sylla

Actually a urban myth; Suetonius only wrote that Caligula planned to make Incitatus a consul.

Facts? OK; the Roman Republic never lost any war, simply because they had the best soldiers and the best officials; their high-quality uniformity was for real and their system worked for centuries of never-ending war.Insisting in calling that "amateur" can't be any more absurd.

On the purported "unprofessional" nature of the Pre-Marian Roman army, please check on post # 90 from this other thread.

Thanks; the honor is all mine.In general terms, you have essentially reversed the facts, mostly by an obvious false dilemma fallacy; the implication that the ancient soldiers and their officials were either

Now this was really unexpected, to say the least; under the same standard, Ho-Chi-Min may arguably be considered the Greatest French figure, as he saved France from keeping Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos... Seriously, the Arminius Roman citizenship was a cleaver observation, because it was not mentioned by most of our sources (ie, Tacitus, Florus, Dio); Velleius seems to be the only one aware of it; in fact, he wrote that Arminius (and his father) even reached Equestrian status. At first sight, a case against Arminius and Sigimer's citizenship seems possible, because in addition to the silence of so many sources: - as far as I know, nowhere were their tria nomina mentioned (ie, "Gaius Julius Arminius"); - Sigimer and other family members retained the Germanic names. - Arminius' wife Thusnelda and son Thumelicus were carried to Germanicus' triumph (Strabo), a treatment hardly expected for even traitorous quirites. - Besides, Thumelicus might have been enslaved and died as a gladiator (however, I haven't been able so far to find the classical sources of that version). On the other hand, Vellius' testimony is hard to ignore, because his passage is the closest we get to a primary source account; Velleius reportedly met both Arminius and Varus.

Both statements clearly have a grain of salt, but hardly to the extent implied by our available sources.Recently some fellow UNRV members were complaining about the absolute lack of non-Romanophile narrative for the III Servile War; actually, such deficiency was prevalent along all Roman History and it was particularly painful for the narrative of the Punic Wars. The first- and second-hand sources of Polybius, the Annalists used by Livy and the unindentified independent sources for Appian and Dio were all used for primarily civic narratives, deliberately intended to nurture the Roman national pride; Roman defeats, no matter how absolute, couldn't have been explained (Gods forbid!) just by the even transient comparable or plainly superior performance of alien populations or armies. For justifying such Roman failures, an heroic supra-human Hannibal was an absolute requirement; the fact that he was on the Punic side would then have been just Roman bad luck. Otherwise, the Romans couldn't have even pretended that their own heroic deeds were comparable (if not superior) to those from the Homeric sagas, the Hellenic Medic Wars or the Macedonian expedition commanded by Alexander III. Hannibal's literary glorification was hardly an isolated case; something similar happened to the Homeric Hector, Spartacus and even Xanthippus for the first Punic War. Additionally, our main sources had their own propagandistic agendas: On one hand, Polybius wrote an apology for his patron Scipio clan, presumably supporting their return to the main scenario, after their political disaster of 183 BC. On the other, Livy made an exemplary praise of the good old Roman virtues at their best hour, clearly supporting the pretended moral justification of the Augustan Revolution. Therefore, a word of caution; the factual accounts are generally far less biased than the value judgments from these same authors. After all, the best quarterback is not enough by itself for getting the Superbowl, and the best general has never been enough for winning wars alone; trained soldiers, able officials and logistic support are absolute requirements, then, now and ever. - Enough was discussed some posts above within this same thread on the controversial description of the vast majority of Punic soldiers as

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

If you already have the article of David Olster Theodosius Grammaticus and the Arab siege of 674-78 from Byzantinoslavica 56 (1), pg 23-28, 1995, you probably know more on this issue than most people here. If that's not the case, that article is a must for you; a copy can be ordered from that link .

