Primus Pilus

It depends on your definition of 'won'. Could Spartacus have escaped north into Germania and established and maintained an independent 'raiding' force? I suppose so, but that wasn't the objective of a main part of his army. Even if they were all on the same page in that respect, escaping from Italy would've been one thing, moving an entire army unimpeded through hostile and already controlled Germanic territory may have been another. Had the Cilicians taken Spartacus and his army to the east, whether to eventually serve as a mercenaries to a foreign king or to simply disperse throughout the population, I suppose one could consider that a victory of sorts. However, there is no possibility whatsoever that Spartacus would've continued to win military victories against Consular legions. Even had he defeated Crassus, Pompey was on the march from Hispania with battle hardened veterans. And to top it off, these men were not just veterans but had been fighting against the guerilla tactics of Sertorius and would've been well suited to face the 'gladiator army'.

My work is not specifically about the relationship of the Senate to the princeps in the early 'empire' but it will give a general overview.. Early Empire There were 5 Julio-Claudians by the way... Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius/Caligula, Claudius and Nero.

Do you not notice the adaptation of the Christkindl into the Americanized Kris Kringle? There was a heavy German influence in early America and pieces of it survive in slightly altered states

Excellent point that did need to be made Cato. Sometimes in our zeal to point out the differences in the ancient and modern way of thinking, we sometimes gloss over some rather obvious notions.

Its a natural occurence in such a thread Flavius. By putting yourself 'out there' you are naturally put into a position to be questioned. Latin translation, being such an underused language is open to many criticisms and interpretations. Feel free to continue to 'translate' but perhaps you might suggest that you are not quite yet an 'expert' on the subject but still a student... willing to help and yet still learn. To those with contrary opinions to Flavius, please understand that he is a student attempting to share and be helpful. Let's try to offer correction with encouragement. Thanks all. And allow me to make the dislaimer that since my own knowledge of latin is elementary, UNRV.com doesn't officially endorse any translations within this thread.

Based on previous recommendations by DanM... In order to facilitate changes in our current 'library' of Roman books, we need to come up with some systems to help bring the plan together. First off, the current program which we use will not be able to provide the sort of in depth database that we will need. We haven't really even discussed this with Moonlapse yet, as he is hard at work revising our wallmap, but we will need a new program which can handle organizing entries by several categories, sub categories and of course being fully searchable. And to make sure we have more heads involved we'd like to have the ability for our own community members to make entries into the system. Regardless, thats just to give an idea of the challenge ahead. What we'd like to get for the time being is a list of main header categories for the collection. For now we will stick with Roman, but assuming that it will be a successful and useful tool we will try to expand it into other cultures and time periods. You may be thinking... but there is already a database, even if limited, at such places as amazon or bn.com. Yes, in a way, our database will mirror that of the online booksellers but will also include titles not readily available there. More importantly though, if you go to amazon.com and search for books about 'Roman Religion' your results may be all over the map because the database they use is far too generic in nature and not designed for such specific searches. This has been very frustrating to me personally and we hope that people can use our library to find specific and extremely relevant books in certain categories then make their own choices on where to buy it or find it in a physical library. With all that being said... the point of this post. I'd like to get some suggestions for both main and potential sub categories. While it may be some time before we are ready to get going on this, we would rather go in with some preparation than trying to make alot of decisions on the fly. Obviously the top Category will be Roman so as to allow for additional topics in the future without reinventing the wheel. After that though the whole thing is pretty wide open. Right now we have Fiction, Non-fiction, Movies and Games in our book section and this need to be expanded. Movies/TV and Games can stay, but perhaps documentaries shoud be added. Obviously Fiction and Non-Fiction are completely inadequate and we will need to have more descriptive and organized topic categories perhaps like Culture, Religion, Warfare, Republic (early and late), Empire (early and late), Biographies (or famous people, emperors, icons, whatever), Atlases, Ancient Sources, Fiction categories for time periods or styles liek mysteries that are quite a popular genre, etc. etc. Consider, what would make this something you would use. As of right now we want the actual entries to be simple: Title, Author, Category and subcategories and perhaps a short description. We will essentially provide the categorized list and once the list is there, its up to the searcher to determine which to 'buy' and where to find more information. Of course our own expanding list of featured reviews will continue to provide help in this regard, but as there will be thousands of entries, we can't review them all Anyway, this is my extremely long winded way of saying that your feedback and ideas are greatly appreciated.

