Onasander

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_%28Greenough%29 Yep, he's right. Washington has got some cold, perky nips.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4wPAmml1G9sC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&ots=YtWmvZXXA6&focus=viewport&dq=arius+octavian&output=html_text I don't know how the Greeks were "crowned", this makes it sound almost like a Medieval Pope crowning a Holy Roman Emperor. I find it odd that a independent, colonial monarchy would let the priesthood do the crowning in the first place. But it also makes sense why Octavian would immediately search it out, and also why Egypt was never properly integrated into the empire.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emetophilia Yes, I think this should be included in all Roman era historical novels.

Wooden walls present a logistical burden, that though not impossible, is impractical for a length that long. Turf walls are unwise. It's too easy for enemy infantry to scale, period. I can kick footholds and stab my fingers into it in a rapid rush up. No point from a defensive perspective bothering with it, save as a finishing touch to a more important structure, NOT as your primary defense, prior to a more modern era with guns and calculating trajectory with lanes of fire. Romans didn't need to know that sorta stuff save maybe potentially with select siege equipment (but I haven't seen evidence for that). However, as a weak argument for it, its widely available in a otherwise resourseless area, and I can see rushed engineers pulling their hair out with a artificial deadline looming, with no surrounding stone and wood in sufficient quantities, and just a whole bunch of infantry and grass at their disposal. In the American Midwest, we used to make Sod houses. You can construct out of it as a material, just would never be a good choice for a military fortification. Yet.... Here we are. Hadrian's wall, which has so much wrong with it, used turf. Thing that annoys me most though is the rear defensive ditch. Its just so very wrong, sole purpose seems to be to twist Roman Ankles at night, though admittedly the plaster issues for the front side still erks me. Even you Caldrail noted a town near you was fortified against (presumably) Saxon seaborne raids.... its a joke, this wall. The population to the immediate north were Romanized allies, and they still apparently faced attacks south of it from Europe. Its not worth bothering with, and if the barbarians to the north capture and man it, its hardly a strategic loss, just a waste of manpower on their part, as its useless for them. A string of forts and a better navy and calvary force. The Romans were in England long enough to breed the horses and build the ships. Scotland is too small a area to take seriously beyond a raid potential. Quickest way to break them, give each family a slave knowledgeable of agriculture and building, and watch how feeble and decadent, offer to buy their crops a few years in a row, and they instantly cease being barbarians. The US, Soviets, and China split the world's alliegance doing just that. Cheaper that a silly, expensive wall that's badly built and unable to contribute anything meaningful to the defense of the province.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_possible_monorchism Now I know why Hitler launched all those rockets at England!

I keep coming across oddities, be they funny or just strange, sometimes intentionally contradicting. Its a not so well thought out free for all. This week: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England Following Edward's escape from captivity, Montfort was defeated and killed at the Battle of Evesham in 1265. Henry's authority was restored and the Provisions of Oxford were forgotten, but this was nonetheless a turning point in the history of the Parliament of England. Although he was not obliged by statute to do so, Henry summoned the Commons to parliament three times between September 1268 and April 1270. However, this was not a significant turning point in the history of parliamentary democracy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stampede I already considered that, putting the non combatants inside. In order to achieve this, they would of had to be inside before hand. More likely, it would of been a lot of crushing death. The link above mentions a Chinese Air Raid Shelter where 1000 people died trying to get inside. Most of those people were literate and had a understanding of what Atoms were, that the earth was round, and that disease was caused by microbes. Smart people by historical standards. The Alamanni may of possessed many relative virtues for their era, even over the Romans, but by today's standards unquestionably superstitious and in general, a retarded ignorant lot. I can't say what the rate of panicked retreat would be, heads per minute from the fields to the city, as I lack info on their disposition outside, as well as the width of the gates, but I figure mass crushed casualties if the Roman army was seen closing in at sunrise through the mist.... plus you know the leaders are inside the city napping. Romans didn't use Arabic numerals, so its not a case of accidentally adding a zero. As I said in a post above, I would exploit the weight of the crows to ruin any coordinated defence, but that battle is still taking more than a day, and if they wanted to resist inside, even with the gates open.... throwing down tiles from roofs and stabbing with broken broom handles in doorways, it would take a while, much more than a day, even with machine guns in Roman arms. MOUT is damn difficult using swords and shields, everyone has the advantage of surprise and ability to flank over the besieging force.

