Virgil61

slaves not non-hunnic, this slaves are taught how to fight the romans and other barbarians using hunnic tactic. Frankly you have no idea what you're talking about. By the year 440 Germanic tribes like the Gepids, Rugi, Suevi, Sciri some Alamanni and Franks were under Hunnic control as well as three seperate clusters of Goths keeping their own tribal leaders. They weren't slaves but client tribes.

By the time Attila became a problem for the Romans his army was probably made up of more non-Hunnic allies than Huns.

Look up the Emperor Heraclius.

Grad school or Graduate school is studying for a Master's degree or higher. One has 'graduated' from undergraduate (BA, BS level).

Be aware that on the dispute about the quality of the later Roman army Elton generally comes down on the side of the argument that believes it remained at a high level. I think he tends to be in the minority of historians on this question.

Did anyone else catch it? Not bad, they shoved a whole lot of stuff in one episode though. I especially like William Burroughs recitation of in the intro and ending. I wonder if this is supposed to be one of the last episodes bumped up for dramatic effect?

Genetics and linguistics should not be used unquestionably together, but to completely deny each discipline the other's evidence seems misguided. The example you gave is precisely how seperate disciplines can shine the light on each other's findings.

It's tough to make a generalization over seven centuries or more of Roman military service. Certainly during the Principate the legions were well paid. Once you were in it became a part of their lives I'm sure, with it's own internal culture and comraderie. Add to it that a motivated person might be able to make it up the ladder promotion-wise and had a retirement package of sorts available. During the Jewish War Josephus seems to indicate that expulsion from the ranks was deemed punishment enough in lieu of execution by Titus for an auxiliary who 'allowed' himself to be captured. There's also that sense of excitment and adventure that appeals to young males. Like a poster already said, thumb cutting took place in the later empire. I can't help but think that much of it came from fear of the unknown and of course just plain cowardness.

I can't imagine doing it correctly without bringing in archaeological, linguistic and, when applicable, written evidence to correlate genetic findings with. I'll have to find a copy to reread. Cavalli-Sforza does deserve credit for bringing genetics to the table occupied by archaeology and linguistics.

I read Genes, Peoples and Languages years ago. Isn't much Cavalli-Sforza's work in this area targeted to only those populations that share both genetic markers and close linguistic relationships, excluding those populations that have changed languages and of course assuming that some populations don't?

The Latins were a part of the Italic tribes who were part of an Indo-European group that spoke the same language when they first entered Italy, or at least that's the current theory I believe. Some of the related tribes were Vestini, Paeligni, Marrucini, Marsi, Aequi, Volsci, and Sabini. Not always friendly, they became allies of the Romans--after a long struggle--with tribes like the Marrucini supplying legions that I've read somewhere were the equal of the Romans. Not surprisingly these tribes were also main instigators in the struggle for citizenship in the Social War.

Happy Birthday!

That was the point. They were now a political and military equation that had to be dealt with. They roamed Dacia and Macedonia without much interference trying to extract deals with Stilicho or the East. Honorius notwithstanding, the Goths wouldn't have been in the position to do the sacking without Adrianople.

The effects of Adrianpole were that the Goths were 'allowed' to be a semi-independent permanent fixture within the borders of the empire. The descendent of this group ended up playing a serious role in the events of the Western Empire including the sack of Rome in 410 and so on.

I'll enjoy reading your opinion on Soldiers and Ghosts. I read it a few months ago and found it very well written but seriously flawed. He's really enamored of Homeric influence on the actions of individual soldiers, which I found naive and lacking in an understanding of how groups of aggressive males operate in combat. Most non-Homeric influenced cultures compete and value individual bravery in combat and soldiers use it to gain distinction in the eyes of both leaders and peers. He really takes David Hanson's culture of war thesis to an extreme.

Turn sound on. Wasting Away in Baghdad Sing it boys, I agree.

I just came across something I'd forgotten from "Conquest of Gaul"; the Gauls used captured Roman soldiers to show them how to approach the siege against Quintus Cicero (the famous one's brother). The siege lasted two weeks or so and most of his troops were injured by the time Caesar got the word and appeared with relief.

Repetition isn

I recall he mentions it in scattered sections. The issue itself is important enough to warrant more than scattered mentions as I believe it's a major factor in the success of the legions of the Republic and Principate. I would have loved to have seen him focus his sights on the issues of training and junior leadership. Maybe the guy had only x amount of time to present a text or it's a topic for future writings. These criticisms shouldn't overshadow just how good Goldsworthy is overall.

Ross Cowan and Hugh Elton are pretty good, but I think Goldworthy's really the main guy. A great insight on the legions is Josephus' "The Jewish War". Read carefully one really gets the sense of their strengths and weaknesses. Goldworthy didn't include a chapter on training, which I though was a major omission. He also seems to not appreciate the role of good middle/junior leadership and holds a bit too much stock in 'generalship' (although he sort of contradicts himself as well by claiming mediocre generals won because of the quality of the legions). Don't have my copy in front of me, but those are some things that come to mind. I think he get's it right about 80% of the time, which isn't a bad percentage when doing anything in life, except perhaps throwing grenades.

It's possibly the best overall concise study I've read and the one I tend to go back to quite often. Sure it's got weaknesses, he stuffs a lot of information in 286 pages of the paperback edition and he doesn't get it 100% right. But he makes very astute observations on organizations, tactics and leadership. I've said before, one of my biggest criticisms of academic military historians is their lack of military experience that deprives them of the psychological insights to military life; leadership, small unit cohesion, importance of training, etc. Admirably to me, he seems to know his own weakness in this area and strives to overcome it.

An outstanding book that anyone interested in the Roman army of the late Republic and Principate should read.

Except for many of the big name battles great leaders are generally in short supply as much today as in Roman times. More common are the smaller day-to-day, month-to-month operations in the various theaters; keeping the peace, quelling local uprisings, checking small or medium sized incursions from outside forces, etc., all led by mediocre to good leaders heavily dependent on the reliability of capable rank-and-file legions and cohorts. The very heart of good training to new recruits is to incorporate the lessons learned by experienced soldiers.

When I was a kid they would sometimes repeat an old lspecial called "Chariot of the Gods" that fascinated me to no end. Now I'm a confirmed skeptic of all these kinds of things, but they are entertaining. Never really got into Stargate, movie or series. I'm a dedicated Farscape fan though.

Welcome to the UNRV forum Prof. Heather. I reviewed your book and enjoyed very much the way in which you wove contemporary Roman accounts into your historical narrative and the vivid descriptions of events. I