Primus Pilus

The complete 'conversion' of Constantine and the symbolism of Christianity at Milvian Bridge is also debatable. However, even allowing that the events occured according to Christian tradition, the legions were readily accustomed to the very similar cult of Mithras and those similarities certainly would've made Christianity an acceptable practice.

Indeed, Ursus is enthusiastic enough to take the time to actually cut out useless posts from threads and send them to Tartarus rather than just deleting them. Thanks to that we can all get a chuckle from some of this stuff. As for the flood control... I could've sworn that we went over this before and had it down to 30 seconds. I know that since we started this forum, I've only had to wait to post perhaps once or twice, and these were because of trying to edit immediately after posting. I think it may have reset to the default when we upgraded the forum version. I'll see if I can find it.

Vespasion, please use the quote feature to reply to the person in question. Without re-reading the entire thread, its difficult to know who you are speaking to.

Just for the record, I wasn't comparing the legitimacy or warfare, only making a point that blaming one event alone on the ultimate fall of the empire (when it happened 500 years before the collapse of the west) is failing to take into account all the events that led up to it, and all those that may have occured as a result or in spite of its occurence. If that makes sense [edit]At any rate, though it may seem to some I am a supporter of Caesar, I am for the most part neutral on the matter. I just respond in such a manner when I feel that issues in the ancient world are being labelled in a context of modern morality. If that's not the case I apologize, its sometimes just a vibe that I pick up.

Celtic Fleet

And yes, I can easily recognize historical mistakes and their ramifications before something is suggested otherwise. Singular incidents can be more easily identifiable such as Crassus' campaigns in Parthia, or the defeat of Varus. Both of which one can easily identify as a 'bad' event from the Roman perspective. People can argue that without Teutoburg, perhaps Drusus, Tiberius and Germanicus conquer all of Germania and the later course of history is altered. However, something as large and consuming in historical context as the Gallic conquest is far more difficult to readily identify all of its ramifications and whether or not these ramifications are truly indicative of the conquest on its own merit, or whether a multitude of other mitigating factors can be applied.

Perhaps the Gallic War was another event in the chain which brought about Rome's ultimate demise. However, I would argue against suggesting that the Gallic War stand alone as a 'good' or 'bad' event in the chain of Roman history. I don't believe we can pick out a single event and label it as such without doing the same with every other event in the chain. If the Gallic War is bad, would not the conquest of Hispania and Africa be bad? Without those events, Caesar may not have existed let alone led an army into Gaul. In that case, would not these conquests actually be the events which led to ultimate enmity with various migrating Germanics. Or was it the campaigns of Sulla, Lucullus and Pompey against Mithridates which led to inevitable and debilitating conflict with Parthia eventually allowing the Arab conquests of the 'Byzantine' Empire? Perhaps if the Romans had simply not thrown off the yolk of Etruscan rule, then harmony would've ruled in Europe for the past 2 millenia.

I'll echo the sentiment of DanM. Most people in the modern era find war hard to justify no matter the circumstances, but in the ancient context, the Romans had little need for justification beyond the oft cited 'cry for help from a Roman ally'. Considering that Caesar was twice voted a period of thanks from the Senate (even with Cicero as one of the supporters) its difficult to see that the war was not accepted, at least in its earlier stages. Its not until much later that political resistance to Caesar's growing power became the major issue. I'm sure several members of the Senate were concerned over brutality and tactics, I wouldn't suggest otherwise, but few people (especially the common man) were initially resistant to the campaign. Other than Caesar's Gallic war, I can't think of any Roman war that was opposed from the very start. Everyone knew what Crassus was up to prior to his Parthian campaign, and while there was definate resistance to anything done by the so called triumvirate, there is little evidence of open opposition to his campaign. In fact several optimates were probably glad for him to be away from Rome. I suppose the best case that I can think of would be the story of Cato the Elder and 'Carthago Delende Est'. If the tales of his rallying cry for the final destruction of Carthage can be believed it would lead us to believe that there was considerable resistance to the idea. However, since at least part of the story is perhaps the invention of a much later historian, I doubt the Romans were too terribly opposed to finishing off their Mediterranean rival.

