ASCLEPIADES

Salve, Amici. What all battles have in common is that they are fought by and against humans; that explains most similarities from the Neolithic to the foreseeable future. In his quite pragmatic Why Nations Go to War (1974, 10th ed. 2008), JG Stoessinger reached the hardly surprising conclusions that the rationale for beginning a war depends on an overly optimistic assessment of the outcome of hostilities (casualties versus costs) and that both sides will claim that morality justifies their fight. Such elementary conclusions apply both to past and present conflicts. Our main problem for the fair analysis of classical wars and battles is that almost always we have only one side of the story, even regarding civil wars; therefore, most accounts are blatantly biased and jingoistic. Obviously, we're far better informed on the most recent conflicts, like the World Wars; even so, the amount of existing contradictory information, facts and figures is often quite impressive. Ancient battles' figures are an excellent example; the bulk of the available evidence and the most elementary common sense tell us that the majority of battles fought between similar armies are won by the biggest one. Even so, almost all Roman victories are depicted as epic triumphs over numerically vastly superior enemies. Just check on Caius Julius Caesar. Generally speaking, most of the perceived parallels between classical and modern wars and battles stand only as long as you ignore the far greater differences. BTW, I don't think History repeats itself. In any case, it's hard for me to find how the study of the Punic Wars would have helped to prevent the World Wars.

Just check out a nice brief review.

Original question was: "Which Roman Emperors never did battle?". Otherwise, we would require to exclude many other emperors too, like Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Commodus and even Tiberius (an excellent commander BTW). As I told before, information is just too scarce from many of the 450-582 emperors. Anyhow, being all of the emperors mentioned in my last post professional military men who got to the throne via their military expertise under civil strife conditions, it would be really surprising if their reign wasn't a "military experience".

Theodor Mommsen, a german historian in the late 19th century, studied this decline of the Roman Republic in some detail, and he left us a number of factors that led toward the hedonistic Principate... and he naturally saw events in roman history as indicative of moral degeneration.

Here comes a primary military source, Caius Julius Caesar Commentarii de bello Gallico, Liber V, cp. XXIV: Vnam legionem, quam proxime trans Padum conscripserat, et cohortes V in Eburones, quorum pars maxima est inter Mosam ac Rhenum, qui sub imperio Ambiorigis et Catuvolci erant, misit. Eis militibus Quintum Titurium Sabinum et Lucium Aurunculeium Cottam legatos praeesse iussit. "One legion which he had raised last on the other side of the Po, and five cohorts, he sent among the Eburones, the greatest portion of whom lie between the Meuse and the Rhine, [and] who were under the government of Ambiorix and Catuvolcus. He ordered Quintus Titurius Sabinus and Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta, his legates, to take command of these soldiers". Sabinus' Legion is commonly identified as the XIV. The other five cohorts (half a Legion) clearly functioned as a sole unit under Cotta's command. Caesar never used the cohorts as independent units by themselves.

Regarding the fifty surviving "(Parallel) Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans" (including 18 comparisons) written by Mestrius Plutarchus of Chaeronea by Trajan's reign, the prologue of the Life of Alexander/Life of Caesar (cp. I-III) can be reasonably applied to the whole series: "It is the life of Alexander the king, and of Caesar, who overthrew Pompey, that I am writing in this book, and the multitude of the deeds to be treated is so great that I shall make no other preface than to entreat my readers, in case I do not tell of all the famous actions of these men, nor even speak exhaustively at all in each particular case, but in epitome for the most part, not to complain. For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles when thousands fall, or the greatest armaments, or sieges of cities. Accordingly, just as painters get the likenesses in their portraits from the face and the expression of the eyes, wherein the character shows itself, but make very little account of the other parts of the body, so I must be permitted to devote myself rather to the signs of the soul in men, and by means of these to portray the life of each, leaving to others the description of their great contests". Plutarch

Regarding the aforementioned period (450 to 582) here are some other exceptions (please note that information on many "shadow" emperors is too scarce to define if they actually were or not at the battlefront): WEST: Constantine III (407-411) was described by Orosius as a soldier. Constantius III (421) defeated the previous one. Avitus (455-456) had a distinguished civil and military career previous to 455. EAST: Marcian (450-457) served as personal assistant (domesticus) to the emperor's commander-in-chief (magister utriusque militiae) before 450. Leo III (457-474) had reached the rank of tribune in the regiment of the Mattiarii by 457. Zeno (474-491) had a military career under Leo III. Justin I (518-527) in 518 was commander of the excubitors.

Therefore Roman histories tended to be quite Manichean sagas, composed by both Great Heroes and Great Villains. For fulfilling their respective agendas, primary sources were overtly biased more often than not. A particularly notorious case was the severian Senator Claudius Cassius Dio on the Damnatio Memoriae Domitian (Liber LVII) versus the almost consecutive Optimus Princeps Trajan (Liber LXVIII), because regarding government and administrative measures, he is basically maligning in the first one the same he is praising in the latter. If you check on C Plinius Minor correspondance with Trajan, you will find most if not all of Domiatian's decrees were simply ratified.

