Primus Pilus

That's a good question that I don't really have an answer to. I would imagine that a majority would survive the sinking if rammed. However, were they good swimmers? Were they plucked from the water as prisoners to be put to work for the winners, sold off or saved just to be put to the sword? Don't know. I'll have to look because I don't remember seeing that spelled out. But of course, the Romans prefered boarding. So how many of the enemy crew survived that process I don't know. Were the Roman aims to capture just the ship as booty or as many crew member who would surrender as well. Vegetius does mention swimming as an important part of soldier training in the later empire. Vegetius on swimming. He's also quite clear that the 'ancients' learned to swim in the Tiber near the Campus Martius. Despite other flaws, I don't think we should doubt the logic in this situation. As for casualties in a sinking, I suppose it would depend on the circumstances. Is there any evidence of smaller rescue craft or rescue devices?

It was the celebration of Passover that brought Jesus to Jerusalem, and his reception (reportedly popular) probably got the ball rolling in having him arrested and crucified. So, the connection between the timing of Good Friday and Passover is almost causal. Indeed, so the concept of Easter as an usurped holiday is not entirely true in this case, despite the popularity of the pagan festival and its coincidental timing certainly helping to make the Christian version of things more readily acceptable.

Are you more interested in descriptions of individual battles or entire military campaigns. Do you prefer modern or ancient historians. Here are just a couple of samples but some more detail would help us give you better choices: Battles of the Greek and Roman World Cannae, the Experience of Battle Goldsworthy... The Punic Wars Caesar... Gallic War Josephus.. the Jewish War

Moonlapse and I were discussing something completely unrelated and the fact that today is "Good Friday" came up randomly in the conversation. Not only has the term 'Good' always struck me as rather odd considering the nature of the events (yes I udnerstand its good that he died for the sins of humanity, but it still strikes me as odd), but I realized that I've never actually bothered to learn the origins of the term 'Easter'. Lo and behold after a bit of googling... The True Origin of Easter Now I'm not surprised that the festival that came to be known as Easter was taken from a pagan event, whether it was the celebration of the Babylonian Ishtar and the resurrection of Tammuz or the Anglo-Saxon fertility rites of the goddess Eostre. What I am a little confused about regarding the Christian holiday is that, despite its adoption of the event of resurrection itself, its timing seems to be truly more coincidental than other deliberate usurpations of pagan events. If Good Friday or the death of Christ is associated with Passover and Easter was also always traditionally celebrated at about the same time, then the timing of the Christian ressurection coincides quite well with the other rituals. Despite the pagan origins of the story itself, the association of the ressurection of Christ with the festival of Easter seems to be something that happened as a matter of circumstance. Unlike Christmas which is so obviously and purposely associated with the timing of Saturnalia, is Easter an accident? Am I correct regarding the timing of Passover and Good Friday, or perhaps was the Easter festival deliberately moved to be in sync? Am I just missing something else entirely?

And don't delete them right away. Please let us have a look first.

Also Constantine wasn't being so nice when he murdered his own son and boiled his wife (though this was reported as asphyxiation in an over heated bath). Of course considering the drama of the imperial life, perhaps he was just being prudent.

Constantine was actually fairly neutral when it came to the pagan temples. He allowed some desecration, but for the most part he was simply the emperor who first allowed Christianity to be openly tolerated. It was Theodosius and the organized church that destroyed paganism a half century or so later. And comparing Constantine to George Foreman is certainly a first around here.

And Eusebius was... hmm how shall we say this... highly motivated. Though his position as a close advisor to the emperor for many years lends credence to the idea that Constantine was indeed a Christian.

Could be set to randomly spam at a certain time of day as it doesnt seem to take effect with new image uploads or new comments.

Yes don't delete your images as it will do nothing to stop it. I'm trying to block the offending IP addresses as they pop up but spam bots will be able to work around this without too much difficulty. Still it might offer temporary relief until we can get something more definitive from Invision.

Which one... I can't seem to find it?

