CiceroD

There's been a lot of discussion as to whether the standard quincunx formation closed gaps in the line shortly before engaging the enemy or not. It is hard to imagine that they would have huge gaps in their lines at the same time its equally hard to believe that the Roman army halted in front of the enemy to change their formation. The "quincunx didn't change" hypothesis would be easier to understand if the maniples weren't square if they were wider then they were deep then there would be less of a dangerous flank on each maniple do we have a good sense of how many ranks deep the typical maniple or cohort was?

What precisely is the primary source for these rotating files? is it Vegetius?

furthermore all of the names on the "most influential Gentes" thread follow the i-us, ii-ius (masc), a and ia (fem) formula Pullo simply does not fit I searched couldn't find this previous Pullo name thread sorry if i did double post

So manicae were used in Britain too, Was this dated to around the same period "5 Good Emperors"?

But the pullo does not have the formulaic us or ius ending? any other examples?

Anyone familiar with Gladiator dipictions has likely seen the manica. it was a laminated arm guard for the right arm (holding the sword of course). Reading Adrian Goldsworthy's Roman Warfare there is a depiction of Trajan's troops on pg 135 (From the metopes of Troepaeum Trajani commemorating the Dacian campaign) This depicts the Roman legionary bashing an opponent's face in with his scutum. The legionary is clearly wearing a lorica hamata and a manica. Ive never heard any reference to this form of armor being used ouside the arena (then again I have almost no primary source material ). how long was it used? and where or what circumstances? Also wasn't Trajan's Dacian campaign in the time of the lorica segmentata? (Im thinking Trajan's column here)

Titus Pullo character from both Caesar's Commentaries and the Rome TV Series doesn't seem to have a nomen gentile Titus is obviously the praenomen Pullo looks like a cognomen why the omission? Even if one wasn't a man of three names he would at least have a gens name right?

My Big Fat Roman Wedding: "Give me English word any english word and I show you how come from Latin word... Jersey come from" My joking aside if the Russians could turn Caesar into Tsar why not? It just doesn't seem apparent why this channel island would be named after him.

Where is your information on the Indus valley Civilization Cato? I dont doubt your veracity, but I thought that we couldn't read their script and the cities of Harrappa and Mohenjo-Daro were laid out with autocratic planning. (Before you say that New York is a grid plan and it was the product of a direct democracy remember that Lower Manhattan is still irregular) I should probably clarify my arguement I think that we should change the terminology since we're talking about a variety of institution that seems to be pan-classical mediterranean and not democracy per se. and it seems to be a city-state thing rather than a Greek thing (we can agree that its generally seen in city states rather then empires, right? [besides Rome of course since it started out as a city state]) My position is now the unique Polis culture that developed at the end of the Greek dark ages seemed (generally) to feature citizen assemblies whatever its actual political system. Greek colonists took this far and wide and because it seemed to "work" other peoples adopted it as they "civilized". Therefore these assemblies as a political system were not a product of and (to me) it seems the progenitor of Cleisthenes's reforms as Democracy developed in Athens. I know I'm not citing any sources so if we have literary evidence by all means correct me.

I dunno quite a coincidence

The things we gods must endure! Has ANYONE yet worked out where Brooksexinghamfordshire is?

Read what I wrote, I'm saying that the could have lost his empire in his lifetime had he lived. Also, do we really have an idea as to how durable that empire was? Isn't it plausible that he would overtax the resources of his subjects sustaining campaign after campaign?

I voted no... I wont send my favorite jester to the rubber room just cause he's nuts

But the Carthaginians of Atistotle's Politica were semitic. Do we have hard evidence of a Citizen assembly in Carthage? Ernle Bradford maintains that their culture was diluted by philhellenism. It would support the "Greek Thing" hypothesis.

A question: How many veterans do you think Alexander might have had after his historic push to India? After all its generally accepted that his men were sick of fighting. It seems that few would elect to reinlist. question: Even if he did conquer Rome would have been permanent or long lasting? My summation of Alexander the Great equates him to Napoleon. Addicted to conquest. Like Bonaparte, He could easily have over-extended his empire within his lifetime and watched it come crashing down. Then perhaps the little republic would have recovered as it did following the Gallic Sack What does the forum think?

Speaking as a Boy Scout who has had "purified" river water it is ABSOLUTELY wretched Do we have any evidence that they really ever drank from the Tiber? I really can't believe that they would do it. Isn't the Tiber silty even if it wasn't polluted? My often quoted copy of "The Ancient City" by Connoly and Dodge states that before the Aqua Appia, the first aquaduct, The Romans relied on springs, wells, and cisterns built into their houses' impluvia.

