Gaius Octavius

Ave Lucius, etc.: The Senate would be right at home. They would line up with U.S. Congressmen at the lobbyists for the goodies. Politics would be just the same. That never changes. They would have to learn English. Check that, so would most citizens of the U.S. They would recognize well built and shoddy buildings. The engineering and medicine would impress. Electricity would surely give them a shock. I am sure they would like to get their hands on the military. Perhaps they might - just might - use it more effectively. A subura would also make them feel at home. Love the new chariots. The U.S. 'empire' is capitalist (money) based; theirs was territorially based. They would learn. And we all can dream.

That would require a book. Try clicking around this site or www.roman-empire.net (Please!).

I just checked (naturally I have it at home ...!) Hammurabi's code always seems to set values either in silver (by weight) or in grain. So, yes, acting on this code is not 'barter' in the strict sense. Values are set against a standard. _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ You are assuming that their was enough 'money' circulating to effect all economic transactions. This was not the case. The Code told you how many units of 'this' representing X amount of 'money' could be 'traded' for how many units of 'that' representing X amount of 'money'. This Code was set up to effect 'honest' business and of course to collect taxes in kind. Deoclitian's edicta were a 'price control' mechanism. They didn't work. There was enough coinage, but it had been greatly debased. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still controversial in my eyes. I'd like to see old Ben Franklin back on the coin. Replacing a giant like Ben Franklin with that sod Kennedy is a joke. _________________________________________________________________________________________ I thought politics were outlawed from this Roman Forum.

Doesn't matter how Cleopatra and her spawn met their ends. It was the right thing for Rome. My vote goes to Augustus. As a matter of fact, can anyone think of a better leader in the history of the western world? Gorbachev might approach since he gave up an empire without throwing the world into nuclear chaos.

Ave Vespason: Please don't think me rude, but your logic doesn't hold water. You argue from the particular to the general. A no-no. You might just as well have concluded that it was all Cain's fault

One would have to agree with you, but not with your conclusion. Before 55 B.C., there was Sulla, the Gracchi affair, Cicero, etc. The members of the Senate had always been corrupt to varying degrees. I don't think that it matters as to who introduces legislation, but rather, what the legislation is. Your items may justly be said to have produced the 'result', but the Triumvirate was a sympton of the degradation of the Republic. Augustus did curb many of these things and so did some of his successors. Your conclusion implies unanswerable questions: What would have happened without the Triumvirate? Would Caesar still have ruled?Something had to happen. What was it?

It seems that the era when the battle occured is not being considered, and thus the formations and tactics used. In the earliest of times there would have only been three lines of infantry (each of 1,000 men), to a legion with small cavalry units on the wings. When the phalanx was used, the spears were some 18 feet long and projected out to the front some 3 feet distant from the spear ahead. If a man in front went down, the man behind simply stepped over him. But, let us take the example of Scipio at Zama. Initially he presented a continuous front. When Hannibal's elephants charged, the centuries formed close order and allowed the charging elephants to pass through the gaps created between the centuries or maniples. The elephants were attacked on their flanks and turned out to be useless. This is an example of a frontal cavalry charge failing. The Parthians did use frontal and surrounding charges with cavalry who were armed with bows and arrows. They would shoot, retreat and then return for an encore, thus the 'parting' or 'Parthian' shot. Carrae. They never engaged the infantry directly, until the matter was settled. Cavalry were usually placed on the wings of an army and/or held in reserve to be used for the most propitious purpose, usually to follow up a defeated enemy and destroy him. Scipio's cavalry attacked Hannibal's and ran them off; defeated them, and did not return to the battle until much later in the fight. When cavalry did attack infantry, it was usually to the left side of the enemy infantry, the unarmed side. Or for an envelopment. Using Scipio's example when he defended against the elephants, centuries could easily form up in close order to retreat into the gap behind them. If the gap were charged, the enemy became susceptible to flank attack. In this fashion, entire units could advance or retreat. By this, I do not mean cohorts or legions, unless there were a tactical reason. It would not be wise to replace troopers man for man, as unit cohesion would be lost. Men within a unit could replace a fallen comrade easily. A battle might start with a cloud of arrows greeting the opponents. This would be countered by the Romans using their shields in Testudo fashion. As the armies advanced, the Roman Velites opened fire with bullets and small spears. They did not engage the enemy man to man. As the armies got closer, the Velites retreated THROUGH the advanced Roman lines into the rear, before the legion(s) attacked. They did not retreat to the flanks. The front line Romans then heaved their pilum. Then man to man combat occurred. If the legion were formed of Hastati, Principes and Triarii and the front most unit was being defeated, the next unit could advance. This generally being the decision of the on sight commander. 'The matter is down to the Triarii.' If a Reserve unit were to replace a large unit being defeated, again lanes would have to to formed in order for the Reserve to advance into the fray. I am not certain as to how the Romans used their balista (belly busters or arrow machine guns). I doubt if they were used during the clash of infantry. So, perhaps they were used at the beginning. If up front, the infantry would have to form lanes to bypass them. If not up front, then lanes of fire would have to be formed initially. Or both at the same time. The essence of the Roman army was unitary cohesion, tactics and discipline. The generals following Scipio certainly learned from him. Most battles were not long drawn out affairs. The outcome was usually decided early on. Had I applied myself to Invesment Banking as I am to this site, I would not have had to ask the question about interest calculations during the pre Julian calandar, which no one has answered. Please!

No, it doesn't and it is by e-mail.

