Tobias

I would daresay that it was either destroyed, and has long rusted away on the bottom of the harbour, or it was merely broken, and was recovered and melted down to forge a new chain, or weaponry etc. I will look into what happened to it though - it's an interesting thought.

When Belisarius first faced the Vandals in North Africa at the Battle of Ad Decimum, interesting circumstances that refute your argument, Arvioustus, occurred. The leader of the Vandals, King Gelimer, chose to position his approximately 11 000-man army near the Tenth Milestone on the road from Carthage (Hence the name Ad Decimum, or Ten-Mile Post, for the battle). Distributing 2000 of his men to his nephew and 7000 to his brother, he took up a strong position on the road. His brother was to hold a position on Gelimer's flank at a defile, and his nephew was to lead his forces to try and flank the Byzantine forces, numbering approximately 17 000 men. The nephew, named Gibamund, failed in this mission, as the Romans and some Hun mercenaries drove off his forces and killed him. As well, Gelimer's brother, named Ammatas, arrived at the defile to discover that his forces had become scattered behind him and were nowhere near the desired position. He was attacked by the Romans and killed. Whilst Gelimer's wings were failing without his knowledge, he himself was fighting a successful and competent battle against Belisarius and his forces on the main road. The mercenary cavalry belonging to the Romans was defeated by the Vandals, and the Vandal infantry were pushing the Romans back, despite being seriously outnumbered. It even seemed as if the Vandals could salvage a victory. However, upon discovering that his brother Ammatas had fallen in battle, Gelimer succumbed to grief. Instead of launching a final blow against the scattered Romans (which would most likey have destroyed them) he halted to bury his brother. Belisarius regrouped, counterattacked and drove the Vandals from their position, soon after which they were routed by the Roman forces. Gelimer had lost Carthage, after coming so close to victory. In my opinion, for a superior (in numbers and technology) Roman army to come so close to defeat at the hands of the outnumbered Vandal soldiers, that would determine that the Vandals were not extremely overrated. As for the Ostrogoths, i said above, the Ostrogoths were in a period of decline; they could not bring the full brunt of their once great forces to bear on the invading Roman forces. If they had managed to be united, with competent leaders, the Ostrogoths would have forced Belisarius to retreat, or perhaps even destroyed the Bzyantine army.

As has been said above, Rome experienced several "golden ages", and i don't just mean the Empire until the fall of the west, i include the Byzantine Empire in this. As was said above, it could refer to the stability achieved by Augustus and the powerful system he established. It could refer to Rome after Trajan; with the conquests of Dacia, Parthia etc added to the Empire, Rome had reached it's height of power, prestige and glory. It could refer to the age of Diocletian, Aurelian and Constantine, the restorers of the empire and the ones who wrought great change. It could refer to the time of Justinian's reconquest of the west and his revamping of the Empire's laws. It could refer to the stability and power achieved under Basil II "Bulgaroktonos". The Longevity of the Roman Empire has allowed for several great ages; and all can be considered golden. Hmm, these topic questions seem remarkably pre-set....

We're certainly coming along aren't we? There must be a few good debates and discussions raging out there

I think first i'd take my great-grandfather's Australian Light Horse Uniform ( A Dress Uniform, including numerous pouches on the belts, a quite fancy slouch hat with a decorative emu feather and a loaded .303 with attached bayonet, meant for parade), which is all incedentally packed in one convenient steamer trunk in my attic . I'd also take my dad's Triumph Tiger 110 (Which has saddle bags attached to the sides and a tool kit attached to the front) and a large drum of unleaded petrol so that i can win chariot races and make a fortune

I fear that one day my dark, evil side will take me over I can't honestly think of any phobias i have, to tell the truth.

Justinian had an uncanny ability for discovering talent. He chose many obscure people and elevated them to high position; from which they achieved many great deeds. Belisarius was one of these men. The Ostrogoths had previously been a powerful state, and they had reached their peak under Theodoric the Goth. But after his death, the Ostrogothic state had divided. Their frequent conflict with the Visigoths made it difficult for the state to act in a united way and bring their full strength to bear if they were attacked. Justinian realised the weakness of the Ostrogoth's state, and decided to take Italy. Belisarius was given the command to wage war on Ostrogoths; beginning with the invasion and conquest of Sicily and on to Naples and Rome. After this, he thrust forward and took Ravenna, the Ostrogothic capital. Before this occurred, however, they offered to make him the Western Emperor. Belisarius fooled the Ostrogoths into thinking he accepted, and once he gained entrance to Ravenna, he took the city and claimed the entire Ostrogothic Kingdom for Byzantium. After this, he was sent east against the Persians again, and when he returned to Italy, the Ostrogoths, under a strong and competent leader, had regained most of Northern Italy, as well as Rome. The war in Italia dragged on, with the Ostrogoths soon on the back foot again. However, a jealous and suspicious Justinian starved Belisarius of supplies and reinforcements of soldiers. Lacking basic supplies to wage a war, Belisarius lost most of his gains, and was soon relieved of command by Justinian, in favour of Narses. Narses, an old eunuch, with the support of the Byzantine Emperor behind him, won a series of victories against the remnants of the Ostrogoths and brought the campaign against the Ostrogothic kingdom to an end. After this, the name "Ostrogoth" essentially disappeared from the world. I believe Belisarius was a genius of a general; a man who's achievements would never be as widely known as more famous conquerors such as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. He fought a brilliant campaign against a powerful albeit divided nation. The fact is is that the Ostrogoths could not sustain a determined invasion by even a competent (and Belisarius was far more then competent) general for very long, as they were a relatively recently established nation (as opposed to the Romans). Narses was a competent general who knew how to wage war. I don't believe he was as good as Belisarius, but he was competent; Narses was a Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus compared to Belisarius as a Gaius Julius Caesar. I'm not saying Belisarius was a Julius Caesar, but the difference in ability gives you a fair comparison. All Narses had to do was mop up; the Ostrogoths were pretty much close to being broken by Belisarius. The Ostrogoths weren't severely overrated; if Belisarius had faced the Ostrogoths at their height of power, then it may have been a different story. As it was, the campaign was destructive and extremely expensive.

