Legionary Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 ok. I just found this site yesterday and I think it is amazing. I have always been interested in Roman history but never really found an interesting place to study. So can anyone out there tell me things that happened in the Roman empire that aren't commonly known? Like what does a Gladius look like? Is it just a sword or what? I am also immensly interested in the warfare and tactics that the Romans used or was used against them. How did Hannibal fight so well against them and what were his purposes? Other than open war did the Romans have any spies? Or did they not prefer that? I know they sent some into Carthage but I am looking for something other than that. I will also be reading a lot more of the material at this site to try and learn some more about this ancient empire that survived for so long and conqeured so many. And what about the fall of the Roman empire? Why did it fall and what was the cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Hello Legionary and welcome to UNRV! First thanks for your kind words, You have many questions and i try to answer at least one of it, namely the fall of the roman empire; There has been no shortage of theories on the fall of the roman empire and it has never been clear why Rome became so vulnerable to foreign invaders at this time. Probably contributers were political instability, the collapse of food supplies to Rome, constant influx of "barbarians" and even the infamous lead in the water supplies have all been implicated. Historians have generally agreed that Rome's downfall was due to a combination of many factors. One must also understand that logictics played an important role, (just imagine how long it takes to travel from Rome to Britain by foot, even by horse it is probably a journey one needs a week. To have a good infrastructure, you need administration that funcitons well, and due to lack of leadership, corruption that infrastructure was not up to scratch as it once was... ok i stop now and let others have a word or two.. cheers viggen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 ok.I just found this site yesterday and I think it is amazing. Thanks, we are trying I am also immensly interested in the warfare and tactics that the Romans used or was used against them. How did Hannibal fight so well against them and what were his purposes? Hannibal fought so well against the Romans for a couple of reasons. He was quite simply a brilliant tactician. In the field, few men understood the concept of flanking, ambush and the use of superior cavalry the way that Hannibal did. The Romans, prior to Scipio Africanus, were also led mostly by incompetent generals. Their zeal to defeat Hannibal and gain personal glory led them into numerous traps or unfavorable positions. Eventually Hannibal's lack of reinforcements and a Roman change in philosophy (not fighting Hannibal directly in open battle) led to his downfall. The war of attrition worked against him, and as his troop strength was slowly depleted over the years, the Romans just waited him out. His purpose against the Romans was multi-faceted. First, Hannibal, and the entire Barca family, learned to hate the Romans on a personal basis from his father Hamilcar. Wrongs done to Carthage after the First Punic War was enough motivation for war in his mind. However, he did have other objectives, mainly the defeat of Rome and increase of Carthaginian power. When Hannibal first crossed the Alps, his goal was the complete revolt of the Roman allied italian tribes. Having the support of the tribes, Hannibal expected to be able to crush Rome itself. When this failed, he (and this is way simplified here), simply sought to secure peace on favorable terms, essentially reversing Carthaginian losses in the first war. You may want to check out the Second Punic War for more info. Other than open war did the Romans have any spies? Or did they not prefer that?I know they sent some into Carthage but I am looking for something other than that. They most certainly did. Roman power was even more reliant upon political and diplomatic influence than open conquest. Enemy states, client kingdoms and allies were all inundated with Roman spies for various purposes. The word 'spy' may not have been used, in that Roman informers may have been disguised as diplomatic missions at times, but the use of these tactics are well documented with the ancient sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legionary Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Ok thanks for all the info you guys. I did read all about the second punic war and earlier. Now I have a somewhat better understanding of some things. I will however stick around and keep reading what you have. Maybe when I finish all that I might be able to ask some more sophisticated questions as I have seen others doing around here. I also found that my dad is quite interested in this stuff as well though I don't think he will ask any questions. Could someone suggest another good source to learn more about Roman history? I haven't found anything else worth looking at yet so I'm hoping someone else has. Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 There are no questions or topics that we feel too unsophisticated to delve into. If there is something that is on your mind, feel free to post. The only way to build a solid community is through people like yourself, asking questions, discussing, learning and teaching. