Krackalackin

I don't understand something about how the Roman agenda changed from the Conquest and Civilizing of Europe to the halt of conquest and Border defense. Julius Caesar learned to pacify threats to Rome, Rome must conquer them, subject them to rule and expose them to the modern world. Consequentally, Caesar chased Rome's enemies throughout all of Europe, conquering whole peoples and Forcing Rome to be secure. He conquered Gaul and Brittania yet, he hadn't marched far into Germania and neither did any of Rome's later armies and Generals. The new Policy became to defend the Empire's frontier and to not expand it further. In hindsight, I think Julius Caesar was right. Unless the neighboring peoples of the Roman Empire become civilized and like-minded they will always be a threat. One way to look at the entire history of the World to this day is the constant fight against the threat of barbarians and barbarism. The same is true with Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. Civilized society tends to be more intelligent and productive. This creates a plunder vacuum. People outside of your borders will want what you want and are most willing to take it. It's the same today except they specialize more in the theft of the jobs than actual theft. The civilized country will create wealth and opportunity. Because of that, poorer societies will become envious and wish to migrate to the more robust economy. Anyhow, I am not really sure how much Germania Magna benefited through trade with Rome but it is consistantly clear through literature that German Magna never became civilized. Germania Magna of course was an area with problems of its own. For one thing, this area was constantly under invasion from Northern tribes from Norway and Scandinavia, etc. But most of these came by sea which is easy to guard and police. I think because Germania was never developed and civilized by the civilized Empires on the Mediterranean coast, it led from their desire of independence to feelings of inferiority and envy. In other words, they fused with the empire through conquest and plunder because of their own lack of advancement and knowledge. More of them were capable of fighting because of lack of development. In civilized countries, most people do not fight or join the armed forces because they take advantage of their country's prosperity and learn a trade. The Armed Forces then become a specialized unit like the other fields. So even if they were civilized but still wished their own independence, at least they would have been more easy to deal with. Not civlizing them, perpetuated their threat that ended in disaster at the arrival of the huns. Because of the Huns, all the tribes pushed into the interior and created more of a problem than the huns themselves. What are your opinions?

I'm pretty sure they did or at least had another name for them. Like anywhere, phrases take shape in time and become popular while old ones die out. So I'm gonna wager if the Romans did not call the Gauls, cimbri, Cathaginians, Spanish, Barbari, they probably called them something different but meant the same thing. I write that I'm pretty sure they did call the other people they met before the Greeks Barbarians because neighboring hostility by less civilized people is inseperable in roman history and there must have been slang of what to call them and they must have had a word to describe them as primitive or stupid. Another reason why is I think they needed a word to call their neighbors inferior to rally themselves when a time came when they needed to take forceful action. All together, it's most likely they called their neighbors barbaric in the early days of the city.

I agree with you completely. As sad as it is it's true and I have some of my own quotes to illustrate my opinion. I believe Monarchys were done away with mainly because of the change of time during the industrial revolution. Democracy in its advanced state time-tested only breeds disunity and erodes tradition and welcomes internationalism and anti-nationalism.

History shows it is apparent in my opinion that the Romans deeply admired the Culture the Greeks made but did not admire the creators. I don't think the Greeks at this time had the same behavioral traits as they did during the peloponesian wars. It was sort like Rome was during it's end. The Greeks were serious determined people but they had grown so rich and had done so many things, they were not the stern determined people anymore the Romans embodied. Basically what I'm saying is it was way past their heyday and they were more enjoying their heritage then looking to complete another chapter.

