Virgil61

Yes, but you're right to ask it in this way Pertinax, as it's not something one could speculate on if one hadn't been under threat and acted similarly. I wouldn't break it down into three actions though. Let's remember these aren't hours long fights by the same groups of soldiers. It would be impossible, the physical demands being so high. Sometimes we have difficulty keeping that in mind. Groups would fight, then one or both break it off and rest, being replaced in line by a different century, cohort, manipule or whatever and who internally would rotate their lines. I suspect those whose units weren't in the immediate fight would be resting, drinking water, encouraging their side, etc. The exact line of combat probably ebbed and flowed. During these resting lulls you could certainly collect spent spears and pilums or other assorted missiles. While I don't have a strong opinion on the pilum's bending properties I can't imagine that while your units engaged and you're waiting in the 4, 5, 6th rank for your turn at the front line, coming across an enemy spear/javelin/pilum on the ground you couldn't pick the damn thing up and return it to its owners point first.

Ursus and Cato have given some decent background on the Social War and I can add a few interesting points. For me it's a special event, as I've stated before my family is from the province that was the hotbed of revolt. I'd like to delve into a it bit more but major works on the subject are rare. I can add that by 91BC many of the Roman armies consisted heavily and sometimes predominately of legions from the Italian tribes (I believe they were all set up in manipular legions like the Romans). They are the same tribes that had remained loyal to Rome during Hannibal's invasion. It was in fact a Roman army filled with Praetutii, Frentati and Marrucci that destroyed Hasdrubal's reinforcement army to Hannibal, cutting off his head and throwing it over the ramparts to the Carthaginians. I've read, but forgotten the source, that the Marrucci legions were equal or better than the Roman ones. The point of the war as other posters have stated was inclusion into the Republic. The tribes; the Marsi, Samnites, Vestini, Paeligni, Picente, Frentati, Praetutii and Marruccini, set up a capital for their confederation in the city of Corfinium whose ruins still exist. The federation elected a Senate and called itself "Italia", the first known instance of that term for a political entity. The fighting is said to have been brutal with Sulla making a reputation for himself. Part of the problem for the Romans had to have been that there were thousands of Roman citzens in colony-cities living in the tribal areas. As I've posted before my own family is from the town of Guilianova founded as Castrum Novum, a Roman colony in 283BC among the territory of the Praetutii tribe. So these Romans had been living amongst the tribes with Roman citizenship and their enhanced rights for at least two hundred years. This could only have made the situation that much more acute--though there's no surviving evidence knowing the nature of warfare in those times it doesn't take much of a guess that many of these Romans were killed or run off of their lands or their cities laid to siege or that they did the same to the surrounding tribes. In the end the Romans cleverly dissolved the hostilities by offering citizenship to tribes that did not revolt and tribes that were willing to lay down arms immediately. It's a critical moment in Roman history.

I have a Babylon story for you. First look at the picture of Saddam's Palace. Ok, ignore the rubber chicken for humor in the picture. The chicken is sitting on the ruins of Babylon. That's Saddam's palace on the artificial hill in the background. At the corner closest to the ruins--light on the left corner of the palace and shaded on the right corner--at the bottom floor was where I set up my living quarters. Here is a better look at it. I would walk out every morning and shave outside on the corner looking over the ruins of Babylon. In the picture notice what looks like the river behind the palace, it isn't. It was the original location of the Euphrates when the city existed. The Euphrates is now five miles west of this site so Saddam had a deep canal built to replicate it's location. This is the view looking down from my outside corner of the palace, the rebuilt portion behind the ruins was done on Saddam's orders. They gathered up precious archeological remains and used them to rebuild a replica right next to the ruins. What a shame.

It may be hard to imagine but not only do readers need to be reminded so do historians. Readers and writers of history fall in this trap all the time, that's what the whole discipline of historiography is all about--who writes history, what's their vested interest, what's the interpretation, etc. Roman history has been especially poorly serviced in this regard. Original sources are exclusively from the learned upper-class and the 17-19th century commentators and historians shared similar backgrounds, beliefs in primacy of their own class vested and so on. Add to this the issue of classicists themselves. Their training differs from that of historians whose training varies from economic to social to political and military history. Classicists tend to focus their initial training on languages and literary sources or sometimes archaeology. This leads to a different sort of history by classicists, sometimes better sometimes not. Reading military histories by the current crop of classicists is a frustrating experience, they show little inclination towards military strategy or tactics, no understanding of organizational leadership and are unable to look at events with a 'soldier's eye'. I digressed a bit, but Parenti, for all his faults--he can be quite irritating--challenges the basic assumptions of how we have learned Roman history from earlier writers of the last few centures and how these people like Gibbons, Mommsen, et al., have influenced our own contemporary understanding of the Rebublic. He looks at Rome from a different angle, often he's right, sometimes he's wrong, but the process is one seldom applied to ancient history (Fergus Millar is the only one who comes to mind).