Embarrassing his contemporaries by their comparison with an idealized vision of their elders was hardly an original idea from Sallust, either on a Roman or a global scale; just ask Jeremiah, Confucius or Cato Censorius. A lazy lifestyle was then Sallust

Wrong; roman auxiliaries performed outstandingly well under let say Scipio or Caesar's command. I agree, but I am talking about actual Roman cavalry with Roman recruits in it (like the 120 assigned to each Legion). These people were far less well trained for battle and were not a strong force at all. Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Wrong; roman auxiliaries performed outstandingly well under let say Scipio or Caesar's command.

Let

Thinking the unthinkable again, please note a terrific and well-balanced analysis on this issue is available in post # 8 from this same thread; nuff

I savored your sports parable too; regarding rebel slaves, when the mere existence is literally at stake even before the fight begins, no trick could be considered truly dirty. Interestingly, national traditions about a primordial collective enslavement are not so rare; just check out Exodus. However, regarding the nicety of our sources on Spartacus, you might be surprised for the number of fans that you can actually find; Spartacus was a legend on his own centuries before Fast and Kubrick., a quite honorable foe chanted from his own generation, maybe even from his own lifetime; his main contemporary account was done by Sallust, who explicitly stated that the rebel abuse of the Roman civil population was mostly done against Spartacus

Offending post deleted

In hindsight, another France would have been required for winning the War so easily, and certainly not under Gamelin's command; the III Republic patiently waited across eight months of phoney war for the III Reich to get ready and take the initiative, just for being utterly crushed after less than two weeks with negligible German casualties. The opportunistic Soviet diplomacy of the time was frequently cleaver, but if the SU became a superpower, that was due to a huge economic and military effort, essentially in spite of their diplomatic deeds. Let the numbers talk; after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact (Ags 23, 1939) the efficient Soviet diplomacy resulted in the loss of some 26,600,000 Soviet citizens (1/7 of their whole population), by far the largest national casualties figure from any international war in History (like two and a half times the global military deaths from World War I); even without reviewing their immense material losses, that didn't smell so much as victory as usually depicted. Let us now check out the side of the "dumb" American policy; little more than 400,000 US lives were lost (naturally including the Far East operations against Japan); even the UK itself lost far less citizens than in World War I. In spite of those relatively few casualties, the Allies were still able to crush the biggest military threat in History. The main explanation was, of course, the prudent use of the Red Army to kill Germans; like 4,300,000 of the 5,300,000 total casualties of the Wehrmacht were from the Eastern front. Didn't that smell a little more like victory? Now let us check on the political and military evolution of both the US and the SU by the early 1990s... I would say that Fabius Cunctator would have absolutely approved the strategy of one of them; guess which one.

Actually, what the Spartacus' opposition wanted (according to virtually all our sources) was to continue plundering and raiding Italy. The plans of the rebels are not entirely clear; if they were indeed running to their homelands (purportedly Gaul and Thrace), why would they have turned backwards after having utterly defeated the proconsul C. Cassius (of Cisalpine Gaul) and his two Legions (10,000 men) in Mutina? (Late 72 BC). From where I am, I can see two likely non-exclusive explanations: - Cassius' defeat may not have been so definitive as depicted by Plutarch and other sources, and he might have been expecting reinforcements soon (eg, from Fonteius in Transalpine Gaul or Curio in Macedonia). - Most of the rebels might actually have been either slaves from other provinces or peasants from Campania, Lucania and Bruttium; in the last moment, Gaul and Thrace would have simply seemed not friendly enough for them.

