Primus Pilus

I love the fact that this is forum is so self-sustaining now. Used to be I'd have to post in every thread just so something might, by some small miracle, actually happen around here. Its great to see so many folks not only interested in Roman history, but willing to discuss it on a regular basis. I just bring this up because during the summer months I take several weekend and a couple of week long family trips. Its just good to know that the site will still be alive and kicking when I get back

Quite frankly it works that way in both genders... unless they are playing the hero/heroine against some great oppression, etc.

I think the poster is talking about a very specific time period and group of people. It doesn't really matter if someone else is worse, because the poster is only asking who was the worst of these 4 people. Why, you ask? I have no clue,either, but let's focus on his poll. Perhaps there is a reason for it. (And hopefully he will provide it)

I agree with some of the general sentiment... that women generally played a backseat role to men in the ancient world, and that history is usually reported in such a manner. However, I don't view it as either right or wrong, but simply that it was what it was. I wouldn't be too disparaged though, many ancient women have received credit for outstanding achievement. Unfortunately yes, many of these are because of potential 'nasty' behavior, but I think even the average Romanophile knows of such women as Cleopatra, Livia, Messalina, Agrippina, etc. And that's just four names from a very short period of time, not even including those you've mentioned.

Quite honestly, I don't know. It's not something I've ever put any study into

Side note: just realized something is wrong with our polling system. It won't seem to let us vote if we've already posted. We'll try to look into that.

And 'evil' is really subjective, though I do understand the point. While each of the women mentioned carried a certain cunning and sinister side, along with a good deal of ambition, in the end it was Nero who had the ultimate responsibility for various imperial actions.

The thread starter should be the first to give an opinion.

I'm assuming preservatives.

Isnt that the irony of it... good roads would bring tourism and the money to help restore... while at the same time advancing the decay of the attractions.

Hence, my original reply that there is no consensus opinion on this issue

The discovery of a Greek temple in Albania has underlined the threat to the ancient city of Apollonia from development. A new road to the nearby coast, intended to open up the unexploited Adriatic coastline, would cut across former suburbs and divide the temple site from the city. Jack Davis, of the University of Cincinnati, said:

Strangely enough, we can't edit the number of choices in a poll, only the text. Tough to answer really... 'During the Decline' should be more defined. I consider what the Huns and Vandals did to be proverbial straw that broke the camels back, while the Goths were the catalyst tribe that persistently pressured the declining Rome. Much like the fall of the Republic, the fall of the western empire is a mosaic made up of many pieces.

Just out of curiousity, is Nova Roma an open society or is it open only to Pagans? Not that it makes any difference to me either way, but I only wonder if they truly espouse the Roman culture or if they've adapted their own modern concept of exclusivity.

The Claudian invasion force under Aulus Plautius included Legio II Augusta, IX Hispana, XIV Gemina and XX Valeria Victrix. II Augusta under the command of the future emperor Vespasian. The legions totaled 20,000 active legionaries, with an additional 20,000 to 30,000 in auxilia forces. As for Claudius, he arrived several months after the initial invasion, bringing up to 38 war elephants with him, as well as heavy artillery and (some evidence suggests) detachments of Legio VIII Augusta. Claudian Invasion Also, the losses from IX Hispana were replaced by men of the various Rhine legions. I can't recall any specifics beyond that, but the likely candidates are III Macedonica, XXI Rapax and XXII Primigenia EDIT: However these appear to be transfers by all accounts and IX Hispana continued to operate.

This list may help but only very few would've been present in Britain circa the 60's AD. Roman Britain Cavalry And when I said Celtic cavalry may have been involved, keep in mind I am only making an assumption based on the time period. The province, having only been occupied for some 15 years, still maintained some traditional tribal authorities. I making an educated guess that Suetonius may have called upon allied Celtic tribes to provide some level of cavalry/infantry support in the fight against Boudicca. However, to my knowledge there is no true evidence that this happened.

Indeed, I didn't mean to suggest that the 'invasion' was some sort of cataclysmic one time massive event, but was instead a lengthy drawn out process of both abrupt change and lengthy assimiliation. However, the disappearance of Roman culture does appear to be, on the surface, as a cataclysmic event. Its just seemingly there one day and gone the next.

