Virgil61

The phalanx actually existed as an effective force during the legions of the Republic and possibly the Principate. Since the Macedonian-type phalanx wasn't used by enemies of the late empire it was a hypothetical which I didn't address. I wouldn't go so far as to say late Roman armies lacked discipline except compared to earlier legions who set much higher standards. Vegetius makes it clear that many men shunned the late legions because of discipline in favor of auxiliaries. One test of discipline is how armies react when the going gets tough on them. Julian's legions were in a difficult position against the Persians but seem to have kept their unit integrity intact throughout. Of course the late legions weren't on par with the earlier ones, there's a lot of evidence showing a definite change in the quality of organizational leadership and training.

If you're in Boise you've got an excellent small college not far from you in Walla Walla called Whitman College. I'm originally from Oregon and I knew a couple of people who attended there. It has a great rep. Look at Reed and UW as well. If you can take a prep course for your SAT/ACT. If you can't, then at least get a prep guide at any bookstore and review it a month or so out from the test. I'll add in this edit that Oregon, Carroll College in Helena and Willamette also look like they've got classics departments. Decent schools. If you're thinking of Oregon or UW see if either state offers a reciprocity agreement with Idaho for in-state tuition.

Generally, most universities with quality history programs will have Latin and Greek offered as well. If you're looking to teach at the high school level then I'd worry as much about the schools education program as well. If you're looking to do graduate work then you've really got to pay particular importance to the school you attend and the reputation of it's programs, it'll be vital for job prospects if you've got no other special connections. History, in all eras, was a notoriously difficult area to get a good position in at the university level although it may have changed. I recieved my BA in history from a small college in NC, excellent history program with a couple of good phds from U of Indiana. Because it wasn't in the top tier of small schools I believe that it hurt me a bit when competing to get into a (non-history) professional graduate program. I-- strangely-- got wait listed at Notre Dame and Wake Forest but accepted to UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke and a minor safety school. I chose UNC but I still kick myself for not trying to gain an MA in history along with my other degree. The point is that your undergrad school unfortunately matters in whatever methods admissions departments make to admit grad students. Not insurmountable by any means, but be aware of it when chosing. The very best schools for history and classics are the usual suspects; Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, U of Chicago and Columbia. Other very good choices would be Virginia, Michigan, Washington, Berkley, UCLA, Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Illinois, Northwestern, Cornell and Johns Hopkins. I'd also put Texas, Wisconsin, Penn and Minnesota there as well. That leaves a lot of great schools like Rutgers, Iowa, Maryland etc., still out there. If you're only looking for a basic college level BA then also look to schools like Amherst, Davidson, Williams, Pomona, Reed and other small liberal arts colleges. These are the best of the best, so competition is tough, but to be blunt, you'll increase your options for employability. On the other hand many of the private schools have a lot of endowment money for financial aid. This site might come in handy for you, someone did a listing of undergrad schools that offer classics. I don't know if it's all inclusive, but it looks fairly good: Undergrad Programs in Classics. I think Chicago's got a great rep in a lot of areas, it's one of the top national schools in about a dozen fields from econ to law to history so I'll bet their archeology program is pretty good. It says something that you at least got waitlisted, I'm betting it's a small program with a lot of applicants. Biochemistry? Do well and it's med school for you.

It strikes me that estimations of Claudius seem to ebb and flow with the times. He was certainly superior to his predecesser and successor, and in attempting to raise the level of political discourse to-- relatively-- more open levels, but suffers from his weaknesses in his familial life that may have led to Nero's ascension. His dependence on freedman for advisors seem to have made him a target as well, although it was a very clever method of insuring their loyalty to him. The tragedy is the loss of his histories of the Etruscans and Carthage as well as his autobiography.

I agree, the legion was an incredibly flexible organization, especially considering the wide variety of both the terrain it operated in and the enemies it went up against. Let's not forget that most important factor of all that no good army can win without; training. Romans set the standard. They trained constantly, emphasizing forced marches for speed with packs that I believe have been estimated to be around 65-80lbs average--similar to what soldiers carry today. They trained individual soldier sword skills--building covered areas so they could continue year round-- and then unit movement and maneuver. Everything, even discipline comes from it, and it allowed even mediocre commanders to gain victories.

My knowledge of Roman guilds parallels P. Clodius' answer to you. I did find the following paper (it's a pdf), if you're inclined to read these things go to page 10. The author seems to say that professional organizations were fairly common and included guilds of entertainers as well as a religious aspect. According to him guilds seem to have been around in the Greek and Egyptian worlds before the Roman conquests. Greco-Roman Philosophic, Religious and Voluntary Organizations

My guess is that it had little to do with it. The later Roman legions were a different animal than those of the principate with a larger emphasis on cavalry, Germans and Goths in the ranks and evidence--at least to me -- that the foot soldiers were not as well-trained. The Romans maintained an interest in the phalanx probably due to the fascination with Alexander. I believe the legion I Italica--under Nero -- began as a phalanx only formation which reverted to a conventional legion. Aelianus Tacticus dedicated his drill manual on the phalanx to Hadrian. If I remember correctly Caracalla had at least one phalanx-trained formation (they may have been Greeks). Julian also had a very keen interest in the phalanx, being the a great admirer of Alexander. At the battle of Strasbourg in 357 AD his Roman army may have used modified phalanx-like formations to defeat the Germans.

