Primus Pilus

I suppose Pliny the Younger did if you count letters addressed to him (regarding the eruption of Vesuvius and the role of Pliny the Elder). Otherwise I can't recall Plutarch, Suetonius or Josephus mentioning Tacitus by name. Doesn't mean they didn't but the notion's not ringing any bells for me. Since most mentions of sources by the ancients are rather vague (ie "It has been said that..." or "Some have suggested that...) it would be difficult to know if the writers may be referring to other historians.

Generally speaking, I tend to read things that I already have some general knowledge of, but obviously one can't always keep everything straight. I prefer a rather simplistic index (or alphabetic list) with a short description... Titles and dates works for me, perhaps important relatives and/or political associations. If it gets too in depth in this part, it defeats the purpose of the broader text of the book (in my opinion).

Plutarch mentions some possible strife (though hardly anything definitive) in Life of Antonius 9-10 It's possible that Cicero may have made claims that Caesar disliked in Antony in the Philippics to sway the people against him, but I don't recall any specific incident. Any determination from those lengthy works would require a rather in-depth review of course. It's also important to point out the contrary that several sources clearly indicate Caesar's trust of Antonius on the battlefield and with political appointments (at least in general)

Do you recall in the documentary if it was after Antonius' general failings in administering Rome during Caesar's absence? If it was after, then the account could be considered generally accurate (I'm guessing of course since I haven't seen it).

That's quite the list of nominees... you're up against some fantasy powerhouses and some very promising newcomers like Abercrombie and Ruckley as well. I'm embarrassed to admit that I still haven't read your book, but I'm going out today to pick up a copy so I can vote pre-armed.

Since they never fought, there's really no way to predict. Regardless, it's not as if the Argyraspides were an entire army, but rather a single unit (for lack of a better term or clarity of numbers) of hand-selected veterans. Think more along the line of the Praetorian guard (though most likely more elite in skill and experience and in far less numbers).

It's not necessarily nonsense that Gracchus said this and that Livy recorded an oral version of it (while very likely highly embellished). I don't necessarily think that this was an Augustan directive though, but rather good storytelling. In any case, despite what Livy suggests that Gracchus said, he never states that the people did this during Scipio's actual fall from political grace but protection from prosecution by the masses (Livy 38.50-53). If it was an Augustan directive, I'd be willing to bet that Livy would've had to insert this information during the direct telling of Scipio's actual story.

In the spirit of holiday cheer, just wanted to take a moment to say Merry Christmas to all of you crazy Christians out there. Hope you are having a wonderful day. I woke to find Maty's book "Ancient Rome on 5 Denarii a Day" peeking out from my stocking. My wife had no clue that he is a prominent member of our forum. That really made my day. Cheers everyone!

Seems to be that Claudius was just making an announcement that such behavior was acceptable and should not be shunned. Perhaps Suetonius was simply taking an opportunity to label Claudius as crass regardless of the truth of such an edict, but I think this fits the emperor's personality.

Shhh...! We're hiding from the Optio. PP, deal me another card. GPM, I'll meet you and raise you ten. -- Nephele Uh oh, I found a cask of wine in here....

March, 2005. Mind you the article is introductory not authoritative, but good luck with your project. Thank you for the information! Do you have the exact date? And one more thing. I'm not a english speaking man so I didn't understand what you meant with this: "Mind you the article is introductory not authoritative...". What did you mean? Isn't it written by a academician? Thanks agian. It's meant to be introductory... meaning that it presents a base idea intended to develop further curiosity in the reader.

Hmm, I got stuck in the storeroom as well. Methinks it's a bug. I was just about to kick that Optio's arse too, for shame.

Galba, in part due to his refusal to pay the legionary and praetorian donatives didn't have the full support of the legions. His lack of political acumen seems to have been a large factor. On the other hand, Nerva seems to have been almost universally praised and clearly had the support of almost all of the legions via the adoption of Trajan. Without Trajan though, I believe someone would've marched.

March, 2005. Mind you the article is introductory not authoritative, but good luck with your project.

Maybe it will help Mr. Stevenson forget his role as the Punisher. Seriously though, if Heller is involved throughout the process, I have hopes that the movie could rekindle some season 1 interest. Then one never knows what that might lead to.

Moonlapse made our maps using some form of Adobe photoshop and a Wacom tablet. The topographic information was public domain satellite imagery from the US Park service as I recall.

The road from Rome to Clusium was the Via Cassia. It was built in the first part of the 2nd century BC, but the specifics of who and when are unknown. Based on it's name and the fact that it's likely to have been a consular road, possibilities might include C. Cassius Longinus (cos 171 BC) and Q. Cassius Longinus (cos 164 BC). However, no such construction has ever been attributed to them. This chart can get you started on research for other roads... http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-road-chart.php By the by, the spelling of Caesar is a personal pet peeve. The man butchered a good number of people to make sure we remember him appropriately.

Couldn't he have been both? Caesar was a sound general, having some ability in both strategic and tactical details, while lacking strength in others. For instance, he was more than capable of forward strategic planning (such as the invasions of Britannia, regardless of the outcome) and showed brilliance in siege warfare. Conversely, he was reactionary and brash, failed miserably in most logistical affairs and was often quite close to defeat before ultimately scratching and clawing a way to victory. As such, it's just as easy to say that he was both a great military mind and a brute (and a tyrant for good measure).

Yes and no... Rome's economy, while agricultural, was supplemented by a semi-regular influx of war spoils, whether it was in currency, valuable luxuries or slaves. The great majority of Rome's military conquests resulted in such an influx. While there are many factors involved, it wasn't really until the over-extension of the empire and the inability for Rome to continue under such a methodology that we see the failure of the economy.

Conquered or incorporated? Semantics in some cases, but there were many people who were willingly absorbed by Rome peacefully, even if the threat of violence was constantly looming.

My dominion over the world will be most unpleasant.

Does the entire expansion of Rome need to be pigeon-holed into a single strategic explanation. Some wars were aggressive and others defensive by nature. Some were in response to allied requests (or so the politicians wished the world to believe), others in response to real or perceived affronts. The Claudian invasion of Britain for example, where no threat existed to the mainland continent, can hardly be compared to the the Pyrrhic War or the 2nd Punic War in their nature. While Rome may have played an explicit role in causing both the latter confrontations and both clearly resulted in expansion of territory, it's far less difficult to determine if that was the ultimate goal of the conflict (though it assuredly played a role).

"I don't take money from special interests, and if I did, I'd throw it right in the hole." hahaha.