Primus Pilus

It looks like something from Virgil's Aeneid but I'm not that intimately familiar with it. And stop shouting at us.

How about the very first video ever to appear on MTV. The Buggles... Video Killed the Radio Star I remember watching this as a little feller huddled around the television with a gaggle of other neighborhood kids. What a wasted moment of my youth. hahahaha. OK, I've been making fun of stuff so here's probably the first song that I can remember banging my head to, from the band that shaped the musical genre that I belong to. Valhalla I am Coming! Immigrant Song And look at this early live performance. Though Jimmy Page surprisingly seems to have a little trouble with it. Babe I'm Gonna Leave You

Welcome, and please by all means join in. The more the merrier, and the more diverse the participants and their particular areas of study, knowledge or interest, the better this community will be.

I know some suggest it translates simply as spearman, but is this not just a reflection of Roman civic duty to defend the city? I think Caesar's context of chastising the men by referring to them as citizens rather than soldiers is fairly clear. I don't get the impression that it wouldn't make sense for him to call his soldiers spearmen because it would hardly be that insulting, and there weren't any of the spearmen left in Caesar's army as it applied to the original context of the early armies. I'm not aware of any other recorded instances that would lead us to believe that it was considered an insult to refer to Marian reformed legions as spearmen (rather than swordsmen?).

Exactly, though I used auxilia as the terminology in my first reply, the thought is interchangeable as pertains to our discussion here. If half of the men under Metellus (using my first example) were non legionary 'auxilia' then who knows exactly how the arrangements and unit numbering were prepared.

Indeed. While I don't get the impression that this is being asked, it should also be pointed out that in no way, shape or form did any of the legions that fought in these wars evolve into any of the surviving named and numbered legions of the Augustan era.

No political commentary intended in this by any means, but I was immediately struck on the MSNBC link how odd it seems to see a picture of 4 men so happy to report someone's death. [edit] And of course, 10 minutes later they change the picture.

I received this private message from a new member and thought perhaps some others could provide some insight... The original query from member 'jon' Jon, Welcome to UNRV.com. I'm afraid that the specifics of legion numbers are probably something you will never be able to determine. The problem with Scipio in particular is that Appian tells us that he didn't even recruit a new army but simply took over the commands of existing legions. We don't know even know when the existing legions may have been originally recruited Consular legions. Were they from Caius Vetilius or Quintus Caecilius Metellus or anyone else? We do know that Roman consular legions were generally numbered in order of recruitment. If Scipio had raised 5 legions, they would have traditionally been number Legio I - V respectively, however we know that he simply inherited legions. We don't know how many previous forces had been merged, pensioned off, re-constituted etc. Thankfully Appian does provide numbers of men but unfortunately this does not even begin to tell us if they were legionary or auxilia. Let's use Metellus as an example. Appian tells us: Later we learn some specifics: From this we can start making some generic assumptions by using legionary size to determine how many legions would've been originally recruited. (Legio I through V or perhaps VI). However, again we don't know how many of these are Roman Consular legions and how many of these men are auxilia. Consider still that this is still some time before the arrival of Scipio. I know you sent this to me privately, but I'm going to post this in the public forum because there are others who could provide some insight. Cheers, Chris

Roman Roads In addition to allowing rapid movement of the Legions, roads allowed the spread of language, religion, culture, trade and the contributions of every society that Rome borrowed from to be expanded upon and spread throughout Europe, Africa and the Near East.

Wine was also a quite popular export then and now.

Agreed, I got just about the same context out of the book, and in fact didn't finish it for what I felt was quite a bit of grandstanding.

It is quite interesting how the zealousness of the Japanese soldier mindset made such a complete societal shift into economics. By the by, for any passerbys in this thread. I don't think either Virgil or I are suggesting that only certain parties are guilty of committing acts of brutality in war (Dresden stands out as one for the allies)... its just that the brutality of the Japanese in the Pacific War has been largely ignored in a general history context. (While the horrifying details of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been well documented). However, brutality by the allies is usually treated with a... well the other guy started it mentality.

Indeed the incident at Gergovia where they charged the defensive works rather than heed Caesar's (written) order to withdraw may be considered a lack of discipline (Caesar claims they were lured by the notion of plunder unaware of dangerous tactical conditions that were building around them). However, I don't think it would qualify as a legion turning against him. This may be the issue in question here, but I can't recall if the 3rd was even present at Gergovia. As I recall Caesar mentions Legio X and XIII specifically of the 6 legions that were present. We know that Labienus had 4 legions with him against the Parisii but I don't believe than any other legion numbers were ever specified. I wish Ciro would give us the full context of the quote he is referring to.

