barca

It is interesting how Ventidius was able to lure the parthians out of their own element in attempting to go after him in the mountains. Somewhat similar to the Battle of Morgarten, where the Swiss infantry soundly defeated a large group of Austrian Knights.

It's my impression that the Armenians were primarily known for their heavy cavalry (catphracts), although they may also have used mounted archers to a lesser extent. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...sa%3DG%26um%3D1

Mark Anthony had ther right idea in including archers, slingers, and artillery. He also made sure that he had allied Armenian and Celtic Cavalry. He did not allow himself to get surrounded in the dessert. He took pains to avoid the errors of Crassus, but he still was unable to come up with a victory. Anthony was no Alexander, and he was no Julius Caeser either. One can only speculate how Caesar would have done against the Parthians.

And Crassus made the mistake of not joining forces with the Armenians when he advanced against the Parthians.

Yes. There were also numerous instances of Roman armies with little or no cavalry defeated superior forces with much more cavalry. At Pharsalus Caesar was outnumbered in both infantry and cavalry. He held some cohorts in reserve and had them hold up their pila in a pahalnx-like formation to drive away Pompei's cavalry. They subsequently advanced and broke Pompei's flank. At Magnesia and in the Mithridatic wars, the Romans also had less cavalry, but thye had innovative methods of dealing with them. Mounted archers were another matter altogether. The blunder of Crassus at Carrhae could easily have been avoided. He made numerous tactical errors and he allowed himself to be deceived by more than one treacherous scout. Later Eastern Armies certainly had to increase their cavalry units in order to deal with them. The Byzantine armies certainly had large numbers of well-trined heavy and light cavalry. Alexander was probably the first to defeat outright a body of mounted archers. He was able to do so with combined-arms tactics. Cavalry, artillery, light infantry, etc. Feel free to join my recent post on Alexander and Crassus.

The colonists were not severely oppressed by the British, whereas the African Americans were slaves. Their access to intellectual literature was limited. Slave owners may have encouraged them to read the Bible as a means of controlling them. Are you familiar with Nietzsche's concept of the Master Morality and Slave Morality? http://py111.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/niet...slave-morality/ And many Native Americans were fiercely independent and resistant to conversion to Christianity. The native american chief, Metacomet chose the name King Philip after Philip II of Macedon because he was more impressed by the history of the ancient Greeks than he was with the Bible. He was a warrior, and he no doubt thought that "turn the other cheek" was a sign of weakness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacomet

The puritans are a somewhat misunderstood group. Originally it referred to those who thought the church should be purged of all Roman influence, thereby purifying it. As more religious sects moved into the colonies, it became a more inclusive term for a wider range of protestant groups. There is a perception today that they were intolerant, narrorow-minded, sanctimonious, witch hunters. In reality they were very well educated not only in matters of the sciptures, but also in secular matters. Many of them learned Latin and Greek. They no doubt studied Classical History, Literature, Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science. Do you think that the "Great Awakening" was a reaction to the enlightenment?

But were these values uniquely Judeo-Christian, or more universal, i.e. present in the value systems of other cultures, both western and eastern? For example there were many values of the Greek philosophers (stoics among others) that were not inconsistent with the values of the Christians.

Carrhae is well know as one of the biggest blunders oof the Roman Army. Although Crassus was an adequate general, he was no Caesar, nor even Pompey. Still he should have know better than to allow his army to be surrounded by the Parthians. Later on Marc Anthony didn't fare much better, although he was able to avoid a total defeat. Compare that to what Alexander did against the Scythians at Jaxartes. He was very much aware of how dangerous they were and he planned his strategy in such a way that the baiters became the baited. http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jaxartes/battle.html I will admit that the Parthians were a more formidable opponent than the Scythians, but the same principle could have been applied. It's not clear to me what strategy was used later by Trajan, but he must have been familiar with Alexander's strategy against the Scythians.

