Virgil61

Hopefully my post now makes a bit more sense to you!

Well he is bald as well ain't he?

It's fairly simple, no need to overthink this one with complicated approaches. Just use the simplest and most effective tactic there is; fix and flank. Fix the Samnite line in place with a large part of your legionaries, flank with with cav and light troops on their weakest side. Make it quick, don't let them get fancy on you, keep a reserve to react or add support with. Trust in your troops abilities--if you can't do that you'd better retire from that field--and let the chips fall.

It's possible I suppose. It's only about a century since the fall of the Republic and I'd say that an overwhelming majority of the military and political elites were still of Roman and Italian stock at that point. I think the drive to unite and legitimize oneself by controlling the Roman heartland and the feeling that it was all a part of Rome's rightful place in the world, for lack of a better way of putting it, was still very strong.

For you that was actually very diplomatic Cato. But you're right, slavery and it's impact on the economy of antebellum South has a pretty decent cache of literature. I'd venture a guess the topic has coined more than a few Phd theses. The truth is, and correct me if I'm wrong, the only two examples of wide-spread slavery impacting the economic landscape--specifically the ag sector--as an established long-term labor input are the Romans and the slavery along the Atlantic coast from the U.S. to Brazil in the 18th/19th century. Since the later, especially the U.S., have abundant evidence from slave diets to crop outputs to prices, that's where the research goes. Is it valid to compare it with slavery in the Roman Empire or any other era in terms of economics? As long as you keep an eye on the variables, I think it certainly shines a light on it. Moral arguments aside, I can't imagine that an artificially induced cap--slavery--on an important economic input such as labor restricting it from adapting to any market drives (if you can use that word for ancient economies) or opportunities can be a positive for an economy in the end. Sure, Roman elites who held slaves came out ahead. But there's no doubt that the larger economy, and by inference technological development, suffered when it comes out in the wash.

My favorite apology happened off of Ft Bragg at lunchtime in an all you can eat buffet restaurant called "The Bangkok" where we were standing about five minutes. The busy waitress who we'd known for years and whose first language was Thai not English, apologized for the wait. Beautiful Thai waitress: "I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry about everything!" Soldier with a dead-pan delivery: "Everything? World War II was your fault then?" Thai waitress (misunderstanding it): "Yes, yes, I'm so sorry, please come this way and sit down." Soldier to the rest of us: "Knew that g**-****ed Discovery Channel was full of ****".

I've had this a while and I thought I'd share this video here on UNRV, it's the funeral of a young Marine, Corporal Bobby Warns, who was killed in Iraq. The backstory is that a small Wisconsin company which specialized in videotaping weddings was asked by the family to make a video of CPL Warn's funeral a keepsake for his unborn child and family overseas. They'd never done a funeral before and, using only two guys and two video cameras, the result was this incredibly moving tribute.

Well Moon, there you go... The Da Vinci Code Paperback Edition... cheers viggen It's about time, they milked the hardback sales for as long as they could, it must've set some sort of record.

Thanks again everyone! A nice steak dinner, a couple of my favorite beers and a few presents from family and friends made for a pleasant b-day.

I've seen that site before and it's a mess. Severus was, according to at least one ancient source--Historia Augusta--of Phoenician and Italian descent--father and mother respectively. His family was of the equestrian class and traced itself to Leptis Magna an old Phoenician trading colony.

Thanks. Still young enough to listen to the same music as my son!

I think that's the conventional wisdom. The North contained a fairly robust industrial economy entering the war and come out of it with a even more advanced version, fueled by government contracts, that set the groundwork for the Second Industrial Revolution. I think Sherman's drive to Atlanta and then up through Virginia, destroying railroads, factories and crops was a damn close version to total war.