Another Perspective is the failure of recognizing the future and things to come which is still a major problem in countries today. The Romans failed to realize or gave up on the idea of the conquest of Europe which I believe was a big mistake. They gave up on this after the failed campaign to conquer and govern Germania. There were several convincing reasons to forget it's annexation as the next province. One was that it was undeveloped, meaning its economy was primitive and undesirable, and a lot of people at the time probably thought that enough was enough. I think Rome's original motivation for conquest was still very valid and the right thing to do even if the Germans were not invaders of the Republic. If Rome continued to conquer, and develop Europe like Caesar helped so much in Gaul, It could have used the stepped as its natural border. A border between the steppes and the rugged terrain of the European 'Peninsula' (for sake of argument) would have given the Romans several advantages. It would have mave given them the element of surprise if a foreign invader ever penetrated the interior of the empire and could have taken away the advantage of mounted archers. The Romans abandoned the idea of a walled defense because they realized their army has to be mobil and cannot repel an attack from an army with thinned out numbers on a wall. They decided it was beter to protect the border with Military bases instead which seemed like a good idea. The only problem was they gave up the advantage of refusing the enemy their cavalry units. If the Romans kept to the idea of a wall defense, (without an entrance at all to the wall) backed by interior armies, the Clans of the Steppes would be attacking Structurally defended positions and not engaging in land battles where their numerous cavalry always had an advantage over the Roman's limited cavalry regiments and foot soldiers. Walls were also good because the tribesmen had no real skill or practice with seige. They lived in the steppes and had no need or knowledge of seige equipment which the Romans were masters of. The Romans could have used this to their advantage as people had for hundreds of years on the defensive and could've created an empregnable meat-grinder designed to withstand any assault whatsoever. If the Romans realized that both Military forts and walls were both essential against the enemy they faced, they could've built a massive wall across the Border of Europe and established Legionary Bases alongside it. Ofcourse for such an undertaking to have successfully worked, it would have required an efficient and steady flow of tax-income which moreover means the Romans would've needed to understand it's imperative to develop conquered provinces to sustain the Empire. What I'm saying basically is it injured the patriotism and security for Rome in the long run to concede to the idea further conquest was no longer needed and endangered it.

Gangs of New York is a good Read. The movie is superb as well. It's about the first real wave of immigration to the USA. Yep, the descendants of Adams, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson etc, didn't like 'em.

The Game was part of what made me revisit Rome since Highschool because it's atmosphere is so complete, it was actually influential. I'd personally give the game a 8.5. It's a great game, without a doubt that'll have you waste countless hours but not perfect. However, it's a good game to give you an idea of Roman life. I'm sure a lot of you have played it. It's got all of the Roman Army Units, and I mean all of them. It starts out with your Hastati, Principes and Triarii. The Triarii, you can't make for a while because it's of course made up of the Patricians, the wealthy. Its starts you so far back that in the beginning, you barely have any rich courts. After playing for a while, you get rid of them after the Army is changed by err... Marius, I think it was. Then come along the Praetorians, the better Roman and legionary cavalry, as well as the early and later Cohorts, complete with their eagle to defend. You also of course have the archers, the peltasts, the ballistas, and when you're advanced enough, Onagers and cobra Ballistas. It's a really great game. The two things however I don't understand about it is that they Made the Spartans in it wearing these dumb robes. No armor, no helmet, just these stupid robes. Kinda stupid, if you ask me. The regular hoplites look alright but the Spartans don't. And Macedon is adorned with Sparta's insignia! I don't understand that at all. I guess they confused the famous phalanxes of the Spartans and Macedons and thought the sign was the Macedonian one. That's my best guess. All the units of all the nations look good on the whole however. The Egyptians have a phalanx though, which I don't get. I guess it's because of Ptolemy but it's not under his empire though. They're not as good as the Macedon's or Greek's though, so ah, who cares. What's cool is you can also make your own battles naturally. I always play as the Macedons vs. the Romans or vica versa. It's difficult however to decide how to do that though because I'm never sure what to make the stats of the units. You can figure that you should make the Romans a little stronger because the Macedons have the Spear advantage but if the Macedons have a spear like that and are famous also for marching such long distances, perhaps they should be stronger from their armament. It's a tough call but when I play it, I get a feel for what they should be. The Macedons really have to be a little stronger because the Romans are by default a little stronger and beat the macedonians moderately easy even on a frontal assault. The Game is a must for anyone who loves Rome.

I personally have become interested in Classical History lately for a reason that has a lot of bearing on this thread. I first did because I gained an interest for Alexander the Great but t continued. The reason why I'm still very interested in Classical history is because it was back then that things made much more sense than today and it's frankly, a more attractive period than ancient and medieval. What I mean when I write things made sense is that literally, things made sense back then. If you were an Egyptian, you hated the Persians, if you were a Greek, you believed in Zeus and Heracles. You worked all day and were extremely loyal to the state and family and war was considered a luxury to participate in. Things were the way they should be back then. It was before the arrival of the Industrial Revolution which has now successfully turned the world upside down and abdicates that everything is subservient to the Global Economy. I envy the people that lived in those days. They may have been illiterate and never traveled more than twenty miles but they held dear traditional things such as culture and integrity that is no longer so common or important. The greatest thing back then was that National Unity and Purity was considered imperative for the safety of the Regime. War was inevitable, sure, but war was always sought after anyway. Today, it seems the leaders of the world (especially the richer, more powerful ones) believe the way to avoid this is to interbreed everyone and destroy national feelings. Also, the world should work together for personal gain and this will inhibit countries from going to war. It's really just a complete mess and it's hard for me to sort out, principally. I'd rather things still made sense. As for the connection between my America and Rome, it has no place on this thread but I agree. I believe the best days of this country are over and is now in decline. I don't know how long each cycle will take but I believe we're in the period of selfishness.

