DecimusCaesar

Like GPM I believe that the Britons got overconfident after having defeated one legion in battle, as well as sacking so many Roman settlements. They also had a 'heroic' culture, and I can't help but think that like Pompey at Pharsalus, the Britons were egged on to facing the Romans in an open battle rather than letting the Roman army get destroyed through lack of supplies or guerilla tactics. I'm sure that the Britons must have considered it cowardly to not face the Romans in open combat.

I recently got Maty's book on the Gladiators. I pre-ordered it and it arrived this week, but I haven't got round to reading it yet. I'm curious about the book on Roman houeshold cavalry, and like Ursus i'd like to check out the introduction to late antiquity book.

This sort of reminds me of that old 1970 film 'Waterloo', which was all about the battle. It's good if you're a Napoleonic buff with some knowledge of this battle (and let's face it, Waterloo is an important battle as far as military history goes) but for anyone else, there simply is no real interesting characters or drama to any of it. It's mostly napoleon adn the duke of Wellington issuing orders and looking into the distance with a telescope as armies march about. That seems to be the main arguement of film critics who aren't history buffs anyway.

Interesting. I've found an almost identical quote being attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte over the years. I think it's the type of quote that tends to be misattributed, similar to the claim about Josef Stalin and "One death is a tragedy, a Million a statistic."

I love that scene. I suppose it's the only comedy catchphrase ever to spawn a Television series and a book.

Happy Birthday, I hope you enjoyed your day!

Great View; I have some of Goldsworthy's other books so I will probably get this in the near future.

Part of the superiority of the Legion comes down to discipline, the other comes down to manpower. Thanks to massive reserves from their Italian allies and from other foreign auxilliaries, the Romans could afford to lose many battles. Look at the Second Punic War, where the Romans suffered massive casualties at the battles of Trebbia, Trasimene and Cannae. Yet they emerged triumphant in the war and defeated Hannibal at Zama. They achieved that due to better organization of manpower and resources. Hannibal lost one battle and he ended up losing the war because the Carthaginians didn't have massive reserves of men to fall back on during defeat. In earlier Roman history, the Romans took a long time to conquer Italy as they neede to win over or conquer other tribes and peoples in Latium and other areas of Italy, so they did not have the strength in manpower. That's why the conquest of Italy took longer for the Romans than the conquest of the Mediterranean. In other words, some of the strength of the Legion came from the fact that the Romans could sometimes afford to lose men in some battles, while for their enemies a single loss in battle would have been their doom.

The armies of Islam were best at raiding and sometimes fighting pitched battles rather than taking on enemy armies in sieges. Asia Minor and Constantinople were heavily defended at the time. I'm sure that the Arabs lost heart when their lighting fast raids and attacks failed to budge the Byzantines from their forts. *Edit - got mixed up with the 7th century siege of Constantinope.

Hope you had a great day Lost_Warrior!

The colours aren't that bad compared to the gaudy painted statues from Fifth century Athens. Sort of looks how I imagined a Roman Villa to look, based on pictures I've seen in books.

Interesting. The Batavian cohorts later went on to play an important role in the conquest of Britain. A lot of them were stationed in Northern Britain and took part in Julius Agricola's battles in Caledonia. It's great that we have now found the original base of these warriors. I wonder what they might turn up at the site.

I've seen a few reviews and all of them have been positive so far. I've read a short synopsis of the film and it doesn't really fit into the themes of Rosemary Sutcliff's novel much. For instance one review said that Marcus and Esca never become friends (that's very different to the book - one of the main points of the story was the importance of friendship), while another notes the absence of female characters (where's Cottia?)

Thanks everyone, I had a nice time!

I'm curious to find out too. Perhaps the producers thought that the Eagle is a catchier, cooler title. Perhaps they might have changed it in order to not confuse people. I remember reading that The Madness of King George III's title was shortened so that people wouldn't get confused and think it was the third part of a trilogy. Maybe the producers thought of something similar with Eagle of the Ninth. I guess they thought most audiences would ask "Ninth what exactly?"

