Antiochus III

Let me be the lucky one!

Name some and give reasoning. Lists are always welcome! A3TG

You are missing the point entirely. The greatest Roman figure has to be ROMAN. Additionally, your argument is not well-founded. If it was a deleterious to Roman power to conquer places then their empire would have never been. Also, you are arguing that the destruction of 3 legions was actually good for the Romans?? ATG

Sorry to butt in to the debate, but this statement doesn't sound right to me. There were no standardised training schemes within the Roman legions at this time (and even in the Principate, training wasn't entirely consistent). In fact, training was largely 'on the job'. The organisation of three ranks of hastatii, principes, and Triarii was a system used to preserve those who had gained experience. The hastatii at the front were novices who were to some extent considered expendable. The rear rank, the triarii, were veterans. As regards ability, I don't think the legions raised to tackle Hannibal in 216BC were high quality at all. They were new recruits and many wouldn't have had any experience of combat at all. The segregation of troops according to age and experience suggests training wasn't widely available. I've no doubt that commanders with any foresight ensured their men were practised before the battle, but are fencing and drills any replacement for the real thing? Certainly there weren't any formal training schemes in the modern sense. As for mercenaries, these tend to be seen in either as top notch specialists or the dregs of war. This has always been the case and the truth is that mercenaries vary in quality considerably and always have. Hannibals troops however followed him across the Alps and a lengthy campaign in Italy, so it would appear these were men who knew what war was and wanted to fight enough to tolerate the privations they endured, recruited largely from men who had sought a conflict to occupy their time. They were tough fighters to begin with, men who had learned their vocation already. I guess this post was a bit to ambiguous. I simply meant that the mercenaries employed by Hannibal were from many different backgrounds with different equipment and even different languages. I was not implying that the legions of Rome in 216 were high quality at all; however they did have some training, though most had not seen combat. I meant that it is very difficult to compare the training of one man to the next, for all of the reasons that have been mentioned. On another note, I would like to thank caldrail for providing his views on all of these military topics. It is great to have someone with his level of knowledge to keep us all in check and to help us learn more. When I first joined on UNRV he had like 800 posts and now he's got much more than double that! ATG

That's what made Rome perhaps the greatest civilisation in history: their dogged persistence and their refusal to accept defeat. A number of other factors also contributed to Rome's eventual success and annihilation of Carthage: 1. Rome had access to a large pool of men which allowed them to raise troops faster than the Carthaginians could. To put things in perspective Carthage was fighting Rome in the Italian Peninsula and the Iberian Peninsula, Rome was not only fighting Carthage, but also the Seleucid Empire, the Macedonian and the Celts and despite massive losses in Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae they were still able to field well trained legions with great support auxilary units supplied by their allies. 2. Roman legions had far superior training in comparison to Carthaginian merceneries. Carthage's successes in my point of view was thanks to their heavy infantry and Massinissa's Numidians forces. When Massinissa allied himself with Scipio Carthage lacked the cavalry support they were used to and this is evident in the Zama. The Roman quickly became accustomed to Hannibal's elephants and I believe he would have still achieved victory without them but what was key to his success was the cavalry. 3. Carthage could not supply Hannibal with relief forces. Focus was to strengthen forces in the Iberian Peninsula. The task was further complicated when Carthage lost supremacy of the sea. But the biggest reason why I believe Carthage eventually lost the war was because their generals simply did not receive the kind of support the consuls did during the Punic War. Regardless of what defeat the Romans were dealt with, regardless of fighting on other fronts, the Senate's focus was the greater glory of Rome. 1. Rome may have been hostile to other kingdoms, but they devoted the vast majority of their resources to the eradication of Hannibal from Italy and the other Carthaginian armies from Iberia. 2. There was some uniformity to training and ability of troops within the Roman citizen legions. The same cannot be said of Hannibal's mercenaries; there was an incredible amount of variation in the skill level and fighting experience among the mercenaries and other troops in Hannibal's army. That makes it difficult to make such generalized comparisons between the two. I think that the high maneuverability amongst the units in the Carthaginian army along with Hannibal's prowess as a commander and ability to successfully counter the strengths of the Romans had more to do with his success than the simple inclusion of heavy infantry. 3. Wasn't the reason Hannibal crossed the Alps in the first place because of Rome's naval supremacy even before the war? Also, the government in Carthage itself was not entirely supportive of Hannibal and thus even if it was possible for them aid troops, it may never have come to pass. I fully support (no pun intended) your final comment, however. Hannibal was definitely seen as a threatening figure political leaders in Carthage, and the tension there contributed to the weakness of the Carthaginian state. It is important to keep in mind that Carthage had already lost to Rome, and Rome s government was very supportive of its armed forces.

