Primus Pilus

Actually, I think either idea has been examined quite in depth. Neither is terribly original, but that doesn't mean that they lack the merit for quality thesis. The Jewish-Roman angle will have much more readily available ancient/primary source material, whereas the Christian/Religion angle will likely require far more research and comparative analysis of secondary sources. Either has challenges and possibilities. Melvadius has a good suggestion that one might want to "interview" their professor(s) to investigate areas of interest or knowledge. Thusly armed, one can engage those professors with problems you may encounter in the process while also being sure of undivided attention when it comes to the review of your work. However, such a strategy can also present a difficult challenge. Playing to those strengths and expertise areas can make presenting both a compelling and original concept exhausting and/or dangerous depending on the personalities of those who will pass judgment.

Agreed, Antoninus very well may have authorized the Caledonian advance simply to gain personal military clout, but, on the surface at least, it doesn't really seem to fit his character. (The quote from the Historia Augusta provided above carries a considerable impact here). Unlike Claudius, Antoninus never made his presence felt anywhere near the battlefield and as you suggest there is very little commemoration or glorification of the campaign (at least that survives). Interestingly though and perhaps quite telling in its own right... the largest physical testament is the remains of the wall, which of course, did bear the name of the emperor. It's very presence could give a wide impression throughout the empire of a grandiose operation despite it's relative lack of of a lasting impression as a border.

Caveat to my own note above: There is no evidence of the 60th centurion as part of the 5 double centuries of the first cohort. The commanders of the these centuria were called the Primi Ordines and were titled independently of the other 9 cohors. They were: Primus Pilus (centuria I) (Primus) Princeps (II) Hastatus (III) Princeps Posterior (IIII) Hastatus Posterior (V) My previous note is complete speculation.

And there have been suggestions of a more active role in legionary command by the Primus Pilus... at least depending upon individual legates, tribunes, etc. in a particular legion (forgive me for not being aware of the source of those suggestions at the moment). That would theoretically lend credence to the notion that someone other than the Primus Pilus (perhaps the senior optio) took direct command of the first century. Perhaps it was possibly the mysterious 60th centurion who would seem to have lost his job when the first century of the first cohort was originally doubled... sometime in the later part of the 1st century AD.

I don't necessarily get the same impression with Antoninus Pius as with Claudius. While it's clearly possible, I'd personally bet that Pius' military endeavors were either based on need (Moors in Africa, revolts in Dacia, etc.) or perhaps what was suggested by provincial governors. Perhaps the Caledonian invasion was an attempt to politicize himself as a conquering hero, but it may have also have been a statement to the world that Rome was in fact not withdrawing on all fronts. Unfortunately, the written source material from the period (like that of Trajan and Hadrian) is largely lost and we are left with a good deal of speculation based on non textual sources. Interestingly though, the Historia Augusta (while it is admittedly not the most respected historical document) reported this of Pius: "No one has ever had such prestige among foreign nations as he, for he was ever a lover of peace, even to such a degree that he was continually quoting the saying of Scipio in which he declared that he would rather save a single citizen than slay a thousand foes.

I scored 38. I suck at Brad.

I don't read many of the conservative blogs... but I do listen to some of the talk show hosts. Rush Limbaugh is a pompous windbag, but he absolutely cracks me up. Michael Medved is engaging and intelligent, and also generally willing to let those with opposing views at least have a say. Mark Levin can sometimes come across as a bit of a lunatic and can thus be quite entertaining. Hannity spends a bit too much time talking with friends, and therefore telling eachother how wonderful they are, but otherwise he's alright.

Prior to the crisis of the 3rd century, the following either did not truly command or taken part in a real battle (beyond superfluous displays)... Claudius, Caligula, Nero, Nerva, Antoninus Pius and Elagabalus. The Claudian invasion of Britain was conducted by Aulus Plautius, though the emperor himself did make an appearance. His reign was actually quite proactive in a military sense despite his personal lack of experience. Caligula was already discussed by ASC above. Nero relied upon competent commanders such as Corbulo in Parthia. Nerva's reign was quite short, but he held no known military position in his long senatorial career prior to the assassination of Domitian. Antoninus Pius career was largely administrative. His pre-emperor appointments included such non military (though prestigious) locales as Asia Minor. His reign was long and sound. Commodus was suggested by Goblinus above, but despite his lack of military command after the death of Marcus Aurelius, he was active in the campaigns of his father along the Danube. Goblinus also already addressed Elagabalus.

Site is still down, and no reply as yet from Mr. Spalding.

A Swiss-Greek research team co-lead by Dr. Frank R

Indeed. The key point has long been that the act of giving vinegar to Jesus was a slight, when in actuality a drink of vinegar wine would've been considered an act of kindness by most legionaries.

