Primus Pilus

Abd that 'rescue toaster' for those of you nostalgia fans.. is actually the little robot from the movie 'The Black Hole'. I think his name in that movie was, appropriately for this forum, Maximillian. See how everything comes full circle back to Rome around here

Agreed. We can certainly see influences based on certain connections in history, but to dismiss accuracy based on the connections is a mistake. To accept everything as complete truth without analyzing the connections is also wrong, but its important to avoid both potential pitfalls. This brings us back full circle to Tacitus and his connection to Agricola. It would absolutely be fallacy to dismiss Tactitus' account based simply on his connection to Agricola, but it would also be wrong to accept everything he says verbatim without understanding the potential biases. I respect and love Tacitus' work, and I do not in any way discount his presentation of Agricola. My only concern is that he left out some details or made slight variations to Domitian's role and actions which may have helped to distort the history. (What I mean is that Domitian seems a victim of 'piling on', first for his relationship to the Senate, and later by Christian historians who used the general distaste for his reign to spread the idea of martyrdom and Christian sympathy). Of course, while Domitian was fairly despised by the aristocracy of the time because of his general dismissal of the Senate as a governing/advisory institution, there was a contingent that did support him. The succession of Nerva was important in that he was a relatively neutral politician who did not anger the small remaining Flavian faction after Domitian's assassination. The adoption of Trajan was perhaps even moreso (not only because of his influence with the legions as a general) but because there were certainly still many supporters of the Flavian dynasty within those legions (and of course the Praetorians who were not at all happy with how things turned out). Trajan's support of Domitian during the Rhine revolt was certainly a factor in making him a candidate to appease. While the aristocracy got its revenge by quickly damning Domitian's memory, the supporters in the army may have been satisfied with the trade-off that was Trajan's advancement. The reason I bring this up is because it may be an important factor in understanding whether or not Tacitus could have 'embellished or altered' the record while escaping the scrutiny of contemporaries. The aristocracy largely despised Domitian and since his memory was already damned, a few parting shots by Tacitus was not likely to be a cause of major concern to contemporaries. Compared to the damnatio memoriae, Tacitus' suggestions of jealousy and innuendos of foul play were hardly anything to truly disturb or anger the audience (especially since the audience was largely the very anti-Domitian faction that brought about the damning of his memory). Is this evidence that Tacitus indeed misreported the historical truth? Absolutely not, its just enough of a cloud (coupled with his relationship to Agricola) to give me reason for pause than I may normally have, therefore inspiring deeper scrutiny. PS. Despite how it may appear, I am not at all an admirer of Domitian.

Frankly I was just having a bit of fun with this, I'm not really all that concerned with what anyone calls themselves. In all seriousness though... I don't know alot of Mexicans, so I admit I have no clue. However, being from a border state with Canada and having frequent contact with Canadians, a semi frequent visitor to Canada, and being a semi-regular viewer of the CBC (mostly just Hockey Night in Canada and the occasional CBC Nightly News), I feel safe in saying that I have never heard a Canadian call him or herself an American and most would be ashamed to dismiss their own Canadian identity in such a manner. The folks I know are quite proud to be Canadian. To each their own suppose.

People sure get uptight about that whole 'American' thing. Its not the first time I've seen it but allow me to illustrate how it drives me nuts..... To all people of the world including our own citizenry: Americans are from America. We are not United Statesians or USA'ers, United Statesers, Unitedisans, Staticans or even Americans of the United States. We are Americans. A Mexican is a Mexican. He may be a North American like Americans, because North America is a continent, but he is not simply an American. Europeans are Europeans because that is the continent that they share but an Austrian is not also French. If someone says American, the implication is simple... they mean someone from the United States. If someone says South American, they could mean a Brazilian, Argentinian, Columbian or any particular nationality within South American, but people do not refer to Brazilians as Americans.

An interesting concept, but a state does not need to have consistent juridicial form in order to have legitimate law. While the institution of the courts went through many changes in both Republican and Imperial Rome law was still upheld with general consistency. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the various laws of any particular era or whether or not certain individuals or organizations circumvented and manipulated that law, one cannot deny that the law existed. The offices of Consul, Praetor, Quaestor, Praefectus, Procurator, even Princeps etc. are not authentic? There is truth in this statement regarding Roman conservatism and reverence for traditional law and custom, but yet, the law was reformed and it did vary so the statement is flawed. I'm rather confused by the whole bit. Care to expound on what Jose Ortega y Gasset may have been trying to say?

Is it cool to be confused?