I too have always admired Pompey's abilities. It can really be seen in his earlier days under Sulla. Unfortunately his campaigns against the guerilla Sertorius in Hispania were not exceptional, the eastern expeditions are clouded by the 'softening' of resistance by Lucullus, and of course his indecisiveness against Caesar left a poor final legacy. However, as we must also understand that Pompey ended up on the losing side of the civil war, the propoganda machine certainly did him no favors. Unfortunately, I'm unable to edit poll choices or I would add him

Indeed, but Moonlapse was suggesting as an optimist that we can even make the smallest of differences by instilling certain values or ideals in our children. No worries, I'm sure his intention was not for us to actually discuss our families.

The ark is one of those things in biblical text that certainly must have some basis in hsitorical truth. Would it contain the original 10 commandents handed down by god himself, or does it have the power to level entire armies, etc.... as an atheist I would obviously think not, but finding such an artifact would still be of immense cultural and historical value regardless of the religious and mythical extras that are attached to its legend. As such, despite my own religious views, I'd be willing to argue in favor of its inclusion as a great lost artifact. Just thinking outloud along a similar path, would not discovering something such as 'Excalibur' or some other item of Arthurian legend be an archaeological find that could prove, disprove or alter the course of European history? Unfortunately there is little historical record to support much of the legend as we know it and it would certainly be difficult to accept anything as a 'great artifact' that has been lost to us.

OK--you got me. Against the men, women, and children of Gaul, Caesar was merely guilty of stealing, enslaving, beheading, crucifying, torturing, or plain slaughtering thousands upon thousands of innocents, people who posed no threat to Rome whatever, who paid taxes, who engaged in trade, and who were very often baited into opposing her. Caesar's decision that the Gallic tribes could never govern themselves peacably certainly sounds like the opinion of a racist, but technically Caesar was not guilty of genocide. I should also mention that among the conquering nations of the ancient world, Roman conquest (even under Caesar) brought more benefits than brought by other conquerors. Still...Caesar was a very bad man. Indeed slaughter and conquest in the name of Rome and its greater glory was acceptable to most ancient people and in most cases revered and encouraged. Even the optimates were not so opposed to the Gallic War on a human rights basis, but for reasons made up entirely of law and politics. At any rate, I'll leave you guys to your political debate.

one example: the Roman Imperial Cult and the Jews. Yes, it was political, cultural and religious, but there was still proverbial blood on the hand for what essentially boiled down to a religious dispute. Again, lets refocus this back on the military discussion that was intended.

And I once heard that there was this rather small and insignificant city on that peninsula that would never have been important enough to inspire a web site discussion group

Before this goes too far off on a religious tangent, allow me to interject that while Christian history is often under attack on this forum, religion has long been and still is an excuse for war, and is/was not the exclusive domain of Christianity.

