Primus Pilus

Perhaps this... Roman History, but as the writer I can assure you that I've never built a Roman family stemmata and you won't find it in there.

Its this exact reason that I become so frustrated with the generic portrayal of Romans as a bloodthirsty mob. To some it was enjoyable, without question, but there were many who saw it just as Tacitus did.

It would certainly be a logical end point, methinks.

Yes its a simple web site, but the folks at Dirty Old Coins specialize in the simple uncleaned coin. They are great for getting started in the hobby or just for a bit of fun and can be had for relatively cheap. As a bonus they don't make the claims of many dealers that gold and silver coins will be found in their lots (NEVER buy from a dealer who claims that). I've bought a few myself from DOC and they are pleasure to do business with. Dirty Old Coins

Trajan and Severus both did have some success against Parthia as well, but ultimately returned home in stalemate. Parthia may not have been able to challenge Rome directly, but it maintained its independence throughout. PS. wotwotius... can I assume your forum name is a tribute to King George III... wot wot?

Sextus will be around for a long time yet. He was still causing trouble in the Mediterranean for years to come, despite the events to come in Spain. (although the same can't be said for Labienus, who was noticeably absent from the cast of characters and Gnaeus Pompey the younger.) Munda did occur after Caesar's triumphs, so nothing is out of place yet historically just yet. However, considering how Pharsalus (one of the most important battles in the history of the western world) was shirked off as a secondary event, I doubt much attention will be given to the Spanish campaign. The Octavian/Octavia trist was a little uncomfortable I suppose but again, this is not something that is completely outside the realm of possibilities.

Propoganda certainly, by its very nature, but it is very much a legitimate historical document. While we must understand that the negatives have been left out, it doesn't discount the basic truth of the 'good', even if there may be some holes.

That in itself is worthy of discussion I think. I would agree wholeheartedly by the time period in question (early 3rd century AD), but can we say the same for the Republican period? Considering that wars were fought over the inclusion of the closely related Italian allies, an interesting (if perhaps only semantical) debate could be made.

I think in this case it was largely motivated by a sense of vengeance even if masked by 'tactics and strategy'. I'm not advocating right or wrong, just indicating my own perception.

They've come to be known as 419 scams. 419 Coalition

Back to Rome please

Ooops... I forgot to add the list I am working with at the moment... 496 BC - Lake Regilus - Romans secure independence from Etruscans 396 BC - Veii - Romans proved themselves as a regional power 321 BC - Caudine Forks - Romans pass under the Samnite yoke 295 BC - Sentinum - defeat of the Samnites 275 BC - Beneventum - final defeat of Pyrrhus 255 BC - Bagrades - Romans crushed by Spartan mercenary Xanthippus in Africa (Naval battles) 260 BC - Mylae 256 BC - Ecnomus 242 BC - Aegaetes Insulae 217 BC - Lake Trasimene - Hannibals first major victory in Italy 216 BC - Cannae 211 BC - Upper Baetis - Hadrubal over the Scipios 208 BC - Baecula - Scipio Africanus 202 BC - Zama - Scipio over Hannibal 197 BC - Cynoscephalae - Romans defeat Philip V 190 BC - Magnesia - Scipio defeats Antiochus 148 BC - Pydna - Romans defeat Macedonia 146 BC - Carthage - city besieged and destroyed 133 BC - Numantia - Romans defeat Cetliberians 106 BC - Gaius Marius defeats Jugurtha 105 BC - Aurasio - crushing defeat of Romans by Cimbri and Teutones 102 BC - Aquae Sextiae - Marius defeats Cimbri and Teutones 86 BC - Orchomenus - Sulla over Pontic army 82 BC - Colline Gate - Sulla's victory at Rome 71 BC - Silarus - Crassus defeats Spartacus 68 BC - Artaxata - Lucullus over Tigranes 66 BC - Lycus - Pompey defeats Mithridates 53 BC - Crassus destroyed at Carrhae Caesar's battles from: http://www.unrv.com/military/battles-of-th...an-republic.php, which ones? The civil war battles between Antony/Octavian/the 'Republicans' 9 AD - Teutoburger Wald - Arminius over Varus 43 AD - Medway - Romans defeat British Celts 61 AD - Watling Street - Suetonius destroyes Boudicca 69 AD - 2nd Bedriacum - Primus (for Vespasian) defeats Vitellius 70 AD - Jersulam - Titus defeats Jews 84 AD - Mon Graupius - Agricola over Calgacus and the Caledones 101 AD - Tapae - Trajan over Decebalus 105 AD - 2nd Sarmizegethusa - Trajan over Decebalus And I need some help with Trajan's campaigns in Parthia

Important Roman battles will be among the key new additions to our updated wallmap. I am having a difficult time identifying which battles should be included as markers on the map. We want to show key battles that either defined a Roman conquest (ie Alesia in Gaul), or was just simply a great battle in history (ie Cannae). I'm thinking of ending with Trajan's conquests because that is the general time period that the map will display... should we go beyond that even though it would reflect changes in borders, etc. that we can't show? As this map will be loaded with information we will be a bit constrained for space so we can't include them all, but want to include as many as possible. Roman Battle Index for reference Please start a list based on what you think are the most important, discuss reasons not to include some, etc. Your input is greatly appreciated. I am especially having trouble with the Punic Wars, because there are so many battles in such a relatively small area. Please consider the clutter of geography names (rivers, territory, mountains, etc.), cities, battles etc on the map when making recommendations. (Note: many naval battles wil be included because there is alot more room in the water than on land)

