Antiochus III

I really dont think that Mithridates was a dangerous man to Rome, and neither was Parthia. Parthia was weak internally. They failed to make decisive invasions as well. Sassanid persia was much different though...

My uncle got gout one time, and it really affected him. I think it would be l leading factor to the fall of Rome if Legionaries got it, but I thought it was caused by eating to many rich foods like shrimp. Would Roman troops have eaten a diet thatwould have lent itself to getting gout? Antiochus III

I read that the Roman line actually broke at one point, which is very interesting. I believe that Romans scattered various obastcles at the start of the battle to impede the chariots of Antiochus. What do you think would have happened had he Romans lost? Do you thing the Romans were fully prepared(had all available men at the battle)? I personally think that the Romans didn't believe armies from Asia Minor/the Near East to be strong, and got used to defeating them easily. Did they thing Antiochus was a greater threat than Pontic armies? Antiochus III

I knowCaesar formed a fourth line, as I said, the Roman quincunx allowed for troops in the rear to reform quite well, but when troops were acutally engaged the amount of maneuvring was minimal. Antiochus III

Is it Hunnish or Hunnic? I've never been clear on this. Antiochus III

Roman republicanism was an ideal, not an an established paradise. Was it such a giant leap for mankind? That seems a little overstated, and there are other political forms that claim the same moral high ground. If we want to see roman republicanism as a giant leap, we have to see it in terms in the improvement of mankind for the better. There the romans failed. In fact, the romans had little intention in improving things for the common man. Instead it was a system of government evolved to suit the ruling oligarchy. In the Republic, the idea was that no single man would dominate politics, that no excessive rule from a king would again scandalise and ruin Rome. For that reason, power was shared, power was temporary, and power was by consent. On the face it this system appears very egalitarian and perhaps our view of it is coloured by our own experience of extended democracy. The romans had no such illusions. Although they ensured that power was not hijacked by dictators (modern sense), they chose their leaders from amongst those who were qualified by wealth. There were senators who thought kindly of the common man and made some rulings in his favour, there were also plenty who wanted the common man kept firmly in his place. Lets be a little more precise here. Rome did not have a national identity as we understand it. It was a city state, a dominant power, the ruler of an empire. Citizens did not live within a nation, they lived within an empire who ultimately answered to one city. Thats what SPQR meant. Senate and People of Rome. Notice the differentiation in status. The people of Rome were something seperate from their ruling class, people who must look to their leaders for support and protection. It is an identifiable marker of patronage, a system of very basic human interaction across social class that said - "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours". Is that your superior culture? Also, we need to understand the extent of corruption that coloured roman life long before the Pricipate let its hair down. Corruption was a roman way of life. It was how they did business, and even though some individuals attempted to curb or eradicate it, the majority simply accepted that the way to get what you want was to slip a few sestercii. There are cases of ordinary soldiers complaining because the opportunities to bribe their senior commanders were becoming scarce. The superiority of roman civilisation is somewhat illusory, and is based on the imagery and hype we see in film, tv, and ancient monuments. Make no mistake, the addition of these stone edifices was intended both to glorify the individual commerorated, and to demonstrate the superiority of Rome both to its own citizens and to visitors. That does not imply the superiority is real, merely that wealthy romans were building public images to sell to the bystander, usually to ensure personal success. Dominance does not imply moral superiority. Ok, Rome was a cruel culture - we know that - but that was not unusual for the ancient world and once you examine contemporary civilisations, whatever their redeeming features, they always demonstrate a harsh and unforgiving side. If Rome held leadership to these ideas then thats a success of propaganda, military, and political will that has endured in the popular conciousness via the christian churches to this day, and has assumed a legendary status in true traditional human manner. Superior? No, of course not, it wasn't any better a system than anyone elses, but it was a successful one for some time, whose hellenistic and capatlistic principles are the bedrock for our own cultures. But aren't we therefore guilty, by building our world on theirs, of swallowing the same roman hype? The point about 'mediterranean culture' also brings up an interesting aspect of human psychology - our need to classify. We like labels. We like to pigeon-hole, to put everything in its place. There are also people who like to place other peoples opinions in their place (Yes, I get accused of that too!) and therefore a 'new' label' is one way of taking this knowledge and giving a different credibility and perhaps even devaluing the opinions of those who supported an older label. Well then, you could say the same exact thing about Athens and its empire. Antiochus III

