P.Clodius

The numbers I think are treated in Plutarch or some secondary source, and the proto-nationhood thing I got from a documentary on Alesia

This Curia was commisioned by the Divine Julius and was finished by Augustus. Laughing on the other side of your face?

They're both VERY good. One thing I'm staring to notice is that I tend to prefer older styles to new. One thing I can't stand is constantly looking up annotations, footnotes, etc. These are less prevalent in older books as they tend to put primary source material in quotes or perenthases. The greats imo are Grant, Mier, Gelzer, Dodge, Baker. I have not read Gibbon or Momsen, but I find the modern authors too dry, too phorensic.

Sure, I once read someplace that the Claudian invasion was a strategic move, a means to secure the English channel from Frisian (north German/Danish) seaborne raiders from attacking the gallic coastline.

I have to say that UNRV rules. I can't tell you how many times I've googled a topic and UNRV has come up first. I googled "Cimbri" over the weekend and it was PP's article that was the first link. If fame and fortune is sought, once again, write, write, write...your article could be read by scholars and novices alike. We CAN shape the perception of the Roman world!!

I think there's one more..though it pains me to think of the series...They defiled the name of a god..!

The Cimbri kept detailed numbers via a census of how many took part in the migration and this is where Marius, or the primary sources got their numbers from. Don't always asume the Gauls/Germans to be illiterate savages, they were in fact budding civilizations that had cities, industry, etc..And were well on their way to a "nationhood" that would have presented a serious challenge to Roman power.

Nice little BBC article on York

Arausio was a battle where the Romans or the Senate employed a double consular army. Problem was, the consuls hated each other and refused to cooperate and were thus massacred piece-meal.

Sure, it was a self-perpetuating system. Consul's raised a levy, they were then obligated to provide that levy with booty, which of course meant war someplace or another. The Marian reforms were really only an extension or formalization of this system from a reward perspective. I challenge anyone to find me a year that the Romans were not involved in war from 390-31BC, I don't think you'll find much!

Its sometimes good to take a break for a while...I did over the summer for a couple of months to chillout, when you comeback you feel fresh and ready to contribute somemore.

Literally, Public Thing

Yet more from M. Gelzer's Caesar....I think it presents irrefutable secondary source evidence of some of what was wrong with the oligarchic administration. Just as his agrarian law showed a way out of Italy's social crisis, so he now attacked another cancarous growth in the oligarchic administration of empire, the gradual destruction of the provinces through the depredations of Roman governors. On one point all Romans were more or less agreed: the provinces existed to be exploited for the benefit of the Roman people. But under the prevailing system the goose that laid the golden eggs would not last forever. The members of the oligarchy regarded it as their prerogative to cover the enormously increased financial demands of political life with their takings as provincial governors. Strict control could prevent this activity from becoming intolerable, but mutual conivance happens to be the traditional weakness of oligarchy. Popular policies, which had emerged with the Gracchi, only worsened the situation with the one-sided favouritism shown to the knights---the public tax-farming companies and Roman finaciers sucked the blood from the provinces no less than the senators---and with the senseless increase in electoral expenditure, not to mention the fact that the senatorial representatives of this party behaved not a whit better in the provinces. There were, however, some honourable members of the nobility, from whose ranks there came in 149 the first law against the taking of money by magistrates, which provided for the trial of this offence before a special court. This was followed by two laws with stricter regulations, passed in the interests of the equestrian order. Next Sulla's law was effective until 59. Caesar now produced a careful and very comprehensive revision of the whole subject, the lex Iulia repetundarum, which remained in force from then on thoughout the whole Imperial period. The law contained exact definitions of the offences and the classes of persons that came within its scope. In addition to the magistrates, the senatorial members of their staff, in particular their legati, were included; further also senatorial jurymen, plaintiffs and witnesses who took bribes. The law went on to lay down a new procedure for the conduct of trials and, in connection with its main theme, provided a mass of regulations for provincial administration. The lex Iulia contained nothing new in principle, but ti was drafted more precisely and strictly than its predecessors and so formed an excellent instrument for the supervision of the senatorial order. Seen from the standpoint of the empire as a whole, a lex reptundarum which ignored the knights was decidedly a half-measure, however much it demonstrated its author's mastery in the administrative field. Even at the time, it met with the approval of the experts---and of Cato---and, as far as we know, was adopted by the people without opposition.

Good point Cato in reference to the tragets.. For recitude I read "rectum-itude"!

Agreed, Sulla was a product of his environment. His intentions were "honourable", though they side with the opposition from my perspective, his goal, as was Caesar's, was stability. The system of proscriptions was, as I have stated in another post, abused by his confederates. While 1,600 knights, and x number of Senators may sound like a "bloodbath", the city of Rome at this time would be around point five million plus! When we consider the massacres the legions were more than capable of undertaking, these numbers are a drop in the ocean.

Neutrality Cato, neutrality...If this is to stand a chance of getting to the main site it MUST be without agenda. Trust me, I've been slapping myself on the wrist recently for partisanship!!!

yup, oh and i think any letter will do, i do see it might be too time consuming otherwise.. cheers viggen [Jaw drops on floor] WOW!!

Does this mean scouring through www.unrv.com for every latin term, concept, place, etc...that begins with "A"?

hahahaha, yeah that's a blatant copy! Wonder if the guy submited it to wikipedia?

I'm not the worlds greatest writer but will give it a shot on a subject that interests me. Write folks, write. Write on any Rome/Roman related subject and submit it to the Triumvirate for consideration, and possible inclusion as site content. We can't let Wikipedia beat us on Roman related content...! Try to be as neutral as posible..

Military Terms List ..and Military Tactics

Absolutely, this was determined in the Servian constitution.

When did this arrise, probably after the Servian constitution? Very interesting though, "The Senate of Rome and its Plundering Rabble", hahaha. In the Latin wars and subsequently the conquest of Italy this title makes sense...hehehe