Pompieus

In autumn of 192, at the invitation of the Aetolians to "liberate Greece", Antiochus landed an advanced force (10000 infantry 500 cavalry) at Demetrias in Magnesia and marched to join the Aetolians at Lamia. Thru diplomacy and military action he managed to take control of most of central Greece (Aetolia, Boeotia, Chalchis, Euboea) and invaded Thessaly. Flamininus, Cato and others, with support of the Greek upper classes, retained the support of Athens, the alliance of Achaea and the good will of Macedon. In February 191 the consul Manius Acilius Glabrio landed at Appolonia with 2 legions and allies (22000 men). The mild weather and help from Phillip V of Macedon allowed Glabrio to march over the mountains and drive Antiochus and the Aetolians from Thessaly. Antiochus fell back to Thermopylae, fortified the eastern end of the pass and placed 2000 Aetolians to guard the mountain path that the Persians had used to flank the pass in 480BC. The night before moving on Thermopylae, Glabrio sent a detachment of 2000 men under the ex consuls Lucius Valerius Flaccus and Cato against the Aetolians on the mountain. Next morning Glabrio's attack was stopped by the Seleucid sarissophoroi (Antiochus' Greek phalanx) at the entrenchment and harried by light troops on the slopes to his right. But Cato had surprised the Aetolian detachment at the Callidromus pass, driven them off and appeared in the Seleucid rear. Antiochus retreated to Chalchis, his elephants and the narrow pass slowed the Roman pursuit. See Livy xxxvi.1-.20, Appian Syrian Wars 16-10, Plutarch Cato Major 13.

Odd about islands, Crete was famous for its mercenary archers. As was England

Requiring soldiers to carry their own weapons, armor, rations, camp equipment etc. was apparently something of an innovation in ancient times. Supposedly Phillip of Macedon began the practice. Cavalrymen and classical hoplites (being reasonably well to do) had servants or slaves to fetch and carry.

Horses were usually too valuable to be used as baggage animals by ancient armies. Donkeys and mules (if available ) were preferred. J.P Roth (Logistics of the Roman Army at War) and D W Engels (Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army), using both modern and ancient sources, estimate a donkey could carry a load of 150-200 lbs., and a mule 220-300 lbs. Mules, being bigger and stronger than donkeys, could carry a load 25-50 miles a day for extended periods. Carts and wagons drawn by mules and oxen were also used sometimes, and could haul 1100-1200 lbs. However, wheeled vehicles reduced mobility as they required roads and bridges, were subject to breakdowns, and oxen could only cover about 10 miles a day. There is probably something to be said for the agricultural aspect of horse collars re plowing the heavier soils of Northern Europe in the middle ages.

Influential Romans were often patrons to non-citizens. Any individual or community that had business with the Roman state always had one or more patrons among the senators to speak or use his clout on their behalf in the senate or the courts. Men like Fabius, Pompey, Marcellus, Scipio et al had whole cities and kingdoms among their clientele. E Badian wrote a whole book about it (viz: Foreign Clientelae 264-70BC). I'm not sure there was any formal application and acceptance though.

The Romans did indeed have drama. There was apparently some Italic tradition which was strongly influenced by contact with the Etruscans and Greeks. The first Latin playwrights known were Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Ennius, and Accius. The oldest that have survived are comedies of Plautus and Terence. All wrote in the mid 3rd to 2nd century BC. It is also true that the Romans long distained permanent theater buildings. Temporary structures were built for each festival and pulled down afterwards. Evidently the Romans thought permanent theaters with seats were too "Greek" and subversive for good Romans. Pompey's theater, built in 55 BC, was the first permanent theater in Rome. "A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum" is loosely based on some of Plautus' plays.

Nobody mentioned "Scipio Africanus" (1937). Supposedly many of the 30,000 extras were drafted to fight in Ethiopia. Or "Cabiria" (1914)(!)

Fortes fortuna iuvat...(adiuvat ?)

You could also check your library for the relevant volumes of the Cambridge Ancient History (X-XII). Yes they're a bit stodgy and conservative, but there is a new edition now, the contributors are major scholars and the bibliography is exhaustive.

L Mummius was praetor in 153 and commanded in Further Spain that year, Q Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus wasn't praetor 'till 148 and fought the pretender Andriscus in Macedonia. Scipio was probably quaestor in the mid 150's but there is no record in the sources, he went to Spain as a volunteer in 151. The censors, apparently tried to maintain the number of senators at about 300, but with many overseas with the army or on diplomatic missions and those superannuated, 200 is a feasible number. The senate did not always meet in the Curia Hostilia. They could meet in any inaugurated space (templum) and often used other venues such as the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (especially at the beginning of the consular year), the temple of Fides, or Concord et al. Also at this period the consuls spent most of the year overseas campaigning and a praetor would often preside. It is likely (based on the design of the surviving building) that the senators sat in parallel rows on either side of the building with a raised dais for the presiding magistrate at one end.