Yeah i noticed, bit of a disappointment that, because it is quite good when it is up and running.

I noticed that - it's a good thing that no-one has tried to take over the region yet. Nothing seems to be happening in the UNRV region, though as Ursus said, the game is limited.

I went a little too far with the ancestry there old fellow, now that i'm not rather incensed, i'm rational again and apologise. But there's a difference between Caesar's dictatorship and people like Hitler, Mussolini etc. Hitler expanded Germany with unquestioned powers; he destroyed a lot of continental western europe and was bent on genocide of the jews, trying to create a super race. Caesar believed he was adding to Rome's (And thus his own) greatness by making his campaigns, and whilst he was a dictator, he didn't commit the atrocities that modern dictators did. I could have made a better defence of myself, but at the moment my ability isn't running that way

I know what you mean; i used to base a lot of historical discussion with my history teacher on my age of empires games

Hmm, we haven't any arguments eh? Well, all that typing we did must be invisible to you sir. I myself have made several comprehensive arguments defending Caesar, and people such as Virgil61, P.Clodius and many others have provided far larger, factual arguments, not necessarily based on crawling, merely chanting "Hail caesar" or populares "propaganda". You yourself are guilty of spreading Boni propaganda - with almost every argument - and basing your arguments on emotional, almost fanatical opinions and fact, as well as completly dismissing or ignoring historical fact, common sense and logic. As for being a friend to dictatorship: I hate dictators, tyrants or oppressors as much as my ancestry did. Supporting Caesar makes me about as much a "friend to dictatorship" as supporting M Porcius Cato makes you a friend to dictatorship. Rome's allies were threatened by the migrating tribe, the Helvetii. If Caesar hadn't moved, a large, restless, potentially hostile tribe would displace Rome's allies and be a terrible threat to Rome. Caesar stopped them, and went on to form Gaul into a buffer state to protect Rome from the obvious threat of the Germans; Caesar knew (as did Marius) that the Germans were the looming threat to Rome; and he took appropriate measures. The Government didn't object when Caesar brought back treasures and tributes and a new territory (which would become one of the most useful and faithful provinces to Rome) to add to Rome's greatness. To defeat the Gauls; he moved faster than any commander of the time, he always fought outnumbered against a not totally inferior enemy, he achieved great feats of siege warfare, and won an amazing victory, among many, at Alesia. His crossings into Britannia and Germania may have not been legal, but again, no-one objected to the psychological effect it had on Rome's enemies. If it was honourable and justified prosecution, instead of a majority trumped up charges motivated by jealousy, in which Caesar could properly defend himself against impartial judges, he would have faced prosecution. But instead, it would have been fixed trials which would take into account none of Caesar's arguments, and he would have fallen had he faced trial. Rome was being dominated by an unconstitutional minority - Pompey and the Boni - and they deserved to be ousted. As well, Instead of having the guts to face Caesar directly, Pompey fled with his tail between his legs to Greece, and forgot to empty the treasury through his disorganisation, irritation by the nagging boni etc. Caesar did not fill up his personal purse with money that was looted from the treasury; he borrowed money that he fully intended to pay back, and used it to secure the Republic from Pompey and the "Government in exile" and rebuild it from the tryannies of Pompey and the Boni. Righto, cooled off now, let the criticism roll in

This will be a great advance for UNRV. Now with an even greater capacity for latin translation to and from english, the site is even greater than it already was.