Thank you Pertinax and Primus Pilus. Ursus' article is excellent. Yet, Fustel made the point, explicitly, that each family's and each city's Minerva was a separate 'person' from every other Minerva. The article may be saying it implicitly and I am missing it. I wonder if Ursus couldn't elaborate. Pertinax seems to get at Fustel's point obliquely, a Minerva in Britain and one in Rome. If the ancients didn't believe in this multiplicity, I don't see how they could accept another diety with the same attributes.

The Romans are generally accused of stealing or borrowing their gods from the Greeks. A long time ago I read a book by a man with the glorious name of Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges titled 'The Ancient City'. If my memory serves, he held that each family had its own household gods and sundry genii(?). Genii to mark the bounds of their land holdings; a geni for the 'Thresh Hold', etc. This last is the reason why we today carry our brides over it, rather than let her step on it, and thus the geni. It signaled that she was leaving her family's gods and taking on her husband's family's gods. A ceremony was performed acknowledging this. Each family had a set of gods that may have been named Zeus or Jupiter but they were not the same persons although they did the same thing. This also applied to cities. Perhaps that is why there is a Zeus or Jupiter of here and there. It was said that when the gods left the city, it would fall. I believe that it was the same for barbarian gods. If this god could do the same as Jupiter, he could be called Jupiter. I don't think that he held that the Romans stole or borrowed Greek gods, but simply identified their gods with those of the Greeks. This also solves the problem about the Fall of Rome. It's simple; the gods fled the City.

The original point was that the Empire would NOT have fallen had it been a republic. The 'form' of government does not determine whether an empire falls or not. Some chap has propounded a '400 Year' theory of empires, much as if one could determine the precise date of its formation and therefor the precise date of its fall. That's so much twaddle. If 'republic' were the answer, then the nations cited would still have empires.

To V's origianl topic. England, France, Germany, Russia and Italy became 'republics' (in essence) and still lost their empires. A question: What is a 'republic'; a 'democracy'? Does a 'democracy exist? and if so, where?

Just for clarity. French Foriegn Legion troopers are legionaires. Roman legionary troopers are legionaries. Please don't make me a slave again!

The European Union comes to mind.

Until late in the last century, noon was exactly when the sun was directly overhead in Saudi Arabia. The airlines put an end to this. I believe that this was the way Romans calculated noon, no matter the season or place. I therefor have a question: Was there a person in the legion whose responsibility was to 'keep time'?

Congratulations, Ursus! And thanks. Some kid will plagerize your work and get an undeserved 'A' for your efforts. If I am not in error, there seems to be a lot of overlapping of authority. This could have led to jealousy and confusion. I think that this was the case with Justinian and Theodora in the case of a general and a castrated man, who was also a general during the reconquest of Italy and North Africa. I forget the details. Oh!, thanks for giving me the opportunity to become a milites. I really was getting tired of being a slave. Who manumitted me? Do I have to wear a special cap?

The Code of Hammurabi (?) sets down the rate at which things were exchanged (bartered). Taxes were likewise calculated. That is not to say that 'money', which represents 'things' and 'labor', was not extant.

Salve Ovidius: Try "Caesar" by Theodore Aryalt Dodge. His introduction is most helpful.

A friend of mine was a cop in NYC. He watched an Egyptian ambassador run a red light and slam into the side of another car. Naturally, he went over to sort things out. When all was said and done, he was the one who got into trouble. On the other side of the coin, about 25 years ago, my then girlfriend and I 'baby sat' a Danish consul's home. His car came in the bargain. But, he warned us that the Danish government paid all fines and that the culprit had to cough up the gold. I was a good boy.

Ave Ovidius: Click onto Flavius' "LINK" and you will get the answer.

Thank you Flavius. It is not the thread I read. Had I read that thread, I would not have posted since it contains more information than I supplied and would have referred to it. I'm new at this. As regards the spelling, I believe that one has a choice. As a light hearted rejoinder: "It's a damned poor man who can't spell a word more than one way." Compliments of Pres. Andrew Jackson (USA).

In an earlier thread (which I can no longer find) somewhere on the Forum, it was stated that the Varingian Guard was composed of 'Russians'. I believe that was an error. The Guard came from the Kingdom of Rus, based in Kiev, which had been conquered by the Vikings. The Vikings then raided the Eastern Empire. They failed to conquer but were enlisted as royal guards by the Emperor. This because they were fierce and it was better to 'hug' this enemy than to fight him.

With just a few days experience, I love this site. Being a computer illiterate, I am not sure of how to use it properly, so I hope that I am not out of order on this request in accordance the rules. There is another 'Forum' at: www.roman-empire.net that came down for about a year due to flooding at the webmaster's house. It is back up, but not all of the 'old' posters (Sander, Tim O'Neal, etc.) are back on. Perhaps they are unaware of its re-emergence. I would guess that many of them are on this site. Could some sort of an announcement be made? I have pointed this site out on that 'Forum".

It would seem that there are a myriad of causes that led to the 'Fall'. If one were to consider only one or a half dozen of these causes, it would beg the question: Would the Empire then have fallen? I feel that it was the conjunction of all of the above mentioned causes, and then some, that led to the 'Fall'. It seems to be the opinion of many, today, that lead was not a significant problem for the Romans. So many of these causes can be boiled down to simple greed. The citizen no longer felt that his primary obligation was to the state as in Republican times. It was to himself. So many of the patrician class went so far as to amputate the thumbs of the right hands of their sons to exempt them from military service. These same turned their 'clients' into serfs, thus extirpating their loyalty to the state. What did it matter to the serf who his oppressor was - a Roman or a Goth or an Arab (in later times)? The serf had become nothing more than a source of taxes and riches for the patricians and poverty for himself. The legions ceased to be Roman or Italian and at one point became 95% 'barbarian'. The inflation and debasing of the coinage of Deocletian's time and thereafter, should be added to the causes. Gaius SPQR