Primus Pilus

Considering how talented Crichton is, mixed with a historical setting, I may have to check that out. My book list is forever growing

A visitor sent me this via private message... truly a fascinating read, even though I am skeptical. It is certainly believed that the survivors of Carrhae went on to serve their new Parthian masters, and even were granted their own lands, but this article takes it a step (or several) farther east into China.

Welcome Skel, glad to have you. We may go through periods with little activity, but our forum is becoming more active with time. The more the merrier... or so they say. Who exactly are they anyway

Just a random collection of thoughts... Much of the slave information provided, definately relates to the later imperial age. In the Republic and even earlier empire (but it was tailing off considerably), most slaves came from foreign wars. The Punic, Macedonian (including the Seleucid War against Antiochus) and Pompey's eastern campaigns brought in new slaves by ridiculous numbers. This great influx, while bringing great economic wealth for the elite, also destabilized the social conditions of the masses. This destabilization of the landless poor, led directly to much of the strife that helped bring down the Republic. A prime example was the Marian legion reforms, that were a necessity due to the great number of idle and state dependent citizens. Caesar even imposed restrictions on the number of slaves that could be 'employed' vs. free men or poor citizens, though these laws were largely ignored. The numbers regarding male vs. female slaves is definately true. In the age of Augustus a male slave could cost typically around 500 denarii, whereas a female could cost as much as 6,000. A female though, was much more likely to be a household slave than a hard laborer. As the Roman economy required massive amounts of slaves for agricultural and industrial purposes it stands to reason that the vast majority of these would've been male. While in the city itself, one might see a closer numerical relationship between male and female slaves, in the factories, mines, farms, etc. they would've been disproportionately male. And I'll make an attempt at one answer for the time being... In theory yes, but birth rate among slaves was never high. The influx was based largely on foreign wars, as alluded to above.

I agree with that statement, for the most part (at least prior to the modern age) but it is important to note that Romans not only faced mutinies, but one of their worst problems (mostly prior to the Imperial era) was poor military leadership. Generals were selected based on their election to various magistracies and many had no business in such a postion as they were completely incompetent.

Indeed, though I believe it was a bit earlier... about 212 AD, under Caracalla.

Yes, some comparisons can be made, but keep in mind that the German Army of the World War era was a relatively short-lived power. The rise of the National Socialists, including the rebuilding of its army, until their final defeat was only about 2 decades in total. In Roman history, 20 years is a tiny blip on their radar. The Romans had their own share of mutiny. Even Caesar had some difficulty.

By the way folks, I don't mean to be rude, but I don't reply to general conversation around here as much as I should. I am quite often researching or writing articles for the content part of the site. Just didn't want people to think I was ignoring topics, but frequently, when I have time to focus on UNRV.com things, I tend to dive deeply into writing.

Welcome Simplus... We have no affiliation with Nova Roma. As I understand it, its a virtual Roman community? But, thanks for the compliments. Dan.. Not stupid at all. Just something we came up with a long time ago. It stands for United Nations of Roma Victor. The idea being... this is a place for all those with interest in the glory of Rome to come together and share ideas, etc. I'm not a big fan of the name, (being an American I have a natural aversion to the UN ) but we definately have an international flair around here. And yes we know the context is wrong is wrong in strict Latin. Locke Glad to have you, until you're there, of course.

St. Damasus I should've been the first pope to assume the title Pontifex Maximus. When Gratian (the Western Emperor) abdicated the title to the Christian Pope, at the dictate of Theodosius (the Eastern Emperor), the Popes, rather than the Emperors assumed the role of head priest of the Roman state religion.

There is certainly some truth in it, though I'd have to read more to understand the entire context. Still I can comment a little. The old gods, the traditions and customs were being muddied as the empire spread. While the Roman culture traveled to the outer provinces and beyond, new ideas and ways of life from these far away places began to alter the mindset of the masses. There are several threads where religion is discussed in detail and we touch on this subject about. Take a look around, you may find some of what you're looking for is already spread around.

While I agree with most of your statement, the title of 'Pope' was actually around long before Constantine. Here's a list beginning with St. Peter Popes

Thermopylae... interestingly enough, the Romans adapted their own version of that ancient battle. According to Livy it was against Veii at Cremora.

Rome I understand, just by the nature of this site's subject matter, but I'm really curious why an Australian would have an affinity to Canada. Anything in particular that really intrigues you?

Absolutely. It didn't help Scipio's legacy any that he was eventually villified by Cato in the Forum. His political career in shambles and seemingly without the ego to force its correction, Scipio's place in history was knocked down a notch. Certainly not. Caesar though, was brilliant in both fields, as a politician and a soldier. Adding that to his incredible mastery of propoganda, he was ensured his place in history. Of course, Caesar's great fame was dependent on his ultimate civil war victory, and without it, he wouldn't have been any more regarded than great contemporary generals like Marius, Sulla and Pompey. The legacy of his name, and eventual dynasty adds a bit of strength to the legend as well.

