Primus Pilus

I voted Republic despite its flaws as an exclusive oligarchy. It had the potential to be the most 'fair' or productive, and the idea that it was sometimes not is not necessarily the fault of the system but of individual opportunists who undermined said system. Certain protections and opportunities existed for all members of the society at one time or another and government was limited by law and rules vs. the whims of a single man... regardless of whether he was a sound administrator, an inadequate and debilitating tyrant or something in between. [edit] and in reference to my post in the other 'principate vs. dominate thread'... because the Republic was inadequate at dealing with the growth and expansion was again not necessarily the fault of the system but of human failings.

This may sound strange... but Cannae. Destroyed, overwhelmed, thoroughly humiliated and any adjective you can think of... Yet, Rome perservered and defied the enemy in the face of what could have been ultimate disaster, while largely maintaining loyalty from its Italian allies. By the definition of the question I know I am wrong, as any loss on this scale could not be defined as tactical victory, but Rome's quick recovery and resiliency is among the defining moments that made Rome what it was, in my opinion of course.

Yes, but it was only stable while it was confined to a limited area. As it grew beyond the means for Republican government to effectively control it, and with growing corruption and 'personal opportunities', it failed. Citing stability within the Republican period over the principate fails to recognize the changes in environmental conditions. I am certainly not advocating the Prinicipate over the Republic, but merely pointing out that the conditions which helped create the Principate stemmed from Republican inefficiency. To have the 'stability' that we would crave we would have to go back to the era just before or just after the Punic Wars when there was some Plebeian inclusion and relative class balance. Prior to that and shortly after that, class issues could be considered just as problematic as despotism considering the scale of those involved. This also leaves out the periods of the Decemvirs and the Military Tribunes. Yes, this was largely a peaceful transition period where Plebeians slowly gained inclusion, but it (along with several withdrawals of the Plebes to the Sacred Mount) also is an indication that things weren't all that rosey. Better than despotism? Yes, but we're only at the earliest stages along a path that led right to its door. The elitism that continued to develop among the traditional aristrocracy as other classes gained certain societal/political accesses was only a first step in this terribly unstable course. That being said... I do believe that had Rome not expanded beyond the Italian peninsula (including Sicilia, Sardinia and Corsica) the continual slide may have been avoided. Class instability would have been manageable (in my opinion) rather than having become an overwhelming, reoccurring and evolving (from class problems of traditional Romans to Latin rights to citizenship) problem with the expansion of both the citizen roles and slavery. Of course, had they not expanded, who knows what rival force may have destroyed them. Classic catch-22 I suppose.

Feel free to arrange an elaborate poll regarding the Republican system

Actually this one would be a bit better... Roman Provinces However, these are basic overviews and I did not go into great detail on any particular economic aspect.

Considering that Christianity is largely an amalgamation of both its poly and other monotheistic predecessors, perhaps the world wouldn't be that much different without it.

I too find it very well done and applaud the reviewer for calling out the work in question largely for the ahistorical trash that it appears to be.

Thanks to the dictatorial decrees of Caesar and the introduction of the Julian Calendar circa 45 BC, the western world will celebrate the beginning of the year on January 1. Though those crazy Catholics tried to ban the paganistic celebrations of January 1 in the middle ages, good old Pope Gregor gave it back to us with his calendar in 1582. Just imagine how confused we would be if December was actually still the 10th month and March was the beginning of the year. At any rate, we'd like to thank all of our active members of this forum for making this a great destination for Romanophiles everywhere. Cheers and many happy returns! Vale MMV, Salve MMVI!

And here I thought the admirers of Cato were, in your words, "intellectual equivalents of the mullet-wearing-camaro-driver". Or does the brandy-snifting, pipe-puffing, Bristish aristocrat who likes Cato also wear a mullet and drive a Camaro??? To avoid muddling the colorful stereotypes, perhaps you might just refrain from painting all of us with such a broad brush? Isn't it possible that some of us regard Caesar's DICTATORSHIP as the ultimate "expropriation of power by the few and the mass disenfranchisement of the majority"? Must we search out old threads to rehash the same reoccuring argument? I don't see anything wrong with stating ones case, but this has turned into a rather 'tit for tat' discussion.

