Primus Pilus

TIVOLI, Italy Feb 7, 2006 (AP)

I thought it was touched upon in the other monster thread?

Yes his aged appearance is off, but sometimes directors/writer/casting agents fall in love with an actor and there's not much that one can do. Clearly though his appearance leaves the impression that he was far older than Caesar, so it is worth of being pointed out.

Yes indeed, I should've added this as well. P. Clodius' point is very important because we find this many times throughout the series. There may be an event depicted that is untrue, but it may be derived from suggestions and innuendo, or even simply adapted from another true event in order to make the story more concise.

Ahh excellent news! I'm glad to see such a fine subject as beer receiving its just attention. Can I see Pertinax' diligent involvement already as attested by a noticeable increase in blog posts?

Well I recall one thing from the first episode. There was a scene where (I suppose in order to give the characters Vorenus and Pullo a bigger influence on the story at hand) some hirelings of Pompey stole one of Caesar's legionary eagles. This is complete fabrication. There is also absolutely no record whatsoever of Octavian going to Gaul to meet with Caesar after his victory at Alesia, but putting Octavian with Vorenus and Pullo allowed the three to be introduced, showed us a glimpse of Octavian's political savvy, and made them all seem heroic and important to Caesar.

As its been several months since I've actually seen the shows it might be difficult to recall all the sordid details. Is there anything in particular that you are really interested in or are you truly just looking for a list of inaccuracies?

I believe I may have touched on this very issue earlier in this thread, but it is not so simple as saying they were either elite or not. The experience and ability of the Praetorians depended completely on the era and the emperor. While the early Julio-Claudians largely avoided major campaigns once they had attained the title of princeps, they at least accompanied Claudius to Britain (though certainly played a minor role). There was probably a contingent of praetorians with Titus in Judaea and Domitian was active on the Danube for a rather significant stretch of his reign. Some praetorians probably saw considerable action and became hardened veterans under Trajan for instance, as they were assuredly involved in the campaigns in Dacia and in the east. Even the 23 year reign of Antoninus Pius (in which he stayed predominately within the city of Rome) was not entirely devoid of veterans left over from Trajan and Hadrian. Under Marcus Aurelius and Verus, there were definately praetorians along the Danube and in Parthia respectively. Even despite their mass dismissal by Septimius Severus he recruited new praetorians from among provincial veterans. These men then accompanied Severus on more eastern campaigns and were already legionary veterans to start with. Essentially, the combat ability of the praetorians cannot be generalized because even more so than the legions, the participation of the praetorians was entirely dependent upon the man they served. Were they comparable to regular legions? No, likely not because while serving 'peaceful' emperors they did not garrison forts along provincial borders and such. Their status as an elite force is easily and entirely open to question, but its equally inaccurate to paint all the praetorian forces with the same broad stroke.

We hope it still is after this debacle.

Hello Chyhoedd... Welcome to UNRV. We are always happy to welcome new members, from Roma-Victor and from outside of that environment. You may find however that this place is quite a bit more serious in nature. While we certainly don't mind a bit of light heartedness, please understand that this site is reserved for historical discussion.

We are being tortured by our host for some reason. Not only did they screw up our site hosting renewal from a week ago (as explained in my first post) but they also decided that our domain hosting money also wasn't good enough. Despite a long day dealing with people who either dont care about the problems they've cause or are too incompetent to fix the problem, it seems that we should be heading towards the end of the tunnel shortly. There may be a few more hours of intermittent outages but I think we should be in the clear very soon. I apologize for any inconvenience. I'd also like to thank those several members who somehow hunted down my msn email to find out what was going on. How did you guys find it anyway? I didn't even think it was listed anywhere on the site? [edit] oops I meany hotmail email not msn.

While I agree in part with the evolution theory (the church, cultural ideals, even economic conditions from slave to serf, etc.)... we cannot dismiss the actual fall of an imperial state. Doing so would be failing to recognize that borders were shattered and redrawn, centralized government was replaced by feudal lords (despite the continuation of some Roman practices) and the legions that once conquered and then defended an empire were simply no more. Though admittedly perhaps a century or more before the Visigoths (Alaric in 410), the Vandals (Gaiseric in 455) and then the Ostrogoths (Odaecer in 476) took the eternal city itself, Rome's army fell while the rest of Roman civilization marched on and evolved. We know that the empire continued in the east, and parts of the west even came back under the imperial fold at times, but from a military and governmental perspective Rome had fallen in the west.