I HATE when they pull that "copy" crap. In fact, Rome was much more influential than greece because it left an alphabet we still use today (well, a very similar one), and eliminated enemy cultures entirely, so htat their legacy was passed down, and has more influence than Greece. I find, however, that it is usually english teachers who are generally moronic when it comes to Roman history who say that Rome copied greeece. Actually, the Romans were just smart and used good ideas, which happened to come from many places besides Greece. Also, the Romans were obviously more successful militarily than the greeks, which contrary to what many think, is the most important thing of all. Does anyone really care about Socrates? No. Not at all. This is because the human world revolves around warfare. I'm sure the Incas had a great "culture" but it is irrelevant because of their conquest. See, culture doesn't mean anything because the armies are what made the world go round, and continue to today. Cutlure is nonsense. Also, if they try to tell you that, think of England and the US. Is the US just a continuation/copy of England. No way. Antiochus III

Primus Pilus certainly answered that. However, what do you define as a Greek army? Pyrrhus was an Epirote, and the Macedonians weren't really Greek. Just because an army used a phalanx or were led by a man of Greek descent doesn't mean they were Greek. Also, Primus Pilus failed to mention the important battle of Asculum. Pyrrhus also fought against true Greeks, so one might not consider him to be one. In fact, he was killed by a soldier of Argos after many years of unsuccessful campaigning in many places. It is also important to note the waning of Greek power since the defeat of the Athenian Empire in the 5th century B.C. Of the four Macedonian wars, the first was somewhat non-decisive, and the second really was the end of the glory of the Macedonians. It included the battle of Cynoscephalae in 197, in which Titus Flaminius dealt Philip V a major defeat. THe third war eliminated the Macedonians as threat, and the fourth war was kind of a small uprising. By this I mean it wasn't too costly to put down. I would agree that the destruction of Corinth in 146 put an end to the Greeks once and for all. 146 was a particularly brutal year for Rome's enemies, and is seen as a turning point, seeing as the last major Mediterranean threats were put down, and Rome used its power to begin world conquest. Antiochus III

The Romans used many substances even though they knew that they were bad for health reasons, especially asbestos. They, however, did not have citizens mine it, and knew of its harmfulness for a long time. Antiochus III

I am actually not as well versed in this battle as I should be, but I would like to know more about it and have a good discussion. Antiochus III

They were daring but incredibly stupid. Even thinking about an invasion of Parthia without absolute political support and immense resources at hand is not intelligent. What many people fail to ralize about Eastern campaigns is the amount of supplies needed, and men needed to guard supply routes. It can be compared to Germania, and this is one reason why the regions were never fully subdued. Antiochus III

No. The manipular legion did not have gaps between maniples larger than six feet, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. As far as organizational matters, Roman commanders never pulled out a single maniple from combat. That would allow the surrounding maniples to have extra pressure on them, and they would probably rout. The only organizing they would do is before their troops actually engaged in hand to hand combat, which is when maniples actually had spaces between them. In the principes and triarii lines, they probably had large gaps to easily fill in or reinforce weakened sections of the line, but the main line just would not have gaps. The only thing they needed to have a slight gap for is to have a commander personally tell men orders and give them a morale boost. On a completely different note, I want to discuss the battle of Magnesia, and how the Romans were able to win. I don't know how to start a thread, so it would be great if you could tell me how, or start it yourself. I find it to be an incredibly interesting battle, especially since the Roman line broke at one point. Anyone else interested? Antiochus III