I kept saying Goths, even though it was the Alamanni. However, they invaded again a few years later, and obviously survived. The way (Tacitus if I remember) they supposedly sent out colonies was to split their people into thirds, and sent a third out. I thought about the wagons, but this was supposedly a "battle won in a single day". Even if women and children made up 2-3rds, its 10,000 vs 300,000 and I quite frankly have the severest doubts about Roman Metallurgical ability to make swords that wouldn't warp potentially cutting that much flesh. That would of had to of been going through any commanders mind "What if they resist and I gotta kill them all?" So by default, I see a very mass jumble. Wagons everywhere, but systematic for defense? Doubt it, as they would of been more inclined to resist. Likely wide open, perhaps very, to allow what must of been a miniscle cavalry force between scaring the daylights out of them. Its field after field, and I know NOTHING about Roman irrigation in agriculture, beyond they sometimes used retaining pools (I have a thread on this site on that). For that to work, they gotta be down slope from water, such as a creek or spring, or from that river that was/eventually turned into a Moat. This is prime refugee encampment area, and if they lasted more than two days before the Romans arrived would of gone all over the farmland staking out smart positions. Just apparently wasn't worth anything collectively defensively. The question for the long term.... feeding them if your enslaving them.... let's say 1-3 were military age men.... and the Romans did indeed show up and killed those pussies in one day with TEN THOUSAND, and took control of the city. That's 200,000 slaves who still can't fit ibside , much less be caged up and locked down. Perhaps contained by forces up in distant passes, but I recall from the Milan vs Florence (republic vs imperial) rhetoric that Milan is all plains and stretches off to infinity seemingly to the south. I see a lake and mountains to the north, about it. Hard to surround that source. I'm guessing they were convinced to remain put and they would receive help, and in those first few days after liberation anyone looking at Medio would of thought the place was still occupied by them and not the Romans. How you actually pull off that magician's trick is beyond me. Perhaps they said they had grain for them at locations A, B, C, D, and E and marched them off, breaking them down into smaller units, away from all their junk, and weapons. Even women and children can be dangerous at those numbers. I've seen concert crowds of 9,000 before, If mixed in age, its doable if you have a tenth of their numbers. Especially if your manipulative, keep as many fooled until the last second, and give them no way out or hope. I can't imagine the glut on the slave markets. However, 300,000 people are.... Well, a lot. Could the Romans really take that many in, market economics and all? They would of been slaves, not Colonni, but it would be hard for us to tell. Romans would of had a massive tax deficit looming, a giant plummet in the population and productivity from Syria to Asia Minor.... to the point they effectively lost control of the area until Marcus Aurelius (Sure the Dux paid a tribute, but also certain Zenobia didn't). These slaves would of been a very quick turnover for the empire, and the uber-rich had little (I'm assuming) to buy from the spice-roads. It would of been a currency boon for the imperial forces, and likely helped in pacifying so many uprisings (30 of them, gotta be related to pay issues just a little). The population rebalance would of favored agriculture, which is good (perhaps not for the slaves) because they would of needed to adapt to the climate change. More irrigation I suppose. Apparently, according to that climate change article, the area Alps and North experienced a simultaneous depopulation and sudden stop in deforestization, exactly parallel to the forest regrowth (I'm scratching my head as to how they know this). If true, then fields went feral up there. I'm stumped as to how the Romans dealt realistically with 300,000 refugees turned slaves. Can't easily kill them all (and if you do, where the mass grave), tricky as heck to lie and split them to enslave them piecemeal. A simple ultimatelum or even a voluntary withdrawal on their part may of occurred. I doubt 10,000 guys would of stopped 300,000 people from leaving back North on condition they don't come back. I can't rule out a battle though. I just can't explain how they could suffer such a massive defeat (lose 300,000 people) and another tribe, by the same name, thinks its a swell idea to do the same thing again in invading the Roman empire such a short time later. The battle either wasnt a battle, and enough to convince them their enslavement wasn't that bad, or they just left and then returned again later, expecting rather mild repercussions as before. Another possibility is, it was no where near 300,000, and that was a number thrown up for propaganda purposes. That article did show insurgent forest growth, so population NORTH of Italy did decrease. But did Roman lands in Europe (east and west) get a sudden population bounce upwards?) I don't know, I figure this kind of repeated mass enslavement would leave a archeological and historical trail. I don't know when they started settling the barbarians as defensive populations along the Roman frontier.... I recall the Franks were the third barbarian group invading. Likewise, at this time, communities in central Asia would start collapsing. Don't think that domino effect caused this yet (that takes time, the guns would be its expression).... but its something to consider for both the Romans and Persians, who both turned sharply to slavery at this time (I'm assuming to support their agricultural base, could be wrong).

