Julius Ratus

I am writing a report on the Varangian Guard. I would like to use the Strategikon as a source. I have heard it refered to as the Strategikon of Kakaumenos and also of Maurice. Does anyone know where I can find a copy of it online? Also, any other recomendations on sources for the Varangian Guard would be appreciated. Thanks

149/180 first attempt on hard. If it was modern Geography I would likely have aced it. My eastern geography is far better than my western. I ended up guessing alot out there, so my score is a little skewed. I got like 5 points or so on places where I just guessed. All of them in Gaul or on the Rhine frontier.

The Medieval Russians used letters for numbers as well. Seeing as that they got their alphabet from the (Byzantine) Greeks it would make sense that they got their numbers from them as well.

Scene 324 Hannibal sits in a Roman jail cell. "Hello Cornelia, there once was a senator who tried to quantify me...

I am still happy with the series. Here is a question that I had on the last episode but never asked, whats the deal with the hand sign Vorena makes at the end of the episode? Does she listen to Metal now to anger her father? Thanks to Rome for Phillipi. I was greatly disappointed after Pharsalus. This battle wasn't half bad, for an hour lengthed show. Now if only they could have cut out the crying about being pregnant part and added more killing. Likewise, I wonder where the Timon the Zealot thing is going. Future Sicarii maybe?

Its an interesting thought, and I for one believe that the Neanderthals had compex cultures and maybe even small settlements, though I have no evidence to prove this, there probably is none. I usually define a civilization as having permanant settlements, but this can be tricky. For example, the Mongols had few settlements, but I would consider the Mongols to have had a civilization. This is an interesting question.

wtf is goin on? Are you resurecting the mafia or something? If so, can this mick join?

Some of this is entirely up to you... There is no preferred method of citation, only that it's inclusion will help to authenticate your information. This is indeed a historical essay (not fiction). A well presented topic "thesis" will likely carry more weight by virtue of originality than a rehashed simple biography would for example. However, a poorly written thesis style paper would not win simply by virtue of originality. It would be difficult to discredit a paper that excels in regurgitation of fact, as you call it, but does so in a compelling way. Keep in mind that there will be several judges with differing personal criteria. Am I vague and obscure enough? I hope so, because personally I would prefer entrants submit papers that suit their strengths rather than try to conform to a particular concept. I apologize if I am being confusing. I understand. Thanks.

:mummy: -- They didn't do very well against the Scythians either. The Greeks did so well against them because they had superior infantrymen, hands down. The Persians' main strength lay in their cavalry. Due to the nature of the terrain in Greece, the Persians were never able to utilize either their Cavalry nor their Chariotry. With no cavalry it became an infantry battle, and voila. No more barbars in Greece.

I will vote with M. P. Cato on the Cannae being more spectacular than Thermopylae, but there is just something heart-wrenching and poetic about Thermopylae, which is why it is so well remembered to this day. In the modern world, few battles come behind Rourke's Drift in pure bravery. Here one company of Red Coats stand up to 5000 Zulus, one of the most impressive non-European armies of the era, led by two Lieutenants, one an Engineer, the other an unblooded aristocrat, and end up winning. As far as WWII goes, Stalingrad wasn't all that spectacular, though it did highlight the tenacity and bravery of the Soviet citizens and soldiers involved, as well as the leadership of then-commissar Krushchev. I would consider the actions around Prokhorvka in the Kursk Salent to have been the most spectacular battle of WWII, IMHO.

Could someone clerify for me, is this supposed to be a scholarly writing of a fictional story? From the contest guidelines it appears to be scholarly, but I just want to be sure. Also, by essay, do you imply that there is to be a Thesis to the topic, a question, or is a more research (regurgitation of information) oriented approach acceptable? Furthermore, is there any preferred method for citations, or is any accepted scholarly notation open (I tend to use the Chicago Manual of Style and Parenthetical notation)? Thanks

Commemorated on July 6 The Holy Martyrs Valentinus the Presbyter, Martha, Marinus, Audifax, Habakkuk, Cyrenus, Asterius and many others with them at Rome. During the reign of the emperor Claudius II (268-270), St Marinus together with his wife Martha and their sons Audifax and Habakkuk journeyed from Persia to Rome, to pray at the graves of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul. During this time fierce persecutions and executions befell the Roman Church. St Marinus and his wife and sons helped Christians locked up in the prisons, and also to request the bodies of executed martyrs. At one of these jails they met a prisoner named Cyrenus and they helped him, since he had endured many torments for faith in Christ. The persecution spread, and even more Christians were arrested. During this time 260 Christians, among whom was the tribune Vlastus, had been sent under the court sentence to dig ground along the Salerian Way, and were executed by archers. When they learned about this vicious murder, Marinus, his family, and the presbyter John went by night and took the bodies of the martyrs to be buried in the catacombs. They returned later to the prison where St Cyrenus was incarcerated, but did not find him. He had been executed the day before and his body was thrown into the Tiber River. Doing their holy duty, Sts Marinus and Martha and their sons took the body of the holy martyr from the river and committed it to the earth. The holy workers were among Christians, who continued secretly to perform the divine services under the leadership of the holy Bishop Callistus, and hid them from their pursuers. In consummation of their great charitable deeds the holy family was deemed worthy to glorify the Lord by martyrdom. The pagans beheaded the courageous confessor Valentinus the Presbyter, and the imperial gardener Asterius who had been converted by him, and the holy ascetics from Persia were arrested and given over to torture. By order of the emperor, Sts Marinus, Audifax and Habakkuk were beheaded in the year 269, and St Martha was drowned in a river. The relics of the holy saints are in Rome at the Church of St John the Hut-Dweller, and the relics of St Valentinus are in the Church of the holy Martyr Paraskeva. Here is the account from the Lives of the Saints.