From Strabo Book VII Though it doesn't give the reasons, you have an interesting theory. Was wine corrupting the Dacians, or worse, was it Romanizing them? We know that Burebista sided with Pompey against Caesar, and perhaps the cutting of the vines was a symbolic gesture after Pompey's defeat, intending to say... Dacia will never submit to Caesar?

I don't personally consider atheism a religion. Though there are militant atheists who focus so aggressively on discrediting the faith of others that they act as if atheism is a religion in itself, I am an atheist simply because (as the definition goes) I am without theism. For me being an atheist is not about closing one's mind to possibilities but rather simply requiring proof of the existence of deities before I believe in it. Is that agnosticism... I don't honestly know, nor do I generally concern myself about it (unless of course someone wants to bring it up here =P) I'll try to explain this further hopefully without angering anyone To me, religion is a creation of humanity in order to explain the unknown. (the development of customs and religious law as a tool to govern or control the population is related of course but I don't personally think it was the original intention of religion.) As such, I see religion as evidence of man's natural curiosity and even arrogance. We are naturally opposed to the notion that something cannot be explained. Religion helps to fill the gaps left by the holes in that ability to explain. Even with enormous advancements in scientific study as compared to the ancient world, there is still an endless supply of the unexplainable. Perhaps its an assumption that because of our natural intelligence (comparable to other lifeforms known on this planet anyway) it is therefore simply impossible that things are unexplainable. If there is not an answer for some mystery, the human tendency has always been that it certainly could not be because we are not 'smart' enough to figure it out, so it must be because some other worldly power created it. I just personally think that there are things in the universe that we may never understand and don't need to. Why does the universe have to have a point of creation? The big bang theory may be as ridiculous as creationism. Why can't it just always have existed and it is simply impossible for us to ever understand it. Perhaps this is arrogance in itself that I refuse to accept a notion that there are beings either overseeing the existence of humanity or simply creating and ignoring (when I clearly cannot prove or disprove it), but without evidence I see no reason to make the assumption that there are omnipotent beings, deities and such. So maybe that sounds much more like agnosticism or some other such thing rather than strict atheism, I honestly don't know. But since I truly do not believe in the existence of gods, then I guess by definition I am an atheist despite my willingness to concede that I don't have any answers to refute the beliefs of others (nor do I really want to refute those beliefs). Like that great popular culture icon popeye said, "I yam what I yam"

What's your source on that? Its from Vegetius, but the problem is the translation. In English... In Latin In Roman measurements... VI pedum (6 feet) is considerably smaller than 6 modern imperial feet. Obviously the same can be said for V et X unciarum (5 and 10 parts of twelve). As I understand it, a Roman foot or 12 inches (uncia) is the equivelant of about 11 1/2 modern inches. Taking off 1/2 inch for each of the 6 Roman feet described by Vegetius (1/2 inch x 6 feet would be a total of 3 inches) we would get a measurement that was roughly equal to 5 feet 9 inches rather than the 6 feet described. This is rather tall for the time as the average Roman height is considered to be about 5 1/2 feet, but its certainly within the realm of normal human development. Of course this is all dependent upon believing Vegetius in the first place. He is often criticized for a lack of military experience and knowledge, but it seems odd that he would need military experience to know the general height of recruits. I got the average height statistic from here.

The plebeians were reported to have effectively gone on strike. Apparently, massive civil disobedience can change the minds of even patricians--as Gandhi taught the British many years later. Yes, probably a perfect way to illustrate it. The entire withdrawal of the Plebes may be an implausible notion, and quite possibly could be translated as a shutdown of labor effecting the required services and industries of urban civilization, rather than an actual physical departure. In addition, despite the notion as the Plebes as simple poor masses, they did outnumber the Patricians, assumedly by a considerable margin even in the early Republic. (though census figures are not available). Many plebes were still landowners despite their limited rights, and did provide service to the Roman army. 'Patrician tribes' simply couldn't arm themselves and force the masses back to work without the Plebes taking up arms themselves. Force, though it was used at times, wasn't a simple 'matter of fact' notion. The William Smith Dictionary, while not going into great detail regarding all the political struggles, provides a solid introduction. Plebs

