Felix Marcellus

They're fascinating because they're Royal and have a speck more history than our Marines have. But don't discount our US Marines as far as being some raw, bad arsed killers. Those guys can git'r done too. I'm not trying to compare the two. I'm sure they can both hold their own. Same with the special forces. SAS, Delta and Green Berets. I'd feel safe with any of those guys around.

The battle scene was horrible. It was like a bunch of barbarians hijacked a hodge podge of Roman military dress and weapons and had a free for all. Wasn't Julius Caesar's best legion the 10th? I recall an entire book being written about the 10th legion. Don't recollect anything about the 3rd. Overall, it was entertaining. In a court jester kind of way.

I enlisted in the ARmy National Guard in college because there was no Naval reserve station close to me. I met some ROTC cadets and they bushwacked me into joining Army ROTC. I sometimes do wish I'd have stayed in the Navy. The travel was much better.

I'm prior enlisted Navy now a commissioned officer in the Army. MI. I was with 3ID during the invasion of Iraq. Now at Patton's Own 3rd Army on super REMF duty. I admire you airborne folks. There's no way I'm jumping out of a plane. At least not now. If they'd have gotten ahold of me when I was graduating high school they might have got me to do it. I watch the movie and read Band of Brothers and am so awestruck by what they did. The way a little kid might be awestruck by Terrell Owens. It's really a thankless job. Many people don't understand or appreciate the risks you guys take everytime you jump whether it is into a combat zone or on Fort Bragg somewhere. In my opinion from what I've seen in the Army in my almost 5 years is the 82nd and 101st are the Army's poster units. They are what being a soldier should be all about. At 3ID we got a couple of guys in from Fort Bragg who were X-Infantry and switched over to MI due to injuries. There's a lot of them. It can be a rough life and I have the upmost respect for any soldier in the airborne. I have one other observation for Virgil. I don't know about peacetime, but now the 82nd conducts their training in Afghanistan and Iraq by executing combat missions. THat might be why they spend so much time jumping when in garrison. What can you teach a guy who just came out of the killzone really? I guess they're trying to give you guys a little break. If you consider jumping to be a break that is.

At most I would say this series is OK. If I'd known how it was going to turn out I'd probably never have bothered to start watching it. I don't see how next week can possibly be the last episode. They've barely covered anything. This week ended with him and farmboy Agrippa on the run. So next week in a one hour span he's going to go from fugitive to emperor and Agrippa will go from farmboy deserter to General? I don't even want to think about what they have to leave out of this story to make that happen. But I've watched it all so far it'd be like only eating half my burger at McDonald's. I'm going to finish watching it, but I'm going to pay attention to the credits when its over and see what director, producer, script writers, etc I need to avoid in the future.

I think many people attribute Pompeii's success more to the people around him than by his personal skill. At least in his later years. And also like Virgil said, he didn't retire early enough. He tried to be like Jerry Rice who runs the risk of being known as a mediocre receiver if he keeps hanging out any longer.

Sounds good to me. It would make sense that it was the Germans' wall. As far as finding remains goes, I understand there probably wouldnt' be much there now. I was under the impression that Romans found the site after the fight. I was just thinking that some of them would've studied the area and determined what happened. As far as not taking personal gear into battle I base that off of today. I don't know if the Romans dropped their personals before they went into the fray. Today, in the infantry, you do drop your rucksack or leave it with your Bradley before deploying for combat. All you take with you is your chemical protective gear if applicable, Weapon, ammo, and load carrying vest. THe mess kit, needle and thread, MRE's stay behind when it's time to pull the trigger.

I love 5.4 just because of the map expansion and the additional cities. I'm playing as Parthia right now and having a very tough go of it. I've been talking about my campaing at totalwar.org. Everybody gives me advice on how to play Parthia based off of RTW 1.2. They keep telling me to use diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't work as well in RTR 5.4. In RTW I could sell map info for 5,000-10,000 denarii, but when I try to sell map info here they respond by asking for my map info and offering 250 denarii. That's good though. I think that is much more realistic than selling map info for thousands. I never had money issues in RTW, but in RTR I'm finding it difficult to make more than 1500 denarii per turn.

