Lex

Hi TMPikachu You forget that when Hannibal used his elaphants against the Roman legions, their commander told them to change formation to a loose formation so that the elaphants would just pass through them. The Romans where very adaptable and the close formation was what gave them the advantage over the loose formations of the barbarians. Order, discipline and adaptability is what seperated them from the barabarians (and even the professional armies they fought). If the Romans saw that a close formation (or any formation) was not working they would simply order them to change formation and they would. The Roman army was very flexible and trained their troops constantly in changing formations as soon as possible. They also trained with shields and weapons that were double that of the normal weapons and they received training from gladiator trainers and based their weapons training on that of the gladiator schools. I also believe that Roman metals were good enough, and the lorica segmentata seems to be quite flexible. And we mustn't forget that Syrians, Africans, Armenians, Jews, Iberians, some barbarians and all the nations and races under the Roman Empire from 212 AD were all Roman citizens. So to use any of them in battle woud not make a difference. And don't forget that if the Romans see that they aren't going to stand a chance against crossbow attacks they aren't going to carry on marching moronically into a hail of arrows/bolts. They had their own archers and horse archers that had excellent bows and would surely be used against the crossbows. The Romans also developed their own form of cataphracts from the Parthians/Persians, so they would have heavy cavalry available. Hi Zuwairi Yes, I have read the Art of War, the Wordsworth edition, which also has a commentary by a Chinese General from Mao's time.

Let's say this battle takes place at the time of Julian, then my basic strategy would be: 1) To use a large amount 'cataphract' heavy cavalary as shock troops. (did the Chinese have such well armoured cavalry?). I also believe that the normal Roman cavalry would be able to put up a good against the Chinese cavalry. 2) Use a large number of barabarian auxiliaries, and where possible use them to take the brunt of the attack. 3) To hire a large number of barbarians, but not as part of the army, but to promise them land in the East for their services. Hopefully their massive size and brutal nature would help terrify the Chinese. And perhaps to use them in the first wave of attacks. The barbarians in the late empire also had good cavalry, so I would try to hire as many of their horsemen as possible. 4) To use archer auxilia from the Middle East. I'm sure that their recurved bows would be as good as those of the Chinese (perhpas better?) 5) To use ballista, catapults etc to encounter their apparently advanced projectile weapons. 6) Use the testudo formation against the enemy spears and arrows. Some from the Chinese History Forum seem to believe that the close formation of Roman legionaries was 'primitive' (I don't). Any comments?

Hey Locke, don't forget about all the Roman emperors that weren't born in Italy...

I actually just finished reading the chapters (19 and 22-24) in Gibbon

Pompeius magnus, Italians are still more Roman than most other Europeans. Anyway, Italians (or at least those in central Italy) consider themselves as the descendents of the Romans. Petrarch says it quite nicely: The vital spark remains, And Roman blood still warms Italian veins. Legionarius, most of Italy used to speak a dialect of Latin, and almost every village had and still has its own dialect. The language that was adopted as Italian was the dialect of Latin that was used by Florence. Personally I don

Hi, sorry for the poor format of my last post but I was in quite a hurry when I wrote it. Thanks for the link primuspilus, but what I meant about Constantine was that wasn

Hi all, I'm new to the forum. The last person to try to revive the Roman Empire was definately Mussolini. The symbol of the Fascist Party was the fasces .The party also adopted the Roman salute (unfortunately copied by the Nazis). Many miltary units and ranks were also given Roman names, for example the famous Decima MAS was named after the X legion of Julius Caesar. Mussolini's title of Dux (il Duce) is usually incorrectly interpreted in English and as most of you know the title of Dux meant 'military leader' in the late Roman Empire. The Fascists also tried to change the attitude of the Italians by trying to enforce a more martial attitude. Much Roman symbolism was used in propaganda and the Roman eagle was also widely used. The architecture of the Fascist government was also inspired by Roman architecture, especially the marketplaces built according to their system of town-planning. The dates were also changed to Roman numerals. The Mediteranean was also renamed to 'Mare Nostrum'. Another interesting thing I found is about the Vatican. Apparently the Vatican considered themselves as the last remaining representatives of the Western Roman Empire. Apparently the first Pope was officially recognised by Constantine by one of his laws, making the Pope an Imperial agent. And when the West fell, the Pope was then recognised by the Eastern Roman Empire as an Imperial agent. Therefore the Pope was legally able to bestow titles such as 'Patrician of the Romans' etc. and later the titles of Emperor. From what I read on the online Catholic Encylopedia (I'm not Catholic), the Pope apparently never lost his official capacity as an Imperial agent and considered their 'Papal States' up till 1870 as technically being Roman. They regarded the unification of Italy as an unlawfull act and the conflict between the Church and the state is still not completely resolved. So is the Vatican, in a technical sense, the last remaining vestiges of the Western Roman Empire?