Primus Pilus

That's because they would be blasting the Martians, who are bad, relatively speaking. That's quite the stereotype there. You should apologize to Martians. I would also like to retract my previous statement about Mastodons and apologize for calling them bastards. I have no idea what sort of mating/heredity rituals they practiced.

I refuse to accept your apologies because I don't believe you are sincere, especially the part about the Mastodons. I mean if there's anything that all people can agree on its that those woolly bastards had it coming.

Let me turn the tables on everyone and apologize not only for my ancestors who must have done something bad because I am a caucasoid male of European heritage, but also for any potential descendents who will have a high probability of running amok at some point in time and especially in the case of a post-apocalyptic wasteland environment where there are no rules to prevent their errant behavior against fellow humans. [edit] I forgot a smily

Yes, being misunderstood can be annoying - but I guess that's life when you're not face to face. True enough. C'est la vie. I don't think LIVIA would have considered whether she was being portrayed as older than Augustus, but I think any normal woman (i.e., your average non-power-luster) wants to look better than her husband! Maybe I'm just a sexist, but I'll bet my statistics about preferences are about right on that. And the reason PP offered I think is right--she wanted to appear matronly, but surely that has to come into conflict with how glamorous she looked too. Apparently, for Livia, the look of power was more important than the look of glamour. That was sort of what I was getting at initially. This is an interesting case of full circle because... if we assume this reasoning to be true, and I personally agree that Livia's intention here was indeed to appear more regal or matronly, etc. over glamorous, than the appearance of Octavian consistently as a young man becomes even more difficult to understand. In spite of my/our previous notions that age of imperium, or image consistency may have been a major factor in Octavian's portraits, we also know that the Romans revered their elders (both Patriarch and Matriarch and not limited to a single sex). They also correlated the wisdom obtained with age as a prerequesite for office. (the Princeps and imperial family excluded of course). With that being understood, wouldn't it make sense in theory for Octavian to establish himself as a more wisened ruler? Perhaps this youthful appearance is far more influenced by an Alexandrian idea of youthful supremacy. Complete conjecture of course, but interesting.

I wasn't trying to do anything other than continue the conversation. The example I provided does not show her as an old woman, but it was an example of her as clearly older than Augustus. Perhaps you were referring to other images, perhaps not. I have no clue. I am in complete agreement with you that she is clearly depicted as older than Augustus in this example as you suggested previously, but was also making it clear that I do not personally perceive this representation as 'old'. It really had nothing to with your point, I was just emphasizing my perception of her age. I'm a little surprised by the reaction, but do apologize for the unintended slight.

That is not a correct statement by any means... When they had actual naval adversaries they got along quite well. Thing was that by the time the Empire was in full swing there weren't any worthy naval adversaries left... The shear fact that during the Republican era the Rostra was decorated with the beaks of enemy ships should tell you something... Indeed, and one should also consider that rival fleets were virtually eliminated from the Mediterranean and European waters for several centuries. In fact the single greatest naval threats post Carthage were pirates (which were handled fairly easily when a concerted effort was made) and rival Romans. (the fleets of Agrippa vs. Sextus Pompey, the fleets of Agrippa vs. Antonius/Cleopatra, etc.) And if Carthaginians/Phoenicians were the master sailors but were defeated by Rome, then it surely must indicate some sense of skill and ability among Roman fleets. Some of the victory can be credited to Roman persistency rather than greater ability, but as Pantagathus says... this should tell us something. Granted, once the Romans dominated the Mediterranean, there aren't many indications that they were interested in the sort of seafaring exploits of their naval predeccesors, but one would've been hard pressed to challenge a Roman fleet at any time.

mmm...I suppose something to do with wanting to appear as mother of her country ? Cornelia mother of the Gracchiesque ? Here are some samples of various Julio-Claudians from vroma. And an excellent example of the 'older' Livia. Paraphrasing the accompanying text of the photo... it seems that the representation of the older female can be interpreted as a message of fertility and motherhood. Its fairly clear that there are certainly different age representations of Livia. If we can believe Suetonius/Robert Graves perhaps Livia was so desperate to set herself up as a goddess in order to insure her own deification that perhaps she purposely displayed herself as the more mature matriarch. (though the example hardly shows her as an 'old' woman).

