Primus Pilus

Macedonian really. =P

Ahh the beauty of politics... Let's keep this discussion related to the Romans and not cloud it with modern debate. As always, if anyone wishes to discuss modern politics, feel free to open a new topic in the After Hours lounge

Difficult to say for certain, especially with those examples. (There is the possibility that those trades would benefit directly from Optimate administration). If one occupied an even lower station in ancient Rome, such as a general laborer, I'd suspect he would lean towards the populares, but again this depends on one's personal convictions. However, history has shown us that the 'lower classes' or the mob supported the populares in massive numbers.

I'm not aware of a complete Tribune list such as the Consul list provided by Marcus Terentius Varro. However, I have compiled a partial Pontifex Maximus List and a Popes List

Vespasian is under-rated and under appreciated. Aside from things already mentioned.. the importance of Vespasian is the restabilization of the imperial line. I'm not just talking about dynastic tradition with him and his two sons, but after Vespasian the next 8 emperors came to power without major indident (9 if you include Lucius Verus). Vespasian not only stabilized the principate with supreme authority after the civil wars following Nero's death, but he rebuilt a depleted treasury and reaffirmed the supreme authority of the Roman legion. Despite the fact that he gave the world Domitian (not so much his fault as Titus was preferred, in contrary to Claudius preferring Nero to his own son), Vespasian deserves the honor of being regarded in much the same respect as the '5 good emperors'.

It should take slightly longer to Canada... go figure I live a half hour from the border with Windsor but mailing something takes longer than to California

Welcome Cleopatra... feel free to post the link to this mysterious 'other forum'. Nothing wrong with a little cross-promotion

There were some who declared themselves gods while living, in some form or another... Caligula, Commodus, Elagabalus... but official recognition from the Senate and the people would be a different matter

Little Big Horn was after the American Civil War... the last great victory of Indians over the US army. Cheyenne, Sans Arcs, Miniconjoux Sioux, Oglala Sioux, Blackfeet and Hunkpapa Sioux under the leadership of such famous names as Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull crushed General George Custer and the 7th Cavalry. Unfortunately for the Indians, the slaughter led to a great public outcry to crush any further resistance. Battle of Little Bighorn

A link to the source was provided. I prefer the link alone rather than republishing someone else's content, but if they don't like it they will let us know.

Though he did say he was the son of a god, and the people believed it so to them... it was true.

Despite the fact that Lucullus essentially handed Pompey the eastern victories, I too agree that Pompey's title isn't completely unwarranted. He just didn't deserve at the time it was received/adopted.

Though the exact nature of Pompey receiving his title 'The Great' is debatable, majority consensus is that it occurred very early in his career. He was likely either self named or given it as a bit of a jest by Sulla. Either way he certainly didn't deserve at the time, but did prove himself as time went on.

Read, the Agricola by Tacitus. Terrible bias (and embellishment) since Tacitus was Agricola's son in law, but an exceptional work in my opinion. Tacitus Agricola

Sorry, I wasn't clear... troublesome from a perspective of maintaining the status quo. Regardless its power helped pave the way for the breakdown of the Republic starting with the Gracchi...

Caesar used 'Spanish' cavalry in Africa but the translated versions aren't very specific. I'll take a look at the Latin texts to see if I can decipher the actual tribe.

They all have their role to fill, but it was the role of the Tribune that caused so much trouble in the Republican period.

Just turned 34... alas I can't drink beer the way I once did, but age (and a bit of refinement) has taught me the pleasures of wine. Also.. to the young members of our group... don't feel intimidated by your own youth, everyone shows their value quite well on this forum regardless of age. Its impressive and encouraging to see 'young' people so interested in history

Consider yourself an official Scanderbeg.

Ok I changed it back with a slight modification and just changed my sig instead, lol

Excellent synopsis of the Roman class structure. I'll try to start this off... I would say that this ancient system is both similar and yet would be somewhat reviled by the modern sensibility. The 'lower class' made up the bulk of the population of the ancient world, and were governed by the social elite with little opportunity for advancement. While the opportunity for advancement exists today, are abrupt shifts in the social order any more common than they were 2,000 years ago? The bulk of people living in democratic societies today occupy the 'middle-class' which simply did not exist in the Roman structure. That one social change completely skews the two systems, otherwise we might find our sensibilities to be very similar. However, by comparing the position of the elite in both societies, does today's middle class occupy any better of a station than the lower classes of the Roman world?

Perhaps Heatonius would be better? =P

That's the tough question really. Evolving this topic further, let's look at a few key moments in history where the situation is in doubt and we get to decide which 'side' we are on. Let's say 50 BC. Caesar, the de facto leader of the Populares has conquered Gaul but has not crossed the Rubicon. The Optimates, backed by Pompey in a military sense, still have considerable power of their own. The eventual winner is clearly in doubt, who then would you back. As I said earlier I love the history of Caesar, but who I supported at that time would depend on my personal conviction and my station in life. Despite admiring the 'greatness' of Caesar, compared to the bungling of the opposition, I believe I would've supported the Optimates had I been among the elite. As another choice, try to make sense of the turmoil following Caesar's death. Antony is the default new leader of the populares, but lacks Caesar's charisma. Cicero tries to prop up Octavian as a new leader of the Optimates. Lepidus, the leading patrician left alive, had his own following. Who would've known that Octavian would turn against Cicero and ally with Antony (even though he called for justice against the assassins quite early)? Even after the triumvirate was established and the 'Republicans' were destroyed, who would've guessed that Octavian could beat Antony in an actual war. In my previous example, I backed the Optimates. Had I survived, I would've likely ended up with Sextus Pompey (great I was once a Senator, now I'm a supporter of a pirate), but lets say you are forced to pick amongst the triumvirates. Pick wrong and you are eventually dead, Octavian was not so forgiving as Caesar (assuming your convictions are strong and you are not willing to switch sides mid conflict). Lepidus at least was a Patrician with a strong familial history. Antony and the way he acted (eastern influences) was an embarrassment. And Octavian was a johnny come lately with no legitimate right to power.

Would you like me to fix it?

This thread got me to thinking that as a site admin and the author of most of the site's historical content, I should be less anonymous. I originally chose primuspilus because of its obvious command implications but mainly because I simply liked the ring of it