CiceroD

True but as I recall he commanded a named cohort. It was Cohors (some number)(some name) which screams Auxilia even though they looked like legionaries. But wouldn't that have made Aquila a non-citizen? somthing's fishy. Unless they substituted "Centurion" for "Praefect" those officers were citizens. My father, who saw it with me, objected to how dirty the soldiers were. I know that at larger forts they had bath facilities, but is to be expected at a cohort sized fort? Did anyone else find that objectionable?

I know an age ago I started a thread to this, but did anyone find The use of the American accent weird or objectionable? Even I had to adjust and I speak that way! Everyone seems to have already noted the inaccuracies that I did. But I have one big issue: How is a centurion in command of a Quingenary Cohort of Auxilia? But I liked it all in all.it was far better than most Roman period films in accuracy.

Weren't the Censors constrained by property requirements? Or was that an effect of Sulla's Reforms too? They certainly had discretion to remove Senators on the basis of conduct.

A note: I am reading Caeser's "The Gallic Wars" for the first time as we discuss this. I'm reading that going up against the Belgic Tribes Caesar fought preliminary skirmishes and "found that his (Caesar's) troops were as good as theirs!

yes SassinidAzatan you are correct to praise Sassanid martial skill. The Romans could never make any real advances into Persia. Heck there is nothing to compare with the depiction of the defeated Valerian on his knees before Shapur on the Naqsh-i Rustam! But don't treat the Roman Army too harshly. A few of your points are somewhat unjustified. Time period on this point is very important: Caesar circa 58 BCE outlines the Germans as being semi nomadic, shunning agriculture, and being in a "life of poverty and privation." None of these things, I might add, are conducive to advanced metallurgy and weapons manufacturing. I cannot substantiate this but I recall that archaeology from around the time of the Teutoberg Forest(9 CE)seemed to indicate that the German Swords were made of Steel-like iron and were very soft and apt to bend. I fully believe your statement is correct when it comes to the Barbarian Invasions. But this this was a time when the Empire(s)were on their way out and imperial coffers couldn't afford "the best" anymore. Furthermore it has been stated that contact with the Roman world made the german tribes more technologically advanced. I will not speculate on the truth of this without sources, but it is logical to assume that Alaric was better equipped than the followers of Hermann. Are you thinking about the Gauls? It is true Romans seem to have adopted their armor(lorica hamata) and helmet design from the Gauls as well as the Sagum cloak, but I had always heard that the "good" armor, helmets, and weapons were reserved for the chiefs and their attendants. The Romans did well in this early period by having the majority of their forces equipped with armor and helmets. Yes and no. Admittedly the fact that senior leadership in the legions was usually by political appointment hampered them. We have plenty of references to downright inept leadership of politicians such as Varus. My issue here is with your assertion that the tactical formations of Rome's enemies were somehow better. There was nothing more tactically inflexible than the phalanx. Once it was deployed there was little chance to call it back or manouver once deployed and was highly vulnerable from the rear. Things were worse for the Northern Barbarians. There was essentially no tactics at all! gather people together... and charge! A warleader had to fight personally to inspire his men and couldn't devote himself to a plan of battle. I have to agree with Adrian Goldsworthy. The Quincunx formation the romans used had 2/3rds of the army automatically in reserve. They had multiple officers who could issue orders and secure and advatage or bring in reinforcements as required. This only improved after the Marian Reforms which allowed for Cohorts to function independently a "modular" army As far as siege weapons go again the timing is important. In the early to mid-republic you are completely correct. Once Legions ceased being temoprary entities it became possible to pass down expertise. Might I also add that by the end of the Republic with all the Major mediterranean powers defeated being the best at siegecraft was not too much to boast about. I admit I do not know about the Sassanids but you have to admit that the scale of the siegeworks at Masada is a bit awe inspiring. Yes the Sassanid army fought the Romans to a standstill for centuries so I can certainly believe in a rough parity between the forces. But the Carthaginians had very few citizens. They depended heavily on mercenaries and despite Hannibal's successes this was a serious flaw. I don't care how they were equipped. Yes ambushes and reverses happened, but the rebels almost never were able to turn this into permanent successes. And the Romans soon returned literally with a vengeance. Also inuring oneself to pain, physical fitness, and swordplay is one kind of training Discipline is another. So were they as good as their reputation. Probably not, but the real accomplishment is that during their height they defended and ruled such a populous empire with as few as they had.

It also depends on political viewpoint. In the ages of feudalism and absolute monarchy Caesar cut more of a sympathetic figure. Hopefully most of us in modern democracies don't look forward to a Caesar coming across the Rubicon at us! Certainly the questions: "Was Caesar good or bad?" and "Was Brutus's actions treachery or patriotism?" provided dramatic fodder for Shakespeare. And they definitely dwelt on both themes for the "Rome" TV series. My my we've come a long way towards answering this question!

I think it worked in the republic when one's prestige would be in jeopardy if one and ones coruler were at loggerheads. Didn't Cicero in his year as consul have to come to an accomodation so he would not get in the way? Then again it did seem to work very well for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Then again if Verus had lived longer somthing might have upset the balance. Goes to show how fragile government conventions can be.

