Primus Pilus

Welcome to our site... You can find what you are looking for on our bibliography page. There are some articles (a growing list) that have been written by others, but those are marked on individual pages. If you need additional information, feel free to send me a private message.

There are many prominent families with plenty of documented information to prepare a paper. Here is one quick start example.. the Caecilii Metelli (Caecilius is the nomen or 'clan name' and Metellus is the cognomen or family name) And another... the Cornelii Scipiones

Missed this... sorry LW, hope you get things straightened out relatively soon.

By that logic, the Third Punic War was also justified, as would any war between former adversaries. Personally, I don't think 'enmity' or any emotion is sufficient justification for war. Without further foreign policy objectives at stake, a state that goes to war based on its feelings is like a toddler with an army. Suffice to say that we have a difference of opinion on the matter

Allow me just to say that perhaps in your eyes it wasn't justified. Personally I think the lasting enmity between Celt and Roman was more than justification enough, regardless of any existing level of threat at that moment in time.

Are Men at Work still around 'Down Under'?

The mods cut the first page or so of this thread out of a thread dealing with Legionary rations. The spark of the debate started there and is probably still in that thread. Hmm, actually this is the new thread, split from the other thread. I sure dont recall deleting anything. Anyway, how heated could a beer debate be? Example: Random Poster: Beer is great! Random Poster #2: No, its excellent! Random Poster #3 with a more developed vocabulary: Contemptible mendicants, beer is sublime! Please someone save this topic

No worries mate. Don't beat yourself up over it, just keep it cordial going forward and all is well

A semi related topic 'Byzantine Republic'.

Don't mean to intrude on the beer conversation but I saw this on another site and thought it might be interesting for those folks in the UK who have an affinity for ancient foods... Buster Ancient Farm

In a quick perusal the site seems logical and straight forward enough. Some of the photographs seem a bit superfluous (as its hard for me to understand how a photo proves much) but I don't see any ridiculous claims off hand. They seem to do a good job of seeking balance between the white supremacist and the extreme racial revisionists and presenting what evidence is known. However I am having a difficult time understanding why this site which we've tried so hard to develop as a discussion on ancient history attracts so many people who seem so obsessed by race. Please indulge me though and explain, is this a pursuit of curiosity (I hope) or rather some precursor to a soon to be revealed hidden agenda?

Its like the supposed 'salting of the fields' around Carthage. There simply isn't any evidence that it actually happened, but it sure drove the point home when the idea was introduced many years later.

Indeed truly a great film. I know we toss that phrase around a bit too loosely, but its hard to argue with Indiana Jones as an action/adventure classic. I'm still ok with Harrison Ford reprising his role as the main star... provided they write the script to recognize his current age and try not to fool us into some other 'alternate reality'.

I'm all for the office of the tribunes, but if their restoration was the principle over which Caesar fought (rather than a mere pretext, why did Caesar himself nullify their office once he attained power? Why did he hire armed thugs to keep the tribunes out of the forum while passing Pompey's land bills? Was Cato himself not serving as tribune at the time Caesar had him arrested? What kind of adherence to principle is that??? There was only one kind of tribune that was sacred to Caesar, and it was the Tribune of the Caesarians not the Tribune of the People. I agree in some context, but he still used the affronts against the tribune as a 'reason' for his march on Rome. Its a very key factor in convincing his men to march with him. We've argued the 'legality and personal motivations' many times, so I personally have no reason to rehash and will leave that part to others who feel so inclined. I am only countering your claim that Caesar himself said that his own dignity is his only reason for marching on Rome. Whether we agree with him or not, he does very much make the claim that the affronts against Antonius were important.

I post in general support of Pantagathus observation and not to single anyone out. Sometimes its important to reiterate our forum rules, which first and foremost includes being courteous to fellow members. Forum Guidelines

Indeed its Zosimus. Here's an English copy online at Vortigern Studies. The passage is in chapter 10.

Also be sure to give credit to those Egyptian astrologists. Caesar may have commissioned/approved the work, but without them, the calendar still may have been a mess for some time. The Romans used consulships as time markers because they were simple. Each term was a single year and the correlation was easy. They still also marked time according to the traditional calendar dating from the founding of Rome. AUC or 'ab urbe condita' marked years 'from the founding of the city' and was used in some formal circumstances, but the average person was probably more likely to recall years by the 'consulship of xyz'. My own Calendar overview.

Hi Flavius, I'm afraid that sending cash via the mail is generally considered a bad idea, but contact me via PM and I'm sure we can figure out something simple enough.

I know I am doing this wrong but I can't figure out how to answer the question. Excuse me. If someone could give me a quick tutorial on wheree and how to reply that would be much appreciated. Dov You can either hit th eoption reply on the message that you want to answer too, or you can hit the option on the very top of the page called new reply. It' up to you. And if you are simply talking about answering the poll.. unfortunately once you make a post, you are no longer allowed to vote. A quirk we are aware of

Ought it to be principales? Ack, yes it ought... thank you.

Well... he wasn't Elagabalus... I suppose that counts for something

Quite frankly, I'd never noticed this before... I think its because I personally rely less upon Livy after the earlier periods, but my curiousity is certainly piqued. I am going to do some re-reading shortly. As I recall, Polybius makes no mention of Lucius in this context whatsoever. This is perhaps telling in itself. If his work disputed that of Livy than I suppose we could discount the latter. However, its entirely possible that Livy was privy to additional source material... or perhaps a simpler entertaining explanation for the mispronounciation could be that Livy took a word of mouth story at face value and did not necessarily double check his facts? It could be propoganda that Polybius rightly ignored and Livy was none the wiser a century and a half later? I sure can't see this being too important for Livy to use in some sort of pro-Republican agenda? Maybe it would've meant more at the time than it does to probing eyes 2,000 years later? I'm afraid all I have is more questions.

Are you not also leaving off the sanctity of the Tribune of the Plebes as a key element? Right or wrong, it still played a major role.

Please feel free to give feedback on our Roman Empire Wallmap product. Whether you bought it and would like to comment on the product itself, or would like to ask questions, etc... this is the place to do so.