Adelais Valerius

If we were to construct a time machine that allows you to travel back in time, initiates the part of your brain that controls language so you are able to understand speak latin and all that other jazz that you would need....Who would you like to meet the most and what would you have to say to them? And I don't mean things like "Do you like Cheeseburgers" because of course there wasn't such a thing as cheeseburgers, and that idiotic.

thats where I become confused. I don't know how, with all the knowledge we can gather from the books, how we make the same exact mistakes. we should have known going into this Iraq War that it wouldn't be a quick hit and Run take over, that it would be another vietnam esque war. With the amount of turmoil and bad blood in that region, we should have never went there. It didn't make me feel any better about 9/11 when we went into Iraq, so this whole fiasco is bullshit. I'm just tired of learning about history when I can just watch the TV and relive it all(with is false because I love history)...but you guys get my point

well i know there wasn't any certain strategy that always won, but I'm sure they had guidelines they followed and then adapted as the battle was fought, so I was just curious

The people re-making the mistakes probably didn't read enough history! Or, they were arrogant enough to think that the lessons history taught did not apply to them. I think we all must learn from our mistakes; if you don't, then you are doomed to repeat them. I totally agree, but liek you said, not enough people are reading and learning about history....and the sadness overcomes me,lol

Thanks So Much Nephele!

Thanks guys for all the feedback...i'm gonna have so many books to read,lol

Thanks guys for all the feedback!

I agree with Primus that posted right under yours. If you leave out the historical truth, it seems to me that your just borrowing an idea, and then creating a sotry from it? Where's the art in that? So in my opinion, you should just stick to the facts if your going to recreate a scenerio based on an actual event. Also, I think, even though this isn't necessarily about Rome, that Alexander was a HORRID movie and a humiliating portrayal of Alexander. especially the part where he tames Bucephalus, omg how corny they did that. Val Kilmer was definitely not the right choice either. The only good thing that came out of that was Anthony Hopkins as Ptolemy and Angelina Jolie as Olympias.

Nephele Ahlmice Aklakap male thanks in advance

Are there any Books that anyone knows of that give a REALLY good description of the "what if?" questions. I've read Grant's work and Goldsworthy's Work, but I'm looking for a realistic portrayl of what might have happen had the republic lasted longer, or not toppled. I'd like to thank everyone for the Rome in 2005 topic, VERY interesting and im just looking for more if its out there.

Can anyone give me information on books/websites/other media that would describe in detail Roman Military Strategies. Issues like general manuevers in battle and things of that nature that I could get my hands on? Thanks in Advance!

I agree with most of you when you state that there would be to much to cover to do any of our Romanophile-esque expectations justice. If a movie is made that doesn't at least halfway stick to the true history of Rome, it will be to me just another Gladiator. Full of blood, awesome camerawork and bullshit. I don't think I could handle that..

lol, well Im glad you hold yourself in such high regard!!

It seems to me that the Romans would have been able to overcome this as a society. A one time people thought the earth was flat(maybe not the truely educated, but alot of people did), its just something people gradually came to the conclusion that it wasn't true. Its mind over matter. In 1970, Birth Control was shown in alot different light than it is today, and it was seen more from a religious standpoint as sinful and wrong. Now, though frowned apon by the church, its definitely seeing its way into normal, everyday life, much like machines would with the Romans. Do disrespect, but I don't think you give enough credit for the Romans ability to adapt and survive.Not to mention by the end of the Roman empire, Christianity had taken a strong foot hold, so the polytheistic viewpoint was on the way out.

Don't get me wrong I love history(Why would I be here if I didn't?), but the question I would ask is, when in history has anyone ever learned from the past? We as the human race generally make the same mistakes over, just in new ways

I realize a downplay of Rome in American Insitutions at least. Both in high school and college. It saddens me. Of course the forums help immensely in my quest from Roman knowledge, but I would like to see more about Rome, as it was one of the largest and most influential empires ever created. We use the Roman names of the months still for christ sake!