The foremost general of the time was probably Marcus Claudius Marcellus, the son of the consul of 196 and censor of 189, and grandson of the conqueror of Syracuse and 5 time consul (both of the same name). Marcellus was consul in 166 and 155 and triumphed over the Gauls in 166/5 and Ligurian Apuani in 155/4. He was elected consul again in 152 (in violation of the Lex Villia Annalis which required a 10 year interval between iterations) to take charge of the war in Spain. Other prominent senators included Cato who was still initiating prosecutions of senators who had exploited provincials, and M Aemilius Lepidus (cos187) the Pontifex Maximus and princeps senatus who died about 152. P Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum (cos 162) would succeed M Aemilius in his priesthood and had been censor in 159.

Quite true! The daughter of Q Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (cos 143) married: C Servilius Vatia (father of the consul of 79), another married P Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos 111); his grand daughter, daughter of Baliaricus (cos 123), married Ap Claudius Pulcher (cos 79). The grand daughter of his brother, L Caecilius Metellus Calvus (cos 142) daughter of Delmaticus, married M Aemilius Scaurus (cos 115) and Sulla, another married L Licinius Lucullus and was mother of the consuls of 74 & 73). Crassus married a daughter of Metellus Creticus (cos 69) and Pompey married a daughter of Metelllus Scipio (son of a Caecilia Metella who married Scipio Nasica. The important role of women in Roman politics is usually ignored in our sources and difficult to reconstruct.

This is an interesting question, but probably unanswerable. There is nothing in any of the sources (Appian, Plutarch, Suetonius) that mention Caesar as participating in any way in the slave war of 73-71 BC. However, Caesar was apparently elected military tribune (one of the 24 military tribunes elected by the people and assigned to the 4 consular legions) for 72 or 71 BC (Suet. Caes 5, Plut. Caes 5). Gelzer (Caesar) and Broughton (Magistrates of the Roman Republic) disagree on the year. If he was an elected military tribune for 72, it is difficult to see how he could have avoided service in the ill-fated campaign of the consuls L Gellius Poplicola and Cn Cornelius Lentullus Clodianus. If he was Military Tribune in 71 he might well have participated in Crassus' campaign. Gelzer says (pg 29): "We can no more than wonder whether, as military tribune,he had to take part in the slave war.

Aurelian - restitutor orbis. I don't suppose Heraclius or Leo III qualify (?)

Cassius Dio (LXXI.16) says that a treaty negotiated by Marus Aurelius in 175AD, ending the war with the Iazyges (a Sarmation people who lived in Eastern Hungary), required them to provide 8000 troops to the Roman Army. 5500 of them were sent to Britain. One unit, the ala primae Sarmatorum, has been identified by inscriptions at its station at Ribchester in Lancashire.

In ancient times subordinate officers were given their orders by the commander in a pre-battle conference, and were usually assigned command of a portion of the army, such as the left or right wing or center, or a detachment on special duty. Communication with the commander once the fighting began was obviously problematic, so subordinates would have to try to carry out the pre-battle orders as best they could in the circumstances. There were, however, examples of subordinates taking the tactical initiative in battle such as Claudius Nero at the Metaurus or the unnamed tribune at Cynocephalae. Ancient armies were usually small, rarely more than 30-40000 men, and logistics was limited to obtaining food and water for men and animals, so administrative tasks were probably informally assigned to the commander's staff depending on his desire to delegate. As Caldrail says, however, it must have been a real problem with the large armies (the largest Roman armies on record) under the assasins of Caesar, Antonius and Octavian.

There was no alternative to the Alpine route as the Romans controlled the sea lanes and Sicily. Actually Hasdrubal passed the Alps without much difficulty and recruited Gauls and Ligurians in the Po valley. When he moved southeast along the north slope of the Appenines, the Romans intercepted and defeated him at the Battle of the Metaurus River. The Metaurus is in the Italian province of Marche (then Picenum) North of the Appenines but well south of the Alps.

You are welcome. The large number of senators(up to 2000 in both East and West) dates from the late 4th century. Senators had been excluded from most important military and civil offices from the mid 3rd century in favor of equestrians. Constantine began restoring the tradition of appointing holders of high office to the senate, and the large civil service and army built up the number of senators rapidly. His son made the senate of Constantinople an "Imperial" rather than a city institution, and the senates in both cities could meet in other venues than the curia, often in the palace.