Athens had its Ekklesia Even Sparta (on paper) had its citizen assembly. and so... of course did Rome. This seemingly ubiquitous social institution seems to be a Greek (for lack of a better term) thing. But from most of the history of the early Republic it seems that the Etruscans were the stronger initial influence. Did they get it from the Greeks. Or did they get it second hand through the Etruscans?

Wasn't the allure of being an auxilliary the prospect of gaining Roman Citizenship at the end of one's Term of Service? So theoretically one would bring that Riding/Archery/Slinging experience into the Empire. Not that it ever really worked like that.

That can't be right. What about the tragedies of Seneca? What about the tragedies in which Nero performed? Come to think of it, maybe Nero IS the reason for the decline of tragedy. I know if I were forced to watch Nero perform on Broadway, I'd never pick up another Playbill again. Forgive me Cato I misspoke the last original Roman tragedies that we know were performed were written by Publius Pomponius Secundus in "the Claudian Period" I dont know whether that is the reign of Claudius or the Julio-Claudian regime.

Hooray!!! someone finally picked up on this thread. I am not worthy Domina well one thing that can be said for it is that actresses did play female parts in the mime. I guess if your performing lowbrow comedy nothing works quite the same as real cleavage.........or other parts do you think that that is the only reason that they let women on stage?

We all know of the way the office of Tribune was created The pleabians got pissed off. So they packed up and went for a camping trip. This, of course, left the Patricians as rulers of nothing and they quickly acquiesced. Didn't it work several times? Why wasn't it used later on near the end of the Republic? Perhaps the population had gotten too large to coordinate such an exodus Perhaps it never really happened; It was just a legendary explanation maybe they thought that it was unneccessary since they had Tribunes what does the forum think?

Did the Roman's play instruments for fun? I know it was important in Greek schooling, and I cant imagine that there was no one playing songs in the Caupona. However, I can imagine that The Patricians felt it beneath them. (It seems a patrician rule that when in doubt get a slave to do it). After all the one thought I can think of of a Roman playing was Nero "fiddling while rome burned" and (more historically plausible) a woman giving birth while locked into one of his awful recitals. Both of those are not positive images. (wasn't he a philhellene anyway?)

And I'm not telling you - I'm merely pointing out that roman ballistae of all types were not wheeled and therefore not intended as mobile artillery. The romans did not develop the concept of tactical fire support as we understand it. As I mentioned before, the primary use of such weapons was to assault a fixed enemy position (or perhaps defend their own). I agree that it was possible to move such weapons around a battlefield, but then you should realise that the same weapons are useless during the transport process and vulnerable to enemy action. This is why we don't read too much of roman artillery in reports of roman battles. In any case, the romans were steadfastly in favour of infantry action although this began to change toward a predominance of cavalry toward the late empire in response to changing strategic conditions. Sorry, I've just realised - Does 'carro' suggest wheels? I'm none to hot on latin. Doesn't change my arguement incidentially, but it raises my eyebrows nonetheless. What I'm really interested in Caldrail is how you reconcile this with Pertinax's assertion that they were used in the battlefield. as area denial ordinance delivery system which only makes sense on an open battlefield (Pertinax correct me if I'm wrong). The late John Davis of LEG II AVG (Architectus to that Legion, hence "head of artillery") was at pains to debunk the scorpions as portrayed in the film, he stressed the role of the weapon as an "area denial ordnance delivery system" , ie: tactical re-shaping of the battlefield rather than direct assault.Here is the great man (in raffish auxilliary gear) with his charges.These things are seriously accurate, delivering shot after shot into a designated target area, with archer backup a foe can be squeezed away from or toward a propitious location.As portrayed in the film they are a bit of a waste of ordnance , though the idea of technological superiority is certainly rammed home when the two Marcommani get skewered. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...=si&img=962 Ballista front , scorpion rear . As I understand it the Carroballista was mounted on wheels. Wikipedia says specifically that this was for ease of moving on the battlefield. I don't know if this is true or not (after all its wikipedia). but Pertinax's source on the other hand seems pretty convincing.

But that doesn't preclude their use on the battlefield as an "Area denial ordinance system" After all cannon were used on battlefiels and they had to have weighed as much as Carroballistae They had wheels. Ballistae did not - they were carried in seperated loads and reassembled in situ. That Caldrail is a non sequitur I am asking in that quote how if a carroballista was a standard 2/3 man unit that would preclude their use on a battlefield. I am not asking what the difference between a ballista and a carroballista is.