My statement basically agrees with Dyonyso's. I know it's long so I'll do you guys the favor of the homework, and just say that his opinion is the same as mine.

This is a good time to discuss battle numbers since you brought it up. I've read a lot of accounts and I disagree with a lot of them. Personally, I think Alexander had no more than twenty thousand Infantry and four thousand cavalry when he entered Asia. People confuse his army with his sentry positions and garrisons. He left with only half of his army. At the battle of Issus, I think he had close to forty Thousand Troops and Darius had 120,000. Finally at the battle of Gaugamela, I believe Darius had 250,000 troops and Alexander maybe swelled his ranks to fifty. I don't think Darius could have had any more troops than that. It's just simply not possible logistically. The largest army you could possibly concieve to field at this time with all the advantages included to ensure its travel is a quarter a million. But it's amazing what you find in different sources. I have this one book written by some Indian CEO who thinks he's a historian that reads Darius' Army was actually smaller at Gaugamela! I could not believe that. What rubbish. But these are my figures anyhow.

I mostly agree except I wasn't implying that he couldn't lead if he was gay but if he was effiminately gay. There is no research I'm aware of that confirms or denies this but I personally believe there are two types of homo-sexuals. There's the regular kind that was born with a deficiency in its sexual character. It was a girl that liked girls and vica versa. Then there are the freaky kinds that were born as if with the mind of the opposite sex of the body. This would then explain a man's effemity, a woman's butch, and their lust for the same sex. I personally like you however don't believe Alexander was really either. But you were wrong on one thing. Pausanius did not have a relationship with Philip II. He was savagely raped by him among many others because they thought he was 'girly'. This is why Olympias theoretically approached Pausanius to assassinate Philip.

The amazing thing about Alexander is how quickly he conquered. He forged the largest Empire ever in ten years. It takes most countries centuries to create an empire. This is also why I feel it collapsed. It didn't really collapse at first. The real problem was the simple fact they didn't have a successor to Alexander to rule the whole Empire. Nobody knew enough about the entire Empire to run it except Alexander, Hephaiston, Parmernio and maybe some others. But you must also be strong. Rome had the innumerous outlooks of building its empire slowly through many great difficulties and many governments. It had a much stronger nucleus woven than the Macedonian Empire.

I just watched it. It ain't worth much. I guess it's worth watching once. It's like every documentary, it's awful unless there's something new in it. The only part worth mentioning is the seige of Tyre. They go over that in a little detail but everything else is vague. And the battle of Chaeronea is innacurate.

I see You saw the movie. Take the movie with a grain of salt. There are a tremendous amount of innacuracies in it, not to mention it's an awful film. Some of the innacuracies were made for dramatic and story-telling reasons. Most of them were made because Oliver is a Coked-out, liberally destructive hack who had no business in making a movie about Alexander the Great. Oliver has gotten far too much acclaim and it's because he became famous making his stupid conspiracy movies. This made people think he was more than that and do other things. He really hasn't. Scarface is the only other thing he took part in that was any good that didn't slander something. Because of him, itt'l be another ten years at least before anyone takes another crack at trying to make a film on Alexander the Great. It can be done. Just, no one has done it yet.

I'm no expert of Pyrus of Epirus but from what I've read of him, it seems that he could've defeated the Romans and conquered Italy. I mean this by the amount of force he had. I think he didn't however because he was just wasn't a great General plain and simple. Also, there was no real reason to hate the Romans at the time and no reason to fight them. He was just an ALexander-obsessed maniac that wanted to conquer something. The Romans were still using their three line formations before the Roman army was totally redeveloped. You had your hastati in the front with the principes and then the triarii. It's a good tactic and works well but I wouldn't choose it to use against the Macedonian Army, that's for damn sure. The Romans were at this time not very civilized, this being attributed to their profound conservatism, which was their greatest weapon and greatest weakness. They did have a well trained army, though. Not much else, worth-while. Their armies were not that up to conquest yet, and they were still rather ignorant of the rest of the world besides ofcourse Greece and Carthage. I will never be persuaded to think that the Hellens couldn't have conquered the Romans at this time because it's simply not true. The Greeks could have but for some reason they didn't. I don't know why. But it's an interesting topic, if many agree with the path of reasoning.

