Primus Pilus

Without citing any evidence at all, I would suggest that all ancient cultures were capable of extreme brutality or 'merciless' behavior. However, since its Rome who conquered the western world, and (very important distinction) left written and visual evidence to the world, its easy to see the 'brutality'. As they also received the brunt of the propoganda associated with the religious upheaval in the later empire and the middle ages, they are often portrayed and viewed as being the 'leaders of brutality'. Surely, by virtue of their dominance of so many people and so much territory they were more likely to show this behavior, and perhaps such dominance provides evidence of their extreme nature in comparison to other cultures. In light of that an argument could be made... for what other culture could've dominated except the most brutal? However, such a notion is leaving out far too much other reasoning and simply implies that because the Roman were brutal, they dominated the west. [Edited for grammar, ouch, PP ]

Yes, Praetors and Consuls were only regular magistrates to hold imperium, as evidenced by their right to the lictors (6 and 12 each respectively). Dictators, by virtue of their special position were accorded 24 lictors (double the number of both Consuls combined to show his supremacy over both). The Proconsular and Propraetor commands were really an extension of the original imperium, and only became a necessity with the expansion of the empire, and each was appointed 6 lictors putting them on par with a standing praetor, and not the standing Consuls. However, Lictors were also provided to such positions as the Pontifex Maximus and even the Vestal Virgins, but these were special religious lictores curiati and were not an indication of imperium.

There are several instances of mock naval battles not taking place in any actual arena environment. A couple examples of Naumachiae (naval battles)... Caesar flooded the Campus Martius. Augustus flooded the 'Grove of the Caesars' near the Tiber. Claudius held perhaps the most elaborate on Lake Fucino.

A simple comparison... A praefectus was an appointed rank that was symbolic of a governors role or military command, ie Praefectus Aegypti (governor of Egypt), Praefectus Praetori (Commander of the Praetorian guard), etc, and the title became increasingly more popular in the imperial period. There were a great number of praefects overseeing a nearly limitless number of tasks, available to both equestrians and patricians. As a praefectus was appointed by a magistrate (Republican period) and by the Emperor in the imperial period (for those positions of great responsibility, obviously the emperor did not appoint the praefects of every minor role throughout the empire). The Praetor was a position in the cursus honorum (essentially the political path of rank and honor) along the Senatorial path and generally reserved for members of the Patrician order (at least prior to the Imperial period). The Praetor had duties including governorships and military commands as a Propraetor (meaning after having served his term as Praetor) and they were responsible for a great number of governmental administrative tasks. The positions were very similar and in several cases a having served as a Praetor was required for appointments to such positions as the Praefectus Aerarii Saturni (essentially the guardians of the state treasury). In the Republican period the role of Praetor was one of great honor and tradition and was considered a precursor to serving as Consul. In the imperial period, as the Republican positions of honor were diminished by the 'Emperors' it could be argued that both Praetors and Praefectii served in an capacity of near equals.

Indeed, that makes much more sense. There is sort of a strange sense of reluctant acceptance of Claudius by the ancients, despite their general disapproval (based only on his later deification and relatively mild historical treatment compared to Tiberius, Gaius and Nero). I wish that Claudius' autobiography had survived beyond the translation of Suetonius. Not that such a work would give what I'd be looking for, but to understand the reasoning behind the promotion of Nero over Britannicus would surely explain a great deal, methinks.

Yes, switch to firefox, then I second the recommendation of Adaware and Spybot. Use them first and see how your system is doing after that.

I'm not sure that 'good or bad' is the appropriate comparison. The principate became a necessity based on the state of political affairs of the time. Was it corrupt and ripe for abuse by less than exemplary 'Princes'? Certainly, but the Republican system had proven to have the same extreme faults. The principate, when led by men of more extraordinary capabilities, was adequate for the state of the world at the time. It allowed Rome to dominate the western world for another 4 centuries, while the continuation of the Republican system likely would've continued to devolve into a state of perpetual civil war and inevitable collapse.

Well wait a second here... just who is in command of the Orcs?

I agree with the general assessment of Claudius, however, the last line confuses me just a bit. How would his freedmen assessing vast fortunes actually indicate that Claudius did not defer to them or grant them great power. It would seem to me that this evidence lends itself towards the notion that Claudius did indeed defer to these men and grant them great freedom to assemble these fortunes and wield power.