Hem hem, its not Antiochus III, its Antiochus the Great! Hehe, heh. Antiochus the Great

Actually, I recently attended a speech about this. The land of north africa used to be very fertile, with forests, and over the years, especially when controlled by Rome, deforestation occurred, and the farmland was destsroyed by poor techniques. North Africa was a completely different ecosystem back then, and now just the coast is a little bit fertile. However, the Sahara was not once a great forest (maybe 250000 years ago, but not in the last few thousand years), but the massive extinction of cedars in regions of morocco occurred throughout history, especially during the colonial period/age of discovery. Antiochus III

Well, my family cares little about history and such, but I ended up enjoying learning about Roman battles. I really am interested in the warfare of Roman troops, but over the years I have come to find that Roman ways, language, calendar and all of that come into play nowadays in big way, and I find their culture fascinating. I also view them as a sort of contemporary state in that they were the first to have a modern sense of many things, and also built on of the first efficiently govered and largest empires. They were so different, and represented a turning point in history. Antiochus III

Adrian goldsworhty does disuss the quincunx in depth. He also states that it is improbable that Romans had gaps in the front of the battle line. As far as it taking to long to close gaps in the line, the Romans probably charged, and when charging, no force can stay at very close ranks. THey probably spread out naturally to fill in any gaps while charging. also, many of you are failing to see the chaos in a battle. Do you honestly think would miantain gaps in a line, or do you think the troops would run to nearest enemy and begin to fight? Let's say, for argument's sake, that the Romans form up in a quincunx, with the hastati maniples being four men deep, and there being 10-12 feet between maniples. THe Gauls have a mob of battle hungry warriors wiht no large spaces between them. They charge, smashing against the front row of troops first. The warriors that aren't positioned directly in front of the enemy (they are by one of the gaps) are still being pressured forward by the warriors behind them, and from the momentum of the charge. Rather than staying still doing nothing, they see the Romans on the side of the maniple, (who have not closed ranks and formed a line across gap in the Roman line, and are directly behindthe man in the front of their row), and charge against them. Now, their are 4 Gaulish warriors facing the 4 Romans on the side of the maniple, and the same number on the other side of the gap on the next maniple. There is still a bit of a gap between the eight pairs of dueling soldiers(four on each side), through which many more gaulish fighters run through or are forced through by warriors to their rear. they begin to go around to the rear of the maniple, lowering the morale of the Romans in the rear, who fear being surrounded and begin to rout, so the whole maniple cuts and runs. Then the gauls continue to the principes line, and rout that, and then the triarii... If you still think the Romans fought with gaps in their line after reading that, I i suggest looking at a diagram, which would help explain it. But, seriously, there is NO WAY that they had gaps in hteir line!!!!!! Antiochus III

Oh, and I forgot to mention that armies probably had a much tighter formation near weak points of the enemy to try and break through and flank the enemy. Antiochus III

Well, I think that the Romans probably employed very different tactics when facing different types of troops. When faced with a phalanx, the Romans most likely used a looser formation, but when faced with gaulish swordsmen, they were most likely in a tight formation. This s why Roman commanders were so successful in combat-they had adaptable troops that changed their formation to fight different enemies.One thing is for sure though-th Romans did NOT have any gaps in the very front of their battle line. How could anyone believe that? Let me explain: When given the chance to flank an individual unit (be it a whole army, or a single maniple), any smart soldiers would take the oppurtunity. Then they would pressure the flank so as to push the flanks together, and the men being flanked would begin to have much pressure on themselves and rout, leaving the men in the center to be cut down, causing heavy casualties. In the event that the men were so well-trained that they did not break, they would be pushed into such close quarters that they would have trouble fighting to the best of their ability. In fact, at cannae, the Romans must have been crushed so tightly together that they could barely move. It is just not plausable to think that commanders would actually ALLOW enemies to flank and rout their troops by forming a battle line wiht gaps in it. Notable exceptions include abbormal situations like at Zama, where lanes were formed to let elephants pass through. Antiochus III

