Black_Francis

I don't think that is is impossible to use them in a forest at all. My point is that I don't think Ammianus was referring to cheiroballistra/manuballista or any other form of "crossbow" which is how the passage in question is often interpreted. The point he is making is that Julian is being accompanied by a wholly inappropriate escort of heavy cavalry and artillery. I believe he further emphasises this point by the use of the words "dangerous" and "dark woods" implying danger/menace and being difficult to traverse. This helps to further convey how inappropriate/insufficient/unable to repel an attack the escort was. He uses the words: dangerous+dark woods+inadequate escort for a commander. Combine this with heavy cavalry and artillery and I think the picture is clear enough. I don't think he is simply describing the escort Julian had as it would be of no real consequence. What he is trying to convey is Julians somewhat daredevil and rash urge to follow Silvanus. Indeed Ammianus even describes Julian as being "on fire to imitate the example of this bold general (Silvanus)." in the same passage. Penguin:

Hello there, I just thought I would bring up something that bothers me greatly. In a whole bunch of places on the internet (scroll down to the bottom of = http://www.comitatus.net/cavalry.htm ) and in casual discussion the use of crossbows by Roman infantry escorting Julian is often brought up. It is this instance of "crossbow armed Romans escorting a Roman Emperor" that is constantly regurgitated. However, I find myself increasingly having to point out the correct context: I mean heavy cavalry and artillery in a forest! I think the point Ammianus is trying to make is clear enough. I just have to say: Caption: O'RLY? I am not trying to debate the use of the crossbow in the late Roman army, my point is to simply dissassociate the idea of crossbow armed infantry escorting Julian in this particular passage. On an additional note, does anybody know where the idea of crossbow armed Bucellarii comes from?

Ok, Myself and some other members of the Rome Total Realism Community are planning a mod for the Barbarian Invasion expansion pack. The name we have come up with is "Imperia Romanus" Does this mean Empires/Imperiums of Rome??? Should it be Imperia Romana or Romanum???

ahhh, Very interesting, thank you for that Onasander! I had not thaught of that.

Yes, I second Ursus, show us some holiday pictures!

That was superb! Thank you!

Hurrah! Good old Gaius!

Thanks Ursus... however Im British and have to make do with the BBC (great though they are!) so I have no chance of catching anything on PBS! Thanks for the author reference though!

"Groovy"-Evil Dead 2. "Hail to the King baby"-Evil Dead 3 (use it all the time on my Girlfriend! ) The whole "First rank FIRE!, Second rank FIRE!" scene from Zulu. Along with when the men sing "men of Harlech!"... more a scene than a quote though and a damn shame they didnt sing it in Welsh!

Thank you Ursus! Would you be able to name some good books on the Eastern Roman Empire or is that simply going to far?

Constantiople or Byzantium, which is the correct term for this city pre 1453? I understand that Byzantium was the ancient pre-Roman Greek name for the settlement but how long was the city called Constantinople after Constantine? What were the men on the walls in 1453 calling their city? What were they calling themselves? Were they still calling themselves "Roman" as in the time of Justinian? Where does the Eastern Roman Empire end and the Byzantine begin?

Longbow, Sorry to hear about your troubles, Go scroll down to the TFT sub-forum here (you will need to lojgin/create an account first: http://www.rometotalrealism.com/phpbb2/index.php If you cannot find a topic discussing installation problems in the TFT sub-forum feel free to create one.

Just so you all know, TFT 1.5 has been released.

Why dont you try out Foundry miniatures http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/asp/nocookie.asp They are well priced and excellent quality (its the Perry twins of Games Workshop fame).

Thanks for your reply. On your point about whether or not Constantine converted to Christianity... Ive done a lot of reading on the subject recently and Ive come to the conclusion that he most certainly did... You only have to read the "Oration of Constantine" to understand that he was simply too deeply involved to be using Christianity for his own ends.... especially when one considers what a mess he made of other things (wife...kids). http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf...m#P8120_3328019 I believe that the problem with Constantine is his perception of what Christianity was and how we perceive Christianity today. Constantine claimed to simply be an instrament of divine will.. Just as Judas had to betray Jesus to bring about His triumph over death, so Constantine was condemned to have blood on his hands to further the spread and growth of Christianity. I find it contradictory that the Roman Catholic Church claims much of its Primacy from Constantine himself and yet fails to even beatify him! I understand that Constantine was a sinner and had blood on his hands but he repented and was converted... indeed, I see him as a model Catholic..he may well be the most important convert Christianity has ever had and his possible salvation and forgiveness to be a superb example of Gods infinite mercy!