Julius Ratus

The closest the Norse came to fighting Romans was when the Rus attacked Constantinople, and were soundly beaten.

Thank you, Primus Pilus.

Zama On the Carthaginian sider there were around 50,000-55,000 men. On the Roman side there were roughly 36,000, assuming Scipio had four full strength legions (two Roman, two Italian). These numbers come from B. H. Liddell Hart's book on Scipio Africanus. While the numerical difference wasn't that great, many of Hannibals men were his crack veterans from Italy. This was not an army of barbarians (entirely at least ) and was led by one of the greatest generals of all time. Zama is truely a witness to the strength of the Roman legions and to the greatness of Scipio as a general.

I was wondering, when is the latest recorded date wherein the Romans split up the legion into Hastati, Principes, and Triarii? Games and such seem to point that the various sections fell out of vogue after the Marian reforms. In Conn Iggulden's Emperor series he has Hastati and Triarii in Caesar's legions.

This is a very interesting subject. What sources are you using that suggest specific colours for legionary uniforms?

This was the same boat Marius was in when he came back from exile. Basically, the war between Marius and Sullas was one big rivalry that went back to the Jugurthine War. In rivalries such as the one between Marius and Sulla there usually can be no compromise. Both of them were ruthless and violent to the extreme. I guess people side with one or the other based on their politics. This is another chapter in the growing struggle between the Populares and the Optimates, which would eventually topple the Republic.

LUDOVICUSHASHITTHENAILRIGHTONTHEHEAD IFYOUCANREADENGLISHTHISSHOULDBENOPRO BLEMUNTILYOUSTARYPUTTINGTHINGSINBLOCK SLIKETHEROMANSDIDBYPUTTINGTHEINSCRIPT IONSINBLOCKSWORDSCANBECUTOFFINTHEMID DLETHEREISANENTIRESUBDISCIPLINEDEDICAT EDTOREADINGINSCRIPTIONSCALLEDEPIGRAPH YJUSTBEGLADIAMONLYWRITINGINABLOCKICOU LDBEGOINGRIGHTTOLEFTORALTERNATINGBETW EENLINESASTHEGREEKSANDROMANSWEREFOND OFDOING Trans: Ludovicus has hit the nail right on the head. If you can read english this should be no problem until you start putting things in blocks like the Romans did. By putting the inscription in blocks words can be cut off in the middle. There is an entire discipline dedicated to reading inscriptions, called epigraphy. Just be glad I am only writing in a block. I could be going right to left or alternating between lines as the Greeks and Romans were fond of doing. The line Divo Tito Divi Vespasiani (there is something wrong with the 'f' being there) is in the dative case, the Divo Tito being 1st declension and the Divi Vespasiani being 3rd. Thats as far as I can get, maybe there is someone with a better grasp on Latin than me out there. I'll bet the divo/divi is an abbreviaton for divine.

I dislike Sulla. I think that Marius was the better man. Maybe he did "break the rules" by becomming Consul seven times, but six of those were by popular election, democracy in action. In his sixth consulship he proposed lowering costs for wheat, and when the senate opposed this violence broke out. He, in the interest of public order, put down this revolt. Against Mithridates, the assembly gave the command to Marius and Sulla rose up with his legions in revolt. Marius was unable to defend the city against the invader, as he had against the Germans, and so was forced out. When Cinna's anti-Sullan faction rose up against Sulla's supporters Marius came back to support them. I guess that any question of what I think of Sulla ends with the Marius vs Sulla civil war, in which I probably would have sided with the Cinnans/Marians. This may draw some blunt criticism from some members, but I see Marius as being the better of the two bad apples.

I am totally against a smoking ban in bars. My hometown just passed such an ordinance and I find it idiotic. Restaraunts I can see but bars!?!?!? I don't smoke and don't appreciate smoke when I eat, but at the bar I expect smoke, noise, bad light, and after a few drinks I don't care. Furthermore, if they can ban cigarettes, I wish they would ban small children in restaraunts. They annoy me far more than cigarettes do. Besides, I liked there being a smoking section in restaraunts because since prudes don't sit there, there were always open seats for me. Anyway, this is just one more instance of our freedoms being chipped away little by little.