I hope that Viggen, his excellency, is alright, and that everything gets set in order for him. I hope you all continue getting along, better than the first two triumvirates. And finally, tell Moonlapse to avoid the Parthians at all costs. Ave Primus Pilus, Moonlapse, and Viggen!

Mr. Pilus, you see what I have to deal with everyday? Omaha, Nebraska drivers are the worst on the face of the Earth, except for maybe Iowegians. The idiots here can't turn to save their lives and think that gas, green, and go all starting with G is only a coincidence. Some people are so dumb that after I have exhausted my English cursing vocabulary I have to shift to Russian, German, Latin, and even once Spanish. :blowup:

I've done a bit of research on the cavalry arm of the Republican army and Thapsus is the only time I know of where the Romans utilized elephants. They faced them a number of times, Trebia, Zama, and vs. Pyrrus, for instance. IIRC, the velites and other light troops were usually deployed to counter elephants.

I noticed that Primus Pilus is of the group 'Triumviri'. By definition there must be two more triumviri on this forum, so, who are they?

I'm supprised no one else put Roman Warcraft. People have been copying the Roman armies for some time now. Everyone wants to be the new legion. In WWII some Italian units (M Battalions, I think) used ranks like Centurio and had Centuria instead of companies.

It had to be the "huge tracts of land" that attracted Antony, looking at coins again, Octavia looked a hell of a lot better than Cleo.

Was that you who voted for such Heresy?

Screw Politics, see quote below. BTW: I hope that article was done in jest.

Next episode looks super. Will we actually get to watch a battle for once? That would be extra nice. I'll admit, the new Octavian is growing on me. He has that cold calculating look going on. This is probably a more realistic view of Octavian, than the bumbling Augustus from I Clavdivs. If the historical Octavian had been the lovable Brian Blessed Augustus he wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance against old Tully.

The initial Moslem surge was the epitome of good timing. They had the element of supprise, no one expected that a puny, backwards tribe like the Arabs would ever ammount to anything. Then, when they did, the Byzantine Romans and Sassanid Persians were duking it out. Divide and Conquer.

I always thought that Caesar was great for his politics but Scipio was the better General. He did much with little. I am a Marius fan but he wasn't as good as Scipio. Belisarius gets an A for strategy but his tactics weren't as spectacular as Scipio's, who gets an A+ in both departments.

1. I love alternate history because it forces you to ask "why" and "how". Why and how are the important parts of understanding history. Normally the moderators are opposed to unequal comparisons, pitting modern commanders vs ancient ones, but your Marshall Zhukov vs Alexander gave me a chuckle. If the Siberian Divisions had been equipped with wicker shields and spears, and then sent into battle using the tactics Zhukov utilized at Rzhev, it would have been Alexander fighting an Oriental mob all over again . 4. My Professor thinks that Alexander would have steamrollered the Romans. I find my self agreeing. The Romans could have kept on calling up divisions but Alexander would have killed them off, loosing fewer men than Pyrrus had. What gave Alexander his victories were his Thessalian and Companion cavalry units. These were the killing arms in the warmachines of Alexander and Philip. The cavalry in Pyrrus' army were not as prominent as they were the in the earler Macedonian armies.

Yes, he probably would be appalled. But I'm asking how you think Polybius would classify the Augustan constitution given the definition he proposed, and how you think he would reconcile his theory of the rise of Rome with its later history? To the put same question somewhat differently: Had Polybius been able to view events from the time of Diocletian, say, would he have stuck to his original claim that the historical source of Roman dominance was its mixed constitution? Based on the Polybian theory of mixed Roman constitution, I would say that the Augustan constitution was similar with the checks and balances cut out. Unfortunately for Rome, the checks and balances were the good part of the system. In the Augustan model, there are still the Senate and the Consuls, but a fourth, Superior branch is added, the Princeps. Since the Princeps/Emperor had Maius Imperius and Tribunician Potestas he had control of the army and was untouchable. In Rome there were only three military/para-military forces, the Praetorians, the Urban Cohort, and the Vigilies, (and later the German guards) so the Emperor was fully in control. The Consuls were figureheads and the Senate was a rubber stamp. I have no idea what happened to the assemblies but by this point they would have been without purpose. I think that Polybius' assertion that Rome's mixed constitution made it great stands. It was during the Middle Republic that Rome became great. Between the Principate and the end of the Five Good Emperors there were few major threats to Roman power, none on the scale of Hannibal, Mithridates, Spartacus, and the sort. Afterwards, the Romans had rotted from the inside to the point that the Germans were a major threat, the same people who were defeated by Marius and Caesar centuries earlier. By the time of Diocletian, the Roman Wolf was a dying puppie.