Marcus_Aurelius

I think you'll find some hunnish characteristics in Hungarians.Until the beginning of the 20th century 1 in 4 hungarians had the mongolian spot,especially szekely people had this birth sign,a hungarian speaking people living in Romania. The Szekely regard themselves as turanic people and during the Romanian Independence War in 1877 when Romania and Russia were at war with the Ottoman Empire,Szekelys from Austro-Hungary at that time threatened to attack Romanian cities and villages if the war against Turkey were to continue. Also check the fairy tales and culture of the Szekelys,you'll find an interesting culture both European and Turanic(not necesarily Turkish but somehow related to the Kipchaks and early Volga Bulgarians in my opinion).

It's disinformation.Romans never brought Roman women to war, the "younger and passionate" soldiers had prostitutes for entertaining.If I were a Roman general I would have never agreed with bringing a woman born to Roman parents on the battlefront because she might have attracted bad luck.However I think that Nero or Caligula might have done that, but in the times of the Five Good Emperors or of the Republic, when traditions were respected, nobody even thought of doing such a disgraceful thing.It was tabu.

Just think of the average roman soldier as a killing machine, they always did their duty.People use to think of the ancient Romans as common human beings more educated than the barbarians, but it isn't so.Romans were harsh men, they were taught to be fearless from infancy, they had the cult for Mars and Quirinius, they were rightly arrogant with all the other peoples and killing barbarians who threatened Rome was their duty as free born citizens. Moreover, Romans were also Stoics ,they thought that passions such as fear or pity derived from irrational judgements.Their sense of duty( and also the promise of aquiring land:P) was so high that thrusting a barbarian with a gladius didn't make them feel bad, but rather satisfied. They didn't have to chop heads or cut their enemies sadistically, just thrust the gladius in the enemy's stomach and then rotate it in order to destroy their internal organs.No more and no less....

Is it Ephesus?

my whole name:TODARIEIECHAVORND male:P

The siege of Toulon by the British..Without it Napoleon would have never become Napoleon.I don't know anything about this siege of Toulon..but one of its consequences was Napoleon becoming brigade general...

I would like to see the Dacians more discussed,western people know little of them because they're more interested in their celtic/germanic ancestors but i bet the Dacians beat all the other European "barbarians" at culture,religion,warfare and way of life which was very close to the ancient greeks.I could give you a lot of information on them,we learn it at history in Romania.

I think the Italian rough terrain could have been a serious problem to the macedonian phalanx.Alexander might have found his Scipio if he fought Rome,who knows.I personally don't think he would've attacked Rome,if he had made it back to Macedonia he would have probably begun some plans about how to maintain his empire,named a few Iranian satraps backed up by Greek generals and given a bit more autonomy to the Eastern provinces.I guess he was more keen to attack Carthage by sea with his newly taken Phoenician fleet.

At the time they were fighting Trajan,the Dacian religion had evolved from polytheistic to largely monotheistic,Zalmoxis substituted the sky-god Hebeleyzis(Gebeleyzis) and inherited attributes from other dacian gods.He was seen as the Creator of the Earth by the latter Dacians,and the other gods were considered creations of Zalmoxis:Bendis(Artemis),The Thracian Knight(similar to Ares-Mars,later to be substituted by St.George/St.Michael in the early daco-roman christianity). I don't know if many of the anglo-saxon friends on unrv know that the Dacians used to sacrifice their best fighter who would throw himself into a pit full of upwards pointed spears so that he could talk directly to Zalmoxis in heavnes and pray for his nation in the presence of the supposed Creator.They had the custom of laughing in the moment of death proving thus that they aren't afraid of death,this custom being very well known to Romanians today. Also the Dacians were a very rich people,Rosia-Montana being one of the greatest gold deposits on Earth even nowadays.They, like the Celts and particularly the Gauls loved golden jewelry(not only the nobles wore gold you know unlike today:P:P) I think it would also be nice to tell you that the Daco-Romans were one of the first Christianised peoples in Europe,long before other Roman provinces.In the 2nd century they were already romanised thanks to the high number of roman veterans which were given land in the new province,merchants and entrepreneurs who sought to build a new life among the "barbarians" which they found to be highly civilzed.Not long after the Roman conquest of Dacia,they(daco-romans now) also became christianised thanks to the Holy Apostle Andrew and their previous monotheistic religion which was easily substituted by the faith of Christ.Until the Aurelian retreat from Dacia in 271,a new people had been born,both Dacian and Roman,with a Christian orthodox religion in the LATIN language neither Roman nor Byzantine in rite.The Romanian people later became truly orthodox with the reform of Sts Cyril and Methodius because they were closer to Constantinopole than they were to Rome.