Hold your horses, people; multiple arguments are being debated simultaneously here. First the first; regarding Herr Hitler, you must be kidding. Just the idea of debating if he may have begun WWII or not seems like ludicrous to the nth degree, but then; here we go! No treaty has been perfect ever; under the rationale expressed before, there would simply never be an excuse for peace. In fact, under the same anti-Versailles logic, the Germans should attack their neighbors today, as their territorial losses relative to 1918 are currently far greater than in 1919; not to talk about the condition of Germany (any Germany) across the late 1940s and early 1950s. Chamberlain & Daladier had already accepted the return of virtually all the predominantly ethnic German territories to the Reich by the end of 1938; it was only after Herr Hitler conquered and opressed six millions of non-German Czechs when the compulsively aggressive Nazi policy became evident to even the most naive observer. Hitler's attitude regarding the UK seems to have been indeed equivocal at the beginning; he may even have truly expected to share the World conquest with the British Empire. In any case, it's hard to imagine how the invasion of British allies would have not been perceived as an act of war. Besides, Herr Hitler had already begun his Plan Z (improvement of the Kriegsmarine) in the early 1939, violating the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935. And the first civil sinking (SS Athenia) was performed by the U-30 (Lemp) at the very first day of the war, quite far from any potential war zone. Naturally, regarding France there were never double thoughts; the invasion was planned from long before the war. On the unprovoked German invasion of many countries not related with Versailles, please check on my previous post.

Wrong; WWII was started by Herr Hitler; please check on your sources. I suppose one could argue that Britain and France were to blame when they made the treaty of Versailles and got the Germans angry. If they had not taken land away from Germany then maybe World War 2 never would have happened. ...but then, if Germany had not taken Alsace - Lorraine off France and humiliated them at the Siege of Paris in the Franco - Prussian war, the provisions of the Treaty of Versaiiles may not have been as far reaching... But if France had not started the Franco-Prussian war in the first place... And what if Cain had not killed Abel? And what if the Neanderthals were not wiped out by the Sapiens? And what if conflict were not inherent to the human condition? Historical philosophy aside, Herr Hitler began WWII entirely on his own, expressly against the best opinion of most of his generals and advisers. When he attacked Poland, he was perfectly aware of what he was doing; and even if the Allies wouldn't have retaliated, we now know he was going to attack them anyway (please somebody tell me that was such a big surprise!). Herr Hitler never denied such fact, and as far as I can tell, he was always proud of it. And of course, no Versailles could be argued for the Nazi invasion of Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece, Russia or Denmark (in fact, the Schleswig was left untouched). Even more; Herr Hitler had no problem with the former Austrian Istria and Trentino regions remaining in Italian hands.

Depending on your personal taste and operative definitions, Herr Hitler may still fit. Wrong; WWII was started by Herr Hitler; please check on your sources. Yup, a radioactive desert might be considered a better choice than any compromise by some people.

PS: the fullest account on the former professional life of Spartacus was reconstructed by the Roman historian Florus (II century): " the man who, from being a Thracian mercenary, had become a soldier, and from a soldier a deserter, then a highwayman, and finally, thanks to his strength, a gladiator." This account was openly and utterly apologetic; Florus knew "not what name to give to the war" at which "the latter men of the worst class

From where I am, both explanations are rather simplistic, because: That is the kind of jingoistic apologetic explanation that all military powers give when defetaed: "They were able to defeat us because they were like us". For example, some people attributed the Japanese victories of 1942 to the former studies of the Japanese commander (Admiral Yamamoto) in America! Regarding Spartacus, the tradition of him being a Roman auxiliary was late (II century) and essentially without evidence. Plutarch even described Spartacus as "Hellenic" (???). It was of course possible that Spartacus had served in the Roman Army, but that was obviously also the case for thousands of Roman auxiliaries (at least in the same number as the true legionaries). It's clear that there were never thousands of Spartacus; basic Roman infantry training was hardly enough to become a Hannibal or an Alexander. Besides, please note it was a standard excuse; the same was said about Arminius after Teutoteburg. Plainly, you didn't have to be a Roman to be a good general. Just ask Surena (the Parthian that crushed Crassus) All rebel slaves have fought for their freedom ever, without exception; the military performance of the vast majority has been rather poor. As any general and soldier know, a good moral is not enough. Besides, most of the available sources consistently reported notorious signs of insubordination and lack of discipline from Spartacus' army. In fact, most of the other rebel slaves that we know by name were killed (with their men) for having disobeyed Spartacus (ie, Crixus, Gannicus, Castor).