Keep in mind that your probably being taught medieval chuch Latin, Flavius. There are subtle differences between the ancient and medieval including variations on words and meanings.

With our continued rapid growth and Ursus' repeated pleas to be relieved of moderator duties in the 'Military' folder, we've added a Praetor Peregrinus to the Praefectus staff. With a long and respected history as a member of our forum, we offered the position to Germanicus, who will not only do a fine job, but as a resident of 'the land down under' gives our forum another pair of watchful eyes when the others are asleep. All Hail Germanicus!

Salve Kat, The last post in this thread may be of some help... http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2325

I will add that the bulk of the material is written with a heavy emphasis on the ancient source material. Obviously other sources are used and my own opinion is interjected throughout, but in no instance do I stray wildly from the general consensus view on most issues.

Sicne the books offered here are completely different than those outside of Amazon, we welcome the variety.

Forgive my second post in the thread, but the subject matter of some questions makes me wonder if some understand the professors noted areas of expertise... (Professor Dr. Bryan Ward-Perkins is a lecturer in Modern History at the University of Oxford, and Fellow and Tutor in History at Trinity College. His research concentrates on the period of transition from the Roman world to that of the Middle Ages, above all in the Mediterranean region. He has published widely on the subject, most recently 'The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization', and is a co-editor of The Cambridge Ancient History.) I'm sure he has a wide ranging background in historical study, but asking a question closely related to his concentrated 'area of expertise' will probably increase the chances of having it answered.

It actually is an option, but its not one that's going to pay the bills until you become an established and recognized author. Though Skarr is an author of historical fiction, I'm sure he could share some of the trials and tribulations of getting started in the industry. I suppose though, its fairly difficult to become respected in the industry as an author of scholarly historical works, if you haven't held a position as a professor, archaeologist or related. I suppose that's the catch-22. As an alternative, I'd imagine people who work as 'historical advisors' for production studios (feature films, television and documentary) could make a decent living, but again, I don't know how one would get the job without having the experience already mentioned.

Since we've noticed in our traffic logs that alot of people seem to be finding the forum while looking for information on the renewal of the HBO Rome Series. We can use this thread to post news or information about it. From HBO Rome Official Site Originally posted in the 'Season 1' thread by Violentilla... From AOL News

Pertinax, if you weren't so entertaining I might call you disturbing. Well, I guess you are disturbing, but in an entertaining way

The Friday after Thanksgiving traditionally kicks off the Christmas 'shopping season'. If you are willing to battle the angry masses and the occasional random elbow to the forehead at 5 in the morning, there are some incredible deals to be had.

LOL, wimp! At any rate, I'll echo a Happy Thanksgiving to all, including those of you overseas who are unaffected by our holiday of excessive gluttony and over indulgence

Hmm, indeed. Perhaps Tartarus would be fitting?

By the way, let me make quite clear that I have a great deal of respect for Cicero the man and politician and willingly study either side of the political environment in the Late Republic. I only take issue with the presentation of Cicero as having any great skill in the military arts and don't care about the 'rights' or 'wrongs' of history. I only care what happened, why, and what were the ramifications of the time and not how it makes me feel today related to current political perspective.

Perhaps, but its terribly difficult to convey the political position in support of an oligarchy in a way that modern sensibilities find appealing. Personally, I think they did a fine job of portraying Caesar as the manipulative politician that he was (which is no different than the vast majority of politicians in the late Republic) and giving Brutus a position that is easily understood and respected. I think the real problem is that Caesar wasn't portrayed with the charisma necessary to explain why it happened. Because of this, I think the layman viewer leaves the show without a solid understanding of what was really happening, regardless of political leanings.

Even attempting to name Cicero a greatest general completely destroys any sense of credibility, despite the political motivations. Heh heh. But Primus, he suppressed the Cataline conspiracy in his armor and saved the Republic! Yes I understand he was the self proclaimed savior of the Republic who along with Cato used illegal executions of Roman citizens to put down the conspiracy, but it certainly doesn't make him a great general.

Even attempting to name Cicero a greatest general completely destroys any sense of credibility, despite the political motivations.