Gladius Hispaniensis

That's an intriguing little tidbit there MPC. May I ask where I could access that info?

Salve Ancient Greek history is arguably less well documented than Ancient Roman history. The Mycenean period in particular needs much elucidation. This might be one reason why Rome seems to exercise a greater fascination. Speaking for myself, I was interested in history from the age of 8 and it was Roman history that got me started. I suppose a lot of it had to do with deriving a vicarious pleasure out of Rome's military might after reading about the campaigns of Caesar, Agricola, etc. I must admit that that now, reading Greek history is like a breath of fresh air after all the sickening brutalities committed by the Romans in their illustrious career. The Peloponnesian War seems to have been an exception, but reading through the pages of Greek history, what strikes me is the relative humanism of the Greeks in dealing with their opponents, relative to their Roman neighbours that is. Once again there are exceptions like the sack of Tyre and Melos, but one has to admit that after the nauseating Gladiatorial combats, genocide of entire populations, sickening treatment of prisoners of war, bestial tortures, and the casual brutality of the Palace assassinations, all a hallmark of Roman history, reading the history of the Greeks is rather refreshing.

That's fascinating that Etruscan has an unknown origin. I remember reading that modern text-book Italian is actually derived from the dialect of Tuscany, which is roughly where the Etruscans lived. It might be a good idea to look at the dialect spoken in modern day Tuscany, in Florence for example, for any surviving Etruscan words. Just a thought. So as far as the other Italic languages go I think it would be safe to assume some type of similarity with Latin?

I have a question - why was Flavius Josephus included in the above list? I'd say his qualifications as a highly successful general are mediocre at best, even judging from his rather biased account of himself. Also, I would include the Arab general Khalid bin Walid in the list - a formidable commander who won shattering victories during the early Arab conquests in the 7th century. Oops, I didn't see that last part about the cut off point being 600 C.E. Sorry about that.

Although it's well known that Latin was spoken by the Romans and the early Latin tribes, what is less clear to me is what language was spoken by the surrounding peoples such as the Samnites, Etruscans, and the people of Apulia, Campania, etc. - I'm wondering if they spoke a derivative of or something very similar to the Latin tongue? Thanks in advance.

Ave Good work J.P. I am really interested in your rendition of Arab warriors - circa 7th century C.E. Look forward to that. Regards - Gladius

I disagree. Alexander started his conquest of the Persian Empire in 334 BC. That was barely half a century after the Romans had suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the Gauls under Brennus. The only province Rome had managed to subjugate by this time was Etruria. In fact she had just defeated the Latin League at Trifanum in 338 BC. The Romans had just abandoned the phalanx formation in the middle of the 4th century BC and their experience in using the legio formation in combat was rather limited during Alexander the Great's time. Remember that the first clash between legion and phalanx was in 280 BC at Heraclea and Pyrrhus did win this battle. It's doubtful if the Romans would have been able to withstand Alexander's phalanx.

I'm done with the book MPC. I have to agree with your comments. The military history part is excellent, as could be expected from Goldsworthy, the other stuff not so much. The Catiline conspiracy bored me to death. I'll try to get a hold of Meier's book. I'm coming after you if it dissapoints me

Arriving at the final word on this is not going to be easy. Augusta is right - we can only speculate. However I would lean more towards the idea that the sculptor/sculptors of Trajan's column wanted to give a more realistic picture of what legionaries on campaign would have looked like than that they were naturalized barbarians who retained some of their old grooming habits.

Maybe the soldiers were not truly Romans, but Germanic mercenaries hired to fill in the army? Or was this practice done later in the Empire? I don't know, the legionaries are depicted in full legionary uniform - lorica segmentata etc. Did mercenaries wear that kind of armour and helmets?

Trajan's column depicts many bearded legionaries in contrast to the emperor himself who is shown clean-shaven. I've always found this very striking. I don't know if it is intended to show the fact that soldiers had no time to shave during war or if having a beard had actually become fashionable in the army by then.

Neither were Italian. Khairuddin Barbarossa was an Albanian of Rumelian origin and Sinan Pasha was also Albanian.

I wouldn't know what to compare the Wiki list with but since I trust Andrew's judgment on these matters I'll take his word for it. It never occurred to me to include the Italian names on my list - I was actually more interested in Celtic areas (I'm including Germany in that) - but that wouldn't be a bad idea. Thanks for the suggestion Nephele.

Thanks for the link Nephele. It was very informative. It turns out from that list that I guessed right on some of the tribes and place names.