I got the Teutoburg Forest book. I haven't got round to reading it yet though. Might not get a chance for sometime.

I missed this while it was on TV but I did manage to catch up with it on Channel 4's homepage. It was funny, entertaining stuff. Unfortunately the video froze a few seconds after one builder went on strike after being given a row by his boss. He said he wouldn't return to the building site unless his boss gave him some cake. considering his tone it was hard to tell if he was being serious or not.

Try Peter Connolly's Greece and Rome at War one of the best books ever written on ancient warfare. If you want a good short colourful introduction to the Roman military you could look no further than Osprey Publishing's many books on the subject on - Osprey's Ancient World book list . Osprey have books on every aspect of the Roman military, from auxiliary forts, to late Roman cavalrymen, to titles on Roman battles such as Philippi, Actium, Cannae etc. Some are better quality than others, though. Another interesting new look on Roman arms and armour comes from Raffaele D'Amato and Graham Sumner's Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier. It's a controversial re-evaluation of the appearance of the Classical Imperial Roman legionary, so it's worth purchasing if you want a fresh new perspective on an old subject (although I should warn you that it can be rather heavy going at times). As for Stephen Dando-Collins' book Legions of Rome - it's a readable look on the history of the legions, although I should warn you that the book is filled with many basic errors carried over from Dando-collin's other books on the subject. Another problem comes from his battle descriptions. they are well written and detailed - far too detailed for what we usually know from ancient records, which shows he simply makes stuff up to fill in the blanks. A real shame really as he's a good writer.

I once recall reading that climate change had led to failing crops and famine which kick started the mass migrations of barbarians into Roman territory, but this was several years ago and unfortunately I can't recall the source. it's an interesting idea concerning the reason for the Barbarian invasions, but it doesn't take into consideration that barbarians had been trying to settle in other lands for centuries (the Teutons and the Cimbri during Marius's consulships for example c.110 BC). This new idea that it might have led to problems within the empire itself is interesting though.

The lack of fighting vigour among late Roman recruits might have been down to poor training and lack of enthusiasm. Ammianus Marcellinus notes several times that soldiers in the late Roman army had severe problems with discipline, with many recruits refusing to wear helmets and armour because of their weight, while newer recruits had to be locked up to stop them from escaping. Whether this was a failure of the army, or a sign of deeper socail problems is hard to say. Interestingly enough, the English military historian, Richard Holmes, mentions that many people today believe that modern soldiers (on campaign in Afghanistan) are soft and weak compared to their ancestors, mostly due to having lived such cushy, peaceful lives - lives he notes spent watching films (probably violent) and playing violent video games. After having spent time with these men, Holmes notes that this view is nonsense, and that modern soldiers are every bit as tough and resourceful as their predocessors.

I admire how they managed to take the best from the civilizations around them, and improve on those ideas. From Greek architecture, to Eastern religions, Celtic weaponry and armour, to Etruscan traditions. The Romans were pretty pragmatic, which explains why their empire became the longest lasting one in history.

Happy Birthday, Neil!

I think another reason that China survived for so much longer is that they had no invasions on the scale of the barbarian migrations into the Roman Empire in the late fourth to fifth centuries. Many of the Barbarian tribes that settled within the Roman Empire's borders had no intention to adopt Roman culture, language or way of life. It's also worth remembering that China is made up of dozens of different ethnic groups each with their own languages and culture, the most dominant being the Han, who make up around 90% of China's population. Any group that conquered Chinese lands tended to adopt Han customs and culture in the end. One famous example from later Chinese history is Kubilai Khan, the Mongol Emperor, who abandoned the steppe way of life of his grandfather Genghis and began to adopt the Chinese way (before his dynasty was eventually overthrown by the Ming).

I got the book for Christmas. It's excellent, so I recommend you get it. I found it a lot more interesting, relevant and accessible in comparison to Thomas Bullfinch's books (although he wrote his stuff in the 1800's so it's bound to be less relevent). I also got a copy of the Histories of Polybius.

hope you had a great day!