Primus Pilus

I would encourage extending Caesar's imperium in Gaul and allowing him to run for the consulship in abstentia. Convincing them that failing to do so will lead to a civil war in which Caesar will win would be the hard part.

Indeed, any of the ancient source literature can be a bit difficult to read. The style is just different than it is today. Herodotus is among the musts for the student of ancient history, though. (Well IMO opinion anyway)

LOL

#4... not only was it chilling display of the Normandy invasion, its probably the most accurate representation.

Military medicine and hospital facilities were actually quite advanced compared to civilian quacks. Still, you are right, despite their great efforts.. infection and fever could still kill at an alarming rate.

Even more difficult than pure communism, because with Anarchy there must not be a defined order of things. If there is, then it ceases to be Anarchy, lol. Its why Anarchy groups with leadership are such hypocrisy. Of course, modern groups claim that Anarchy is different than its root meaning.. absence of law authority or government. I don't understand why they dont just use a different word. Though, changing the meaning of the word is sort of anarchist in its own way =P

Yes, he was a thorn in the Roman side (in various levels of iritation) from Sulla to Pompey. Mithridates

But then again, as soon as that guy with the most guns start taking charge and ordering people around... its not anarchy anymore. Pure anarchy would be harder to establish than anything else.

Mithridates VI

I don't recall Tacitus saying that off the top of my head, but if he did it was certainly either used in an improper context or completely false.

In the ancient world?

My perfect economy is free market. The strong dominate and the weak are crushed like ants. Power to the corporation! Praise be to the dollar!

The Romans also used steel, although the exact formula for making it wasn't completely known to them, they did add coal to the iron smelting process. Certainly not stainless steel, but still more 'shiny' than pure iron.

Indeed, our culture has me hopelessly jaded and cynical far before my time

No, I assume that most of the people in the most liberal of professions do. Obviously, I would not, LOL. Don't get me wrong, though. The medicine of the brain is a real thing with great benefits to society and humanity. What I am talking about is the run of the mill 'Oprah/Doctor Phil' bullsh*t that people suck up like the latest ridiculous fad. How many people in today's society don't have some sort of phobia/disorder/condition based on some of these f'd up principals? Nobody just has a bad day anymore. Nobody wakes up on the wrong side of the bed. A person cant just be a regular old asshole, he must be labelled with something instead. Everything is explained by some deeply rooted steaming pile of crap that I find quite hilarious. Besides, I didn't intend to illustrate that the Romans didn't suffer serious mental side effects of their environments. I was not clear at all and for that I apologize. I only meant to point out the vast difference that certainly existed between ancient society and the modern. In my zeal against quack psychiatry, I went on a tangent. Yes an excellent film. I don't know about the complete accuracy, but George's condition is now widely accepted, and from what I understand protrayed quite well in that movie. No, its reality. Of course it affects an individual. As I said above, I am not saying that battlefield stress and post-traumatic syndromes, or other mental disorders don't exist. It would be ridiculous to deny a proven truth. I am dead set against the common 'maladies' that seem to affect so many in our society today when most childhood stresses should be considered a learning experience, even some of the bad ones. Caligula turned into a bonafied loon. Power corrupted him most certainly, and I'm sure he was affected by the political machinations and 'circumstantial deaths of so many relatives. However, I believe Tiberius' debauchery is at least somewhat unfounded. He was a victim of aristocrat hatred. Indeed he was a victim of the Principate that he seemingly didn't want much part of. Was he a good man? Hard to think so when he was hated by so many. But wasn't that hatred more because of his dereliction of duty in the face of Sejanus' atrocities, and not because he supposedly preferred little boys on Capri? Painting him with that picture sure makes him more readily disliked and helps highlight the good qualities of the Emperor who commissioned the latest work of history. I don't deny that there is probably some truth to it, I just tend to think there is as much propoganda in that, as there is in all ancient source material. But obviously, I digress.

I'm sure there were 'disorders' but people, society and environments were different in the ancient world. Soldiers have a common bond no matter the time period, but in the ancient world, there were not nearly so many defined societal establishments trying to reinforce that their actions, thier professions and that they themselves as soldiers were inherently bad. In relation there wasnot an over abundance of psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, etc. preying on humanity and trying to enforce their views that the human mind is pathetically weak on everyone, as they're doing today. This is not to suggest however, that there still weren't plenty of quacks in the ancient world As for the original question, yes I would assume many soldiers struggled with what they saw after a bitter battle or campaign. There is not alot of direct evidence... ie letters from soldiers... but there is some perifery evidence in the form of the description of a soldier's mindset.. ie Caesar. However these descriptions are generally battlefield related and not post-trauma, and are tainted by the propoganda of the person writing it.

So Artorius Castus was different than the Arthur of Celtic legend. Certainly, and not entirely. The entire Arthur legend is a intricately woven combination of probably thousands of stories. Castus is just one small part of that, or perhaps he is the original root, or perhaps has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. The 'truth' of Arthur is hidden away in 30 different cultures and time periods.

Evidence for legionary tattoos is very limited. We know that some legionaries had tattoos, but we don't know if there wree uniformed policies for these markings. This thread has an excellent post by another forum member... Tattoos

Yes, they were much larger in terms of numbers... but they were green... and scared.

Gladiator 2 (production title) should be next

Perhaps you should focus on how it may have helped individual people, maybe not the empire as a whole. Just some thoughts that may help get you started... Christianity was among the first groups to introduce public charity and medical care. Public hospitals (military had been around for centuries) first appeared in the Christian era. Christianity created a sense of hope for the masses that faced confusion and uncertainty as the imperial power crumbled in the west. The church remained a beacon of organized and generally consistent leadership as the west broke into factions tribes, and eventually nation states.

The Carthaginians in Hispania weren't done yet. Don't discount the efforts of Scipio to finish off the enemy. Scipio in Spain 210 - 207 BC Scipio in Spain 206 - 205 BC

Indeed, communism has never worked in its true idealistic form and likely never will. (At least not in the current socio-political environment). I think for the most part, people who have commented on this thread agree that Communist governments that have existed, don't represent a true communist ideal. I'm not quite sure why you make the 'generalization' attack on Christianity when at the same time you lament the same type of attacks toward communism though?

Yes I suppose it dragged on... a final pitched battle may have ended it earlier, but it wasn't really much long until Scipio crossed to Africa and ended any doubt in the matter anyway.