Primus Pilus

It's not necessarily Alesia alone that ended Gallic resistance to Caesar. The defeat of Gaul was a series of battles and events. However, Alesia constituted a horrific defeat in morale for the Gallic armies... They had the Romans on the proverbial ropes, threw everything they had at them and were ultimately crushed. What hope was their for victory if the Romans couldn't be defeated under the circumstances presented at Alesia? The result of the war is well known. Whether the numbers of dead and enslaved are Caesar's embellishment or a truthful representation of Gaul's population, it's clear that the fighting age male population was severely diminished. There was little practical hope for a continuation of open and unified resistance. Even as the next generation of fighting age males matured, they found themselves recruited heavily for the civil wars, as both legionaries and auxilia (the latter likely in heavy numbers). Other than rather isolated revolts (Batavia in AD 69 comes to mind) that didn't really involve core Gallic tribes (Germanics in the case of Batavia), the Gauls also became conditioned to Roman rule and found that it wasn't necessarily such a bad thing after all. That presents a rather simple concept of "Romanization" but it was the defeat at Alesia, after the attrition of 7 to 8 years of war, that broke the collective Gallic will to fight.

It seems to be in the earliest stages of common Roman use. It became prevalent in the early 1st century during the Servile Wars. Such a depiction was well represented in the HBO Rome series... the Aventine provided the example they used. I'm not sure, but you could check Cato the Elder, Columella, Varro or Pliny the Elder in various works on farming and agriculture. Links available here

Only if it's anatomically incorrect.

All give the guy credit for being uniquely noticeable in the world of panhandling. That cat looks way too healthy for him to be believable though. It should have been lying on his head and perhaps drooling a bit.

I can't believe we're looking at snow covered ground on November 18. This is nature's way of adding insult to injury to all of us idiots in the midwest. I could go for some serious global warming about now.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I didn't mean to imply that the charge was invalid, but there have been arguments made that the letter of Antonia was a later invention to help explain Tiberius' actions (regardless of the evidence [or lack thereof] of the charge). This slow loading .pdf file provides some insight... https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bits....pdf?sequence=3

It's not that there wasn't a specific reason. Tacitus (and Cassius Dio) attributed it to the letter of Tiberius' sister-in-law Antonia. In the letter she accused Sejanus of a plot to over throw Tiberius and considering her general lack of participation in politics, Tiberius believed her. While the detail is quite likely to be an invention after the fact or a matter of convenience at the time, the charge of a "plot" or treason is a valid and specific charge.

The UNRV loin cloth would probably be more appropriate.

It shouldn't really be seemed odd that Caesar would attempt to re-establish an older alliance, while potentially breaking ranks within the opposition faction. Caesar was alot of things, two of them being politically shrewd and cunning.

Netherlands

I know we have some tshirt designs and such out there somewhere. I've pm'd this to Moonlapse to see if he can remember where. Cheers.

Sort of like how the Democrats dealt with it the last 8 years? I mean, let's not be silly about this. This sort of thing is par for the course when it comes to politics. Ebb and flow baby.

Notwithstanding the potential disaster that the twit from Alaska might be, presuming she were actually to ever see the office of president, my very realistic fear is the unification of the Executive, Legislative (Senate and House) and Judicial (4 of 9 judges currently lean left with 5 justices at age 70+) of government under far left idealism (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc.). I fear for the punishment of hard work and enthusiastic personal goals in the work environment while lesser ethics are rewarded. I fear the collapse of small business employment under the weight of hefty tax burdens. I fear for a return to Carter defeatism. While I understand the tendency to vote away from the unpopularity of Bush, I'm afraid that we are ultimately punishing ourselves in attempt to punish him. I hope I'm wrong, for the well-being of all hard-working Americans who highly value personal and family responsibility over government empowerment. Bush is gone as of January, 2009. I fear what's left of our constitution (that he didn't attempt to circumvent himself) will go with him.

