sylla

Then our conceptions of what a battle (modern or ancient) is are radically different. For any reason, motivation seem to have not been enough for the multiple armies that the Roman were facing at the same time in Asia, Pontus, Armenia, the Balkans, Gaul and Spain... not to mention the millions of Gauls that Caesar conquered some years later. In any case, the rebel salve army didn't just win one single battle (by sheer luck???); it won more than one full campaign in the Roman own backyard, sometimes quite close to the City itself; an unsurpassed deed from Hannibal to Alaric; far beyond any purely psychological explanation in my book, and certainly weeell beyond Mithridates' army capabilities, which undoubtedly had plenty of "trained soldiers, able officials, effective weapons and operative logistics" by any measure. That is an interesting and disputed fact that seems to me to be still unsettled, depending on the authors that you consult on.

It seems that in Roman times many gladiators (and possibly most of the slaves and proletarians too) were vegetarians or quasi-vegetarians because meat was usually simply too expensive; the Plutarch diet may well have been their only alternative.

That has got to be one of the best quotes I've ever seen! And a bit ironic, because Dio knew by his actual review that after having executed 35 senators and more than 300 equites (possibly more than Caius himself), Claudius was a God after all.

In all seriousness and with all due respect, the problem here is plainly one of knowledge, because the facts speak for themselves, no matter which source might be used. The Rebels consistently neutralized and defeated for more than two years the same Roman army that was smashing Mithridates and his allies at the same time. The 72 BC campaign was a brilliant series of like a dozen major battles where the legions were systematically crushed (with only one exception). For destroying the rebels, the proconsul ML Crassus required no less than eight legions for six months, ie. a force analogous to what Caesar used to conquer Gaul within the same generation. Even so, decimatio was required to stimulate the legendary legionaries, an extreme measure that Caesar never had to use. Just pretending to debate if the terms "General", "Army" and "Strategy" should be applied to the description of such outstanding campaigns is absurd and ludicrous to the extreme. However, that may be the right answer for the wrong question, because we are here once again playing that curious game of pretending that a good general was all that it was required for defeating the Roman Republican Empire at its acme. This forum might well deserve a discussion on the additional required factors for such outcome. Ancient historians may have tried to pretend that, not only because of the sociological knowledge that they had not (and we supposedly have), but also because their accounts were basically apologetic; they were trying to explain the unimaginable, that the proud Roman Army that conquered the World was repeatedly routed by the vilest beings, below even the human condition. We simply can't use the same excuse; even if Spartacus (or any other of the rebel commanders) was of the same height that Alexander or Hannibal (needless to say, that would be impossible to determine) that would not have been even remotely enough for explaining the victorious campaigns of such generals, the same as having the best quarterback is not enough for getting the superbowl. We are not talking about personal combat here; a minimum of trained soldiers, able officials, effective weapons and operative logistics were essential (among other factors) the same as they were required by Alexander in Gaugamela and Hannibal in Cannae. How can we explain that such (and other) factors were present in the required quantity on the rebel side all along the III Servile War?

In the eastern part of the empire it's was common to worship the emperor as a god. the tradition on giving rulers divine honors started well before Alexander conquests, after the Hellenistic kingdoms consolidate themselves they adopted this practice which went with the Roman emperors after the annexation of the east. Caligula, unlike his predecessor Tiberius, had great enthusiasm for this practice. I've never heard that his cult continued after his death, what is your source for that? Delirious claims for divinity were standard accusations against

If we rely on the Historia Augusta ("Julius Capitolinus"), Altinum was where the unlucky Lucius Vero (Marcus Aurelius' co-emperor) died: "But not far from Altinum, Lucius, while in his carriage, was suddenly stricken with the sickness which they call apoplexy, and after he had been set down from his carriage and bled, he was taken to Altinum,and here he died, after living for three days unable to speak."

That's an excellent point; I'm not aware of any good explanation for this bizarre political experiment of Gaius, reported by both Suetonius (Caligula 16) and Dio (59,20). For two full administrative years (38-39 CE) the elections of magistrates and the ratification of laws were nominally restored to the popular assemblies, certainly not as in the old traditional Republic but in the "Augustan way" (eliminated by Tiberius); for any reason, it seems Gaius was more Republican than Sulla... After the end of this experiment, the electoral power (even if nominal) never came back, but the assemblies were still active at least up to Nerva. It's hard to determine the relevance (or lack of it) of this measure: Why was it promoted? And why was it suppressed? Was it a maneuver against the Senate? Was its suppression a measure for (or against) the Senate? Were there any significant administrative or economic consequences across those years? (eg, from the candidates' canvassing). Was the frequency of popular games across those years related to electoral activity? Was in any way the opposition against Gaius stimulated by this measure? (or by its suppression).

Why should one be annoyed? We are talking Mr Tapert here; even within fiction, "accuracy" has never been his expertise area. Actually, I think it's good news; a parodical fictional depiction of the Roman Republic on TV seems like a good way to stimulate the general public curiosity on the real stuff. QUOTE (SIC): "Obviously, the producers were pretty happy to take on a topic that didn't actually have a lot of facts to stick to". ????????????????????

Oooops! Sorry for that The religion of Iuppiter Dolichenus in the Roman army by Michael Speidel once again.