Its currently in a phase called 'Commercial Testing' which roughly means itsopen to limited public testing. I'd imagine it won't be terribly long before its opened up quite broadly to the general public. You can sign up to be a 'tester' here

To me it seems less daunting than may be suggested, but only at first glance I suppose. We know that after the withdrawal of the Roman legionary presence, the political presence followed shortly thereafter. It may have lasted another generation or so (in recognizable form) but as I think about it further is the difference between military and social collapse truly that noticeable? Anyway, allow me a brief overview to set the stage... In very simple terms we know that after the Roman military withdrawal, northern britain was challenged by Picts and later by Hibernian Celts, the eastern shore (and the heart of the Roman population) was mostly overrun by Germanic invaders (which because of the culture shock may have quickly eliminated the Roman mindset in the area), and the west (such as Wales) which was never as intrenched in Roman tradition anyway, reverted back to a more Celtic cultural identity. So what we are talking about is that 50 or so year generational period in the mid to late 5th century when this transition took place. We know the obvious things, ie the abandoned ruling class of Britain adapted to survive, the conquering invaders displaced elements of the previous regimes, etc., but I've always felt that religion played a vital role in the uniqueness of Britain. Unlike much of the rest of the western empire, which adopted Christianity fairly readily, did not the Britains hold out far longer? Certainly the Catholic Church had an important and lasting influence, but perhaps because of the isolation of Britain, the inhabitants felt a detachment from all things mainland 'Roman? Perhaps the arrival of Pagan Germanics, while initially feared and despised was eventually welcomed as a 'back to basics' cultural response. Unfortunately, this rather weak theory does't account for the continued spread of Christianity in Britain, though it could explain a gap in contact that seems to have occured between the church in Rome and their priests in the islands during this volatile time period. Still we know that many Roman towns were darn near completely abandoned as the Germanic cultures spread and assimilated. Did the Roman aristocracy truly flee? I have always refused to believe that, but why would so many towns simply cease to exist rather than be taken over by the 'invaders'. I also don't understand why areas where archaeology seems to indicated cross cultural cooperation (Lincoln, Wessex, etc.) that the culture and language still became highly Germanic. I suppose I'm just rambling here, but its an attempt at a start to the discussion.

Welcome Publius, I believe there are a couple of folks from Nova Roma around but people do come and go so I can't quite remember off hand. I explained the UNRV thing somewhere recently, and it figures that I can't find it Anyway, the short is... there were 3 of us with varying interests in Roman/Ancient history who met eachother through the online world/game recreating the ancient world, Roma Victor. We created this site with the original intention of being a historical resource for members of that community (United Nations of Roma Victor, essentially meaning all people of that community with a single place to share and discuss history). UNRV has grown well beyond that and we maintain only an indirect relationship with that original intention. While the 'founders' are not volunteers, we've had several contributions from our regular community members. Book reviews, historical reports, studies of various subjects, etc., and of course, incredible disussion, have all been submitted from what I guess would be considered volunteers

Interesting question... but can we get a clarification before we delve too deeply. Are we talking about the end of the province in a political sense (ie the final withdrawal of the legions, etc.) or are we truly discussing this from a social perspective (the final collapse of Roman social order, law etc.)? By thw way, Welcome to the forum Hadrian

Detachments of IX Hispana were crushed by Boudicca between Londinium and Camulodunum. Reports indicate that the infantry was destroyed but the cavalry escaped. However, Tacitus gives very little detail as to what this cavalry represented. Was it auxilia or attached Equites Legionis... we simply don't know. Based on the numbers (estimated that the entire Roman force engaged in the battle may have been less than 2,000 men) I think we can make the safe assumption that this was only the attached Equites. As for the final battle between Suetonius and Boudicca, both Tacitus and Cassius Dio are very vague as to the actual Roman forces. Suetonius commanded about 10,000 men made up of detachments from Legio XX (later Valeria Victrix), Legio XIV Gemina (later Martia Victrix) and any auxilia he could gather. Unfortunately the ancients aren't more specific than that. We do know that Legio II Augusta (then stationed in Exeter) was not present due to the actions of its commander (for which he later committed suicide). Cassius Dio describes cavalry engagements in the battle but we can't really gather any detailed information. We should be able to assume that there were some Equite Legionis of both Legio XX and Legio XIV present. Perhaps the surviving equites from Legio IX were also present. We can also make the assumption that some of Suetonius' auxilia was Celtic cavalry, but which tribe and how many is beyond my scope.

Its certainly ok, we just prefer to keep extensive game/movie discussion in the media forum for various reasons. I too enjoy playing RTW, but view it simply and completely as a game.. nothing more nothing less.

I've always felt that the map had a certain unauthentic quality, but then again I suppose it doesn't really matter anymore. I don't think anyone really disputes Scandanavian arrival into North America centuries before Columbus anymore. Though the significance of Viking cartography could be ground breaking if the map ever was authenticated. as far as using the url function.... The easiest way is to click the 'add the http' button at the top of the post. it will ask you for the link which you can paste in. Then it will offer a line to add in clicky text which by default will say 'My webpage'. Change it to anything appropriate. Or you can simply type (as an example UNRV the home of the Roman Empire[/url ] (without the spaces between the = symbol and the text and no space after the last /url tag))