Ave I am struck by the similarities between Gallic tribal names and the names of modern towns and other places in France,Germany and surrounding Celtic countries. This is just pure guesswork on my part and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I think the following links are apposite: Paris must have been named after the Parisii Soissons must have been named after the Suessiones Belgium has to be named after the Belgae (a no brainer there) The Remi must have given their name to Rheims Swabia in Germany must have been named after the Suebi Does the French word for Germans les allemands, have anything to do with the Alemanni? I am interested in collecting a list of such place names and their apparent connection with ancient tribes. If anyone can input or correct it will be highly appreciated.

Good work J P Veira. Just checked out your slide show. Very impressive. You actually have a vast subject on your hands so I'm sure there's plenty of work out there for you to do! I was wondering if you could put in some Byzantine infantry figures out there? Another special interest of mine would be Hebrew and Philistine uniforms from Biblical times.

IIRC the charge of Alexander's cavalry at Issus and other battles was significantly different from Medieval charges in that the latter would entail using the lance in tournament fashion underarm and relying on sudden impact to unhorse an opponent or slay a foot soldier. This is what made the massed charge of Medieval horsemen so formidable - in essence it was a precursor to the cutting edge of the Panzerwaffe in WWII. Alexander's Companions, on the other hand, very likely did not carry their spears underarm and probably used them as weapons to thrust at an enemy's face or other weak spot when the opportunity availed itself. The famous mosaic of Alexander in Pompeii unhorsing an opponent in battle is a good illustration of this. One of the reasons for this would have been the lack of a stirrup, something that was quintessential to Medieval horsemen. Without a stirrup a Medieval type charge would have been unthinkable. It is very unlikely the Roman cavalry had stirrups so their charges would have more resembled the bygone Macedonian ones.

Thank you Augusta. Silly of me not to do a forum search before starting a new topic. MPC are you done with the book?

Ave Just started reading Goldsworthy's book today. I'm sure we'll all have a good discussion on the book after a few days. Look forward to it.

Ave I just got Adrian Goldsworthy's biography of Caesar from the public library. It's a daunting book. I just want some input from fellow forum members before venturing to read it. Is it worth reading? Thx in advance.

Ave You know I too was under the impression (for a long time) that Adrianople was a victory of predominantly cavalry over infantry. Scholars are giving this point of view a second look now. The panic the Roman skirmishers fell into must account as a major factor in the defeat and the charge of the Gothic cavalry was at this very fortuitous point in the battle. On the left the Roman cavalry advanced too far and created a wide gap between cavalry and infantry that Fritigern's troops exploited very well. This permitted encirclement of the cavalry and an attack against the left wing of the infantry. The noise and dust played their parts too, but were less harmful to the barbarians because their laager served as a rallying point. After the Roman left was turned, Fritigern attacked his enemy in the rear. The Roman right was compressed into a tight ball, a perfect target for archers, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Excellent work J.P. As always, your work is impressive, keep it up. BTW the Waffen SS soldiers - are they members of the 3rd SS Division Totenkopf or are the pictures meant to be generic?

It never ceases to amaze me how people constantly compare classical historical figures with modern ones. I think one lesson that history patently teaches us to judge people according to the times they lived in, not according to modern 21st century standards. Otherwise we would be faced with a whole set of problems. I guarantee you if Julius Caesar lived in the 20th century he would have been considered a war criminal when you consider what his soldiers did in Gergovia and when you consider that he once had thousands of men and animals slaughter each other in the arena to celebrate a triumph. And why not? What do you consider Saddam and Osama to have done to be worse than what Caesar did at Gergovia and other Gaulish cities?. Caesar once cut off the right arms of the entire population of a Gaulish tribe that rebelled. His legions defeated Ariovistus and massacred thousands of German non-combatants including old men, women and children. The great Vercingetorix was ritually strangled at the end of a triumph, and that after years of cruel incarceration. What did Saddam and Osama do that was any worse? Why, what was so perverted about Saddam and the two Il Sungs? Did they fornicate with their sisters like Caligula did? Really? So subjugating a sovereign people, sending their young warriors to certain death in the arena, cruelly taxing them until they were forced to rebel, and nailing their rebels to thousands of crosses is better than what the Mafia did in it's time? The only reason I gave the above examples is to illustrate that as historians we have to learn to judge historical figures according to the times they lived in. Comparing them to modern 20th or 21st century figures is an exercise in pointless futility. If we had to do that, trust me, Caesar, Alexander, Marius, Sulla, Vespasian, Titus and countless others would be standing in the war criminals' dock.

Catholic monastieries in N. Africa? Are you sure? I though N. Africa and Iberia were held by the Visigoths before the Arab invasion. Weren't the Visigoths Aryan Christians?

I tried logging in again. I even tried the "forgot password" bit. No success. It still says Legio XX Valeria Victrix is not an existing member. Amazing. I just checked this account out. The login name is different from 'Legio XX Valeria Victrix', which is the display name. Moonlapse, my memory might have lapsed (no pun intended). Mind sending me an email with the correct login name?