Publius Cornelius Scipio

Dicoletian's price controls were a complete failure, as have been every attempt to control prices and wages in human history (Nixon). It was a bandaid solution to a problem of inflation due to currency debasement.

The conspiracy theory here holds no water at all, given that there absolutely is nothing to gain from it. People who don't believe we are responsible for climate change don't really see it as a conspiracy, we just see it as mass hysterical ignorance. The people who started this panic are the same kind of people who told us capitalism would destroy us all so we should become communists, that a nuclear war was going to kill us all so we should become pacifists, and that eating meat is unhealthy so we should become vegetarians. So forgive me if I look at the source of an argument and have a healthy skepticism The movement started out as a sincere scientific debate which I personally disagree with but can still respect. It has been hijacked, however, just like these people in the past have hijacked legitimite concerns to things like economic inequality and nuclear proliferation with radical solutions that run contrary to human nature and would work only in their fantasy worlds. It is in human nature to progress, and I honestly believe that we'd have a better chance of colonizing Mars than turning back the clock to a pre-industrial world even if we were responsible for glabal warming.

Caldrail... your arguments sound almost exactly like a show a recently saw called the Great Global Warming farce, maybe you've seen it? On a serious note a do agree with you, I just don't want to jump head over heels onto the side against global warming after seeing one documentary, no matter how much sense it makes. Reminds myself too much of those idiots who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy or listen to Michael Moore.

I noticed that Vegetius was referring to the men of the calvalry wings and the first cohort when he said they should be a minimum of 5'7" and average 5'9" (modern measurements). We must remember, however that the 1st cohort was the elite cohort of the legion, and it's obvious to see why calvalry would have an advantage in being tall. Could this mean that the other 9 cohorts and the auxiliaries would have a much more relaxed height standard?

Are you serious??? If you have that much loyalty to the corrupt and fatally flawed republic which had no realistic chance of returning to power at this time then I can maybe understand rating him in the middle of the pack. It is true that Augustus was utterly ruthless in achieving and securing power, but he didn't enjoy cruelty for cruelty's sake. He also didn't enjoy power simply for power's sake (more than many of our modern politicians can say), but actually had goals aimed at the public good that he accomplished once in power. Even if one disregards the immense prosperity and stability during his reign (which is stupid), he cannot possibly rate worse then the emperors who were mad, the one who was a sick transvestite, the one who bought the throne, the ones who lasted only months and were basically military dictators, the one who appointed his horse to the Senate (I don't care if Caligula was really mad or it was a joke, it still ranks among the most embarassing annals of Roman history), the one who began the perscution of Christians... need I go on? And is it really too early to tell who the best emperor was? They lived 2000 years ago. What exactly are you waiting for, one of them to rise from the dead and restore the Roman republic?

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? Almost certainly german troops, who usually get depicted that way. Now you come to mention it, most of the legionary depictions are indeed clean shaven. I suspect many were anything but, soldiers being soldiers on campaign. Back at their barracks it was something else of course... I think at this point the Roman army was about half citizen legionaries and half non citizen auxiliaries. Although not all or even mostly Italians, the legionaries were citizens at this time. This period is considered to be the height of the Roman Empire, far before the crisis of the third century. Also, I don't think we should take Trajan's column as any real depiction of soldiers' appearance, for the soldiers on the column are all depicted as having the exact same uniform, almost like armies out of Rome Total War, but we know that that even if they were equipped relatively similarly for the time, their appearance would have had a good deal of variance considering that soldier's armor and clothing were not mass produced as in a modern army, but all made separately and at different locations. Trajan's column was meant as a glorification and idealization of the conquest of Dacia, not an accurate historical record.

Does anyone know what the minimum physical requirements would have been to become a legionary? What kind of physical shape were these men in compared to modern soldiers? Also, I've heard that the minimum height to enlist during the classic age of the legionary was 5'7". This doesn't seem like it could possibly be true to me, as this kind of restriction would probably disqualify something like a third of the male population today, when we are considerably taller than the ancient Romans. This wasn't exactly a reputable source though, just something I've heard along the way. Any info is appreciated.

