Publius Nonius Severus

That depends on the type of "law". Some of them would have never been acted upon by the people. By types of laws, I mean bills, proposals, or measures not statutes or enacted other regulatory guidance. Here is a quick breakdown of the major forms: Lex (law) - Proposed by a Magistrate (called a rogatio) and voted upon in the Comita Centuriata, binding on all people. Plebiscitum (Plebiscite) - Proposed by a Tribune of the People and voted upon in the Comitia Tributata, binding on all people. Senatus Consultum (Senatorial Decree) - Decress by the senate regarding administrative, religious, finanancial, or foreign affairs. Binding as applicable to the appropritate matter or area. Edictum (Edict) - Edicts by a magistrate (usually a praetor) usually pertaining to contractual, court, and other legal affairs. Binding on all during that magistrate's term of office unless adopted by his successor or passsed as a lex or plebiscitum. Leges and Plebiscita were often debated upon in the senate first but were not enacted until proposed as a rogatio , presented to the people (contio), and voted upon in the appropriate assembly. I do not think debate in the senate was a pre-requisite though. As I mentioned above, Senatus Consulta and Edicta, as they are, were not passed by the people (but they were still bound by them). I believe if an edictum or senatus consultum were wide-ranging enough it could be proposed to the people and made a lex or um (by the way, the terms lex and plebiscitum eventually were both called lex(leges), so a distinction is not always made in the ancient sources). As far as one why one form of law was chosen over another, that depended upon a variety of circumstances. If a matter fell into the purvey of the senate or a magistrate, then a SC or edict was made. If not, but if there were an issue that the elite wanted passed, they would most likely go through the comitia centuriata since voting was weighted in favor of the higher classes. If a Tribune wanted to pass a law, he proposed a plebiscitum through the comitia tributata which if it was in the interest of the masses would get passed.

Gaius- Just to clarify, the senate did not issue edicts. Edicts were issued by indvidual magistrates (usually praetors). In the broadest sense, they were laws (in that they were binding - at least during the magistrates term of office). It was a form of direct legislation that did not require vote by an assembly. A lot of the edicts usually just made into law what was normal practice anyway. Many of the edicts that we know of had to do with contracts and other legal matters. The closest modern equivalents would be I'd say are legal precedent and maybe executive order (in the U.S.). Again, more like regulations than laws. The senate issued senatusconsula (plural for senatusconsultum). William Smith, building on Walter, gives a great summary definition: "...The Senatusconsulta were an important source of law for matters which concerned administration, the maintenance of Religion, the suspension or repeal of laws in the case of urgent public necessity, the rights of the Aerarium (treasury) and the Publicani (tax collectors), the treatment of the Italians and the Provincials." So basically, the Senate could make decisions and determinations on administrative, religious, and financial matters, as well as foreign affairs. Many were considered laws by direct legislation where it was too difficult (and/or unneccesary) for the people to assemble and vote. An expedient way of keeping the state functioning. So, I would consider both senatusconsulta and edicta "law making". Sure, they weren't voted upon by the people and their appropriate assemblies but their were still binding.

I have always been partial to the Battle of Vercellae against the Cimbris as one of the greatest (Aquae Sextiae being a close second). Had Marius and Catulus Caesar been defeated the Cimbri would have had the entire Italian peninsula to themselves with no real force to oppose them (nor too many potential troops to be levied against them either!). Rome and her allies could have very possibly been overrun and wiped from the Earth.

Here is the motherload of diagrams of the Forum: Roman Forum Here is a UCLA project on the forum: UCLA Digital Roman Forum Here is an excellent site for maps: Plantner's Ancient Roman Maps

Good point Gaius! The discussions I've seen do discuss trying pila of different weights. One of the manufacturers, Deepeeka, makes (or made) one that weighed signficantly more than ones from the pilum kit that RLQM makes. Results with the Deepeeka one were much shorter and soon abandoned for what was considered by them to be more standard weight pila. The stats above are based on the lighter pila so I feel fairly confident that they reflect stats remniscent of battle.

