Primus Pilus

York, as in Eboracum.

Just one thing to note so far... largely a semantics issue really. It was correct that he was named prodictator but not quite for the reasons laid out. He was named prodictator because both consuls were dead. Roman law demanded that a dictator could only be named by the consuls, and since they had both been killed and time was of the essence, a new policy was needed where the Senate could bypass this restriction. The election of a dicator was not a violation of Roman politics as you suggest, it was the manner in which Fabius was appointed which was the issue.

Absolutely... the gallery is there not only to expand the Roman information available on this site, but to cater to the whims of our members

A few years older than you Flavius and I still have mine. The only adverse effect seems to have been a shifted bite (though the dentist claims that shoving 2 teeth into a space thats already too small doesn't actually cause any problems, bah).

I'm going to try and be very limited here, simply because I dont want to spoil the future for our British members... The last few shows have been excellent drama and wrought with intrigue. The non historical gladiator costumes and weaponry was a bother, but nothing to spoil the feel of what was taking place. One thing that has particularly bothered me however... I asked my wife, who is not deeply into Roman history but has been learning, this question. How do you think that the people felt about Caesar? Her answer, 'I get the impression that they didn't like him very much'. Obviously this notion is largely incorrect in history, but it was the same impression that I was getting. I understand that writers have a very limited window in which to set the stage for Caesar's assassination, but they are doing so at the expense of his common popularity. The one thing that allowed Caesar to have the power in the first place (aside from military victory) should not be compromised, in my opinion. However, I'm sure once he is dead they will manage to reverse this trend through the funeral and public reaction to the 'Republicans'.

We, of course, can define history in any matter we wish, but applying modern concepts to a human condition that was considerably different is likely to be met with resistance, regardless of the origin of the idea. Applying personal philosophy to history is certainly nothing new, however. Each of us do it in our own way, every day. Help me out with something though... So are you suggesting that we apply the term 'Kishido' to explain the difference between the general histories of Livy, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, etc., and such non historical documentation as Galen, Frontinus, Pliny the Elder, etc.? I apologize for not quite catching on here, but I (and certainly many others) was already aware of the differences in scope, target and concept of these authors and their works without needing an eastern term applied to it.

Link edited and is working again.

Considering that the entire site is dedicated to the discussion of Roman history, I'm afraid you'll just have to make due with our inadequacies.

I've changed all public forum except for the 'Ethics' forum. I need some help with that one. I'm not married to anything to if you think something is stupid, or uninviting, or confusing, please say so.

I'm on an editing binge, just let me know what you like and dont like.

Quoting myself from another thread... How about Consilium Comitia... essentially the assembly to deliberate and make suggestions? again please feel free to correct my grammar. I like Ursus to be Praetor Urbanus... not sure why, just like the sound of it. Believe me, for as much attention as it gets... it might as well be written in Greek. We do most of our 'administering' via MSN.

If anyone knows a place where there are pre-existing smilies, just let Moonlapse know and I'm sure he can incorporate them.

That was Viggen playing around. He made all Plebeians 'slaves' until they have 10 posts. Unfortunately, it reverted everyone, even if they already have the required post count. It's our theory that as soon as any of the former plebes make another post they will be immediately freed from their temporary servitude.

You may have noticed a change to a forum title every now and then... most recently being 'The Graveyard' to the more appropriate 'Elysium' and 'The After Hours Lounge' to Hora Postilla Thermae. Let me know what you think on these changes and on ideas for other existing categories. I find reading Latin far easier than writing it, so feel free to correct my grammar. Basically I just thought it gives a better impression of the overall community.

The evidence would suggest that poor Gaius underwent a profound and marked change in his behavior. Was this simply propoganda (Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio) meant to slander a man who was decidedly popular (thanks largely to his relationship to Germanicus) at the beginning of his reign and the only way to slur his propularity in the eyes of the masses was to blame his behavior on an uncontrollable condition, or was it a true indication of his mental condition? I suppose we will never know, but I personally blame the behavior of Caligula on his environment rather than the result of a single episode of illness. Perhaps an illness may have given him a sense of his own mortality and driven him to the point of living with complete abandon, but I don't think he was driven 'mad' by such a thing as the story goes. Perhaps the extreme violence and family dysfunction throughout his youth, coupled with being handed supreme and unadulterated power without any formal training that we can gather, would push someone over the proverbial edge of sanity and control. But again, proving any of this beyond mere conjecture proves impossible. For more of my impression on the subject... Caligula the Mad

Of course you can. Keep in mind that I haven't documented or used footnote support throughout, so if you need more detailed souce information, just let me know. The bibliography is a little out of date but hopefully it will provide the basics of what you need.

I'm sure he is honoring Armistice Day... or 'Veteran's Day' as we now call it in the states. http://www.patriotism.org/veterans_day/

I had a cajun turtle recipe that was fantastic. The meat was a bit dry (as it was overdone, I assume since it was wild game) but the flavor was incredible. I'm biased since I tend to like spicy foods with some kick, but what the hell

LOL, no need for an apology, I just feel bad for whoever made the silly thing.

If its so terrible, then please just ignore it and stop commenting. The jabs are unneccessary when this is clearly not meant to be academic, but simply good fun.

If every man was incapable of acting without the guidance of a women I would say yes, but that is not the case at all. Antony is portrayed quite obviously a man of his own decisions regardless of any female interaction. Octavian may seem to be a pawn of his mother but he is simply under her shadow for the moment, not an incapable player of his own merit. Pullo and Vorenus both are influenced by women, Pullo because of his 'libido' and Vorenus because of loyalty and honor with his wife, but both men have proven that they would act with or without a women's influence. I am rather enjoying the role of women recreated on the show. I must admit that its not a subject I often reflect upon in my studies of Rome, despite being aware of many individual cases of female strength and power. They are reminding me, and other viewers, that the ancient world was for more open minded in the case of gender relations than at any other time in human history (save for recent history of course), despite the limited role of women in the 'official' arenas of politics and business, etc..

Indeed a sort of woven stick of, I believe it was grape, vines (hence vitis)

It's difficult to make out, but it looks like someone is wearing a winged helmet straight out of ancient mythos.

We've certainly tried the Welcome Thread. We also have the relatively light hearted 'after hours' lounge which we hope will allow people to ease their way in if they are bashful. I agree with Skarr though, that some people are just intimidated or lack confidence and will resist posting for fear of embarrassment. I think as long as people make an effort to post practical or possible ideas and statements they shouldn't worry so much. I readily admit when I am weak on a particular subject and am always, but will speak my mind for the sake of conversation. As a result, one opens up new opportunities to learn.

Considering that a general receiving a triumph was allowed to carry the ivory sceptre (sella curulis) and a general who received an ovation was not, it would stand to reason that carrying a sceptre or staff symbolizing power or rank was not typical. Considering that the sceptre was one of the symbols of power (along with the gold crown) that was not transferred from the Kings to the Republican magistrates (while the lictors, clothing like the trabea, toga-praetexta, etc. was a tradition that continued), the use of the sceptre as a symbol of military imperium seems unlikely. We know, of course, that the centurion used the vitis as a symbol of his authority, but I cannot think of any other references outside of badges, crests and other headgear that did the same, strictly from a military perspective.