I think this is just perpetuating the idea that the ancient Greeks were better than their contemporaries and, in some ways, modern society. I simply do not believe that this was really the case, and I certainly think their culture is given too much credit--as our democracy in the United States today is given too much credit. I see few examples of how much greater the Greek institutions and overall efficiency as a people was in comparison to the other civilizations. ATG Edit: As caldrail points out, there were several Greeks ( philosophers and such ) that had certain ideas and possibly expressed themselves in a way that was aggrandizing in the sense that what they wrote made them appear intellectually and spiritually superior to their peers. Obviously, the writings of a few educated elite means little in terms of the society's opinions in general. Also, generalizing societies in this way is ridiculous, to be frank.

I was noticing that on the section about the forums regarding the number of registered users, it said 1368 users were registered, yet further down on the same age it states that the most nmber of users ever online was 1988 on whatever date in 07. Either one of these numbers is wrong or I am missing something very obvious... ATG

I completely agree with this post, and I find it disturbing how ridiculous some comparisons between the current United States and Ancient Rome. It was a completely different epoch, the governing bodies were different, peace was maintained in a different way, the economy was so different it's almost impossible to understand those comparisons, and the culture was different. What the people who try to make such comparisons are really attempting to point out is that human nature has essentially remained the same and thus the human states will always be relatively similar. Another point that many people make (to varying degrees) is the fact that Rome was merely a continuation of Greek culture, or that they "borrowed" everything they had from them. Again, can anyone name for me a culture that wasn't shaped by the other cultures around it, the cultures it descended from?? The United States, the Greeks themselves, the Persians, and many others are usable examples in my opinion. In fact, has there ever been a country or state or empire with a completely unique culture? Maybe the first humans ever. Other than that, cultures are simply based on the languages being spoken in that region, the climate, etc. Will these two ideas ever stop being taught in schools? Ever? Heck, there are some "teachers" who love to rant and rave about people not using respectable websites for information--which is fine, but they themselves routinely present false information from sources that they said were "reliable in the past." These are the same people who teach some of those typical insight-free decades old opinions as if they were facts. I cannot tell you how many times I have witnessed teachers ("teachers") presenting hearsay and opinions as facts. "The bystanders are just as bad as the perpetrators," "Roman culture is Greek culture," "The Roman army faced elephants at Cannae," "The biggest factor in the Roman army's defeats in the Second Punic war was elephants," "The Roman army had never seen elephants before Hannibal invaded Italy," The Romans 'conquered' the Jews in 162 B.C." ATG

Thats exactly right, and I think the reason that it's not simply "C." is that Caius (gaius) would be abbreviated as such. ATG

Well obviously after the war they gave much more accurate figures. However, at the start of the war when Operation Barbossa was so successful, Stalin would not tell Soviet citizens the real numbers for fear of mass panic. ATG

I can think of a great poll to go along with this! Antiochus the Great

I'm sure thats the same attitude many Germans had during the holocaust.

What I found so interesting about the Bush presidency was not the fact that Bush was bad. I knew he would be when he was elected. What I am interested by is the fact that so many people were so pro-Bush, and everyone went along, brainwashed into thinking Iraq had WMDs, and people who disagreed were "unpatriotic." No one was really allowed to even have an opinion otherwise. Finally, the incompetent imbeciles of America, who believed the bullshit propaganda because of their utter stupidity, were fed something else to go and parade around: Bush was really a bad president and the war was bad. Now everyone immediately says they were anti-war from the start, and they basically turn around completely on their stance. Kids just go along with whatever their parents say, but when asked why they have this opinion they become speechless morons. In truth, it was not Bush who was so bad. It was the media, for spreading the propaganda, and the utterly foolish public for believing it without question. Granted, there are definitely some who were in the same position as me--perhaps 35% of the US pop. Antiochus III the Great

Stuff I forgot to say in my last post: we actually did learn about the genocide in Darfur in history for about 7-10 minutes--but we never learned where Darfur was. Also, Nephele said that students must be spoon-fed everything from gov't and teachers--isn't this because the education system has effectively ended placing any kind of emphasis on learning on one's own? No one to blame but the Ed. system for that. And who's to blame for the Ed. system? Gov't. They are also responsible for charter schools which are run for profit and essentially are just a bad idea from some libertarians who managed to get elected to public office by way of right-wing propaganda of sorts. Antiochus III the Great