Salve, V. Welcome to UNRV. And from UNRV: Military (SIC): "Cohort I: ... Its direct commander was the Primus Pilus, the highest ranking and most respected of all the Centurions".

I think the exhaustive posts by EG & PP are a good example of what most Roman historians (eg, Publius Cornelius Tacitus or Claudius Cassius Dio) would have considered corruptio on the rulers' scale. Having the Roman traditional military abilities of the dynastic founders been corrupted by luxury in their imperial descendants, the latter were commonly able to personally combat no more.

Salve, Amici. [quote name='Julia C

Salve, Amici.

Salve, Amici. Answer: virtually all Roman historical figures. Generally speaking, people neither praised nor maligned weren't figures; they were just names in the annals or little more. For example, C. Cassius Dio and PC Tacitus' abuse on Livia was almost surely unjustified; but without it, Diva Julia Augusta would have hardly made her way up to nowadays' TV screens. Romans considered History much more the product of extraordinary individualities than many of us would do today; collective contributions were generally underestimated and frequently just overlooked. Therefore Roman histories tended to be quite Manichean sagas, composed by both Great Heroes and Great Villains. For fulfilling their respective agendas, primary sources were overtly biased more often than not. However, what makes Roman case different from that of other ancient countries is mostly the plurality of available sources; we're often able to learn more than one side of the story. Actually, our classical sources themselves are frequently aware of that fact. After all, we know that both PC Scipio Africanus Maior and Flavius Belisarius were processed and to some extent convicted on corruption charges; we're also aware of Constatinus' turbulent (even criminal) family life. And I agree with Ursus; Constatinus' outstanding and long lasting reforms were far beyond mere religious promotion, even if the "Great" epithet was certainly given by Christian historiography (not to talk about his canonization).

Salve, Amici. Strictly speaking, Apollo and C(K)astor were Greek names. I suspect most of those Jewish latin names came from Roman freedmen or at least clients. Were there also many feminine Jewish latin names?

[quote name='Julia C

Just so you know, the gallipoli campaign was a miserable failure, and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to "create a national identity" in my opinion is just making yourself look like an idiot. Military accomplishments are often overshadowed by the fact that the use of force is moving humanity as a whole backwards, and no doubt eventually will cause our end. Antiochus III

Why is that? I never knew the Carthaginians walked around with turbans wrapped around their heads. Neither do I; I think you have a good point, GD.

Salve, Amici. Here comes Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, De Architectura, Liber IV, cp. II, sec. I: ... in aedificiis omnibus insuper conlocatur materiatio variis vocabulis nominata. ea autem uti in nominationibus, ita in re varias habet utilitates. trabes enim supra columnas et parastaticas et antas ponuntur, in contignationibus tigna et axes. sub tectis, si maiora spatia sunt, et transtra et capreoli, si commoda, columen et cantherii prominentes ad extremam suggrundationem. supra cantherios templa, deinde insuper sub tegulas asseres ita prominentes uti parietes proiecturis eorum tegantur. "...In all buildings the timber framed work, which has various names, crowns them. The timbers vary as much in their uses as in their names. Those are called bressummers (trabes) which are placed over columns, pilasters (parastat

Salve, L. That seems to be indeed the prevalent consensus, even if Petrus Sabbatius (his pre-Imperial name) was commander of the Army of the East from circa 522 to 527. I fear you will have to check on each biography one by one. Answering that question is not so easy, mainly because primary sources tend to be inherently biased most often than not. One of the main reasons the Roman Emperors were called so (imperatores) was because almost from the beginning they reserved the monopoly of Roman triumphs (certainly not of defeats) for them and their proxies (eg, Germanicus), even under child monarchs. Conversely, hostile historians (eg, Caius Suetonius or Procopius of Caesarea) tended to minimize the military merits of some emperors. Caius ("Caligula") was a nice example; C. Suetonius in his Vita Caius (cp. XLIII-XLVII) held the now traditional version that for getting a triumph he mounted a crazy farce, famously depicted in "I, Claudius" (episode Ten): Postremo quasi perpetraturus bellum, derecta acie in litore Oceani ac ballistis machinisque dispositis, nemine gnaro aut opinante quidnam coepturus esset, repente ut conchas legerent galeasque et sinus replerent imperavit, "spolia Oceani" vocans "Capitolio Palatioque debita," et in indicium victoriae altissimam turrem excitavit, "Finally, as if he intended to bring the war to an end, he drew up a line of battle on the shore of the Ocean, arranging his ballistas and other artillery; and when no one knew or could imagine what he was going to do, he suddenly bade them gather shells and fill their helmets and the folds of their gowns, calling them "spoils from the Ocean, due to the Capitol and Palatine." As a monument of his victory he erected a lofty tower" However, based on archaeological field findings prof. Jona Lendering has made a convincing case for a real full military campaign having taken place under direct Caius' command near modern Katwijk at the time (SIC): "In 40, he invaded the country of the Chatti on the east bank of the Rhine. Our sources describe the operation as some sort of joke by an insane emperor, but this is probably incorrect. At Wiesbaden on the east bank of the Middle Rhine, archaeologists have excavated the remains of a fort built in these years... In the winter of 39/40, a military base was constructed at Valkenburg near the debouchement of the Rhine. It was called Praetorium Agrippinae; the first word means 'headquarters', the second is a reference to the emperor's mother Agrippina Maior. The presence of the emperor is certain, as a barrel has been found that once contained wine from the emperor's personal vineyards. A similar object was found at nearby Vechten". In general terms, Imperial dynasty founders were generally competent commanders (as winning the previous civil strife was always required); their successors tended to be lazier.

