Primus Pilus

I tend to agree on the Antonius front (with FV that is) simply because of his track record showing a lack of political skill. It's his army that kept him in a position to rival for superiority in the first place. I tend to think of his decision to rule the east more from a standpoint of available wealth and glory (ie the Parthian campaign) though I suppose this motivation is no more provable than any other.

I think you misunderstood the context of my post... I am relative agreement with you at least regarding the Julio Claudian depictions by Suetonius. I've always felt that Tiberius, Gaius and Claudius all received a relatively bad rap based on loose associations with debauchery, etc., though I tend to treat Nero's bio with far more credibility considering his relative unpopularity with the 3 elements of Roman politics... the aristocracy, the mob and the military. However, I am merely pointing out that while there is evidence to question within Suetonius... there is also a lack of counter evidence that must make questions of it's own. While it may not be entirely proper to take Suetonius at full face value, it is also not quite fair to dismiss him entirely considering a lack of contradictory evidence. Though I fear you provided too many options to discuss and this thread may spin wildly in many directions. No worries I think we can handle it.

Actually this has been discussed for some time. Any perceptions that you may feel are unwarranted will evolve with time and quality contributions.

Frankly Phil I don't see much of a stretch in your reasoning. In a discussion I once had regarding Tiberius and the supposed murder of Germanicus, it's quite clear that even Suetonius freely admits that he doesn't know exactly what happened. While he may be suggesting varius impropieties and was certainly painting a picture that the reader would be hard pressed to ignore, he concedes that some of his statements are pure conjecture. We don't even know if Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso was guilty of anything other than disliking Germanicus, let alone Tiberius. Does this mean we should ignore Suetonius? Absolutely not. To do so would be to ignore one of the great sources of ancient documentation, but an understanding of possible political motivations should at least be taken into account. I gravitate to your description of Gaius as the first true Hellenistic Roman monarch and his behavior might certainly correlate. However, I will always have trouble reconciling the notion of a sudden change in his behavior. Consider that all the sources make note of a severe illness that completely altered his behavior. Was this a simple piece of propaganda designed in posterity simply to justify to the masses the murder of an extremely popular leader? I suppose it was too difficult for the aristocracy (even at this late date in the early 2nd century) to allow the notion that Gaius was a Monarch. Despite the nature of the principate, did the aristocracy feel it was more desirable to explain away anti Republican behavior with various behaviorial oddities rather than allow the people to think that the emperors were simply behaving as "Kings"?

I think the method of calculating the land mass is the question here. How does one truly select the appropriate percentages of modern borders to include? From a quick glance I can see a couple of countries missing from your list (though admittedly they are small ones): Lebanon, Luxembourg, Cyprus. In addition, Wouldn't the borders of modern Romania (Dacia) and Egypt conform quite closely to the provinces controlled by Rome rather than the 50% you suggest? You might need to make an equally proportional overview of ancient and modern sample areas to make it a bit more scientific. Could be quite interesting really. As for population figures... here's my own article though it is only intended as an overview and I make several openly debatable assumptions. Roman Population And here's a provincial chart by Dr. Ken Harl Tulane Handout

on a scale of 1 to 10 how good is is this book by Christian Meier? I suppose that depends on what you are looking for. If you want a strict biography of Caesar... this is not it, but if you are looking for a reasonably in depth discussion on the political situation and the underlying culture that brought down the Republic, Meier's book is excellent. Though I read it somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 years ago and I'm a bit fuzzy on it and will refrain from a numerical rating. I suppose a revisit is in order.

What exactly are you trying to determine? How the sculptures were made? Similarities or differences in the depiction of the two emperors? Something else?

Absolutely, military upkeep was a terrible drain on the economy in the later imperial period. As the legions evolved into a garrison army, not only did the costs remain as they always had, but it was no longer a source of revenue via conquest. Its difficult to determine which came first... barbarization or penetration. I suppose its a chicken and egg question. The legions were barbarized in part because Rome needed to keep it's frontiers pacified allowing entry of various tribes, however many tribes had already entered the empire and their activation within the legions accomplished the same task (while also providing an untapped source of recruits). We've discussed this in many places, but here is a recent related thread that evolved from a discussion of citizenship and it's effects on the army... Citizenship Yes, but civil war was nothing new in the later imperial period. Consider the wars of the late Republic, AD 69, AD 193, the chaotic third century etc. In theory the concentration of power and loyalty to the Princeps should have helped prevent civil war (which it did for the most part as Augustus established sole military power), but the instability of succession was more a problem I believe than the matter of concentrated military power. There was plenty of power concentrated in a few generals following the death of Domitian, but yet that was followed by nearly a century of relative political stability thanks to defined succession. Were governors and legates allowed to hold their positions for too long, establishing too much direct loyalty from their men? Perhaps we can see that in retrospect, but I do believe that some of the turmoil could have been avoided with stronger plans of succession. Of course, this would also be dependent upon strong central figures to establish these plans, which was sorely lacking in the 3rd century, but the 2nd century set a precedent showing that it could work. (and aside from AD 69 there were no civil wars in the 1st century either, though there was clearly a couple of problems with succession).