My reaction to Rubicon was much less positive than either Ursus or yourself. I'm especially sensitive to a well-rounded and analytical portrayal of the last years of the Republic since so much as been written comparing contemporary America to that era (It's been a few months since I've read it). My position on the end of the Republic's been stated before and some of my arguments might sound like a broken record but at the risk of repeating some of my themes I thought it was a fairly conservative portrayal more akin to an 18th century view of the Republic than a modern analytical study although it was as well written as any history I've read this year. As Ursus had noted (although we might be on different sides of the divide on this), the Republic had some serious issues. Politically, as you probably already know, it was more an oligarchy of families endlessly fighting each other and more so the enfranchisement of the populares than anything else. His charicature of Cato, who it can be argued is as responsible as anyone for the end of the Republic, was far to sympathetic in my opinion. Holland didn't seem to give much sympathy to the masses. This mild distrust of the lower classes coupled with an dislike for the despotism of empire struck me as the sort of position held by so many 18th century gentlemen in the enlightenment, the era that held Cato in such high regard. His portrait of Caesar didn't strike me as very positive and he was distrustful of his capacity for mercy. Certainly he was ambitious, but Holland seemed to cast him as an opportunist rather than a proponent of the populares or at least greater inclusion of economic and social benefits for them. He was an opportunist, but he'd also spent his life giving them the benefit of his sympathies. In my pro-populares stance I've been accused of viewing the Republic with contemporary eyes, something I strongly disagree with. The Gracchi and many others before and after them knew there was disenfranchisement, understood the nature of the struggle and fought against it. In the end I think it's the issue that I started with that bothers me the most. There's a lot of "the end of the Roman Republic and it's relationship to contemporary America" talk making the rounds and an honest portrayal of that era complete with a modern analysis would go far to set things right. Holland doesn't do that, and more importantly, with a Phd in classics I hold him to a higher standard in historical analysis. Maybe I'm being to hard on the author, but that's my take on Rubicon.

I know that there's a breed of Italian sheep dog called the Maremma that comes from the province of Maremma (formerly part of Etruria now southern Tuscany) and a larger sub-breed called the Maremmano Abruzzese from the province of Abruzzo, where my family is from (and, interestingly, a source for many of the tribes fighting for citizenship during the Social Wars and later a base of support for Pompey's father and Pompey). All the sites claim the Meremma are mentioned by Varrone in 116 BC, but I haven't confirmed it.

I'm thinking that maybe it isn't the actual harm a pack of dogs can do, it's the psychological impact of them on an army less disciplined or experienced. Maybe it's slightly analogous to cover fire in combat. Cover fire isn't always very accurate, guys are just throwing lead down-range in the direction of fire and often not a lot of harm really comes from it. Mainly it's an attempt to make the enemy keep his head down while the second friendly element moves out to an assault position or moves out of a hairy situation. I can imagine a scenario during combat where packs approach an oncoming group of the enemy. Some will lash out at the dogs breaking whatever formation they have and others might simply hesitate or get freaked out a bit. Whatever else is going on it might work in breaking the concentration of the attacking force. A lot of time would go into training and I imagine the payoff wasn't worth all the effort, especially if armies had faced it more than once or so. Against a group of disciplined Romans or a seasoned force it may not work as well.

Don't be to hard on the South though. NC didn't fare very well overall, but the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill (RTP) area is on the Forbes ten best places for business, always seems to make all the "most liveable cities" lists and the most "phds per capita" lists. I'm not a big fan of New England but I've got to admit Boston is an incredible city.

You're absolutely right. I was in that part of what is now western Turkey and Northern Iraq that was Armenia in early 90's during Kurdish Relief and what is now Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The passes through the mountains have probably been traveled for thousands of years and the land between the Tigris and Euphrates is laced with primitive canals even today (I can't imagine it being much different then). A logical avenue of approach for any invading army. You really get an understanding of the value of Armenia to both sides.

I've got to admit that after living in Russia, seeing what was done to them in WWII and hearing stories of surviving the Leningrad siege by my friend's parents and grandparents my sympathy for German civilian suffering has diminished substantially.