Writing like a century before the Pro-monarchic Claudius Cassius Dio, the successful flavian senator Publius Cornelius Tacitus was totally on the opposite side of the political spectrum, as a caustic critic of the autocracy of the first emperors. Nevertheless, it's noteworthy that he wasn't too kind with the Republican Nobiles either, as he considered them as the main architects of their own demise. Here comes Historiae, Liber II, cp. XXXVIII: Vetus ac iam pridem insita mortalibus potentiae cupido cum imperii magnitudine adolevit erupitque; "That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. nam rebus modicis aequalitas facile habebatur. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; sed ubi subacto orbe et aemulis urbibus regibusve excisis securas opes concupiscere vacuum fuit, but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, prima inter patres plebemque certamina exarsere. the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. modo turbulenti tribuni, modo consules praevalidi, At one time the tribunes were factious, at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; et in urbe ac foro temptamenta civilium bellorum; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars. mox e plebe infima C. Marius et nobilium saevissimus L. Sulla victam armis libertatem in dominationem verterunt. Then rose C. Marius, sprung from the very dregs of the populace, and L. Sulla, the most ruthless of the patricians, who perverted into absolute dominion the liberty which had yielded to their arms. post quos Cn. Pompeius occultior non melior, et numquam postea nisi de principatu quaesitum. After them came Cn. Pompeius, with a character more disguised but no way better. Henceforth men's sole object was supreme power. non discessere ab armis in Pharsalia ac Philippis civium legiones, nedum Othonis ac Vitellii exercitus sponte posituri bellum fuerint: Legions formed of Roman citizens did not lay down their arms at Pharsalia and Philippi, much less were the armies of Otho and Vitellius likely of their own accord to abandon their strife. eadem illos deum ira, eadem hominum rabies, eaedem scelerum causae in discordiam egere. They were driven into civil war by the same wrath from heaven, the same madness among men, the same incentives to crime. quod singulis velut ictibus transacta sunt bella, ignavia principum factum est. That these wars were terminated by what we may call single blows, was owing to want of energy in the chiefs". Personally, I would basically agree with most of Tacitus' diagnosis.

Salve, A III. Your health is your own responsability. There are currently many alternatives to the Pasteurization of milk and many other liquids, including Beer and Wine: even so, it's still widely used all over the World and it has been historically a pivotal step in the control of Tuberculosis, Brucellosis, Diphteria, Scarlet Fever and many other infective agents. But Monsieur Pasteur contributions go far beyond such process; basically, they include multiple critical steps in the understanding, prevention and control of the infectious diseases. If bacterial and related diseases are the main human killers in first world countries no more, he shares a great deal of the credit. Even more, he completely changed the way of studying a whole branch of Science: Biology.

Wouldn't you prefer Deucalion and Pyrrha? Religion is a matter of Faith, History is not; there's no reason to mix them. Biological evolution isn't a matter of Faith either.

Covert irony is pointless, presulmably an oxymoron.

Yeah, it never occured to me until I read that news brief that the Warriors was loosely based on Xenophon. Makes me want to re-watch it. Some additional media gossip on the Warriors 2010 film: This project is categorized as being in production. None of the original characters will be used (except maybe Cyrus). None of the original gangs excluding the warriors will be used. The basic plot of the story (Walter Hill 1979 screenplay) will still be used. MTV is the production company remake it alongside with Paramount Pictures. BTW, The Warriors' video game (Rockstar Games) based on the 1979 movie was released on 2005.

Here's an example from Campania, probably Pompeii or Herculaneum. I found it in the Museo Natzionalle. Interesting!A sort of memento mori. Here comes Quintus Septimius Tertullianus' Apologeticum, cp. XXXIII, sec. I, III et IV: Sed quid ego amplius de religione atque pietate Christiana in imperatore<m>? quem necesse est suspiciamus ut eum, quem dominus noster elegit, ut merito dixerim: "Noster est magis Caesar, a nostro deo constitutus." ... Negat illum imperatorem qui deum dicit; nisi homo sit, non est imperator. Hominem se esse etiam triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur; suggeritur enim ei a tergo: "Respice post te! Hominem te memento!" Et utique hoc magis gaudet tanta se gloria coruscare, ut illi admonitio condicionis suae sit necessaria. Minor erat, si tunc deus diceretur, quia non vere diceretur. Maior est qui revocatur, ne se deum existimet. "But why dwell longer on the reverence and sacred respect of Christians to the emperor, whom we cannot but look up to as called by our Lord to his office? So that on valid grounds I might say C