Lanista

If you're taking it that seriously, you're rather missing the point.

I've only ever seen one Deadliest Warrior where the bloke I wanted to win actually won. And I was really convinced that it would be the other way around - Spartan vs Ninja...I kept thinking that there was no way the Spartan would be allowed to win. But he did, I was made up. I'll admit to investing quite of bit of emotional involvement in those fights at the end!

Its a brilliant brilliant movie and the kit is as accurate as it could be. They wanted to use pila but apparently health and safety regulations would allow this. From what I know there were something like 300 extras (re-enactors and stuntmen) involved in big army scenes, they had historical advisers and all the rest it, but there were certain things they couldn't do. Irritatingly, 20 pages of script were cut before shooting started as Marshall was under severe pressure to shorten the running time and he's said more than once that he was gutted about this. Its great as it is, but I wish there could be a super-extended directors cut (but I've already asked and can confirm that what we have on DVD IS the directors cut). One of the great bits is the destruction of the ninth (that's not a spoiler, guys). It shows the battle as fiercely contested with loads of people dying on both sides - something that's quite rare in battle scenes these days...normally you get the slow motion montage of whoever's losing getting it right left and centre. Not so here, its a massive brawl with the Romans giving almost as good as they're getting. Importantly, it doesn't make out that every Pict is a super-ninja and every Roman the equivalent of a Star Wars stormtrooper who can't hit the broad side of a barn. Also, the movie doesn't get into the pulpit at any stage and make allegories about Roman imperialism fighting against a low-tech but plucky and highly motivated native force. Centurion is what it is...a brilliant action movie. A piece of cinema, its probably short of "Gladiator" in terms of (cinematic) quality, but from what I can tell looks and feels more authentic in historical terms. One of the best films of 2010 thus far and certainly deserves an awards nod for the music. Cheers Russ

Well, I'd stop off at Wiki first of all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_Guard Which details some actions they were involved in, and I'm sure some more digging will provide some literary sources - those Osprey books are pretty good (I'm sure I've got the Preatorians one somewhere). Thing is, the Praetorians will give you two angles to pursue: yes, there's the combat side of things but also you'll have loads of scope for political machination plots as well. Anyroad - good luck and happy writing. Cheers Russ

It had no publicity here in the UK at all. It came and went (I was in the US at the time so I missed it - arrrrgghhhhh!). I can't understand why, Neil Marshall packs enough clout to have better promo than Centurion had. I've heard that its out in the US on 27th August, though. Cheers Russ

That was horribly depressing and I stopped listening eleven minutes in. Pretty accurate but I'd rather be listening to Billy Idol on a Friday night.

Can't believe no one wants to meet Alexander. I would and I'd ask him if I could buy him a drink.

But it is a a good name for a band. The Secret Platonics. I like it.

Throwing my hat into the arena

We thought we'd beat Algeria, but that didn't turn out so well...

I taped it and my wife deleted by accident. That what she said anyway...

Brazil are potentially in a dodgy position now. If Ivory Coast and Portugal go out to draw against them but go to attack the Korean team and try to win by a bigger margin than one goal, its possible that Brazil could go out in the group stage. N Korea have pretty much proven that you can confound them with a decent defence - and clearly Ivory Coast and Portugal are stronger teams than the Koreans. Food for thought. Cheers Russ

yeah, it happens though. Rather now than later, I reckon. But it was a very exciting game - enjoyed it and a fair result in the end.

I hope England win of course. But if not, as someone notes above, it'd be great to see anyone other than the usual suspects win the thing. The Euros have been great the past two tournaments with Greece winning and perennial chokers Spain finally getting their hands on a major trophy. For neutrals, its just boring when either Argentina, Italy, Germany or Brazil win. Again. So if not England, it'd be great to see a Holland or one of the African nations lift the cup. Team to watch out for I think is the USA. For England in the opening game, its a potential banana skin and I really think that USA will win that game. The USA team is hugely underrated - they beat Spain in the Confederations Cup not so long ago and were unlucky in the final against Brazil. I've just checked their odds and they're 80/1 to win the thing, so I'm going to put a tenner on each way. I think that they'll get through the group and they've proven in the Confederations Cup that they have the stones for tournament football - once into the quarters, its a lottery and I think that the US will surprise everyone. Except in America, where few will care about it, which is a shame, but there you are. I guess its the one sport where the girls want to sit down and watch and the guys all complain and want to turn the channel over. Cheers Russ

We're just supporting our Nigerian brothers as American oil companies have been using their seas and rivers as a dumping ground for years. Solidarity! (but as an FYI, it was the negligence of a Transocean crew on BP owned rig that caused the accident. Its kind of like if you rented out your house and the tenants smashed the place up, set and fire to the garden fence and didn't pay their council tax - all that would be your responsibility. Same situation with Deepwater Horizon - though no one wants to report that because it doesn't make as good a story). Cheers Russ

You should change your name to "Julius Rasta!"

