Primus Pilus

Indeed, Romanion is a bit of a bastardization of Romanorum and Romaion. Forgive my taking liberty with its use, but I think its important to indicate, as Neos pointed out, that the east still considered itself a continuation of the Roman empire, hence its inclusion spattered throughout the site.

Just relax guys. There is a difference of opinion when it comes to the presentation of lists. Some people aren't worried about every usurper because while they may have been a temporary emperor in theory, in practice many of them were not a truly confirmed Augustus or Princeps. Some people aren't worried about co-Augusti because they are looking for who was the primary ruler of the time. A list of Western Augusti is not the same as a list of Caesars. As an example, we know that Commodus was named co-Augustus with Marcus Aurelius in 177, but conventional wisdom dictates that his father was still the primary ruler of the day. Most lists (my own included) indicate that Commodus came to power in 180 with the death of his father in order to illustrate his accession as sole ruler. It really depends on the presentation one is trying to make.

Since I don't know what you have and haven't found, here are the usual suspects... Tacitus the Annals of Imperial Rome Book XII, Book XIII Suetonius, Life of Claudius Suetonius, Life of Nero Cassius Dio, Book 61, 62 & 63. You may find that you'll get a better response if you give us an indication of what you already know and what you've researched.

Is it not perhaps a strange conglomeration of some sort of Atlantean, Amazonian and Islands of the Blest/Elsyian field lore?

This coin, the first entry in 'Moneta Romana' is a very recent purchase. While its value is moderate for a coin of this type, the image of victorious Sulla in triumph despite his own version of despotism, is a classic representation of the glory that was Rome. Moneyer: L. Manlius Torquatus. He was Sulla's Proquaestor during the wars against Mithradates VI. Mint Year: 82 BC Type: Silver Denarius Weight: 3.71 gm Obverse Legend: L. MANLI, PRO.Q (for proquaestor). Obverse Image: Roman helmeted facing right. Reverse Legend: L SULLA IM (Lucius Sulla Imperator) Interestingly, this is an early coin depicting a living Roman. It is Sulla in quadriga (4 horsed chariot) being crowned by Victory. Though unfortunately on my sample, both Victory and Sulla are not visible. Julius Caesar is often credited/demonized for being the first living Roman to have his portrait featured on a coin. We can clearly see, however, that precedents were being set in which representations of living Romans were already showing up well before Caesar took that final fateful plunge. It is quite correct that Caesar was the first to feature an actual portrait though.

This is true. I would knock him out of the list in November 1204, when, having traipsed around the ruins of the Empire with his serially polygamous daughter Evdokia, he was captured at Corinth by Bonifacio of Monferrato and sent off to captivity in Monferrato. He never ruled anything after that, but lived at least till 1211, the date when he was captured again by his son-in-law Theodoros Laskaris, emperor of Nikaia, and consigned to a monastery. I expect he had some praying to do. Indeed, I'm going to make a notation to his line item. Thanks Phil and AD! PS. My Romanion history (especially the 'medieval' period) is admittedly weak so all comments are most welcome)

Considering that this site is dedicated to Roman history, I thought it prudent to maintain a blog that is more appropriately related. Hence, you may have noticed that my rather sparse previous entries on randomness have been eliminated. These will be replaced with a blog dedicated to Roman numismatics. This will not be an in depth review of coinage, but simply a place to reveal items within my personal collection. Unfortunately, that collection is not particularly large, so hopefully this blog will also inspire me to add to it.

Pseudo-Ioannes was a blinded boy who pretended to be John IV Lascaris, i.e. he didn`t need to be crowned, because John IV Lascaris was already crowned. See about him: Georgius Pahymeres, History of Michael and Andronicus Palaeologi, III, 12-13. Agreed, but since he wasn't truly John IV he wasn't truly the emperor and only a fake. Semantics perhaps, but I suppose its much like the false Nero that showed up during the reign of Titus. Because he claimed to be Nero didn't make him the emperor. OK, but in this case, John IV Lascaris never reigned. And Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus started to reign only after the fall of Romanus I Lecapenus and his sons (I`ll write about them lately). Yes I agree here, so I added the note in their respective line items.

This may have been included in the original list and accidentally left out when I transferred everything to the table format within dreamweaver. Will be added in shortly. Looks like a typo error fixed easily enough. Yes but in this case it was in theory only. The empire was governed by their father Romanus first, than by military overlords until 976. I will add a note indicating their 'appointment' in 960 but that they were effectively under the rule of regents. Its my understanding that he fled the armies of the 4th crusade in 1203 therefore effectively being deposed in favor of Isaac II and Alexius IV? His survival potentially for several more years does not necessarily equate to extending his rule? Was he actually crowned, or just self-proclaimed?

Agreed... but considering the importance of the Primus Pilus, it seems very unlikely that an unexperienced political whelp would be appointed directly to that position, prior to having gained appropriate battlefield experience as perhaps a lower posterior level centurion first. Still, clearly as you suggest we cannot conclude that it never happened. As a bit of a semi related aside, Vegetius, among numerous faults, hardly found officer experience or promotion worthy of mention. He does say this regarding the Praefectus Castrorum at least...

When we consider that the position of centurion, a relatively low rank in Roman society, still provided an excellent opportunity to give political 'reward' to friends and family, its easy to understand how it became a position much like any other that was affected by appointees. I would maintain however, with no real evidence to support this other than logic, that the highest ranking centurions within each legion were men of military merit and not political appointment. (Unless of course those appointees also proved their merit on the field)

Unfortunately there is no way to ever prove who would win, and we've found the discussion to be an exercise in futility around here.

