GW-you were right with Scipio. I was hoping the hint of, doing anything he has to, would tip you off. He used ambush and a form of scorched earth that burnt the enemy unprepared. He receive some criticism for his ways.

I double checked this at answers.com whom I trust to be reliable.

Returning to Rome, he was elected consul and after some opposition was assigned to Sicily from where, in 204, he launched the invasion of the Carthaginian homeland (now, roughly, Tunisia), landing on Cap Farina (Rass Sidi Ali el Mekki). After wintering on the site now occupied by Kalaat el Andelous, he surprised and burned the camps of the Carthaginian forces gathered to oppose him, and then broke out of his beachhead to win a decisive victory at ‘Campi Magni’ (‘Great Plains’, possibly Souk el Kremis, near Bou Salem). Leaving part of his forces to overrun the kingdom of Carthage's principal ally, Syphax of Numidia (in modern Algeria), he himself took up a position at Tunis. Carthage now sued for peace, and although the peace process collapsed, possibly because of Carthaginian treachery, one result was the recall of Hannibal from Italy. In October 202 Scipio won the decisive encounter, usually known as Zama, and peace was made.

I thought that Hannibal was just that creepy old dude from "Silence Of The Lambs".

Don't you have some gas to pass somewhere else?

From your last post:

Quote:

Returning to Rome, he was elected consul and after some opposition was assigned to Sicily from where, in 204, he launched the invasion of the Carthaginian homeland (now, roughly, Tunisia), landing on Cap Farina (Rass Sidi Ali el Mekki). After wintering on the site now occupied by Kalaat el Andelous, he surprised and burned the camps of the Carthaginian forces gathered to oppose him, and then broke out of his beachhead to win a decisive victory at ‘Campi Magni’ (‘Great Plains’, possibly Souk el Kremis, near Bou Salem). Leaving part of his forces to overrun the kingdom of Carthage's principal ally, Syphax of Numidia (in modern Algeria), he himself took up a position at Tunis. Carthage now sued for peace, and although the peace process collapsed, possibly because of Carthaginian treachery, one result was the recall of Hannibal from Italy. In October 202 Scipio won the decisive encounter, usually known as Zama, and peace was made.

Yeah. That's all correct.


Like I said, Scipio had absolutely no leadership position in Italy. He commanded.....nothing and no one. His military functions were in Spain, Sicily, and Africa the entire time Hannibal was in Italy.


It was about Fabius, that earlier thing you said. Fabian tactics = scorched earth.

Check into the man named Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus.

_________________
"The 'farce' is strong with Sith Lord Obama-Wan." words of Scourge.

"Uh....You can believe me....Uh....because I never lie, and....Uh....Uh....I am always right." words of Sith Lord Obama-Wan.

Daddy likes it all, the DraíodóirDé likes it all

Besides, the Romans got NOTHING that a handfull of WWI era Germans and a couple machine guns couldn' handle....

Hey Black Rider......sorry it took me so long to make this post. I've been ready to do it since about Tuesday, but procrastinated.....because i'm a *professional procrastinator*. Here's the answer to this question:

Quote:

Do you think opening up the army to free Roman citizens instead of just the higher class with wealth was a good thing?

There are both good and not so good aspects to what happened. Whether I think it is good, or not good, is irrelevant. Just look at what happened.

Before the latter part of the Punic Wars the Roman Army had been closed to all except those who were citizens and had enough wealth to classify as earning a spot in the armed forces. As the Roman Army was opened up to service by anyone that possessed citizenry, regardless of wealth, it was both good and bad, depending upon what is considered.

As the time passed in the second and first centuries B.C., the military became more and more liberal in its army membership requirements. As time passed there were absolutely no wealth requirements that would hinder army induction. By the reforms of Marius in 107 B.C., both, the rural and city peasantry were common members of the Roman Army. And in fact, in 107 B.C. Marius opened up the military to the very poorest section of the Roman population, the members of the capite censi. When the capite censi became able to do army service, then finally, all Roman citizens were able to serve.

This was good for the army soldiers. Bad for the Roman State. It was good for the soldiers of Rome because now all members of Roman society, regardless of previous family or personal wealth, could enlist in the service, and benefit from that enlistment. The minimum time of enlistment became set at a twenty year service period. (It went up in time as the years went by, B.C. into A.D.) For twenty years a man could count on food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and pay. While he was earning these benefits he was performing a valuable service for Rome. If a soldier survived his enlistment and lived to the end of it, he was able to settle down on the government pension and enjoy his retirement. Quite often--in fact most of the time--he was even given land, by the Roman Government, to settle on.

So while the benefits of Roman soldiery and service became open to all citizens by the ending of the Republican era, the new openness to all citizens became a double--edged sword that helped to overthrow the Republic and helped to institute the Empire by 27 B.C., even while the common soldier saw the gains mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Since about 200 B.C. there had been, essentially, an army core, that was made up of professionals. That army core remained rather small, however. It was composed mainly of Centurions (centurio) who served their entire life and career in the military. But, in the waning years of the Republic, from about 107 B.C. and Marius on to 27 B.C and the death of the Republic by Augustus, not only the Centurions became professionals, the entire army became such. The army found itself increasingly loyal, not to the Roman State, but to the General who commanded them. This way of thinking by the common soldier became more and more pronounced as the years went on during the first century B.C., from Marius to Julius Caesar, Sulla to Pompey, Crassus and Antony, finally ending with Octavian--soon to be named Augustus.