I think the case of Jamaica isn't instructive (on this topic) in that it was an extreme slave-labor based economy. In the US and Brazil the economic sectors using slavery were part of a larger economic infra-structure more capable of handling a sudden shift in the dynamics of the labor market from slavery to free labor (the semi-serfdom of some sharecroppers is another issue). In the US, freed slaves and later generations, now mobile labor, supplied a large number of workers for the expanding and often labor starved industrial economies of the Northern states. As an aside, not all Roman slaves were chained to oars. If I remember correctly some actually made money and engaged in trades.

I remember reading Paddy Griffith's--who wrote a bit on the French Revolutionary Wars--approach to the US Civil War years ago. He had quite a lot to say, some of it not so accurate and some of it really quite insightful. He correctly, in my opinion, saw the war as much the last of the Napoleonic approaches to operations as it contained--almost striking--aspects of modern warfare as well.

Let me clear up that Jones is a historian, so--thankfully--it's not an exlcusive 'systems' approach, it integrates political and cultural factors as well as can be expected. More complementary to the historical/cultural/political factors in its thesis. Jones brings to the table--and this is his strength--a background in history and a more professional knowledge of military operations and strategy often lacking in some military historians. Of course the fact that he spent a large part of his life teaching history at CGSC (US Army Command and General Staff College) probably helped. Take a look at CGSC's Combat Studies Institute publications. It contains some decent writings on past US military ops and theory in general including a fascinating AAR (after-action report) by Joshua Chamberlain of the engagement at Little Round Top during the Battle of Gettysburg. I'm not sure of the awareness of the War Between the States, or the 'War of Northern Aggression' as some of my friends in North Carolina would call it, is among Brits.

In "The Art of War in the Western World" Archer" Jones has some insight into the development of warfare. Essentially he states it's been a contest where infantry, missiles or cavalry have vied for influence on the field dependent on technology and organizational factors. Each new advance in one arm is met by a counter in another. Legionaries develop into modern infantry, missiles into MLRS and cavalry into tank divisions. It's been awhile, I've forgotten how he intergrates air power into this mix. The theory isn't airtight but it's a worthwhile read that shows how the best armies maintained a constant drive to get most efficient mix of these three combat-arms dependent on the era.

Well that's a rough one to calculate, there are so many variables today. Take Iraq and Afghanistan. It's been hell on the Iraqi army, resistance, Sadr's army and the Taliban. Not sure of their losses but it's got to be in the tens of thousands. The 1880 Americans killed in combat (deducting non-combat losses) represent several hundred thousand troop rotations since '03. Includes about 17,000 wounded with no data on how many of those lived because of advancements in combat evac and medical technology Add to that the US Army's tendency to use infantry to fix the enemy's position and bring in the big guns like Bradley's, arty, air etc., to eliminate them and it brings infantry casaulty rates down. Contrast that with the Marines who tended to get more close-up and personal at the company level with fewer resources and their infantry casaulty rates were higher.

That's why causalty SOPs (standard operating procedures) need are so important and need to be emphasised. Even as recently as 1998 during JRTC training at Fort Polk medical observers saw soldiers concentrate disproportionate efforts on wounded to the detriment of the tactical situation. Combat first-aid needs to be trained, litter-teams need to be designated (preferably the 1SG's responsibility--company SM to Brits), the medic or a designated combat medic course trained soldier should be the only one treating wounded and so on. The key is the soldier knows that if he's wounded he'll be taken care of and that other soldiers understand the need to concentrate on the immediate mission.

I'm not sure about the tactical response of the Marines in 'Nam but it sounds similar to what we trained our company to do in Iraq. Lead flying down-range makes the enemy keep his head down no matter how inaccurate, unless it's a fanatic, and then he'll be dead anyway. More time spent on the firing range, coupled with battle drills helps soldiers by learn by sheer rote to instinctively draw a bead on the target. The very act of firing one's weapon becomes associated with lining up the sites on the target--not always foolproof but effective nevertheless. In a lot of situations suppresive fire gets used but crew-served weapons then come into play or something bigger like a 25mm, air support, M1, etc., and determine the battle. I do know that supporting the Marines, their standard procedure and directive in ambushes in 2003/04 was for all units involved to counter-attack rather than drive-through (depending on mission of course). The only time I drove-through an ambush was one ill-timed but urgent trip to Baghdad airport from the eastern suburbs with only two humvees and four soldiers. I kid you not, the only d*mned time that humvee stalled was exactly when my driver sped up to pull out of it. Now this, this is how it's done! True story.