I haven't read the book. But from what Virgil posted I have one issue I want to talk about. You commented on the ramparts found at the battle site and whether they were Roman built or if they were mistaken for the ones built by the Germans to conceal the ambush. I'm not an archaelologist, anthropologist or historian, but I would think that the answer to this question would be very easy for an anthropologist like Wells to figure out. By the way, I'm not taking sides on this because I don't know. I'm just offering things to think about. If the walls were used to conceal the ambush, that would lead me to believe that the Germans left these ramparts to conduct the attack. Which would further lead me to believe there would be no dead bodies in their vicinity. If the Romans built them, there should be a great deal of dead bodies around them because they obviously would've been attacked there. Also, does not the manner in which the Romans and Germans build ramparts differ? If the experts that study this stuff take the time to study the manner in which both sides construct defensive fortifications this could shed light on it and mitigate the need to speculate. I would also assume if later Romans showed up to the site of the battle they would be able to determine from the positions of the dead bodies where they were at and who was defending and who was attacking. Now, the hole in my argument about the presence of bodies around the ramparts would be if the Germans attacked, but the Romans beat them back to the walls. Still I'd imagine one could deduce who built them from body position and other things such as the presence of equipment around the ramparts. If the Romans built them some of their personal items would be there. If the Romans attacked the wall, there would be nothing but military equipment found there and no personal stuff would be because you don't carry personal items into battle. Has anybody done a study like this? I'm just curious.

What about the senate's betrayal of Fabian. Or was his time as consul up. I'm having a brain pinch right now. I just read a book on Hannibal too. Was he relieved for his lack of aggressiveness? It seemed to me he got now support for anyone, yet he was very effective in fighting Hannibal. More effective than anyone before him had been.

I suppose it's time for me to do this. I came across this site while actually researching Byzantine History. Actually, more reading for pleasure rather than research. I love Military History. Rome and Medieval History interest me the most. I have no degrees in any of this stuff and am an expert by no means. I read history as often as I can. I'm not a book a day or even a book a month kind of guy. But I get in about 5 decent novel sized books a year. I decided to join the discussion boards mostly to learn. I doubt I'll impart any knowledge not already known to most of you. But I'll contribute what I can.

THis is pretty cool stuff. Thank you all for your responses. I'd like to join one of these legions one day. Right now I'm in the military and don't believe I'd have time. How much time would you all say you put into this stuff?

I too defend the republic. You'll have to scroll back to see my arguments. I was going on for awhile with Augur. The problem in defending the republic is that it eventually failed and was supplanted by the empire. And when the empire came into being things definitely improved. So yes, obviously the empire at its height was better than the republic at its end. What we need is a thread entitled "Which was better at its height? Republic or Empire" I like the consular army system. Rotating command responsibility would mitigate some of the potential of a renegade general using his army for personal gain. Although the system in the end failed, it was a brilliant concept and in a perfect world better than anything the empire had to offer. This is one reason I would choose republic over empire under the new thread title. And there's my underlying affinity for representative bodies governing nations. Though how well they represented could be disputed.

Felix, would you say that opinion is shared by all your brothers in arms? Lets say hypothetically that Bush claimed that terrorists were running rampant in some American town and it had to be bombed, or some people killed. Would your brothers follow orders without asking questions? What if they were under orders to apprehend rioters or protestors? What if you were asked to fire on protestors? I am not trying to be provocative, I am honestly curious about your opinions on this. I returned from Iraq early last year after a reserve call-up, I spent 9 years at Bragg active duty and keep in close contact with several friends. I don't think many would actively engage in something like the hypothesis he stated [i know it was speculative but Schoomaker is a pretty good leader, he was CDR of USASOC in the 90's when I was on Bragg]. Apprehending rioters and protesters is a completely different issue. This was actually done during the riots in D.C. in 1968 by a brigade of the 82d Airborne. I cannot speak for all my brothers in arms on that subject. No. But from what I know of the ones I was close to I just don't believe they would take part in something like that. If terrorists were running rampant in the city it would be the national guards job to quell that. That is part of their charter. If I were ordered to fight terrorists in an American City while on Active Duty, I would. I think with today's media I would be well aware of the situation though. Romans didn't have that luxury. I would not fight the terrorists and then support my leaders' decision to march on Washington and displace the President or dissolve congress.

I've never heard of these reenactment groups. What exactly is it that you guys do? Do you all reenact battles? Put on skits? Or just hang out dressed up like Romans and talk about all things Roman? Do you guys participate in movies?

My favorite is M. Aurelius mostly because of his writings. It can be argued at length who accomplished the most on their watch, but I believe what Aurelius did, he did because he thought it was the right thing to do and not because he wanted to satisfy his own lust for power or popularity or whatever Roman emperors want in life.

LOL, don't worry. Well, I have to be careful because that game is like crack to me and I can go on forever about it. Fortunately for me I'm married and am forbidden from playing more than 30-45 minutes a day. Otherwise I'd be growing roots in my computer chair right now and subsisting off of miracle grow.

