Favonius Cornelius

Well, yes, I think that was the point of having a substantial missile-mix; deny or neutralize one of your enemies major weapons systems. If you can negate the mounted archers then they're left with cataphracts vs Roman infantry and cavalry support, not good odds for the Parthians. Ah I see, I would agree with that. But would not the eastern horse archer, being both mounted and using a superior compound bow, still maintain the advantage? The slight elevation and better range, and also the ability to fire then withdraw quickly making the difference.

If this were true, North Korea would not exist. Like I said, there are times and moments (or areas) of regression or retardation of advancement in a total sum of progress. Chaos is always a fundamental aspect of life, this will always be so, but still there exists a general trend.

And these circumstances were such that the Parthians could not use or did not use their cavalry forces to greatest effect, agreed or disagreed?

Admittedly I am speaking in very broad terms. I disagree strongly that there is not a concept of unified human understanding. Sure it is not a prevalent and direct force, but it is there nonetheless. No nation in Europe (or nowadays the entire world) was/is secluded from the lessons learned from the next nation. Stories, habits and customs bleed over to the surroundings over time. I would say that the Roman experience of Kings under the early city is entirely a different animal compared to the Imperial rule. There are many shades of tyranny, many different combinations of the same thing, one must experiment with them all before moving on to the next step like a baby putting things it finds to its mouth while crawling through the dirt. Your suggestion that regression is just as likely is only true on the microscopic scale, but on the macroscopic, even a time of troubles is sometimes required to make it to the next level of understanding, and if you look back at the last 5,000 years of history I think that is abundantly clear.

Heh, but the sword has a way of cutting oh so easily through all the Gordian Knots of convoluted governmental structure and protocol. I think that all this was not a matter of structure or law, but a matter of human maturity. Everywhere one looks during the times, there are kingdoms and despotisms and empires. The Romans knew this too, that their Republic was a unique form among so many authoritarian ways. Made it easy to blame the Republic for any problems, and indeed it's form was a cause of some problems. I think humanity needed to learn some more lessons in despotism, tyranny and fear before really appreciating the need for Republics and Democracies.

Hell no. Wither them down with arrow fire for as long as possible or until they break, then run them down with a cataphract charge. Textbook and unstoppable. The challange to the Roman commander then would be to avoid the situation and fight on his own terms.

Ayn Rand huh? I think that might explain a few things about your mode of thinking Cato. As for myself, I'm pretty boring: Gladiator and The Hobbit

Heh heh...should probably do that.

I think the difference is application as well. Sure one could say that the early cavalry 'did it's job,' but the important point is the later cavalry did it's job and also expanded upon the role due to the progress of military science. Later cavalry was not so much making up for the lack of the infantry as dealing with the realities of the new battlefields of quick and mounted Parthians and Persians, and the over-running heavy cavalry of Goths and Huns. You say that cavalry is secondary to a good solid heavy infantry unit, but I think the many Roman defeats in the east clearly highlight the weaknesses of a slow and heavily armored unit, no matter how disciplined and professional they might be.

Toward the end of the Empire, both halves employed more cavalry than the early glory days of the legion, particularly in the east where they were constantly having to deal with horse riding Goths and Parthian/Persians. I think the fall of the west militairly had more to do with lack of good leadership and lack of manpower.

So your mother frequents this forum ?LOL No, she barely uses the computers I get her, but raising two kids on her own makes her my biggest hero. I know sappy. If I had to pick a fictional hero though, I might pick Gordon Freeman. Not sure if he counts, wonder if anyone knows who he is...

I saw it. It was enjoyable actually, the parts played by the eastern and western leaders were decent. The battles blew miserably, and Atilla was passed off as some romantic hero and I assure you if the viewers saw the real man I am sure this would not be their take on the situation.

My mom.

What would the world be like without Christianity? What would the world be like without grass? Or trees, or painting, or eyes, or... Impossible to conjecture upon, because life is stranger than fiction.

The noble Emperor Julian, I admire any of those 'lasts.'

Is it possible to say that the grain dole resulted in an artificial concentration of population in Rome itself, and this led to some actual benefits: perhaps a population to more easily conscript a sizable army, the joining together of ideas and concepts to spur on creative and technological progress, or even cause a boost to manufacture?

I welcome 2006, should be another eventful year on many levels. Hope it is a good one for all of you!

Since I started this topic, I feel free to say that analogies and tangents related to modern 'grain doles' are totally ok in this thread. I think they help bring things into context.

I'm no Byzantine expert, but I thought that it was more than just a big issue. Particularly in later years, the control of trade with the east I thought was it's prime economic resource, agriculture being something in the background.

I always was interested in Rome, but Gladiator was a movie long in the waiting. I think in no small way that the greatness of the movie caused a reanalysis of Roman history by all levels of western society. Soon after you see a great number of movies come out with a Roman theme, and also the Rome series on HBO. The history channels take new looks at the history and a number of games have come out since then during the times of the Romans. People in this decade are more familiar with the Romans than they have in probably decades, and even political pundits of various kinds compare today's American empire to the Romans.

Tanya and I opened some presents sent from far away then cleaned the house for the rest of the day. But our reward was a freshly baked red and blackberry pie. mmm

Ya my grandma has had two nasty falls in the last few years herself. It's tough on those old ladies to be breaking things at that age.

Actually a god, but his earthly beast manifestation was mythological in the western sense: Quatzequatl. http://www.crystalinks.com/quetzalcoatl.html

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the grain dole given out at Rome through its entire history. During the Republic it was used as a method of gaining popularity with the people for elections, and also equally used as a reason for prosecution of those who used it in the slightest. Later the emperors tightly controlled it, for they knew the consequences of allowing the public to go hungry. The grain dole centralized quite a lot of people into one city from across Europe. Was it's implementation a mistake? Did Rome need such a population, and should it have controlled the grain more tightly to encourage colonization and productivity in other parts of the empire. If Rome could have maintained half its size and forced the people to move to locations like Gaul and Britannia would the west have stood?