Primus Pilus

I guess the point is... from a military and control stand point it was propbably not necessary. From the perspective of necessitating total victory over the Jews and making sure that everyone knew that resistance would not be tolerated.. Masada proved an excellent example. Equating the politics of the ancient world to modern rational simply doesn't work. 'Necessary' seems to imply right and wrong. To the Romans... it was the right thing to do and modern arguments against it are really irrelevant.

Yes, they took a few pieces of the Artorius Castus story and blended it in with another Arthurian concept that he was a late Roman/post withdrawal leader who rallied against Saxon incursions. That story has more in tune with Ambrosius Aurelianus or Vortigern. Many facts are unknown and I don't claim to know them, however the movie takes liberties with those items that are generally agreed upon and twists them to fit the story. Typical hollywood nonsensical stuff.

The Romans learned that Hannibal was superior on the battlefield, but yet didn't have the resources necessary to do permanent damage. Essentially, after getting their asses handed to them initially, the Romans swallowed their pride and held Hannibal 'in check', while Scipio conquered Hannibal's Spanish power base and Hannibal exhausted himself from a logistics perspective. At first Rome was definately scared of Hannibal, with good reason. As time passed a number of factors swung in the favor of Rome's moral (loyalty of the Italian allies, lack of supply for Hannibal, Scipio's successes, etc.) and there was no reason to risk another defeat for pride's sake. Even when Hannibal did eventually march on Rome, the people knew it was a hopeless gesture and auction evidence shows that prices of land surrounding Rome (where Hannibal was camped) actually was holding or going up in value. Could they have defeated Hannibal in Italy? Possibly. But the risk outweighed the reward. One dangerous possibility was that losing more men could've turned the tide in Hannibal's favor and sent the Italian allies over to his side.

Indeed, Masada may very well have been a scapegoat or a final victory to 'hang one's hat on', but the necessity of it depends on one's perspective. I would respectfully disagree with Goldsworthy and other scholars that it served no purpose. This 'final defeat' gave the impression to the Roman people that the threat was over. Whether it was already over or not was irrelevant. Masada left the perception that resistance and diversion from imperial rule still existed. From a Roman perspective stamping out out all resistance, even if it was actually just Roman propoganda (depends on the sources), it served the purpose of closing out a long and brutal war.

What re-enactment unit are you with Jimbow? Forgive me if you've mentioned it before....

Masada was the symbolic destruction of Jewish resistance. It held no strategic value, other than the final defeat of that resistance. Was it worth it? After the wars of the Flavians, Judaea was mostly peaceful (with the notable exception of Hadrian's reign).

I finally watched 'King Arthur' over the weekend. I had to fast forward through most of it The screenplay and acting was disappointing at best. The basic premise is correct, that Eques Sarmatia served in Britain from the 2nd century on. Otherwise, everything was a pretty scattered attempt at loose historical reconstruction, with some known historical figures thrown in. The 2 other known facts which is basically all that needs to be said about the accuracy of the film Castus served in the late 2nd century. The Legions were gone from the wall in the late 4th and early 5th century.

Sounds like a decent start there... unless that's the background that was provided to begin the essay? Are you looking for information on Caesar, or just the idea on how to start?

I'm afraid I'm not very well versed on the eastern Huns, but in the west.... Atilla wreaked havoc long after Rome had declined from its previous state of military authority. Still, despite his devastation, he was eventually defeated. (Partially at the hands of the Germanic tribes he helped displace) My understanding of the Huns in China was that co-existed fairly peacefully during the strength of the Han Dynasty. Perhaps that was because they couldn't match them at that time? The eastern Huns did however have their own day in the sun during the waning days of Han China. Liu Yuan a Hunnic King, in the early 4th century AD did establish part of the Zhao Dynasty. I do think there is a serious distinction to be made between eastern and western Huns. There are probably some environmental, social and perhaps even genetic differences. I am no expert though and admit ignorance as to the details.

Castro? I suppose he's fine if you're a supporter. Just don't live in Cuba if you're a dissenter... its not good for one's health.

There's also this one... Roma Victor. A recreation of the Roman world circa 180 AD.

Ceasar correctly?

