Primus Pilus

Yes, part of the justification, but even Aristotle uses the rather ambiguous claim that slavery should be limited to those who by nature are slaves. As I recall he argues against even taking slaves through conquest, because the defeated in battle are not necessarily incapable of self governance. I'm not sure how much of the Greek thought process on the issue was truly absorbed by Romans, considering the widely diverse slave background, but it seems to me that they needed little justification other than that they were Roman, and their slaves were not. I apologize for continuing to go off-topic, but interesting nonetheless (to me anyway)

Its on the 'Late Imperial - Constantine to the Fall of the Empire' chart at the bottom of the page.

Egads, well you just did though... but that's exactly the sort of point I was trying to make. Every nation and culture has laws based upon their own experiences and circumstances. We might think, yes but why would Austrians say that word in normal context, because it simply doesn't apply to their culture? Well generally I'm sure such terms aren't really a part of their language, but there is also no repurcussion legally for using such terms, whether it be right or wrong in a moral context. The USA has plenty of restrictions, racial slurs included, on our so called freedom of speech because of our own historic circumstances, just as every other democratic nation does. Democracy isn't necessarily developed around the concepts of freedom to say what pleases you, but simply to allow representative government. 'Democracy' comes in many forms and freedoms as well. The constitution of the United States and the first amendment guaranteeing our freedom of speech and expression is not the same document that dictates the democratic principals of all nations. The strange thing to me is that we rarely see westerners run to China, Iran or North Korea to shout from the mountaintops about 'freedom' but we often see people begrudging the relatively minor restrictions that we face in western society. I suppose thats the beautiful thing about being free.

I would change that night back in college where I thought guzzling a fifth of bourbon would be a fine idea... Seriously though, I'm not quite sure I would change anything. I think I'd much rather be a 'fly on the wall' and learn the inner workings of an event rather than change it. I figure it this way... if we change one thing, what other potentially cataclysmic repurcussions might there be? Now, if you forced me to change one thing, I would like to prevent the massive slave trading of the 18th century, but I suppose that wouldn't qualify as a singular event. But to keep it on a 'Roman' theme, I suppose I would agree with changing the results of Adrianople to favor the Romans. Perhaps said victory could've allowed a re-emergence of Roman military dominance? Unlikely I suppose, but at any rate it may have helped extend the life of the western empire. And who knows what other things fall in or out of line like so many dominos.

Yes its on there in the singular form of Sestersius between Dupondius and Quinarius. Though the As was technically the 'base unit' and the denarius probably preferably for large transactions, the sestersius was very much the common monetary unit.

Alas.. Vespasian has a rather uncomfortable look on his face, resembling the look of someone who may be... ahem... having a bowel movement. At any rate, he was well known for his sense of humor and a comedian willing to say such a thing to the emperor without fear of reprisal attests to this fairly well.

C'mon tflex, I appreciate the imperial era as well, but posts such as this seem to have the purpose simply to incite a reaction. Don't Caesar and Augustus have to carry just as much guilt for their involvement in the wars of the late Republic? Was Rome prosperous while Nero squandered the imperial treasury? Was it peaceful after his death? Was the succession of Claudius following the butchering of Gaius and his family, or the 'reign' of Sejanus truly stabilizing? Essentially, the Pax Romana is a bit of a mistranslation. There were revolts, wars and conflicts taking place all throughout the early imperial era. I do concede that the key difference is that most major conflict was outside of the borders of the empire, but to say that peace reigned supreme while Roman legions marched through Britannia, Caledonia, Germania, Dacia and essentially the entire east is the equivelant of putting on blinders. In comparison to the debacle that was the 3rd century, I don't think there's any question that the Julio-Claudians through the Antonines was a 'golden age' but peaceful it was not. Pax Romana is perhaps better defined as the 'great Romanization of the world' including the use of the legions to accomplish it. Otherwise, you have a solid foundation for how this Romanization occured.

Frankly, this guy was well aware of the law in Austria before he started his campaign. Obviously his goal was sensationalism. The law is there for a reason (and its much more detailed than not allowing someone to say that the holocaust didn't happen), but Viggen as an Austrian might be able to explain further. Personally I don't like any law preventing free speech, but please be aware of its origin. To blast Austria for trying to preserve its own role in history (good or bad) does seem a bit misplaced to me. A law designed to prevent a repeat of that role may not be the most 'free' thing, but its certainly honorable. The US has plenty of laws regarding racial discrimination and yet I hear no outcry against them as not allowing free speech. Yes we may allow 'this group or that group' to rally, but despite what they say in private, they must be considerably more careful in a public setting. Some laws are good and some are bad, but I can find better things to scoff at than a country owning up to its past, even if I personally find it to be unneccesary. Yes I'm not a fan of the Jewish culture of victimization, and this law helps perpetuate that, but then again I've never been held in a concentration camp regardless of my ethnicity.

Coin Denominations

I suppose I'm a simple one-liner kind of guy, but I love Suetonius' account of Vespasian and the comedian... (liberty taken with the translation for effect in English) look at the picture first. ...Vespasian asked a comedian, who was known to make jokes at the expense of many, why he never made jokes on him. The comedian replied, "I will, when you have finished your bowel movement. " When one sees the bust of Vespasian we can understand why Suetonius described his appearance as 'strained'. LOL

Ouch, what kept you out of action for that long? At any rate I'd love to read that 'GAIUS MARIUS A Political Biography' but at $105 it seems a bit pricey, but obviously there is quite the shortage... Has anyone else read it?