So the aristocracy would wish posterity to believe. The actions of Claudius post accession indicate that Caligula's successor was far more cunning and politically astute than the senate would have preferred. The 'drooling idiot' certainly could not have survived simply because he was the favored target of every joke. He miraculously survived Augustus/Livia, Tiberius/Sejanus and Caligula. Somewhere within there must have been some redeeming qualities or wouldn't chances be good that Claudius would be purged to save family embarrassment? Perhaps not, but it seems that the appearance of Claudius cowering behind a curtain to be suspect and clearly stated (whether it is true or not) to assassinate his character. The senate had grand wishes of a restoration of a Republican system, but Claudius protection within the Praetorian camp prevented any Senatorial maneuvering. It just seems too ridiculous that Claudius was 'found behind the curtains' rather than having been whisked off as a logical alternative and perhaps previously determined piece of the puzzle. Even if Claudius had absolutely no part in the assassination of his nephew, I have always had a notion that the praetorians always had him in mind for bigger things. My basis for this... complete conjecture and personal opinion based primarily on Claudius ability to survive and effectiveness as the princeps.

Text of Livy Book 35 in Latin and English

My jealousy borders on the irrational. The first time in years post rifle season, I am venisonless Agony!

I'm not

Considering that someone or another predicts the end of humanity on an annual basis, I suppose one day one of these prognosticators will be right. I prefer to live on happily oblivious to all the prediction of impending doom. It makes it that much more exciting when fire rains down from heaven, if you didn't know it was coming

This is really disappointing news. I was planning on a big new years party in 2012. (the all important 12th anniversary of the the new millenium is worth celebrating, of course) I guess I need to move it up to 2011, but then its not really the 12th anniversary anymore is it?

Sulla didn't cross the Rubicon. In the first march on Rome he was in southern Italy preparing to cross the Adriatic in to Greece. On the return trip following the death of Cinna he crossed the Adriatic from Greece and landed at Brundisium and Tarentum, also in southern Italy. Regardless, Spartacus is a fine film, very entertaining and laced with a respectable amount of historical accuracy.

Indeed, but they cannot have grown large enough to have been remembered as 'falling' without having first conquered something. Regardless I concede the impending circular argument on this one.

Indeed, the Cimbri occupied the area of modern Denmark (called Chersonesus Cimbrica) and receding land seems to have been a major cause for their migration. Strabo book VII Chapter II courtesy of Lacus Curtius

Two threads of Caesar vs. Cato and the Optimates is enough.

There is indeed usually a point when great empires expand beyond the point of practical ability for control, however the logic of the quoted statement is flawed. Without conquest there would've been no great nations to fall.

The early Republic has long been ignored by film makers. The tale of Cincinnatus might be intriguing, or the very birth of the Republic. Perhaps the Pyrrhic war would be an interesting thing captured on film. At least we can look forward to two Hannibal films in the near future. As for the imperial period, I believe Trajan may be a good subject. Solid leadership and military adventure along with a strong female cast (his wife Pompeia Plotina, sister Marciana and niece Matidia) coupled with the dramatics at the end of Domitian's reign... Of course Constantine in an epic adventure on film would end up butchered in one form or another I'm sure (either too pro or too anti christian). But his life would be a excellent subject for such a feature.

The article leaves things definately undetermined. What I read at the HBO forum indicates that an Italian news agency reported that work on the set had been halted. Apparantly North American news agencies picked this up and jumped to the conclusion that the show has been cancelled. Nobody seems to know for sure, and HBO/BBC are both mum. I don't think we will know anything definate until the final show airs in the UK. I'm sure the BBC would be none to pleased if HBO announces the show as a failure before it is yet to finish its 1st season run on in the UK.

Btw, sorry to hijack the thread Ursus.. though I suppose its all related.

All right guys, take your shot. How was Cato, who had no armies and never served as consul, MORE responsible for the fall of the Republic than the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Catiline, Clodius, Caesar, and Octavian? This I've got to hear. Only by failing to offer any sort of compromise in order to allow Caesar to return to Rome with honor rather than disgrace. While its certainly an attitude that helped push Caesar towards civil war, its hardly the ultimate cause. Caesar had the ability to fall on the sword to preserve his honor rather than march across the Rubicon, but he chose the alternative. I find them all to carry a burden of responsibilty (unless one considers the Republic a failed institution in which case there is no need to carry a burden), the Gracchi for their demagoguery, Marius, Sulla and Cinna for their well attested destructive rivalries, Caesar for his personal ambition to outshine Alexander, the 'Optimates' for failing to understand that compromise was necessary to save the Republic, even the Assassins for failing to have a plan once Caesar was dead, Cicero for playing Octavian against Antonius and actually helping to increase his support and popularity, Antonius for being a brutish political fool.......