Not a foolish question Gladius. Pliny the Elder gives us the answer: Natural History, xxxi, 41: "Even in the very honors, too, that are bestowed upon successful warfare, salt plays its part, and from it, our word "salarium" is derived." Apparently though the term salarium really only applied to officers (started by Augustus), but soldiers did either receive salt rations or at least money to buy salt which helped define the term.

Excellent point Neil! From consulting various threads on another forum and more of Mr. Brueggeman's research I have deduced the following. From reviewing the results of reenactors who have practiced 3 or more times per week for at least a year, 60 feet (18.2 M) seems to be the limit on consistently accurate pilum throws. Further distances of 100 plus feet (30.4 M) can be attained but accuracy is greatly diminished. Attempts from first time throwers have resulted in 70 ft. throws (21 meters) but without accuracy. Reducing throws to 30 feet (9-10 M) can result in very good accuracy after only a couple of throws. I would expect that when not fighting, soldiers trained quite a bit with their pila so it would proably be reasonable to expect they could make the accurate 60 ft throws accurately. There is also other theoretical data that suggests that you wouldn't want to throw pila further than that even if you could for timing reasons. There is a lot of other data available, but this is the most immediate stuff.

They were as far as I recall. Is there something I said that would be considered contradictory to them being tribal? Despite being tribal, Samnium was considered a "nation" I believe and controlled a good deal of territory.

Just to supplement a little: This is my take, I might be misinterpreting so if you find an error, it is most likely mine and not my sources. From re-reading some of Breuggeman's stuff and the relevant parts From Sumer to Rome the rationale seems to be that the majority of all casualties occured after the lines broke. Up to that point, the victorious army at least would suffer 5% dead and 5-10% wounded (figures based on historical accounts and analysis). Similar numbers are expected of the defeated army as well, at least until right before whatever caused their lines to break occurred. It is also assumed that casualties for the most part would be spread out throughout the entire course of the battle but with a heavier percentage during the initial clash. So, since the pila were most likely thrown at the beginning of the engagement and the initial clash was responsible for a slightly better than even average of number of casulaties, the pila are probably only responsible for a small number of casulaties Brueggeman's contention is exactly this. He contends that at best only the first 2-3 ranks of soldiers in a century would be able to get off their pila before the initial clash. The other 6-8 ranks (depending on the strength of the century) would not be able to get off their pila without risk of hitting their own ranks in front of them or being over or under ranged to the enemy. This number varies of course depending on dynamics of charging, lulls, enemy formation. I also totally agree that the pila would have been effective at disarming without actually wounding or killing. I also personnally think that a larger number of pila hit something. I may have misinterpreted the initial numbers confusing hits with wounds/kills. Anyway, overall interesting stuff, no!

I agree completely Gaius! It has been argued that the initial clash between ancient armies often decided the rest of the course of the battle. If one side gained an initial advantage, it is very likely they would carry the day. As you have said, a pila volley en masse could very easily disrupt an enemy's morale or discipline before the initial clash making the Romans first contact all the more effective, despite any low incident of casualties directly attributed to the pila themselves.

I know I'm kinda late to the topic here, but I thought I would share some interesting info on casualties and such. Using data from the book From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies, by Richard A. Gabriel and Karen S. Metz, it can be ascertained that victorious armies during prolonged battle suffered a casualty rate of about 10% (5% KIA, 5% wounded). Losing armies suffered an average of 30% of more but this was often because of being routed. Using this data along with his own thorough research, Gary Brueggeman, who has done some amazing analysis of the roman army, estimated that maybe only 20-30% of pila hit anything (shield or soldier) and that maybe only responsible for 3% of all casualties (3 dead or wounded per 1000). The reasons for this all variable but very wide having to do with charge dynamics, number of ranks getting of their pila, etc. Gary is supposedly working on a book of all his research and if he does I am definitely getting it.

I would say no. I never saw any direct or indirect reference to it being in the League. Technically Capua is/was located in Campania (but very close to the Latin border) and although was once under Estrsucan control, I believe it was controlled by the Samnites for the majority of the period of Rome's participation in the League. I believe shortly before the league dissolved Capua entered into a bilateral alliance with Rome to expel the Samnites and expand Rome's influence further South.

