Primus Pilus

I'm still looking but I don't think so.

I don't think its possible. An edit is an edit after all, its pretty hard for the system to figure out a difference based on time delay but I'm checking into it momentarily. Though, when I see an 'edit' message at the bottom of a post I don't really think anything bad was going on, I just think that someone cared enough about their presentation to make a correction or an addition, etc. We can do several things... we can turn off the [edited by] tag... but I sort of like it. We can turn it off and place limits on how long someone has to edit a post (for instance you could post, have say, up to 10 minutes to change your mind or make corrections, and then you couldn't edit anymore. We can turn off the edited by tag and still give unlimited edit time. We can leave everything exactly as it is... Opinions?

Let's try not to have such an aggressive tone on a personal basis guys. These are things that happened 2,000 years ago after all. I think Caesar was 'great' because he was a master politician. He confounded his enemies at every turn through the use of the popular assemblies and in becoming the mastermind that brought both Pompey and Caesar into his camp. He propped them up as the face of power while manipulating everything behind the scenes. He used the political system and various magistracies (including that of Pontifex Maximus) to secure himself from debt and prosecutions to bitter rivals. I think Caesar is great because he was one of the greatest conquerors the world has known. Alesia is a masterpiece and one of the most often cited siege battles in history. Couple his victories in Gaul over the hated Celts (given against an inferior opponent with far superior numbers) with his iconic and symbolic crossings of the Rhine and the English Channel and he approached legendary status while living. Like most legends one must have a victory over another legendary general, and in this case it was provided by Pompey. He brought the vast wealth, culture and history of Egypt firmly under Roman hegemony, confirmed Roman authority in the east with the victory at Zela, crushed his opposition in Africa at Thapsus and again at Munda in Hispania. Despite the tarnishing of his dignitas by winning victories over fellow Romans (and the associated triumph) one cannot deny the greatness of his ability as a general and a leader of men. Whether right or wrong, successful or not, motivated by ambition or compassion, he led a charge to empower the Roman common masses. He attempted to reform the law, the courts and conditions of slavery and economics to give land and opportunity to the public. His failure was leaving these affairs to Antonius while he cavorted with Cleopatra and perhaps began to truly think of himself as a god, but it does not change the fact that he transformed a collection of loosely held provincial playgrounds into a singular empire under the control of a single man of ultimate power. His motivation can be questioned, as well as his tactics, and even the result of his actions, but not his achievements themselves.

With Clodius' post I just realized that I only answered one question. 'The First Man in Rome' was not a title or position as it may seem in McCullough's books. The 'princeps senatus' was considered the first man in the Senate... essentially an honorific position without magisterial power, but that doesn't appear to be the context in which McCullough is driving at. She seems to indicate it more as a position of power (such as dictator) or perhaps public dignitas (reputation, family honor, etc.).

There is plenty of nudity And corresponding sex. If you read this thread HBO Rome and BBC too you will see that there are plenty of sex scenes especially in the early episodes.

Augustus was essentially an honorific title that simply meant 'august one' (sacred, venerable, majestic, etc.). It was more religious or cultural in connotation than political, but it was the only title that was exclusively used by the 'Emperor' and thus came to be associated as a title identified with 'Emperor'. Other titles, like Caesar and Imperator were also used by imperial heirs and honored generals respectively. As for Augustus the person, he did not change his name simply to Augustus but to Imperator Caesar Augustus. (as well as other variations like Imperator Caesar Divi Filius (son of the god Caesar) Augustus.)

I was actually torn between a raincoat and the backpack, but I'm concerned with the comfort and effectiveness of ancient alternatives. Ahh sunglasses or a hat of some sort might be a good choice as well. Maybe I sleep in my hat?

The location would matter a great deal. I don't mean in a sense of environment but will we be placed in a town or in the middle of nowhere... or we simply don't know? At any rate, I am bringing some hiking books, a compass and a large backpack. I just hope the locals don't string me up when they get a load of me in my 'nightclothes'

Alas, my people were all eaten by that terrible thing.

I can't make heads or tails of any of it quite frankly.

