Germanicus

There should be no "if" in this sentence, they had plenty of Cavalry - read the Gallic Wars among other sources.

I still dispute that it would have been anywhere near common in a conquering Roman army. If not, please show us the evidence. There are noted instances where homosexual behavior was punished in the legions, the Marius incident for example. Despite as you mention Felix, the fact that in war rape is not always a sexual thing but a dominance thing.

I read the book, and all the points so far made about the time frame for the battle, German spear throwing rate etc are probably valid. (Anyone know how long Aquae Sextae took ?) If I were to concentrate on positive elements of the book though, his theories regarding the subsequent separation of Europe between Romantic and Germanic seemed sound, or at least plausible. Another point I found interesting was the information regarding Arminius previous relationship with Varus, Arminius having served in Auxiliary forces and his deliberate deception of the too trusting Varus. While there's no doubt that Varus was not a stellar general, I couldn't help but be left with a certain admiration for Arminius, rather than just contempt of Varus if you take my drift.

I love the show, and know a few guys who would fit right in with those "geeks"!

Happy birthday Flavius !

Just thought this could be a separate thread. Go on....please.

From the Gallic wars :- Seige of Noviodunum - Indicating the Gauls were amazed at the Romans seige works, having never seen the like before.

That's why I posted. No, but it's a slow day today.........I will bend my PC to the task.

There was no city wall when Brennus attacked, the Servian wall was built afterward.

Yes, I thought they threatened to leave Rome to the Patricians, leaving it essentially defenceless as the armies raised were in the most part plebian.

It's what you would "bring" back - from the past. I guess I'd grab a copy of Caesars Ant-Cato, a copy of Claudius Etruscan History and a nice bust of someone.

I can't find any descriptions. You'd think there'd be something if they did have them. I might have a look in the Gallic Wars, I know they built defensive, tower like structures to counter Roman seige engines on occasion. It might mention Gallic "shock and awe" at the Romans engineering.

Perhaps you should read Plutarch - Life of Sulla (2) again :-

Here's another instance of what appears to be Gallic sacking/besieging - from Polybius book 3. "Scarce had both these colonies been established when the Boii Gauls, who had been for long as it were lying in wait to throw off their allegiance to Rome, but had hitherto found no opportunity, elated now by the messages they received assuring them of the near arrival of the Carthaginians, revolted from Rome, abandoning the hostages they gave at end of the former war which I described in my last Book. Calling on the Insubres to join them, whose support they easily gained owing to their long-standing rancour against Rome, they overran the lands which the Romans had allotted to their colonies and on the settlers taking to flight, pursued them to Mutina, a Roman colony, and there besieged them. Among those shut up there were three men of high rank who had been sent to carry out the partitionment of the country, Gaius Lutatius, a former Consul, and two former Praetors. On these three requesting a parley with the Boii, the latter consented, but when they came out for the purpose they treacherously made them prisoners, hoping by means of them to get back their own hostages. When the Praetor Lucius Manlius, who with his troops was occupying an advanced position in the neighbourhood, heard of this, he hastened up to give help. The Boii had heard of his approach, and posting ambuscades in a certain forest attacked him from all sides at once as soon as he reached the wooded country, and killed many of the Romans. The remainder at first took to flight, but on getting to higher ground rallied just enough to give their retreat an appearance of order. The Boii following at their heels shut this force too up in the place called Vicus Tannetis." I haven't found anything actually describing gallic seige equipment or tactics though.

I think it might originally been for Red hair, but yes, once Sulla's skin developed the angry red blotches, the name took on a whole new meaning

Why is it so galling for you ?

Agreed, I was thinking about a doco I watched on Ludwig Mies van der Rohe when I asked the question, he clearly expresses ideas or things that are important to him aestheticly through his buildings, but I can discern no specific ideology.

Dio says :- "The following year a great deal of havoc was caused by Hamilcar and the Gauls. They conquered the praetor Gnaeus Baebius, overran the territory which was in alliance with the Romans, besieged Placentia, and after capturing it razed it to the ground." The word besieged indicates to me that it was walled. Livy, speaking of C. Aurelius mentions:- "If the state of public affairs allowed, he was to go in person to suppress the disturbance, otherwise, he was to send instructions to L. Furius requesting him, as soon as the legions reached him, to send his 5000 of the allied contingent to replace them in Etruria, and then raise the siege of Cremona." From this I conclude that they'd sacked the walled city of Placentia, and were laying seige to the walled city of Cremona when countered by Romans.

Can the architects ideology not be reflected through their building design ?

I will bow out of any debate regarding this subject or things will quickly degenerate.

I don't think the conflict between Israel and Palestine can be reduced to anti semitism on the Palestinian side, and defence on the Israeli side. Factions withing the Israeli parliament are just as violently racist as Hamas.

Missed this, but yes, good point. I think the author was trying to compare the way Augustus is remembered with the way Sulla is.

I do not make apologies for the man. Certainly he set precedents that would not have been used as such if his reforms had stayed in place. My only point is that his despotism is extreemly over emphasised. Keaveney made an valid point at the end of his book, which was that the only real mistake Sulla made was dying young. He kept working to keep his reforms in place after his dictatorship was over, and if he had have lived another 30 years, may well have succeeded and would have been remembered in an entirely different way.

No Flak from me ! I'm a firm advocate of staying out of others affairs.

I agree that he his unfairly treated, his whole career labled "tyrant". Some of his reforms as you suggest were much needed, and he basically tried to stop the Optimate - Populare divide that he saw was destroying the republic. I think wiping out the powers available to the lower classes through the tribunician office was perhaps not the best way to go about it, and as everyone knows, his reforms barely lasted his lifetime. With regard to the proscriptions, I agree that this method was a very nasty precedent to make, but feel that a lot of the abuses of this took place without Sullas direct knowledge. When he was made aware of abuses (Like adding a name to the proscription list so the accuser could get his property) he sharply reprimanded the offenders - ala Crassus. Sulla was obviously a very charming individual, and I think no one said it better than himself on his tomb, something like:- "None have been a better friend to friends or a worse enemy to enemies than I", how true ! But Tflex, you know it was Sulla that passed the Laws the senate later tried to use to prosecute Caesar don't you ? And you also know that their politics for the most part were diametricly opposed ?