"Baiting" is too tendentious! I simply wanted to go on record with my disagreement, and I mean no disrespect to Germanicus or to you Virgil. Fair enough. I'm a bit disappointed you found little to like about the Parenti book. I don't particularly care for his politics but I think he put rather bluntly what many scholars have commented on around the edges. I also think his points, which are good ones for anyone reading history, of 'who' writes history, what their pov is and their own stake in the argument is important whether on Rome or any historical period.

Michael Parenti is a "hack"? You may not like his politics, and I suspect that 's your real beef, but calling him a hack is pure hyperbole. Cato I think you're trying too hard to make the past shoehorn into a vision of the principles you think the U.S. was founded on. Unfortunately it was never the idyllic Republic the founding fathers thought it was, it was usually a far uglier affair. Perhaps not 'all' opponents to Caesar, most of them certainly. The opponents to the optimates (which I think is what you meant, not populares) weren't always strictly 'for the poor', but they tapped that deep-seated frustration with the optimates that characterized the history of the Republic since the struggle for the orders through the Gracchi and on down to this era. You can't tap frustration if it ain't there. Competing agendas for reform? I wrote an equally favorable review and he is aware. It's called baiting.

The Herculaneum Papyri are another great find. Over 1,000 scrolls burned to charcoal bundles have been found and are being painstakingly pulled apart and read using some sophisticated new technology. Unfortunately most of it so far is by a minor philosopher named Philodemus. There is a lot of hope and speculation that more scrolls are waiting under the largely unexcavated portion of the villa they belonged to. My wish list would include all of Polybius works, all of Livy and any of the scores of lost histories we know of only by the name of their authors.

There is one group knows exactly where Kazakstan is, oil companies. I used to co-ordinate visits from various science, medical and industry delegations from the former SU. Visits to Texas by Kazak government and private officials in the oil business are very common. A few big NY and DC law firms even have offices in Almaty of all places. Of all the 'Stans' they're the most progressive and rich. As funny as he is Borat looks nothing like a Kazak, they're of Mongolian stock with a large minority of ethnic Russians. As for humor, I'm a bit surprised. It's sort of a benevolent dictatorship moving towards democracy for the most part, with a huge amount of nepotism. The Kazaks I've met with have a great sense of humor, are cheerful drunks and incredibly gracious and nice especially when compared to the Russians.

Found this on Apple's Quicktime site. I thought some of you might appreciate it. I haven't seen Life of Brian for quite some time and this is one of my favorite bits from the movie. Well this and the "how shall we f***-off oh lord?" scene.

My former co-worker is married to an ethnic Russian from Almaty, Kazakstan who he met while in the Peace Corps. He thinks it's hilarious while his wife didn't get it at first.

It's real tough for Phd's today to spend much time on areas outside their narrow area of study. I've heard my friends who are university profs complain about this often. They spend their Phd studies on a narrow issue, then when they get a teaching position they spend more time writing in the same specialization in order to get enough works published so they can qualify for tenure. In areas outside their specialization they're limited to a few grad courses until their thesis is finished. It doesn't leave a lot of time in their early career for expertise outside of their focus.

So how do Austrians view their man in California on this? Or in general for that matter. How would they view his election to president assuming the law (an ammendment) is changed here? He's much more conservative than I thought he'd be, I'd expected a more moderate approach from him.

I've seen them and they were certainly tramautized. Remember I'm talking about law-abiding citizens who'd never broken the law before and more importantly, acted without prior planning. Generally NC and other state laws have followed the English common law on this one, which acknowledges the difference between planned and heat-of-the-moment murders. That's one reason there is 2nd degree and manslaughter laws are on the books to differentiate between types of killings, there's no one size fits all. Rarely do these people do a life sentence for these types of crimes and there's a belief even in the Criminal Justice system that they'll never commit another crime again. In many cases they're eventually put in a minimum security prison. I'm sure you're on the right track when you say that the emotional torture a normal person would suffer from is serious punishment in itself versus the indifference of a career criminal in the same situation.

