Hamilcar Barca

According to Polybius, Hannibal remained undefeated on the battlefield until Zama. Livy tells another story, but even then he occasionally hints that his sources may well have trumped up minor skirmishes and draws to make the appear as Roman victories. In any case, Zama was like no battle fought in Italy. The Carthaginian mercinary army which crossed the Alps and won the great battles of Trebia, Trasimenae and Cannae was without doubt, the finest Punic army ever raised and commanded by the most competent generals that Carthage ever produced. I'm not just talking about Hannibal here. Hasdrubal and Marharbal - his cavalry commanders played vital roles in all the major battles and proved to be loyal, diligent and efficient in virtually all their endeavours. It was after all Hasdrubals devastating Cavalry charge that sent the Roman right wing to rout and thus allowed the encirclment of the Roman infantry masses at Cannae. More so, Hannibal only ever let himself get drawn into battles when he was absolutely sure of himself. This worked fine for him in Italy but when Scipio invaded North Africa, Hannibal was forced to take action, whether or not he believed he had an effective plan was irrelevant, Carthage's survival was at stake, he had to do something. If Hannibal had been faced with that same battle taking place in Italy, I can almost guarantee he would have avoided it, why? The Punic army of 202BC was ill-trained, inexperienced and the various units and contingents within it were completely out of sync with one another. At Zama, the fate of the battle almost entirely rested on the infantry - Hannibal arranged his infantry in three lines: the first consisted of the Ligurian, Balearic and Gallic infantry who had made up Mago

Something which has been bugging me for a while: I always hear people pronounce Diocletian's name differently, can someone tell me what is the correct pronounciation?

Yes, for some reason the default was set to draft.

Sorry I forgot to thank you Viggen. I just started the other day, great stuff.

Got the book today thanks PP

I think they misinterpreted my answers because I ended up as a Brute, no one has ever called me that before. WTF Brute You are 42% Rational, 42% Extroverted, 71% Brutal, and 57% Arrogant. You are the Brute! You are introverted, arrogant, brutal, and more intuitive than rational. Like a big, dumb animal, you are driven by your emotions more than your reason, and as a result of the fact that you care very little for the feelings of others, you tend to be rather selfish. Because of your selfishness, you also tend to be a bit arrogant, seeing yourself as big or strong or smart or always correct. This makes you a stubborn, irrational, emotion-driven brute. King Kong best represents the gorilla-version of your personality. Emotional, introverted (King Kong was isolated on his own island, after all), brutal, and arrogant (proud to be the largest ape on Earth!), Kong would probably get along very well with you, seeing as how you share many of the same traits. Aside from, you know, all the fur. So your personality defect is simply that you resemble King Kong to a very high degree. Which probably isn't a good thing, you big brute! To put it less negatively: 1. You are more INTUITIVE than rational. 2. You are more INTROVERTED than extroverted. 3. You are more BRUTAL than gentle. 4. You are more ARROGANT than humble. Compatibility: Your exact opposite is the Hand-Raiser. Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Class Clown, the Schoolyard Bully, and the Sociopath.

Great! Hopefully, I'll have the revview back by then.

Thanks for the link Silentium

Woah... Spammer alert.

Sure that sounds great, I have been a little quiet lately but thats only because of the amount of Uni work that I have going right now. I'd definitley get round to doing it though.

Three reasons is quite limited, given the magnitude of the question you asking. But to answer it quickly i'd say: 1. Poor leadership and protocol on behalf of the Emperors 2. Barbarian incursion and incorporation within the Empire 3. Countless civil wars Read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

Thanks Ursus, I can always count on you for concise answers.

Who were the Tarquins as an ethnic group? Were they Etruscan or Latin? After their defeat at Lake Regillus and the death of L. Superbus, they more or less disapear from history, I was just curious as to where they went to.

In no particular order... Best Cult film Pulp Fiction (I can't belive no one mentioned this) Western The Magnificent Seven Action Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Comedy Either Monty Pythons "Search for the Holy Grail" or "The meaning of Life" War Saving Private Ryan Horror Silence of the Lambs Fantasy LOTR Return of the King Sci-Fi Return of the Jedi Historical Gladiator Misc Back to the Future If you are talking about the one with the highway patrol men then that is one of/the worst movie(s) I have ever rented out.

AVG Respect yo. Peace out.

Sure Commodus wasn't as bad as guys like Caligula or Nero, but lets face it he was still a bad Emperor. Yes his reign was one of relative peace and stability but it was on behalf of his predessors that this was the case. I guess we should just be grateful that he didn't come to power during a more troubled time in the Empire when his ecentricties, poor leadership and bad behaviour may have pushed the empire into decline at an even faster rate... but then we had Honorius to that instead. How that man reigned for 28 years and died of natural causes, is, well, increadible considering just how inept his leadership was. The only thing eventful he ever did in his reign was kill Stilicho, and that was the stupidest thing anyone ever could have done.

I just realised that Honorius really belongs on this list as well.

Ancient: Livy, but also Ammianus Marcellinus for his rare insights into the 4th Century. Recent: Goldsworthy/Gibbon (relatively recent )

You missed Indonesia on your largest armies list.

I would love to have been able to read the complete books of Livy, sure he an be over the top, but he's usually accurate and tells a great story.

Well if you choose to look at the question ultra loosely then tangify from it then I see how you could present a very warped argument in its favour; but I know many people who actually believe that slaves in the raditional sense took over the empire, having based their knowldege on a film made in the 60's The way the quote was implied was that the Roman slaves revolted and conquered the empire in a way similar to what Spartacus probabaly dreamed of. Roman slaves did not conquer Rome. Yes, the Goths and the Germans etc caused the eventual downfall of the empire but they were NOT slaves, they were slowly integrated within the borders of the empire after emperors had no choice but to except them owing to a series of unprecedented military reverses, the crucible of this attrition of course been the Adrianople disaster of 378. This empire may have lasted much longer had it not been for the absolutely apalling leadership of Theodosius' sons. Theodosius himself had practicly restored the empire by 390, crushing both rivals and invaders but Honorius and Arcadius were quick to change all that though... Within a year of the famed general Stilicho's murder by Honorius, Rome had been sacked. Of course Stilicho was a barbarian, but he considered himself Roman and was a loyal and brilliant commander, not like the later Richimer - the puppet master of the last 9 'emperors.'

Who ever said that slaves caued the downfall of Rome is an igonorant fool.

There is a great book called "The Byzantine Wars" by John Haldon which was published in 2000, unfortunatly its all out of print now, but you may be able to find it in a decent library. The book covers from 527 - 1171AD and covers key wars, battles and other major military operations of the Byzantine army, as well as describing the organisation of the army as a whole.

Well, I think the Romans just had better things to do, thats all. The Caladonians were smashed at the battle of Mons Grapius in 84AD. But as soon as the legions went away, they all rose up again and kept rebelling no matter how many times they were ethnicly clensed. Scotland wasn't paticularly attractive to the Romans anyway - too cold and hilly - they never really made a big deal about securing it. Of course Hadrian and Antonius Pius put their walls up to keep them out of Britain though. Latter on Septimis Severus attempted to conquer them but fell ill and died before he could finish doing it. Huge amounts of Scots, Picts and Saxns also swarmed into Britain in 367AD, but Theodosius thrashed them. I don't know about this, the Romans evacuated Britain on their own accord after their borders were crumbling back on the mainland at the start of the 5th Century.

" " (Yes, T.G. was by far the most influential, everyone else has explained why)