Yes, the Carthaginians fought legions but the Second and Third War were both still prior to the reforms of Marius. And by the by, the rising of Carthage in the third war against Rome is not quite true. They did rise up but it was mainly in defense against the Numidians, and Massinissa in particular, who was quite encouraged (or at least not highly dissuaded) by Rome. When Roman intermediaries began to get involved in the conflict between the two African nations, the idea of Carthaginian resurgence and financial health began to take root. There is no evidence of the salting Carthage, either in ancient text or archaeology. It was a symbolic description that seems to have been made in the middle ages. The incredible expense of salting such a huge area (salt was a major commodity) as well as the logistics involved really make the idea lack credibility.

Ease of recognition can explain the consistency of depictions, but it doesn't explain whether the person was depicted as a youth or an old man. Age at time of attaining imperium, however, can explain how the person was depicted--and that's probably the more important point you wanted to make, no? Yes absolutely, a rather vital piece of information I implied with Vespasian but left out for our younger example.

Indeed. Not only was the potential for one's own freedom a factor aiding in pacification, but the potential for the freedom of one's children and continuing descendents certainly played a role. Although... I suppose the generalization of this collective resiliency can never truly be measured. Arguments for either case (subjugation by slavery or elimination) can be made in individual cases and in certain circumstances which could make either seem more effective. (ie the slavery of the Epirotes vs. the campaigns of Scipio Aemilianus in the Third Punic War)

Well... Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Africa including Carthage, Hispania, Gallia Cisalpina, Narbonensis, Illyria, Macedonia, Achaea, Thracia, Asia Minor among others were all essentially brought under Roman domination before Marius so unscientifically speaking the pre and post Marian legions are about equal in their expansive role.

Absolutely, if there's one thing we can be assured of, its the professionalism/organization of the Roman military. Whether it be a rower, which couldn't have been all that glamorous of a position regardless of whether or not one was paid for it, or a legionary, we can be fairly certain that each man/job/rank had a defined set of duties and priorities.

Sure that effect could have occurred in a similar vein to how the Romans incorporated auxilia. If not for the Germanic wars of Marcus Aurelius for example, Sarmartian cavalry would never have been sent to Britain. Still I find it hard to see the Romans relocating civilian populations on a massive scale if they served no military purpose. Provided technology could've been developed to supplant the need for more working bodies, I don't see the motivation for relocation of conquered peoples. If the technology was not there, then such relocation would've essentially been a form of slavery/serfdom necessitated by need anyway. Perhaps I am missing an integral part of the equation, but somehow I find it much more likely that more conquered people of Rome would've been slaughtered in lieu of slavery, rather than be incorporated into the empire. I am not suggesting that the historical Rome placed all captured populations into slavery as this was obviously not the case. While many Carthaginians were taken as slaves, many more were incorporated. However, not only did slavery provide an economic incentive for Rome to spare human lives but it also provided an example to all of what would happen when conquest was resisted. As the need to set an example would've still existed, the potential for human slaughter as a replacement for bondage very well could've increased exponentially. I apologize for going way off topic, but the implications are fascinating my curiousity.

Absolutely, the incorporation of enemy combatants into the land based auxilia certainly applied in a similar fashion with the navy. Did slaves man the oars at some point or another? Assuredly, but the hollywood myth of the galley slave under the whip in the imperial fleets is incorrect. The standard practice at that time (when the fleet was maintained in consistent size, application and uniformity) was that the rowers were professional. I make the dangerous assumption that this practice (professional rowers) must have been understood to have been better for the fleet than the use of slaves were and would have been carried forward from the earlier eras, or in theory the Romans would've continued using slaves.