Granted, the standard of living did not plummet as drastically as it would later, but the significance of Diocletian's economic reforms were that there really no longer was any advantage to being a Roman citizen, evidenced by the empire's inability to supply the neccesary manpower for the army. This is a huge difference from earlier times and in my opinion marks a critical turning point in history. I do think that the analogy of Caesar's wars to later wars holds, though. Although you are correct in pointing out that he was circumventing the system of power, it must be remembered that the system the republic had created was not suited to deal with the empire that Rome had forged, and for many decades before Caesar men had circumvented the legal system in pursuit of power. The republic's elections were a mockery at this time, with offices sold to the highest bidder, and everyone- including the Plebs knew it. The figure that only 5% of consuls gained their position through extra-constitutional means covers a period of hundreds of years, the majority of which the republic controlled at most Italy, Carthage and some territory in Spain. The vast majority of the empire was forged in a relatively short time near the end of the republic, and during this time period we might see just as much extra-constitutional power struggle as during the empire. We must then conclude the the late republican period had more in common with the empire then the early to middle republic.

Rome had dealt with mass migrations and barbarian invasions a number of times before, not to mention full scale wars with opposing powers since its earliest days. Just the same they had political infighting since the days of the late republic and all through the principate as well as having bad emperors from the start (Caligula, Nero). The uncommon denominator durring the late empire that caused its fall was economic decay. The Roman system was at its core unsustainable. Soldiers were discharged early on with grants of land, but when the new sources of land dried up they were given cash pensions; when the plunder dried up because the empire had stopped conquering new lands, taxes had to be raised, or more often the emperors simply devalued the currency leading to inflation and lack of trust in government coinage. The effect of the plague of the late second century I think as well is often greatly underestimated as it weakened population in an empire that required a steady flow of tax revenue to support its army. The crisis of the third century really started off no differently than the civil wars of Caesar and Pompey or the year of the four emperors. It was able to continue for so long only because at this point the soldiers were so utterly dependant upon their commanders for their well being, even more so than in earlier times because of the drying up of resources. The lack of a system of succesion which is so often cited never had any realistic chance to take hold in a country without real absolutist tradition and where the situation on the ground gave so much power to individual commanders. So, while the barbarian movements undoubtedly brought an end to the Western Empire, the Roman system that provided its people with security and a higher standard of living was effectivley gone when Diocletian's dominate reestablished order in the late third century. At this point the citizens were really no better off than their descendants in the middle ages; tied to the land in exchange for protection from a local lord. So while the empire as a political enitity lasted until the late fifth century in the West, economic decline brought about by the unsustainability of the Roman system ended the real advantages enjoyed by citizens in earlier times.

The important cities shifted a great deal over time. Early on the 2nd city in Italy was Capua, although it wasn't nearly as large as Rome and didn't recieve citizenship for some time (it even defected to Hannibal in the 2nd punic war). After the Romans demolished Carthage it wasn't much use to them until they rebuilt it, but then it became a major city in the West. Other than Rome and Carthage though, there weren't too many large urban centers in the West, and what ones there were often were founded by Greeks (Tarentum in Southern Italy, Syracuse in Sicily, Massilia in Southern France). In the late empire the Western capital was moved to Ravenna in Northern Italy. Unlike the West however the population of the East was largely urbanized. Early, the ancient cities of Greece like Athens were often important, as well as cities in Asia and Africa such as Alexandria. Constantinple later became the capital in the fourth century. The degree of urbanization in the East is really shown when considering that the original 5 patriarchs of Christianity were at Rome (only one in the West), Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch (later Damascus), and Jeruselum (all in the East). These were all very large urban centers numbering in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps even a million in Rome's case. To sum it up... until very late the most important city was always Rome itself, then Constantinople, early important cities were Capua, Tarentum, Syracuse, Massillia... important cities at the height and later at the fall were Carthage, Alexandria, Damascus, Antioch, Jeruselum, and cities of Greece... and while they were not as large or wealthy, cities that the Romans started themselves more into the interior or "barbarian" area of Europe should be remembered as they were often civilizing forces and held the line on the frontiers before becoming modern important cities that we know - Londinium, Paris, Vindobona (Vienna)

I'd be a governor of one of the rich provinces of the East. Developing trade and infrastrcture, maintaining order, diffusing Roman culture to the future citizens of the provence and sending all the proceeds home to the treasury; no higher calling ... and if your troops love you enough you just might get to march on Rome when the Emperor dies.