Nero Care to elaborate on how Nero fits into the context of the thread?

Hmm yes, it would seem remote due to the simple passage of time, but the great bulk of general daily life functions was about the same. There are the obvious changes in political environment and the inclusion of more 'provincials', but to a common person in Rome, his life wouldn't have been as different as the comparable modern age. Just think, even in the last 100 or so modern years we've seen the addition of the automobile, the airplane and the jet, penicillin and immeasurable advances in medicine (both pharmaceutical and surgical), the telephone, harnessed electricity in every day use in the home, the radio, television, nuclear power, the internet, and the list goes on and on. By comparison, between the Punic Wars and Trajan, other than laying more roads, running water throughout the conquered lands of the empire and building some massive/impressive buildings and/or monuments, not much changed as far as actual technology. Transportation, medicine, entertainment, communication and even basic clothing remained unchanged (though styles did fluctuate over the years, people were still wearing the same types of clothing).

Indeed, but at least Severus put an end to that the good old fashioned way

Yes absolutely, and beyond that the responsibility of the recruiting Consul to act as a political advocate to gain retirement land and benefits for his army was not lost upon the men in the ranks. They understood that if they performed well and showed loyalty their commanders would do the same for them, and fight for them politically when their service was over. In the post Marian 'head-count' army, the potential for spoils of war and retirement arrangements both far outweighed any minimial 'salary' or sense of duty to the state as landowning members of society's upper echelon may have once maintained. I do not deny that there was a sense of duty among the later Republican era armies, nor am I saying that land owning citizens did not continue to serve in the post Marian legions, but the dynamics dictating the general state of military affairs was a completely different animal.

I agree completely with the concept but we might have to start a little earlier than 1776 to compare appropriately. If the mythical founding of Rome was 753 BC, than this should be compared to what?.. maybe the settlement of Jamestown in Virginia colony or Plymouth in the Massachussetts colony in the late 16th early 17th centuries. The year 1776 and the 'expulsion of King George' might be more comparable to the founding of the Roman Republic in 510 BC and the expulsion of the Tarquins, so the development of the USA is considerably older than the nation itself. Regardless, I am not trying to compare the two, just adding a little additional perspective on the time frame there. Unfortunately on average I think people look at Rome only in the context of it as an Empire, and completely dismiss the incredible length of time that it dominated its locality, region, before it came to dominate the western world. Just consider that the control of the Mediterranean that came with the Punic Wars and truly established Rome as a territorial empire was a full 2 centuries before the change in government. Interesting stuff really. Makes me wonder if Romans as individuals truly understood the incredible length of time in which they dominated the western world.

I vaguely recall that there supposed to be fees for running pipes and water to individual residences and perhaps even subura blocks. I don't recall where I may have read this... but perhaps it was Frontinus.

Absolutely send them to Viggen via PM

Or so goes the legend. Unfortunately there really aren't any real historical accounts of this event. At any rate, yes the phalanx continued in some form of mild effectiveness (given appropriate circumstances) beyond Marius, but it was hardly a mainstay of military tactics anymore... At least not until those later pike style formations of the middle ages you mentioned.

Oops. Messalina was his third wife. The first was Urginanilla (did I spell it right?), the second was Aelia Paetina - a close relative of Sejanus. Yes you're right though, Claudius did technically commit incest . Oh egads, I didn't forget Plautia Urgulanilla but rather Aelia Paetina. I mean at least Urgulanilla was smart enough to commit adultery and get herself a divorce, but poor old Aelia was just a good little lass that got married in order to satisfy the political machinations of Sejanus to tie his family in with the Julio-Claudians. He had all the fun while she had to deal with stuttering and drooling Claudius even before he got all the imperial power.

I think there is intelligent life outside of earth. I think its possible that some of this intelligent life may have visited earth, though I certainly have never seen any evidence of it, not that I would know such evidence if I saw it. (Though I would be able to understand if a big old spaceship landed on earth with all the appropriate imaginative bells and whistles.) Even if that happened though, I'm sure that all the human governments of the earth would hide the presence of aliens from me with an elaborate plan (because we know how capable all of our governments are) because as a simple sheep I would certainly panic at the thought of aliens running amok among us. I think its even possible that 'aliens' kidnap unfortunate toothless rednecks from their trailer homes and probe them in most unpleasant manners, returning them before anyone else is aware of their absence. I also think its possible that there may be a claim here or there related to the sighting of a UFO that may actually be true. However, I am still trying to figure out why all of these aliens are so worried about making their presence known. Do they have some sort of Star Trek like prime directive against interference with lesser cultures? Do all aliens have this prime directive or only the ones that have so far come to earth? Maybe they are simply afraid that their far advanced technology of being able to travel at incredible speeds over ridiculous distances will not be able to stand up to our defensive capabilities? Maybe extra terrestials are in a conspiracy with George W. Bush to spread American imperialism around the globe and until such time as the mission is accomplished everything will be kept a secret? Ok with that skeptical, though still open nature fully revealed I don't know about all the ancient Egyptian connections to extra-terrasterials, but here is an excellent repudiation of the Tomb of Ptah-Hotep 'alien heiroglyph'. Scroll down to the third picture for a quick point without reading everything... http://www.catchpenny.org/alien.html. Does it explain away everything... no but it shows a clear example of 'Men willing to believe what they wish'. PS. Stargate (the movie) is a personal sci-fi favorite.