I think Caesar grew up with a desire to achieve greatness and the ultimate Roman 'dignitas' but I don't think he was a tyrant from birth. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Still McCullough does treat him with a bit of hero worship, but thats offset by the accuracy and the proper context in which she includes known historical events.

does that mean alien and ufo believers, and transexuals are all atheists ? there seems to be a jump in logic. Almost forgot... I don't know if all transexuals are atheist, but I can definately confirm that not all atheists are transexuals. At least I know of one for sure

No not really, its not a 'crusade' for me, its just the way I feel. The only thing I advocate as a non-believer is that people who are, truly learn and practice their religions the way they were originally intended. Other than that, I have no personal concerns over whether or not anyone else believes. In fact, imagine this, I am actually a very strong supporter of conservative Christian values. I do believe in majority rule and tradition, and in the US we have a deep historical Christian foundation. I'm in favor of such things as nativity scenes on government property, the inclusion of "In God We Trust" on US money and other federal properties, 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, even the addition of the statue of the Ten Commandments in that courthouse in Alabama, among other things. I'm really just not a big fan of organized churches. Weird huh? No, not really, I don't worry about convincing people. I honestly don't care. I'm only discussing the general topic here for the sake of discussion. If someone doesn't believe me, and I'm generally quite reserved about mentioning it (web anonymity is different though eh), then I just shrug and let them think whatever they want. Notice I don't talk about why I don't believe, or why others shouldn't. I don't like when people try to tell me what I should think, so I assume others wouldn't like me doing the same. If someone asks, I might go into detail if I get the feeling that it won't turn into an argument or something very uncomfortable. A discussion of ideas is generally very interesting and enlightening, I just hate to put someone in the awkward position of examining their own faith. Now in the case where someone really does start to think about what they believe in (as a result of a discussion like that), then their faith obviously wasn't very strong to begin with, but I'd still rather not be the one to put them in that position. Its something that people should search out on their own internally. Ramble off

Yes, 600 was the basis throughout the imperial period, but the number did fluctuate somewhat depending on the needs or whims of the Emperors. Originally, under Romulus and the early Kings the Senate supposedly consisted of 100 member, but this of course is debatable. In the Republican period it was established at 300 members and this number increased to 600 gradually. As suggested in another post, Caesar increased the roles dramatically, but Augustus reduced it back to 600 after a relatively short period. Of course, after Caesar, the proscriptions of the Triumvirs as well as those killed in the civil wars, drastically reduced the number of Senators anyway, so 900 was likely only the number in theory, not practice. Really impossible to determine. In the earliest part of the Republic the eques represented those wealthier members of society who actually owned horses and served as the Roman cavalry. As time passed (and the Roman cavalry proved to be far inferior to Gallic and Germanic auxilia) the eques really came to define those members of society who had the wealth to serve in that capacity if needed. There were assuredly thousands of them. There are references to as many as 500 equites living in small towns like Patavium and Gades in Baetica (Spain). If such small towns could be home to so many, then Rome must've been home to several thousand itself.

I suppose we are just talking semantics here, but I do maintain that my own personal philosophy is different from religion. And though I do have an inflated ego , I don't consider myself a 'higher power'. I suppose I can determine right and wrong based on that philosophy, but yet it is certainly influenced by the laws of the land, including traditions which are deeply rooted in some religious ethics. I don't see a problem with obeying a law, for example "Thou Shalt Not Kill", simply because I don't practice that faith, especially in this case where it is a law of both gods and men. I'm sure we can go in circles on this sort of thing, but I'll always maintain that I am religion free... unless of course some miraculous event occurs which changes my mind. Hey, at least I'm open to the possibility of change.

I disagree, I have no religion and yet am fairly confidant that I exist. The term religion to me is not interchangeable with personal philosophy, evn though you are using it in that context. Religion, at least in my mind correlates to the belief in a supreme being or higher powers of some sort.

Among the most famous scandals of the ancient world... And despite his destruction of Caesar's marriage and the tarnishing of his dignity, he still became an invaluable supporter... well at least for a time. Clodius was truly a demagogue in the spirit of the Gracchi and without his contribution to the chain of events that brought the Republic to its end, events may have taken a decidely different spin (even with a similar outcome)

Though the operatic work of the same name (O Fortuna in particular), by Carl Orff is one of the most powerful musical pieces ever written. Well IMO anyway. And sorry for the off-topic tangent

Thank you Silentium

Gibbon's portrayal, written in the heart of western European Christianity is actually a bit stunning. For it not to be totally biased against Justinian is not only a commendation to Gibbon but to the character of Justinian as well. That he wasn't completely blasted always suprises me a little, even though Gibbon has always been considered a 'fair' historian. Gibbon's work, despite being written without the benefit of later archaeology (and some of the inherent problems as a result) is still a must read for student of Rome.

The thing about HBO, under my current free trial period, is that I get about 9 different HBO channels. The problem is... 5 or 6 of them seem to be showing the same thing at the same time, so what's the point. Still, I'll need to watch this show. If's in any way comparable to the quality of 'Band of Brothers' it will be worth it.

Welcome Haimore, whereabouts are you stationed?

I guess ABC television is producing one as well, set more in the Augustan era. I doubt that will have much success when compared to HBO/BBC though. I'm afraid I may just have to buy the actual HBO subscription, LOL