You may want investigate tribal and regional cultures rather than using such broad labels, at least in some cases. African -Mauretanian, Numidian, Phoenician, Berber, Egyptian, Nubian, Ethiopian, etc. Gallic While Gallic can generally be understood as Celtic, you may also want to consider Britannic, or other more distinct tribal identifications Germanic Among the many distinct Germanic tribes, you may want to make a clarify a difference between non Germanics like Sarmartians and Dacians Greek Macedonian, Illyrian, Thracian, etc Latin Roman would make more sense here, and Italian Persian This is rather broad for the only representative culture east of Greece... may want to consider Syrian, Judaean, Armenian, Arabian etc. Slavic While the origin of the Slavic distinction is highly debatable, it is generally not used as a distinct group until around the 6th century.

I'll try to keep an open mind on this one, but I suspect that my realism sensibilities will overwhelm me. I do suppose it's good though that ancient history continues to receive attention from film/tv producers. Accurate or complete fabrication at least these productions are providing an introduction to those who may otherwise have no interest.

A legionary after the time of Domitian would've been making 300 denarii per annum gross. That converts to 12 aureii per year meaning that a legionary wouldn't even have had the annual wage to pay for the standard rate of this procedure (roughly 27 aureii, or 1/15 of Galen's rate). This also does not account for standard deductions and of course other costs of living. A professional Roman soldier was well paid in comparison to standard laborers or "private sector" employment.

Happy Birthday... now go listen to some metal

There are no great references to it specifically in the ancient sources. General description of Celtic tartans via Caesar, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, etc. are also rather non-descript, though I suppose it depends on the translation you use. If you know someone that can translate ancient Greek, your best bet would be to get Cassius Dio's description verbatim and do the literal translation to see if you're missing something. Otherwise, while I assume you have already read Dio's account, I'll provide the English version for reference: The Loeb translation in Book 62.2.3 suggests that the tartan was "divers colours".

That's the problem, we simply don't know. The Biblical account, essentially in the book of Acts, ends with Paul's imprisonment in Rome, around 60-61 AD. Anything after that seems to be conjecture. The problem is that none of these stories are either confirmed or denied by other evidence. The most common story is probably that of Eusebius (quoting and Origen) that Paul was martyred during the reign of Nero. Whether Nero was present or not and the exact method of death seems the mystery of it all: Eusebius Church History III.1.2 I believe it's Tertullian who further describes Paul's death via beheading, but I can't find the passage There is a tradition that Paul was released from prison and continued his mission is recorded in 1 Clement Chapter 5. Obviously the passage is not clear as to where, when, how or why... There is also a story that Pauls' remains were presented to a King Oswy in England c. the 7th century. However, whether true or not, it doesn't really have any bearing on his death but may account for the some of the stories circulating. This is from Bede in the Ecclesiastical History by the way. Book 3.29

If he was anything like his namesake... I'm sure he bribed plenty of people to vote for him

We know that Cato's sons and daughters survived (at least for a time). His eldest son was killed at Philippi while the ongoing lives and careers of the remaining son (and possibly two) are unknown. This mysterious Cato could very well be a descendant of the more famous blood line, but there were other Porcia Cato's around as well. My guess is that this particular Consul Suffectus was of the lesser known "branch" or perhaps more may have been made of him at least in the written record even if he really wasn't up to the heritage of his ancestors.

Birthday's are great... provided they are someone else's Happy day Augusta!

Thanks Neph, Since people know my affiliation with Roman history via this website, I've been inundated by this quote recently. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't pinpoint it's origins. And although generally agreable with it, I can at least tell these folks to stop relating their philosophy to that of Cicero... at least as regards this quote.

A quote attributed to Cicero has been making it's way around email boxes and internet forums for some time. It's relationship to modern social, political and economic conditions cannot be denied, but more importantly, where did it really come from? I'm sure many of you have seen it... The Quote: "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Quite apropos, however, I can find no evidence that M. Tullius Cicero ever said or recorded this in his writings. It seems to have made it's way into the public record via US politics... Any help?

The battle list is an impressive resource; congratulations to the admins. AIII spotted a minor typo; dating the battle of Telamon is easy, because it was led on the Roman side by the consuls Gaius Atilius Regulus (KIA) and Lucius Aemilius Papus, being indeed their consular year DXXIX AUC / 225 BC, as we can easily check on the consular list of the 3rd century BC here at UNRV. I'm going with typo here. It's a possibility that I made an error reconciling the fasti with chronological date reckoning via Livy or Cassius Dio, etc. but typo sure seems easier. Fixed, thanks.