Primus Pilus

Five golden jewelry pieces were found during excavations of the Necropolis, located outside ancient Roman legion camp near the Danube town Svishtov. The jewelry weighting 82gram is dated back to the second half of the 5th century. Full article @ Sofia News

While I'm enjoying the discussion, I must interject that this line goes completely against anything related to ancient history. Not only would our history of the Romans be limited without such historians as those mentioned, but without the modern historian (and everyone in between) there would have been noone to study history at all. Where would our knowledge come from? We wouldn't have any, because nobody would've taken the time to study it. However, I can also see the facetious nature of the statement in trying to allude to another point, so I'm taken it with an open mind Anyway, this line of discussion truly has nothing to do with 'Rome's Greatest General', so I'll split the topic.

While I believe that some of the ancient 'astrology' cited can be written off merely as postumously recorded propoganda, there is no question of the impact that the occult and 'lore' had in Roman society. It would be a huge mistake to dismiss the impact that 'astrology' had on both society and politics. Thank you for the link and the wonderfully prepared paper Komet.

Have they been showing previews in the UK? The HBO version has been focusing on the apparant machinations of a particularly nasty sounding woman (though I'm afraid I forget her name at the moment, so I'm not even sure of her fictional/non fictional role in the story).

Tiberius Gracchus for the Lex Sempronius Agraria which truly altered the course of Roman politics for the next century. Not only did Tiberius have his responsibility for bringing about the collapse of the Republic, but the Lex Agraria truly began to give a sense of equality to the masses. Without Tiberius, the concept of land for veterans and the jobless masses may have taken decades more to achieve. Without Tiberius, who knows what course of history may have been altered.

Thanks Osander, as an amateur writer, the compliments are very much appreciated. The site was founded by myself, Viggen (who generally works behind the scenes but has been computer incapacitated for some time), and Moonlapse who makes his presence known on the forum, but also does alot of 'behind the scenes' stuff. (such as the maps). If you need any help making a transition from the historical content of this site, to the 'theorist' ideas of your own, just speak up. Maybe we can offer help/suggestions, etc.

I would agree that the basic foot soldier would generally never have a clue why a battle was won or lost. They only know their immediate circumstances. To apply that same reasoning to field commander perspectives and the study of warfare would be folly. Unless of course we are studying warfare from the perspective of the 'infantryman'. As an example, we know a great deal about Caesar's campaigns, admittedly because he was the one who wrote it down, but they do paint a fairly broad picture of the battles. His descriptions are not limited in scope by the perspective of small unit engagements even though he does describe some of that. I agree completely that the battlefield can be a confusing cluster of anything and everything. Despite that, we can still understand how a maneuver can win or lose a battle even though we may lack the understanding of the heroics or failings of individuals on the field.

Just be glad they didn't use Praetorians, since they didn't exist yet And something I've failed to mention so far... why if they are focusing so much attention on gladiators (an inappropriate plot line in my estimation anyway) is the arena so small? It can't be bigger than 10 ft. diameter with enough seating for about 25 spectators. It reminds me of 'Thunderdome'. I guess we shouold be happy they didn't build the Colosseum 125 years early

Could someone please explain this to me? I know that the Spartans all had male "companions", does this imply that they all had homosexual relationships? I have a bad feeling that this will turn political, so lets try to leave this in the context of ancient ideology... Within Spartan society, such behavior was normal and was learned as a part of the normal growing process. There was no overriding doctrine telling society that it was wrong as we have today (Christian doctrine or otherwise... keep in mind that the Romans largely frowned upon it in an open sense long before Christianization occured) . Being born 'gay' or 'straight' was irrelevant because to the Spartans there was absolutely nothing abnormal about giving your buddy a little reach around. Whether or not you were born with a desire for female sexual connection was beside the point. One action was expected for pro-creation, the other was expected for unity of spirit and cohesive military function.

History of Roman Britain by Peter Salwey The first colonia established in Britain was at Camulodunum (Colchester), around AD 49. Later came Lindum (Lincoln), and Glevum (Gloucester) at the end of the first century. However there were several 'towns' which the Romans classified as municipia and civitas. Londinium is unique in that it was at first a small native settlement followed by a series of Roman forts which simply grew into a town... much more akin to a medieval/feudal environment. There was one known municipium at Verulamium and several small civitates which can be gathered through Roman Britain.org Roman Settlements in Britain

Absolutely, my first thought was that these pieces look absolutely no different (not including the actual decorations) than anything that could be made today or over the past 2 millenia. Sometimes its difficult to believe that ancient people had many amenities we might consider 'modern', and it makes a find such as this very appealing.

It wasn't really a significant military event. It raised eyebrows (and probably frightened the bejeesus out of the common folks) at the time because gladiators defeated poorly trained and poorly commanded cohorts, but in the big scheme of things it had little effect on military history. Once Crassus came to bear with a real army, the gladiators were all but finished. Couple that with Pompey's impending arrival and Spartacus never really had a chance. Mind you Crassus' fortification of Italia's 'toe' was interesting, but it was nothing all that remarkable in comparison to other siege attempts in Roman history. I suppose its only real significance is that it was the last time Roman slaves rebelled in any large or semi threatening form.

Largely because this site is a general overview of Roman history, and Eumenes is a far more specific blip on the historical radar than what I was trying to accomplish.

btw Wargamer, the scam emails you get have nothing to do with this website. They are very common and randomly sent scams. They are called 419 scams 419 coalition US Secret Service FBI

I thought it was illegal to sell antiquities like coins in Turkey and or collect them from ancient sites? Punishable by severe prison terms? I guess it doesn't matter now as you've made it out ok

I believe Tacitus mentioned several of the above in Germania... I'll have to do some research though otherwise.

The Romans were actually quite aware of many tribes that they had little contact with. Tribes such as the Aestii, Narbones, Osioi, Soudinoi, Galindai and the Venedi which make up parts of modern Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, etc. were accounted for in some capacity. (Just examples)

Any sport involving a rope, a yak, and a bucket of nuts has just got to be good

Excellent, another place like The Internet Classic Archive and the Perseus Project then?

Don't knock the historical Antonius too much. Yes he was a brute, but keep in mind that the victors wrote history and Antonius was not among them. He had his share of political failures (ie serving as Caesar's master of horse in Rome while Caesar was in Egypt) but he had his victories as well (Caesar's funeral oration, securing the governorship of Gaul, the second triumvirate, securing the east, etc.)

Isn't this thread about Caesar?

It's sensationalism at its finest really. Boudicca has always maintained some sort of fascination as a great liberator and hence she is generally given the heroic treatment. Despite her brutal slaughter of civilians the Roman 'atrocities' are the only ones remembered. Its the oppressor state vs. the oppressed syndrome really.

I don't know.. perhaps Athentic History has gone to the same place as whatever you were trying to say with this post?

The earliest known template for the image of St George slaying the dragon has been found in Syria, archaeologists believe. A mosaic floor dating from approximately AD260 depicting the figure who became the patron saint of England has been found in the city of Palmyra in the Syrian desert. Experts say that the portrait is one of the finest classical mosaics yet uncovered and may even be the source of the St George legend... Full article @ Time Online

Norfolk acted as a hub of resistance against Roman occupation, new analysis of archaeological finds has revealed. But the empire's military might eventually eclipsed native East Anglians in a brutal crackdown described as a "lost holocaust". A sprawling Celtic 'proto-city', as significant to its Iceni occupants as modern-day London, sprawled across eight square miles of West Norfolk, almost certainly providing a regular home to Boudicca.... Full article @ Megalithic