Felix Marcellus

Vercingetorix was having great success against Caesar when he was using a Fabian strategy. Had he continued on that course he may very well have prolonged the fighting indefinitely. When he chose to go to Alesia he sealed his fate. Once there, he could've done nothing short of inventing 60mm mortars, M16's, Hand Grenades, Claymore Mines and Apache's in order to break out. And I don't think Vercingetorix was that much of a genius to invent that kind of military hardware.

I think the Producer and Director of "Empire" did Rome its greatest disservice.

Who did that?

Celts, Germanics, Iberians, etc. were not civilised? Of coure not. They wore fur loincloths and spend their days headbutting each other over the domination of females. Right? Right? Why are you quoting me on that. Did I say they weren't civilized? If I did say or imply it I meant from a Roman perspective. From a Roman perspective very few were considered civilized. From my perspective, none are civilized. We're all barbarians capable of committing horrible atrocities at any time. It all depends on your environment and experiences.

It looks like an aileron from an old Bulgarian Hang Glider. No doubt used in bombing runs over Byzantine formations. First introduced into the Bulgarian order of battle in the late 4th century and... let me stop now. I couldn't resist. Ladies and gentlemen, might I propose we do a little brainstorming. It will likely result in nothing, but it might be interesting. First, to find out what it might be let's think of everything we can think of that stone was used for in the 5th century. Fortresses, steps, battlements, various siege machines. What else? I don't know. Next the dimensions. It's almost 5 feet across. Is that too long for a step? I've only been to two fortresses in my life. Chateau D'Angers in France and the Fort in St. Augustine Florida. While the St. Augustine Fort had some wide steps inside (don't know if they were the original) the much older Chateau Angers I don't recall having such wide steps. Anyone got experience in that? Are we really sure this stone is from the 5th century. It appears to have been damaged in a fall. Perhaps it was meant to be the over hang of a door. I can't imagine a step having holes in it. At least not holes intended to put nails or stakes through. Stone steps don't tend to be nailed down from what I've seen. I could be wrong. OK, anybody else wanna brainstorm some?

I think it is because his predecessor was so much better than him. It's like doing an oral report in school. The Girl with the coke bottle classes who loves to talk gets up there and gives an outstanding presentation and then you come up with your work. The work you did in the library right before that class started. Totally unprepared. Compared to the coke bottle glasses girl you look like a limp noodle.

I give it to Commodus. I won't make any claim that he started the decline of Rome, but he did stop it's incredible progress dead in its tracks. Up to Marcus Aurelius I imagine Rome to be a wonderful place of which to be a citizen. Commodus in my mind changed that for the worse. Had Marcus Aurelius cloned himself and made himself heir, Rome might have had a chance to continue peaking. Unfortunately, Genetics were discovered much too late to save Rome.

Really? So Franklin Roosevelt was a Republican? Bill Clinton was a republican? JFK was a republican?

Personally, I don't know if he ever did. I would think he wouldn't need to villify them since Rome already feared them so much. Didn't seem to be really much opposition (from the population anyway) to his subduiing them. Gaul and Rome already had a lot of history between them. Gaul had nearly sacked Rome once already. ONly a bribe saved them. The Gauls villified themselves quite enough before Caesar came into the picture.

I'm having a fairly disturbing discussion about this on another discussion board. My personal opinion is that Islam is not an evil relgion. Personally, I don't care what some versus might say about killing infidels or what not. I judge all religions by the acts of the majority of the people who follow them. And in all cases I find all the major religions of the world to be generally benevolent. OK. This is what I want to discuss. 1. Is Islam in its core tenets evil? 2. Is it any more evil than Christianity? 3. Why does what is written in either the Bible or Koran matter more than the actions of the practitioners of these religions? 4. Do you admit or deny that Islam has been used for the advancement of evil any more or less than Christianity? 5. In conclusion: Bottom line. How do you justify in your mind the view that it is evil or not evil? Here's the trends I've noticed from the Islam is evil contingent. Lot of it became a "who done it first" contest. IE. Moslems attacked Christianity first. Therefore Christians have always been on the defensive. Crusades: I've noticed people arguiing against Islam 100% believe the crusades were noble. They didn't involve any desire for land grabbing or wealth. No acknowledgement of Byzantine's mistreatment of Moslems when the religion was still in its formative years. And in some places complete denial of it. Completely avoiding any comment about the very numerous wars of religion in Europe from the Middle Ages until well past the renaissance. Blaming the acts of a few extremists on all of Islam, yet going out of their way to counter any argument that one could blame all of Christianity for what the IRA, Hitler or STalin did. Comparing Moslem occupation of Spain and Turkish occupation of much of the middle east and North Africa to 16-20th century Colonialism in order to again basically say "They did it first". Bottom Line for me is that this hatred of Islam and blaming them for what a few extremists do is ridiculous and can only serve to further divide our two worlds. If we can't get past both our histories we're all doomed. And all this talk about how the Moslem world has not came out to condemn these attacks is ridiculous. Where was the Christian condemnation for Christian on Christian violence in Ireland for the past 100 years? Anyway. You all know where I stand on it now. I'd like to hear what you all have to say on it.