Thanks for your patient explanation.Among so many medieval male corpses, wouldn

The religion of Iuppiter Dolichenus in the Roman army by Michael Speidel Actually, this cult is relatively well-known; it was a "mystery religion" in the theological sense.

For beginnersBTW, I think the question on why the Republic didn't came back after the death of Caius (aka Caligula) is still an unsettled issue.

Since almost all ancient textiles were biodegradable, their absence would have hardly been then an unexpected finding in any possible scenario; so my guess is that, even after a millennium, some evidence of the cloths of so many victims should have been identified, even at the preliminary exam in the field.I

Will we get a mention in the credits for inspiring you to write about Stilicho?????? I suppose I should give credit where it's due - especially with regards to information etc. So, yes - the forum will get a mention!! Based on the original thread What biographies would you like to read? from a year ago (post # 15) the inspiration seems to have come from UNRV member Decimus Caesar, seconded by GPM (post #18).Congratulations for your new book and the topic choice, Sonic. A rather controversial title, from the "Vandal" to the "saved".Even if Stilicho is thoroughly studied in multiple books on the Fall of the Western Empire, Amazon.com currently mentions just one modern biography (Stilicho by Tido Jan

That's news to me. Please tell us more.

The short answer first: Ethics and Religion are independent domains. I'm not aware of any research that compares the perceived ethical quality of diverse religious groups with the number of deities revered by them. Now the long one: Even if ethics and related philosophy may be largely subjective, they are always based on hard facts that may (and should) be the object of the regular rules of evidence. As Ethics is so relevant for both daily life and metaphysics, most religions have highly developed ethical doctrines on their own: however, Ethics by itself is not religious. In fact, religious dogma inevitably cripples ethical research; ritual mutilation, diet restriction and other taboo are then, by definition, right. The opposition of the Catholics and other churches against reproductive control is a paramount example. Presumably many true believers of any religion actually believe true Ethics are fundamentally restricted to their religion; that is of course pure naive jingoism. By its own nature, religion (any religion) most naturally tends not to be tolerant. Besides, poly and monotheism are not well-defined mutually exclusive categories, mainly because there is no unanimous definition for "God"; arguably, any monotheism is the cult of a polytheist divinity with an attitude. For example, Catholics might well be perceived as "polytheistic" relative to Presbyterians, both relative to Jehovah's witnesses and all relative to Islam; and the purportedly "dualistic" Zoroastrianism might be even more "monotheistic", because the supposedly "evil God" is in fact no God, as it is not revered at all. Many classical cults were basically monotheism (even if non-Abrahamic); just check out Appuleius on Isis. Or Mithras. And of course, eternal ultraterrestrial punishment ("Hell") is not required by many religions (in fact, most of them) for the preservation of their respective religious ethics.

Trick and treason have hardly been the monopoly of any army at any time and place.My guess is that SS (no pun intended ) Galba was playing by the rules; if the Lusitanians were careless enough for being caught, bad for them. The judicial case against Galba was not from an international tribunal but just from internal Roman political struggle. History is written by the winners; if a negative depiction on Galba's strategy has survived, it was mainly because he was facing Cato Censorius, who was far better represented in our available sources. BTW, talking on honor an treason, it was the same Cato Censorius of the infamous Delenda est Carthago. At least in the short term, Galba's strategy worked; that's why the popular assembly acquitted him. If SS Galba was incompetent and greedy, their successors were not better.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, war has never been nice; it is brutal by its own nature. There

Point taken and sorry for that; I owe the forum an apology.

Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitates sollicitari. his legationibus responsum est curae eam rem senatui fore; consultatio de Macedonico bello integra ad consules, qui tunc in prouinciis erant, reiecta est. interim ad Ptolomaeum Aegypti regem legati tres missi, C. Claudius Nero M. Aemilius Lepidus P. Sempronius Tuditanus, ut nuntiarent uictum Hannibalem Poenosque et gratias agerent regi quod in rebus dubiis, cum finitimi etiam socii Romanos desererent, in fide mansisset, et peterent ut, si coacti iniuriis bellum aduersus Philippum suscepissent, pristinum animum erga populum Romanum conseruaret. Eodem fere tempore P. Aelius consul in Gallia, cum audisset a Boiis ante suum aduentum incursiones in agros sociorum factas, duabus legionibus subitariis tumultus eius causa scriptis additisque ad eas quattuor cohortibus de exercitu suo, C. Ampium praefectum socium hac tumultuaria manu per Umbriam qua tribum Sapiniam uocant agrum Boiorum inuadere iussit; ipse eodem aperto itinere per montes duxit. Ampius ingressus hostium fines primo populationes satis prospere ac tuto fecit. delecto deinde ad castrum Mutilum satis idoneo loco ad demetenda frumenta

This could be a reference to Book 10 Chapter 15 in which Polybius describes the sacking of New Carthage thus:- ".......according to the Roman custom; their orders were to exterminate every form of life they encountered, sparing none, but not to start pillaging until the word was given to do so. This practice is adopted to inspire terror, and so when cities are taken by the Romans you may often see not only the corpses of human beings but dogs cut in half and the dismembered limbs of other animals........" Excellent spotting; I don