Much as Livy wasn't sure how Rome was formed we also aren't completely sure of the true origins of Rome and its Senate. However we can surmise that the Senate was formed from a coalition of leading families (clans). The early 'Fathers' (Patres, hence Patrician) were gathered as an advisory council to Romulus (assuming of course he was a real man) and the practice likely became more and more of a formal body as time went by. At the time of the expulsion of the kings by Brutus, 200 new 'Patres' were added to the original 100 (or so we are told). As these men were conscripted into service the Senate began to be called Patres (for the original fathers) et (and) Conscripti. Eventually the et (and) was dropped and the Senate was simply known as Patres Conscripti (conscript fathers). But I suppose that really has nothing to do with the original question

I don't think he would recognize the anglicized form of Caesar (See Zer), when in Latin it would be closer to the German Kaiser. (Ky Zar) As for what to bring back in my backpack... A copy of Claudius' lost work on the Etruscans. A copy of Cassius Dio's missing works. A copy of the lost books of Livy. A copy of the lost books of Tacitus' Annals. The personal letters and imperial correspondence of Pontius Pilatus (assuming that at least some of it was saved in the first place) I suppose I'd be lucky if even that much would fit in a single backpack, but that is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

We held a recent discussion about Analyzing ancient historians. While its safe to say that there are probably certain imbedded biases, etc. within the ancient texts its simply unprovable to call them all 'falsifiers'. There is a fine line between propoganda and fact, and of course we should examine all available information (archaeology, numismatics, etc.) but writing off the ancients as liars is as equally absurd as believing every word verbatim.

The only thing in question regarding the death of Christians is Nero's reasoning. While Christian writers attempted to twist history to make it seem as though Nero targetted Christians out of some sort of evil spite, it would seem far more likely that had Rome not burned, he may never have even bothered the Christians. They provided an easy scapegoat for an embattled emperor (as the bulk of the Roman population distrusted and feared the Christian strangeness). Even if the nature of Christian 'martyrdom' (being lit up like candles and such) was faked by later writers, I don't see any reason to disbelieve that Nero used them to deflect criticism. Also, the army was not upset about Nero's death (you may be thinking of Domitian's assassination which did greatly upset the legions). The army largely hated Nero for a series of accusations, prosecutions and executions of popular generals. It was this lack of loyalty that inspired Nero's suicide. The Roman mob may have been frightening, but if the Praetorians and the general army had remained loyal, the mob would not have been a concern. Nero was pretty much universally despised. Unlike Tiberius and Claudius, etc., Nero's one guy I generally don't think much revision of history will ever catch on.

The legions did not disappear in the 3rd century. The nature of the army had changed but it had certainly not disappeared. If not the legions, then who marched with Constantine in the 4th century? Romans also never used mercenaries in the way we associate the term in a modern sense. While we can find comparisons with auxilia and mercenaries, auxilia was a part of the main army and was integrated within it. They were not simply armed groups of men or tribes for hire to the highest bidder. The degradation of the army in overall effectiveness is well attested in the late imperial period, but the descriptions provided are also not quite right.

Hello and welcome Victor. I've always found Constantinian coins interesting for the noted reverence to pagan gods and symbols (all the standards that adorned Roman coinage throughout the imperial period) and the complete lack of Christian symbolism. Though, by the same token the appearance of 'Angelic like' winged figures, stars above Camp Gates, etc. may be a premonition of impending change. I have always found it a shame though that the era seems to have lost the creativity of earlier moneyers and many issues are very similar regardless of 'reigning emperor' throughout the dynasty and beyond. Still wonderful pieces of history nonetheless. Great site!

My sources are Robert de Clari and Geoffroi de Villehardouin , participants of this Crusade. Yes, what Viggen is saying is that he is simply reporting the 'News'. Its not his opinion, but that of the author Judith Herrin.

You can rest assured that there is no truth whatsoever in that. The name Caesar was in the family long before the birth of Gaius Julius (the dictator) and the Caesarean section was used only in cases where the mother had already died or was dying, essentially a last ditch effort to save the baby. Since Caesar's mother, Aurelia, survived well into old age (at least through part of Caesar's Gallic Wars) the notion that she gave birth via that option is simply impossible. The mother did not survive such a procedure. While nobody seems to know the true origin of the word, some have suggested that its root is actually in other Latin words such as 'caedare' which means to cut and and/or 'caesones' which described infants who were born after the mother's death (postmortem). It seems that the term Caesarean section was applied to Caesar the man much later in history (middle ages), long after the true origin was lost.

Because of our recent renewal we are 'locked' into our current situation for 45 days, but suffice to say we will be making a change after that point. (which should be unnoticed by everybody, except for increased performance and reliability of the site).