I don't think this is as much a reflection on your "school which is good," as it is a reflection on students themselves who must be spoon-fed everything by their teachers, by society, by their government, etc. With the vast resources of the Internet these days, students should be better informed, regardless of their school. Besides the ease with which one can access news articles on the 'net, opportunities for discussion of world events (with people from around the world) exist on countless discussion boards -- far more opportunities than ever existed in the classrooms of earlier generations. For crapsake, one doesn't even need to be a member of a history discussion forum, as one can usually find a few active threads dealing with current events on just about any sort of discussion board. Such ignorance in your school regarding Darfur can mostly be attributed to disinterest on the part of lazy and spoiled students. -- Nephele Spoiled, disinterested students? Blaming this on students?? Oh no, my friend you are quite wrong. Responsibility (as always) should be placed one hundred percent on the educators, the administrators, the curriculum, and also on the parents. I don't know how far removed you are from a high school setting (or for that matter, that of a junior high, middle school, or even elementary school), but what you said sets full blame on the kids themselves. What you have to realize, is that these kids have been brainwashed in a sense. Maybe you were brought up in a perfect home school where you were guided perfectly and everyone catered to your needs and taught you to continue your education further on your own, to read, and to have a well-rounded knowledge base, but this is a far cry from what most students' lives are like. Emphasis is placed on tests, testing, and the like. Curriculums are extremely rigid with little or no room for development beyond core ideas, encouragement to further one's education online is minimal. Intelligent kids usually tend to be the ones whose parents and families are well connected, and these are also the ones that are alienated. Instead of focusing instruction to those who have a gifted brain, the schools cater to those students who are struggling. The classes are not discussion based, they are entirely based on testing and preparation for these tests which involves no learning at home (perhaps a lot of "studying" though). Kids are not encouraged to bring their own knowledge to the table whatsoever. Obviously, I am not making any of this up, as I have experienced it firsthand. I realize that some of this may change as one moves to the high school level, but once there, they may have fallen too far behind. If learning institutions were to adopt a policy of guided-self instruction maybe kids would learn more independently, using the internet to discover on their own or talking to educated adults, then discussing it in class with an instructor highlighting key points, the system would work better than how it is now, where teachers "teach" kids (about whatever subject matter they're required to teach in order for kids to know specific info for a test), then the kids are told to go home and study. Clearly the education surrounding the internet is too little, and too late in the educational process. By the time schools even teach the kids anything about internet use, the kid has probably already had a chance to explore it on his own, and not necessarily in the right way. How do you expect to see kids use the internet like you, a resourceful information finder and intelligent internet user, when their education regarding it is left in the the hands of organizations that do a terrible job of it? Furthermore, the powers that be in education place little emphasis on geography. In fact, were it not for my self-education in the field, I would not have known where to begin on blank world map in my eighth grade. People even in high level classes in high school struggle with geography. Is this because they are lazy, spoiled kids? No, the real reason behind this is that administrations have no geography taught in their schools, teachers themselves do not always have a handle on it, and as a result, people learn an abysmally small amount of geography. I'm not talking not knowing where countries are--I'm talking not having to know anything about geography for school. If they don't need to know it for school, and their parents have placed all responsibility on schools to teach their kids how will they learn it? You may say that they will in high school. Simple answer: they can easily get straight A's in high school without taking a geography class and without learning anything about geography whatsoever. The ignorance that exists is also a major outcome of ignorant parenting. Parents rarely have any idea of how to help their children learn without just telling them to do schoolwork. Society places little value of parental education of children--instead it is encouraged for children to go to preschools or the like at a ridiculously young age for miserably inexperienced fools to teach kids about sharing and social things, when the kids can barely learn this anyway. Thus these parents place confidence in institutions to teach their children morals and the foundation of education, which are often times profit minded, and do not usually have one on one contact like a good parent-based education system would have. Also these parents many times place children in daycare centers, where, let's be honest, nothing gets learned. So there you have it, lazy parents have just given up their kid to educators and caregivers who are teaching to the lowest end of the spectrum, where 12 or more kids are being taught by incompetent imbeciles, rather than having parents who have a better knowledge of their ability level educate them. It starts off here, and from this point, kids are not being taught to teach themselves, to push themselves, or to learn on their own. Also, education in schools never really touches upon how to access resources and forums such as this. Kids left to their own devices will most likely not stumble upon good educational and informative sites. This again, whether due to parental incompetence or just the fact that global companies left unchecked will inevitably be able to lure people to their sites. Google.com is entirely profit oriented: pay up and your site will pop up first. Do you think kids will find coke.com or unrv.com first? Again, can you really blame kids for this? Maybe you should put yourself in their shoes with their views and upbringing before writing such harsh and scathing posts. Maybe you support a highly dogmatic view of education where the elite are chosen at birth, the ones who obtain a good education are the ones that have had a good family life where the rich parents have had time to spend teaching their kids, and have sent them to expensive schools for kids that are intelligent, have already learned on their own and are prepared. I, on the otherhand, think that our education system is flawed, needs to be changed, and should at all costs resist privatization. Also, keep in mind that this country has a profuse number of people who look down upon intelligence, and try to ostracize those of intelligence. It's weird to be smart, and teachers will sometimes even scold a child for knowing do something such as division when the class is learning multiplication. Yes, that actually happened to one of my friends in the third grade (and no, he wasn't being a jerk about it). This attitude doesn't just magically appear in students--it is put into their minds by someone else. I sincerely hope you will rethink what you wrote in that post, and as I clearly have a lot to talk about on the subject, feel free to ask for a more in depth explanation of any of my points. Antiochus III the Great