Primus Pilus

Of course, the 'power' of the Senate varied widely depending on the Emperor. In general terms though, the Senate largely served as a recruiting pool for all the various magistracies and government appointments. In the late Republican period magistrates were elected by the citizen assemblies, but in the imperial period this 'election' was given strictly to the Senate (Though imperial suggestion could quite obviously influence the vote) They still oversaw many functions of government, but the Emperor could intervene at any time. While the Senate still 'voted' on various legislation, it was usually quite apparent to them whether or not they really had any choice on how to vote. They also had the right to 'elect' a new Emperor, but this too was usually decided well in advance of their 'vote'. However, their vote did legitimize the rule. This only scratches the service, but the Senate did function in much the same capacity as they did in the Republic. They were just limited by the fact that they held no real authority and every decision could be overturned or influenced by the Emperor. An excellent... if somewhat expensive book on the subject. The Senate of Imperial Rome

Only Osrhoene was added. It was conquered by Trajan but annexed officially by Severus in AD 195. Caracalla made it an official province in AD 211. Numidia was also split from Africa by Severus in AD 197 for administrative purposes, but the territory had been part of the Empire for 2 centuries so I don't think that really counts.

You can discuss movies in the media forum. Please keep the History forum about actual events

Though I find the cause of the Populares more entertaining, and perhaps more interesting to study today, my personal conviction would probably make me a conservative Optimate had I lived during the events in question.

I cant think of anything off the top of my head that list everything that specifically in one place. Most are listed by reading all the ancient sources, but of course that is alot of reading and filtering. Also be aware that accurate dating is often the victim of changes in the calendars. One source may report it is March, when in reality, after shifts in the calendar it was in the mid summer season. Just something to watch out for.

She carried the name Ptolemy from that line, but yes, as I recall there was relation to the Mithridatic family as well.

Natural Histories books 23 - 32 Courtesy of the Perseus Project, which is unfortunately often quite slow.

That's why I went with Alexanders and the hybrid 'Macedonian dynasty'.

Alexander and his splintered Macedonian 'dynasty' ruled the east for another 1 to 3 centuries before the Romans came to power. It left a legacy of hellenization that allowed the Roman conquest to take a firm hold.

Conscript Fathers is one such term

Keep in mind too, that the armies of the earlier Republic were self financed... there were no wages and weapons and armor were provided by the individual troops. A considerable savings for the 'State' treasury.

If one believes Shakespeare than yes. I however don't think so. Corruption is as much a result of systems, just as much as it is of the individual morals of those involved. The powerful can be corrupt or not corrupt, depending on the system surrounding them and their own conviction. If the system is weak, one of weak character and in a position of power has a higher chance of corruption. Each variable would have a different possible equation in my opinion. More of a philosophical question about Republic vs. Empire I think. If they weren't granted both Consular and Tribunician power, than they wouldn't have been 'Emperor'. I don't believe the system would have worked in that circumstance.

Pliny the Elder provides an exhaustive resource on various remedies in his Natural histories.

I disagree with the 'mercantilism' concept, but otherwise its hard to argue with the general idea of your post. Roman economy was based entirely on agrarian principals. Simply speaking, everything was designed around feeding the empire. Obviously there are many facets to the Roman economy including heavy industry, but the design was agriculture.

We are trying... the more participants we have, the more the forum will automatically diversify. Well that is what this forum is all about. Sure other things are fine to talk about, but it wouldn't make much sense for a site about Roman history to do a forum based on playing card games for example. And besides, I have studied Rome seriously for going on 20 years and learn new things every day.

Thanks Wargamer. Yup these scams are irritating. I'd figure by now that most people are well aware of them, but apparantly some people are still getting scammed

All packages mailed out Monday, March 21, 2005. Books/Coins were mailed in one package while Posters were mailed separately. Domestic (US) packages should begin to arrive within a few days and European packages should arrive between 6 and 10 business days.

In one example Dio Cassius tells us that the Egyptian Magi Arnuphis, the friend and advisor to Marcus Aurelius, was supposedly responsible for the 'Thundering Legion' episode. The same episode has also been explained numerous ways, and was especially adopted by early Christians, but Cassius shows that the Magi could be quite popular at times.

Welcome Augur... no please just jump in and feel free to start your own discussions... there is no set format to the forum. Just pay attention to our rather minimal Guidelines.

A terribly difficult choice. Polybius is lauded for his lack of bias and what appears to be a commitment to accuracy, but unfotunately only 5 of his 40 books survive, covering about 80 years. These cover the Punic Wars in depth and are an excellent resource. (Entertaining too) Livy on the other hand is often knocked for his biases and the reliance on myth and legend, especially as his writing relates to the earliest history of Rome. However, we do need to acknowledge that he certainly had access to sources that we don't even know existed. In spite of Livy's biases, which are actually fairly easy to see, without him, we have virtually no ancient source material on the earlier history of Rome. While Polybius is a much better 'historian', Livy's work is just too important in my mind. (There are other accounts of the Punic Wars, even if they did use Polybius as a source) And this is coming from someone who loved Polybius, lol.

My view is pretty much summed up in this thread.

I don't know if anything can explain him, but I like the Onion's take on it... Neverland Ranch Investigators Discover Corpse Of Real Michael Jackson

Certainly possible. Octavian was no great defender of human life. He learned from Caesar's mistakes and eliminated opposition by any means necessary. It has long assumed that he was directly responsible for the death of Caesarion (son of Caesar and Cleopatra) so it wouldn't be completely ridiculous for him to be directly involved in the death of Cleopatra. The common story of Antony and Cleopatra killing themselves in some sort of heartbroken frenzy of love and passion is ridiculous. Cleopatra certainly attempted to negotiate a better fate with Octavian, but when she saw it was futile, I still think she took her own life. If she hadn't though, I'm convinced that Octavian would have. Either way, the result is the same and the 'truth' of that particular piece of history becomes secondary to that result.

Entertaining... an excellent representation of the Roman theme. The 'history' was pathetic, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. After having seen it a few times though, I can't seem to watch it straight through anymore. That must mean something.

Indeed it was. Remember too, that the 'winners' are based on the preferred styles of the judges. Perhaps next time we will leave it completely open to votes by the community. My only reservation is potential for fraudulent votes, but its probably something we can control somehow. Anyway, all prizes have been claimed and I hope to get them all to post office by early next week. Congrats all again!