There are three reasons why I think Alexander really wasn't gay. First off, back then in Greece, there was no such thing as Homosexuality or no distinction of it. It was then understood that men were attracted to beauty be it man or woman. Secondly, It can be possible the reason he ignored women and preferred the company of men was because he admired strength in character and personality, something few women have. Thirdly, I seriously doubt he would have gotten as far as he did if he was a true homosexual. I don't think his macho-obsessed father would have put so much planning and teaching into a boy with a gay personality and damn well don't think he could have led the Macedonian army, let alone conquer the entire Persian Empire. I can't personally recall any great commander that was gay.

As you all know, Alexander the Great said many things. Some was just out-right rhetoric, others were to cover his ambitions. There are two things that puzzle me about Alexander the Great. One is his vision of the world's people living as one nation united. After reading different historians, trying to get a better perspective on the mind of Alexander (as complex as it was) I've begun to wonder if he ever really wanted all the people to unite as one race. I have two different theories about this. What separated Alexander's conquest of Persia from all the other conquerors before him was his incessant effort for public legitimacy. He believed the idea of ruling by force as impossible and wanted Darius III to publically confirm him as the true heir to the throne, which Darius, with Alexander's sword in his back, would have relinquished. This makes me think he wanted to continue this method of rhetorical propaganda throughout all his conquests. He did believe without a doubt, you couldn't rule people who didn't like you and thought you were an invader. It is plausible that if he became known as a liberator of nations, wanting everyone to live in peace with one common border, it would have made it possible to conquer practically everyone. In other words, he really didn't think people were going to intermingle and create one race. My other theory is he really did believe that it would be more sound for people to inter-breed and become one race but I still don't think he really cared about the details if it was really better this way. I think this was also another way to make it easier for him to rule everyone. He could have thought The Macedonian Empire would be easier to manage (especially through his experiences) if all the people were of one single race. They then would be in one perspective indivisible. I don't think however (which the movie portrayed) that he was a socialist, homo-sexual mad-man who thought like a confused child and wanted to Clintonize his kingdom. I don't think it reflects his character at all and I don't think Colin Farrel did either. I also don't think he became more oriental later on because he simply liked the Persian culture than the Hellenic. That's preposterous considereing he did all that work to spread Hellenic culture all the way to India. Some historians believe he love Greek culture until he was fully enveloped in the Persian culture which alienated his subordinates. I don't think that's true either. That would mean in practice, he conquered Persia because he admired its culture more than his own. This in turn would mean he didn't want to conquer the world which he surely did. And it is contrary to the feeling of his less talented subordinates that still favored hellenic culture over Persian (even though they ofcourse did find things they liked about it). And he did know all about Persian culture before his conquest and said nothing to make one suspect he was in awe of the culture, which is why he wanted to conquer it. To be honest, contrary to what he's said, "I consider a good non-greek as good a person as a greek and a bad greek worse than a barbarian." I don't think he respected any culture outside of Greece and Persia nor did he really think all people were equal. He's said statements contrary to that later one anyway. Perhaps we will never know the answer to this because I only think Hephaiston really knew How Alexander felt. Action-wise, evidence claims the former, that Alexander did at the least want to conquer the whole world and culture meant little to him. He killed Cleitus, Philotas and Parmenion: all nationalist people. Either he did this because he believed people were people, whomever or he saw them as a threat to his plans of world-conquest. I tend to think the latter. He was way to conceded and had no concept of being humble let alone think in any nationalist point of view what so ever. I think this is how he truly felt which fits a world conqueror and you can't get more conceded than that! I don't think he was pro-persian or anti-hellenic. I don't think he had any inkling of settling down to pick and admire one culture over another, even his own. I think he truly wanted to conquer the world and thought that any bias to a certain culture or people was a hindrance that would only cloud his thinking. It fits a man who is thought of as a God. In this, I believe many Historians and Screen-writers have got it wrong about Alexander. I also believe this is part of what made him such a complicated person. He was unbiased to culture, but needed friends like anyone even though he was a god, giving him much misery when Hephaiston died. It's a complicated thing. Thoughts?

Ha ha. That's funny. You're perspective of my post gave me a good laugh. Yes, you're right. It's somewhat rediculous because supplies was always a burden and nothing went smoothly in uncharted lands. If he physically could have he would have tried, that is certain. But Clearly, I didn't take into account this was before mechanized infantry. Hmm, Now that I think of it, I don't think Alexander would have attempted Africa at all. The Romans had all the time in the world and they didn't. I am certain however that he could have conquered all the land of the later Roman Empire but the IF's are massive and the research involved for accurate probability is immense but my opinion is if he wasn't killed, murdered or died of disease, he could have conquered all of Europe.