The grades of senators in the later empire were based on tenure of offices - actually held or honorary (by order of the emperor). The highest ranking illustres were ex consuls and "patricians" (no longer a hereditary rank but an honor bestowed on individuals by the emperor),then came holders of the praetorian or urban praefectures, and masters of the soldiers and the praepositi sacri cubiculi. Next in precedence came the various palatine ministers viz master of offices, quaestors, the comites of the largitiones, res privata and donestici. Proconsuls, vicars of diocese, comes rei militaris and duces were spectabilis. Lesser palatine officials, consulars and praesidi of provinces and tribunes of army units, as well as all who were senators by birth alone were clarissimi. See H M D Parker "The Later Roman Empire" Ch XV. As the number of senators increased the lower orders were not required to attend or reside at Rome or Constantinople and were encouraged, and sometimes required, to return to their home towns in the provinces. This was sweetened by not requiring them to hold the praetorship, which by this time was limited to spending huge sums on games and public works.

Gaius Calpurnius Piso, the central figure in the conspiracy against Nero in 65, was the guy who was relieved of his wife (Livilla Orestilla) by Caligula and exiled in 37-38 AD, then recalled by Claudius and made consul suffectus in 41. Who his father was is not clear. It may have been L Calpurnius Piso (cos 27) in which case his grandfather would have been Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (cos 7) who was accused of murdering Germanicus. There are other possibilities, the consul of 27 evidently had a brother named Marcus and a L Calpurnius Piso was consul in 57. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus was apparently a son of M Licinius Crassus Frugi (cos 27) who was adopted by a Calpurnius Piso, but which one is unknown. Lucius was later adopted by Galba and executed in 69 by Otho. There is a "stemma" of the family of M Licinius Crassus Frugi in Vol X of the 2nd edition of the Cambridge Ancient History pg 992 that shows Licinianus relationship with the Scribonii and Pompeii. Not much help I'm afraid. It is concievable that Crassus let his colleague in the consulship of 27 (L Calpurnius Piso) adopt one of his sons (Licinianus); but that would make it unlikely that Gaius (the conspirator of 65) was the son of that same Calpurnius Piso.

Although it's hard going at times, makes some questionable conclusions, and is expensive to buy and hard to find in a library; Roth's "Logistics of the Roman Army at War 264-235" is indispensible to understanding the level of professionalism the Romans achieved in this vital military art. If for no other reason than it is the only book sized treatment of the topic (along with Engle on the Macedonian army) and its exhaustive references to primary sources. Fortunately you can look at it on-line: http://www.realtechsupport.org/temp/IoT/texts/IoT_Logistics_of_the_Roman_Army_at_War.pdf

Since "Spartacus" and "Ben-Hur" were both on TV here recently the "demonization" is rife! Good movies both - but bad history. Nearly all depictions of ancient slavery in the movies are inevitably anachronistic. Until recently so were depictions of "modern" slavery (viz "Gone With the Wind"). The moral taint to slavery is a product of the ninteenth century.

The details of the organization of the Roman people in the centuriate assembly (which is where the property "classes" were used) is a vexing question because (I believe) the primary sources are limited to Livy i.42-43 and Dionysius of Halicarnassus iv.16-21 and vii.59, who describe the assembly as created by king Servius Tullius. And random references in Cicero such as Phil 2.39 and De res publica ii.39. All modern interpretations have been based on those few references. It is not clear that there was a specific property qualification for a senator until Augustus though they probably required at least the equestrian census to be active in politics. It was the task of the Censors to assess each citizens property and place them in the appropriate century. There was no "senatorial class" in the centuriate assembly. There were 18 centuries of equites, and 5 "classes" of pedites (with varying numbers of centuries) plus one large century of non-property-owning citizens, the capiti censi. But in which centuries did the senators vote? Did the 18 equestrian centuries include everyone with the equestrian cenus or just those who held the public horse (equo publico)? You might try Lily Ross Taylor and G W Botsford on Roman Voting Assemblies, but I have never seen the 5 "classes" referred to by anything other than "first", "second" etc and (appropriately) roman numerals - unless you mean pedites as opposed to equites or that sometimes the centuries of the "first" class were referred to as classes and the others as infra classem, or that the the first six centuries of equites were called sex suffragio.

Try the "Roman Britain" site (roman-britain.org) under Bremetenraco (Ribchester in Lancashire). There are apparently inscriptions there referring to an Ala, Numerus and Cuneus of Sarmatians stationed there.

By the time of Domitian the length of service in the legions had settled at 25-26 years and a considerable donative was provided on retirement. But I don't believe there was a concept of "mandatory retirement", and many centurions would want to stay on as the pay was considerable. Some did retire however, and a primi pilus became an eques upon retirement. From there some went on to become tribunes in the vigiles, urban cohorts or praetorians, or to command of an auxiliary unit.