The article isn't on the Vatican apologizing, it's the complete opposite. They're viewing the Crusades in a more positive light and at least one historian at the conference calls the film "The Kingdom of Heaven". From the article; The Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the

Someone here may have had a very distant cousin whose head was mounted on a pole on the entrance to some Roman army encampment occupied by an especially obnoxious legionary from central Italy, a distant relative of mine, who afterwards looted his home of all its belongings. I'd like to apologize for that.

Improved civilization more than the Europeans? I challenge you to spend some time in your beloved muslim lands like I have. Go as a young woman to get the full experience The truth is Christian and Jews were taxed in order to practice their religion, on some occasions massacred. In some eras Christian homes had male children taken from them to be raised as Janissaries for the Ottomans. Ask the Zorostorians of Iran that are left or a Coptic Christian in Cairo how they've been treated in the last 1000 years by muslims. European 'subjugation', especially British, was often carried out with the assistance of local elites. I'm not sure how the Europeans "laid waste" to China or India, I suggest you probably need to get a hold of a decent history of both nations. The Chinese and Indians have more than enough blood on their hands. Fifty years of African independence might clue you in on whom the fault for their present predicament really lies. The statute of limitations on blame for their situation is long past. This sort of berating of Western culture is just self-hatred of the worst kind and is shared by a certain niche of historians. It's naive to think we've been worse than other societies or have had some special dispensation of evil. Our only crime came with harnassing an advanced technology to the same drive for expansion that we share with most other cultures. Keep in mind Western culture has been the first to turn criticism on itself, to understand the importance of emancipation of women, to promote democracy, to push for the secularization of society and on and on.

I have to agree with Furius, officer and NCO leadership in the 'line' units is the key. At company level and below is where the rubber hits the road. It's also from these leaders that you push that 25% rate of weapons being aimed up as high as possible. You pound it into their heads that all weapons point out and engaged. Even off-target metal flying towards the enemy accomplishes something. Sergeants watch their teams, Staff-Sergeants watch their squad, Sergeants First Class watch their platoon and so on. It's where you train your soldiers not to all rush to one wounded soldier during a firefight, it sounds cold but you lose more weapons firing down-range and endanger your position. One or more men down, only one man helps. If a medic is available it's his game. I'll be curious to see what the data shows in combat in Iraq. My gut feeling is Regular Army and Marine units will generally have better combat effectiveness than the National Guard and Reserves.

Unfortunately for the phalanx, the Romans ignored the 'question of the matter'. Bit of a problem for the Greeks since Romans generally fielded a more combined-arms array w/auxiliary cavalry in support of legions. Of course the phalanx outlasted the legion, phalanxes are inherently easier to train while legions are more resource intensive. The question isn't how soon the phalanxes appeared again but how long it took for the more complex and sophisticated organizational structure of legions to reappear in some manner or other. I doubt that one population of around 20,000 with cultural idiosyncracies such as the Spartans is relevant in comparing phalanx to legion. Legions generally held up well vis-a-vis cavalry as they adopted the shield-wall effect of the phalanx using the pilum during these attacks. Flexibility, again it's strength. Except for Carrhae, the Parthian myth of cavalry superiority has been disproven so often on this board that you'd be advised to use the search function. Sometimes I think we need a Parthian vs Roman FAQ on the Gloria Exercitas forum to correct this fallacy and avoid going over old ground again and again and again.

There's no evidence of a height requirement in the legions of the Republic. Polybius, who spent a lot of ink on the matter of Roman citizen recruitment and organization never mentions it. Archeological evidence shows that the Roman soldiers were shorter on average than 5'7".