Hmm, really an interesting question. Caesar and Strabo both make it quite clear that the Druids were the top of the social and cultural ladder, and there are suggestions of royal deference to druidic law. However, I suppose like anything else, circumstances would come into play for which party was truly preeminent. Perhaps druidic mandates were necessary in such things as declaring war, but it would seem likely that a powerful king could manipulate 'court druids' to do his bidding. Adding Strabo's text from book IV chapter IV

Truly an excellent choice. Lucullus is one of those too oft ignored characters that made an enormous contribution to the expansion of the empire, yet is terribly overshadowed by those that both preceeded and followed him. I don't mean to discredit Pompey's abilities, but one had to wonder about the what if's of Pompey's command and legacy if not for the advance work of Lucullus. What has always baffled me is, why was Lucullus remembered so negatively. I understand that Pompey's triumphant return superceded Lucullus and downplaying the former's achievement was a necessity to further Pompey's own glory, but Plutarch is downright glowing of Lucullus. Is there some other sentiment that truly changed the view or was it simply the legend of Pompey and later rise of Caesar that relegated Lucullus to the comparative abyss?

Unless you were named Tiberius

I can't think of a single example of pure fanaticism accomplishing anything great (unless you include "great destruction", "great famine", "great depression" etc). Yes, I suppose that would depend on the very specific definition of fanaticism. As one example Rome's final conquest of Carthage might be considered a form of fanaticism, but I do tend to agree that this may be be better defined as deliberate resolve rather than fanaticism. I can see the argument from either side though.

I meant to make clear that Severus set the precedent allowing legal marriage. Apparantly I failed

I was trying to find the earliest recorded mentions of 'Roman' crucifixion mainly via Livy and stumbled across this excellent page with detailed source information... Crucifixion

I'm a marginal baseball fan. I pay attention to the general goings on, catch a few games here and there, but generally don't get preoccupied by it. If the Tigers are playing well, I'll give it a bit of extra attention, but since its been almost 20 years since they've played a game that meant anything, its sort of hard to care. American football is the only sport that 'matters' to me. I love hockey too, but there would be a gap in my autumn without watching the Lions perpetually lose () and the Michigan/Ohio State annual rivalry.

Was this the one with Kelsey Grammar, among others? I too found that quite well done. I do agree with your premise regarding THC once they delve into non American history. The 'facts' definately get blurred prior to the 18th century.

Really? So, what is your reason for preferring Camillus to Caligula? Surely there must be some moral factor in your thinking. I knew this would be difficult to explain adequately. I enjoy the story of Camillus because I think he may be an excellent example of what it meant to be a Roman in that era of the early Republic. Do I find him more appealing from a moral perspective than Caligula? Of course, its difficult not to find some of Caligula's history a bit disturbing to modern sensibilities, but I still don't really make a judgement on Caligula as 'bad' because of my own morals. He may have been a bit of a quack (or more), but his failures in my mind were ineffective leadership (ie draining the treasury) and not because of any other 'odd' behaviors. I'm not sure if that explains my thoughts or not, and perhaps my statement was hasty. I suppose it would have been more proper to say that I'd rather judge from the contemporary ancient persepective than the modern, though the inherent problem with that is even knowing what that contemporary perspective was. That perspective also depended upon class and social status, so one can make a judgement on an ancient figure and find that regardless of the judgement, you would still be in agreement with some contemporaries. Does this then get tainted by what we prefer as individuals based on our own modern morals? I suppose, but as an example I prefer Caesar to the Republicans because I think he was one of the most influential figures in human history (as both general and political leader) and not because I think he was 'more right' than his opponents. Would butchering one million Gauls/French be detestable today? Yes absolutely but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that it happened 2,000 years ago. (or perhaps I simply have no morals ) By the by... I actually prefer the story of Caligula to that of Camillus, because it is quite a bit more entertaining

Personally I find no reason to 'judge' the past... at least not from a moral perspective. It is what it is, or was what it was as the case may be.

I don't think its been discussed (at least not in the grim details you are looking for)

Having an admitted lack of knowledge regarding the Phoenician pantheon... is is possible that the Greeks, rather than associate Herakles with Melqart due to similar achievements, instead found it unbearable to have one of their heroic figures upstaged by a Phoenician one. Therefore, the Herakles mythos was blended with Melqart, essentially eliminating the competition and assuring the pre-eminent status of their own? Again forgive my noted ignorance on the subject.. We know that there are many associations with gods of different cultures, but is there evidence of Greek assimiliation of gods as the Romans did?

The history of St. Valentine's day is largely a legend. There are mentions of 3 different 'Valentines' (Valentinus) being martyred throughout Roman history. The story of Claudius II denying marriage to soldiers (a precedent set by Septimius Severus nearly a century earlier) has no traceable evidence. And yes Claudius II Gothicus was considered an able leader in a time of great strife. The one completely known (in addition to the other 3) Valentinus was a gnostic leader who had nothing to do with the modern concept of Valentine's Day. Valentine's Day is a simple conversion by the church of a pagan holiday (Lupercalia) to a Christian one (perhaps attesting to the lasting inclusion of things such as Cupid). The martyrdom of one of three men by the name of Valentinus quite possibly may have met with a bit of embellishment to 'sell the story' to the masses. Its my understanding the day has not been considered an official Catholic holiday for some time due to its highly disputable origins, though I'm not quite sure of that.

a stunning turn of phrase...I think you have just livened up my spelling comments on first year essays...thanks SullaFelix A jest not meant to truly point out a rather minor error by Neos, as much as it was an admittedly odd attempt to give academia a bit of credit.