Here's a website i used to enjoy, but seems to have died down over Christmas, you might have to wait until it fires up again: http://www.handmaidenshandbook.com.au/ I get most of my sports news from here: http://sports.ninemsn.com.au/ This is one of the most fascinating sites summarizing Roman history that i've accessed: http://www.sci.gu.edu.au/~wiseman/Roman/19Maps.html Hope some of those are useful. What sort of connection have you got Onasander? Out here in the outback, just east south-east of nowhere, we're stuck with a dial-up connection. The Telstra company (our main provider for Australia of telephones, internet etc,) boss reckons that in a little while, we'll have wireless broadband country wide, but right now we don't even have normal broadband country wide, so i think he's a bit ambitious

You know, it's articles like that that make me glad Australia has America for an ally; it's just amazing how far ahead of the times you are

It probably varied with convenience, the station of the person being crucified, or what was available. Tying the victim to a cross was probably one of the worse ways; it allowed the victim just that little more laxity to make it nigh on impossible to breathe, at least for long, because the rope didn't necessarily hold the victim in place as well as the nails, allowing the victim to hang from the cross more. Wooden spikes would have been used, i believe, but these were probably more disposable then metal ones i.e. thrown away after the death of the victim or decomposed or was eaten away etc, hence the lack of evidence for them. The metal nails were probably used more and more as they held the victim in place effectively, would not allow the victim to hang more like the rope, or possibly break like wood and thus made for a more "effective" crucifixion, meaning the victim may have survived longer than for e.g. by the rope method, and thus make the lesson more clear; don't violate roman laws. Now i feel like a bit of a ghoul, discussing crucifixion methods As for the construction of the cross, i have little to offer there.

Precisely. I believe it is the case with most of Caesar's roman enemies; from Pompey and the Boni to the conspirators in his murder; when they looked at Caesar, they saw someone who was great in almost every way, a person who was better than them in almost every way. Antonius housed ambitions from his early days in service with Caesar in gaul to be as great as Caesar, but he would never be able to come close to achieving that. This is similar for many; they wished to be able to build up their own personal standing in Roman society and history, and they were envious of Caesar for having the unparalleled ability to have built up a dignitas that made their own pale into insignificance in comparison. That is probably the majority of the motivation for these peoples turning on Caesar; that old, little black monster called Jealousy.

As well, the Roman armies as they moved would be supplied by pulses of whatever crops were available i.e. chickpea, corn etc. and, as was said above, provided solid staple rations that were enough to provide solid energy and health. The Roman Armies weren't underfed if it could be helped at all; and when it should happen that they weren't fed as well i.e. when under siege or with stretched or cut supply lines, it would usually not last very long. The Legions were the basis of Rome's greatness; one cannot simply say that historians exaggerate what the Roman soldiers ate, because the soldiers were generally fed well and what is the point? To make them seem more heroic or stoic? Well that could be a point, but that sort of propaganda is not really going to impress anyone. It is common sense that the Romans would have looked after their armies well; and this is proven by many historians by their equipment, superior training and yes, solid food rations.

That's what i was thinking of - it wouldn't be too helpful if a person with no combat experience or skill gained a position of responsibility in the legions for purely political reasons.

They say you can't say much more when it's all been said, but i'll say more; A big thank you to the entire admin team for making this site the great and highly populated site it is, and thank you to all the people for the fascinating discussion and great debates. "We all live in a mutual admiration society....." - Graham Kennedy and Toni Lamond

Well, as i said, having not seen Tennant, i can't comment, but i respect your judgement and am certainly looking forward more than ever to seeing him I agree with the multi-part stories. I don't see anything wrong with two or three part series; maybe they feel that that was a mistake that contributed to the cancellation of the original series, i don't know.

Perhaps you should read everything before you post old boy; you're over a month too late. I've long since changed my avatar to Jon Pertwee from Colin Baker (as you'll see if you read one of my above posts). Believe me, I wouldn't be so stupid as to get the two confused, and i have few illusions as far as Doctor Who (or anything else for that matter) is concerned, thank you very much. Thank you for remembering Pantagathus

G'day all Did the commanders of Roman armies necessarily have high skill in weaponry i.e. expert in swordsmanship etc.? I know that, for example, commanders that have won the corona civica have proven their bravery and skill on the battlefield in the front line, but did all Roman commanders have high personal skill in weaponry? Otherwise, where there many Roman commanders who couldn't handle a sword to save their lives, but were still effective commanders? What are some opinions out there?

Is this where the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword" comes from? What about lictors? I believe that they were armed with the axes in their fasces, but were they allowed inside the pomerium? I know that if they were guarding an individual with imperium, who was awaiting a triumph etc, they weren't allowed to cross the pomerium until the triumph and not at all otherwise.

I thoroughly enjoyed the new series of Doctor Who, with Christopher Eccleston as the 9th Doctor. In Australia right now, they're replaying the entire Doctor Who series, and we're up to the series just before Doctor Who was placed on indefinite hiatus (effectively cancelled) due to lack of ratings, back in the late eighties. The new series is a vast improvement over Doctor Who in the late 80's, thanks to the revivals of the Daleks etc, for sure. Unfortunately, Christopher Eccleston, although he was a terrific Doctor, decided no to stay beyond the few episodes he did; we can only hope David Tennant has more longevity On that note, it's also rather unfortunate that Australia hasn't screened any of David Tennant's episodes yet. I'd love to have seen the Christmas Invasion, but we probably wont see it or the Tennant series until later in the year. Ah well, that's life, and as an avid Doctor Who fan, i'll remain patient As for Billie Piper, well i'm sure many got a slight surprise to see her talent; she is quite an asset to the new series.