Centurion-Macro

I suppose it really depends how embarassed you may feel if you consider yourself to be a trained physicist and have actually read this entry in the last 100 years or so without noticing that it was wrong Very true...but surely you do not need a dictionary to realize what it means?

Bit late, but happy birthday to you!

Any fans of 'Eagle Of the Ninth' here?

If it is non fiction I have no answer, as I enjoy them all. If it is fiction, I would go with Eagle In the Snow. It is so well researched.

The Silver Pigs by Linsey Davis. I surprisingly like the book, as it offers a change from Roman legionary stories. I like a bit of variety.

Whoa...I don't mean to be rude to the guy or anything, but who cares?

Personally, I don't know why a lot are going for Rome. It was terribly overcrowded and had a lot of crime and problems in it.

Ditto. I've found it is especially good for non-academic areas of research, such as pop culture. Indeed. it is a grand source if you are looking for quick answers, but if you use it as a formal source for information (such as history facts etc) it can be incorrect.

Probably Britannia, as I would have settled there after my legionary retirement (if I survived).

I got Marcus Aurelius, he was my top one.

There was more to Romans than politics and militarism. I know. However, I do not see why anyone would want to buy a book on Roman weddings, other than for research.

Why all the fuss over it? It was role playing.

I enjoy Wikipedia articles, although I know better than to take everything written there too seriously. But it is a nice place to go for some quick information.

I am unsure of exact risks, but bandits were common, especially in the late Republic, where even pirates were raiding the Via Appia (main road into Rome). But bandits on roads were indeed present, and probably very common in more populated roads, such as the Via Appia, where senators and merchants regularly passed through.

I believe the Romans and Parthians were complete opposites, so yes they were a worthy opponent. While the Romans used foot soldiers, the Parthians used horse archers, and both had their fair share of wins. But the Parthians were masters of the desert, and I do believe in the Parthians terrain (desert) the Romans were inferior unless they had strong cavalry escorts for their legionaries.

Looks good, although I don't see why anyone would want to read about Roman weddings. I personally don't know anyone who would find that remotely interesting. However the Rise and fall of Ancient Rome looks extremely good.

Hello to our two new members! Although we may look big and all that, once you get to know your way around it will be a breeze. Please ask if you have a question

I do not know exact wording, but I think it would be something similar to that which you quote above, although probably something not so 'Hollywood epic'.

Welcome to the forum! It is good to have new members on the forum, and I hope you will have a nice time here.

Looking good. I think they need to stop with all the Roman Britain stuff though. I believe it focused on too much with books. Sure, it was fascinating and all that, but there are other interesting areas with less books published about them.

Yes, but this is a late empire legion, where the men were less trained, less motivated and were overall weaker than their early empire counter parts. So they were not well disciplined, and the additional soldiers would probably be Numeri or other untrained auxiliary soldiers.

I agree with this. If it assumes another formation, say a wedge, it is no longer a phalanx, but a wedge. ~I personally hate the phalanx tactic. It is a dirty way of fighting in my opinion, as you never really connect with your opponent. You just stab your spear and hope you hit someone, while in turn hoping not to get hit. The Roman way of fighting was a lot more flexible and successful.

I think it was corrupt in the fact there were a lot of 'dud' emperors who did not know what they were doing, and corrupted the empire for their own gains. This lead to the army being conflicted and often used in civil wars, meaning it started to lose its loyalty and funding, and therefore less able to fight foreign threats. It was all the emperors. Focus on them and the frequent changes of emperors by the Praetorian guard (etc) and you should go well. Good luck and I hope you do well.

In my opinion, it is a number of things which determines how combat is won. The two that are the most important is skill and motive. Skill is important because it will enable you to fight better, and have a better chance of survival. Motive is why you fight. If you are fighting for your homeland and its survival, or if you are in a losing situation you will have an edge. For example, the Germans facing the Russians outside Berlin. They knew they had no where to run, and so the ragtag army held them off for two days against all odds because they had motive to fight. Equipment is a factor, but it can be dismissed. The same can be said for terrain. It is a bonus, but having the right terrain does not ensure victory. Morale and skill does. In that scenario it looks like the person you describe is a Roman facing a Greek phalanx or something similar to that. But personally I do not know enough about the other side to see who would win. What are the others thinking?

Just finished reading 'The Last Battle'. It is about the battle for Berlin in 1945. It shows all sides, and talks about the western allies, German army, Russian army, along with civilians at the time. It is a great book, and it is packed with information. If you are into World War 2 I suggest you read it. It gives detailed accounts of Russian preparations and assaults, and it also tells of how General Henrici tried to rally the Germans to hold them, which he did for two days with only two understrength armies against a million Russians. It also talks of Hitlers last days in the Fuhrer bunker.