barca

Yes I did read the book. Someone else recommended it earlier. A very vivid description of the events leading up to the battle. It seems to me that the Romans had maintained a delicate balance between immigration, assimilation, and Romanization, which had actually worked very well until then, when they took in more than they could handle, and their system was thrown out of order.

I find it interesting how the use of long pikes became dominant during the Hellenistic period, and went into decline because of devastating defeats at the hands of the Romans. They don't really emerge again (or at least one doesn't hear much about them) until the later middle ages with the Flemish, Swiss, Scotts, etc. It is clear that long pikes were a strong deterrent against cavalry, and I find it hard to believe that the Romans didn't find them useful in their eastern campaigns. We all know about Arrian's description of the legion's formation against the Alans, but it seems to me that a pilum is less effective than a longer spear or pike against cavalry. Caracala supposedly was intersted in recreating a macedonian style phalanx for one of his future ventures in the east. The later Roman armies replaced the pilum with a longer thrusting spear, which was probably superior against cavalry. The Byzantine infantrymen were accustomed to bracing themselves against cavalry, and they also had relatively long spears, but I don't know if they ever used extra-long pikes (18-21 ft) Is there any evidence that the Byzantines ever used the longer pikes prior to the late middle ages?

And yet not all phalanx formations exhibited such vulnerability. The Swiss were able to advance in a square formation, with all sides protected. Alexander's phalangites had multiple formations, such as the circle (p 147 of Alexander by TA Dodge) In the case of Mithridates's army, did they need earthworks when they had the vast superiority in cavalry? It almost seems as though the phalanx was a liabilty rather than a help. It was just sitting there waiting for its flanks to be exposed, thereby tying down the freedom of movement of the cavalry. The Pontic cavalry had both cataphracts and horse archers (Sarmatians, Scythians, etc) and were similar to the Parthians who were able to annihilate the Roman legions at Carrhae.

An yet the Swiss Pikemen never had that problem as they advanced in columns. Also many of Alexander's formations were far from linear. wedges, circles, etc. Scottish schiltrons were also very effecting against cavalry.

I was just reading your description of that battle in your recent book about Mithradates. It seems as though the Pontics had a reasonable plan, but they were not able to take advantage of their vast superiority in cavalry, and ultimatelly they were not able to protect their own flanks, and their massive phalanx fell apart. I find it interesting that the Roman infantry was so effective with those tight spiky groups against cavalry even though their spears (pila) were raltively short. The phalanx itself seemed to do a good job up front. It dindn't come apart at the seams (as in the battle of Pydna) but the Pontics were unable to come up with a plan for effective flank support. Neither superior cavalry, nor additional infantry were able to protect the flanks. Was there anything else that they could have done? In comparing a phalanx to the legion against cavalry, it seems to me that the phalanx is more of a deterrent to charging cavalry because of the longer reach of the pikes. A well disciplined group of pikemen can do more than just stand firm against cavalry, but actually advance against them. The best example would be the Swiss infantry of the late middle ages.

The Normans are credited with the couched lances, but even at Hastings they only experimented with that technique. Many were still using the lances overhead. A few years later The Normans of Robert Guiscard used the couched lance with devastating effect against the Byzantines at Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081), also known as Siege of Durazzo.

The founding of Carthage is estimated to be somewhere around 800 or 900 BC The fall of Troy probably around 1200 BC or more Can we be sure about these dates? Is it possible that the Trojan war was more recent than is generally accepted? Was the legend of Dido and Aeneas in existance long bfore Vergil or did he just make it up?

I found an interesting website which already is revising Biblical History: http://phoenicia.org/jezebel.html

Did they specifically mention Adrianople? It is generally accepted that the troops at Adrianople were of good quality, and that is why their loss was so devastating. The troops that were hastily recruited afterwards were inferior, and those may be the ones that Vegetius was describing.

It seems to me that by the time of Adrianople the "legion" had evolved into a formation that was less flexible from the legions of the late republic and early empire. Longer spears replaced the pilum and the soldiers advanced shield to shield much like the phalanx formation of the ancient greeks. In his Art of War, Machiavelli advocates the use of a phalanx with long spears as a better defense against heavy cavalry, suggesting that the old legion without the long spears would be less effective as a wall against cavalry. The cause of blunder at Adrianople is controversial, and I don't think you can blame their infantry as not capable of standing up against cavalry. After all the army at Arianople had just come from the East and had been preparing itself for the heavy cavalry of the Sassanid Persians, whch were at least as good as those which they engaged at Adrianople. We don't really know enough about the details of the battle to fully understand what happened. We do know that the Barbarin cavalry arrived late to tip the balance, and the Roman Infantry wasn't able to mobilize its reserves to prevent them from being surrounded.

In 251 the Romans under Decius had a similar defeat at the hands of the Goths. Fortunatelly, the Goths were only interested in plunder, and they were content to go back to their homeland. What would have happened if they had decided to stay?

And looking at the battle of Adrianople, where the Romans ended up packed together very closely, wouldn't they have been better off with the Gladius instead of the Spatha?

Page 48 of Ward-Perkins: "In Italy it was only in 440, in the face of a new seaborne threat from the Vandals, that the emperor Valentinian III formally revoked the law that banned Roman citizens from bearing arms." It seems to me that with the reduction of the tax base, the empire could no longer afford to maintain the army on its own. Can someone tell me how long had the law banning citizens from bearing arms been in effect? PS: sorry about the spelling error in the title. I don't know how to correct it.