Maybe so, but again, both in Asia Minor and in Syria, Roman forces-- immediately after Carrhae-- defeated and drove back Parthian armies. One victory was by Cassius, the same one who told Crassus not to fall into the trap of leaving the Tigris and who had survived Carrhae (and later plotted against Julius Caesar). Those victories don't get the press, so no one inputs them into their thought process when coming up with theories of Parthian dominance. Attacking Parthia was a tougher nut to crack but doable. Parthians were a one-trick pony to a large extent, but it was a very good trick. Keep a keen eye on your logistics--especially water, bring lots of archers/missiles, some good cavalry and attack from the north straddling the Tigris/Euphrates and you make things tough on the Parthians. When Roman generals understood this they were often successful, when they didn't--like Crassus-- they weren't. While no one can know for certain, Caesar was flexible enough and understood logistics enough (important for Mesopotamia) that my gut feeling is he would've adapted.

That's the popular misconception. Romans were far more successful against the Parthians than the dramatic defeats above. After Crassus the Parthians were forced from Syria and Asia Minor [against a combined Parthian and rebel legions army] to retreat back to their borders. Antony's campaign wasn't a completely one-sided route, he'd entered Parthia and besieged several cities. The true disaster was the harrassment during retreat. Under Nero Corbulo was successful enough to force Parthia to back down and acquiese to Roman demands on Armenia. Marcus Aurelius was successful against them and both Trajan and Septimius Severus captured the Parthian capital. The key to fighting Parthians seems to be bringing enough auxiliary archers to neutralize their tactical advantage. I think the myth of Parthian dominance over Rome is just that-- a myth whose foundation lies in Carrhae. When it came to Parthia Rome gave as good as it got.

I dont' think he killed them, but I can't remember. He wanted to conduct a decimation but didn't target every tenth man in the legion, only ten men in total, which is a good indication that he or the rest weren't up to speed on the decimation thing by the late 4th century. The story of the Theban Christian legion is what I think you're talking about and I think it was Emperor Maximian that supposedly ordered it. I don't think there's any evidence it ever happened or that the that particular legion existed; the incident was written about 200 years later in a rather iffy tome about Christian martyrs which I think is the only account. If anyone knows otherwise please chime in. It's actually a good point. It could only occur if the social mores dictated it, like under the Republic at it's height when the old Roman civic culture was still intact, or when discipline is strict and command and control is strong like many of the legions in the early principate. My guess is after the legions got a big taste of rebellion and making (and killing) emperors in the 3rd century the decimation thing was largely a thing of the past. Legions had rebelled before of course, but by the 3rd century the killing the emperor stuff got out of control.

Absolutely, that is what impresses me most about the series. In spite of my disappointment about the lack of any combat scenes, the attention to the smallest details and keeping the soap opera portion pretty much within what we know of Roman culture deserves kudos.

There's evidence that decimation was more a punishment in the Republic's legions and became less common as time went on under the empire. When Julian decided to apply the ancient punishment of decimation on his soldiers in the 4th century-- he thought it meant that only ten soldiers were to be killed-- pretty strong indication that it hadn't been used in some time.

Thanks for the invite Primus. I've joined, but I don't get involved much except watch my nation grow.

You may have not meant it, but there were certainly senators after the Rubicon and until the 6th century I believe. I think Octavian played a very key role establishment of the rule of emperors. He centralized power on himself, decreased the power of the Senate to a rubber-stamp council, had the legions establish loyalty to him personally, etc. He may not have meant to establish an empire, and he may have even loathed the thought, but he set the ground work for it. By the way, I am an alumni of the university in that "small town named after a little church on a hill" in your "from" blurb.

I've seen his books around for years but just never picked one up to read. Maybe I'll try the one on Caesar. Agreed on Egypt, it's a pit. Bright Star?

As I said in an earlier post, the opening sequence of the series would have sufficed. It was a small scale engagement with no more actors involved-- less than 150 I'd guess-- than a dozen other scenes in the series so far. I think someone just made a bad call on the script-- at least from the perspective of those of us who are interested in seeing battles depicted.

In case you're still wondering Googling "Roman Battlefield Tactics" brings up two very good sites: Victori: The Roman Military - Strategy and Tactics Roman Army Tactics

I'm disappointed with the lack of any real battle sequences at Pharsalus, not that they needed to be epic in scale, but at least something along the lines of the opening scenes of the series. They did wrap Pompey's role up rather quickly.

Tiberius Caesar Augustus, better known as the Emperor Tiberius. His campaigns in Germany and especially to suppress the Pannonian revolt were fairly successful although they're probably just not enough to make the list. Had his successful brother Drusus not died from an accident he would've been a contender. I've never been able to make sense of Augustus' strength as a general. Perhaps it was his moral presence as JC's adopted son that gave him an edge. He was generally able to pick good men to lead his armies tactically-- Agrippa, Drusus, Tiberius-- which is a talent in itself. Varus being an exception.