The plague came from Egypt, appears to be small pox. I'm looking for Dendrochronological charts, I'm guessing a drought forced everyone south into roman lands, or a crop failure due to other cause. ---- I've been looking around, can't find much evidence that Europe has trained climate scientists who study tree rings, however, North and South America does, as well as Africa and Asia. I find this very.... odd, as they are the cheer leaders of the global warming movement. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004254053_006 Theory huns invaded due to drought. So I'm not alone on this hunch. ---- http://uanews.org/story/ua-scientists-find-evidence-roman-period-megadrought Before our era ---- This appears our era: Wet and warm summers occurred during periods of Roman and medieval prosperity. Increased climate variability from 250-600 AD coincided with the demise of the western Roman empire and the turmoil of the migration period," the team reported. "Distinct drying in the 3rd Century paralleled a period of serious crisis in the western Roman empire marked by barbarian invasion, political turmoil and economic dislocation in several provinces of Gaul." Dr Buntgen explained: "We were aware of these super-big data sets, and we brought them together and analyzed them in a new way to get the climate signal. "If you have enough wood, the dating is secure. You just need a lot of material and a lot of rings." http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12186245 ---- Google this PDF: 2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility It focuses on the drought periods in Europe, shows that rainfall had been falling, and then suddenly temperatures took a nosedive. I think the battle of Mediolanum was Romans vs. Some Hungry Refugees, most if whom statistically couldn't fit in the damn city, munching on half grown crops when the Romans showed up. That's your battle scenario.

Ummm... I want to see the data. I can't conceive how one arrives at a statistically reliable method. Was every grave marked with a date, or very distinctive, datable pottery in each grave? Did people north of the wall increase or maintain same life expectancy? However, the mere fact were all asking this is a very good thing, so his potential absurdity may be a heaven sent gadfly. And the only thing Catholic Universities in the North East are teaching are how to have abortions and how to hate america.... I wouldn't read too much into the word Catholic, they undoubtedly are like every other university with a confused mob of discontents a behavioral stone-throw away from ISIS. That's what universities essentially are these days, for the creed attached to their name is irrevelant unless you stumble into their campus chapel by accident.

http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/postumus.htm This is the link I used to find those sources. It claims the battle was midsummer, so food would of been growing, but not near ripe, and consumed at a very high rate. I don't even know if the city was self sufficient for its foodstuffs, or needed grain imports like Rome. Its not looking like a battle as in battle lines being drawn up on a tactical map, but a unsightly blob. The barbarians, apparently in three groups, came storming south, this group might of came directly out of the alps, or east.... I can't quite tell. There was also a group west, as well as a break away empire in the west. If your trying to make a map for your book, I recommend just representing the numerical ratio of the Gauls to the walls makes it highly unlikely they were all within the walls, fighting the romans off, that food was going to be be rapidly consumed by default, and a pestilence was already hitting the population hard. It likely didn't take much convincing to surrender.... as they apparently did. I presume there is no record of this battle because there wasn't much of one to begin with. Given the Alemmani invaded again 9 after Gallenius death, they likely had many survivors that went home. That, or 300,000 was only a part of a much larger tribe. Yikes.... So, I quit here. Check out our John Malalas thread. http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/18034-consensus-on-numerians-cause-of-death/

