WotWotius

You missed out another school of thought. 'Post-revsionists' believe that belive that characters like Caligula have their reputations for a reason; because what it is said they did actually happened!

I think it happened around 50sAD, resulting in a 20 year ban on gladiatorial games. There's a mural in pompeii illustrating the riot.

Was it the Capuans and her gladiator team which caused a city wide riot in Pompeii?

The famous 'seashell incident may not have even take place; i say this because the latin word for seashell is also the same word for a small military tent. So Caligula may have in fact ordered his legions to 'collect their tents'. This seems plausable as his legions were refusing to go on campaign to Britain and keeping them on the gallic coast wasn't doing him any favours.

cheers for the advice. I was wondering if you'd like to help me with my next project? The question is 'Why did Caesar's invasions of 55BC & 54BC fail when Claudius/Aulus Plautius' succeeded?

I have been given a college project on why the romans built so many fora and i was wondering if i could add anything to what i have done... During the time of the Roman republic, before Roman imperialism was installed, Rome was by no means glamorous; though her empire was vast, Rome did not even compare to the other great cities of the known world despite being the wealthiest. For example, Athens was a city paved in marble and Alexandria embodied all the riches of Egypt. Rome, on the other hand was a muddy, unattractive, cattle town that had been burned and pillaged due to civil wars between Rome

The disaster at Adrianople in 378 AD. As well as a physical defeat, this was also a psychological defeat as it caused a great loss of morale throughout the empire.

What i want to know is whether a Roman army could beat a Greek army in battle. For instance, could Alexander the Great's force beat Caesar's legions? [additional edit: topic split from "Greeks versus Romans" in Forum Peregrini]

But in Trajan and Servius' time the Parthian Empire was not as strong as it used to be. If Caesar was to launch an assult of the Parthians he would have faced a much stronger amry than Trajan did.

True but the organised armies he fought against didn't have cavalry archers.

I personally believe that is Caesar had lived beyond 44 BC, his Parthian campaign would have ended in failure. Think about it, Parthia's army was made up of lightly armoured cavalry archers and heavy cavalry. The bulk of Caesar's army on the other hand was made up of slow moving (yet powerful) legoinaries. If these armies were to clash Parthia's cavalry would easily pick off Caesar's men. Furthermore, Caesar would have been taking on a superpower of the time. Unlike the divided Gallic tribes Caesar was used to fighting, the Parthians were organised, well equiped, rich and more importantly more united than the Gauls. A terrifying and formidiable aponent if you ask me. If you don't believe me look at how many Roman military disasters there were against parthia: -CRASSUS 53BC, Legions anialated by Parthia at Carrahe -DECIDUS SAXA 40BC, Lost Roman standards to Parthia -MARK ANOTONY 36BC, Was deafeated by the Parthians in Armenia No wonder Augustus wanted to create a peace with the Parthians in 20 BC