The gladius the Romans adopted wasn't Greek, it was adopted as result of wars against the Iberians (present day Spain). Thermopylae was defended by more than 300 Spartans. There were also around 1000 Thebians and a few thousand greeks from other cities. After the rest of the Greeks had fled or were sent away, the Thebians died alongside the Spartans. I'm not sure that comparing battle with Persians with combat with Romans is particularly convincing. The Romans did use the phalanx at one time in the early Republic later switching to manipular legions and the Persians did--at least at the time of Alexander--have phalanxes from use of mercenaries or territories containing Greek cities in Asia Minor. The individual heroism and quality of the average Spartan notwithstanding, the edge goes to the side that has a a consistengly better tactical approach in applying their primary weapons systems. That edge goes to the Romans, who may or may not have individually bested Spartans but who were certainly no slouches themselves and whose manipular legions were tactically superior unlike the Persians. Since your theoretical is against the 'best' legion I couldn't imagine JC's 13th or veteran legions under Vespasian or Trajan adept at tackling several different types of enemy forces losing, a least consistently, against a Spartan force.

I didn't trivialize anything, within the context of this discussion someone should point out the very strong aspects of Roman-pagan culture adopted by Catholicism. They aren't all trivial, they aren't even all ritualistic--canon law and veneration of saints for example. To get into the weeds for a moment, in some cases such as the burning of a candle to pray to a higher power or to pray for intervention by a local god or saint, the 'what' parts are quite similar. Even the 'trivialities' of ritual are important as an illustration of the influence of Roman culture. Having said this, I wouldn't argue it's the last vestige of Rome. I've pointed out that as an institution Catholicism was heavily influenced by and adopted a striking number of its pagan and philosophical aspects. It's not the last vestige of Roman culture, but the aspects it contains need to be addressed and shouldn't be dismissed outright; it makes the issue less black and white.

I'm curious, knowing there's a lot of Italians in Australia and especially Melbourne, have they integrated into Aussie culture--like they have in the U.S.--or do they remain segregated?

Good catch Ursus. I almost put in Canon law as recieving its primary influence from Roman culture. I'd also add less sophisticated residuals of paganism that I just googled that arguably lead back to late antiquity pagans and have been adopted by Catholicism such as genuflection, incense burning, candles lit in request of intervention by saints or God and the sign of the cross. The theory is that many of these are linked to the 3/4th century influx of pagans into the church. At some point, perhaps this same era, the pagan winter solstice was converted by the church into Christmas.

I'm generally opposed to the use of capital punishment but could live with using it for multiple murders, child murder or cop killings. It should be used sparingly when used at all. I worked for a district attorney in NC at one time. Some murders are one-time affairs, a husband married for twenty years finds his wife cheating and shoots him or her lover, a drunken argument between friends or brothers leads to a shot, a wife snaps after being slapped for the umpteenth time, etc. In these affairs the murder is unplanned the murderer has never done anything illegal in his/her lifetime. I was surprised to see that among these one-time cases the murderer is traumatized by their own act, that split second heat of the moment action. These people deserve punishment but they don't deserve to die and are rarely put on death row except in higly publicized cases or with aggressive DA's trying to prove a point. Career criminals, those with a felony background, should be given life without parole. As I wrote above, multiple murderers, child killers and cop killers I would grudgingly consider the ultimate penalty for.

