Leonida

Thanks, Primus Palus! Cheers L

Hi - does anyone know who goverend Asia Minor during the reign of Domitian AD 81

Are you patronising me Alas,i dont have enougth free time to waist it reading about Greeks,especially Spartans,who i dont particullaly admire.Nearly all of my reading time is took up with Saxon England or Roman Britain,which are the subjects i'm most interested in. I got my information on the later 'Tourist' Agoge from this 3 part documentary,whilst i know documentary's are not the best source for information its all the time i'm willing to put into the subject i'm afraid,i'm just not that interested.I only watched it because it was the only history documentary i could find to download on Grabit. I'll bow to your superior knowledge (and your book). :notworthy: No, I'm not patronising you, I was recommending the book because it dispells quite few myths that have gathered some creedance. Cheers L

Seconded - if you like this period of history, Holland's work is a must have!

The Romans called them "Lemures" (sp?). Every May, there was a festival called the Lemuria which was held to banish the evil spirits. Cheers L

Slightly off topic i know, but are you suggesting that after Alexander and before Pompey and Caesar there were no able generals? If that's what you're saying, then you're dismissing a multitude of great generals, such as the Scipios Africanus and Aemilianus, Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, to name but a few. I was responding to what Divi Filius said "The warfare he fought would dissappear until the time of Julius Caesar and beyond." i think what we both ment was that it was not repeated imediately or for the next "few" years. We've had great big discussions on this in the past here in the forum. My view is that while it is true that the Romans and any other peoples in these times have done things like killed a bunch of people in battle, or sacked a city, it is absolutely no comparison to a systematic extinction of a people. Caesar never wanted that for the Gauls and went to great lengths to try and get them to accept the status quo. In fact Caesar infrequently sacked any Gaul towns. At worst he enslaved them, and the major killings were part of battles. As for Carthage, it was destruction of an enemy, not a race and not systematic. There were no roundups of Carthaginian peoples across the coasts of Africa and in Hispania for the sole intent of extermination. It was about destroying a power bloc, which was a city. So in the end it

I'd recommend that you read "Hellenistic and Roman Sparta" by Cartledge and Spawforth to gain a better understanding of Sparta and its practices during the period. Cheers L

Ave, Favonius... I'm going to have to disagree on this point, but with a proviso. It is completely apt to compare Hitler with Alexander (or indeed any other imperialist, such as Julius Caesar). The difference is, of course, one of historical perspective. By modern standards, Hitler's deeds were utterly barbaric - and because it is still in living memory completely abhorrent to us. However, the armies and actions Third Reich was little different to any other highly organised, effective and motivated conquesting force in history. Indeed, Hitler took inspiration from the Ancients and used their template for his success. Roman salute = Nazi Salute. Roman Eagle = Nazi Eagle (indeed, beneath the Eagle banner, the Nazis had their own version of the SPQR). SS = Praetorian Guard. Hitler youth = the Spartan agoge...I could go on, but the parallells are undeniable. Hitler's programme of ethnic cleansing was one of the most evil dictates in modern history, but by ancient standards was on a par with Caesars massacre of the Gauls, Alexander's sack of Thebes, the actions of the Romans in Judea and Carthage. Ethnic cleansing for you, right there - Carthago delando est. It is, however, wrong to put on our modern sensibilties to analyse what Alexander, Caesar, Khan et al did. They were products of their time and acting within the social boundries of their respective eras. The difference is that Hitler was a product of modern times. But on purely historical context, one cannot ignore the parallells as I said above. It's harsh but true - the Glory that was Rome was built on the blood and suffering of countless millions of people, as was any empire. Albeit the Pax Romana was arguably a benefit to all and sundry, the fact remains that indigenous popuations will always resent a militarily and technologically superior power coming along, setting up a government in its homeland and telling it that their new way to live is better than the lifestyle the natives have enjoyed for centuries before hand. That still goes on today, as we are all aware. It would appear that we do not learn the lessons of history!

Gratias Ago Tibi, Favonius Cornelius. Below is the ad... Empire of Ashes Forum Empire of Ashes Video Trailer (caution, has sound so if you view at work, be careful) Fifteen years have passed since the death of Alexander.. His empire was left "to the strongest" and every man now thinks of making himself a King. The ancient empire of Persia has become a playground for Macedonian noblemen who wield power they could never even have begun to imagine in their mountainous homelands. The armies of the successor kingdoms stand ready to unleash war upon each other on a scale never before imagined. Against this backdrop other kingdoms plot and scheme - the Greeks do not bend the knee easily to any foreigner and the Macedonian yoke begins to chafe, whilst in the west the maritime empire of Carthage watches as the City of Rome struggles to establish itself on the Italian peninsula, and in the great forests of the north fierce barbarian tribes paint their faces for war, whilst casting envious eyes over the wealthy lands of the decadent civilised nations

Wasnt the Agoge just a tourist attraction by this time?a Roman Amphitheatre was built at Sparta at the time of Augustus to accomodate all the Roman tourists to the site.The Romans would watch the competetive dances and religius ceremony's the Spartans were famous for in the theatre and allso watch young boys being whipped (sometimes to death) in the Artemis Orthia!The whipping was supposed to represeant the rights of passage the boys went through in the Agoge. I allways thought Sparta was a theme park for the sado tourists,long before the Christian emperors were on the scene. Longbow The word agoge means "upbringing" and entailed a little more than dancing and being whipped, so it's unlikely that it's sole purpose was to entertain sado tourists. It was banned in Sparta by the Achean League (politically astute move, that) and re-instated by the Romans. Its true to say that many Romans visited Sparta to watch some of these practices, but calling it a theme-park is really a rather simplistic way of looking at it. Cheers L

Well, let's not muddy the waters too much - I'm not sure that the lochoi system was in constant use. It was definately used as above - as I (via Cartledge) say for propaganda reasons. The book doesn't really go into specific unit make up (what I can see re-skimming through it anyway), but it does appear that Sparta was a client and had her own military (around the time of Augustus, it was not an inconsiderable force). Cheers L

Am I allowed to post about a game I write for online (it's set in the ancient world, so I don't think it's off topic, but I thought I'd check first). Cheers L

Amazon - whre else *lol* http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hellenistic-Roman-...TF8&s=books

Thanks for the welcome Yes - if you want to know all about the Spartans AFTER the Golden age, then this is definitely the book to get. It's very academic and thus a bit to chew through, but there are some real gems there. The impression that we have, largely thanks to uninformed nonsense on the internet, was that Sparta went from Superpower to Backwater the day after Leuctra. It really didn't, though Sparta's "invincible" presitge was irreparably damaged after the battle, but what really relegated them to "mostly harmless" was the loss of control over the vast majority of the Messenians who had been providing Helot labour for ages. Any road - Sparta, like many polies in the late-Republican era, was increasingly enmeshed in Roman high-politics, evidenced by the construction of a villa for visiting Roman diplomats circa 146 BC. Seutonius reveals that the Spartans were sponsored by the Claudii (from about 100BC), and later Cicero reveals that he was

The book "Hellenistic and Roman Sparta" explores many of the questions raised in this thread. However, I do recall that the Spartans were initially prohibited by the Achean League to run their agoge, a practice that was re-instated under the Romans. It also explains that far from "living under the yoke of Roman rule," the Spartans were largely autonomous in those days, retaining a good deal of freedom, due largely to her support of Rome against her hated enemies - ie, the rest of the Greeks. I can't remember if there is anything specific on Spartan military practices during the Roman era, but I'll have a look when I get in from work. Cheers L