barca

I couldn't help but remember your comment when I heard about the revised history curriculum in the state of Texas. Mcleroy who is the main proponent of the new curriculum is one of those individuals you described above. Ill send some relevant links as a followup. What is unfortunate is that in the arguments of the democrats and republicans, what really got lost? The greco-roman or classical influence on US history. Here are the links: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/21/texas.textbook.vote/ http://www.aolnews.com/story/texas-board-a...-studies/673391 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...1001.blake.html There may be an element of truth to Mcleroy's comment about "liberal" (whatever that means) inclinations in the previous history books, but he's certainly not an Historian himself. In my opinion, history should be about trying to get the facts right, not about promoting a political ideology, right or left. From the aol article U.S. government be referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than "democratic." Does everyone agree with this? They do have a valid point. The founding fathers admired the stable Roman Republic much more than the Greek Democracies which tended to become free-for-alls.

I think you're right about that, and they certainly didn't carry on Sparta's martial tradition. When they came into conlict with Rome, they called in Pyrrhus to do their fighting for them, and they were less than enthusiastic about contributing to the war effort themselves. In fact, Pyrrhus had to rely on other Italian allies to supplement his troops.

I also suggest that you look at Matyszac's book on the Roman Conquest of Macedon and Greece http://www.unrv.com/index.php?p=728 Sparta made a resurgence under Cleomenes (235-222 BC) He reformed their military system and introduced the sarissa into their formation, but he was ultimatelly defeated. Greek warfare had changed considerably from the classical period. The Galatians intoduced some changes in the arms and armor. The Aetolian league used mostly light troops, which may have been influenced somewhat by the Galatians. The Achaean league under Philopoemen upgraded to the Sarissa or at least some form of a longer pike. I don't know if any Greeks still went into battle along the lines of the original hoplite phalanx, with the large hoplon shield and relatively short spear.

The Falx is an interesting weapon. The curvature is in the opposite direction of the Katana (Japanese Samurai Sword)

Batiatus is one slimy character. Vile yet somewhat likable at the same time. He is scary but not really intimidating. He has a sort of charm that can be disarming. He could smile in your face while slitting your jugular. And I loved the part when he was snubbed by the senator who told him to stay out of politics and stick to what he does best. In reality he probabaly would do well in politics, where high level backstabbing is a prerequisite.

A totalitarian society can be tradionalist, stable, orderly, but I'm not sure about egalitarian. I generally think of a totalitarian system as elitist. Rational? I would think that the free-thinking Athenians were more advanced from an intellectual standpoint. Moral? Maybe, depending what aspects of morality you place emphasis? The work ethic, which is what the Spartans valued most is only one aspect of morality.

Hmm. And what sort of club are you talking about?

How does this topic relate to Roman History? The Hellenistic period is closely tied to Roman History. Many basic physical science concepts were initially described by the Hellenistic Greeks. For example, look at this early description of a siphon: http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/

I would start with the Thebans and the sacred band, since they defeated the Spartans at Leuctra. The Macedonians subsequently defeated the Thebans at Chaeronea. Greek warfare was evolving. The old hoplite phalanx was gradually replaced by the Sarissa pike phalanx, which was designed as an anti-hoplite formation. Even the Spartans eventually adopted the Sarissa.

That's the impression I had, but do we really know for sure? How well known were Homer's works outside of the the Greek world? Did the Etruscan read about the Trojan War? What about the early Romans prior to their conquest of Magna Graecia, were they familiar with the Trojan war?

It seems to me that the late Roman infantry also used an oval shield. The Byzantine infantry used an oval shield and later they used a kite-shaped shield.

Here's a book I found on Amazon that may answer some of your questions: http://www.amazon.com/Among-Gentiles-Greco...ader_0300142080

Ethics and spirituality was more prevalent among the philosophers such as the Stoics, who believed in the God of nature; many of them were skeptical of the very existence of pagan gods, but they certainly paid lip service to them. Cicero is credited with the idea of natural law, and probably the first to envision the idea of human rights as we know them today. In reality they didn't put these ideas in practice. They certainly didn't want to pass on these dangerous ideas to the slaves and lower classes. They didn't need another Spartacus. Philosophical spirituality was different than today's religious spirituality in that it was only for the educated. Christianity adopted many of the ideas from Greco-Roman philosophy, digested them and made them more accessible to commoners.

The short answer is that we really don't know for sure. The long answer is that you'll get a lot of diverse perspectives on this issue. For example, the controversial Friedrich Nietzsche praised the Pre-Christian Pagans for their worldly, life-affirming, passionate outlook, which he regarded as superior to the spiritual, life-denying, asceticism of the Christians.

I am considering getting a Kindle from Amazon to consolidate my reading: http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Read...;pf_rd_i=507846 I recently found that Barnes & Noble has a similar device: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nook/ Does anyone have any recommendations?