Actually they Catholic church is more Roman than you've let on. I agree with some of what Cato has written countering some areas where Catholics are not Roman--though the reason for the enlightenment is a much more complex process--but there's also a dichotomy going on where the church maintains traditions started among the Romans. The church adopted many of it's original holy days from Pagan holidays, the obvious value of this linkage is apparent to anyone. While never-ever-worshipped as Gods of any sort, the veneration of saints is partially linked to the existence of a variety of Pagan dieties. The mysteries and visions, as well as the importance of sacred shrines in Catholicism are not only linked to eastern traditions but are also echoed in the pagan interpretation of dreams, visitations to oracles and maintenance of areas sacred to particular gods. While a Roman wouldn't appreciate many aspects of Catholicism, they would understand well saintly shrines, holy visions and sacred texts. Comparing the use of the Sibylline books with use of the Book of Revelations shows a similarity of application between the two-- though many Protestant sects have really taken the ball and runned with it. A Roman would completely understand an ancient Catholic tradition of having a statue of St. Joseph in your front yard to protect one's house. The church rejected other gods but substituted respect or veneration of saints, past church members whose lives reflected a standard for those living today. Rather than Candelifera or Lucina the goddesses of childbirth the church has St. Gerald Majella the patron saint, instead of Roma, goddess of the city, Rome has St. Philip Neri as its patron saint, Juventus is the god of youth while St. Aloysius Gonzaga is it's patron saint, and so on. In my case what I have on my keychain is a small symbol of St. Michael the Archangel patron saint of paratroopers. I believe there is no Roman equivalent of that one. The church destroyed much of the vestiges of paganism and fully co-opted other parts of it. They destroyed pagan writings but their own writings echoed many of those same themes. They were highly critical of Rome but came to adopt the cover of Roman protection for their own existence and those texts that re-emerged in the late middle ages were often copied and protected by Catholic monks. Rather than no linkage there was a cafeteria style taking of Roman beliefs that dovetailed with Catholicism and a rejection of those that didn't. Remember the Romans themselves weren't monolithic in their beliefs, see Epicurianism competing with Stoicism. The early church had a love/hate relationship with Roman philosophy, religion and culture, and the structure of Catholicism reflects this dichotomy. Right until the present day, some Protestants have attacked the Catholic church for being pagan and reflecting far too much of Roman culture. There are hundreds of articles, Phd thesis' and books written on the influence of Greek and Roman philosophy and paganism on the early church's theology, holy days, etc. I'm a bit stunned that in this forum some argue that Catholicism has nothing in common with ancient Roman practices. Much of Catholicisms theology, beliefs and practices contradict that.

Thanks, here's a larger picture of a coin of the same denomination. You can see Winged Victory next to Jupiter much clearer as well as the other side of the coin with head of the Janus Gemini, whose shrine doors were open in wartime and closed during peace time.

You must understand some of that 'dialect' of Afrikaans called Dutch I'd guess.

What the heck's going on over there? It's big news in the U.S. on CNN, Fox, etc.

English Italian--lived there six years when I was young. Kind of rusty now but it was my first language so I get up to speed quickly. Russian--I took the military Defense Language course, seven--yes seven--hours of Russian classes a day M-F for ten months. Lived in Kiev and worked at the US Embassy--everyone in Kiev speaks Russian but the daily Ukrainian really screwed me up. Lived in St Pete's for a total for both of about a year, my fluency was at a moderate level. I've worked with Russian officials, industry representatives and tech types for the last four years as well, although we use very, very good interpreters I still tried to practice a bit. In spite of this I forget a substantial portion of Russian within six weeks of not using it and need a while to get up to speed.

If you think Greece would win I venture that you haven't read the entire thread. I'm not sure there are many instances of a Greek phalanx army beating a Roman manipular or cohort army except Pyrrhus' and we are all well aware of the meaning of a 'Pyrrhic victory'. Greek phalanx armies against Greek phalanx armies often contained none or little cavalry according to a couple of reputable scholars and were real head-butting affairs. Greek phalanx armies against non-Greek armies utilized the phalanx to fix the opponent and cavalry to flank them. The nature of a manipular or cohort legion is that it's inherent flexiblity, initiatives at the cohort/manipular level often resulted in infantry conduct the flanking movements, something a phalanx wasn't able to do with much finesse or if a phlananx line was broken anywhere to exploit it by utilizing their sword drills to slaughter hoplites at close-order fighting. So if your Spartans have no cavalry, are fighting on flat land and have no river/hills to secure their flanks from encirclement, they would have a 'situation' on their hands, to put it mildly. The Carthaginians wrestled control of the western Med sea from a major Greek sea power--Syracuse--became the most powerful Med fleet since Athens and took on the Romans. They responded with the hurculean task of creating a navy from scratch and eventually winning control of the sea from the Carthaginians. Whatever the strength and discipline of the average Spartan, their tactical approach was a one-trick pony that could and would be exploited by a well-trained more flexible tactical array.

No, but thanks for the link, interesting reading. Like I said I recall reading the theory being put forth by several scholars, but nothing this recent and certainly no one being this determined and specific about their origins.