Regardless of their intent. The Romans army withdrew and never reconquered Dacia. Not even with Diocletian's reforms. They were either unable or unwilling to undertake the reconquest. The main point of my post is to find out what was going on in Dacia during that time interval. How Romanized were the Goths? What legacy, if any, did the Goths leave behind when they crossed the danube in the 4th century?

I believe it was in the 3rd century under the reign of Aurelian that the Romans allowed the Goths to remain in Dacia. They must have encountered a large Romanio-Dacian population that may have inluenced them in many ways. We all know that present-day Romania still has a language closely related to latin. What is known of the relationship between the Goths and the local population during this time period? Later in the 4th century the Romans allowed the Goths to cross the Danube to escape the Huns, but what happened to the local Romano-Dacians?

That may be the case in some instances. Walk into any typical bookstore in the US, and you'll be surrounded by the best-sellers, which could be novels, self-help books, political commentaries, etc. Classical works are to be found as well, but you really have to look for them. This may just be a reflection of the times. However, my experience in bookstores in Barcelona was that the classical texts were much more visible, and appeared to be more a part of mainstream culture. Just my own anecdotal observation

Sorry about that. I personally don't like labels either. The subject is controversial, and I generally try to stay away from taking sides on political issues.

I must be surrounded by those who are intellectually inferior, as you put it. I agree with you that the Bible was certainly influential, but there are many who cannot see beyond that, and believe that all american values originate exclusively from the Bible. Thanks for the reference. He also has a more recent book "greeks and romans bearing gifts"

I agree that some of those examples you posted were far-reaching, but at least they're trying to think about history. What concerns me more is that most americans have virtually no knowledge of history. This knowledge void has allowed certain individuals to make blanket statements about US history that totally ignore our Greco-Roman heritage, and attribute all of our values to "Judeo-Christian" influences.

I brought up the subject because I respect the opinions of those who are well-versed in Roman History. There are many Classical scholars, but few are willing to address the issue I brought up. There is no question in my mind that the Roman legacy lives today in the modern governments found in America and Europe. You bring up a valid point in that it appears to be battle between faith and reason, similar to the "debates" on creationism.

Not just the Left. In the US, the Right is accusing the left of being Fascists. Watch Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly on the FOX News Chanel. These "discussions" go on because nobody in their audience seems to grasp the difference between socialism, communism, and fascism. I agree that is important to define what we are talking about. You may find it interesting that the Fasces icon has also been used by many groups that are not considered fascist at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces Generalisimo Franco used the term phalangist to describe his party. A similar concept, based on the unity of the phalanx. There were allusions to that in the movie "300", where Leonidas explained that he could not use a deformed soldier, as he would disrupt the cohesion of the phalanx. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zTIOwbJY90

It was always a no-brainer to me that many of the values expressed by the american revolutionary movement were derived from the Greco-roman world. The abolition of kings, the foundation of a republic, democracy, etc. Many individuals from the Christian Right believe that The United States was founded on "Judeo-Christian" priciples, period. NO DISCUSSION. I don't deny that religion played a role in the revolution. In fact some people in England referred to it as a Presbyterian uprising. Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues? Where can I find scholarly literature on this subject??

If there were to be a recently made movie on Hannibal, who would be the best actors for the following characters? Hannibal Scipio Africanus My choices would of course be Russell Crowe (Gladiator) and Clyve Owen (King Arthur). Just who would play whom would be a tough call. Any ideas?