When looking at the battle of Carrhae one gets the impression of the Parthians as being invincible because of the futile efforts of the Romans to engage them successfully. It is important to recognize that this was an isolated situation where the Romans were misled by an Arab scout and found themselves stranded in unfavorable terrain. There were numerous enemies of Rome who also had horse archers, but they weren't able to use them effectively. At Magnesia Antiochus had horse archers and we all know the outcome of that battle. Mithridates and his Armenian allies also had horse archers, but again they weren't very effective against the Romans. It seems to me that they were more effective as part of a pure cavalry army that was was not encumbered by slower-moving infantry, so that they could apply their hit and run tactics. And these tactics work best in isolated areas such as Carrhae. It seems to me that Lucullus' army performed well against the Parthians when he engaged them in favorable terrain.

A recent article by Ross Cowan in Ancient Warfare Magazine addresses some of these issues: Special: Ross Cowan, 'Changing formations and Specialists. Aspects of later Roman battle tactics'. Illustrated by Andrew Brozyna. This article examines three aspects of Roman b ttle tactics in the second to fourth centuries AD. First, what is the evidence in this period for the triplex acies, the classic triple battleline? Second, how did Roman light cavalry and clubmen operate against cataphracts and Clibanarii? Third, what were forfex, orbis and cuneus formations? http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/issues/...are-6-2009.html

I recently started reading Matyszak's Roman Conquests: Macedonia and Greece and I found his reconstruction of the Battle of Callicinus fascinating. It was a indecisive victory for Perseus, who has been criticized by some historians for not taking more decisive action to followup his initial success. Only the light troops and cavalry were involved. The Romans suffered significant losses whereas the Macedonians had minimal losses. Both the Macedonian Phalanx and the Roman legions were held in reserve. The Macedonian phalanx moved up and was about to join the fighting, but Perseus held it back. So what would have happened if he had turned it loose? Would it have swept away the retreating light troops and smashed the legions that by then may have also been retreating? Or would there be the same outcome as later at Pydna, where the phalanx had initial success, but eventually cracked in several places, allowing the Romans to carve it up from inside?

That's a ridiculous statement. No one here is trying to glorify Islam. Having said that, I actually agree with most of your other statements. Particularly about the plagiarism with regard to "arabic" numbers which came from India. Why so much of the Eastern Empire fell so quickly to the Arabs is hard to explain. The Battle of Yarmouk was one of the key events that left the Byzantines at their mercy.

The persistence of the Monophysites in the Middle East may have been part of the reason why Islam was able to take hold so easily there. They felt oppressed by Orthodox Christianity and they viewed the Moslems as liberators.

Unfortunately the Crusades didn't work out too well for the Byzantines. Alexius Comnenus would have liked to use the Crusaders as allies to reconquer the lost territories of the Byzantine Empire, but they really never worked together very well. The Crusaders went out on their own, and to the surprise of the Byzantines, they actually performed quite well against the Turks. They ended up forming their own little kingdoms with some sort of quasi allegiance to Byzantium, but they certainly were not considered part of the empire. And not all of the Moslems were intolerant. Saladin was thought of as magnanimous victor. Islamic Spain had long been regarded as culture where Islam, Christianity, and Judaism coexisted.

Do you think that Islam is still evolving, and will gradually develop into a more tolerant form of religion? I bring this up because Islam is relatively new in the world stage (7th century) compared to Christianity (1st century), Buddhism and Hinduism (several centuries BC) Looking back at the early Christian Emperors such as Constantine and Theodosius, I can see how they envisioned a more stable Christian Empire unified under a single God compared to the pantheon of multiple Pagan Gods. I doubt that they expected the divisiveness that developed in religious controversies surrounding the nature of Christ. It seems to me that much of the Empire's intellectual energy in the 5th century was devoted in trying to resolve these issues, while at the same time they were abdicating much of their political and military responsibilities to the Germanic militias.

I agree with Melvadius on this one. I didn't think he was justifying present day murder at all. He was showing how fanatics of any religion can get out of hand and do evil things. Hypatia as a hero/martyr of feminism? I thought of her more as a proponent of reason over faith, regardless of her gender.

I agree that we got away from the issue at hand. We could probably open a separate discussion in another category. Which relied most/least on slave labor? That's a goood question. I would defer to the scholars. It seems to me that technological innovation was greatest in Hellenistic Egypt. But let's not forget about Archimedes who as I recall lived in Sicily.

What rockets did the Americans have in 1944? If you're going to denegrate the V2 because it couldn't land a man on the moon, why not dismiss the Wright brothers since their plane was incapable of a transatlantic flight? Rocket science had to evolve over the years, and of course it was more advanced in 1969 when we landed on the moon. The V2 remains historically the prototype from which modern rockets evolved. And no I don't regard the 3rd Reich as the paragon of the 20th century. I used them as an example of a regime that was technologically advanced despite being oppressive. One could also use Soviet Russia as another example.