Krackalackin -- I agree with you on many points but have a few disagreements. The natives vs immigrants argument has some serious flaws, and sounds way to Gangs of New York. The only immigrant group I seriously fear are the Latin Americans, and only those who refuse to integrate. I know a number of Russian/Eastern European immigrants. They hold on to their Slavic heretage but have integrated into our society. They speak English outstandingly. They do not go about rioting and waving the hammer and sickle about. They immigrate legally (the Bering Straights is harder to swim than the Rio). Many of the African immigrants who are comming to America do not want to make America into another Sudan, Togo, or Nigeria. They learn English and adapt to our customs, and often they retain their heritage but don't go about forcing it upon us. The Indian immigrants I have met all have known English and have learned our culture. They dress like Indians, know their old language, and practice their native religions, but they are willing to get along with the dominant culture. I believe that many Hispanics are willing to adapt. I knew a fellow. He was born in Texas and was a US citizen. He spoke English and knew about our culture. When I worked with him there were Mexicans working there and Americans. When he was around the Mexcans he spoke Spanish and got along with them in their culture, but when he was around Americans he followed our cultural norms and spoke English. Now contrast this to the many "illegals". They come to this country illegally. They support other who come illegally. They refuse to learn our language. I am totally disgusted every time I see forms writted in Spanish. If you want to engage in civic functions int his country then learn English. Then when we try to enact laws limiting these crimes they riot (demonstrate they call it) flying foreign flags and protesting our laws. Foreign governments like Mexico set up consulates where they aide and abet criminals. When we execute or imprison for life Mexican nationals who have murdered or raped our citizens the Mexican government causes a stink and refuse to turn over criminals to us if we do not give them reduced sentences. This is what will destroy America. I agree with you that the Tetrarch was a decent system but it had flaws. All governments have flaws. Our system will work fine if it is fixed. The people need to retain power. We need fewer laws. We need more of our rights back. Any power not directly given to the govt by the constitution should be given back to the people. Things won't be as safe or convenient but that is the price of freedom. And for f's sake, lets stop worrying about Iraq and stuff and defend our borders!

I have heard from a number of US vets from that war that the country should be turned over to the Kurds. The Kurds are the only group in Iraq that is friendly to the US. They also are not dominated by Islam. They make it fit their needs and are capable of operating in the modern world.

Sackings of Capitals Rome: 0 (by Parthians/Sassanids) Ctesiphon: 7(ish) Seriously, the Parthians could not be conquered by the Romans but the Romans did far more damage to the Parthians than they did to the Romans. It was the Romans who created the weakness in the Parthians that led to the Sassanid Persians taking over. The Sassanids were destroyed by the moslems. Seems like the Byzantines and the Sassanids should have been working together instead of fighting. The world would be a better place today if they had.

I think that a monarchy in the US is unlikely because there wont be enough time for it to really evolve. I was scared senseless for a while under Bush but earlier this month we the people showed that we still have teeth. I personally think that when Hispanics become the majority the whole political landscape will be severely altered. Many of them already feel more loyalty to their ethnic group, or even their former nation, than they do to the US. Having large, unintegrated ethnic blocs is always a problem. Most of the different ethnic/racial groups in America are integrated into a common culture. All these integrated groups are reliant on one another. The non integrated immigrants of the last wave could form a seperate entity. If that entity is not given some degree of autonomy there will be problems.

I like all of the options given so far. I am still partial to Caesar but Scipio the Elder was pretty amazing. In the Late Empire I definately vote for Belisarius.

This I will give you, but the Western Front was a whole different ball game. American, and to a lesser extent British, tanks were vastly inferior to those of the Germans or Russians. The Sherman was an utter piece of crap except when used on the Pacific front and in North Africa. The Pz. III with the long 5 cm gun was easily a match for the Sherman and the upgraded Pz. IV's (F1 through H) were clearly superior to the Sherman in gun capabilities and with the G(late) to H it had equal if not better armour. Against the Russian T-34 obr '42 the Pz III was outclassed, and against the T-34 obr '43 (T-34/85) the Pz. IV was outclassed. The T-34 obr '43 could even take on Panthers and Tigers, in the proper situation. Excepting the American 90mm and the British 17 pdr the Western Allies had no guns comparable to the Russian 85mm or the German 8.8 cm. The Americans had few tanks mounting the 90mm (the Pershing and the M36 Tank Destroyer are the only two I know of) and British 17 pdr were also reletively rarely mounted on tanks (The Sherman Firefly and the Achilles II Tank Destroyer). On the other hand, the Russians mounted 85mm's on T-34 obr '43's and on SU 85 assault guns. They also had assault guns mounting the 122mm and 152mm howitzers and the 100mm guns as well (the SU 122, SU 152, and the SU100 respectively). The armour-piercing projectiles from the 100mm and upgraded 122mm guns penetrated the Konigstiger's frontal armour at ranges of 1000-1500 meters. This is considered long range. True, the Western Allies had difficulties against the Konigstiger, but it was a reletively rare tank. Many of them were captured because they were abadoned when they ran out of fuel. The Konigstiger was yet another example of the wasted efforts of the Germans to build wunderwaffen (wonder weapons) in order to win the war. The Konigstger project consumed immense rescources and in part bled dry other programs. Aginst the Western Allies the Pz. IV G-H was sufficient. All Pz. III and Pz. IV tanks should have been transfered to the Western Front, and the Tigers and Panthers should have been used against the Russians, where they could have been used to greater effect. Basically, the Sherman was nigh useless against any foe excepting maybe the Italians and the Japanese. P.S. Sorry if I am boring anyone.

Russia, the third Rome, is on tonight.

Interestingly, they both saw the other as barbari/barbaroi. Here is a question, did the Roman word Barbarus come from the Greek word Barbaros? In Latin Barbarus means "bearded", correct me if I'm wrong. Did this come about because Greeks had beards or because of bearded Germano-Gauls? In Greek Barbaroi comes from them calling the Persians Bar-Bars because of how they sounded when they talked ("Hi, my name's Cyrus, bar bar bar bar bar..."). Did the Romans call people Barbari before they came into contact with the Greeks?

