Germanicus

Yes Longbow - the Brits started the process, and after federation, the Aust Government was only to happy to carry it on.

Well put DanM. I must agree, in that the British Empires disdain for native populations did always began with the desire for material gain, and their racism simply allowed them to do away with those they deemed sub-human and therefor obtain that wealth and property. So yes, the racism was not a prime motivator as in the case of Nazi Germany. So where were we ? Oh yes, the Romans.....not at all like the Nazis, and may well have taken what they wanted without mass murder if possible.....although those strong gallic slaves do fetch a pretty penny... Know how you feel there, I'm an Australian.

It was God....speaking to Constantine

I was reading an old (1970) paperback book about the Romans the other day, and there was mention of an expedition leaving Rome during Marcus Aurelius' reign for China. The book mentions that it was successfull, and that there are Chinese records from the time that verify the fact. It did not list these references though or say exactly what they were. Has anyone heard this before ? Does anyone know of references to Rome or Romans in historical Chinese documents ?

There is no debate, absolutely no doubt that the British Empire practiced a form of ethnic cleansing and was every bit as despotic and cruel as Nazi Germany. Most colonial powers did. The British forbade Aboriginal people in Australia from speaking their own language or performing their own cultural practices. They systematicly wiped out all native australians from Tasmania, which well qualifys as genocide, and almost wiped them out on the mainland. When they couldn't do it directly, they took black children from their parents and placed them with white, christian families, often telling them their parents were dead. Newly arrived squatters and land owners were encouraged to shoot aboriginal people, and there are many instances where they lured whole tribes with promises of food, only to lace the food with poison to kill them off, kind of reminds me of the old Nazi line - "come into this room, we're going to let you shower"...... The Roman empire on the other hand, using Caesars conquest of Gaul as an example, while brutal, was not aimed at wiping the gauls as a race from the face of the earth. It was aimed at securing a massive client base and financial wealth for Caesar and Rome. There are similarities certainly, but it was not based on race.

I doubt there was actually much of a threat involved in the Cataline conspiracy, it was a beat up by sycophant Cicero wanting to be the "Saviour of his country" . He also got what he wanted without Caesar, Caesar in fact came very close to being implicated as a partner in the conspiracy, and was one of the only voices in the senate to suggest exile rather than death without trial as their punishment. I agree with Ursus that another Warlord would have eventually marched on Rome, Sulla set the precedent, and those Romans always had to go one better than the ancestors, the same can be said for the conquest of Gaul too. I think Pompey possibly as he would have turned out a different player with no Caesar to compete with him, but who knows, not many would have been able to do it as fast as Caesar - it was a real blitzkrieg. I would be really curious to see what Octavian made of himself anyway...without Caesar. He was always ambitious, he may not have reached the heights he did, but almost certainly would have gotten somewhere.

Favonius No, no idea in Denarii etc. My understanding is that Talent is basically a weight measurement - so a talent of gold has a higher value than a talent of silver.

I'm in the same boat Ursus, no one I know in my life shares my interests, in Art, History, matter a fact none of my friends or associates care much for anything other than going out and getting tanked on one thing or another. Ultimately, we're both after another more satisfying life. I wonder what people did before the internet when they were seeking that ? Drugs ? Joined the Army ? Joined a book club I guess. Thanks for commenting on my comment !

I too thought this at one stage, but after some recent reading discovered that in fact, while there was certainly an eastern contingent, Ponpey had :- His 1st Legion - Veteran and extreemly loyal to him personaly Caesars 15th Legion - Veterans from Gaul turned over to Pompey 3 Recently recruited Italian legions - under eagles for 1 year only 2 Italian legions of 5 years experience (veteran survivors of Carrhae interestingly) 7 Cohorts of the 4th and 6th Veteran Spanish legions - working as one legion The Gemina legion raised by Cicero in Italy in 51BC The 24th and 28th, Originaly Caesars, but captured by Pompey at sea, and subsequently defected to him. But I digress severely , my apologies, we were talking about Mithridates.

No Barca, can't say that I do. But that doesn't mean they don't exsist, I'll just have to do some research is all. Off hand - were the Parthians still a largely mounted force when beaten by Trajen, and susquently Varus, Marcus' co emperor ? I do not know a lot about those particular campaigns, but logic would seem to suggest that if Parthian tactics were so kick ass against Roman Legions once, they'd stick with it, unless of course they only won in the first place because of Crassus pathetic leadership decisions.

Hey Tobias. Marcus Crassus wealth would have been well over a mere 12 Talents. Mind you, 12 talents would have been a mind blowing amount for your average, non senatorial or equestrian Roman - a talent was around 20-25KG roughly what a man could carry.

There were so many other factors that contributed to Crassus' defeat by the parthians though. His inferiority in cavalry certainly, but more so his downright shocking deciscion making. There are plenty of examples where a roman army that was infantry heavy defeated an army relying on it's cavalry superiority - they had tactics for just such a situation - just ask Pompieus Magnus

Please provide some evidence for this.

Yeah...good one Virg. May have been the case once but fortunately the US dollar, like so much else to do with the country, is pretty lame these days - an Aussie dollar is about 76 of your cents. before I too duck and run - don't know who the translator is - will find out.

mmm....I can't admire the guy, Brutus that is. From what I have read he was quite a tax farmer of the vicious kind....and he betrayed and killed Caesar, and he had no notion of what do do after that which smacks of a lack of a severe underestimation of the Roman mindset at the time. Silly to hate historical figures though, can't change anything they did, and can't really "know" whether those that we look up to were all we think they were.

An antiquarian bookshop in Melbourne is selling an awsome copy of the Gallic wars, a translation published in the late 19th century, great condition, and one of only 1200 printed. Has really good engravings throughout based on Caesars descriptions - only a paltry $650 AUD.

And I don't think he had any real intention of pacifying all of Britain at the time. The fact that he got there and took a few hostages and killed a few natives was enough at the time. Many Romans didn't even believe the island exsisted before Caesar. A lot of authors I've read lately have compared Caesars incursions into Britain to the moon landings, the fame and renoun building benefits were what Caesar was going for.

I like it - I'd certainly write a review on a freebie. I actually should write something about the two I've just read, Rubicon by Tom Holland, and In the Name of Rome by Goldworthy, but my life has become very hectic in the last month or so - hence lack of posts. I do see everything sent to my message though - thanks for the alert Viggen

Arminius performed a pretty well excecuted betrayal ! He was in the Legions as auxiliary cavalry, and was "Friends" with Varus prior to lureing him and three legions to the bloody massacre in the Tuetoburg wald.

Gee.....you're harsh. This for the guy that created the principate and most of the legislation that was relyed upon by Emperors for years to come, reigned for 40 years, regained the Parthian standards by mere presence alone, oversaw a flourishing of the arts and found a Rome made of brick and left one of marble. Sure he had a lack of decent heirs/offspring, but I see his succession problems as his only real failing. And yet you say M. Aurelius was the best - he who left the Empire in the hands of his psychotic, egomaniacal son, who many credit with the hastening of the decline (ala Gibbon). I'd say that "somewhat marred" his reign....would you not ?

Commodus....way worse than Nero for the Empire. Guess it depends on you definition of evil.

Artorius, you'll find coverage of just that topic earlier in this string. Answer is that no, he probably had nothing to do with it.

I love this Virgil61 !

It wasn't anthrax - it was whizz fizz