Primus Pilus

Thats new to me. Please clarify: are you attempting to say that the well attested migrations/invasions of the Avars and Slavs from beyond the Carpathians did not occur at all, or only that their influence south of the Danube and the central Balkans has been overstated?

Just a bit more definition to avoid confusion... most acting provincial governors (rather than just generals) in the late Republican period with armies at their command were of proconsular rank. There were many 'Generals' of varying rank who served within that proconsular army but were not themselves necessarily proconsuls or even propraetors.

To try to be as Romanesque as someone in Detroit can be... here's some views of Campus Martius Park. the first is 1865, the second 1914 and the third is 2005

A good investigative eye there Spurius ... however some time ago we turned off the post counting for the 'off-topic' forum as the idea was to encourage posts in the history discussion areas.

Another belated b-day! On my 16th birthday I drove to work for the first time by myself. Rather than come straight home after, I thought it would be fun to go driving around in the March weather. Well, after hitting 2 parked cars while careening out of control on an icy residential street, I sure wish I had went straight home. That night I thought it was the end of the world... amazing how the years change things Congrats LW and enjoy!

The only major item still potentially not working right seems to be file uploads. All in all though a relatively event free transfer thanks to our friendly neighborhood Moonlapse.

Moon is searching for the little cockaroach now as we speak. [edit] it appears to be a Firefox only issue

Indeed, other than one strange quirk with the home page, everything seems to have gone smoothly. Of course, should anyone notice anything strange as you browse... please do let us know.

Effective in producing an answer, but not necessarily in producing the truth. Under torture, I think I would say whatever I believed the torturer wanted to hear. Agreed, I refine my statement to indicate brutal but effective in getting the testimony to match the desired result of the interrogator/torturer.

Just an interesting and semi related aside regarding Mithridates VI... From Appian 'The History of Rome' And from Cassius Dio book XXXVII

What do you think the reasoning for this was? To prevent slaves from offering testimony themselves? Whom would this benefit? This was limited originally to criminal cases but was later expanded to include other cases such as adultery in the imperial period. Since the testimony of a slave, if lying, could be so instrumental in either helping or harming their masters so severely, only torture would allow the court to assume they were telling the truth. Brutal but effective I suppose.

I'm getting a lot of hits but interesting that no one else has come across this book. Indeed, I don't think anyone is trying to be rude by not responding, but I personally can't recall ever seeing it.

Just some additional examples... Claudius found incest so nice... he tried it twice. Claudius was the son of Nero Drusus and Antonia Minor (Daughter of Marcus Antonius). His second wife was Messalina who was the grandaughter of his mother's sister (daughter of Antonia Major and Domitius Ahenobarbus). Does that make them second cousins, or first cousins once removed? (this has always confused me). Finding out that being married to a cousin wasn't such a wise idea, Claudius figured he would bring the family closer together and chose to marry Agrippina the younger. She was the daughter of Germanicus (Claudius' brother) and Agrippina the Elder which made her Claudius' niece. My memory is failing me here, but I do recall that she was also a suspected play thing of her brother Gaius (Caligula). Talk about keeping it in all the family.

One prominent example would be Marcus Aurelius who was married to his first cousin Faustina the younger (his aunt was the wife of Antoninus Pius). Marcus and Faustina had at least 13 children including of course, the megalomaniac Commodus. I put this link in another recent thread, but it applies here too. This Imperial Stemmata page shows the family relationships of the major Roman dynasties. Despite the 'adoptive succession' period of the Antonines or the '5 Good Emperors', there is still a considerable degree of nepotism.

How closely related? There are many instances of cousins and such, but I assume you mean siblings?

Certainly some Italians avoided military service but we know that Nero recruited Legio I Italica in AD 66, Marcus Aurelius recruited Legio II and III Italica in about 165 AD, and the notitia dignatum indicates a Legio IIII Italica existing into the 4th century, but probably having been recruited in the early part of the 3rd century. At any rate, recruiting from Italia probably wasn't abandoned until the latter half of the 3rd century. (Its important to note that these late legions, like IIII Italica were really just garrison armies, and not the same type of marching army we are familiar with in the earlier empire.)

The problem here is that its irrelevant to the topic at hand. Yes Caesar was larger than the Republic at the time that he brought it to death's door. As Cato would argue, Caesar broke the institutional laws of that Republic to do this. This is not entirely the fault of the system (though it is in part for allowing imperators to have the loyalty of the legions), but rather it is truly the fault of the individual according to Republican institutions. However, Caesar's compliance must always be tempered by the realization that his opponents were completely uncompromising. It can certainly be argued that Caesar's political platform was better for the common man than that of the 'optimates', but it has also been argued that the destruction of the Republican constitution was the destruction of that which made Rome truly great. Regardless, can we agree to disagree regarding Caesar and the fall of the Republic and bring this back to the reasons for Rome's ultimate collapse... which by the time 5 centuries had past the principate had proven its own ability to adapt and survive and its ultimate failure was by that time in spite of Caesar's and Octavian's efforts. (at least in this thread anyway)

The Romans never made such a claim. The Senate and People of Rome clearly delineates one from the other despite the fact that both were, in theory, working together for the common glory of the city. Government for the people and by the people is essentially a modern concept (the actual verbage coming from Abraham Lincoln) and is true of most modern democratic ideals, but it wasn't quite the same in the ancient world. But the army wasn't always loyal (and this was in a large part because of succession issues). Is this not a failing of the imperial system that without the support of the army, the cause for the emperor was lost, or at least in doubt? How is this better than the army being loyal to the state rather than the individual? If an imperial heir was popular with the army, there were little issues with transfer of power, but more often than not, the loyalties of the armies to individual commanders over a choice of succession became a major problem. (Even cases of rebelling armies against reigning emperors were often because of political dispute, jealousy and rivalry that were in place from the moment the standing emperor 'took office' in the first place. Regardless, I do completely agree that greed (and I'd add the related trait of ambition) was a major cause of the failure of both systems.

