Hamilcar Barca

Marcus Antonius' father was an admiral of some distinction. He had served in several campaigns against Cretan piracy, but he seems not to have passed his seafaring talents on to his son. At Actium, Antony was seasick while his men were in horrible condition, in fact so many of them had deserted or died of disease that he was forced to scuttle many of his ships. Agrippa and Octavian may have been outnumbered but really, they had this one in the bag.

Varro and Valens. Maybe their intentions weren't bad but the repercusions of the actions were disastrous. Worst personality award goes to Nero.

Thanks for beating me too it PP. Tiberius - Don't try and show people up without doing some research first, it just seems rude. Yes, Macrinus and Diadumenian reigned for a year after Caracella before they were killed but their reigns were insignificant. All that was achieved was a disgraceful peace with the Parthians and the embittermen of the entire army. I skipped over them the same way people often skip Quintillus when going from Claudius II to Aurelian. Commodus was killed via strangulation, Elagabalus was thrown in the Tiber. : 160 - 180 Marcus Aurelius, - philospher 180 - 192 Commodus ^ son - self declared Hercules 192 Pertinax - trillionare 192 - 193 Didius Julianus - Usurper 193 - 211 Septimus Severus 211 Geta ^ son 211 - 217 Caracella ^^son - caped psychopath April 217 - June 218 Macrinus 218 Diadumenian ^ son 218 - 222 Elagabalus - effeminate syrian 222 - 235 Severus Alexander ^ cousin

I think thats a great idea and will buy a map once these adjustments are complete I think Trebia 218BC should be included for the third century BC I would include Tigranocerta from the year earlier opposed to this battle, it was a far greater battle. Of the last wars of the republic I would include: 52 Alesia 48 Dyrrhachium 48 Pharsalus 47 Zela 46 Thapsus 45 Munda 43 Mutina 42 Phillipi I/II 38 Gindaris 36 Naulochus 31 Actium Of Trajans Persian campaign I am unfamiliar, sorry.

Jupiter

Caracella was the inspiration behind Lucas' Darth Vader. Serious.

I did enjoy reading Juvenal. With regards to their accuracy of the times, it is fair to say that this is so although they are of course exagerated, just like any satire. Juvenal's bitterness and fierce dislike of Domitian "the bald Nero", stem from the fact that he was exiled to Egypt in his younger years following a blistering oration against a poet whom Domitian had a liking for. Up until then, Juvenal had lived a reasonably comfortable life, but with all his possessions confiscated, he was forced to squalor in Egypt where he not suprisingly developed an impassioned hatred for the locals, something to whom he would later dedicate an entire book. This hatred was compounded by the fact that among Domitian's top advisors, was an Egyptian called Crispus, of whom he hated in paticular. Another statire was later written about foreigners taking all the good jobs which belonged to Romans. (sounds familiar) After the death of Domitian he was recalled from his exile by Nerva, but found himself just as impoversished. Owing to this he to seeked help from the Patrician classes with the client tributary system. Essentially this was where a wealthy Patrician, in order to show his good faith towards humaity, took a number of Plebians under his wing as clients by giving them financial advice, a daily ration of bread or coins or occassionally inviting them over for a lavish dinner. Juvenal evidently found corruption within this system first hand, writing about how Patricians did such deeds just to win the esteem of their colleagues, but rarely did little to help. As years went on, Juvenal asummingly built up some sort of wealth and in his later years lived a reasonably comfortable life, at which point his satires become less aggressive and more philosphoical. e.g. The Satire detailing what a man should and should not strive for in life. The satires are great insights into contemporary Roman life in the 1st and 2nd Century AD but of course Juvenal is keen to only focus on everything which is wrong with the times and clearly has a republican bias. In any case, the books are an insightful and humerous read, his book condemning Egyptians and homosexuals is a must read.

I have no life outside the internet, I'm actually just a piece of spamming software which periodically responds to random threads with pre-programmed commentaries... Actually I'm a 19 year old advertising student in New Zealand whose just begun summer break. I go to the gymn four times a week, and asides from a keen interest in military history and Roman civilisation I also enjoy cooking, writing, reading, snow skiing, designer clothing and socializing. I hate and embrace the genocide of the following things: Hippies, Goths (the contemporary type), Punks, Druggies, Political correctness and idiots.

I myself have been trying to piece together decent historians of the Third Century AD for a private project. Amongst those already mentioned I'd add Aurelius Victor, Zosimius and Jornandes (For his information on the Gothic incursions).

This made me laugh. :stupid:

Hey, any time. I had a great time reading it and stand by what I say when I denounce that it was excellent.

Well, village massacres certainly did continue but everything else you point out there is correct. I was simply pointing out that Christianity did little to curb cruel and thoughtless violence. I have no doubt that there were people in such times who displayed good will and compasionate kindness to their fellow man, but it is kind of funny that those running the Church was often the last group of people which did just that. I was raised in a Christian Family and while I commend basic Christian principles like any normal person does as well as hold in great reverence in respect the great Pope John Paul II. Their almost unbroken span of crimes and follies spanning the last 2,000 years cause me to criticize them indefinatley. No organisation is perfect but lets be honest, some Popes/cardinals/bishops have gone down in history alongside the worst men who ever lived. So its not Christianity which I 'm having a go at, its some of those that were supposadly 'running' it. I've unintentionally turned this into a rant. Sorry.

