P.Clodius

Not sure about that King H. I think at the time of the 2nd punic war we've just reached the chainmail stage, though I could be wrong. I would say that the armor and weaponry was comparable to both sides. Of course Hannibal did have a large contingent of Gauls who tended to fight naked anyway.

I would say this is probably the best Bond movie ever. Certainly upto date...And yes, the Bond girls are hot, though I've had dibs on Eva G for a while now so hands off, all of you!

Someone's viewpoint differeing from your own is no reason not to post. I happen to disagree with MPC on this issue, though I have yet to research it in depth so I'm holding back for now. If you have researched feel free to speak your mind!

Regarding the second explananda, I'd also suggest an interesting article by Fergus Millar (who also doesn't buy the clientela theory of late Roman politics): Millar, F. (1973). Triumvirate and principate. JRS, 50-67. Millar provides a very close reading of the primary source materials (letters to officials, inscriptions, etc) that reveal which powers Octavian had during the establishment of the monarchy. The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate. Restraint is a virtue . :blowup: With regards to?

Numbers 10 and 51 played a key role in the formulation of a centralized gvmt if I remember correctly. And me a mere immigrant!

PP I can't find the Tiberius thread from back in the day. I seem to remember it being a split topic, can you try?

The speculation is still there based on the last series as to whether Pullo and Vorenus will take opposite sides. Remember when Anthony brings Vorenus back as evocati, he ominously states "...and I expect your loyalty." followed by a kiss on the cheek. Pullo is obviously with Octavian.

I'm upto about 17 BC. The book has shed some light onto those foggy years between 27-23BC. So far I like the book and will gladly give it a re-read when I'm bored. He certainly liked a bit on the side!

The one in The Caesars I reckon. There is a lengthy debate on Tiberius somewhere on this forum. I'll see if I can dig it up

I beg to differ. He was an able administrator and an excellent general.

Tiberius is given a bad rap. He tried to hand some power back to the senate and even moved away from the city to encourage them, but alas, the senate was incapable....

What is there in PA though?

No Motorhead!!! WTF kinda list is this?

I also subscribe to the Caesar's Clementia/Jesus' "Turn the other cheek", and the Augustan Divus filius/Son of God theory. Early christianity did an excellent job of erradicating the obvious.

While I haven't read Garrett Fagan's Book, I have listened to some of his lectures and I found them to be VERY good. This is a very niche subject and from what I know Fagen's book is the only one out there.

"In ancient Rome, the society collapsed when Romans basically said no boundaries, any brutality is acceptable." From here

He also injured his hand punching one of em in the face causing him to botch his suicide.

...discovered

So tell which you're doing first then I can do some background research.

Love him or hate him Cicero is the only one who reaches us on a human level from this period. For this reason I love Cicero!

That maybe a good project when you think about it..We'd need someone to research, someone graphically inclined, what else?

Thought provoking point Decimus...What was the frontage of a 16 legion army deployed for battle? I know the romans went for depth as opposed to width. If they'd gone for width they would have easily out flanked Hannibal due to numbers. I would imagine the frontage for the actual battle to be about a mile.

Wasn't sure where to put this but this section seems apropriate. He has a 50% opaque battle overlay on it to. The proximity to the coast can clearly be seen. GET IT HERE

I stand corrected

It is a little simplistic, and I don't mean that in any negative fashion. Scipio's tactic wasn't new, as a roman army under Regulus had done the same in Punic War 1. It was ALWAYS Scipio's goal though. He pounded them in Spain and was determined to on Carthage's home turf, whether they had a navy or not...In the 1st punic war the romans learned very quickly about naval warfare, they dominated the experienced Carthaginian navy and to lend weight to roman determination, energy and drive, they lost 90% of a 300 ship fleet in a storm but rebuilt it within 3 months. Against such determination all the gold in Carthage couldn't buy victory.