Julius Ratus

Not to thread-kack, but I would beinterested to know if there were any famous Julii before Caesar as well. I recall there being one Consul of the line before Caesar.

Here are my top five sets of events. I realize that my list is Eurocentric, but its the History I know. 1.) Victory of Greeks/Macedonians over Persians in the Two Persian Wars, and the Victory of Rome in the Three Punic Wars. These events secured European independence from Asia. 2.) Charles Martel and the Reconquista in the West. The Gates of Vienna and the Battle of the Kulikovo Pole in the East. These four Battles halted the spread of Islam, and accomplished the same thin as #1. 3.) The Rennaisance and The 'Discovery' of the New World. These two events led to the half millenia of European domination of the World. 4.) WWI and De-Colonization. The undoing of #3. 5.) WWII and the Cold War. Both these wars were political more than national in nature, and brought the World together more than anything else ever has (funny, we get together best when were killing one another!). These wars also moved the focus out to the periphery, with the leading nations being largely in N. America (USA) and Asia (USSR) rather than in Europe. There's my USD .02.

He is also the Parton Saint of Russia.

I like Jaegermeister (I realize that the a should have the zwei-strecke, but ae is gramatically correct if you don't have the proper key). I like it but don't love it. A friend of mine swears by it. He used to drink shots of The Green Cat and nyquil, and called it Sleepy Juice. I like it mixed with Commie Cow (Red Bull) or straight with a toast (usually to the breezes). Apfelkorn is better though, if you want a German liquor. Gin is my current poison of choice. Both Vodka and Whiskey have been known to make me crazy (psychotic in some instances) so I don't drink them in large ammounts anymore.

Beer and Landjaeger, oh yeah!

In the British Army, rank was bought in the form of a commission, though rankers could be given a field commission for valour, but this was rare. Usually revolutionary change ended aristocratic officers. In WWII the Germans stopped having Junkers command, instead promoting officers for their talent. After the Russian Revolution the RKKA abolished ranks altogether, until later on when they were reintroduced. And, as you pointed out, Napoleon's officers were promoted entirely on the basis of merit. Later, in the mid-Nineteenth Century, the British stopped selling commissions. I don't believe the U.S. ever sold commissions, though I could be wrong.

That is a lot of books. I thought I read compulsively. I have been writing down the books I have read (for personal enjoyment, not for classes) since I was a Junior in High School (a long time ago). I doubt i have read 104 books in that time. I have been reading a lot this year, thanks to Sharpe. I have read about a dozen books since the December or so. I don't get cable so I read or watch movies. When I go to my parents house and watch TV, I think I loose IQ points every time I watch it. The exceptions are the historical series from HBO. I loved Rome, Deadwood, and am enjoying John Adams. Otherwise reading is my prefered form of intertainment. Anyway, keep up the good work and avoid mind numbing television.

Thanks GPM. So they just sound like a military unit used by Adcantuannus.

Hey all, I've got a quick question. Who were the Soldurii? I looked them up on Wikipedia and could find nothing.

I would do a pair of movies on the 2nd Punic war. It would be done like Clint Eastwood did Letter from Iwo Jima and Flags of our Fathers. I would do one movie focusing on Hannibal, the other on Scipio Africanus. The first one would be one part Livy, the other part Pride of Carthage. For the one on Scipio I would base it on Lidell Hart's Scipio Africanus: Greater than Napoleon. I have little idea as to who I would have as actors. For Hannibal I would pick someone who atleast looked Lebanese/Phoenician. Maybe that side character from The Mummy. For Scipio I would have to pick a Brit, Romans don't sound right without the British accent, unless they are speaking in Latin. Perhaps pulling the Mel Gibson thing and using dead languages would be fun. Does anyone even know what Punic sounded like or is the language lost? Oh, well. That's the movie I would do. Maybe if I think it through more later, I will expand this idea.

I have a question relating to this topic (sorry if I am thread-jacking). Once a centurion (including Primus Pilus), could a man of less than noble birth rise up any further? Could he become a military tribune, or was he stuck as an NCO?

I think it is something like 'Praise Mars', but don't quote me, all my Latin books are at home, unless someone beats me to it, I will add it to the list of Latin phrases I need to translate. Check Google. Sometimes if you type in something in Latin it will come up with a site translating it. Good Luck.

sonic -- There's the best summary of the causes of the Civil War that I have read in a long while. Heck, I'm not even going to add anything.

Happy Birthday GPM.

Sequens, here's another question for consideration. How free were the Blacks after the war? Sure they could vote, if they didn't get lynched by the Klan. Sure, many of them did get elected to office after the war, only because the majority of the people were disenfranchised during Reconstruction. Because of the North playing the Slavery card, many of the Southerners began resenting and hating the Blacks because they were blamed for the war. Which in turn led to many Blacks resenting and hating the White people, just listen to Obama's friend Wright, or to Loius Farrakhan. All that saying the Civil War was about slavery has accomplished, is that it has shifted the blame from the Government and Lincoln, over to the people who suffered the most. Black people in America didn't really become free, in the fullest sense of the word, until the 1960's. IMHO, the Civil War did not free the slaves, the Civil Rights Movement did. Another argument against the war being about slavery. Many Confederates were opposed to Slavery, most notably General Robert E. Lee. Men like him thought slavery to be evil, but tyrrany and waging war on one's own people to be worse. He fought the North grugingly, but his duty was to his people in Virginia.

