Germanicus

Hope you had a good day you old republican.

Anyway, lets not let another thread get bogged down in this area.....

Yes I know what you mean. I read a few pages last night actually where the author describes "our party, consisting of knights and senators", but then he's always saying "our rampart" or "our men". Another couple of pages were sensational and so so bloody, in the space of a few paragraphs he desribes soldiers burned alive, beheaded (84 of them), crucifixion, and a seige wall constructed entirely of siezed weapons and bodies of the slain.

While I enjoy Caesars writing immensly, I have just completed these three books from the Civil Wars and found them pretty darn entertaining. Not as cleverly put, but more down and dirty. While the Author is unknown, I suspect The Alexandrian War and at least the Spanish War to have been written by two different authors. I get the feeling (something thats been proposed before) that the Spanish War may have been written by a Centurion, or one of the rank and file. It's obvious that the person writing knew little of what was actually said in the command tent, but he appears to have first hand knowledge of what went on in the front lines, of punishments carried out, and small setbacks etc. His partisanship is obvious, as is his pride in the Caesarean Legions soldiering. Anyone got any theories as to who the author may have been for any of these three books ? He almost certainly would have mentioned himself in them.

Happy Birthday guys !

Madchester anyone ? Happy Mondays ? Gods Cop is awesome !

They did use undermining of some sort at Jerusalem with Titus didn't they ?

Don't get furious Furius.... Okay, they used ladders, and grappling hooks, and other techniques when Romans were on hand to show them how. But the fact seems to remain - they didn't take any cities, or camps...or do you have an example of success. If we compare the number of Celtic strongholds taken and stormed by Caesar in Gaul, to one failed siege of a Roman camp using Roman knowledge...sorry I'm comming to the conclusion that whether due to the transient nature of their armies, lack of desire...they never developed a consistant siege technology and were able to put it into successful practice.

I guess what Cato is really getting at is that he'd like an example of Gauls taking a walled city, or camp for that matter. I agree that they probably didn't have or build sophisticated siege equipment or use siegcraft largely due to the nature of their armies. This kind of proves the point though doesn't it - that they did not in fact have the capability....for whatever reason. Obviously if shown the technology, and having the inclination, they could have bent their will to it....but they didn't, with any great success.

Fair enough My fave newer U2 would probably Wild Horses and Ultraviolet.

For old school U2 I like "Where the streets have no name".....also the Pet Shop Boys version.

Training with 64% of the current vote !

Good point Fav, most of the coins with a general stamp date from the civil wars.

To repeat myself for the second time, this time for you Cato, the quote that prompted me to ask the question, was the below from Goldsworthy:- "The defences of most Roman forts would have posed few problems for an army with some knowledge of siegecraft. However, for much of the Principate only the Romans possessed this technology." It doesn't say they invented the technology, nor that people prior to the Roman supremacy didn't possess it, as in the case of Alexander. It merely states that for "much of the Principate only the Romans possessed this technology". If you disagree, fine, state your case. Give some examples, from the first say, 200 years of the Principate, where we can see another state using digging works, circumvellation, siegetowers, sappers etc. With regard to Dacia, I am sure they could counter-tunnel if under siege, as the Jews did at Jerusalem, but would love to see that source you mention Princeps. We all have opinions, till now no ones posted any proof. I'd love so find out something to the contrary. For absolutely the last time - I am talking 50BC to say 200AD and at present I agree with Goldsworthy in saying that the Romans faced so serious threat of siege, as only they had the technology DURING THAT PERIOD.

I agree, but will continue to point people in the direction of similar threads they may not have seen, and are obviously of interest to them.

I posted a new topic on this Neos, interesting...

In another thread, Neos posted that Generals didn't pay their troops accept for occasional bonuses, but did rely on their generals for land upon discharge discharge. I realise the state itself paid the citizen militia before the army was proffesionalised, and I realise that after the start of the principate, coinage was minted by, or on behalf of the Emperor. I was however always under the imression that Generals in the late republic did in fact pay their own tropps, on many many occasions. Am I correct in this ? I suppose my reasons for the assumption were the extant coins minted by generals, to pay their troops. Those of Pompey, Caesar, Lepidus, Mark Antony and Brutus etc. When Caesar doubled his troops pay, was this not payed by himself ? I always thought that this, along with land grants was a major reason for the loyalty swing away from the state, toward the individual generals. Could people elaborate ? thanks

I feel sorry for the goat

Check it out here

What city do they live in Flavius?

You might learn something new, but you might not. Much as you hope for some earth shattering new knowledge from it Sextus, you're unlikely to get it. Every new find is the find of the century to someone. Whether you have sympathy or not I reckon refers to your humanity, your atheism is irrelevant. IMHO

Hi DominusNovus, welcome. All our thoughts on the subject to date are pretty much contained Here Regards Germanicus

yes..yes it it....You're forgiven Virgil...and so are you Princeps !

Dude, read the question, I'm not saying they "invented" it. What I'm saying is that they were the only Army to possess it and use it so skillfully as to be able to tip the balance from the defender, to the aggressor for a long period of time. (the late republic and Principate). Who else in that period (you'll need a time frame) say 60BC-180AD possessed it. I guess no one, as your links indicate.

Fair enough, I knew it would be a hard one to distill.