https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book7 This is Paulus Orosius 22. In the one thousand and tenth year of the City, the twenty-seventh place in the Augustan succession was filled by two emperors: Valerian, who was hailed as Augustus by the army in Raetia, and Gallienus, who was proclaimed Caesar by the Senate at Rome. Gallienus had an unhappy reign lasting fifteen years. During this time the human race had little respite from unusually severe and continuous pestilences. Wickedness, easily forgetful, provokes its own punishment; for impiety, though it feels the scourge when beaten, is too callous to perceive the one scourging it. Leaving out of consideration the earlier persecutions of the Christians, the one inflicted by Decius caused the whole Roman Empire to be harassed by a great plague. But injustice, cheated by poor judgment to its own ruin, deceived itself. For the wicked thought that the plague was a matter of ordinary chance and that death resulting from disease was a natural end and not a punishment. Within a short time, therefore, their wicked actions again so provoked the anger of God that they received a blow which they long were forced to remember. As soon as Valerian had seized the throne, he began the eighth persecution since Nero's time. He ordered that the Christians be forced by torture into idolatry and that they be killed if they should refuse to worship the Roman gods. As a result, the blood of the saints was shed throughout the length and breadth of the Roman Empire. Immediately, Valerian, the author of this abominable edict, was captured by Sapor, king of the Persians. He who had been emperor of the Roman people grew old among the Persians and suffered the supreme humiliation of slavery. For he was condemned for the term of his life to perform the menial service of helping the king mount his horse, not by giving him his hand, but by bending to the ground and offering his back. Gallienus became terrified by such an unmistakable judgment of God and was alarmed by the wretched fate of his colleague. He therefore made quick amends by restoring peace to the churches. But, when so many thousands of the saints had been tortured, the captivity of one impious man, even though his punishment lasted throughout his life and was of an exceedingly abhorrent kind, could not atone for the wrong nor satisfy vengeance. The blood of the just cried out to God and demanded to be avenged in the same land where it had been shed. Not only did a righteous judgment exact the penalty upon the one who issued the order, but also upon the agents, informers, accusers, spectators, judges, and finally upon all who had favored the unjust and cruel persecution, even by their silent wish—for God knows all secrets. Most of these men were scattered through the provinces, and the same avenging blow justly smote them all. By God's will the nations stationed on the boundaries of the empire and left there for this purpose were suddenly loosed on every side, and no sooner did the reins of control release them than they invaded all the Roman territories. The Germans made their way through the Alps, Raetia, and the whole of Italy as far west as Ravenna. The Alemanni roamed through the Gallic provinces and even crossed into Italy. An invasion of the Goths ruined Greece, Pontus, and Asia; Dacia beyond the Danube was lost forever. The Quadi and the Sarmatians ravaged the Pannonian provinces. The Further Germans stripped Spain and took possession of it. The Parthians seized Mesopotamia and completely devastated Syria. Throughout the various provinces, there exist today poor and insignificant settlements situated in the ruins of great cities which still bear evidences of their names and tokens of their misfortunes. Our own city Tarraco in Spain is one of these, and we can point to it to console ourselves over our recent misery. Furthermore, lest any part of the Roman body politic should escape being mangled, there were internal conspiracies formed by usurpers. Civil wars arose, and everywhere streams of Roman blood flowed while Romans and barbarians vented their fury. But soon the wrath of God was turned to mercy, and the mere beginning of a punishment rather than an actual penalty was reckoned to be a sufficient satisfaction. First of all, Ingenuus, who had assumed the imperial purple, was slain at Mursa. Next Postumus usurped the sovereignty in Gaul, but this usurpation brought good fortune to the state. For in the course of ten years he drove out the enemy and restored the lost provinces to their former condition, conquering by the exercise of great bravery and self-restraint. He was killed, however, in a mutiny of the soldiers. Aelianus, while attempting a revolution, was overcome at Mainz. After the death of Postumus, Marius seized the supreme power at that city, but he was killed immediately afterward. The Gauls, acting on their own initiative, then proclaimed Victorinus emperor. It was not long before Victorinus was murdered, and Tetricus, who at the time held the office of governor of the province of Aquitania, succeeded him. This ruler had to put up with many mutinies. In the East, in the meantime, a certain Odenathus gathered together a band of Syrian peasants. They defeated and drove back the Persians, defended Syria, recovered Mesopotamia, and as a result of conquest advanced with their leader as far as Ctesiphon. Gallienus abandoned the state to its fate and was slain while indulging his lust at Milan.