I didn't think that the term Cro Magnon went away as much as its been redefined?

Thanks Virgil, I've been hesitating to see this one because of a fear of misinformation. Sounds like it's worth a look. As an aside. Isn't funny how the only group that history diligently wants to continue frowning upon are the Nazis. Some of the things the Japanese did, not only to the allied prisoners, but to the Chinese as well were horrifying.

It definately wasn't Legio III which later became III Gallica. It was founded about 48 BC after the Gallic Wars (made up of recruits from Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina... hence the name) and was present at such battles as Dyrrhachium, Pharsalas and Munda. There are no accounts of it having turned on Caesar. Eventually it fought for the triumvirs and then went with Antonius to the east where it was said to have fought valiantly in an otherwise poor campaign against Parthia. I suppose the case could be made that it turned against Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus the eventual Augustus since it fought for Antonius in the civil war, but not Gaius Julius Caesar the dictator. Another legion that you may be thinking of thatpossibly could have 'turned' on Caesar would be the famous and Caesar's favorite Legio X. There was a mutiny after Caesar returned to Rome from his victory in Pontus in which the long serving 10th demanded its property allotments that had been promised for some time. Caesar talked his men out of their rebellion and they continued to serve Caesar in Africa and Hispania. Legio XV was recruited during the Gallic War in 53 BC and was sent to Italy as part of a political contingency with the Senate. This legion was supposed to have been sent east in a planned new invasion of Parthia, but ended up being used to defend Italy when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Unfortunately for the Senate, when their old commander arrived they promptly went back to Caesar. I can't think of any others off hand that might have been referred to in whatever you read. Some more details might help us support or debunk the statement.

Oh come now that is completely irrelevent. A lot of Greek things were predicated from Egypt, so in essense they should return that back. If Alexandria goes back to Macedonia, then sure as heck America belongs to Britain. Ahh, but you just got the point of my stance, without even realizing you got it. Using your logic, it is not Britain, Spain, France or Portugal (Perhaps even the Vikings) that should receive the Americas, but the various native tribes. Is the land itself not part of Iroquios Nation or Sioux heritage? I'll reiterate, where does it begin and where does it end. Surely, there remains some plundered history in Scandanavia that belongs to other Europeans? What happens if an invading army is repulsed? Do the victims of the invasion get to keep any remaining artifact as a symbol of their victory or should they be returned because they are not the original owners? Did Parthia return the eagles of Crassus because Augustus pestered Phraates IV into it out of a sense of guilt and that he was worried about Roman heritage or did he return them because he both respected and feared Roman power? Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that items should not be willingly returned under any circumstances, especially if both parties wish to do it out of political or humanitarian harmony. However to be pressured into by a sense of righteous entitlement is what I am finding to be ridiculous. This especially when every nation on earth and ethnic group of people including the requesting nation in question within this thread has skeletons in their own historical closets.

A typical US misconception. The English are competing. Most Scots will be roaring on whoever England are playing. Don't ask why, it's just traditional. I am both Scottish and English though... oh the confusion

From my limited knowledge of football all I can say is that the US is screwed with our grouping of Italy and the Czech Republic. Wouldn't it just irritate the entire world if the hated Americans who don't even give a damn advance to the 2nd round though. Here's hoping to play spoiler. Seriously though, I will be watching. Despite it not being that big here, the World Cup has all the history of rivalry and excitement to make it compelling to watch and thankfully American television is showing the games. Aside from the US, I'm rooting for the Brits (for all intensive purposes my ancestral homeland). (I also have an unexplainable affinity for Sweden as well. Hard to argue with Vikings kicking things I suppose)

Hmm, I wonder when Egypt will return Alexandria to Macedon.

I don't mean to be dismissive or trite on your thread tflex, but I can't explain myself any better when we really start to consider... Where does it begin and where does it end? Who is the keeper of the records and the authority on who owns the rights to what?

I'm confused... should we poor misguided yanks leave this land to the our tribal forebears if you Europeans, Asians and Africans will make room for the 280 million of us or so? And while we're on our way, go ahead and ship back any cultural items taken from the new world and return it to the rightful owners. That includes Central and South American gold, silver and jewels from you silly expansionist Spaniards. I've talked to the representatives of all the tribes and they promise to send back all those darn horses to whomever sent them over. All they do is smell up the place anyway.

To the victor goes the spoils.