Ouch I see!!!! Why me?!?!? I deleted my pic, now the spam is in one of Lacertus' Its a spam bot... Moonlapse is researching a solution

It's interesting isn't it, how much we question ancient Roman texts based on the bias of their writers ? I've recently read a number of intances...in Polybius and in letters from Pliny to Tacitus, when the importance of accuracy in the writing of histories is explicitly expressed as the most important thing. It certainly is a dilemna. Are we so tainted by the idea of a political agenda that is so inherent in modern history that we sometimes fail to see the forest for the trees so to speak. Or is it just me? I think the problem is that when Suetonius makes an inference of a disparaging idea against Tiberius for example, he does so by making public an unproved notion ie... 'I heard that he might have done this'. Because it is written, readers of the time and later generations allowed it to become a fact rather than leave it as an open question. That is exactly the point I was trying to make ages ago in that Tiberius vs. Germanicus thread. Its not at all that the writings of Suetonius and Tacitus (the Agricola) should be discounted as untruths, but that we simply accept something as unprovable when the authors themselves admit that their own sources are not definitive. I apologize to Suetonius for at times seemingly discounting his work, when all I really mean to point out is that he often makes it quite clear when a rather speculative piece of information is being provided.

It is niaf in the extreme to expect ambitious men, who have examples of previous illegal actions being unpunished and no real constitutional safeguards that can be brought against them, not to exploit the system to their own advantage. That is a failing of the morality of individuals (which is commonplace and to be expected) and of the system of government. Apologies for the somewhat 'bitty' post but I'm pressed for time. I do agree that the system had its problems which included the inability to safeguard its own law from the corruption of individuals, but I maintain that the system itself, despite its flaws, worked for 5 centuries and could've continued to work if not for extreme ambitions. I agree that reversing the trend would have been an enormous task even in the best possible circumstance, but the system did have a working track record. Again, my assertion is not that the system failed even in this circumstance but that the people who were responsible for upholding the system failed to do so. The law was in place... its the failure of individuals and factions for failing to uphold the law that existed or applying constitutional means to modify the law. This may be a semantical argument perhaps, but all the mechanisms did exist to allow the system to punish those who broke the law. There were eventualities built in to allow for growth and governing of provinces even if these eventualities did allow far too much individual discretion. At any rate, I suppose the main point is not that the Republic was a blameless system but that it was in essence a far better alternative to singular authority. I'm not talking about the ideological freedom of the Roman masses vs the pseudo oligarchic patrician families. The masses were essentially governed by the same laws and customs and controlled by the same means under the Principate as in the Republic. Can we really see a marked improvement in the lot of the common Roman in the imperatorial or principate periods? Laws were enacted to create a placebo effect and to create a fervor of popular support, but many of the populist laws were hardly enforced (ie the replacement of agricultural slave labor with poor citizenry). There were temporary changes while the dying days of the Republic forced change due to political necessity, and clearly we see new military opportunity afforded by earlier circumstances under Marius and the later formation of a standing army, but this of itself does not equate to true better circumstances for the people. Sure there was the later alimenta as an example and the grain dole had always been there in some form or another, but I don't personally equate social welfare as an improvement to the overall status of the populus anyway. I suppose what it comes down to for me whether the system itself was a failure or not, is that if all else is essentially equal, at least the Republic afforded the opportunity for choice even if those choices were not always of the greatest benefit.