Caesar was mostly on the mark. I'm not an expert by the way. I have limited knowledge here. I do know some historians definitely question what he wrote "or didn't write" about the Battle of Gergova. Clearly a Roman defeat. Caesar doesn't really admit to that in his works. If he didn't accurately describe this event I'm more than positive he didn't accurately describe others. You just have to corroborate his work with others. Take everything with a grain of salt.

Why do you have to play the tutorial first? Do you have to play the entire tutorial?

I have the same problem. Only my problem is I'm not very well spun up on Roman era Geography. My problem is whenever I read anything about Roman era geography or see a Roman era map I instantly go to a modern map to match it up. So, I end up filing it in my brain data group as Scotland rather than Caledonia or Tunisia rather than Africa, etc.

Man, I totally missed that. I haven't been paying attention to it. I'm too far along in my Parthian Campaign right now to download 6.0. I'll definitely do it when I'm finished with this campaign though. Is it really that much better than 5.4?

I think we get that image because Rome "was" the civilized world. That's the way they're always portrayed. Everything else was Mexico.

I don't think the guy who started this post was implying that actual slaves caused the downfall of Rome. I think he's trying to extrapolate the irony out of the fact that Rome (Western Empire anyway) was finally conquered by barbarians.... Who in Rome's better days potentially would've been Roman slaves. This thread only works if you believe the German Tribes would've been Roman Slaves if Rome was still at its height. It's possible. I think if you're looking for Irony it would perhaps be better to make a statement saying, "The Romans achieved their dominance by fending off and subsequently conquering barbarian nations such as Gaul, Briton, parts of Germania, Illyria, etc. Who would've thought that centuries later it would've been barbarians that finally brought about Rome's downfall. After all, barbarians weren't the only ones taken as slaves by Rome. Carthaginians were enslaved, Greeks were enslaved. I know the Romans saw the Carthaginians as barbarians, but realistically they were civilized people. As were the Greeks. So, comparing slaves to barbarians isn't really appropriate.

I understand there are many reasons why anyone wouldn't want to invade Scotland back then. But its boggles me why Rome stopped short. Terrain shouldn't have been a deterrent. It never really was before. Just to get out of Italy the Romans have to cross the Alps which are at least as treacherous as anything Britain has to offer. They've fought in the dark, thick forests of Germania. THey fought in the desert environment of Egypt. Rugged terrain in Asia Minor. Terrain couldn't have been the reason. There are two possible explanations left the way I see it. Lack of resources to go on or fear. I'd say it's evident priority for resources were for the east. All the great hubs of trade were in the east. What would've been the strategic purpose of conquering Scotland? A launchpad for the invasion of Iceland? Scandinavia? Scotland would've been a waste. But, Romans were known for their excesses. So why not. It would've given them more slaves at least. And the additional wool from the sheep could've given some profit in the trade arena. So, it couldn't have been their conservative impulse that restrained them from moving further north. From the little I've read about the battles in Briton they were quite bloody. The Britons didn't tend to break and run like the Gauls. Maybe the Romans had finally met an enemy that actually made them "not" want to fight anymore.