Eutropius: http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/eutropius/trans9.html#n3 7. LICINIUS VALERIAN, who was then employed in Rhaetia and Noricum, was next made general by the army, and soon after emperor. GALLIENUS also received the title of Caesar from the senate at Rome. The reign of these princes was injurious, and almost fatal, to the Roman name, either through their ill-fortune or want of energy. The Germans advanced as far as Ravenna. Valerian, while he was occupied in a war in Mesopotamia, was overthrown by Sapor king of Persia, and being soon after made prisoner, grew old in ignominious slavery among the Parthians. 8 Gallienus, who was made emperor when quite a young man, exercised his power at first happily, afterwards fairly, and at last mischievously. In his youth he performed many gallant acts in Gaul and Illyricum, killing Ingenuus, who had assumed the purple, at Mursa,5 and Regalianus. He was then for a long time quiet and gentle; afterwards, abandoning himself to all manner of licentiousness, he relaxed the reins of government with disgraceful inactivity and carelesness. The Alemanni, having laid waste Gaul, penetrated into Italy. Dacia, which had been added to the empire beyond the Danube, was lost. Greece, Macedonia, Pontus, Asia, were devastated by the Goths. Pannonia was depopulated by the Sarmatians and Quadi. The Germans made their way as far as Spain, and took the noble city of Tarraco. The Parthians, after taking possession of Mesopotamia, began to bring Syria under their power. 9 When affairs were in this desperate condition, and the Roman empire almost ruined, POSTUMUS, a man of very obscure birth, assumed the purple in Gaul, and held the government with such ability for ten years, that he recruited the provinces, which had been almost ruined, by his great energy and judgment; but he was killed in a mutiny of the army, because he would not deliver up Moguntiacum, which had rebelled against him, to be plundered by the soldiers, at the time when Lucius Aelianus was endeavouring to effect a change of government. After him Marius, a contemptible mechanic,6 assumed the purple, and was killed two days after. Victorinus then took on himself the government of Gaul; a man of great energy; but, as he was abandoned to excessive licentiousness, and corrupted other men's wives, he was assassinated at Agrippina,7 in the second year of his reign, one of his secretaries having contrived a plot against him. 10 To him succeeded Tetricus, a senator, who, when he was governing Aquitania with the title of prefect, was chosen emperor in his absence, and assumed the purple at Bourdeaux. He had to endure many insurrections among the soldiery. But while these transactions were passing in Gaul, the Persians, in the east, were overthrown by Odenathus, who, having defended Syria and recovered Mesopotamia, penetrated into the country as far as Ctesiphon. 11 Thus, while Gallienus abandoned the government, the Roman empire was saved in the west by Posthumus, and in the east by Odenathus. Meanwhile Gallienus was killed at Milan, together with his brother, in the ninth year of his reign, and CLAUDIUS succeeded him, being chosen by the soldiers, and declared emperor by the senate. Claudius defeated the Goths, who were laying waste Illyricum and Macedonia, in a great battle. He was a frugal and modest man, strictly observant of justice, and well qualified for governing the empire. He was however carried off by disease within two years after he began to reign, and had the title of a god. The senate honoured him with extraordinary distinctions, insomuch that a golden shield was hung up to him in the senate house, and a golden statue erected to him in the Capitol.

http://www.altegeschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/corneliasalonina/zonaras A bit from later on in Zonaras, the later siege between these two. Obviously, the city COULD be defended. Goths apparently gave it up in a day though.... Romans had to siege it the second time around, and it wasnt easy.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/epitome.htm Look at chapter 33, it is the work by Aurelius Victor (or not, some debate on that) that many links speak of, its very short.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raetia https://books.google.com/books?id=fVwtnOBCiCwC&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=auriolus+cavalry+commander&source=bl&ots=OgyIWIFLsI&sig=vHnMibPdVUlZeY1f46p1lewpOYA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZSIOVYb6Fs2jyASe_4KQBA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBA So, the Goths may of come down from Raetia. Zonaras said Athens and Thessaloniki were threatened, with Athens rebuilding their walls, and the peninsula wall between Sparta and Athens rebuilt, so they could also of come from that failed campaign.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-cq5mDCkNcDU/UDYgh3UEuXI/AAAAAAAAGK8/wPRvrH3fjtw/s604/IMGP5539.JPG Model of the city, Hadrian and Max Walls shown. Its in a Milan museum. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1497363&page=22 I've been trying to figure out the exact length of the republican walls, so I can calculate how many people could fit inside if it was a flat surface, with room to spare per person. According to anonymous nobody, you can get 625,000 people, standing shoulder to shoulder, into a single square mile. http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-people-can-fit-in-a-square-mile,-shoulder-to-shoulder Obviously, given it wasn't a plane surface, but rather a urbanized environment, it would of been near impossible to get them all inside (not to say they didn't try when the panic struck). Given the romans knew were they were, means they had been there for a while, eating everything. Wow, the Goths didn't plan this out at all. The city under Constantine (I think the 2) had 100,000 people, and they clearly spread well over the area of the original walls.