I'm not sure about that. As you said earlier, I would have put my money on Alba Longa. Many of the towns in my list were colonies founded by Alba Longa and it is asserted that Alba Longa was the major player in the league. There could have beene other possible candidates - Tusculum, Tibur, or Lavinium maybe, but most of these places seem to have been pretty small and I doubt could have dominated by themselves if they broke out and tried to take over. Also, who is to say that Alba Longa or whoever would have had the same expansionist tendencies and military prowess that the Romans had? Maybe it would have been Carthage that ruled the world! One of the reasons why Rome was so successfully after the Latin Wars and the league broke up is because Rome successfully established individual treaties with all the former members of the league thereby keeping some distance between all of the Latin towns from each other.

Here is my best attempt at identifying members of the Latin League. There are a lot of references to the "30 cities of the Latin League" but in the surviving ancient sources that might cover this period (Livy, Dionysius, Florus) there is no complete list of who was a member or not. I also could not find a modern source that attempts to compile a list. Despite the difficulties involved, I think I have put together a reasonably sound list of cities/towns/colonies that probably belonged of the Latin League. Below if a list of 24 place names (cities, towns, and colonies) that are confirmed/highly likely league members, of the Latini and located in ancient Latium, and possibly additional members respectively. I compiled this list using both Livy and Dionysius, The Classical Gazetteer by William Hazlit, and Wikipedia. When looking for candidates without specific reference to being in the league I tried to ensure the following: 1) The place was located in ancient Latium AND of a Latin tribe or race (other italic groups had a presence in Latium that did not appear to be members such as the Volsci, Aequi, etc.) 2) The place was existant during the time of Roman participation in the Latin League (493 - 338 BC). I did not include places that were destroyed and their people brought to Rome (e.g. Ficana destroyed my Ancus Martius) 3) I had at least two different pertinent sources (and often three) with some sort of reference to the place name (I didn't just include someplace because Wikipedia said so ). Enough blabber, here's my list: Confirmed/Highly Likely Alba Longa Tusculum Lavinium Bovillae Ariccia Geographically Feasible and Likely Toleria Columen Tibur Labicum Gabii Vitellia Hortona Saxula Aesula Ad Statuas Ad Nonum Nemus Pedum Bola Ad Decimum Scaptia Additional Possible* Veii Collatia Praeneste *There are places of the Latini in Latium but there are ambiguous references to alternate treaties and associations so they may have been members part of the time, intermittently, or not at all but I felt strong enough to include them If anyone has additional information I'll happily include it. If you would like to know more about my research methodology I'll happily share that as well. I might try to compile a map of where all of these places are located..depends on how patient my wife is this weekend! -Severus

Ok. The below list should cover from Augustus through the end of the crisis of the third century. After that I'm not sure in which direction you would want to go because we have Gallic and Illyrian emperors, the Dominate, etc... Here's a quick guide to the list. I've listed either the city or town of birth if it Rome or in Italy. If not, I have listed the province (or modern day country) and then the city/town in parentheses if available. If there is doubt over the exact place of birth, the place name is preceded by a "?". I used the bios and infoboxes frm Wikipedia as my primary source. Please note I included most (if not all) of ursurpers and claimants since regardless of whether they were ever confirmed. Enjoy! Augustus - Rome Tiberius - Rome Caligula - Antium Claudius - Gaul (Lugdunum) Nero - Antium Galba - Terracina Otho - Ferentium Vitellius - ?Rome Vespasian - Falacrina Titus - Rome Domitian - Rome Nerva - Narni Trajan - Italica Hadrian - Hispania(Seville) Antoninus Pius - Lanuvium Lucius Verus - ?Rome Marcus Aurelius - ?Rome Commodus - Lanuvium Pertinax - Alba Didius Julianus - Milan Septimius Severus - (Libya) Leptis Magna Caracalla - Gaul (Lugdunum) Geta - Rome Macrinus - Caesarea(Lol) Elagabalus - ?Rome Alexander Severus - "Arca Caesarea, Iudaea" Maximinus Thrax - Thrace or Moesia Gordian I - ?Anatolia(Phrygia) Gordian II - ?Rome Gordian III - ?Rome Pupienus - ?Rome Balbinus - ?Rome Sabinianus - ?Rome Philip the Arab - Syria(Shahba) Pacatianus - ?Rome Iotapianus - Near East Decius - Panonia( Budalia (near Sirmium)) Priscus - Syria Herennius Etruscus - Pannonia Trebonianus Gallus - ?Rome Hostilian - Rome Volusianus - ?Rome Aemilianus - Africa Valerian - ?Rome Gallienus - ?Rome Saloninus - ?Rome