Arguments for either side are being presented well, but I do take issue once again with the use of the term genocide to describe Caesar's Gallic war. The term by definition is incorrect, and is used only to sensationalize the argument. The Gallic War may have been many things, including an opportunistic chance for Caesar to increase his own wealth and dignitas, but it was not genocide by definition. His goal was not to destroy the Gallic and Britannic Celts or the Germanic tribes of the Rhenus. Had they submitted to his will (which can however easily speak for his ambitions), there would have been little reason for the casualties associated with military warfare and the punitive death of civilians. While we can look at the events and call Caesar's tactics brutal, which they were, we must understand his ultimate goal. Understanding that his original intention seems to have been a campaign to subjugate various Illyrian tribes, one can see that Caesar just wanted to lead an army to military glory, anywhere and against anyone. If Caesar had been granted his proconsular command in another part of the Roman world (in Africa or the east for example), you can be sure he would've found a way to begin a campaign of conquest despite the lack of Celtic presence. As the Helvetii and associated circumstances provided an easier path to that glory, Caesar jumped (probably with complete and unadulterated joy and excitement) at the opportunity. Had the Celts not resisted (not that one can assign blame for resistance) and had they deferred to Caesar's will after the defeat of the Helvetii the Gauls would have been incorporated into the growing Empire without major incident, as the surviving tribes and allies of Caesar eventually were anyway. Had Caesar desired their destruction, then there would've been no point in extending the Romanization to any of the Celts, and systematic destruction that ended after the 'war' would've continued indefinately beyond the defeat of Vercingetorix and the wide spread rebellion. These events as genocide don't compare to various major genocidal events that are easily identifiable especially in the 20th century, where the destruction of an ethnicity, race or religious group was the aim. Caesar's goal was conquest and subjugation, not ultimate destruction. Whether we agree with his tactics, his ideals or his results, I will always maintain that his actions were not genocide despite the great number of associated deaths. I understand that this is a fine line and one can argue that Caesar did indeed punish the most resistant enemy tribes with complete annhiliation or enslavement. However, these were actions that were punitive in nature (yes, also understanding that he forced them to choose resistance or acceptance), designed not only as retribution for resistance, but to serve as a warning to others. Why give such a warning if the goal is to destroy or eliminate everyone? Conquest by its very nature can be brutal and consuming, but does not necessarily equate to the goals associated with genocide.

Would the Great Library be considered too generic and nondescript? While certainly the building was probably marvelous in its own right, its the contents that were really the tragedy.

Oh, by the by, current line of discussion aside, my actual prediction for the future is that at some point, I will be dead. Yes, Nostradamus I'm not, but I'm fairly confident in my accuracy.

Excellent idea... I have a nomination. The Rosetta Stone. Not so valuable in a monetary sense as a piece of jewelry or even as a symbol of human history, but its contribution to understanding the language of the ancient world cannot be calculated.

Well, as sad as it is, at least he knew who they were

Its poorly worded certainly, but the general condition of life in parts of the middle east has led to mass relocation into Europe and the United States. However, birth rate issues coupled with quality of life are a definate problem in many areas of the world and not the mitigating cause of hatred between cultures. The lack of perceived ability for muslims to care for their children is not the issue (and certainly not true), even those of wealth and station are in many cases resistant to western idealism. Its the fundamental differences in lifestyle that is the issue, as evidenced by the statement which reflects the differences between what we may or may not see as 'quality of life'. Levelling economic conditions across the world would certainly help, but hatred and war, etc will not cease until all people become drones who live in a state of a utopian 'borg' collective. Even if we were all equal in an economic sense, the issues of cultral idealism, religions, etc. would still exist.

Indeed this is true in the case of the Republic and there is plenty of evidence suggested throughout the late Republic with magistrates seeking to avoid political prosecution by both election to office and/or appointments to governorships. However, my knowledge of the position in the imperial period is sketchy. Legionary commanders were apparantly granted 5 lictors to show inferiority to the governors, who were granted 6. However Praefects were not generally entitled to lictors in the Republican period though they did serve as governors after Augustus reformed the nature of the provincial authority. In that case they too must have had 6 lictors, though obviously the nature of imperium was a much different situation in the imperial period anyway. I suppose that discussion regarding positions of authority in the imperial period will be a never ending debate.

I would agree with the general consensus of using a forum discussion to cite for a paper, however I stand by my work in the Roman History of this site, which I believe was the direction of the original post?

Ahh yes. Sometimes I take for granted even the simplest things in history and am constantly reminded that few people actually care. I even remember a time way back when in high school when our political science teacher was discussing the ramifications of using atomic weapons in Japan. One of my fellow students actually shouted out... OMG, we dropped atomic bombs on people? Needless to say, I was stunned that someone at about 16ish years of age had never even heard of this. I've long since grown tragically accustomed to the fact that I share the planet with a vast majority of people who find my interests are completely abnormal. Hence UNRV.com, where even if we members disagree on philosophy at least there is a place where history can be discussed with others of similar interests

I think this is a great idea as well. I've often thought that our books section lacked a certain topical search functionality. I agree with Viggen that if we revamp it a bit it could provide an easy solution to expand the 'library'.