Primus Pilus

The style (ie the beard) gives me a 2nd century (AD) artist's rendition feel to me. Yes, seems Hadrianic . I wonder why M. Aemilius Lepidus cos. 187, 300 years later . Who knows ? Well, Lepidus was the original patron of Reggio Emilia where the statue is housed (originally Regium Lepidi). Perhaps this statue was a replacement for an earlier one that was damaged or of underwhelming artistry.

The style (ie the beard) gives me a 2nd century (AD) artist's rendition feel to me.

Oh the trailers are fine, provided you don't mind a little water damage... the problem is keeping the people in the tow vehicle from getting crushed from the pressure while driving on the ocean floor.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to pull a travel trailer across the Pacific Ocean

I don't think anyone suggested that did they... maybe I missed it, but if so I believe it must have been in reference to pre-imperial legions. Once the military was standardized with permanent legions, garrisons, etc. there's no question that recruitment was definitely a replace as needed affair. However, auxilia units still were recruited en masse after that point (think the Sarmatian cavalry by Marcus Aurelius that was sent to Britannia c. AD 175), but replacement would've become an as needed issue after that because these units still existed at least until the Roman withdrawal in the 5th century.

I don't mean to disparage her, because I personally loved her books (at least the first two in the series), but I suspect that it was the most feasible way to explain him away after having made him a heroic figure for most of the work. Though I do vaguely recollect that she was basing that assessment on statues of him at different stages of his life. Not very scientific, but I suppose it's fairly practical thinking for a novelist and it does create an air of authenticity. Two samples or a potential before and after if you will... http://www.vroma.org/images/raia_images/marius.jpg http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/romanrev/marius.gif

Essentially, for lack of any other evidence Marius simply wanted to be consul and wouldn't have entertained a special dispensation or his supporters would've proposed it. One might guess that at that point, Marius would've been appointed to any position he may have wanted. He was continually "elected" because the Cimbri/'Teuton threat had not yet been alleviated since they had moved on to Hispania after crushing the Romans at Aurasio, and the Roman people seemingly didn't trust any other general to deal with the threat than Marius. While this gave Marius time to prepare and recruit a new army, there was still great fear among the people that the enemy was still out there somewhere. Presumably had Marius marched north after being appointed to his second consulship in 104 and been victorious at that point, there would've been no need for further consecutive consulships. I'm not suggesting that there was any great conspiracy afoot, but their movement away from Italia made Marius' political position rather convenient. Perhaps his lack of true political acumen (including the art of compromise) along with his seemingly enormous ego is the reason he chose actual consulships rather than special pro-consulships as Scipio had done.

One could probably expect it to be very loosely based on actual events (as we know them of course)

Marius is in intriguing, in part, because he really stands a transitional figure between Republic and Empire. He was great as general and military reformer, public icon and international influence (think of his visit to Mithridates while in self imposed political exile) and terrible (as a political hack via threats of violence and illegalities and later a tyrant and butcher). While much of the African victory may be accredited to the groundwork laid by Metellus, it certainly wasn't the first or last time that a secondary general finished the job or received the credit. What is important is that he did finish the job, regardless of the political wranglings that got him that job, and he did not leave Africa as an ongoing problem. Perhaps more importantly when understanding the Marian skill is his dealings with the Cimbri and Teutons. While much credit has been given to Sulla and to Catulus, there were several previous engagements with these migrating Germanics that ended in complete disaster for the Romans. It was ultimately Marius that held the commands of Sulla and Catulus together and drove the the threat away permanently. As for his later career, he was without a doubt a villain. While we must not dismiss the guilt of Sulla in his fateful march on Rome, one can at least understand the actions in response to bullying politics of Marius. Without Marius, a small part of Roman greatness definitely would've been lost, but conversely, might it also have been free from the civil wars that ultimately destroyed the Republic?

