Mosquito

I think that the target of second expedition was to conquer Britain or at least part of it.

No, not Tusculum. Here is the clue. This place is quite famous but not for its Roman ruins. Every year millions of Europeans spent there their summer holidays but majority of them are sitting on the beach. But some can always rent a car and go to see what is left after Romans. Its not in Italia. Its west from Italy. If it wont help Ill give another clue soon.

This might be too easy for Europeans and too hard for our members living on different continents so I give 2 pictures from the same place:

Brundisium/Brindisi - end of Via Appia ?

Happy Birthday Zeke! Life is beuatiful and being 17 is fun.

Caesar was outstanding in everything what he was doing, at war as well as in politics. We wouldnt talk that much about him, if he wasnt really great. So give to Caesar what is Caesar

I'd give you 3/4 (maybe), but not logistics. What is the evidence that he was good at logistics? MPC - what will you say about expedition to Britain, wasnt it logistically perfectly prepared? If he had time, he was able to prepare everything. But usually he just didnt want to waste his time and this impatience was one of his weaknesses but usually he was able to turn everything into his advantage.

I completelly agree with Septimius Flavius Galarius. We could have expected somthing better in the last episode and far more drama than we had. While Vorenus stays loyal to Antonius, Pullo betrays Octavian without any hesitation. The last scene of episode 10 I find just stupid. While I still consider Rome as good show, I find many things which I dont like. The worst of all is - that after watching it all - I feel that they started making this show without having the script ready and that they were changing storyline many times, in the completelly inconsequent ways. New subplots appear and dissapear without bringing any weight to the main story. Some people come or leave - nothing would have changed if their characters werent introduced at all. In some of episodes they focus action on things which are without any importance for the story. I think it is better when one person or the same group of people writes the script from the begining to end. It is a pity that such great TV show had such a pathetic finish.

I'm sure the collectivization of the farms would have been just wonderful for the republic LOL. LOL!!!!!! Wrong forum CEB. Try thisone: http://www.soviet-empire.com/

I belive that Marius was always much better prepared. I think he was planning his campaigns long before their start. Caesar was different, he was one of those brillant people who can solve any problem "ad hoc", just after it occures.

Not only fast in retreat but even faster in offensive. Add to this his incredible luck. So often he didnt give his enemies the chance to defend themselves. And he had one more thing that good general must have - the ability to choose good officers. Most of his legates were excellent commanders. But not every general is smart enough to hire such people - so many in history were too envy for this. Noone can say that Caesar wasnt a great commander. Maybe he had a lot of luck but Fortuna always likes the best and the strongest, having the weak in contempt.

Looks more like bottles with oil.

Aye! Excellent work Bryaxis Hecatee!

Many times they did, many times they didnt care what majority of people think. And social war is only an example. Most of reforms - often good reforms - were enacted against the will of optimates - or by optimates after they have already defeated their enemies.

I saw it and enjoyed. I didnt expect it to be a historic movie and it wasnt but the pictures and visual side of the movie is somthing i really liked. Iranian accusations for racism and politic bias i find simply stupid. It wasnt anyone's intetion to show the real history but to show the comics.

Nice and interesting essay Skarr. You are not the only one who would like to know more about collegia's. I have also enjoyed the description of collegium in the books of Coleen McCullough "Masters of Rome". Do you know any ancient sources which are saying somthing about it?

I agree that Jewish subplots werent necessary but i really have enjoyed Erastes Fulman plot. Altough I must admit that I have really no idea how much influece had gangs of Rome or "collegia" because I dont remember ever reading about it in any real history book. As for this episode I found it poor and disgusting. Especially the scene of sex between Augustus and Livia. I have no idea where from the writters get such concepts but I afraid that people who know history only from movies and TV series wil lbelive in such crap.

What senate? The worst politic opponents were killed or murdered. In 29 BC he removed about 200 senators from senate list. In 18BC he made next purge in the list of senators. His own followers were getting the seats. With such senate he could have done whatever he wanted.

Don't be too sure of that. -- Nephele Are you saying that our Gaulish brethren are now driving on the wrong side of the road? I think its one way road.

Doesnt matter. If it wasnt Sulla the one who marched on Rome, it would have been someone else. Republic was getting into deep crisis and Romans not only didnt have the idea how to cure the situation but they didnt even realised how serious ciris and problems Republic has faced. It is much easier for us today, watching them from 2000 years long perspective.

It wasn't just the senate who avoided civil rights for Italians--it was the people of Rome! Everyone who supported Italian rights--T Gracchus, G Gracchus, L Drusus--they were all killed, and they were all abandoned by the people once they publicly supported Italian rights. Blaming the senate is completely unfair. If senate and optimates were so wise leaders of Roman state, they should have forseen that their policy leads to catastrophe and should have back the politicians who wanted to support Italians. Italian demands backed by senate would surelly have been supported by Roman assemblies. But no, majority of senate was attacking the reformers and it is the senate or majority of senators to blame for their deaths and all the consequences.

Exactlly - thats what I mean. The senate had to put things on the edge of civil war and after defeating enemies was adopting some of the policies which was opposing before - only to avoid the future conflicts and even the worse conflicts - and in this way to disarm populares. The same they did during social war. First they refused to give Italians roman citisenship, provoked them to bloody war which had devastating results for both Rome and Italy and after victory granted citisenship to all of them. So what was the war for if the defeated party recived this what wanted to get? Why senate didnt give it to them without war? The same was in conflict with Gracchi and in many other conflicts.

After reading so many of MPC's posts here in this discussion and under different topics, I couldnt loose the impression that I have read it somwhere before. Having that strange "D

I wouldnt say that it is a person that should be blamed. It was just the result of historic process. Republic was doomed to die, so we cannot say that someone killed it but rather that has executed the sentence of history.

When it comes to modern battles - the charge of Polish lancers at Somosierra in Spain. Napoleons army was blocked at the mountain passage of Somosierra - similar to Thermopylae. The road was blocked by 4 batteries of artillery and about 10.000 infantry. After few days of trying unsuccesful infantry attacks Napoleon ordered 200 Polish lancers of his Guard a suicide mission - to attack Spanish positions and the lancers cleared pass, took all the canons, caused panic in spanish lines. Most of the Spaniards simply escaped. After the battle about 10 French officers tried to claim that they were leading the charge but in fact it wasnt any of them. http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Polish_Guard_Lancers.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Somosierra