Hey, we even have a direct link on their Caesar IV Links page.

Some of it is coming back to me now... just wait until the Battle of Chalons. Its like the director told the reenactors... 'Just run around alot yelling and such. If you get close to anyone pretend like you want to fight them but make sure the audience understands that you clearly don't mean to hurt anyone, and certainly wouldn't swing your weapon with even feigned authority'. Heh

I'd just like to point out that the modern views expressed in the name of Christianity are generally born of the churches that have bastardized the original concepts. I think it makes more sense to label the churches rather than the religion itself in most cases.

I recall watching part of it and being disappointed. Honestly, that's all I really remember... Well that and everytime I see Powers Booth I think of Jim Jones and the People's Temple. Somehow that role he played is burned into my psyche.

Thanks Crassus, that will do nicely to help fill in the blanks. Very generic and simple is perfectly fine. Jona Lendering's work at Livius.org is already excellent and I don't see any reason to repeat his efforts entirely.

Agreed. I liked the movie for pure entertainment value, but was generally appalled at the history.

Oh, I always thought he was a slave but not Thracian. Can you give me the sources for the view Spartacus was Roman citizen, I'm quite interested now. Umm, read the accounts above. Appian suggests he was a legionary, Plutarch does not. Both say he was Thracian though Plutarch also suggests a more Hellenized disposition.

Captain America and Batman. Both largely just regular humans who could make an impact on their respective worlds without super powers. One fights for justice to support the 'American Dream' while the other fights for justice in the name of vengeance, but each are like a different shade of the same hero. And the good thing is... despite the fact that I haven't read a comic book in many years, I could pick one up today and read essentially the same stories that I did all those years ago

I'm not sure what truly inspired my love of Rome, but I think it was just always there. As a history enthusiast I love all periods and an early fascination with American history (and its foundational ties to Republican Rome) certainly helped foster my 'Romanophilia'. I remember as a child asking my mom to get me the biggest piece of poster board she could find so I could make a huge continuous chart of Roman Emperors by lineage. Imagine my disappointment when I realized there was no connection between most and organizing such a chart by lineage was quite simly impossible. The memory is vivid despite the many years that have passed. Perhaps it was that simple event that inspired part of UNRV.com.

I'll echo the sentiments regarding contributions. There is plenty of information available to do at least scant bio's on all the listed legions, its just something that got put on the shelf and I never got back to it

Indeed, they may have said such things but to report that they 'believed' Augustus restored the Republic is misleading. I suppose the genius of Augustus was that he veiled the transition of power from Republic to Principate in such a way that even contemporaries did not see it. However, regardless of what they saw, it is quite clear that the Principate was the dissolution of the Republican system as a true governing authority. Certainly there were traditions left, the Senate itself, the magistracies, etc., but Augustus was a monarch in all but name.

I like most others agree that the term 'Byzantine' is a misnomer. You'll notice that it is surrounded in quotes when referenced on this site (simply to indicate that what it is known as and not necessarily a correct term).

I read that the jury was still out on why Augustus exiled Ovid and that it may have been an error on Augustus' part rather than Ovid's. Granted Ovid's "Art of Love" might have caused a scandal, but was it really any more scandalous than anything else around? For that matter, Julia was already pretty independent, and I have a tough time believing that a poem could turn a prude into a harlot (even a very good poem ). He was Augustus.. if he said it was Ovid's fault... then it was Ovid's fault. Yes its personal opinion, though one that has a wide (even if contested) level of acceptance.

Good question... moved.

The two main sources... Plutarch Life of Crassus Appian the Civil Wars book 1 (begins with part XIV near the end) Its a shame that Cassius Dio's account of that time period is very fragmentary as he was famous for adding speeches into his accounts to bring his characters to life. Unfortunately the existing texts don't go into any detail. Still you might want to read some of his work to get familiar with the style of ancient 'speech writing'. Cassius Dio the Roman History

There is a way to make them either singular or reoccurring