Agreed, by the time of Augustus... and following the various purges of the late Republic there were already several families that were already considered extinct. Consider another few hundred years of even more power shifts and political purges. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to research the validity but I did stumble across this interesting site. Augustus and the Senate

Even if some family had survived... perhaps one that fell into relative obscurity long before the final corruption/fall of the western aristocracy... it's quite possible that knowledge of such a fact may have been dangerous. There was quite possibly a time when allowing the new order to have it's way and keeping quiet about heritage could've been the most practical solution to one's own survival. Of course, I am talking only a single hypothetical possibility and offer no basis in fact that could possibly be traced. Despite this, a quick look at the numbers are in order... If the original Roman Senate consisted of some 100 patres as reported under King Romulus, or as many as 300 as established by Brutus with the founding of the Republic, it doesn't seem like that many possibilities in comparison to the population of the world. However, consider that of these 300 families, over the course of some 500 to 700 years (from Monarch to Republic to Principate) the number of possible heirs must be staggering. Were they all purged? Did all branches die out? What about third, fourth, fifth sons that may never have been enrolled in the Senate or any number of possibilites. Clearly any family member who fell from grace would not be considered a member of the aristocracy, but they would still be a descendent. An interesting discussion even if proving the theory is damn near impossible.

Yes, but the Circus was still vastly larger than the "Colosseum" with 150,000 to 250,000 seats vs. 50,000. Perhaps more could have viewed the events in the Circus by standing. Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Pliny the elder give conflicting numbers on seating. Interestingly, the Circus continued to be used for its original purpose long after the Flavian Ampitheatre was not (mid 6th century). However, because of the distinctive size and attributes (as well as the nature of the "blood games") it's the colosseum that draws the most attention despite the extreme and enduring popularity of the races. At any rate, circus literally means circle whereas arena refers to the surface area (sand) rather than a specific structure. Amphitheatre is much more in line with Circus by definition than Arena is.

Especially something sharp enough for carving. I'd think it's fairly safe to say that the ancient world was far less concerned with prisoner privileges in comparison to the modern day, but of course there are sure to be exceptions. At any rate perhaps you might find something in the William Smith Dictionary. Vitruvius might provide some detail in his "On Architecture", though I can't be certain.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm posting without doing any sort of verification first... but weren't Roman settlements in Britannia largely a result of colonization and imported 'Romans' rather than incorporation of the locals. While southern Britannia was largely peaceful and clearly accepted the benefits of Roman society, did the people not retain a good deal of tribal organization in comparison to other parts of the empire? [Edit]Allow me also to quickly edit myself... I did not mean to suggest that the local Britannic people were not incorporated at all, but I meant this in comparison to other provinces.

Just a short note to express general agreement. This is exactly one of the reasons I am so greatly impressed with HBO/BBC Rome. Despite various elements of inaccuracy in the show, which I see more as interpretation for the time constraints of television (though the Cleopatra episode was distressing), the attention given to the detail of the city is exceptional.

Moved, though the nature of the discussion seems quite semantic in nature. Interesting nonetheless.

Furius Camillus. Life of Camillus by Plutarch

Uhh let's see... The surname and most paternal heritage is Anglo-Saxon English with some distant Scot, and a touch of Dutch. Maternal is a heavy dose of Germanic, a sprinkling of Bohemian Slavic and who knows what else. Regardless... I'm all barbarian.

Pliny the elder may not have been the sort of explorer that we typically think of in regards to discovering new lands... but his natural histories contains many elements of exploration. Perhaps it is more scientific discovery than exploration per se, but considering his death while investigating the eruption of Vesuvius and we can clearly identify an adventurous spirit. I suppose Caesar provides an element as an explorer as well. His intentions at the head of an army were clearly different than what we would associate with men such as Columbus and his personal motivations have been well debated around here, but his expeditions to Britain were at least exploratory by default.

It's interesting that the imperial alimenta introduced by Nerva and made mainstream by Trajan in the early 2nd century corresponds roughly to a period where Christianity is beginning to spread beyond its early Jewish origins. Clearly the root definitions are virtually interchangeable. Perhaps the introduction of the alimenta was more heavily influenced by the growth of the early church than I've ever bothered to consider.

Of course its on topic. Its a counter viewpoint calling out this supposed archaeologist as a hack. Propoganda? Sure it might be, but its no more propoganda than the the notion of this pyramid in the first place.

Considering the rather dubious nature of these claims... I suppose its appropriate to include a countering view http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NoPyramidsInBosnia/ http://peticija.white.prohosting.com/eng.htm

But was this because supply decreased or because demand increased? In that case both... the destruction of armies at Norica, Tolosa and Aurasio over the span of about 7 years (perhaps with losses of as many as 150,000 men) and the ongoing war against Jugurtha.

Uhh, nobody said that.

Indeed, please don't provide translations without understanding the language. Despite a limited ability to read Latin, any attempt I can make to properly translate context and grammar would show my inadequacy. Therefore I try to refrain myself even if the intention would only be to help and leave it to those who are far more capable.

Seriously how does one jump to this conclusion. Reading the Revelation (and any work of prophecy that is quite open to arbitrary interpretation) is like a journey into the abstract. Aside from the Seven Kings business which doesn't even properly work itself out to mean Nero or Domitian, and the fuzzy math of the number of the beast matching up to the letters of Nero's name in Greek, there isn't anything that we could call specific. Sure there are generic inferences that could interpreted that way, but they can just as easily be interpreted to mean countless other things... as people have proven by applying the Revelation to other random events in human history. Let's assume for a moment that the second coming does refer to Nero or Domitian and that Christ was supposed to return at some point near this point in history (circa late 1st century, early 2nd AD). Since this didn't happen (at least I assume it didn't) how is it intepreted that humanity could have a few more thousand years. The Revelation is quite vague, almost making Nostradamus seem specific, and from my limited ability to decipher prophetic code, wouldn't the possibility exist in the Christian mind that the 2nd coming could happen at any time? In theory, shouldn't Christians be ready at any moment for this event of eternal damnation or salvation?