Primus Pilus

while unpleasant, I think Cato is accurately describing things only from the plaintiffs viewpoint.

Thanks Cato... as long as you click a single link and order everything at the same time... we will get credit for them all.

Except we must also acknowledge the circumstances surrounding the 'Empire' at the time the principate was founded. Much like our discussion in the 'What could've saved the Republic' thread, the best government choice may really be dependent upon the era. Had the Republic continued who knows how many more civil wars it may have endured by comparison to the relative peace of the early empire. Aside from AD 69, there was not a wide spread civil war until the death of Commodus in AD 193. That's nearly 200 years of relative stability even understanding the somewhat violent transitions of some periods (ie Caligula to Claudius and Domitian to Nerva) Personally I still prefer the tradional aspects of Republican rule, but it just wasn't equipped to handle the ever growing private armies of the imperators.

No, that about sums it up, but I would tend to think that the Ptolemies may have looked to other eastern royal families (as they had done with the first Arsinoe and Berenice, etc.) rather than slaves to continue the line of heredity. A nice stemmata... Ptolemy Lineage As you can see there seems to be confusion with the lineage of Cleopatra VII's grandfather as well as grandmother. The confusion doesn't necessarily indicate a deviation from Greek/Macedonian heritage.

I know Bill Thayer put together a nice photo journal of it on his site at Lacus Curtius

As with most of the ancient source material in the ancient world... it comes from either a Greek or Roman perspective. Even the details regarding Trajan's campaigns in Dacia are largely lost as Cassius Dio's account is fragmentary. Unfortunately, unlike Tacitus' surviving account of other northern tribes in 'Germania', there is no such account of the Dacians. Although 'Germania' hardly provides the sort of insight you'd be looking for anyway.

A couple of imbedded links regarding the population of the empire... Empire population distribution

We will unfortunately not be getting any more works from one of the great modern historians. Passing of Michael Grant

Just want to say that my thoughts are with you and your family and from mine to yours, we hope all are doing well. Chris

Interesting I also could access it a bit earlier.. I just didnt have a chance to read. Perhaps since they clearly mean it not to be public access... should I remove the link?

Absolutely. I think you'll find that most of us here are well aware of the popoganda inherent in the writings of the ancients. Suetonius sure would be alot more boring to read if he hadn't thrown a little propoganda around here and there though

No, Britannia was never considered important to the Romans as an agricultral resource. It was primarily a source for various metals (ie tin, iron, etc.) and the need for these metals was one factor precipitating the Claudian invasion. Grains for mass distribution and consumption were largely imported from the warmer climates of the Mediterranean. (ie Sicily, Africa, Egypt, even Asia) This is not to say that each province, Britannia included, did not maintain quality farmland, they just produced mainly for the local populations and weren't considered important as export 'granaries'. Considering the large presence of legionaries and auxilia in Britannia, and the logistics of its far off location, its possible that the occupation may have even put a larger strain on the Empire's granaries than if they had never invaded. That hypothesis would require considerably more research, however.

I've never read this one in particular but have enjoyed several of Grant's works over the years. I've always highly reccomended him, especially to those who may be first entering the field of ancient studies. As for Cleopatra... No worries there, she is very much a piece of Roman history. She had a great deal of influence on key players and various circumstances surrounding the final fall of the Republic, so she is perfectly appropriate to discuss here.

I see the church more as a representative of early European feudal monarchy than as a precursor to democracy. The Pope was the Monarch, while Archbishops, Bishops etc functioned as the lords who swore fealty to the king. Continuing all the way down the line there were the individual priests who could represent such local magistracies as town mayors, sheriffs, petty knights etc.

Absolutely, we've only scratched the surface, but these things were major factors in loyalty. Still, even personal charisma of an officer has an effect on loyalty of his troops so there is much more to it than benefits. However, retirement of veterans, including land settlement, was a reoccuring and dominant issue for the armies of the Late Republic. Its not a coincidence (from a political standpoint) that such measures were a problem when we can see how very closely related giving land to veterans, raised from the plebeian mob, was to various other agrarian laws and plebe/latin right entitlement issues of the day.