Here's something to make you spit your tea out onto your labtops. here

I'm not trying to discuss slavery here. I am trying to discuss the right of free people to self government. Lets just get it out of the way, SLAVERY IS BAD. There, I said it, you can imagine big tears pouring from my eyes as I say it if you wish. That out of the way, I believe that people have the right to self government. So did the Founding Fathers, that's kind of why they revolted against England in the first place. I believe that the Southern States had the right to govern themselves after the Federal Government no longer lived up to their expectations. If the slaves had revolted under John Brown then I would philosophically support their right to self govenence, but they didn't. The South did. If you are not willing to fight for your freedom and independence, then I have news that might upset some of you out there. You will cease having it! Some people out there, like the Spartans at Thermopylae are willing to die for their independence. The people of the South were willing to die for their independence. I don't buy for one second that Lincoln drafted thousands of men to go down and die simply to free the slaves, since obviously the slaves were not willing to fight en masse for their own freedom (yes, there were ex-slaves who fought for the North, but only after they had been liberated by the Federal Army). Here is my position, in one neat sentence. The People have the right to self government, provided that they are willing to fight, and if need be to die, to preserve this right.

Do you have a link to this? It sounds very interesting.

Just get a Carhart. They are generally thick enough to protect against slashes from a knife. It takes a good bit to stop a knife from puncturing anything that you would wear on a regular basis.

Here we are in agreement. It seems we are agreeing to disagree, so to speak. I have enjoyed this conversation, and am glad we were able to find common ground (something that dosen't seem to happen all too often in forum debates).

Agreed, but there has been some contention that it was wrong for the north to respond to secession with war, simply because the southern states exercised a preference for independence. If there was no legal basis for secession under the constitutional agreement between the states, than Lincoln was really only acting as he duly should have. If the south won, then so be it, but his hand was forced. I agree, Lincoln's hand was forced, but does that put him in the right? It is the natural inclination of any leader to maintain the unity of his country. Why is it that Americans frequently support the position of the rebels except in this instance? To keep with my analogy, would you say the England was in the right in the Revolutionary War? Wasn't King George's hand forced? He had to maintain the union of the British Empire. If you agree with this and consider yourself on the side of the Loyalists, then I concede the argument. As long as both leaders are shown in the same light.

Hey! I read your post, so take your pox back, I'm getting itchy! But anyway. I would say that the CS had the same rights to sucession that the 13 colonies had when they suceeded from Great Britain. To quote the DoI: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." (actually I am quoting MPC quoting the DoI, if it is misquoted blame him!). The People of the 11 Southern states were exercising their right to abolish the Government and institute a new one. The South had the same right to suceed from the US that the 13 colonies had to suceed from Britain. The difference was, the 13 Colonies won (with signifigant help from France), and the 11 States lost. That is the bottom line. Vae Victus.

Were the Northerners any less piggish than the Southerners? In 1862 a war was fought between the Federals and the Dakota nation, who had attacked parts of Minnesota after repeated treaty violations on the part of the Government. After the war many Dakota were hung or interened. Eventually all Dakota were forced from Minnesota and bounties were put on their heads. In the 'racist' Southern army, a Cherokee, Stand Watie, was made a General. How many Indians were Generals in the U. S. Army? How many Blacks were? How many Black people were even officers? As far as I heard they were all led by White officers. How many Jews held positions of authority in the North? Judah P. Benjamin was a member of the Cabinet in the CS. Like Kosmo said, most of us are pigs. The North's anti-slavery pitch was just there to make them look good, to give their war of conquest a moral appearence.

sonic -- As far as I had alwys heard, the main reason that Britain didn't join the war was that they wanted proof that the South could win the without the aid of British troops. The CSA had that chance at least three times: 1st Manassas (because they didn't use their victory), Antietam (because they lost), and Gettysburg (lost again). -- EDIT -- PP beat me to it, for some reason his post didn't show up until this morning.

First off, "rights" are not a meaningless concept, in our culture and government they are enshrined in law. Also, in the instance I were mugged, I would expect the law to come to my aide, because mugging is against the law. Better yet, I wish the law would allow me to see to my own defenses. Unfortunately, I must rely on the law to defend me since they won't let me do it myself. I don't ask for your sympathy, only that you don't stand between my pistol and the mugger. I disagree with the North. I am human and have opinions and I don't believe that the Civil War was worth the 600,000 lives lost. Espescially since the African-Americans didn't have many rights until the 1960's anyway. BTW, when the former slaves got their rights is the 20th Century, it was not through bloodshed and war, but through legislation. As a subjectivist I say, 'Vae Victus'. That is why I try to whine as little as possible about the South's defeat. I will still argue my position though (and if I come off as a whiner, I appologize, it is not my intent). EDIT -- This can be a hot topic for some people. It is good that everyone who has posted so far has been courteous and have debated as civilized, intellegent individuals. Thank you all.