What I've always found so conceptually correct about Cato's argument is not necessarily the inherent bashing of tyranny, but the notion that the Republican system was not itself a failure. I think sometimes we get a bit blindsided by Cato's style and ignore the substance of the argument. The system itself was governed by law and procedure. Were these laws and procedures always the best possible rules and guidelines for running the system? No, of course not, nor were they always the most inclusionary by nature, but the system did allow for the exchange of ideas, debate and modification of its own rules according to vote and group affirmation rather than the whims of an individual. Some Republican concepts were exclusionary to various groups but the right to speak and assemble always remained. There were times when violent assemblies were forcibly dismantled and some of these cases were assuredly oligarchic paranoia in attempts to stifle opposition, but traditional government generally returned until the periods in question. The Republic had plenty of features in place to deal with various crises, even if they weren't always handled to the best possible solution. The problem with the Republic was not the Republic itself, but the idea that it depended upon the continued restraint and dignity of individuals not to corrupt the available loopholes for personal gain. In the case of provincial exploitation, people could be prosecuted, and were at times. Did this sometimes depend upon the sentiment of the times and the power of various factions within the system? Of course it did, but the ideology of law was always there and it was applied most harshly when extreme transgressions were committed. Laws were broken by various members of the Senate and the Plebeian assembly at any given time, but the rule of law was still generally applied. The Republic failed because of both the personal ambitions and the stubbornness of individuals. The Republic was flexible and could have allowed for legal compromises even in the latest hours. Unfortunately though, the precedent for personal ambition and even corruption above the glory of the state had already been set. To vie for that power by whatever means necessary became the status quo. While the Republic as an institution could do little do stop this trend because demagoguery of individuals had overtaken the earlier ideology, it is the failure of individuals to be blamed and not the system itself. Men such as Caesar for circumventing the law to obtain power in the first place and men such as Cato the Younger for failing to compromise previous transgression for the sake of reconciliation and the health of the state, may have both been products of a devolving political environment, but again it is not necessarily the fault of the system itself. In modern democratic states, what is stopping an individual general from going rogue and seeking ultimate power or personal glory? Very little. We have law, just as the Romans did, but what stops a general from breaking the modern law of a nation and rebelling against its government? It happens quite frequently in some parts of the world. Is there anything in place that is less tolerant in modern western law than the Romans were? No, there isn't. The penalties for treason are quite similar and if a general goes rogue, or a politician breaks the law we blame the individuals in most cases rather than the systems. The Republic as an institution is no more a failure than many other attempted forms of governments, but its ideology was at least far preferable than other contemporary monarchies and despotisms. Again, I will reiterate that I personally admire Caesar for his achievements both as a statesman and a general, but I can also readily admit his personal culpability in sounding the Republic's death knell.

LOL, indeed I just saw the Gellius line courtesy of the William Smith dictionary. Isn't it nice when things come together.

This was irritating me greatly and I continued to look... I don't know how I missed it the first time, but its the very first couple of lines in Ploybius Book VI on the Military. At any rate Livy also gives the age limit as roughly 17 to 46. Of course this is for the citizen legionary, but it makes practical sense for allied and auxilia as well.

Now that is truly a difficult question. We can assume there was a basic standard, not only as a matter of fitness, but possibly to deny giving benefits to the descendents of a man who was already too old to give quality lengthy service. (though this is not so much an issue in the Punic War era as the later imperial age) I am not aware of a defined upper limit though, especially when talking about the Polybian age where the legions still lacked some uniformity. Even Vegetius doesn't give an upper limit for legionary recruits in the later imperial army, but rather simply extolls the virtues of recruiting young men. Polybius gets fairly detailed in his book 6, but even regarding the recruitment of actual citizen soldiers as Hastatii, Principes and Triarii, etc. he doesn't give exact ages but describes them in relative terms such as youngest, next in seniority, etc.

Indeed we could have used some aid especially in establishing the sites of legionary fortresses in Judaea. It was not so much a question of evidence as much as placing them in the right place for the particular time frame. At any rate, thank you for the compliments... and should we ever make a larger representation of the east, I hope you won't mind if we pick your brain.

Hmm, I can vaguely recall in my younger days as a Lutheran church goer that the Day of Judgement was taught as a great single event in which all of humanity would be judged at once. Maybe the teaching has changed... or maybe its simply based on geographic/cultural preferences?

I would tend to agree that anyone who considers themselves practicing a religion, particularly the rule laden monotheistic concepts, should follow the laws of their faith. However all you did was lay out the concept of Judgement day which I think that most Christians seem to believe in. You didn't actually highlight a rule of the faith that Christians don't tend to conform to.

I apologize for the understatement

Well, I sure can't find that Livy passage