At the time they were fighting Trajan,the Dacian religion had evolved from polytheistic to largely monotheistic,Zalmoxis substituted the sky-god Hebeleyzis(Gebeleyzis) and inherited attributes from other dacian gods.He was seen as the Creator of the Earth by the latter Dacians,and the other gods were considered creations of Zalmoxis:Bendis(Artemis),The Thracian Knight(similar to Ares-Mars,later to be substituted by St.George/St.Michael in the early daco-roman christianity). I don't know if many of the anglo-saxon friends on unrv know that the Dacians used to sacrifice their best fighter who would throw himself into a pit full of upwards pointed spears so that he could talk directly to Zalmoxis in heavnes and pray for his nation in the presence of the supposed Creator.They had the custom of laughing in the moment of death proving thus that they aren't afraid of death,this custom being very well known to Romanians today. Also the Dacians were a very rich people,Rosia-Montana being one of the greatest gold deposits on Earth even nowadays.They, like the Celts and particularly the Gauls loved golden jewelry(not only the nobles wore gold you know unlike today:P:P) I think it would also be nice to tell you that the Daco-Romans were one of the first Christianised peoples in Europe,long before other Roman provinces.In the 2nd century they were already romanised thanks to the high number of roman veterans which were given land in the new province,merchants and entrepreneurs who sought to build a new life among the "barbarians" which they found to be highly civilzed.Not long after the Roman conquest of Dacia,they(daco-romans now) also became christianised thanks to the Holy Apostle Andrew and their previous monotheistic religion which was easily substituted by the faith of Christ.Until the Aurelian retreat from Dacia in 271,a new people had been born,both Dacian and Roman,with a Christian orthodox religion in the LATIN language neither Roman nor Byzantine in rite.The Romanian people later became truly orthodox with the reform of Sts Cyril and Methodius because they were closer to Constantinopole than they were to Rome.

Also if he had succeded in defeating Rome I personally think he would have become a Carthaginian Julius Caesar.His greatest mistakes at Zama was to think Scipio was a general similar to Varo and not to do anything about the Roman much superior cavalry(in numbers).He tried the same tactic he used at Cannae but due to the fact his cavalry couldn't secure the flanks he was defeated.What is amazing to me is the fact that if he had conquered the Italian peninsula he would have been much more popular than Alexander,but the laws of our world would have been more brutal.His fate was quite close to Napoleon's.He won most of the battles against Rome but was finally betaen by an extraordinary general(Scipio,Wellington)

He was probably the greatest genius in warfare but he didn't understand that the Italian allies of Rome wouldn't join him because Carthage as a state didn't respect very much the rights of the non-citizen human being.They just couldn't expect at much from the Carthaginian government so they respected their alliances with Rome which granted citizenship to many Italians.This particular thing determined not to join Hannibal's anti-Rome confederation.

I think that the Greek Bisexuality shows us the way of life of the Hellenic tribes before invading Greece.I think it is about human evolution.Spending more time among men,they become quite interested in other men.(this is a clear indicator that the prehistoric hellenic people adopted war as a way of life which also shows they were pretty good in forging bronze weapons,I truly think they were the vikings of the pre-written history) This warlike character of the Hellenic tribes helped them in obtaining wealth through sacking villages and developing later a very advanced culture.This is my opinion about ancient Greeks.

In my opinion the Pelasgians were a neolithic Civilzation,they knew quite little about war and they were easily defeated by the warlike Hellenic tribes.I suppose they were no taller than 1.50 as much of the pre indo-european people were short.They surely were peaceful people as they weren't very interested in private properties(as the private property is the reason of 99% of wars).