No no, our new specialty is putting people on ice... stabbing is far too barbaric. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...TRO08/901290400 http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.s..._froze_ins.html

Thanks everyone... please if anyone has more, keep them coming

I'm taking the family to Washington D.C. Yes that's right... I want to show them what it's all about before the Stars and Stripes are completely replaced by the Hammer and Sickle. (/end political baiting ) Ok, ok... we'll be in DC for roughly 6 days, depending on some logistics issues (we are camping outside the city and using the metro to get around) and will be leaving to go to Charlottesville VA (home of Monticello - Thomas Jefferson) and some scenery in the Blue Ridge mountains after that. In D.C. we'll be doing the basics... Smithsonian and main monuments/buildings around the mall area, as well as Mt. Vernon and Lincoln's cottage. Obviously, there is a ton of stuff to see and do, and I have to think kid friendly to keep things from turning into a nightmare of disinterest and general crabiness (hence the natural history museum and the air and space museum at the smithsonian as they are both nuts about dinosaurs and space). Any suggestions in either locale (D.C. or Charlottesville or in between) would be greatly appreciated. We wanted to scoot down to Colonial Williamsburg/Jamestown/Yorktown too, but I just think it's too much to try to squeeze in (it's a couple of hours drive to the south from D.C.). I'd also like to investigate Manassas/Bull or any other major battlefield (Antietam, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, The Wilderness, etc.) as they are in the general area, but again I don't want to bore the kids to tears or take a major drive and find that there's really not much to see when there are so many other possibilities for history freaks...

Both locations are largely based on medieval myths, although the Domitii did have a family mausoleum on the Pincio near S. Maria del Popolo. Agreed, but I was thinking that was what the quote in the original post may have been referring to?

I'm not very good with monuments, but is it perhaps a reference to the real tomb of nero... I believe it was in fact on the Via Cassia rather than the Via Flaminia where the monument is. Domizia refers to the tomb of Domitia on which the church of Santa Maria del Popolo is built. I think. Maybe this gives a start to others better schooled in this... http://hyderome.blogspot.com/2005/08/walnu...ee-of-nero.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Maria_del_Popolo

Thanks PP, I agree that the more sketchy the detailes, the more believable they are . So, let say he was captured at sea (Aegean), how come that such an important fact as the capture of the son of the great Scipio, faded (I hope that is the word) ? I mean, did the Roman historians were influenced by the Scipionic circle to erase the fact ? I wouldn't think so, I mean they all did record the event, even though they treated it as a rather minor one. Polybius, who was most certainly in the Scipione camp as a friend and advisor to Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (Minor), also relayed the account, though it too is lacking in detail. It's very interesting that Polybius, a man who would've undoubtedly known the entire story (having actually been a tutor to Africanus Minor as a child) reported such limited information. Perhaps it was a source of embarrassment to Africanus... especially in later years as his military reputation and political clout was growing. Although, in the defense of Polybius his book 21 which relays the information does happen to fragmented. Unfortunately, Plutarch's biographies of the two men in question, Scipio Africanus and Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, are both lost. Perhaps that in itself could make one raise an inquisitive eyebrow. In any case since a great deal of our information on great names in Roman history was recorded by Plutarch, we are missing two key and possibly richly detailed accounts. As I think about it further... Cassius Dio's account in question is also in a very fragmented book. Of course, he and Plutarch were writing centuries later so I don't know why there would have been any great conspiracy to attempt to hide this hostage affair at that point in history. As a related aside. I find also find it interesting that on the contrary, Caesar (and those around him) chose to widely publicize his own youthful hostage incident.

I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy. However, the trade center was destroyed prior to the policies that speak of. Here's a good list indicating the run up of terrorism against the US that had nothing to do with Bush. Presidents, as with any world leader, often get too much blame or credit for many things. I think the CDI site is too simplistic as it makes no attempt to identify who committed the terrorism or more importantly why it was carried out - several of the attacks listed have no link to the arab world including those by some home-grown American bombers. In cases where the attacks did have Arab links it could be claimed they were intended as a response to US involvement &/or polices towards the Arab world - especially their continual support of Israeli occupation of Palestine. Unfortunately terrorism really does beget terrorism and the Israeli continuing occupation of Gaza and the rest of Palestine has long been indefensible as far as most of the world is concerned, when they actually think about the root causes of much of Arab related terrorism dating from the 70's and 80's. Although not perfect this site (http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/terrorism.htm ) gives a few more details, including where it is known which group claimed responsibility and/or who was convicted - in some cases there remains a degree of doubt if the convictions were really justified. Melvadius I wasn't intending to imply the why/what for of any of it with my link provided (it was the first one I stumbled across with a fairly good list of events)... only to show that these things were happening well before any policy enacted by everyone's favorite president.

