Primus Pilus

No, its fiction. His books are not intended to reflect accuracy and they clearly do not.

Agreed, but for all intensive purposes these were Romans, Romanized Celts or conformists. In her mind these people were probably not Iceni or Britons at all for that matter. I suppose this can be chalked up as another one of those semantic disagreements.

No, had Brutus been there, he may not have made it to his province safely. Antonius, for all of his faults was a fairly good public speaker and seemingly had the crowd fairly worked up against the assassins. However, according to Plutarch, Brutus addressed the crowd the day after the Ides (the day of the assassination) but not at the funeral. Plutarch: Life of Caesar Chapter 67.

Well umm, it is British heritage since all those people make up what is modern Britain. If the British claimed only to be Anglo-Saxon that would also be wrong, no? Frankly we have no way to know that. I suppose that if we assume that she killed every non Roman in her path it may have added up to more than the Roman citizens at Camolodunum, Londinium and Verulamium, as well as the detachment of Legio IX Hispana that was overwhelmed near Londinium. Unfortunately the sources don't give all the details. Unless you are trying to imply that she was responsible for the death of her army by revolting in the first place, then I suppose you would be right.

Sorry about the late reply... I was browsing around Cassius Dio regarding Antonius and remembered that at least Caesar's Funeral oration is preserved (well Dio's version of it anyway). Though he is rather noted for lengthy and dramatic monologues. It's in book 44 leading in with chapter 35 through about 50 Cassius Dio 44

I do believe the law stated that a lictor could actually accompany a magistrate into the forum and actually attend the Senate. I may be mistaken on that, but regardless I'm sure such a show of imperium to fellow Senators would've been considered ridiculously taboo. Indeed, Antonius certainly would've thrown a wrench into the works. Though his later behavior in casting off his consular toga and hiding for fear of his own life (which was a perfectly legitimate concern despite the lack of foresight by the conspirators), doesn't exactly paint him as the sort of man that would've made that much difference in the actual attempt on Caesar's life. Was it Suetonius who suggested he dressed up as a woman? Regardless, all the other sources indicate that he simply tried to blend in by casting off the trappings of rank. Despite this, perhaps it truly was that his simple presence would've struck terror into the hearts of the non soldier senators (as Skarr suggests so eloquently, lol).

I agree with the notion that its the way Marius used his army for political gain rather than the reforms itself. Clearly, recruiting from the head count helped establish an army that was particularly loyal to Marius as an individual, but this was not the first time that non landowners had been conscripted. Much like the second punic war, Rome was desperate for manpower (after massive losses in Noricum, Aurasio, etc. the ongoing war in Numidia). Howwever, the conditions which led into Marius' reforms (large scale slave labor and plebeian unemployment) did not exist in such a scale until after the grand victories in Hispania, Africa and the Balkans. The choices were limited and perhaps the reorganization was inevitable especially when we consider that Rome was no longer fighting for survival of the city-state. Land owners who once were considered indispensable because of the personal stake in protecting their own properties, no longer had the incentive to fight when such fighting was for expansion in some far away land. Considering the achievements of the head count armies after the reforms, its hard to argue that they were any less effective. With all that said, I feel that Marius bears more personal responsibilty than the reforms he undertook. At any rate, the reformation of the military structure of the legion and creating uniform interchangeable parts throughout the infantry was brilliant, as opposed to the social and political implications of the recruitment base he tapped into.

Yes the fasces or bundled rods was the symbol of the magistrate's (thereby the city of Rome's) power to inflict punishment on lawbreakers. The axe represented the authority of the magistrate to decide life and death. Inside the pomerium (the orginal border of the city) the axes were removed to indicate that the authority of life and death rested only with the people's assemblies. In the case of Caesar though, a dictator's Lictors were allowed to keep the axe even inside the pomerium to illustrate the dictator's ultimate authority. Of course, also in Caesar's case (as I eluded to earlier) the Theatre of Pompey was actually outside the Pomerium anyway. I truly wonder what became of Caesar's lictors.

Lictors were used throughout. The tradition continued well into the principate period despite the noted alterations in government. Sometimes when we read that a particular person preferred to walk alone it could be a suggestion that they did indeed walk without the customary clients and hangers-on, but not necessarily that they were completely by themselve . Since Lictors were assigned as a symbol of imperium and a magistrate's authority they may have been ignored in the context of a man walking with other people (meaning he was alone... save for the symbol of authority, or perhaps not. We can't really be sure). In theory a Lictor was never supposed to leave their assigned magistrate unattended except for when he entered a free city and when he visited a higher magistrate. (ie Praetor visiting a Consul) However there is evidence of "bodyguards" being dismissed by magistrates (ie Caesar and the Ides of March) but whether this was simply his private guards or included Lictors as well is not clear. According to custom the 24 Lictors should've accompanied Dictator Caesar even into Pompey's Theatre (which had temporarily served as the forum and was interestingly outside the pomerium) but that is one of the few details left out of the various accounts of Caesar's death.