Do you know the episode between Hannibal and Scipio at Ephesus?'They began also now to regard with increased admiration the clemency and magnanimity of Scipio Africanus, and called to mind how he, when he had vanquished in Africa the till then invincible and terrible Hannibal, neither banished him his country, nor exacted of his countrymen that they should give him up. At a parley just before they joined battle, Scipio gave him his hand, and in the peace made after it, he put no hard article upon him, nor insulted over his fallen fortune. It is told, too, that they had another meeting afterwards, at Ephesus, and that when Hannibal, as they were walking together, took the upper hand, Africanus let it pass, and walked on without the least notice of it; and that then they began to talk of generals, and Hannibal affirmed that Alexander was the greatest commander the world had seen, next to him Pyrrhus, and the third was himself; Africanus, with a smile, asked, "What would you have said, if I had not defeated you?" "I would not then, Scipio," he replied, "have made myself the third, but the first commander See http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk if you are interested in Hannibal(correctly Han'baal)

I added this poll due to the fact Hannibal is one of the most impressive generals in history.There were many legends about him in the ancient world but as the romans were the victors of the second punic war we can't expect them to be quite objective.I personally believe he was one of the greatest men ever and I would easily put him among Caesar,Alexander and Napoleon(whose life as millitary commander was very similar to Hannibal's,Napoleon had his own Scipio too-Wellington).I am asking you to describe Hannibal as you know him or as you believe he really was. Also please give him a grade as general between 1 and 100.

See this page if you really want to know what Caesar did in Britain:http://heraklia.fws1.com/battles/The%20Gallic%20Wars/britain/index.html

Of course Alexander was undefeated as he fought too few battles.I personally believe he wouldn't have ever been able to conquer India which was so much different than the desert throughout he had earlier marched with his armies.Number of battles won/Number of battles fought=The general's grade.Of course he has to fight more than 15 battles.And to inform you,Caesar took all 800 cities in Gaul.That is why I don't add the sieges to rhe number of battles.(for Felix Marcellus)He actually wasn't defeated in Britain(Primus Pilus).He may have dealt with serious casualties but didn't lose any battle as he even returned next year to collect tribute.His only 'defeat' was at Gergovia where he lost a legion.At Dyrachium he just wante to make Pompey fight a battle,you have to recognize it was a pretty intelligent maneuver.(he didn't lose more than 1000 men)

Christianity is the response.Rome couldn't have survived so long as an empire without wars.Christianity sinply doesn't agree with people waging bloody wars.

It is quite clear that the spread of Christianity in the core of the Roman Empire which was Rome, itself made Romans leave their old traditions,become less interested in conquering the world and being the greatest empire.Instead,as the first christians were quite fanaticsl,they become more interested in prayers and helping each other.Everybody knows that the Church doesn't agree wars,especially tha Church elaborated by the apostles during the birth of the Empire.The people no longer worshipped Caesar,Ausgustus.Mars and Quirinus, and made the Empire be more fragile.They also didn't agree slavery anymore.(whereas slaves were the base of the Empire in that pre-industrial society)The answer why Christ eneded the empire seems to be very obvious.Of course he wasn't the only one help ending Rome's sovereignity in the Mediteranean world.

Sometimes I have to disagree with myself too.'Kai su teknon?'

The main problem is that the Persian troops were quite weak.I think that it is clearly proven that the poor guys had an insuficient leadership and were poorly trained,whereas the Gauls were quite an enemy to Caesar.

You really didn't get the point.The measure of a nation's strength is how nuch it can resist against the invader and how many battles it can fight against a superior adversary.As for your question,indeed the number of the battles in which a general is victorious is considered by many a way of measuring his skill.(Gaul was much more powerful,millitarily speaking,than Persia.)

I totally agree with you about Brutus being 'indecisive'!But you have to know that Octavian suffered quite a bitter defeat at 1st Philippi.

Caesar himself named Pompey's army in Greece ' a leader without an army'.I think Pompey's greatest skill as a general was ambition as he supposed Caesar was no real threat to him until Pharsalus.He was said to have been a kind individual until Sulla name him 'Magnus'.(Plutarch)Sertorius was fighting a guerilla war that's why I can't consider him an underrated general.Alexander also had trouble with Bessus and Spitamenes In Bactria-Sogdiana and is considered a great general.I think he was the second of his times after Caesar.