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legionary Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Well I have some questions about this site. When was this website started? Which forumn is the most active and for what reason? I read somewhere that you guys were trying to make this the best Roman History website in the world. When or how will you know if it is? Or is it already? In the movie 'Gladiator' what was the intended time of that movie? Like a general area of time in BC or AD is what I am asking. Also was Maximus's house in that movie supposed to be near a Greek city or no? And what types of armour did the Romans really wear? Like chain suits or Bronze plates? I also read that they had a really advanced street system and plumbing. Why were the road systems considered to be so advanced? And how did they control the waterflow so well with stone aquaducts without constantly having breaks in the rock from shifting ground? Or were these water systems set above ground on the stone streets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jugurtha Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 In the movie 'Gladiator' what was the intended time of that movie? Like a general area of time in BC or AD is what I am asking. Marcus Aurelius died, possibly of the plague, at a military encampment at Bononia on the Danube on 17 March 180 AD, leaving the Roman Empire to his nineteen-year-old son. Upon hearing of his father's death, Commodus made preparations for Marcus' funeral, made concessions to the northern tribes, and made haste to return back to Rome in order to enjoy peace after nearly two decades of war. Commodus, and much of the Roman army behind him, entered the capital on 22 October, 180 in a triumphal procession, receiving a hero's welcome. As you can see, the movie took some liberties there. It's very important to remember you are watching fiction (probably more than you would like). It's probably also best to remember that - unlike in the movie - Commodus was initially not that bad an emperor. He probably got a tad mad with power later on, being locked up in his imperial utopia surrounded by leaches. I think it's the (fictional !) oedipus motive in the movie script that led Joaquin Phoenix to portray Commodus as the emotionally troubled youngster. Also was Maximus's house in that movie supposed to be near a Greek city or no? As far as I can recall, they called him Spaniard, so Spain should be a close guess. No Greek cities in Spain, although they may have had some trade centers in the vincinity at some stage. I'll leave the rest for someone else. - JUG PS: btw, there was a Spanish emperor at some time, no? Who was he again (too lazy to look it up)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Thanks Jug for chipping in, Trajan was born on spanish soil, and Hadrian's family lived in Hispania too, but there is some debate if Hadrian was born on spanish soil or rather in Rome, however the actual place of one's birth was unimportant, since it was one's patria which was crucial. @Legionary June 30, 2003 is the official birthdate of this site. cheers viggen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legionary Posted June 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Ok thanks. I asked about their water systems. Can anybody answer that question? I have found a few books and have been reading them. They answer a lot of questions such as why the Roman empire fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legionary Posted June 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Also, They did call maximus the Spaniard but that was in his gladiator gear. He didn't show his face so they didn't know who he really was for a large part of the film. That would mean that since they called him spaniard it must have been because he had a horse emblem on his armour. (Horse emblem? Not sure but thats what I remember) So actually spaniard was what the crowds called him so his house location is still open for debate. Or I could be wrong. I'm not too sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Regarding Water System One of the best pages i know of that go into details you can find here http://academic.bowdoin.edu/classics/resea...tml/intro.shtml hope that helps cheers viggen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valens Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 I have a couple of questions: What were the Roman military ranks? I would be inclined to think they changed over the years, so if possible, please let me know of changes. How would one move up the ranks? (was this a matter of leadership, bravery, or a capable mind?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 The military ranks remained, for the most part, unchanged throughout the history of the empire. There were some adjustments to the command structure with the change from the maniple to the cohort under Gaius Marius, and some in the late empire, but for all practical purposes the ranks remained relatively the same throughout. Check this out for the Legionary command structure... Legion Ranks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valens Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 Wow, that was quite helpful. Thanks. Though upon reading the organization and an additional few articles, I have come up with a few more questions: *Besides the finer cloak and muscled breast plate, how would one of the highest ranking officers'(let's say a Legatus Legionis) armor/uniform differ from a Centurion's? *Were there any inter-legion ranks( high ranking officers that could control more than one legion)? *Lastly, would you happen to have any drawings of some of the Middle and High ranking legionary officers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 I also read that they had a really advanced street system and plumbing.Why were the road systems considered to be so advanced? You might find this article useful.. regards viggen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts