DecimusCaesar

I think the Velites were a real nuisance to Pyrrhus and his men (to any Phalanx based army as well) because the pila would stick to the shields rendering them too heavy, which meant that the Pezhetairoi had to drop them, becoming more vulnerable. They also broke up the Phalanx leaving gaps for the Hastati to leak through and therefore destroy the formation. If the Romans had plenty of missile troops they could have destroyed the Phalanx. Seeing as Velites were the poorest warriors of the Maniplular army, the Romans could have probably fielded a lot of them, causing massive damage to any Hellenistic army that attempted to invade Roman soil.

True, it is extremly vague on Alexander's conquests. It also seems that Alexander's phalanx consisted of 5 men dressed in later Hellenistic arms and armour (Alexander's men would worn Phrygian type helmets and linothorax cuirasses instead of the conical helmets and chainmail armour depicted in the program...although some of the men are dressed accurately). You obviously won't learn anything new from this documentary if you have read up on Alexander. I am sure I saw the'Ancient Warriors' Roman Legionnaire show when it aired years ago. I am convined although I have no evidence to back it up, that the story in this show was told from the point of view of Lucius Vorenus or Titus Pullo (the soldiers in HBO's Rome).

I was mistaken. I believed that Philip did have a realtionship with Pausanias but that he had grown bored with him. Soon afterwards he got rid of him, where he fell into the hands of Attalus who ordered him to be gangraped by his men. Pausanias killed Philip in revenge for this, although like you said, Philip might have raped him as well at one time.

I suppose that the Galatians had many similarities to the Gauls since they had migrated to the area as part of Brennus's invasion of Macedonia and Greece. Many of them were men and women from around the Danube. They consisted of about three tribes: The Tectosages, the Trocmii and the Tolistobogii and these tribes were separated into four septs ruled by tetrarchs (according to Greek Sources). They intermingled with the native population (the Greeks in Anatolia) and became increasingly Hellenized, with some adopting Greek names. The Famous statue of the Dying 'Gaul' is actually that of a Galatian...as you can see, the Galatian looks very similar to the Gauls with large torc around his neck and the spiky hairstyle. The Dying Gaul (Galatian)

In Michael Wood's 'In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great' he says that Alexander changed the attitude of the western world. He influenced it in such a way that Alexander's world view is our world view too (to an extent). For instance Alexander set down the belief that greatness comes thorugh military exploits. He was the first man to conquer a substantial part of the world setting the path for all other future conquerors from Julius Caesar and Charlmagne to the Generals of the British Empire and even Adolf Hitler. He was responsible for the world's first globalizing culture (the Hellenic civilization that was spread from Europe across the Middle east and to India) and as a result he commands more attention in our modern "Globalized" world. The other reason he is more well known than most other conquerors (especially Genghis Khan) is that in our Eurocentric Western world he is considered more important than any eastern warrior,. True, everyone has heard of Alexander but when I ask friends or family about what he did or who he was there is a lot of confusion - it's like Tutankhamun or Caesar, everyone's heard about them but very little actually know anything about them.

Vampireism relates to the Medieval era and the age of Vlad Tepes (Count Dracula) I don't think I have ever come across Roman stories of Vampires. I have read in one source that the Emperor Constantine XI was related to Vlad Tepes. Is this true? As another note they did suffer death at the hands of Sultan Mehmet II.

I don't know of a III Scythia but there was a fourth. It was probably founded before 30 BC by Mark Antony, and it is often confused with the IV Sorana founded by Pansa in 43 BC. It served in Macedonia and Moesia and fought against the Scythians around 27 BC, where it got it's name. It was later re-constituted by Augustus. After this date it goes missing from AD 74 till it re-appears in Syria Coele province around AD 215.

True, that was a bit of a missed oppurtunity, but at least they made the Rubicon as a small river instead of the wide gushing river it is often made out to be in other productions or even in some drawings.

I've been reading more reviews by those who were given screen previews. It doesn't sound good. Too many people either hated it or just thought it was mediocre. There are complaints about the pacing, the acting and the story line, while others say it's very low budget and that it looks cheap. One girl says its a bit like Jerry Bruckheimer's 'King Arthur' (Which I haven't seen) but without any thing that made that film good. Apparently the film is also suffering from an identity crisis, with its name being changed from 'The Last Legion' to 'The Enchanted Sword' and back to the 'Last Legion'. I will wait till I see it before saying if it's good or bad ( It's all a matter of taste) but the preview reviews don't make it sound too good.

I already have a copy of Pompeii: the living city. it's a good book although it's been set out strangely...some parts read like a novel, like in the opening chapter: other parts read as a factual book, with references to archaeological discoveries. I might give a look to the Augustus book as well if it's any good.