While I will agree that the 'Empire' may have needed authoritative individuals at times to facilitate effective government, the complete random nature of imperial succession was by no means better than the election process of the Republican period. It was different, and perhaps necessary at times, but certainly not just something to be labelled 'better'. Besides, I wasn't aware that the Republic was not really a Republic. Rome's system was very much a Republic regardless of its occassional appearance as an oligarchy. What's your basis for giving it a label of so-called?

Nice--from 79 (when Sulla abdicated) to 69, every consul was a Sullan. I'd bet also that nearly every Sullan was a magistrate. No wonder Sulla felt it was safe to retire. Indeed, the supporters of Marius and Cinna had been completely eradicated. Unfortunately no such lists of praetors exists but I'm sure it could be at least partially rebuilt based on the multitude of accounts of this period. At any rate, perhaps younger lower level magistrates would not necessarily have been 'Sullans' because they may have had no real affiliation with the events of that period, but I'd be quite surprised to see those with any meaningful imperium to not have been somehow in Sulla's camp since everybody else had pretty much been purged after Sulla's return to Rome and with the eventual betrayal of Sertorius. [edit.. I should have said that the 'of-age' supporters of Cinna and Marius had been eradicated, we know that obviously men such as Caesar survived, but it would be some time before they were of an age to gain magistracies of consequence, of course]

No suffects listed but the two ordinary consuls for each year... Consul list 1st century BC

I've always been positive that Pompey simply lusted after glory (considering his youth at the time). One couldn't ordinarily reconcile his youth and especially his status as the son of a new man to being especially bound to the ideals of Sulla, especially considering that his father Pompeius Strabo had played both sides of the political fence. Crassus as a Sullan is more understandable considering his heritage, but perhaps he always dreamed for the same sort of ultimate power as Sulla... and what better way to pursue this goal than to follow someone who also achieved it. In any case we certainly know of his personal profiteering as a lieutenant of Sulla. Of all these though, I've always found Sertorius the most intriguing. Despite Plutarch's biography, there is definately a large gap in the mindset of the 'Republic in Hispania'. We know the history but we definately lack certain motivational characteristics. Did Sertorius grow so jaded with the affairs in Rome that he felt 'Roman ideals' could best be preserved in his independent state? As a Marian by political affiliation, but yet strangely anti Gaius Marius the person, maybe had he already created so much political emnity in both 'parties' that it was impossible for him to return? Did he simply grow drunk with power as happened to so many other figures of the late Republic? Maybe there were quiet negotiations to bring Hispania back into the fold, but the uncompromising nature of politics in this period just made the task impossible. Still Plutarch does give us this one small tidbit regarding Sertorius' motivations. This after being told a tale of the 'Isles of the Blessed' by Cilician Pirates...

Hello Dr. Heather and thank you for your participation in our little corner of Romanophilia, We (on this forum) recently engaged in a brief and indefinite discussion of Roman citizenship in the late empire and beyond. As an example of some points of the discussion... Is there a specific point when the citizenship ceased to exist? Did it continue into the post Odaecer Germanic rule of Italy? Did it simply evolve into church/parish/diocese membership? Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be greatly appreciated. (I don't know if you've addressed the issue in your recent book, as I haven't started it yet, but it is resting comfortably in a prominent position on my desk... awaiting my attention)

Indeed, much of Darwin's theories have certainly needed additional revision as science has advanced (and of course is still highly debated), but it doesn't alter the fact that his studies laid the groundwork for the field.

I don't believe there would be any difference between twins and other daughters. If born of the Claudian gens for example, they would both be named simply Claudia as any other daughters would be. Perhaps they might be designated with a Primia or Secundia praenomen, but I believe even siblings could be named major and minor and this wasn't reserved only to designate people of differing generations? Of course in the later imperial period, most bets were off and we see women with both the standard gens name from the paternal side and additional agnomen. It actually gets quite muddled especially within the imperial families. For example, Marcus Aurelius (born Marcus Annius Catilius Severus, and later Marcus Annius Verus and later still Marcus Aurelius Antoninus), had 6 daughters with Annia Galeria Faustina. Some proper full names are missing but we can assume that they were each the same (essentially beginning Annia Aurelia): Fadilla (seems to have been nicknamed for a maternal aunt or older ancestor) Annia Aurelia Galeria Lucilla (proper 'Annia' coupled with imperial Aurelia, maternal Galeria and nickname Lucilla -- Galeria was also paternal through adoption) Annia Aurelia Galeria Faustina (see above, nicknamed also for maternal side which was also paternal through adoption... Faustina was the wife of Antoninus Pius) Domitia Faustina (Domitia was the paternal grandmother and Faustina the mother) Cornificia (named for a paternal aunt) Vibia Aurelia Sabina (Vibia Sabina was the wife of Hadrian so technically Marcus Aurelius' grandfather through adoption... Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius who adopted Marcus Aurelius in turn) Fun stuff... more imperial stemmatas for those so inclined