For people accused of dishonesty, Domitian would incinerate their genitals. Amputation of the hands seems to have been the standard disciplinary measure for rebelious barbarians. Scipio Africanus did it, Scipio Aemelianus did it, Caesar did it plenty. This was also the punishment that the Western emperor Majorian chose for people who defaced public monuments during his brief reign in the 460's. (I think it should still be used) Aurelian had quite a nice one reserved for adulterers. Basicly the accused was tied between two huge trees which were then cut down in different directions, tearing their legs and arms off, who was then left to die.

The consuls commanding the fleet at Ecnous were Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso. Glad to see that Naissus got some star attention here, it was a well overdue payback for the disaster that was Abbritus in 251AD. Also worthy of mention. Lake Regillus in 496BC. Sure, the details given by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus are dubious, but it was no doubt a decisive Roman victory which ensured the survival of the Republic at its most vunerable time. Also worthy of mention is Sentinum in 295BC. Of all the actions fought in the Samnite wars, the highest stakes were rested upon this one. Rome was pitted against the combined might of all its Italian enemies and a defeat would have resulted in the capital been wide open to a attack. Agrigentum in 262BC. This essentially ensured the Roman domination of Sicily very early on in the First Punic War. Had the Carthaginians won, the war would have likely been protracted with even greater long term stalemate. Or how about Julian II's victory at Strasbourg n 257AD? Outnumbered 35,000 to 13,000, the Romans lost only 247 men for 6,000 enemy dead and many more captured including their commander, Chnodomar. Fought not on the same epic size of many other great Roman victories, it was none-the-less an impressive triumph.

It is also worth noting that neither Livy or Plutarch make any mention of the device described by Zonaras who was writing 1300 years after the siege of Syracuse. Livy himself is fond of dramatizing his writings where ever possible, so if he doesnt mention it, it proabably never happened. Thanks for the info though.

Marcus Antonius Aurelius (nicknamed Caracella for the type of dark cape he liked to wear) was crowned co-emperor with his brother Geta in 211BC upon the death of their father. He and Geta had a long standing hatred of one another which later in that same year, led Caracella plotting to assasinate him. He set up a trap inviting him over in a pretended effort to make peace, but instead had him stabbed to death. His brother was not without friends though and Carcella engaged in an enormous purge, killing anyone who was associated or had sympathies with Geta. A total of 20,000 were supposadly killed, a good majority of them been inocent. Of course such actions made him wildly unpopular but he knew that the key to staying in power was winning the favor of the army. Thus he raised their salary to 4 denarii a day and also granted ciizenship to all male inhabitants of the empire. All this came at an enormous financial strain to the treasury, setting it up for the crisis which would occur in just a few decades. He did however obtain his objective in becoming popular with his troops. Caracella was, if not mad, certainly delusional. He believed he was a reincarnation of Alexander the Great and even had a ceremonial phalanx created. Just like Alexander, an expedition was launched against the eastern Parthians although unlike Alexander's, Caracella's was a pointless and lackluster effort which served merely to inflame them. He was eventually stabbed to death in 217BC after a ploy was set up for him to visit the oracle at Siwah. That was Elgabalus, he came to power after Caracella.

The Byzantines weren't model christians either. Yes they fought and often won fantastic victories in the name of God but that didn't mean they were compassionate and merciful. Its a long standing paradox that Christinaity did absolutely nothing to stop horrific violence. Disgusting cruelty pops up frequently in Byzantine history. The Hippodrome massacre of 533, The Arabic mass executions by Basil I in 878(?) The Bulgar blinding incident of Basil II, or how about the execution of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1185 (Hung in a pillory for a week while they bet him with bludgeons, smashed out all his teeth with a hammer and axed off his right hand. The mob then paraded him through the streets of Constaninople tied to a camel and led him to the Hippodrome for more torture. He then had poured boiling water over his face and his right eye was plucked out before been flayed alive. Death only came to him after he was disemboweled.), the list goes on and on. All these actions were done in the name of God. Its also worth noting that according to the Byzantines, all attempts to ursurp the throne were legitamate by God... as long as you succeeded. The morality of what you did to attain power was a redundant factor. Likewise a fall from grace was seen as nothing more than God shifting his favor from one person to the next. Medieval Christiniaty was mostly a farce.

Fascinating, its findings like that truly put into perspective just how more there is to discover.

Hmm, I' not sure about Vercingtorix. Sure he bet Caesar at Georgovia, but when he outnumbered him 4:1 at Alesia he failed miserably. Then again, its hard to look good when your fighting Caesar. I guess the same can be said for everyone who fought him though. Kinda feel sorry for them, in the long run they never really stood a chance.

Yes, I have been there and purchased coins as well. Recommend Forvm Ancient coins Also see the ebay store Ancient Auction House. You can realy get some great deals there. A.A.H.

Great job Ursus, very compelling.

Trading merchant, living up the good life in pre-79 Pompeii.

I was pleased to see that Epaminondas made it to the top tier, he was in my opinion the greatest Greek general after Alexander.

Wow, I'd look forward to seeing it if I knew that Vin Diseal wasn't going to take the starring role. Hannibal Barca deserves far more credit than to be represented by a disgrace like him. Ugh, it actually disgusts me. I could be wrong and he may do a great job - I hope to hell he does - but from his past roles he just doesn't seem fitted to play as one of histories most celebrated men. From what I read they seem to have gotten it historicly inaccurate already, apparantly basing it on the invention that Hamilcar Barca was assassinated by Romans and that the movie if about Hannibal's vengeance upon them. WRONG. I would however love to see a cinematic recreation of Cannae - that has potential to kick ass. No offence but that sounds like some of the worst posible casting scenarios ever. Chris Rock as Massinissa? Thats a joke right?

Are they seriously doing a movie about Hannibal?