The soldiers, under the service of their Roman Generals, became entirely beholding to the success of their commander. There became less and less allegiance to the Roman Senate and State, and more to the General, Consul, Proconsul, Propraetor, and Dictator at the head of the army. As the first century B.C. went to its Republic death and Empire birth, the wars were increasingly among the Romans, and more of a Civil War nature. By 27 B.C. and Augustus, the die was cast, the common, professional soldier was only in allegiance to the Emperor and head of all Legions (legio).

So.....there you have it Black Rider. Good and bad......depending on who and/or what you consider.


You know what I just noticed when composing that post??

I write in two different styles depending upon whether i'm just posting for fun.....or writing a post in *history mode*.

Interesting.

So let me know what you think about the above bro'.



BTW there are two sources you'll find invaluable in a study of all this. Almost all general histories of the Roman Army have something in them discussing this topic. However, there are two heads and tails above the rest. They are:

War And Society In The Roman World edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley. Look for the essay by John Patterson entitled Military Organization And Social Change In The Later Roman Republic.

The Making Of The Roman Army: From Republic To Empire by Lawrence Keppie. This is the definitive book on the topic.

I own both these. Keppie is easy to find, probably not so much for the other.

_________________
"The 'farce' is strong with Sith Lord Obama-Wan." words of Scourge.

"Uh....You can believe me....Uh....because I never lie, and....Uh....Uh....I am always right." words of Sith Lord Obama-Wan.

Daddy likes it all, the DraíodóirDé likes it all

Can't post much now but I agree with what you say.

Question for you Black Rider:


Name the commander who first gave the Roman soldiers an experience of what it was like to fight against war--elephants.

Please give me his name, the first battle in which the Roman soldiers ever faced elephants, and the year of the battle.

*BUMP* for Black Rider.

Big--lipped
Ukranians
Meet
Precociously

This has slipped 1/2 way down the page again.

It heads toward oblivion on page two!!

I must bump it.

I will bump it until Black Rider answers my question(s).


*BUMP*


Big--lipped
Ukranians
Must
Party

Who was Publius Valerius Laevinus in the Battle of Heraclea, 280 BC, Alex?

The question by me:

"Name the commander who first gave the Roman soldiers an experience of what it was like to fight against war--elephants."


TallT said:

Quote:

Who was Publius Valerius Laevinus in the Battle of Heraclea, 280 BC, Alex?

I am sooooooooooooo happy!! Someone besides Black Rider actually replied (seriously) on this thread!!


O.K. you were right on two out of three......but Wikipedia (if you used that ) was misinterpreted by you. I'll tell you why down there VVVV.

You were right, it was at the Battle of Heraclea in 280 B.C., when the Roman legion first faced the war--elephant.

You got the commander wrong, however. (Sound of buzzer going off and a big hook coming out from the side to remove you from the stage)

Publius Valerius Laevinus was actually the opposing Roman general at that battle. He was one of two Roman Consuls for that year of 280 B.C. At this time the Roman Senate elected two men to serve as the military leaders of the legions in any given year. It was Publius Valerius Laevinus and another man in the year the defence of Italy was needed.

It was needed because a Greek mercenary invaded from the south of the Italian 'boot'. He was at the head of a very powerful army, and even got a number of Italian city--states, unhappy with their Roman overlords, to join with him in his attempt to conquer Italy. This Greek mercenary leader was actually a king in his native Greek city--state. The war--elephants he took into Italy raised a lot of havoc with the Roman Army at this Battle of Heraclea, and were of great use to him.

His name and the correct answer to my question: King Pyrrhus of Epirus.



Next question:

If you were a Roman soldier......a legionary or cavalryman......would you want to wear a sporran, or could and would you rather do without it??

In a sentence or two, give your answer and reasoning for it.

Then I will tell you how I would answer.

_________________
"The 'farce' is strong with Sith Lord Obama-Wan." words of Scourge.

"Uh....You can believe me....Uh....because I never lie, and....Uh....Uh....I am always right." words of Sith Lord Obama-Wan.

Daddy likes it all, the DraíodóirDé likes it all

GW, did you ever read Edward Gibbons The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire ?

Do I at least get the Tupperware set?

TallT said:

Quote:

Do I at least get the Tupperware set?

Of course you do TallT. There is something in it too......another part of your *consolation prize*.


It is a Roman banquet feast of 27 A.D. It has been in the Tupperware (TM) since then. Bon--appetit.

_________________
"The 'farce' is strong with Sith Lord Obama-Wan." words of Scourge.

"Uh....You can believe me....Uh....because I never lie, and....Uh....Uh....I am always right." words of Sith Lord Obama-Wan.

Daddy likes it all, the DraíodóirDé likes it all