Primus Pilus

I have to go with Caesar, not only because of the brilliance of Alesia, but because he proved superior siege capability in campaign after campaign. Just some rough examples... Alesia stands out, of course, but the Gallic campaign included several sieges. Massilia in Narbonensis... essentially conducted by Gaius Trebonius, but its initial stages were directed under Caesar. Petreius and Afranius (Pompey's Legates in Hispania) were essentially besieged, but on open land. Sure they were scared to face Caesar in open battle, but it doesn't change the fact that he essentially 'besieged' them into submission through maneuvering and bottling them up. Dyrrachium.. despite losing the battle, Caesar nearly ended the 'civil war' without actually coming to major conflict with Pompey. Pompey was effectively maneuvered into an untenable position and besieged, but he did eventually show some backbone and skill and defeated Caesar's smaller army where the siege works weren't yet completed. Alexandria showed Caesar's ability to withstand a siege while precariously undermanned. The Republicans in Africa (who spent months delaying and avoiding battle with Caesar) were maneuvered into a 'no escape' stretch of land at Thapsus and fortified in, forcing them to do battle.. and be destroyed.

We do

Yes thank you, having the breakdowns by year will save a load of time, rather than trying to look up various ancient source references from memory.

Rome Total War Thread

Of course, Portugal has its roots in Latin as well and people should understand that Lusitania was just as much Roman territory as the rest of Hispania. Even the Roman settlement of Cale (late Portucale) gives reference to the presence of Roman authority.

Consider that Hannibal brought back roughly 12,000 weary and 'defeated' men (for all practical purposes) from Italy. Most importantly, his vaunted cavalry was only a fractional number of its strength in Italy. With the addition of Masinissa's Numidian cavalry to he Roman side, Scipio not only outnumbered Hannibal's horse 3 to 1, but was on equal terms as far as quality. Adding the tactical, numerical and experience advantages to Scipio's infantry, the situtation was far different compared to Hannibal's Italia campaigns. I don't begrudge Scipio for defeating a 'weakened' Hannibal. Had he beaten him at the height of his power in Italy, however, there would probably be little question as to his 'ranking' in military genius. Alas, we'll never know.

Scipio's army was definately veteran compared to Hannibal's diminished forces at Zama. 'Hardened' is an objective term though I suppose, and will grant you that.

This one perhaps? Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905 Not quite the same, but the basic idea is there.

Yes, you certainly did.

If you don't like it, you should investigate your own feelings of guilt. Don't try to misdirect them on to the rest of us.

(A not so serious answer for a more serious question) Are we supposed to feel guilty because people died under the Romans? It may just be my math, but not a one of them would be alive today anyway I will decide what history is worthy of my admiration and study. I 'study' because I enjoy it and take personal gratification from it. I also believe that to know the past is to understand the present, and perhaps the future.

The H was originally just II (I don't know why they connected the II) and S meant semis (which is 1/2 as). Together they somehow relate to the sestersius, which has always baffled me. The sestersius is equal to 4 asses. If the semi is a half as, then it would take 8 semis to equal one sestersius. How the II relates to this, I have always been unsure.

Considering I got the last shipment back from across the ocean in a waterlogged tube 6 months after they were supposed to show up at your door... I'd say definately yes!

Arguably, it had its roots in the foundation of the empire in the first place. Octavian and Antonius. Augustus and Agrippa Augustus and Tiberius Tiberius and Germanicus etc. Most weren't that well defined such as Augustus and Agrippa where Agrippa essentially had full imperium in the east, but a precedent was set. Later emperors sometimes used their heirs (Caesars) to fill the role of 'ruling' the farthest reachest (Vespasian and Titus for example). Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus split the empire a century before it became the norm. However one can easily debate the official capacity of these arrangements as having nothing to do with the later complete split and I will grant that without argument. What it did do is establish a natural governing division to go along with the cultural division that was already there. In essence these earlier conditions made the later split easier.

I would interview Pontius Pilate, and ask him about the historical Jesus... That could cause some problems.. one way or another

Exactly my view on the subject, even if my explanations tend not to be clear enough. I will also concur that by the mid 2nd century (Marcus Aurelius) the Christians were certainly beginning to be perceived as a religious threat rather than just a convenient target for various imperial whims. Pliny's letters to Trajan provide all the evidence that is needed. Welcome to the forum btw David!

You'll likely need to search for such things specifically by name. We have a list of many major battles on several pages... starting here. Armed with some appropriate battle names you may have better luck finding maps and diagrams.

Yes excellent point. Tactitus' support of his father-in-law Agricola (recalled by Domitian at the height of his success in Britain) plays a major role in that. However, he was disliked by the elite and was assassinated, so as always there are elements of truth even in the deepest propoganda.

Even earlier (Egyptian/Babylonian/Earlier African perhaps?) though I admittedly know little about pre-Greek cultures. The oldest surviving examples are indeed of Greek origin though. Unless the controversial 'Germanic' one is older?

And?

There really already is such a forum at Roman Army Talk, but discussion there is heavily weighted towards military activity. Living history is a different animal in some respects, but you still might want to check out RAT's forum/site. Another source site is Roman Hideout. There isn't a discussion forum as far as I know, but there seems to be considerable information for re-enactment groups.

Ok nic, as for the original question... Was Alexander the greatest ever? Just by reading a few of the 'greatest general' threads on this forum you can see the widely divergent views on this issue. Some people discount Alexander because his opposition was not as great as some other generals faced. Personally, I rank any general who conquers half the known world (metaphor) without losing a battle as among the greatest. Still, 'ranking' is so objective. Even for generals who faced one another, there are many circumstances which don't necessarily justify the victor as being 'ranked' higher. One example off the top of my head... Scipio over Hannibal at Zama - Hannibal's army was made up of mostly raw recruits by this point vs. Scipio's hardened veterans, though that in itself is not the only reason for the result. Despite the fact that Scipio won the battle, the majority of scholars place Hannibal ahead of Scipio partly for the fact that things may have been quite different if the two generals met at full strength under different circumstances.

They were from personal collections. ---- Well we have two confirmed receipts... anyone else?

The Saxons invaded the southern and central portions of the eastern coast of Britain.