That's the answer I was looking for. Seems an interesting read regardless of the reader's perspective then.

Perhaps my words sound as if I don't respect the Roman legions, but believe me, I personally feel they were the greatest infantry the world has ever known. I was simply trying to point out the weaknesses, and put in context, while responding to an earlier post.

Certainly true. The Christian faith spread among the urban masses at a rather substantial pace after the 2nd centuries. The aristocracy converted much later of course, as they didn't see a beneficial association with the church. Though this is simplified, when they realized that they were losing touch with the masses because of religious differences, it made much more sense to join the 'conversion'. Of course, the decline of the 'Pax Romana' seems to have a rather interesting affinity with the rise of the church. As the people felt less secure, this new faith of salvation for all began to truly take hold In the rural areas, where the church had less influence, the country folk (the root of the term pagan) continued to practice the 'old faith' for many generations. They were partially converted through the use of interposing Christian holidays upon older pagan rituals, the inclusion of patron saints to make poly-theistic gods obsolete, and certainly the 'charity' of the church. Interestingly enough though, the rural poor were never on the great receiving end of 'bread and circuses' like their urban counterparts, and its the urban folks who gravitated to this new charity source first.

Indeed, Hannibal couldn't (at least he believed) take Rome because the defenses were too great, and in siege warfare his army would've been left vulnerable. The lack of support from Carthage itself is hard to understand, but isn't that an all too common thing where politics, rivalries, etc. are concerned. I also agree that Hannibal's defeat wasn't necessarily inevitable. In spite of the lack of support from Carthage, reinforcements, and a continual supply from Spain would've altered the course of history. His defeat only became inevitable because of Scipio, and had he been a lesser general, who knows how many more years Hannibal would've wreaked havoc in Italy. Scipio's brilliance was not necessarily his defeat of Hannibal at Zama, but using his own resources to force the war to that point. Scipio was well aware of Hannibal's logistic and reinforcement nightmares in Italy and based much of his Spanish campaign in continuing those problems. Stopping Hannibal's reinforcements from leaving Spain and joining Hannibal in Italy was paramount and Scipio accomplished this, while essentially conquering that incredibly valuable province for Rome. We often forget that Scipio went on to play a considerable role in the east defeating Antiochus of Syria and bringing Roman domination into the Hellenistic world. Though the final 'conquest' of the east was still considerable time away, Scipio helped lay that foundation, on top of finally ending the threat of Hannibal.

Thanks to Tony Gee, we'll be adding a new subsection in the Roman book area of the site for Roman related game reviews. He's put together a fairly in depth one on an old classic 'Centurion: Defender of Rome' that we hope to have published within the next few days. I'd personally like to thank those of you who have helped to add content to our site, and all of our forum regulars. You've really helped build UNRV.com into a destination for anyone interested in the Roman world, and believe me, the additions you've made takes alot of pressure off us. We like to be able to add something new on a regular basis, and these extras, besides giving us a bit of breathing room, add just one more thing (that branches off from regular history content) that might just help someone to stumble across our site. Thanks again!

Let me ask this... is the book a recreation of John's journey from a mystical/religious standpoint, or a re-telling of the events from a human perspective? What I mean is, while the subject matter is Christian in nature, is it written as pro-church propoganda or simply a history of the time, including that of the eastern church?

Sounds interesting to me. Though I'm a sucker for anything Roman, of course. Feel free to expound further on it

Welcome, Sulla, Tony and Dan. What's with all the history buffs in the financial field? Just so happens to be the same situation for me. Just a strange coincidence I guess. Anyway welcome.

The link is fine Tony... no worries. Livy is one of the few sources that can be considered at least semi-reliable. Unfortunately the early history of Rome is based mostly on legend and a great deal of anecdotal evidence. Its still likely as close as we'll ever get to it though, just take it with a grain of salt. Personally I love Livy and recommend it to anyone interested in Rome.

Well there is some truth that they could function as simple grinders. Most of that depended on the generals though, of course. The great ones, such as Caesar, used the superiority of the Roman army to its maximum capabilities. The serviceable generals, used the tried and true method of marching straight at the enemy, and would usually still win through the sheer superiority of Roman armament and discipline. There were, however, plenty of inept generals. Varus' loss of three legions (along with the great guerilla skill of Arminius and his underarmed Germanics) provides one example. The Romans struggled against any army with superior cavalry, even after they were heavily supplemented with Gallic or Germanic auxilia. Despite the tactical skill and mobility of the Roman infantry, cavalry used as with speed and strength was always a problem for infantry throughout history. In the east, the Romans had problems with Persians and Parthians for that reason, coupled with the fact that these empires also had the wealth to provide quality armaments to its soldiers. Still though, these empires never made serious lasting incursions against the Romans, as they either couldn't match up consistently, lacked the resources. Rome didn't truly begin to lose battles on any consistent basis until the massive Germanic migrations. The breakdown of the social fabric of the empire, including its armies, through the inclusion of so many non Roman citizens and soldiers played a significant part, as well.