Okay, this is the best pic I've found, you can see the divisions between the Republic and Max Walls quite well, where the fields are, and streets and population density, both of which would be imperial and perhaps hypothetical. That city can't be taken in a single day, even with machine guns. If the goths were only partially inside, and got caught with their pants down outside foraging or did something stupid like ran after a feint attack and was ambushed, maybe. It just isn't making sense if they actually held the city proper and wanted to hold it. Calvary suck in urban warfare, and infantry don't do too well when you glare vastly outnumbered and have hundreds of thousands throwing tiles off roofs at the troops below. If I recall, Max. Wall was 4.7 miles. My wall at Iskan was 2.5. We would of been utterly crushed with even 100,000 inside its wall. So, where would the Goths put their people outside? What Gothic encampments are known? Do they pick certain styles of encampment? Close to water, spread out? Military age men congregate, or spread out? How would a army form up from said encampments and could their tribal leader or general organize a coherent system from inside the walls quick enough for those outside, or were the Romans streaming in from multiple axis confusing the living daylights out of the Goths? Right now, I'm seeing mass chaos, romans descending everywhere, goths coming screaming into the city, the top Gothic troops in the garrison in the city already seeing romans ravaging their people outside the walls, the gates open, opening in, already broken open from the Gothic attack. Streets cramped, troops can't get into position to defend. Romans popping up on the walls. Trumpets bellowing. Arrows falling in. I guess that would be my strategy.... If I didn't care about human rights or war crimes, use the severe weight of the goths, scare the living daylights out of them and hamper military movements for defense. I still am looking into this....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mediolanum Don't use the map at the top of this wikipage, I've figured out it's a map of Max's Walls, the Republican walls don't map that shape, and I don't know if it had the moat yet. I assume the bridge he died (?) on went over water though.... I don't know how old this bridge is. I'm really scratching my head as to how you storm a wall city with 300,000 hostile Gauls in it in just one day, even if in rubble. 300,000 vs 40,000 usual residents (think it was 40,000 prior to being made a imperial capital) likely = not enough food. If this battle took place late fall, early winter.... harvest would be in. Food eaten at 8 times the speed. Plenty of water, no food, escape across alps looking less likely, Roman army showing up. Rome itself is gearing up, so can't push south.... Or if prior to the harvest.... food has to be picked in the fields, romans show up, Goths already hungry, not enough supplies, city gets surrounded.... Ummm.... I don't know yet.

http://www.raremaps.com/maps/medium/20054.jpg Obviously a much older map, but I'm thinking the inner city is the Maximum wall, can't make out the Republican division though, so would this make it the Spanish Wall Map?

http://historyguru.com.au/Celts-of-Gaul/Oppida Came across this link, thought many here would be interested.

Republican walls The oldest wall system was built when Milan (the Mediolanum) became a Roman municipium, in 49 BC. It was essentially square, each side about 700 m long. The walls had 6 main gates, which are usually referred to as "Porta Romana" (in Piazza Missori), "Porta Ticinese" (at Carrobbio), "Porta Vercellina" (where Santa Maria alla Porta church stands, "Porta Orientale" (or Porta Argentea, in via San Paolo), "Porta Jovia" (in via San Giovanni sul Muro), and "Porta Cumana" (at the end of Via Broletto, between Via Cusani and Via del Lauro). Note that some of these names (for example, "Porta Romana" and "Porta Ticinese" are also used to refer to gates of later wall systems located in the same area. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Milan http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Storia_di_Milano_%28Roma%29.jpg/375px-Storia_di_Milano_%28Roma%29.jpg The above link is a rough outline of the Republican era walls, what they had to deal with. I obviously can't make heads or tails on what street is what. I recommend a 3-d topography map, and a modern city map, listing where the walls are on both. Secondly, you'll need to know that water layout UNDER the city, Milan likely gobbled up a river or stream under these streets. It be contained in the sewers, isolated from the metro tunnels.

During the Augustan age Mediolanum was famous for its schools; it possessed a theater and an amphitheatre (129.5 X 109.3 m[9] A large stone wall encircled the city in Caesar's time, and later was expanded in the late third century AD, by Maximian. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediolanum Okay, obviously Maximian came later, but we still have a wall. So, where can assume: Caesar Era Wall (need to look for evidence of this wall, its actual layout prior to expansion) and at least 1 conceivably defensible bridge. So did the Goths literally occupy the walls, or were they still laying siege? If inside, and numbered 300,000.... how do you take it in a day with just 10,000?