I am sorry to revive a topic from nearly three years ago, but I need some clarification. It seems to have been established that the three levels of school Ludus Litterarius, Grammaticus, and Rhetor did neglect natural philosophy and mathematics. So would I be right to assume that one who needed advanced mathematics education (architects, doctors, et cetera) would be educated by apprenticing themselves?

Yes this begs the question then ... How did the Roman army reuse bent pilae? I had always pictured the Roman Legionaries on fatigue duty heating and straightening their recovered weapons. It strikes me as a total waste if they couldn't. Of course might this mean that reused pilae were far more likely to bent then those that were fresh?

Where did you hear this? Is the ground unstable because of smectite clay (which expands and contracts with moisture). Or is it simply a matter of erosion? Besides, I'm sure that a defensive wall would have a far more substantial foundation then farmer's stone fences.

It is my understanding (and education) that such drainage ditches are only truly useful when there are large expanses of "impervious surface". That is surfaces which prevent rain from infiltrating into the soil naturally. This would be pavement and roofs (mostly). For us it means digging retention ponds for parking lots and subdivisions. For the Romans they used sewers for stormwater in their cities, and gutters for their famous roads. Hadrian's Wall wouldn't have spread much impervious surface over the land. As I understand it they wouldn't have had many problems with erosion undermining their wall as long as the foundation was sound. An exception would have happened if/when the wall would cross a stream. They would have to put in culverts or some similar measure. Are there any examples of this? Glad to see my college education is paying off I'm wondering longshotgene why did you specifically mention the gateways? why would the valli there be any different then the rest of the wall?

I don't have any doubt that there was a greater sense of military duty to the state early on then later. I also agree that the increase of wealth decreased the incentives of service. But I subscribe to the belief that societal values arise from necessity. Early on it the army relied on men of independent means since they had to equip themselves. Therefore I always find the traditional Roman source bemoaning the loss of this civic virtue ironic.

Yes how did the Romans determine which hour it was? Do have any examples of Roman sundials? I know that they divided the daylight into 12 hours. but with the difference between daylight in summer and winter how would they have marked off the graduations?

Now if this Boethius, is the Latin classical? I wouldn't want to learn late latin

Well Well ... Ars gratia artis, right? Playing provocateur has long been a staple of artists.

Im not too surprised. The Romans were always functional-minded. Isn't it interesting that the Romans had something comparable to Stonehenge. I mean that it performed a similar function.

If only all of our politicians looked like that ... Cspan might be a bit more interesting!

I definitely get the sense that Bellum Iustum was another form to simply follow. Take their archaic method of declaring war. Early on they sent a messanger with a spear to the enemy capital. This guy would beat his chest (figuratively) and declare the Romans' grievances. Then later on this was moved to a little patch of "enemy territory" on the Campus Martius. It no longer mattered that the enemy was informed of the Romans' reasons. Just that the ritual could still be "performed". So long as the proper forms were obeyed no Roman would sweat that their causus belli had alterior motives or was prompted by their own actions.

For me personally It would have to be Phillipi. After all it was the largest assembly of Roman Legions in History! However, I'd have to ask the mad scientist, who let me use his time machine, to furnish me with magic goggles to see through all that dust. If nothing else the fortifications would be cool

That sounds all well and good but Egypt seems pretty stable and Egyptians do appriciate the past of their land even though their culture has changed. (i.e. pehaps there should be no artifacts in American museums at all !!!) I'm just saying I wouldn't want to look Dr. Zahi Hawass (I hope I spelled it right) in the face when stating that opinion.

Well this article is an easy read (sarcasm), But it's thorough. I'm a bit disappointed that it does not go into any depth as to the actual celebration. It would make the most sense if there was a continuation of traditions under another guise.

Luciferism, Satanism, and other NRMs regardless of belief seem to raise the feeling of taboo that Christianity did in Ancient Rome. Always good to remind oneself! BTW I recall someone mentioning that Lucifer became associated with Satan through that particular passage and with a Medieval understanding of Ancient Texts it became a poetic name for the prince of darkness when it was scary to mention the actual name... Besides as I gather Early Christians did believe that Apollo, Jupiter, Lucifer etc etc were real.... just that they were demons leading men into sin.

At this point it does seem unfair to withhold the Elgin Marbles and the Rosetta Stone from their respective countries. (No offense to any British members) But where do we draw the line? This logic taken to the extreme would mean that no interesting antiquities would be at our local museums. And then of course there is that little excuse that some countries are unstable and their treasures would be likely lost.

But Adrian Goldsworthy in The Complete Roman Army consistently makes it clear that the legions and the Auxilia were two entirely separate entities. Independently raised and organized differently, I believe they were a regular part of the army along with the legions. As to the Carthaginians, Ernle Bradford in his book Hannibal makes it very clear that their armies consisted largly of mercenaries from a large number of nations. This includes Numidians, Iberians, Libyans, and Celts. As I recall we have almost no written material from the Carthaginians (Except for an agricultural treatise, according to National Geographic). All of this makes unit organization for them very difficult to ascertain.

Did one name supplant the other. This could easily be the case. After all wasn't Apollo originally the Sun God? And then wasn't he was replaced by Helios when he picked up other duties? after all a god of poetry wisdom oracles etc. couldn't spend all day every day in a flaming chariot. This also begs the question as to whether or not there was a sense that the planets actually were their Gods?