I don't recall the famous dead guy who said this, but he was right on the money. "A disorderly mob is no more an army than a stack of building materials is a house." Until Napolean, Command and control of an army as huge as the Persians was an exercise in futility. Darius definitely proved that an army so large cannot be effectively led. The spearmen you speak of were predominantly peasants who would run at the first sign of danger. Numbers, again, are irrelvevant in the face of a determined and tactically proficient fighting machine. Such as the Mongols. Another thing you fail to understand is the concept of fire and maneuver. A concept the Mongols gave birth to and that the US military executed brilliantly in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. The first definitely against superior numbers. The Mongols could have attacked the Persian Army from any direction. They could fire a volley, while on the move. They'd be shooting stationary targets while the Persians would be launching volleys against moving targets. When the Mongol Cavalry finally charges it won't be in the face of those millions of spears. It'll be to their flank or rear. A strike that renders any hand to hand wielding force useless. The Romans could no more resist a flanking attack than a fly could resist being squashed by my shoe. Some exceptions exist when the force is under exceptional leadership. YOu won't find any of these leaders in Persian History in my opinion. As far as repositioning forces via Naval assets, you must have the tactical wits to first think of doing that, which the Persians didn't have and you must have the troops to reposition. The Persians wouldn't have these either given the fact they mob their entire army into one and after it is soundly defeated they all run back to either their homes or the nearest fortress for protection. Ceasing to be an army by any definition. That's just how I see it.

Segestan, That paper talks about the size of the Persian Army and it talks about it before the time of Alexander's conquest. I was under the impression we were talking about Persia under Darius based on your first post of this page. The size of armies doesn't matter. China has the largest military in the world right now. Guarantee the US would make mincemeat of it in a matter of weeks. Without nukes. Even if we were talking about Persia at its height I'm still not seeing how a Navy helps Persia in the middle of a desert or up in a mountain range. Navy is a non factor until the Mongols reach southern Iran or the Med. And if they've marched that far, that means the capitol and heart of Persia has already been over run. The Mongols would have no need for a Navy and no need to worry about the enemy's navy. We can talk about the size of the Armies and Navies all day. Bottom line is the Mongols have superior maneuverability, superior communications network and superior weapons. The Persians won their battles on sheer numbers. THey weren't tactical geniouses. The Mongols would've made them look like a bunch of elementary school students out on the battlefield. Troy, When Alexander's cavalry defeated the Indian Cavalry Alexander was enabled to attack the Indian line from flank and rear. He didn't even have to face the elephants with his cavalry. The Cavalry won the day with this maneuver. The phalanx was wavering until the cavalry did this. The cavalry wasn't just "not" useless. They were the MVP of the game.

You're imposing a level of tactical proficiency on Darius that did not exist. He managed use his navy with negligible positive results against Alexander who was fighting him along the coasts. If he couldn't use his navy to defeat the maritime threat of Alexander, how could he possibly use his navy to defeat a non-maritime threat like the Mongols? There is no repositioning of troops using the navy in the middle of Persia. Where will these ships port? Any repositioning by Darius would've been easily countered by the infinitely more maneuverable and disciplined Mongols. As far as Persia being too big, the Mongols may not have conquered it as fast as Macedon, but they would've eventually. Just a matter of time. If they can conquer China, they can conquer Persia. China is a much tougher nut to crack considering their terrain. From triple canopy rain forest to desert to the highest, coldest mountain ranges. Spurius. Thanks for the technology info. I don't think he meant to infer Huns and Mongols were one in the same. I just chose to focus on the Mongols in my post.

I concur with P. Clodius's last post. And I second it.

I don't know about Britain, but in some parts of the US being a cop is the same as being in the military. Good on ya mate.

I liked that post Virgil. I was with 3ID in the invasion. I can't comment on their planning because I wasn't with them. I did see some of the damage they did. I heard stories about their TTPs that are very similar to your account. As far as their support units being soup sandwiches I don't know. I can't see how they could be much worse than ours though. I'm speaking tactically of course. The Private Lynch incident comes to mind. That was an eye opener to say the least. Landnav probably needs a little more play down at the transportation company. As far as pushing parts and other supplies up to the line they did well with what they had. The problem we faced with supplies was at a much higher level. Like CFLCC level. They waited to late to start shipping stuff over. So we had to play catch up for quite awhile. We were doing some shady stuff just to grab a tire. That was another problem over there. Due to a lack of parts, we were wheeling and dealing for them. Many XO's (guilty as charged) would forego reporting maintenance shortfalls because we weren't getting the parts quickly enough. So we'd beg, borrow and steal from other units to get what we needed. Since the shortfalls weren't being reported, they didn't exist. Therefore, we would whine and complain about how parts weren't available and the whole time it was because very few in the AO were executing a proper maintenance program. We essentially shot ourselves in the foot with that crap. Our brigade S4 shop was pretty good at squashing that stuff once we got to Baghdad though. Which was a good thing because my only 4 gun trucks were riding on balloons by the time we got up there.