that 40 was the optimum age for succession. The chances of being a 'bad' emperor rising dramatically as one approaches either extreme. Vespasian being an exception This may of course be sheer coincidence. I'm not sure exactly what it tells us about their portraits though. Perhaps their own self image came into that a lot, some being happier to be percieved as men of wisdom and years, others preferring to think of themselves as embodying youthful drive.

Certainly not in the case of Bangladesh. And the war between India and Pakistan was really, in my view, Pakistan asserting her independence form India.

I thought things were starting to to lighten up ? There are some seriously polarised view points on this forum, and they will never come to an accord on certain issues. That's part and parcel of t'interweb shurely? As for the Europeans not building infrastructure, certainly Africa was not developed by the British in the same was as they improved (put that in quotes if it offends you) the east, but the real problem was the haste in which we left I think. And were the subject bnations of the empire really worse off under British rule? I think not. The real fault of the British was the racism endemic to all cultures/nations of the time. Thus India was not granted Dominion status, which would I think have cut a lot of nationalist support. And remember Ghandi and most other anti-imperialists had the benefit of European style education. It is testimony to the strength of imperial rule in india that only two regions broke away (pakistan and Bangladesh). In Africa, there were fewer large centres of population and tribalism still had (and has) a ferocious grip.

I don't care for Kingdom of Heaven, Scott's least good film, let down by a weak leading actor and a strange attempt at the end to make some kind of political statement. But to dismiss it as 'utter nonsense' is silly. Like most historical films, it plays with the truth but after all, it's not a documentary and the bare bones of the story are pretty close to the historical accounts. The Templars are portrayed quite accurately for instance. I thought the film had real potential. That it failed to live up to it's early promise makes it a poor film but it is no more nonsensical than Ben Hur or El Cid.

Regarding Livia. First if Augustus is portrayed as young then if Livia is to be portrayed as younger she will not embody the traditional ideals of Roman womanhood and further will run the risk of being seen as a mere flighty piece. Given that Augustus' female family members had a reputation for licentiousness then one can see two reasons why she might steer clear. Second, isn't it a bit presumptious to assume that because she's female she should be more obsessed with good looks than dignity?