Indeed, 'props' are given, it was Scerio who made the suggestion. Now you have your own little section of the boards to run rampant in

A single post/invitation to another forum is enough.. beyond that its just spam. Most people here aren't very fond of the hypothetical discussions, though invariably they do pop up now and then in a context of 'did this happen the way we have been told or was it something else'.

A new man represented the first member of a family to reach the Senate or to reach the Consulship. For Marius both definitions applied.

Done!

Agreed, what matters is Gaul was devestated by Caesar and incorporated into the empire. Thats the point I was trying to make earlier, we should only take the overview and consequences of a situation not the little details. And this thread is about the validity/accuracy etc. of the ancient sources. Discussing Caesar as a historian is fine, but lets not have this go into another debate about his deeds in Gaul or elsewhere.

Its taken directly from coin legends so there are certainly multiple ways to express the sentiment. Here's a half way decent example... Constantine II

I can't speak to the construction of all Roman crucifixion crosses, but they very much did use nails in all sorts of things. There is an excellent site with many pictures of various Roman artifacts, but I can't seem to locate it... Here is one fantastic sample though... Glasgow Steel--Roman Nail

Perhaps its the Villa Antinori 'Toscana' talking but I just wanted to take a moment to thank each and every member of this little forum for making discussions so interesting, educational and fun. I take great joy in some discussions (I'm sure some of you can tell which ones) and right or wrong I truly value the experiences. Its just such a treat to know that I can log on and at any moment learn some obscure fact regarding ancient foods, have my own views of history and historians challenged, or be enlightened on some subject that I may have little personal knowledge. Thank you all very much! Chris

For me its always been a matter of perception... If Suetonius had unfettered access to all the imperial archives, why is there so much negativity recorded? (and despite the differences in our cultures, we surely understand that much of Suetonius' reports shows the Caesars in a negative light even to their contemporaries) It seems unlikely that the 'princeps' and their courts would record so much information in such a damaging light, so where did it come from. Perhaps Suetonius was overly selective in what he decided to print (just because he had unfettered access does not mean he chose to use it all, nor can we be sure that he actually had any access to these archives outside of the letters of Augustus and earlier authors like Cluvius Rufus), or perhaps he prepared his work in such a way as to truly glorify the 'current' achievements of men such as Trajan and his patron Hadrian. I generally give him the benefit of the doubt (he truly is the most rewarding read from a pure gratification standpoint in my opinion) but I do resist some notions. For instance (I only use this example because its fresh in my memory from previous discussions): I accept and acknowledge the possibility that Tiberius had Germanicus killed, but Suetonius clearly has no real evidence. He simply makes the suggestion... 'it is even believed'. However, when this line of thinking is coupled with other possible aspersions on his character there is an accumulative effect that makes it all easier to swallow. However, some of it seems so extraordinary (especially the following bit) that I can't help but wonder who on earth was the keeper of this information and how many people possibly could've had a reasonable knowledge of the activities on Capri, nearly a century later. Outside of some of these specific character oriented evidences, I gladly and openly concede Suetonius general reliability on historical matters. At any rate, its certainly difficult to not enjoy reading him. (all just in my opinion of course)

That's some silly stuff and I'm getting a kick out of it. Reminds me of the old 'White Guys Rap' with Jim Belushi and Alex Karras from ages past. Invariably people will always try apply some sort of cultural symbolism with something like this... but I just think its a couple of guys having some fun.

It has something to do with Yahoo news, many links there end up broken somehow.

How much would you guys like to bet that Google gets an IRS audit soon

Here's a good one...USA Today

I don't know of examples off the top of my head, and I readily admit that others are far more knowledgeable on the ancient cults and religious transitions than I, but if the Pantheon could be converted from Temple to Church, I would find it improbable that some other lesser known and revered structures weren't converted as well. We know many temples were destroyed post Constantine and especially during and after the reign of Theodosius, but perhaps 'destroyed' can also be read as a metaphor for conversion.

Yes thats true (the fact that their work was written years after the facts at hand) in most cases with the ancients (ie Livy, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and Tacitus with 'The Annals' , etc.) but Tacitus was very much a contemporary of Agricola and Domitian. 'The Life of Agricola' was written and probably published around AD 98 in the reign of Nerva, just prior to Trajan's succession and within two years of Domitian's death.