Yes I do. I just started reading Ward-Perkin's book, and page 61 he made the following comments of the success of the Huns against the Romans. "... the Huns took advantage of the two occasions when the empire did get embroiled in Persian wars, in 421-2 and 441-2 (when there was also a major expedition against Vandal Africa), and immediatelly launched successful campaigns in the Balkans." This indicates to me that they were not facing the full strength of the Romans. So if the Romans hadn't been caught up in trying to recapture their lost territory, the outcome against the Huns may have been different.

That's what you might consider a "what if" scenario. Theodosius proably would have preferred to eliminate the Gothic threat if he had the manpower to do so, but many of his new recruits proved to be unreliable. At that time the Romans didn't have much direct contact with the Huns. Later in the 5th century there were direct conflicts, and the Romans necessarily had to use the Visigoths as allies, but by that time the regular Roman army had been diminished. What if Gratian had fought a pitched battle with Fritigen right after Adrianople. Certainly a big risk. A loss would have given the Visigoths a free hand in the West, but a victory against them was not out of the question. The Goths must have been weakened somewhat after Adrianople, and not fully recovered. Years later, Stlicho pulled away many of the troops guarding the border zones in order to confront Alaric, who was becoming a troublemaker. He was able to defeat him on more than one occasion, indicating that the regular Roman army was still a formidable force. Somehow the borders still remained somewhat intact for a while. If the Gothic threat within the empire had been eliminated, I suggest that it would have been easier for the Romans to maintain their border defences, and they would have had more control and determination in their eventual conflicts with the Huns.

Here's an interesting article suggesting Theodosius saved Rome by establishing a theocracy: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2004/aug19.html I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the article, but it's good for provoking discussion.

What you're describing sounds more like the xiphos, which would go along with the later upgrade to the gladius. The earlies Gladius was the Mainz type, which was widest at the hilt, and had a long tapering point. The later Pompeii type had parallel edges. Regardless of the shape, what made the gladius special was the quality of the steel, which allowed it to maintain a very sharp edge.

What type of sword did these Celtiberians have? The greeks did have the kopis as well as the xiphos. The kopis primarily for cutting and the xiphos for thrusting as well as cutting, but not as effective at cutting. The Iberians may have had more than one type of sword. Regardless of the specifics, it appears that somehow the Gladius originated in Spain, and it was an upgrade from the previous hoplite sword. There must be another discussion on this issue in this forum, and I'll see if I can find it. The point I was trying to make was that the Iberians were not to be underestimated as soldiers. They were known for their swordmanship. Edit: I am adding additional information on the origin of the Gladius: http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=1564 According to this article it originated from the Iberian Espasa Is anyone familiar with Wildfire Games in terms of historical accuracy?

No surprise there. The success of the post-PW II legions against the Helenistic kingdoms can be attributed to their use of the Gladius Hispaniensis more so than to their manipular formations. The Gladius was a romanized version of the HispanoIberian sword or Falcata. The Romans must have recognized the value of those swords when they fought the Iberians. Hannibal brought Iberian mercenaries to Italy, and it is possible that his African Infantry may have carried a similar sword.

I took a quick glance at your link. It seems similar to Sun Szu's Art of War. I'll certainly consider reading it at some point, but I'm currently way behind on other things that I need to read. Here's an interesting observation from Frontinus: 20 "When Perseus, king of the Macedonians, had drawn up a double phalanx of his own troops and had placed them in the centre of his forces, with light-armed troops on each side and cavalry on both flanks, Paulus in the battle against him drew up a triple array in wedge formation, sending out skirmishers every now and then between the wedges. Seeing nothing accomplished by these tactics, he determined to retreat, in order by this feint to lure p121the enemy after him on to rough ground, which he had selected with this in view. When even then the enemy, suspecting his ruse in retiring, followed in good order, he commanded the cavalry on the left wing to ride at full speed past the front of the phalanx, covering themselves with their shields, in order that the points of the enemy's spears might be broken by the shock of their encounter with the shields. When the Macedonians were deprived of their spears, they broke and fled."54 This description of presumably the battle of Pydna is totally different from what was desceibed by Plutarch. It sounds as if Paulus attempted to create gaps in the phalanx unsuccessfully and had to resort to using his cavalry against the pike formation. The last maneuver seems contrary to conventional wisdom.

It doesn't sound as if they know for sure, just the approximate time period: "The shards also date back to the time of Jesus, which includes the late Hellenic, early Roman period that ranges from around 100 B.C. to 100 A.D., Alexandre said. The determination was made by comparing the findings to shards and remains found in other parts of the Galilee typical of that period, she said."

Given your last line; is any debate invited here? But of course! Be my guest... Can you clarify to purpose of the topic? Are you looking for opinions on who was better, Scipio vs Caesar? OR Are you looking for opinions on the validity of making such anachronic comparisons?

Are there any contemporary Christian churces that currently believe as the Arians did regarding the nature of Christ?

I took a quick glance at your link. It seems similar to Sun Szu's Art of War. I'll certainly consider reading it at some point, but I'm currently way behind on other things that I need to read.