That's a tough one. There are plenty of high-quality lists of the emperors out there including the one here at UNRV (see below for some notable others), but I haven't been able to find a one with birthplace listed on the chart itself. If I have time at lunch I might be willing to compile something. http://www.roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm http://www.capitolium.org/eng/imperatori/imperatori.htm http://www.livius.org/ei-er/emperors/emperors01.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Emperors

I found an article online about the discovery: Roman treasure discovered from UKTV.com

Thanks for the welcome Octavius! Okay...additional sources. I found both of these from Smith's article for Senatus. As I said before, sources in support of a republican-era senatorial census (minimum property qualification) vague. Here is the first: Ab Urbe Condita, xxiv. 11: "...As there was a deficiency of sailors, the consuls, acting upon the instructions of the senate, published an order to meet the case. Every one who had been assessed or whose father had been assessed in the censorship of L. Aemilius and C. Flaminius at from 50,000 to 100,000 ases or whose property had since reached that amount, was to furnish one sailor with six months' pay; those whose assessment was from 100,000 to 300,000 were to supply three sailors with twelve months' pay; from 300,000 to 1,000,000 the contribution was to be five sailors, and above that amount seven. The senators were to furnish eight sailors and a year's pay..." My interpretation of this cite is that if someone was worth more than 1,000,000 asses they had to provide seven sailors and a Senator had to provide eight, then the passage "implies" that a senator had to be worth more than 1,000,0000 asses (2,500,000 sesterces - unless my math is off or the value of money changed) since all of the previous requirements were wealth-based. However, I think this may be an incorrect inference. The reason why senators may have had to provide more sailors is because as conscript fathers, they had a larger stake in the defense of the republic. Additionally, unless of course my math or valuation is wrong, 2,500,000 sesterces is far higher than the qualification that even Augustus set for senators many decades later which seems to further reduce the inferred relevance of minimum required wealth and senatorial status (unless of course Augustus was initially trying to make it easier to join the ranks of senators and thereby reduced the requirements). There is also a cite from Cicero's Letters Ad Familiares, xiii. 5. that is also vague but implies Caesar actually established a senatorial census:

I was looking into a very similar topic just a couple of weeks ago so maybe I can add some insight. There are very few, if any, ancient sources on what the exact property qualifications were for Senators in the republican era. According to Livy, the was a minimum wealth required to be inthe first class was 100,000 asses (250,0000 sesterces). (Ab Urbe Condita, I.43). The first class made up the first 98 centuries (i.e. the majority). In his Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, p. 1018, William Smith states: "..we may safely take it for granted that during the whole of the republican period no such census existed (Plin. H.N. XIV.1), although senators naturally always belonged to the wealthiest classes." We do have evidence that Augustus established (and later increased, twice) the qualification levels for senators. First at 400,000 sesterces, then 800,000, and then at either 1,000,000 or 1,200,000 (depending on the source). This is documented in The Life of Augustus, 41 by Seutonius and Roman History by Cassius Dio, liv. and lv. . All of these levels are well above the minimum required for the first class. But, there is no source that I can find that demonstrably shows such levels existed for Senators during the Republic. There are some sources hinting at possible qualification levels, but nothing very definite. I'd be happy to share them if anyone is interested. I would say that it would be surprising not to find both equites and senators in the first class. If I were a censor and was entering applicants into the Senatorial or Equestrian census, I don't think I would have accepted someone from anything lower than the first class unless their dignitas was impeccable and then nevery below the second class. -Severus