What I find interesting in this conversation though is not necessarily the impact of slavery on Roman technology, which over the course of 2 millenia was obviously quite limited in advancement, but what impact the emancipation (or non existence) of slavery (and serfdom) may have had on the Ancient/Roman world at an earlier date. We know that technology is easily capable of supplanting slave labor, but could technological advancement have kept up with the rapid spread of Rome? Consider also that had the Romans not taken slaves, yet still continued along a similar course of conquest (even if circumstances may have been altered from the immediate impact that slavery had on personal and 'state' wealth to the slower but steadier increase in technology over time), the change in the racial/ethnic/tribal landscape could have been enormous. Had the Romans not taken slaves, and instead slaughtered their enemies (beyond even what they were at times reported to have done), or had the Romans been limited in the ability to spread by the pace of technological advancement, the potential is quite astounding. I apologize as I don't mean to turn this into a focal point of the conversation, but was simply 'thinking out loud' regarding something I have quite frankly never put much thought into.

Just some additional thoughts on the subject... I think that part of the reasoning for busts and 'portraits' has to relate at least in small part to making mass recognition easy. Vespasian was already 60 years old when he eventually put an end to the civil war of AD 69. It wouldn't make sense to depict him as a younger man, when the first massive public consumption of him was at this age. Yes they could've portrayed him as the more youthful general that people would've been aware of under Nero and perhaps for have taken part in the Claudian invasion of Britain, but the association of him as emperor was only at the age of 60. In the case of Octavian, while vanity and propoganda certainly play a part, we must also consider ease of recognition as a factor. Everyone in the Roman world knew of Caesar Augustus as the young heir of Caesar, son of a god and all that, not only did the consistent images help drive this point home, but anyone anywhere would immediately recognize a statue of him. I know the following is obvious but it helps make my point... unlike today where mass media allows us to watch people age and grow and present images of famous people throughout their lives, there was obviously no such mechanism in the ancient world. It may seem trivial, but presenting consistent images of important figures simply for the sake of making it clear who that person is, certainly must have had some advantages. I am not suggesting that it was a primary reason, nor that it takes any precedence over the use of propoganda/reassuring imagery but only that it is a minor condition to consider. Additionaly, many individual artisans may only have been working off the works of other artists, having never personally laid eyes upon or been commissioned directly by the subject in question. Many representations in these cases, coinage is an obvious item included in this category, were required to conform to existing imagery because the artist had no other point of reference.

Well, I admit my own inadequacies on the Roman Navy, but here is a rough historical overview. Roman Navy. Fleets were called Classis in Latin and were designated by their port of origin. As an example, the main imperial fleet for the western Mediterranean was located at Misenum near Pompeii in Italy and was called Classis Misenensis. Sander Van Dorst's Legion pages provide a little more information as to the crew and command structure (essentially it was auxilia). Just scroll down a bit for the fleet. Additionally, you may want to contact Jasper Oorthuys over at http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/.

And earlier it was the Praefectus Castrorum who commanded the camp itself.

Just so folks know, I've had a couple of complaints about damaged maps (banged up and torn edges... which will be replaced of course). I've ordered some poly poster sleeves to help provide additional protection in the shipping process.

Perhaps thats a bit of an exxageration for what was provided... but you did just make my day

If it is 'corked', one shouldn't drink it! As I understand it, wine makers are attempting to get back to non corked bottles, but corking has become so ingrained as a sign of quality that its something the bottlers will have difficulty breaking. Synthetic corks will probably catch on easier than screw cap bottles and such.

Many historians claim it to be so and the emperor himself admits to using it for many reasons in 'Meditations'.

Where do you download what?

Yet another example of the display of defeatism by western culture. Sure, I suppose its a gesture of reconciliation by why apologize for something that men did centuries ago that nobody living today had anything at all to do with.

Perhaps we go off topic, but what is more Roman than a discussion of wine A fabulous cheapy that my wife and I both love... Nobili Palazzoli Primitivo di Salento. Yes a southern Italian wine despite my previously confessed preference for northern Italy. Its essentially a Zinfandel, but its not quite so robust as the American versions. Personally I like it as a sipping wine, but I am rather unrefined. At worst you won't pay more than $10 a bottle but my local shop sells it for a meager $6.99.