Here are my brief observations. Alothough we know quite a lot about Hannibal's battlefield strategy and tactics, we know surprisingly little about the exact makeup of his army. For example there is no consesnsus on whether his african infantry were arrayed in phalanx or a more loose legionesce formation. His infantry was very mobile, able to change direction, and surprise the Romans. Contrary to popular belief, a well organized phalanx formation is capable of rapid maneuvering and change of direction. Alexander's phalanx was capable of assuming various formations (see legion vs. traditional phalanx). The decisive Roman victories over the Macedonian Phalanx formations occurred only after the lessons taught to them by Hannibal. Prior to the Second Punic War the Roman Legions were not as maneuverable, and they were easily outflanked by a clever opponent. Scipio learned how to outflank his opponents by studying Hannibal's victories over the Romans. Subsequent leaders like Flamminius were able to carry on this more versatile and maneuverable version of the legion. I would have to say that one of the big differences between Alexander and Hannibal was that Alexander was almost always leading from the front. More daring and risky, but it worked for him. Maybe it worked because the Eastern opponents were more likely to run away before the battle became too intense. Would it have worked against the Romans? Pyrrhus tried it and it didn't work too well. Hannibal was content to stay behind the front lines so he could survey the entire battlefield and make changes as needed. I would consider Hannibal's approach more conservative. Was it better? Who knows? Different strokes (stocks vs bonds).

Do remember that the estimate number of Goths that crossed the Danube River was upwards of a million people. Thats one hell of an ethic clensing mission, Hitler would have been proud. They may have been weak refugees but they were even weaker, hungrier and all the more desperate when they rebelled at Marcinople in 377. Also the Goths, feared the Huns more than the Romans, refusing to let them cross the Danube would have meant instant war. The only way to have resolved the struggle would have been to treat them better. I understand why the Romans didn't. They hated them with a passion. Which is why, failing this, Valens should of under no circumstances engaged them at Adrianople without Gratian. It is almost certain that the result would have been different had he not made one of the costliest mistakes in western history. How about a more proactive approach. Instead of letting them cross the Danube, do what the earlier Romans would have done. Form an allianace with the Goths. Declare themselves their protectors. Have a Roman army cross the Danube and have a combined Roman-Gothic army attack the Huns. The Goths would have been very thankfull and therefore could have potentially been intergrated into the Roman system. Prior to Adrianople, the Roman army still had a lot of prestige. They had shown repeatedly that they were still able to consistently defeat barbarian armies and inflict heavy casualties. A good example would be the Battle of Strassburg. During the Republic, the Romans made alliances with various states as a means of subduing a greater enemy. For example: Pergamon against Antiochus, Caesar was "protecting" the Gauls from the Teutons.

It is my understanding that stirrups originated in the orient and didn't make it to Europe until about the *th century. It is safe to say that the early Imperial cavalry didn't have them. I assume that the early Byzantine Cavalry of Belisarius et al did not have stirrups either. What about the late Sassanids? They had closer contact with the orient. Is there any evidence that they had access to stirrups? What about the HUns?--they supposedly came from the orient--why didn't they have stirrups? Can anyone tell me when was the first recorded use of stirrups in the following locations: Far East (China) India Mesopotania Eastern Europe Western Europe

We probably should look at the big picture and consider what was happening in Western Europe at about the same time. A new force was asserting itself--the Normans. we've all heard of William the Conqueror and what he did in 1066. Another Norman, Robert Guiscard (1015-1085) doesen't get the recognition that he deserves. He conquered Southern Italy and Sicily in a series of campaigns, thereby weakening Byzantium's contact with Rome.

I agree that it is hard to make valid comparisons between Pyrrhus and Alexander. One thing is clear, Pyrrhus faced a much more reslient opponenet. Pyrrhus did not have much success with his cavalry against the Romans. Was this because his cavalry force was inferior to Alexander's, or was he facing a much more tenacious opponent than any that Alexander ever encountered? In the Battle of Heraclea, Pyrrhus attempted the Alexandr-style cavalry charge, but he was driven back. The Roman cavalry held their own quite well. Somewhat perplexing when you consider that the Romans were not known for their cavalry. He was only able to make a difference when he brought forth his elephants. The obvious question is what would Alexander have done differently. Would his cavalry charge have been any better? Would he have been able to exploit any weaknesses in the Roman lines? Were the Romans too disciplined to allow themselves to be broken up by a cavalry charge?