I had a fairly long debate with someone, some time ago regarding Tiberius and Germanicus. What it all comes down to for me is the fact that despite all the rumor and innuendo, there simply is no direct evidence. Might Gaius have been poisoned? Sure, but where is the proof that Livia did it. Its all very hypothetical and a matter that is purely conjecture. Had the Romans had the criminology abilities that we do today, things may have been different, but for now we are simply left with alot of 'I heard it from soandso' suggestions. Personally I would be surprised if Livia wasn't involved in a nasty deed or three along the way, but I often wonder why the reviled Claudius didn't recieve a bowl full of poisoned something or other simply because of the embarrassment he caused. I know Claudius wasn't a comparable threat in terms of heredity and advancement, but there are plenty of cases of murder, confiscation and exile based on what we might deem trivial concerns.

Hmm, strange as this may sound... How about employers adopt popular culture entertainment into the hiring process. Hire all applicants at an entry level salary for 2 to 4 weeks without benefits. Whomever performs best, as voted upon in some sort of weighted system by co-workers and management gets the job? Oh nevermind, the apprentice already does that. YOUR FIRED! (egads whats wrong with me)

I thought Harran was the closest city to the site? Indeed, read my reply again. Haran is closest followed probably by Edessa (Urfa). As recently merged by Ursus... The Lost Legion

"Destiny" is a load of mystical BS; so, yes, you might as well argue that fishing was Gaius' "destiny" and Augustus stupidly stood in the way of Gaius fulfilling his birth-right--catching a really big bass. Aren't we really talking about the logical assumption of a societal career path for a young and prominent member of the imperial family vs. pre-destined course of events? Before we delve on it too long, I think we might have a simple semantical argument going on here methinks. (sometimes the most entertaining kind)

Unfortunately you'll find that there isn't a great deal of written ancient source material especially regarding Trajan's campaigns. Archeological evidence including numismatics (coinage) has actually been quite important. There is a bit more regarding Domitian's earlier campaigns but nothing all that fantastic. There is another recent thread around here somewhere pointing out some source materials regarding Trajan's Column... here it is Dacians, Romans, Scythians Here is my own written overview of the Dacian conflicts... Domitian and Decebalus Trajan's Dacian War Here is some ancient source material... Suetonius: Lives of the Caesars on Domitian Cassius Dio book 67 on Domitian Cassius Dio Book 68 fragmentary on Trajan. Aurelius Victor also offers some limited history but I don't know if his work exists online anywhere. Pliny the Younger is an excellent source on some of Trajan's policies but not at all regarding Dacia.

Unfortunately, I think I am decidedly though quite happily, uncool.

Why do you need to know 1/10th of a foot? Nothing is measured that way in the imperial system. We use inches and fractions thereof. We would never say 1/10th of a foot because it doesn't convert to anything that makes sense. We might say 1 1/8 inch (it would be somewhere around there I suppose) but nobody would ever ask a builder (for instance) to measure out 1/10th of a foot. Somehow we've managed to build some fairly impressive buildings and such, using those confounded inches and feet. It can't be all that bad. As for fractions not converting to percentages... fractions are percentages by their very nature. 1/16 is 6.25%. Just divide the numerator (top number) by the denominator (bottom number) and there you go... easy percentage. Simple? Perhaps not as easy as saying 3 centimeters is 3% of a meter, but simple enough to me. As for something completely silly... a funny thing that would happen if we converted here in Detroit. The city is laid out in a grid pattern. The center of the downtown is essentially point 0. From that point there are major roads that run parallel to eachother spaced one mile apart. These roads were placed based on some now inexplicable land surveying ordinance, but suffice to say, we essentially have 1 mile road all the way through (I believe) 37 Mile Rd. Many roads have alternative names based on where in the city one lives (like for instance 16 Mile road is also known as Big Beaver Rd., Metropolitan Parkway, Quarton Road and Walnut Lake Road) but generally speaking everyone around here has a pretty good idea what you mean when you say 16 Mile Road. Now if we converted to kilometers, everything would have to be renamed. As an example of our nightmare: 8 Mile Rd would become 12.9 Kilometer Rd. 15 Mile Rd would become 24.19 Kilometer Rd. and poor old 37 Mile Rd would become 59.67 Kilometer Rd.

Indeed. However, can't you just hear the cries of discrimination and impending lawsuits against the idea of using standardized tests. Alas for the protection of stupidity guised in the bane that is political correctness. But I guess thats another issue entirely

I think the point Ursus was making was simply that the basic college degree has replaced the diploma as proof of generic literacy and basic skills, not that getting a degree is a waste of time. As you suggest, the degree (once reserved for societal elite) is now nearly a necessity to gain employment for the common masses. Just makes me wonder what is next. I suppose my sons may find it a necessity to gain a graduate degree for even a semblence of security in the most basic of fields.