Fascinating! I've never heard that before, can you elaborate? Most common wisdom dictates that the Spartans were famous for lack of excess, so getting hammered before a battle is certainly something they're not known for. Please can you elaborate on this, I'd love to hear more! :-) Cheers Russ

No worries from me, Viggen - I just wanted to give ya heads up in case the gremlins were out and about :-) Cheers Russ

Hi - I got an email from UNRV admin saying "lanista, we miss you, hope you visit UNRV.com again soon" (paraphrasing). I come on most days to peruse, so just a heads up to the admins in case its part of a wider issue. Cheers Russ

OK, so I'm raising this one from the ashes, but I'm going to ask my scholarly friends here for an answer. From what I'm reading here, women could take part in these bawdy mimes: would this have been possible in the reign of Domitian? From what I've found on the net so far, the general consensus seems to be that actresses were also prostitutes, but I'm not sure that's so. Can anyone help/point me in the right direction? Cheers Russ

I also suggest that you look at Matyszac's book on the Roman Conquest of Macedon and Greece http://www.unrv.com/index.php?p=728 Sparta made a resurgence under Cleomenes (235-222 BC) He reformed their military system and introduced the sarissa into their formation, but he was ultimatelly defeated. Greek warfare had changed considerably from the classical period. The Galatians intoduced some changes in the arms and armor. The Aetolian league used mostly light troops, which may have been influenced somewhat by the Galatians. The Achaean league under Philopoemen upgraded to the Sarissa or at least some form of a longer pike. I don't know if any Greeks still went into battle along the lines of the original hoplite phalanx, with the large hoplon shield and relatively short spear. The Spartans did indeed adopt the Sarissa, but then were trounced in a battle trying to negotiate a ditch (its all in Cartledge and the Maty's books). But the original question was what happened after the Hellenistic period and thus far, Cartledge is the only source I've found that deals with that period in any real depth. I think the answer is "not much" to be honest. I think its easy to forget that all this happened over a period of hundreds of years so what seems to us like a massive and sudden fade from history probably wasn't the the case at the time. Think...200 years ago, France was a major Imperial power and now its not, but we don't looks look at France and think "what happened to those guys, they were kicking everyone's asses a few years ago?" There wasn't a sudden, soviet-like collapse of Hellenic power - Hellenic power wasn't just Macedonian power, don't forget. Far from it, Macedon, until Phillip V, was the little leaguer when compared to the likes of the Selucids and Ptolemies.

I think that they admired their history, but looked down on "modern" Greeks in general. Not sure what it says in the book, it was a while ago when I read it.

That's a very complex one. You should pick up Paul Cartledge's Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, which dispels many a would-be savant's knowledge on the subject. But in regards to their martial culture (I'm doing this from memory now, it was a while ago when I read the book - it's in Surrey, I'm in Texas at the mo), they were forced to stop the agoe practices after - as was their wont - backing the wrong side in the various Macedonian-Roman Wars. I think it was the powerful Achaean League that forced this move through. In the Macedon-Roman wars, Sparta had some successes but as always, suffered catastrophic reverses too, so they were never able to capitalise and build on these. Sparta's renaissance occurred when, once again, they backed the "wrong" side in a war - specifically the Civil War between Anthony and Octavian. Most of Hellas sided with Anthony (because he was there at the time), the Spartans stubbornly stuck with Octavian. Of course, against the odds, Octavian won and for once the Spartans got it right. This was the beginning of the Pax Romana, and a grateful Octavian restored their rights - Sparta was never conquered by the Romans, but there was no question of "Spartan independence" - they were governed as was the rest of the country, but this wasn't achieved by the sword. Militarily, they were never the force of old again, and the oft-mentioned truism of "Sparta being a theme-park" was to some extents true, but its a statement made with historical hindsight. They were just doing their same old thing, but the world had moved on, even if Sparta hadn't. Militarily - well, they would have just had Spartans auxiliary units, I'm sure. We do know that when Justinian went off to invade Persia, he raised a Spartan legion in a nod to history, but the accounts of these soldiers are pretty scornful to be honest. Get that book - its very scholarly, but its a must for anyone who wants to know what happened to them after the "glory days." Sadly though, there was never a return to the prowess of old - they had their successes as I say, but these were almost always followed by disasters that left them in a status quo. But they were never conquered by the sword - something for Spartanophiles to hold on to. As I say, I'm doing this from memory, so if anyone has books to hand, please feel free to red-line and correct! Cheers Russ

I'll PM you on this, Medusa, we don't want to derail the "all time fave books" thread ;-) J: Thanks man, but no, I'm not on a contract, so it was totally nerve-racking *lol*. Any road - back to the books! Cheers Russ

I had an email today from Myrmidon saying they were going to go for it, so that's good news. I think...October or something like that. I'm made up about, really really chuffed. Its loads different from Gladiatrix, but Myrmidon seemed to like it and that's the first hurdle to get over (and the toughest!) Cheers Russ