Livy's account is perhaps the best in my opinion because he admits quite readily that the details are a bit sketchy. That in itself makes it oddly more believable to me. Here's his account... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Liv...livy.hist.37.34 Attalus.org has the full list of related source materials on it... http://attalus.org/bc2/year191.html#8 The most prominent story among them all seems to be that he was captured at sea in Greece.

To be fair, in 2000 they actually didnt, and in 2004 he got in by the narrowest of margins. If not for the opponents he faced (Al "I invented the internet and nature itself" Gore, and John "Lurch" Kerry) he probably wouldn't have won either election (dependent entirely of course on one's definition of "won"). It's the sad state of affairs in politics that the best we've had to offer in the last 8 years and 3 elections is George "if you would care to recall I was actually quite popular for about a month or so" Bush twice, his two previously mentioned opponents above, John "I'm damned old and it's my damned turn to scare you" McCain, Sarah "could I be any more of a nitwit" Palin, Barack "H is for holy shit he's actually less experienced than the Alaskan clown" Obama and Joe "I've been in office doing nothing except living off the American taxpayer for about 6 decades" Biden. Alas. Are you not very optimistic about your new president, then? We're pretty impressed with him this side of the pond. Well I can say that he hasn't actually done anything yet to make me either impressed or unimpressed. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by not openly despising him as yet another run of the mill leader who infringes on the concept of our constitution just yet. To be perfectly fair though, the last time I was impressed by a politician I was a teenager and less curmudgeonly in nature as a general rule when it come to politics. Conservative voting record aside, I really have to choke back the gurgling bile every time I vote. (apologies to those with overly active imaginative skills)

To be fair, in 2000 they actually didnt, and in 2004 he got in by the narrowest of margins. If not for the opponents he faced (Al "I invented the internet and nature itself" Gore, and John "Lurch" Kerry) he probably wouldn't have won either election (dependent entirely of course on one's definition of "won"). It's the sad state of affairs in politics that the best we've had to offer in the last 8 years and 3 elections is George "if you would care to recall I was actually quite popular for about a month or so" Bush twice, his two previously mentioned opponents above, John "I'm damned old and it's my damned turn to scare you" McCain, Sarah "could I be any more of a nitwit" Palin, Barack "H is for holy shit he's actually less experienced than the Alaskan clown" Obama and Joe "I've been in office doing nothing except living off the American taxpayer for about 6 decades" Biden. Alas.

I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy. However, the trade center was destroyed prior to the policies that speak of. Here's a good list indicating the run up of terrorism against the US that had nothing to do with Bush. Presidents, as with any world leader, often get too much blame or credit for many things.

Do I count as old?

The point is to figure out the identity of Tacitus . More than that, if Nerva had a son don't you think that it changes history ? How would it change history? It would make the adoption of Trajan a bit more unusual in that a biological son was bypassed, but it wouldn't have been the first time. (Nero over Britannicus by Claudius). The course of history still follows the same path regardless of the geneology or identity of Tacitus. Would it make Tacitus account more likely to be biased based on particular relationships? Possibly, but that the general sentiment of bias or propaganda is already assumed by many. In any case, I personally feel it's clear that Tacitus was the son-in-law of Agricola and an obviously prominent individual, regardless of what his patronage may have been.

Yes, I've heard of it, but don't really understand the point. Assuming Tacitus were the son of Nerva (or some other variable possibility), does it really change his historical record, in light of the guarded skepticism with which we already regard it?

Woops...lucky me Why? It's perfectly ok to be critical. Provided people take into account what my objective is, I have no issue whatsoever with dissenting opinion, correction or general criticism.

I wrote this. As I say with all of my writing, it's intended to be introductory and present an overview of various sources. The idea is to inspire further investigation, not to present a definitive resource. In any case, I don't know how one could approach Pilate without at least observing the New Testament and its possibilities. Considering the relative lack of evidence, using every source available is simply being diligent.