(More of a geo poitical review and a background primer for the release of BBC's Rome than an archaeology story, but a good read nonetheless. - PP) The best way to judge a modern recreation of ancient Rome - in film or fiction - is to apply the simple "dormouse test". How long is it before the characters adopt an uncomfortably horizontal position in front of tables, usually festooned with grapes, and one says to another: "Can I pass you a dormouse?" The basic rule of thumb is this: the longer you have to wait before this tasty little morsel appears on the recreated banquet, the more subtle the reconstruction is likely to be. On these terms Rome, the new joint HBO-BBC series, does not do badly. It is not until at least 30 minutes into the first episode that anyone pops the dormouse question.... Full article at The Guardian

No problem at all.

That's disappointing news for sure. I do hope that it grows with time. The recent episode (Utica) delves more into the soap opera nature of the plot, but it continues with a believable and entertaining story. Octavian's savvy continues to impress me and the conflict between Servilia and Atia should blossom into outright personal war in the near future. I'm applauding the writers ability to maintain historical persepctive while developing plausible details.

Numbers were assigned logically according the order in which they were recruited. Consular legions raised in a single Consuls term were ordered from I through however many were recruited. The confusion (repeating numbers) comes from the practice of starting over with each Consular period rather than just continuing the numbers. IE when Marius and recruited legions, his first was likely Legio I even though Q. Caecilius Metellus in Numidia and other Legates who were operating in Cisalpine Gaul probably already had a legio I from prior recruiting periods. In the Republican period, legions were never intended to be a standing army, and the system worked largely without confusion because the 'numbers' came and went. Its in the imperial period, where legions were intended to stay intact without forseeable disbandment that things start to get confusing. The late Republican legions of Caesar, Octavian/Pansa and Antonius are the first that carry over intact with legio numbers into the imperial period and eventually form up Augustus first 28 imperial legions. These legions remained in service with their numbers for varying lengths of time: 1. Legio I Germanica (Augusta) 2. Legio II Augusta 3. Legio III Augusta 4. Legio III Cyrenaica 5. Legio III Gallica 6. Legio IV Macedonica 7. Legio IV Scythia 8. Legio V Alaudae 9. Legio V Macedonica 10. Legio VI Ferrata 11. Legio VI Victrix 12. Legio VII Claudia Pia Fidelis 13. Legio VIII Augusta 14. Legio IX Hispana 15. Legio X Fretensis 16. Legio X Gemina 17. Legio XI Claudia Pia Fidelis 18. Legio XII Fulminata 19. Legio XIII Gemina 20. Legio XIV Gemina 21. Legio XV Apollinaris 22. Legio XVI Gallica (later reconstituted as Flavia Firma) 23. Legio XVII 24. Legio XVIII 25. Legio XIX 26. Legio XX Valeria Victrix 27. Legio XXI Rapax 28. Legio XXII Deiotariana You'll notice in this list that there are several duplicate numbers based simply on who recruited it. Later emperors sometimes started over (Nero recruited Legio I Italica in AD 66 rather than give it a number of continuation) whereas others filled in the blanks (Trajan recruited Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix and named it XXX because it was simply the 30th active legion at the time). As for names, some were given at recruitment based on who recruited it (Legio XXII Deiotariana founded by the King of Galatia, Deiotarus), or its place of foundation or intended purpose (Gallica, Italica, Parthica etc.) or were honored for various deeds in battle or service. (Legio I Minervia was named for the goddess, then Pia Fidelis was later added to indicate its loyalty to Domitian in putting down the revolt of Saturninus. Legio II Traiana Fortis [Trajan's strong or brave legion] was so honored for its service in Dacia).. and so on and so on.

Indeed, that seems to be setting up quite nicely. Even though Vorenus seems adverse to Antony's methods his sense of duty and honor should force his loyalty. Definately interesting plotlines to come it seems.

Oh don't get me wrong... I agree with the general concept. I do however fear that over indulgence in the use of language can alienate some. I'm not talking about your example (salacious vs. 'hot') as that is a perfect substitution, but I'm sure we've all read those texts where the language is forced and doesn't feel natural. Or maybe its just me.

Its just the style of the language and the time period which the translation occurs. While I can appreciate 'older English' including the unabridged Gibbon, reading 18th to even early 20th century translations of Latin text can get tiring. Some of it seemingly attempts to recreate the prose style that just doesn't seem to fit our language today. While our modern language can certainly be seen as boring in comparison to these older styles, at least I don't find myself distracted by now defunct terminology or 'slang' (for lack of a better word.) Personally, it just depends on my mood I suppose. Sometimes using extraneous verbage can appear contrived for the sake of appearing intellectual when simple words can paint a very clear picture.

ROFL Oh dear lord, it is uncanny isn't it.

I immediately think of Agrippa and Sextus Pompey.

Oh sure, we have plans for all sorts of maps, but its a time consuming task.

I'd argue that his achievements, while ultimately ending in failure, deserve a bit more respect than that.

LOL, well done Pertinax... I'll do my best to comply. Can we expect more 'colorful' reviews?