I gotta work out some Chronology issues here, but it looks like Auriolus, who was a Getic volunteer under Galienus, was the actual one who lead the calvary at Mediolanum. I came across his name in Zonaras. Reason I assume this is his name pops up as head of the forces stationed at Galienus, and appears to of worked his way up from head of the stables to a calvary commander (if that isn't the same thing, in some armies it was). "Phronistes" He appears to of been a excellent commander, but is also one of some 30 upaurpers against Galienus. He himself died in rebellion, minus his calvary, ironically in Mediolanum from what I've been able to piece together, holding a bridge. I completely lack any graphics of 'Milan' modern or ancient, so I can't work out a topography here, but I'm assuming he, minus his calvary he had before, tried to not repeat the mistakes of the Germans prior to him, so he took a chockpoint (and apparently failed?). I don't understand this as its also said he succeeded in killing him. There are a few other sources listed that I never read, looking into it now. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureolus So I really gotta know the lay of the land to figure out how a 10,000 man force , lead by calvary, does this. Its obvious why the rebellions were happening. He abandoned his father to Persian captivity, and had to split his forces in Europe to tackle multiple threats. The Persians were pushed back without issue once Valerius was out of the picture.... general consensus likely assumed the top guys werev the issue. Didn't help he alienated the Christians with his father's pogroms, as the lands Valerian held were increasingly christian, and had a good reason to transmit very negative info about him through the empire. Word would of gotten around fast. Lots of people enslaved and slaughtered. I just gotta figure out more about this Auriolus guy. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureolus

Yes, and yes. They entered it a few times. No, they didn't conquer the deep desert. Reason why is because its insanely hot, and no profit derived from it. There are three ways classically to exploit the trade around and in Arabia, up the Persian Gulf, which is quick if coming from India, but your essentially at prey to the Persians the whole time. Second, offloading prior to the Red Sea, and marching (or selling) your goods as they make it through Mecca and on to Syria and Palestine. Or third, which I view as the worst, up the red sea. Via the map, it seems wisest to get all the way up to the modern Suez, but the turn around Arabia was terrible, very unpredictable. After the Ptolomies, and then Romans figured out the Monsoon winds, Arabia became less important. Romans controlled the islands in the mouth of the Red Sea, had sent legions in from the coast, and also held northern Arabia (they even had a Arab Emperor, Phillip the Arab). Likewise, they also heavily used Arab mercenaries, and when Christianity became the religion of the empire, it had a profound effect on it. For a very brief time, they also held Iraq. When we look at Arabia from hindsight, in the eruption of Islam, it makes Arabia look like a wise conquest, but financially it was worthless.... as the Romans had a end monopoly on all incoming goods, and were slowly creeping towards the interior at a snails pace anyway. What made this ultimately not the case wasn't Muhammed or his state.... no disrespect to him, but there are start up states before and after happening all the time, but rather he acquired a near invincible, genius general, which is a rarity in history (but not unknown) and his state was able to exploit its position, and trade opportunities, as well as to smash the Persians and east roman empire from its underbelly after the two had engaged in decades of costly war. It cost very little to get nomadic troops subsistence living out of the desert, but it would of been absurdly expensive for either the Persians or Romans to equip a deep desert army to penetrate Arabia, and even if they did, realistically what would of come from it? Two hostile countries joint patrolling a few small desert cities as nomads harassed their lines for a few decades till the Arabs experienced a generation or two if change and calmed down? Persians and Romans were too volatile. Currently, trade INTO Arabia enters Dubai. Yemen is completely rejected, and King Abdullah's Economic City (currently under construction) is set to exploit Eurotrade via the red sea. People don't bother with Arabia itself to access the European markets anymore. If it wasn't for the oil, people wouldn't even bother with it. Try are getting into plastics and alternative fuels by pumping sea water directly into their desert (waters the land, makes it arable, and provides a biofuel).... From the Proto-Islamic perspective, the Ethiopian and Yemeni Jewish and Christian kingdoms posed a much closer and surreal threat, and it was them, and only the Romans and Persians second, who most wilded them up. It would seem from an Arabs perspective as if Arabia was being pushed into from every direction, they had generations of martial hysteria, being recruited as mercenaries, and juggling with new ideas and concepts from religious groups entering into their lands. Had it not been for that one genius commander however, Muhammad's state would of remained small for the rest of his life, and Persia and the Romans would of eventually taken it piecemeal.