Hmmmm, perhaps it did. Had the roman's stuck to their old ways and kept all the vital work inhouse, manning their armies with their own people, farming their own fields, perhaps they would of stayed a vibrant, republican minded state. I believe you're right. I've shortened this post because I didn't think anyone would want to read such a long impulsive post. I'm gonna be frank about this. I'm convinced there are two major types of political thought and have always been. Conservative and Liberal are really just the names of the method of applying them. There are three ways to see the world, ultimately (I believe). The first is Preservation and the second is accomodation. The third is really the ideology of people who are fed up with institutions in General and has no real philosophical value. As I've learned in history, in a nutshell, preservation which often ecompasses strict rules, codes of conduct, tradition and discipline has always been the philosophy of endurance minded and strong. The belief in hierarchy, dismissal of compromise, entitlement, citizen=member of a team, etc. Basically a government built like an Army almost, very rigid. The other is the idea of human equality, accomodation, diversity, a brotherhood of man, etc. This is the wimpy democratic philosophy. Often times, a government will be structured to reflect an ideology. A Monarchy, or appointed-heir dictatorship being the most preservation-minded (in theory, of course) and the Democratic forms, built on the idea of diversity, equality, accomodation. I've studied politics for years, debated with experts, referred to history and I'm also convinced that each form has an inevitable built-in course that is difficult to withstand. The Preservation minded philosophy wishes to breed unity as opposed to diversity and has it's own idea on what a citizen is, deriving and building a citizen's identity ie: Roman, American, Brit, etc. This unity inevitably breeds culture but is almost always intended for internal strength. Accomodation is the idea of the tolerance of many cultures to make up the identity of the state. Diversity in thought as a strength, if you will. Your identity becomes the reflection of the simple contrasts of citizens around you. This I believe is well intentioned in most cases but is in practice, a simple dilution of a states character, if integrated. It leads to the lessening of standards, because of all the different perspectives, and impersonalizing of institutions. Rome was originally conservative minded to the bone (although a republic replaced the Kings of Old) whom felt it was their 'doin' proper' to expand their territory to govern people whom they imagined could be and were often their enemies. They believed in the idea of a true Roman, and the Roman traditions and values were at the heart of every Roman and were of an almost religious fervor. I'm not going to go into length about the mechanics of this in context with the history of Rome but once the idea of the Roman man was forgoten because of extreme wealth, relations with conquered civilians, integration of barbaric caucasian tribes with their accomodating, out for yourself ideas, illusion of invulnerablility, etc; there were no longer an Empire with the a common identity, but masses living under the Umbrella of the Roman State. Rome got silly and nobody gave a damn.

I agree. I don't believe any one form of government (today included) as well as country can last forever.

Are you so sure about that? I dont possess a great amount of wealth of Rome -yet anyway- but I'm pretty sure the huns came from Central Asia and not very close to Rome at all. There are some theories they were the early mongolians or related to them. I think this theory is a much more likely than the one you've presented unless of course this has been proven as a fact which I would be surprised and have to read more about it.

That's very interesting. I never heard heard that before. I'd love to comment on this issue since it's so damn interesting but the problem is I don't believe in talking about something I really don't know a damn thing about. All I know is only slightly more than what they've taught me in school. But Rome in General is just so damn interesting.

Good for you. I'm thinking of being a history teacher myself. Sorry you don't like your classes. I had some good teachers and we always used to BS about this and that. Teaching yourself is the best.

I personally believe, granted ofcourse he's not killed or caught a fatal illness, Alexander would have conquered the entire mediterranean at the very least. In his lifetime, he could have conquered all of europe as well. It's hard to say how far he would have gotten because there was no chance any force could beat him. I'm guessing if he used all white people, keeping off the mutiny, he could have damn well conquered africa. I'm guessing his capability with nothing going wrong for a mutiny or him dying, he probably could have conquered all of europe, a lot of africa, India and would have been an old man looking to see what the hell it was that was over those mountains...(China).

it sayed they reckoned that the tomb of Phillip was one of the 7 wonders how could they "reckoned" it if it was ever built? They found it. It's a damn fine tourist attraction. It's got his armor and everything. The crown he had was even more fantastic than the one in the movie. How about that. Not to say the movie was any good but Val Kilmer played a good Philip.