Primus Pilus

I didn't even realize there was such a film from the 90's. I'm out of touch. Was it theatrical, made for TV, or straight to DVD?

An ancient document likened to something which could have been featured in best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code was being analysed at a top auction house for its significance today. The manuscript, believed to date from the 17th century, contains biographical details of every person in the Bible. It was unearthed in the depths of the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth where it had been kept in storage for Llandovery College, an independent school near the Brecon Beacons. It was among about half of the school

Apologies I didnt quite answer your question, and you did indicate in part that the ancients aren't quite sure, but that you tend to think they are right. Part of my reason to suggest books to read was to offer up some of the basis for the formation of my opinion. Its difficult for us to argue a theory (which is what we are arguing after all) when we aren't referring to the same source material in total. I can tell you that my opinion is formed from reading the ancient sources, the books mentioned above and some others corresponding to the Augustan era.

My reply to suggest some books to read was about 10 posts ago. Since then I think I laid out in a fairly clear manner indicating where I'm coming from, whether its agreeable or not. I will, however, restate the position. Disregard all non ancient sources if you want to, that's perfectly fine by me. However, if you read Tacitus, Dio Cassius and Suetonius, each of them indicate that there is suspicion of Piso poisoning Germanicus. Again, none say for sure that he even did it (at least not clearly). Then they indicate that Tiberius may have been involved. If we trust every word they say and that is where the opinion comes from, why not trust exactly what they do say... that they aren't quite sure what happened?

I quoted all the ancient sources and have indicated that they admit that they don't know the truth. I am only repeating that they don't know, why should you?

I am not positive he had nothing to do with it, nor should anyone be positive he did. My point is that we can't be sure. I refuse to accept a theory simply because it has existed for a long time. Tiberius very well may have had Germanicus killed, but I see no real proof. Also I never claimed that Tiberius or any ancient source said that Tiberius 'needed' Germanicus'. Don't confuse my argument with others. (Though he was absolutely pivotal in stopping the Rhine revolt and settling the Armenia problem) btw, more from Suetonius. Where is the evidence? Even suetonius uses non commital terms such as.. "It is even believed that" and "Some think that". Suetonius is referring to word of mouth speculation 100 years after the fact and admits that he doesn't know for sure.

Your mysterious letter doesn't exist. Contemporaries never saw it, (or it would've been recorded as evidence) and neither have archaeologists. Its just as much speculation. I can see where you formed your opinion (how this matters I don't know), but it still isn't proven.

Please guys, lets not use video games, movies or TV shows as evidence. I don't recall ever seeing any written or archaeological evidence anywhere that the Romans used dogs as military units. This, however is not my area of expertise and I have never studied it specifically.

The charges and the trial... there is not enough evidence The suicide, including accusations against Livia Tacitus discusses a word of mouth, no evidence rumor, that has the makings of popular culture/urban myth... The end... Conclusion... there isn't one... there is no evidence that Tiberius killed Germanicus, and not much that Piso killed him. Ok my fingers hurt.

Dio Cassius Book 57 (this is all Dio Cassius really says on the subject because he jumps from Germanicus' victory over the Germans directly to his death... therefore nothing can be discerned either way) Tacitus Book II - Starting with passage 43 (Tacitus is much more thorough in his account, but yet says nothing that shows proof of Tiberius' involvement in Germanicus' death or that Germanicus acted like the Emperor in Egypt.. He does say that Tiberius was displeased, but not that he wanted to kill him) Tiberius granting Germanicus full power in the east... Tiberius removes a Germanicus man from Syria to be replaced by an enemy, Piso. Tacitus describes the relationship, but still we can't know for sure just from reading the passage, why Tiberius did this. Can we assume that Tiberius sent Piso to Syria to kill Germanicus? I guess one could, but that's a mighty stretch (passage not included). Germanicus assumes his office in the east... nothing out of the ordinary for a magistrate here. More of the same... nothing unusual, except the portends of doom which are so very common. (Beware the Ides of March, When the cock crows you shall betray me, etc.) Adds a certain drama to things and begins to shape the readers opinion. Tacitus then describes Piso causing general trouble by stirring up the legions, etc. which I won't quote here. It still doesnt show any connection to Tiberius meaning ill will to Germanicus. This is followed up by descriptions of Germanicus handling the Armenian/Parthian questions. While at the same time, Tacitus builds up the idea that Piso is becoming increasingly bitter with Germanicus because of his success and glory. Now Tacitus discusses Germanicus behavior in Egypt. Yes Tiberius isn't pleased, but Tacitus is clearly not describing a desire to murder his heir. Nor is Germanicus acting too terrible outlandish... seems to me he is basically being a tourist... Next we find that Tiberius is pretty pleased with Germanicus' success in handling Armenia... Now we get into the decline of Germanicus' health.. how we get to murder ordered by Tiberius from this I don't know. Its a huge amount of speculation and innuendo. Clearly, Piso and Germanicus are not on good terms, but the other conclusions are rather enormous jumps. Next, Germanicus renounces friendship with Piso. Tacitus describes Germanicus giving last words to family and friends prior to his death. (not included) After that Tacitus makes a rather obvious admission, that proof is impossible... Describing Piso's reaction to the death of Germanicus.. absolutely assured that this is not a first hand account.. Piso realizing he might be in trouble and trying to figure out what to do (he has been accused of poisoning Germanicus whether he did it or not) Next Piso writes a letter to Tiberius essentially saying he is a loyal man and will essentially right the 'wrongs' of Germanicus. He goes on to have a minor conflict with the Cilicians which is irrelevant and I will not relate here... Next Tacitus describes the general sadness caused by Germanicus death (which is mostly skipped). Still despite Tiberius 'jealousy' he wisely gives full honor. The funeral.. whether Tiberius is happy or sad is irrelevant.. it still doesn't prove that he had any part in his death. Even Tacitus admits that Tiberius shows respect to the widow. Tacitus then describes more evidence that Tiberius is not upset about the death, but not necessary to repeat here. Perhaps it jealousy, perhaps not, either way, it doesn;t prove anything. Piso comes to Rome.. even Drusus refuses to believe that Piso poisoned Germanicus It begins to go to trial... Tacitus begins the rumors of Tiberius' involvement. Actually he indicates that Tiberius is aware that others are suspecting him (probably related to his lack of emotion from above) Continued....