Quite honestly, regarding getting a job in the first place, you are correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. My great-grandfather also worked for Briggs automotive and certainly helped his son to get a job (though I am completely unaware of any detail). Where the 'old boys club' theory begins to fall apart is only with the unionization of this particular industry and the challenges it presented to old loyalties, friendships and fraternization. What end result unionization may have had on my grandfathers ongoing career and the continuation of the 'old boys club', I honestly cannot say. Again I am not making a social commentary on what is right or wrong, just describing one particular difference in eras.

Egads man... we can't wipe it out. Right now it takes 10 yards to get first down. As an American football junkie I would be hard pressed to say we need to get 9.144 meters. LOL (please ignore my frivolity )

I agree with the sentiment... but getting that piece of paper, no matter where you got it, or with what level of achievement (ie GPA and such) is sometimes a necessity to even get one in the door for an interview. Interestingly as a related aside and not intended to be a social commentary but simply a truthful observation... My grandfather worked as an engineer for Briggs automotive then Chrysler for some 40 odd years, beginning in the fledgling days of the auto industry here in Detroit. He did so all without even a high school (secondary school) diploma. I would never have called my grandfather a scholarly type of person, but his skill and expertise in his field was exemplary. When WWII came, he was one of many automotive engineers who were 'enlisted' to design such military vehicles as the F-4U Corsair 'widowmaker' rather than serve in the combat ranks. Throughout his career he could compete, contribute and advance in the employment market place despite his noted lack of a 'school education'. In his time that sort of education beyond the practical experience simply would have been frivolous for him. Today most 'white collar' careers are dependent upon one's education, and promotion within these fields is nigh impossible without competitive educational achievement. Had my grandfather been born today and followed the same educational path, he probably would've been standing in line at a soup kitchen. This would not be because he didn't have the same potential ability, but simply because he lacked the necessary competitive advantages to give himself a chance. This isn't right or wrong. It simply is the way it is. If one wants to be competitive today, they can't rely simply upon their natural abilities but must apply themselves to gain those advantages. Just an interesting evolution.

The closest town would probably be Haran, Turkey. Carrhae would be very close to the modern border between Turkey and Syria. By that token, the next closest major city would probably have been Edessa (or modern Urfa) to the north.

Quite simply... supreme power impresses humanity. Despite a modernistic trend to feign abhorence at wielding such power, people are still drawn to it. Good or bad, some of the most studied eras in human history are those when single persons or states ruled with a sense of absolute power.

There were many early sects and organizations. The Catholics and the eastern Orthodox church both claim their earliest foundations to the same period... essentially tied together with the lives of the Apostles and Paul of Tarsus, among others. Either way, the 2 churches co-exist as essentially the first and only surviving 'ancient' churches of the Christ. Others are better suited to the history of actual Catholicism than I, but here is a brief overview of Christianity. Christianity History

I use the 'imperial' system, but I know if its 70 cent. then I'm staying inside

Strangely enough we seem to be arguing the same point, simply from different angles. Interesting nonetheless. As an example of my point, the concerns I personally have regarding Tacitus' account of his father-in-law is not the deeds performed by Agricola, (as you correctly point out that contemporaries were aware of the deeds and could challenge blatant falsehoods written by Tacitus) but the circumstances surrounding Agricola's withdrawal from Britain and retirement. (Essentially 'The Life of Agricola' chapters 39 - 46) Was it because Domitian was jealous or fearful as Tacitus suggests, or was it because Domitian truly needed reinforcements on the Danube which Tacitus does not even bother to mention? I believe that Domitian was concerned about Agricola's popularity and couple that with his length of service in overall command of Britain, there is a legitimate reason that he began to become fearful. However, I also believe that Domitian did need men on the Danube against the Quadi, Decebalus, etc. and Tacitus' failure to even suggest the possibilty causes perhaps the slightest alteration to the events. While in effect it does little to change the what happened (Agricola conquered the remaining free territories of southern Britain and was recalled in his prime), it certainly has an effect on our perception of the players. (I am not suggesting that Domitian was not a brutal tyrant, simply pointing out that there is potentially more than what we are told on the surface.) Now, as for that tryanny aspect... I agree wholeheartedly that the conditions of politics in the imperial era had an effect on the writers. I've already agreed that poets and satirists and such had far less 'luck' than most historians, but I did forget Cremutius Cordus (who was quite possibly killed for slandering Sejanus rather than the subject of his writings, they simply provided a convenient excuse under the law of the time). Regardless, I concede that he was killed. Otherwise the samples provided are eulogies and panegyrics rather than pure histories. As its largely semantics I will concede because it actually lends credence to the idea that we should view the record with a bit of additional scrutiny. Considering that the writers in this era were so in such a position as to be concerned over what they put to paper, would this not also possibly taint the historical record? If we know that a historian may have sugar-coated an event in order to preserve his own hide (just as an idea, we truly can't know this), when we suspect that events may have played out differently than what is written, would this also not be a distortion? Again lets assume there were contemporaries who could analyze the works as they were published. If a prominent individual who knows things to have played out just a bit differently than described, but is also aware that challenging the published record could endanger both the author and himself, isn't it quite possible that he would never say anything at all, and simply nod his head in understanding while he read it. I am talking about subtleties here, the minutia so to speak, not necessarily the direct challenge of large and well recorded historical events. And admittedly we don't know that this happened. We don't know if Hadrian read Suetonius' work prior to publishing and told him to change anything, but the possibility may be there. I would never suggest to discount the entire affair, simply to try to understand that there may be additional underlying motives. I will always challenge Suetonius on the grounds of his motivation, the fact that he does not mention sources, and that he willingly reports as historical fact things that 'he heard from someone'. I will not challenge his description of major events such as Gaius marching to the north sea and failing to make a crossing into Britain. The part to be questioned might be whether or not his soldiers were ordered to collect sea shells as suggested. This was written about a century after the events in question, so there was likely nobody left who could challenge the description from a basis of first hand knowledge. From a secondary stand point, someone certainly could have, but who would be believed? Suetonius the secretary of the emperor Hadrian with access to the imperial archives (whether he used them diligently or only those articles that supported his agenda), or the grandson of some legionary who had heard events described much differently. Its the same reasoning I use to challenge Tiberius' supposed murder of Germanicus. There is no evidence to support it other than the historians claiming that 'this or that person suggested he may have been poisoned.' Its simply impossible to know, but many regard it as historical fact simply because it was written by the ancients. (I will try to split this shortly, but I absolutely need to get some work done at the office. lol)