Being a student in high school, I know how stupid peeople can be, and currently, I have a RIDICULOUSLY dumb teacher, who routinely lacks the knowledge that I seek. I don't know how people like that get hired. It is not the students' fault that teachers aren't well versed in their subject matter, and usually teach facts directly from history books without any of their own knowledge. History books, as you all probably know, give brief descriptionsof events that should be explained in detail. In fact, ours describes only the second Punic War, and only mentions two generals, Scipio and Hannibal, and only mentions one battle (cannae). It lacks reasons for the wars, and doesn't even tell us hannibal's last name. During the Rome unit, I found myself explaining things that my teacher didn't know, and also noticed that the only thing they told us about rome's army was that they had legions, that were "well drilled." Not only that, but I caught my teacher distributing a packet with false information, saying that constantine mdae christianity the official religion, when in fact it was theodosius, like every history teacher should know. Many thanks to those of you that teach history well, and help students learn FACTS. If only every teacher did that. Antiochus III

THe Byzantine Empire certainly made use of specialsit heavy cavalry, which made them much more potent in combat. Having auxiliary clibinarii was essential to keep sassanid cataphracts in check. I believe the Western Empire didn't use heavy cavalry to the same extent as the Byzantines, which may have made them inferior. Antiochus III

I think the reason the Romans were so harsh on prisoners was to ensure the people were kept in fear and were loyal to the Romans. Antiochus III

Augustus is generally considered to be one of the greatest Roman leaders. I disagree. If one looks at Roman history in general, Roman power grew quickly and steadily from 298 B.C. until around the turn of the milennia, where, although it continued to grow, the number of provinces added slowed, and era of expansion waned. With Varus' defeat in Germania, Augustus decided to stop expanding at such a fast rate and fortify the Rhine, not wanting to take more caualties. Why? THe casualties were not neary as severe as those suffered at Cannae, or other battles. In the past, Romans used an event like that to mobilize even more troops, and expand a lot. I can see where Augustus would want to stop expansion for a short period of time, but a permanent end to expansion, and FORTIFYING the Rhine was very stupid. When, in history has fortifying anything ever worked? Hitler's fortress of Europe failed miserably, to give one major example. Also, not conquering Germania had two long term effects: 1. The revenue gained from taking this region would have been immense. Look at what Caesar was able to pull from Gaul! The Romans would get the initial loot from raiding settlements, and then could have taxed the Germans into the ground for more profit. 2. Also, more population means more men to recruit, and less for the enemy. Later, Germania turned into a base for tribes to launch massive invasions against Rome. Taking Germania would have been great for Rome. Based on these obsevations, Augustus helped Rome fall. His ideas were idiotic, and although there was minor economic boom, he prevented an even bigger one. Also, his foreign policy allowed enemies to gain power, and prevent later Roman invasions from being successful. All in all, though Augustus' reign gives the illusion of being great, it really set the foundation for Rome's fall. Antiochus III

Here is the difference between a scythe and falx wiht the scythe first. s ----s -------s ----------s - Blade -------s ----s s s s - Handle s s f ----f -------f - Blade ---------f ----------f -----------f ------------f ------------f ------------f ------------f ------------f - Handle ------------f ------------f I hope that explains the difference well. Don't mind the dashes, they are just placeholders, because this posting system is TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Antiochus III

The falx was fearsome indeed. The roman helmet structure actually changed as a result of it. They added a cross bar on the helmet. Can you even imagine the brutal casuallties this thing must have inflicted? A good falx would go right through a helmet and down to the nose. At the sight of that I would desert immediately. The training and discipline of legionaries always amazes me. Even the troops in the republican legion seemed to be hardened and well trained. Antiochus III

Absolutely no idea. Sorry mate. Antiochus III btw i'm actually from the US, but saying mate sounds funny