Primus Pilus

Archaeologists are turning their attention to one of Scotland's most historically overlooked areas by scheduling scores of ancient and modern sites dating from 4000BC to the cold war era. Hill forts, castles, sheilings, standing stones, hut circles, churches, lime kilns and pillboxes were the focus of the first major scheduling drive in the north of Scotland by heritage experts from Historic Scotland. The teams of historians and ancient monument inspectors are keen to shed light on the historical richness of Aberdeenshire, an area previously overlooked during efforts to protect important sites.... Full article @ The Herald

Hmm, I've read the novels, but never saw the series. I don't recall this being in the books, but it has been several years.

You mean Tiberius... Caligula was Germanicus' son. I, Claudius borrowed heavily from Suetonius which is the reason it represents Germanicus being murdered.

It's established theory that Germanicus had full imperium in the east. From Tacitus:

Oh she'd be a wonderful movie subject. Driven by ambition and using extreme cunning to gain the ultimate power, only to have it snatched away by the very ungrateful son who she put on the throne.

There were many actually... Macedonicus, Africanus, Numidicus, Germanicus, Britannicus just to name a relatively well known few. Some were deserved as in the cases of Scipio Africanus and Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus. Others were not, such as Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus who was awarded the title despite doing little and after Marius took command of the war against Jugurtha, and Britannicus which was awarded to Claudius despite the fact that he really only sponsored the expedition and didn't conquer the province (yes he was present at the 'victory' over Caratacus, but Plautius was the true commanding general.)

There is absolutely no historical evidence that Tiberius had Germanicus killed. Germanicus was extremely popular and an effective member of the Imperial ruling system. Tiberius granted him full imperium in the east practically giving him equal power. The later speculation of men such as Suetonius sought to glorify the men they served (Hadrian and the Antonines in his case) by debasing the contributions and personalities of earlier emperors. Tiberius was guilty of other purges of the imperial family, and should be justly villified for giving Sejanus extreme power, but I believe that the death of Germanicus was just an untimely event.

Interesting sunject matter Demson. I personally have a difficult time excluding cultural/societal 'achievement' when reviewing history, and it tends to slant my opinion. I'll look forward to reading your analysis.

It would be more effective if the link was working.

There is the mysterious evidence of native south american plant life that has been found in Egyptian tombs.

Absolutely, the Gallic threat was a persistent reality straight through to the time of Caesar. The sacking of Rome gave Romans a different resolve/motivation than they had maintained before. However, while the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul occured even before the first Punic War, by the Second Punic War, Hannibal roused the Celts into action again. There's no question that the Celtic 'rivalry' is a key part of the cultural make-up of early Rome, but without the Punic Wars Rome may never expand beyond the Italian part of Gaul (completely subjective of course and arguments can be made for any side).

The entire fair is strange and perhaps is just an indication of the volatility of war, both on the battlefield and in the political arean. Scipio is often underrated, but, we must give hgim credit for conquering Hispania after his predecessors had been nearly bounced by Mago.

Indeed, the Punic Wars defined Rome as an empire, without them, or if they had lost, the history of western civilization may be completely altered.

Wonderfully done Scanderbeg. I must concur that the rise of Scipio from familial heir to Consul and commander of the Roman armies in Spain is perplexing as well. It almost harkens to the late Republic/imperial period where heirs truly rose to the top based on family tradition rather than individual accomplishment. It didn't seem to stick (and perhaps his rise is why Cato the Elder hated him so much after the war was over) but I suppose it did set a very early and often ignored precedent.

What's the hate fest with Manchester? Is it just because they are the proverbial favorites or am I missing something completely? (Keep in mind I am a complete laymen when it comes to this, even though I do watch the occasional international match) Btw, the North American plug refers to electricity? I hate to think what else that might mean, lol

The victories over Carthage in the Second Punic War (the additions of Hispania, Africa, Numidia as a client, including the re-affirmation additions of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Cisalpine Gaul, and Narbonensis) along with the follow-up wars and conquests with Macedonia and Achaea made Rome into an actual empire with multiple foreign provinces to administer.

Macedonian actually.

We must keep in mind that to a Roman suidcide was an honorable form of death. The idea that Caesar, to prevent himself from slipping into a weakened mental and physical state (therefore affecting his overall dignity), would commit suicide by willingly offering himself up isn't completely ridiculous. It seems a bit extravagant, but it does fit somewhat into Caesar's history of political behaviour.

Same reasons they make the actual viruses I guess. Just to get their rocks off.

It really depends on time period as well as whether it was attached legionary ala or auxilia units and where that auxilia came from.

That would make Rome MMDCCLVIII (duomilia septigenti quinquaginta octo) years old. (According to the traditional founding of course)

The following ancient historians covered the Punic Wars: Appian - The Roman History Cato the Elder - an important figure of the time, wrote 'Origines' though its now lost Cassius Dio - among the most repective ancient historians but unfortunately only fragments of this period of his work survive Diodorus Siculus - fragments survive Livy - a complete history of the Punic Wars available in several versions (look for Livy Punic Wars) Cornelius Nepos - biographies of Hannibal and Hamilcar Plutarch - biographies of the Roman generals Fabius and Marcellus (the biography of Scipio is lost ) Polybius - A contemporary of Scipio Africanus and his and Livy's accounts are the most important So to answer your question, Polybius or Cato. Though you obviously can't reference Cato in any way, since it no longer exists.

Its difficult to say exactly how the Romans may have felt about any given ethnic group at any given time, but generally speaking, they were more concerned with culture and social standing. A Roman, and one of Latin descent, stood above all, whereas a barbaric appearing Gaul was considered contemptible. The poor were generally frowned upon as much as happens in any society, but Roman citizens were still more respected than any barbarian culture. Greeks were often accepted/admired (depending on the person or group of course) above various 'barbarian' cultures because of many similarities. However, evidence seems to show that a ethnicity played little part once that group was Romanized. If they looked, acted and behaved like a Roman, then to most, they were a Roman. Non Romanized foreigners were certainly subject to some disdain, though I'm sure. Its difficult to trace the exact origin of racism as it relates to skin color, but we can assume it came in earnest with the age of exploration of the 15th to 18th centuries. Europeans found a vast land full of people that they considered to be different, primitive and beneath their own culture in general. The vast need for resources in a time of great wars and extensive colonization required the subjegation of these people to win the 'race'. As the subjegation of these people continued it certainly created an environment of superiority. Racism based on ethnicity (mainly concerning African people in this post) certainly existed prior to this point, but there were other factors involved such as religion, but its this age of discovery that truly began racism as we understand it today.

A terribly too brief synopsis... One fell while the other survived because they were two completely independent functional entities by the late 5th century AD. The east was not as crippled as the west was by such things as economic collapse and barbarian invasion. Some of this was due to simple geopgraphy, some was due to superior imperial administration, etc. In addition, the east absorbed the concept of Christianity and truly made it a part of the culture rather than allow it to breakdown their social ideals.

Welcome Tasmanian The Empire was split from an administrative standpoint in the mid to late 3rd century, and became two officially separate entities under Theodosius by the late 4th century (approx. AD 396). Constantine established Constantinople as a new eastern capital and ruled from there, but the two halves still worked together, in theory, for the good of the whole. This thread Rome/Constantinople has several views related to the subject.