Enjoy... http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/9042818/abc/20...nn_cheeto_jesus

More on Saving ancient Pompeii from modern threats Citing threats to public security and to the site itself, the Italian government has for the first time declared a yearlong state of emergency for the ancient city of Pompeii. Nearly 2,000 years after Mount Vesuvius buried Pompeii under pumice and steaming volcanic ash, some 2.6 million tourists tramp annually through this archaeological site, which is on Unesco's World Heritage list. Frescoes in the ancient Roman city, one of Italy's most popular attractions, fade under the blistering sun or are chipped at by souvenir hunters. Mosaics endure the brunt of tens of thousands of shuffling thongs and sneakers. Teetering columns and walls are propped up by wooden and steel scaffolding. Rusty padlocks deny access to recently restored houses, and custodians seem to be few and far between...

Ruins recently discovered on Greenland may mark the Vikings' most northerly year-round hunting outpost on the icy island, a researcher said on Monday. Knut Espen Solberg, leader of 'The Melting Arctic' project mapping changes in the north, said the remains uncovered in past weeks in west Greenland may also be new evidence that the climate was less chilly about 1,000 years ago than it is today... San Diego Union Tribune

Hello Chad, welcome to UNRV. Shame about your sainthood situation though

Just sent him an email... Actually the librarything.com site was down as well earlier, so it's renewed presence may be a good sign.

Indeed, as great as Perseus is, it's terribly user un-friendly, imo. I'm hoping it's a simple problem, but after looking up the domain on who-is, it's registered well into 2009 so it shouldn't be a registration issue. Still the possibility of a host migration could be at the crux of the matter.

The site seems to have been down for some time. It hosts William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology which is an excellent resource to double check various references. Anyone have a clue?

I was relating years between Sulla's death and the approximate time that Plutarch wrote the "Lives". It was after AD 100... my reasoning for the 180 years.

Sounds interesting enough. I look forward to seeing what you put together. Of course, let me know if you have any questions along the way. You may want to do it via private message or email, but feel free to ask away...

Well said on the source evaluation ASC. As for Sulla, while Plutarch may have written his bio long after Sulla's death (some 180 not 80), it's important to note the possibility for a large number of primary documentation that still would've existed in his time. Sulla's own biography for instance, now unfortunately lost, was still accessible as were other complete texts, laws, letters, etc. of other Sullan contemporaries. Of course, Plutarch himself suggested that biographies were not simply histories but also a reflection on all the moral greatness and imperfection that is human life.

We have no problem at all linking to and from other related history sites. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "integrate it into the UNRV site" but once you have something up and running, we can take a look and see if such a thing makes sense. However since I've already written and posted mini biographies of both emperors (Trajan beginning here and Hadrian here, "a more information" link would have to present a reasonably different or expanded sort of content, or a different approach. It doesn't mean we are unwilling to help you out or let you bounce ideas around, but that's just something to consider.

I'm not sure about the exact dilution but the Romans drank a sour vinegar wine called posca. Andrew Dalby discusses it briefly in Food in the Ancient World from A to Z Pliny the Elder also discusses the medicinal properties of vinegar in his Natural History Book 23.27. Perseus is notorious for slow and incomplete loads so you may have to click a few times to get there.

I'm by no means suggesting that Claudius was some great bastion of Republican idealism either. Ultimately you are right in simply saying that none of them really were. Whatever the criteria we use to establish such a list, I would still personally have trouble putting Domitian anywhere near the top of it based on the perception of Senatorial influence due in part to Domitian's ego in accumulating and monopolizing magistracies.

The Senate killed an Emperor, put in the throne one of them, prevented a civil war, preserved a relative unity among themselves and peacefully selected the general that would became the next Emperor, without the recorded execution of even one of them; there's where I find the difference. No one can participate and even less succeed in such kind of negotiations without some real power on their own; otherwise, Legions and Praetorians wouldn't have had any incentive to close any deal with the Senate. My intention isn't really to argue that the Senate itself didn't have a measure of influence as a collection of the societal and political elite, but rather more simply that Domitian wasn't a Republican based on the idea that he preserved some Republican institutional traditions. He was a tyrant who despised the senate and any true notion of the Republic. While the institutions themselves may have been preserved and even propped up publicly by Domitian's monopolization/exposure of the magistracies there was no constitutional authority for the body itself nor any great role in Domitian's government. I don't want to come across as if suggesting that the senate was not a collection of ambitious, influential and high standing individuals, it's just that the existence of such a collection alone without constitutional authority and without the tribunes, etc. does not make a Republic. The key counter point for me is really just the presentation of Domitian as a Republican emperor. I think it may be more appropriate to suggest that his anti-Republican position actually unified the senate against him and motivated them to act as a body.