I was just doing a bit of surfing for a new video game to waste more of my precious limited time. To my surprise I noticed there are several new upcoming games based on Rome and Greece. (Some of the amazon pages are fairly void of information but its a starting point) A City Builder (think sim city): Heart of the Empire: Rome @ Amazon A Real Time Strategy (think Age of Empires): Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War @ Amazon A Role Playing/Adventure Game set in the Greek Mythos: Titan Quest @ Amazon A big time city builder: Civcity: Rome @ Amazon Yet another city builder that will probably get lost in the shuffle: Glory of the Roman Empire @ Amazon And here's the big boy grandaddy that will probably compete with CivCity: Rome Caesar IV @ Amazon A good general site to look up more info for those so inclined... Gamespot In addition to continuing modifications of the Rome Total War game, if you're into PC gaming and Rome, it looks like this is a pretty good year.

Quote from the story:

Pliny's letter to Trajan regarding the Christians was written as he was governor of Pontus et Bithynia. The number of Christians in the east, where the religion was founded and began its march to dominance thanks in part to the travels of Paul, would've have been considerably higher than in the west.

I can't begin to see how Christianity was not influenced by the mystery religions and predecessing Pagan beliefs. Whether such notions... Zoroaster prediction of the savior, the immaculate virgin mother Anahita who was once worshipped as a fertility goddess, Mithra's ascension to heaven etc., influenced Christianity may be a tough thing to prove, but summarily dismissing them simply because Christians had the foresight to burn anything that disagreed with their own doctrine doesn't prove anything either.

at least this didnt win http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8610362188397291938

Oh of course I am not trying to suggest that all the sexual intrigue is completely accurate, only that it doesn't necessarily have to be untrue to prove that Julia was involved in a plot. Would such stories be convenient? Absolutely they would have been, but since there is additional surviving evidence of her involvement in a plot anyway, why can't both be at least partially true. I think perhaps this may be a case of exaggeration more than blatant propagandic lie.

General consensus is that Rome's lowest population post empire was about 20 to 25,000 people and fluctuated somewhere between that and 50,000 up until it's resurgence in the Renaissance period. Perhaps the article is suggesting remnants of citizenship rather than actual inhabitants. Perhaps it's just blatantly false. Procopius (the secretary of Belisarius) records that the last races at the Circus Maximus occurred in 550 in his "Gothic Wars" (Book III, chapt. 37).

I'm not really sure the need for the connection of Tiberius in your conspiracy theory. Tiberius was already known to be unhappy for having to divorce Vipsania Agrippina, and was probably quite weary of the entire political scene altogether. His later second withdrawal to Capri acts as further evidence of a need to distance himself from such things. Otherwise the 'plot' theory of Julia the Elder is attested by Pliny and the connection to other characters such as Iullus Antonius is evidenced by Paterculus. I don't think her promiscuity as evidenced by Macrobius, Pliny, Paterculus, Seneca, etc. necessarily detracts from her ability to be involved in a plot but actually supports it. Perhaps painting her in such a manner may be additional propaganda to help the public relations battle, but I don't see a great reason to say it's completely untrue.

I read the 3 chapters on Etruria (since its related to Rome and therefore that which I have the most knowledge of). It's not necessarily a lie, but its woefully inadequate and mixed with some inaccuracies. In browsing some other chapters there seems to be an agenda, but quite frankly I don't find it compelling enough to be interested.

Here is the performance from the actual show that was up yesterday... not sure why Vig replaced it with the video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=85...Eurovision+2006 I'm with Moonlapse, it truly is embarrassing to watch. I feel bad for metalheads everywhere, lol.

It's strange in a way that the Germanic tribes have been associated with the framea as the weapon of choice for so long. Clearly though, archaeology along with the language itself has shown that this is not quite the definitive notion that was once thought to be.

Not a problem at all.. I just moved it to the appropriate forum.

And I'd imagine they'll open their discovery to other archaeologists eventually, but someone must always be the first to find something I suppose.

Are you speaking of the potential Roman fort at Drumanagh near Dublin? I haven't seen an update on that site in a very long time. Do you have any information to share... or does anyone?

Unfortunately that is about the worst metal band I've ever heard. What is this some sort of Kiss meets Alice Cooper meets Slipknot creation. Though before I'm too harsh, I suppose the fact that rock beat pop should count for something regardless of it's quality. Hard Rock Hallelujah

He didn't Primus, this is why this it is absolute ludacris. Indeed... my post was intended as a touch of sarcasm.