The Konigstiger, Tiger II, was actually a flop. The thing had terrible fuel consumption. It's armour was thick but it was low quality (Germany was running out of Manganese). Here is the official Russian report from their tests on captured Konigstigers. The full article is here battlefield.ru

The main site I use for the RKKA in WWII is www.battlefield.ru It is translated by a fellow on the Flames of War forum (www.flamesofwar.com) called jozhik chernobl'skii (possibly spelled wrong). If you have any question of a technical nature dealing with the RKKA I can log on and ask him. Otherwise, I think there is a few quotes in the book "Russia's Heroes" that tell how the Russian people largely supported Order 227. In fact, the Russian people, with a few exceptions, supported their government in the Great Patriotic War. Someone is bound to make some snide remark about how if they didn't then they would disappear, but with WWII this is really not the case. The Nemetski (Germans) were seen as invaders who were violating Mother Russia and so had to be crushed, at any cost.

The only one on there that would have made my top 100 list was probobly David Bowie's Hunky Dory. They could have used The Man Who Sold The World, though. And where was Rammstein's Sehnsucht?

-- This I agree with but Normandy was not the second front, Italy was. Kursk was the turning point. When Tunisia fell, the 1st and 2nd SS (and maybe the 3rd too IIRC) were pulled out of Kursk. One more day and the Whermacht probably could have pulled it off, but the Grossdeutschland could not have done it alone. By the time of the Normandy invasion, Bagration was underway. Bagration is what destroyed Army Group Center. Normandy just speeded up the inevitable. -- Order 227, aka "Not One Step Back", while brutal, it in part led to Soviet victory at Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a holding action. With its sucessful defense, the Soviets had Paulus' 6th Army trapped, and it was soon encircled and destroyed by Soviet attacks. -- This was only true for the early part of the war. As the war progressed the RKKA (Workers and Peasants Red Army) became better and better equipped. The tanks the Soviets were using at the end of the war were better than American and British tanks, and even better than the nasty German panzers. -- And only because we let them. If Ike had allowed Patton to lead the offensive instead of that clod MOntgomery, the U.S. would have taken Berlin before the Russians. The poorly concieved Operation Market-Garden cost the Western Allies men, months, and material. -- See Bagration and the post-Stalingrad encirclements. Often their tactics were brutal and costly, but they were disasterous only for the Germans. Early on, though, you are right with Rzhev and such, but they fixed themselves later on. -- True. The Soviets lost in the ballpark of 20 million people in the war. Their population did not recoup these losses until the 70's. IIRC Sorry for the lengthy response, I know this is a Roman forum but WWII is one of my interests.

The only reason the West supported them as much as it did was because the Nazis were considered to be the greater of two evils (though I would consider them to be equals, the Soviets killed more people but had more time to do it). Since the Nazis were infinately more efficient than the plodding Soviets they had to be dealt with quickest. Soon after the Second World War the U.S. quickly began to contain the C.C.C.P. and some Britons did too, espescially Churchill.

I think if you did, Julius, we'd be in The Arena quicker than you could say Jack Straw! Good point. My point, though, was that Illegal Immigration in Europe and America needs to be dealt with sooner or later or there will be major negative consequences.

My "no" vote requires some explantaions. First, I believe that an emperor was a bad idea. As much as I disagree with Diocletian on moral grounds, his idea of a non-hereditary tetrarchy seems to have been the best plan. I don't think that the Empire being a monarchy is what killed it, I think that having the Empire led by a man chosen for his birth rather than his qualities is what killed it. After Caesar, Augustus and maybe even Tiberius and Claudius ran the Empire well, but Caligula and Nero were pretty worthless leaders. The Five Good Emperors were all chosen for their qualifications and then adopted by the previous Emperor. All of them were, as their title suggests, good Emperors. Diocletian's plan of having Emperors chosen by the former Emperor and then trained on the job was the best sucession plan. As much as I agree with Constantine I on moral grounds, I think that using a merit-based sucession system would have been better than another civil war. My beef with the republic is not so much with how it was run, but who ran it. Cato brings up a good point in pointing out how the plebs were represented by their Tribunes. The problem was, Tribunes like the Gracci who worked from within the system were assassinated and the only Tribunes that didn't face casual assassination were ones like Milo and Clodius, and we all know how wonderful they worked out. It got to the point that only rotten gang leaders or loyal flunkies could be safe as tribunes. The optimates would probably pushed the Republic into another civil war sooner or later if Caesar had not ended the civil wars. After he won in Spain there were no more civil wars until 69 A.D., IIRC.

I voted no because the republic was untenable. Most of the voting power was in the hands of the richest citizens so it was a top heavy system. Anything top heavy is bound to tip over. Men like Caesar and Marius had to break laws because the system was flawed and no one wanted to change it. Caesar saw what happened when the Gracci tried to work within the system. Instead of being slaughtered at the hands of the Optimates, the so called "best" men, he brought a Legion with him. Some people blame Caesar for the civil war. If Caesar had returned to Rome without his Legions then he would have met the same fate as befell all previous reformers. Instead, he faced violence with violence.