Quite frankly, we don't know just how widespread Christianity was at any given point, but there are indicators and of course many educated guesstimates. The famous letters between Pliny the Younger and Trajan in the early part of the 2nd century indicate that Christianity is not much more than a nuisance. However, the increase of Christian writers in the middle to later part of the same century clearly indicates a corresponding increase in popularity. Still Christianity's earliest success came mostly in the east which was not the favored recruiting ground of Roman legions (though auxilia was plentiful in their own geographic regions). The initial barbarization of the legions is much more dependent on economic and nationalistic conditions than anything else. In the early Republic the armies were made up of landowners and service to Rome was a deeply ingrained civic responsibility. In effect, to serve Rome was to prove one's own honorable status. As Rome expanded, slavery increased and with it the vast number of landless/unemployed 'peasantry', the army turned to these masses to fill its ranks. Not only were soldiers then offered a chance for land and a pension based on service, but the spoils of war offered fabulous opportunity for wealth that these men never could've had in civilian affairs. With the advent of the imperial standing army, legions began to find themselves in near permanent stations throughout the empire. No longer were they necessarily mobile armies raised as needed, but permanent garrisons to guard Rome's slowly stagnating borders. Trajan offered the last real expansion of imperial borders, though others certainly went on campaigns across these lines, but with this end to expansion, the opportunity for spoils through conquest slowly disappeared. Without these opportunities, and a sense of nationalistic honor and glory for the traditional Italian/Latin recruit, the army had to turn to other sources for recruiting purposes. The permanent garrisons, along with the local familiarity of both the army and the civilians, recruiting at the point of origin became much more commonplace. By the time Caracalla offered citizenship to all free male inhabitants within the imperial borders in AD 212, the concept of citizenship, honor and service to the greater glory of Rome was all but lost. Over the course of the next couple of centuries, military recruiting among provincials was slowly supplemented and then replaced with the tactic of appeasing Rome's aggressive neighbors. By bringing potentially dangerous Germanic neighbors into the imperial fold by giving them an opportunity for military spoils and regular payments once afforded to Italians and then provincials, Rome was able to delay the inevitable for some time. Obviously this is a quite watered down version of a fairly mammoth cultural and social shift, but I hope it conveys the general idea.

I am certainly no expert on the Pagan traditions, but the relationship between Saturnalia, Mithras and Christianity is an appropriate discussion as we approach the 'holiday' season. I'm not looking for a review of which religion is 'right' or 'wrong' but simply what are the connections and why we celebrate the way we do. By the way, for those Christians among us, there is no reason to be offended by the truth of our customs. The how, why and when of how we celebrate Christmas has nothing to do with your belief in the divinity of Christ, but is simply the result of human influences. For example... The Christmas Tree has its roots in the ancient eastern cult of Nimrod and the evergreen was symbolic of the rebirth of Gilgamesh?, if I understand correctly. (Of course its roots are copied in every form of the pagan traditions and each culture had its own versions). Regardless, the reverence of the Evergreen, fir or palm tree used both inside the home and on doorways and such as a symbol of protection against spirits and hope for the future spread west to Egypt, the Germanics and the Celts. It continued for centuries throughout Europe, especially it seems among the Germanic peoples, and continued on obviously until the present day. Legend points to Martin Luther as being among the first to use the lighted and decorated tree as a symbol of Christ, but there really doesn't seem to be any real evidence for this. However, it seems to have been sometime around the 16th century, that ancient pagan ritual of the 'tree' was being adopted and accepted even by the churches as a symbol of Christmas rather than something that should be opposed. Feel free to expand or correct of course...

Indeed, Le Morte d'Arthur written in the 15th century is the basis for the commonly understood Arthurian legend (based predominantly of course on Geoffrey of Monmouth). I believe it was Mallory's work which introduced such things as Lancelot, Excalibur and the sword in the stone, etc. We can make the assumption that he drew on older texts which in theory have been lost, but its quite obvious that Mallory spun a tale of fiction based partly on legend, partly on old monk texts, and partly on his own imagination. Despite this commonly understood fictional story, it doesn't change the idea that the 'King Arthur' concept came from somewhere.

Absolutely in theory. However, as Christianity evolved into a common public practice in the 4th century, the idea of the original pacifist Christians was beginning to become deluded. A common soldier practicing Christianity would've been less concerned over his 'violent occupation' than the earliest Christians who avoided not only the army but public service of any sort. Again with the similarity to Mithraism, the adoption of Christianity within the legions theoretically could have gone off without a noticeable change. And indeed the legions were already becoming heavily reliant upon provincials and 'barbarians' because of numerous factors. Its been estimated that Italian recruits made up less than 1% of the Roman army as early as the late 2nd century AD and early third century (Severus through Caracalla), which, considering that Christianity's massive growth came considerably later, would lead us to believe that Christianity played little part in forcing the Romans to use 'barbarian pagan' recruits.