Plunder was always a factor when it came to the post Marian legionary. Just like in the example provided regarding Sulla, the soldiers in the late Republic didn't care much about right and wrong or law and justice (in a generic collective sense, I'm sure as individuals there were plenty who did), they cared about making a living from their occupation. Earning that living included campaigning against foriegn nations or cultures. Sulla's men were easy to convince because failing to support their commander may have resulted in their dismissal when Marius took over and assembled his own army. The thought of marching on Rome wasn't so bad because they were preserving their own chance at a campaign in the wealthy east. In Caesar's case, the issue was a little more difficult because the plunder had already been gained. The common soldier in theory had little to gain in a civil war in this case and I find it hard to believe that they were really all that enraged over the treatment of the tribunes... I think more importantly, it was Caesar, and Caesar alone who promised them retirement lands. As far as they knew (whether true or not, what they believed is important) they would be completely dismissed and ignored once they gave up their arms. This in itself is indicative of the Senate's failings. Retirement benefits to veterans were rarely gained without a fight. The army in the post Marian era seems to have been viewed by the non military aristocracy with an air of contempt. The generals of the period who were the ultimate protector of their benefit rights against a resistant Senate unintentionally pushed the generals into a position siding with the populares. The notable exceptions (off the top of my head) were Metellus in Africa whose men were largely inherited by Marius leaving him free from dealing with the issue of retirement, Sulla, who pre-empted any Senatorial resistance to his veterans by taking matters into his own hands, and Lucullus who like Metellus had his command transferred to Pompey before he too was forced to deal with it. Pompey of course did have to deal with it and because of it was forced into Caesar's camp. Had the Senate had the foresight... the triumvirate may have been crushed before it ever began. (I am quickly jotting these notes down as I am late leaving work, lol, I'll likely refine this line of thought as the discussion unfolds)

I agree & I think that is what the original sculpter had in mind. It was apparently quite a revolutionary humanitarian depiction for the time. So I imagine an ordinary Roman would feel sympathy where if it was viewed by a Legionary who fought them would feel contempt. However, wasn't this found in Sallust's garden? Every time I see that piece I can't help but envision a young Michelangelo (and other members of the Renaissance cultural set) being inspired by it. Obviously one intention of the Renaissance was a renewal of classical art, but the style is so strikingly similar I'm still amazed by it.

Because as the discussion has loosely suggested so far, the legions were dependent upon the commander who raised them for not only their safety and care (including supply) in regards to any campaign, but for financial gain in the way of plunder. Perhaps more importantly and often ignored it was also this same general who was responsible for retiring his veterans and providing them with land. Had the Senate taken control of 'retirement benefits' by centralizing and standardizing it for all who served (as done by Augustus) perhaps some of the loyalty shown to the generals would have been transferred. Mind you the first two points (safety and plunder) would still be the domain of the general, but at least loyalty might have been tested if the common soldier stood to lose something that was guaranteed by the state itself.

Absolutely.. according to Appian all but one quaestor abandoned Sulla. Plutarch unfortunately mentions nothing of it however. Appian, The Civil Wars, Book 3

Indeed, I was simply using a well known Roman 'artifact' outside of Italy to illustrate my question.

In the future, please take the time to double check your spelling and grammar. Many of your posts appear nonsensical because of this issue.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Should Britain hand over control of Hadrian's Wall to the EU or are you actually proposing that it should be dismantled and distributed all over Europe? Or do you mean that just the Italians should have to do this with their heritage?

Indeed, but that's largely because he allowed his 'elders' to administer. Its not so much that he was an excellent politician in the early part of his reign so much that he deferred to those who more capable. (though I suppose by definition that qualifies one as a good ruler )

Favorite Books: Non fiction: Tacitus the Annals - whom I prefer over all the other ancients not only for his style but because I also believe his work to be the most dedicated to true historical reporting. Caesar 'the Gallic Wars and the Civil Wars'. Despite the inherent propoganda, the work is brilliant and describes a pivotal era of human history. Of course there are many great books in the 'non-fiction' category but I generally read them only once, maybe twice. I can read the ancients many times over... hence they classify as my favorites even if modern sources provide more insightful analysis. Fiction: The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. An absolutely brilliant recreation of feudal Britain set in the time period of the civil wars just before Thomas Beckett and Henry II. A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin. My favorite 'fantasy' writer in an ever growing genre. His work his more about medieval style heraldy then the typical magic wielding wizards that one would find in that field. Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield. Truly a masterpiece of historical fiction that retells the story of the '300' at the battle of thermopylae.

That thread is now here.