I am also a novice when it comes to Ancient Rome and the figures within it, but I've always been partial to Cicero. Though he may be criticized indefinitely for one might call cowardice, no one can deny his legal and oratory skills. Hands down one of my favorite historical figures, not only in Roman history, but Classical History period.

Wikipedia is about as reliable as a toilet paper condom, so I wouldn't trust that site too much. I actually found elephants to be extinct for a period of 4 days on that site, no joke.Since anyone can edit that sites articles, people with false information could corrupt it easily and unintentionally. Not to say that it couldn't be true, I have't looked into it myself

A Lion Tamer in the Colosseum

Good grief, this is a tough one - but as its personal opinion.... Most people on the Forum will know that I am still quite an avid fan of Ronald Syme. His prose style is somwhat dry, to be sure, but he attacks the facts and presents his theses in a persuasive way. He is heavily academic, however, so he's not one to tackle until a more general author has been consumed, IMHO. If you are looking for someone who writes in a lighter style and combines scholarly interpretation with engaging prose, try Michael Grant. He manages to convey much accurate information without theorising too much and he has a little of the 'story-teller' about him. For a much more modern treatment, try Tom Holland's Rubicon. He brings the vivid flair of the novel-writer to his work and his easy-flowing style masks some heavy scholarly research underneath. Although, I have to say that I enjoyed his Persian Fire more than his Rubicon, but that was perhaps because I knew less about the facts of the Persian Wars than I did about the fall of the Republic, so it was enjoyable and instructive to read the book. However, I am a Brit, and the three above are also Brits. I am not yet totally au fait with the more modern American authors, but I am sure our member Marcus Porcious Cato will give you more examples. I confess to not having read Everitt or Goldsworthy - something I must rectify before too long. You could also try visiting the Libri sub-forum for recommendations on Roman historians. And welcome to the Forum, BTW, Mikeal. Well thank you for the welcome, and I am HOPELESSLY addicted to the forum,lol. Just another way of learning about the greatest civilization the world has ever known. Everitt writes in a much more "story-telling"approach, like one of those great uncles that always tells epic tales at family reunions(sorry for the cliche, but I truely thought of it that way). Instead of pushing massive amounts of information on you at once, and having the reader have to analyze what they just read, it goes at a pace that you can understand, be intrigued, and entertained all at once. I really enjoy his style. Thanks so much for the recommendations, I ordered that Michael Grant "History Of Rome" book, and I can't wait to get my hands on it. What do you think of Gibbon? I began reading his "Decline and Fall Of the Roman Empire", but had to stop to get some college books done, and haven't had the chance to pick it back up.

In everyone's opinion, who is the best roman Author? give examples of these 3 categories: Writing Ability, Scholarly adaptation, Overall Best... I've really only read Everitt, and I know he isn't the most scholarly by far. I ordered some Adrian Goldsworthy Books today, so I guess I'll see about him.

Your right Gaius Paulinus Maximus, I don't think made my question clear. I was thinking more of for the stabilization of Rome, not merely conquering and adding more terroritory. I chose Caligula simply because he seemed to be the first one to really abuse his power. He realized no one could stop him, so he didn't restrain himself. I totally agree with the Commodus approach though, and though I've never heard of Elagabulus, now that I looked him up, the seems to be equally awful. I was simply curious of everyone's opinion, and learning more about the emperors(such as Elagabulus, and his Vestal Virgin Wife).

In Everyone's opinion, who was the best/worst emperor? Please to one each. I've always been partial to Augustus, for obvious reasons, but I choose Caligula as the worst, though illness could have resulted in the atrocities he commited.

would this be the standard biogrpahy of Augustus, or do you feel Everitt's is better(if you've read it)

Recall that Cicero was forced into exile until Cicero and his many friends managed to get the Caesar/Clodius boot off Cicero's neck. An experience like that tends to be intimidating, don't you think? I feel that Cicero should have stood up for what he believes in right. Though Caesar would be QUITE intimidating, reading some of his speeches, you get a sense of confidence(maybe thats the acting coming in that as Caldrail stated), and yet he came crawling back to Caesar after Pompey was defeated? It just seems in some instances that Cicero's courage was also sometimes an act. That he protrayed something that he didn't have. Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding also