Primus Pilus

When did this cat surpass Zahi Hawass in the Egyptology heirarchy? LOL what a continuing sham.

Tacitus clearly makes reference to the use of the fleet by Agricola, but I'm terribly intrigued to know what other source material/archaeological evidence the author is relying upon.

You have me curious now... what does the author suggest happened? While some of the details of the landing (ie exact location, nature of its resistance, etc.) may be debatable, I didn't think there was much question over what type and approximate size of the force?

As a follow-up to the question above... Why is Lucullus such an "unsung" character? Was he truly lost in the sea of larger than life contemporaries or did he fall victim to an anti Sullan agenda of Caesar. This would not quite blend with Caesar's support of Pompey for the eastern imperium, but can Lucullus dismissal in the Mithridatic War simply be written off as a Senatorial fear of Pompey's ominous legionary presence? Essentially Why did his "retirement" from public life not gain him a bit more of a lasting reverence despite the spectacular luxuries, when the era in question perhaps could've used a few more men willing to set aside political power. By the by, I heartily enjoyed Sulla the Last Republican and highly recommend it to my fellow Romanophiles. Would there ever be a similar re-publication of your Lucullus work?

And considering that few survived the crossing and the rest died at or near Trebbia (save perhaps for one), the notion that Hannibal had elephants traipsing all over Italy is ridiculous. Except for Zama, Hannibal never really met a Roman army with a respectable contingency of elephants. Scipio's strategy for defeating the elephants (even if they were poorly trained and under prepared) should be commended rather than dismissed as tactics that were simply old hat. (Understanding that yes they did have experience two generations earlier against Pyrrhus). I wonder how many elephants will be crushing the Romans at Cannae in the Vin Diesel movie? [EDIT] woops... I suppose Scipio did face elephants in Hispania. Oh well, I still think he deserves credit for his strategy

Julian, I am in general agreement that the persecutions have been exaggerated but what advantage would a Tacitus (among others) have in describing the persecutions under Nero? If Christians were still generally disliked in the time of Tacitus (which I doubt anyone would readily disagree with) how would it benefit the propaganda theory. We have little choice to take some of the events at face value since there really isn't anything to tell us otherwise. I agree that the descriptions of the persecutions are likely enhanced, and Nero's agenda was probably not so much to punish Christians as it was to redirect public disapproval, but to say it didn't happen at all is just as speculative. Tacitus may not have liked Nero, but Rome in his era was still not fond of Christianity either. Would there have been enough of a sympathetic reaction in the late first and early second centuries towards persecuted Christians to actually damage Nero's reputation any more than it already had been?

ATHENS, Greece (AP) - A Greek fisherman has handed over to authorities a large section of an ancient bronze statue brought up in his nets in the Aegean Sea, officials said on Monday. The male torso was located last week near the eastern Aegean island of Kalymnos, the Culture Ministry said in an announcement... From ABC News

Excellent. Constantine of course tends to be a rather controversial figure (regarding religion anyway) and additional input is always welcome.

Agreed, I've always felt that barbarization of the legions was as much a geographical recruiting issue as it was cultural. Barbarization does not necessarily relate to how we may perceive/define a "barbarian" but it does define the sweeping cultural changes that left Rome reliant upon border populations rather than those who may have had a more traditional vested interest. Barbarization of the legions is not about them becoming an army of Conan style warriors but describes others shifts. Germanics (and others) were still soldiers, and at least prior to the final stages of the west where the armies were mercenary styles led by petty Kings and such, regular traditional training and discipline (though perhaps with differing motivations and intended outcomes) was still a part of the regimen. All IMO anyway.

Now you're heading in the right direction. You might as well start first with the ancients to get a feeling for how the Boudica events were reported then... Tacitus Annals book XIV (about half way in) Cassius Dio Book LXII

Here's a collection of articles (which does include wiki)... perhaps you can at least find a proper direction within.... www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/ Unfortunately since the notion of Arianism was virtually destroyed by it's rivals, there's not much source material other than the rebuttals of opponents (Athanasius in particular) and who knows how much of that was altered for various reasons.

Both tests seem to indicate that I'm an ISTJ. 'Guardian Inspector'. I don't know what it means, but basing it on my general personality type, I don't think I really care either =P

Absolutely... something to tide us over here in the states while we wait for the actual book to be published here. (Bah, not until September)

Aren't you are indirectly supporting the notion of barbarization. If Italians and more traditional provincials were seemingly unwilling to join, then clearly the Romans were dependent on "barbarian" recruits to fill the ranks. If the Romans turned to Germanic recruits simply as a means to pacify those particular segments of the population as well as factoring border recruiting proximity into the equation, then traditional recruiting pools were still being ignored even if there were willing volunteers. Either way "barbarization" of the legions in the later period took place whether it was a necessity or not. Perhaps barbarization is a term which occasionally carries an incorrect connotation, but I don't see how we can claim that the later Roman army (in the west of course) was not made up largely of non traditional recruits.

They don't appear to do enough steroids for my taste. Barry Bonds head weighs more than both teams combined.

Strange, all the settings indicate that you still have moderator abilities. At least admin capability is still functioning.

Did you find more confirmation other than the biography of Herod you mentioned earlier? It really is a rather interesting little historical tidbit.

I don't think Josephus made a mistake here. Procurator (unfortunately) was a position that carried many varying functions. A nice overview from Livius.org

Considering that she's a lesbian I don't know how this would work out. Actually considering the nature of celebrity relationships, it probably is a pretty good match =P I got Angelina Jolie with: * Nicole Kidman * Mia Hamm * Glenn Close Does Angelina come with her purchased... er I mean adopted children... or do I just get her?

Vegetius can be informative even if his credibility is sometimes questionable. Of course this relates to the later Roman army, but it still gives a sample of legionary training.

Googling a specific topic can be helpful rather than searching such broad themes as "Roman Empire", "Ancient Rome", etc. What in particular are you looking for?

Is this the novel by Manda Scott?

Other than Boudica herself is there actually any evidence of the Iceni preferring women rulers? Considering that our knowledge of Britannic tribal affairs is severely limited I'd be interested in seeing the evidence to support the conclusions. Other than Antedios (during the Claudian invasion) and Prasutagus (husband of Boudica) the list of rulers is rather sparse (here's a few: http://romans-in-britain.org.uk/clb_tribe_iceni.htm). What book is this you are referring to?