Under feeding an army does very little to encourage it. Caesar pushed into enemy territory quickly thus he did not get the chance to build up an adequate supply line. Lightining quick attacks were part of Caesar's strategies and as a result, if these failed he often found himself in a dangerous situation...such as before Pharsalus. Lack of supplies only serves to disincourage the army. Crassus's men at Carrhae lacked proper supplies (especially water) and despite Crassus's attempt to rally his army, they lacked the morale and the strength to carry the fight against the Parthians. They wanted to surrender immediately when the Parthian Prince- Surena presented the terms to them. We see the same at Adrianople centuries later, when the better equipped, trained, Veteran Romans were defeated by the Goths. One of the main reasons for this was that Valens had force marched them in hot weather for many miles, then lacked the water and food to keep their energies up. That is why their morale collapsed and they were defeated by an inferior foe. A well fed army would have been a much better use to Caesar and if he wanted to encourage them to fight harder then he would have only needed to tell them there was wealth and glory to be had over the next hill rather than food.

Well, there goes Von Daniken's theory about it being UFO landing strips...

I would have liked to have been a wealthy senator during the Later Empire. Not much work to do and as a bonus you got mansions all over the Empire and a retinue of serfs to do you work for you. I would not on the other hand would have liked to be a miner digging for Gold in some damp cave...very dangerous and a short life-span.

I would have almost certainly died. If I was lucky to survive I would probably be a very sickly person.

Never seen this series but I have heard of it. Unfortunately it isn't available in Britain and even if it was i wouldn't be able to afford it.

I don't agree completely with the Barbarians over-running the Empire theory . They were a massive factor but the Empire wasn't the same during it last few centuries. Ever since the reforms of Diocletian and the christianization of the Empire later on, the forces that made Rome strong in the past disappeared. The strain on the economy in order to maintain the army took it's toll on the poorer people who had to pay for it's upkeep. This lead to riots and wide spread dissatisfaction with the Empire and the way it was being run. Things had gotten so bad that when Gaiseric led the Vandals into Spain, the Romano-Iberians welcomed them with open arms as they had had enough of Roman mis-rule. This lack of Patriotism, the strains on the economy, the struggles between the classes and infighting between the christians had severly broken Rome's power. That's why Romulus Augustulus surrendered to Odoacer. Can you imagine the earlier Romans surrendering their city to the barbarians? The Senate did not hand over Rome to Hannibal after Cannae but Romulus Augustulus handed it over without a fight, showing that the old spirit and will of Rome had been destroyed by all of the above factors.

Well, 13 is unlucky for some. Perhaps it was for Vorenus and Pullo, both suffered losses during the course of the series and will probably suffer more misfortunes in the next series.

Stuff on Crassus is hard to come by. Plutarch's description is sketchy, it jumps from Spartacus to a short description of his political life. Most of the 'Life of Crassus' is dedicated to Crassus's campaign against Parthia, with a lot of information on the battle of Carrhae. I applaud any historian who attempts to write a biography on Crassus, it would seem a thankless job due to the painstaking research that you would have to do to get any substantial description of his Political life.

Good Review PP! I was given a copy of Pompeii recetly but I haven't got round to reading it. I will probably get hold of Imperium when it comes out in paperback. Harris calls Pompeii his 'Hobbit' to Imperium's 'Lord of the Rings'. It sounds interesting.

There is a page discussing it on IMDB - One man claims you can get a copy of the BBC Radio version of e-bay. Eagle of the Ninth - IMDB here is another link about the show: http://www.action-tv.org.uk/guides/eagleninth.htm it contains an episode guide.

I replayed the clip againa nd it's been updated...the borders of the Islamic Cliphate has been changed, The Mongol Empire has been added and the assumption on the Iranian Empire of the future has been removed.

There's a 'Eagle of the Ninth series' ? One based on the novel? I had no idea! When was it made?

It seems I didn't miss anything good then. So it turns out the narrator really was implying that Caesar was Rome's First Emperor. I also missed the ending...so what's up next week on the show? Will anyone be watching next week?

Thanks Leonida! Your info managed to clear up a lot of misconceptions I had about Sparta under Rome. (I had no clue they still used the lochoi system.) Thanks for the link as well!

It was on in the background for me but I didn't get a chance to see it as I was talking to my friend. Didn't seem all that accurate the bits that I did see. Did the narrator really call Julius Caesar Rome's first Emperor? I also thought it was odd to see Karl Johnson as Marcellus (dressed in 4-5th century clothing in one scene).