So we just accept everything simply because it was written? Why fear the alternatives? This is quite the stretch from suggesting that we view the ancient sources with some scrutiny. You assume that those of us who do think this way, think that the ancients are all liars? Quite the jump to conclusions that I am certainly not taking. I prefer the ancients over every modern source but can still leave my mind open to the political situations of the time and various logical ideas. So if Tacitus hates Domitian and embellishes a few things, this does not distort the historical record? We simply should take it all as the exact truth because other contemporary people might have scrutinized it as well? Domitian was also the target of Christian era writers who attacked him as a great persecutor. The evidence is lacking, but since everyone hated Domitian anyway after years of slander, who would complain? An excellent review as an aside http://www.bibleworld.com/domper.pdf. I can't think of one prominent name nor can I think of any records of irrelevant historians who were executed simply for what they wrote. Artists and poets yes as they were generally far more open and scathing in their literature, but historians seemed to be a little more fortuitous. Suetonius was executed by Hadrian, but it was long after his work was published and appears to have been a personal issue involving the empress rather than any slanted historical accounts. (his writing stopped with Domitian anyway) Livy who wrote his works during the reign of Augustus, was noted by Tacitus as being a sympathizer with Republican values. Not only did Augustus allow wide circulation of Livy's works, but Livy was also close enough to the imperial family to be names a tutor to Claudius (hmm, perhaps that was a punishment considering the imperial family's view of Claudius ) Tacitus rose to govern the most prized Senatorial province of Asia minor despite his anti-tyranny writings. (in the ancient context essentially meaning anti-monarchy). Dio Cassius was prominent as a Senator under Commodus, served as governor of such provinces as Africa and Pannonia under Septimius Severus and was even protected from the Praetorians by Alexander Severus. Plutarch died an old man, Polybius too, though obviously long before the imperial era. Pliny the Younger (though not quite considered a historian as much as simply a primary first hand source) died an old man assumedly while serving in an administrative capacity abroad. Sallust retired from public life and presumably died of natural causes. Others who were not mentioned as having been killed: Frontinus, Aurelius Victor, Ammianus Marcellinus, Columella, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Galen, Herodian, Josephus (a great client to the Vespasian Dynasty), Quintilian (a tutor to Domitian's nephews who later 'disappeared' yet Quintilian survived), Pliny the Elder (a horrific death as Vesuvius but still not murder ), Strabo the geographer, Vegetius and Vitruvius. Notables who were killed.. Seneca was forced to suicide but was completely political in nature and would seemingly be completely unrelated to his writings (he enjoyed great power as Neronian adviser until Agrippina's death and the rise of Poppeia) Varro... proscribed Antonius but his works on language and agriculture hardly classifies as political in nature. Velleius Paterculus... his death is only speculative but his work on colonies and provinces can hardly be to blame if he was assassinated for his involvement in removing Sejanus.

Anything I've read on this thread and a previous one regarding Parenti, seems to be based entirely on the point of view. And even if it isn't, people here are intelligent enough to make their own decisions on the issue. Let's just leave it at that and move on.