And Roger, just depends how your measuring him. If you count Gauls as Roman subjects he's a tyrant. If not, he's a military man pursuiing expedient means of securing his holdings. It's all good.

The game is like that because if you had to conquer every single city that existed the game would take a year to complete. Unless you are one of those all night video gamers that don't eat or sleep. Have you played Rome Total Realism? If you have you'll notice they added some of those cities on the game map. And I've said enough. Don't wanna get bounced for discussing a game too much.

Yes, by the standards of other victorious generals and elected Dictators Caesar was quite mild -- although there were a number of Gauls with only one hand who might disagree. Indeed, but in this case, Caesar was conqueror, not quite the same as standing ruler. As we've already alluded to, he treated his Roman 'subjects' quite well... Regardless, the Roman view of the word Tyrant was different from its modern connotation. It simply meant someone who seized power in an illegal manner. In this respect, Caesar was most definately a tyrant from the ancient perspective. Sorry, I jumped the gun before I read this post. The Gauls once conquered by Caesar became his subjects. So, while they were his subjects he did still harshly suppress uprisings. He gave calculated clemency. Meaning, he'd forgive one tribe and play them against others, while cruelly suppressing others to satisfy the ones that supposedly support him. So, one could say his initial cruel acts were as a military conqueror, but once the people were conquered and revolted, he was an oppressive tyrant.

The Oxford English dictionary describes a Tyrant as an "Oppressive or cruel ruler". I don't see Caesar as either of these, he was known for his clemency and his passion for making enemies converts to his cause. I dont' recall the tribe, but he did massacre like 400,000 Gauls or Germans one time. I believe it was one of the Gallic tribes. THat is oppressive and cruel. He gave clemency to the Roman soldiers he fought in the civil war. That's about it. OTher than that, whenever the Gauls rebelled he crushed them. Or do you just consider that necessary military tactics. Alexander never thought killing 400,000 people was necessary. Why did Caesar? My only answer is because he was cruel.

Yeah, that's the one. At any rate. Again, the empire was carved out before the emperors took power. Without Republican Rome's conquests, the Pax Romana never happens. At least not when it did. THe Roman Emperors would've been to busy fighting all the wars the Romans under the Senate already fought. But they didn't have to. Hence, their ability to concentrate on economy, art, culture. Giving the emperors credit for the Pax Romana is like giving George Bush Credit for the surplus in the budget that Bill Clinton left for him. The emperors were getting fat and happy off the land and power left for them by the Republic of Rome.

Ah, I see you must've been modding your post as I was typing my last one. No, I don't discount the other nations Rome fought at all. I don't deny Rome was still the greatest military power under the Emperors either. But IMO, Hannibal was the toughest opponent ever faced by Rome. Who else had their way on the Italian Peninsula the way he did other than maybe Spartacus. There are many reasons there was peace and prosperity afterwards. I don't quite believe there was 200 years of it though. Maybe a little over a hundred years. But, you could argue that it was because under the Senate, Rome conquered a great deal of Romes enemies. The emperors didn't have much left to fight when they took power. Hence, they could more readily direct their efforts at domestic issues, development, economy, art, etc. After the emperors took over all that needed to be conquered was Britannia and a few small nations in the east. Spain and North Africa were already Roman. JC just conquered Gaul, Greece was Roman. Asia Minor, Judea, Palestine was Roman. pretty much took care of Egypt for us. After the Emperors took over they had pretty much all the land Rome would ever have minus a little. So how can the emperors really be credited with the Pax Romana?

Please enlighten me. I'm not close minded. I'm here to learn. I've not skipped anything more than anyone else. Those arguiing for JC have not yet shown me a different definition of the word tyrant that would make me believe he wasn't one. Also, nowone has shown me where in Roman law it says it is legal for one man to march on Rome and take over the nation. Also, those who argue he made Rome better have not said how he made it better. They just say that he did. In fact, I feel that the major implications being laid out here are that he stopped the corruption of the senate. OK, perhaps. He didn't stop corruption period. I'm sure I skipped a lot of things. I've made no claim in here to be an expert. I know there has been arguments that he was justified because it was what the people wanted. But like I asked before, what people wanted it? Rome up until Caesar was a democracy. You can call it Oligarchy or whatever you want. For the period it was the closest thing to democracy you could hope for. Majority ruled in Rome. And if you give the rest of the empire a vote I'd think JC doesn't get elected.