A difficult question really. Each of the 'epics' offer their own unique perspectives. I think after considering everything I have to pick Caligula Just kidding of course. Seriously, I think Spartacus did a fabulous job of recreating the environment.. despite the usual Hollywood inaccuracies/modern reflective interpretations. The roles of Laurence Olivier as Marcus Licinius Crassus (the aristocratic military dictator type that would be more appropriate for a character other than Crassus but still captures a certain mood of the Late Republic) Charles Laughton as Sempronius Gracchus (a wonderful example of the scheming Senator) and Peter Ustinov (especially) as Lentulus Batiatus (the conniving, money grubbing slave trader/merchant).

Archaeologists in the capital

The rich Roman heritage of Britain's oldest recorded town has been enhanced by the discovery of a

The mercenary war is so often overlooked yet so pivotal in the chain of events leading up to the Second Punic War. It allowed Rome to seize Sardinia and Corsica, and eventually forced Carthage into Hispania (to find new resources, etc.) I wonder, had Carthage maintained enough treasury to maintain its mercenary army (or at least had enough to disperse the army peacefully), if the scope of the Second Punic War may have been completely diminished.

There are actually Romans who received agnomen based on tribal victories (Claudius Gothicus) rather than territorial (Scipio Africanus for example). Without looking them up I don't recall them all off the top of my head, but suffice to say there is more than one. So the trivia question is flawed, but I'd be willing to bet he his referring to P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus.

Agreed, that's why I suggested entire books to read. They provide a different perspective that can only be truly understood by reading the entire thing rather than a few passages, is all I'm saying.

Here's the point... your excerpts don't prove anything either. Notice that nobody commits to declaring Tiberius as Germanicus' murderer, only that he may have played a part. It's 2,000 years of repeated propoganda, but nobody knows for sure. I even indicate that Tiberius is implicated in my own brief biography. I don't deny what the ancients said either, only that the theory doesn't make alot of sense. You can quote all the excerpts you like, but it proves nothing, just as we cannot prove that Tiberius didn't kill him. Besides, if you read the descriptions of the nature of Piso's supposed poisoning, you may find that its very shrouded in mysticism and 'evil spirits'. Tacitus doesn't even claim that he knows the truth, only that he thinks Tiberius was involved. Either way, its pretty pointless really, this could be argued for another 2,000 years and nobody can prove it.

I personally can't find any reason to continue arguing this point. I'm just going to suggest some books to give you some more opinions. My views are based upon my own research/conclusions, not necessarily a single line written in any one book (especially an encyclopedia style entry). Tiberius the Politician by B. Levick Tiberius Caesar by G. Baker Tiberius Caesar by D. Shotter Age of Augustus by W. Eck Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome by A. Barrett Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation a wonderful look into the biases and propoganda of ancient authors. by Michael Grant. There have also been suggestions that Livia poisoned Augustus, yet this is widely discredited. Its important to understand that these accusations are nearly provable or unprovable. You are absolutely right, they are just opinion.

Considering the accuracy of Gladiator, I'd be surprised if this isn't similar. However, I don't doubt that it will be entertaining.

We want as many people as possible to appreciate Scanderbeg's work, so we're going to give it a home along with our own section on the Second Punic War

Split the Germanicus discussion to its own thread Death of Germanicus

I never said impossible, only that it seems unlikely and illogical to me. I can't speak for how Clodius feels. By the way, the link provided clearly was in reference to the book available on that page from amazon, and not the actual text on the page.

I really suggest you read more than Suetonius, he is not exactly lauded by scholars for his accuracy. (Of course, none of the ancient authors generally are, but Suetonius especially so.) I think the least accused of propogandist leanings (of the well known names) is Dio Cassius. On a personal note I've always enjoyed the styles of Livy and Tacitus. EDIT: I need to rephrase... Suetonius is often considered impartial (from a perspective of not over glorifying Rome and Roman achievement) but he is akin to modern tabloid writers in regards to the use of rumor, innuendo, etc. I understand that Suetonius had access to some material that no longer exists (such as the personal letters of Augustus, etc.) but his reasoning for various events makes little sense from a logical standpoint. He seems perfectly willing to take any possible rumor and report it as absolute fact in order to belittle or praise the subject matter.

Also in support of Tiberius, at two points in his career he even attempted to retire from political life, clearly indicating a lack of desire for supreme control. Unfortunately the second of these, his retirement to Capri, allowed the rise of Sejanus, forcing Tiberius' eventual return and institution of the treason trials. Giving Sejanus free reign was a major blunder and certainly impacts Tiberius' legacy, but most of the rumor associated with his reign was done so to assassinate his character.

Swedish archeologists have discovered a Stone Age settlement covered in ash under the ruins of the ancient city of Pompei, indicating that the volcano Vesuvius engulfed the area in lava more than 3,500 years before the famous 79 AD eruption. The archeologists recently found burnt wood and grains of emmer wheat in the earth under Pompei, Anne-Marie Leander Touati, a professor of archeology at Stockholm University who led the team, told AFP. Full article @ The Local