Primus Pilus

And what of Stilicho.

My unscientific list. =P Alexander Caesar Hannibal Scipio Marius

Its the only thing we have to judge Hannibal on. It certainly isnt fair to judge him based on Zama, where he was defeated with far inferior forces. I may sound as if I'm knocking Hannibal, but I'm not. He was simply a brilliant tactician. Seems to have made some bad judgements regarding strategy, but on the field itself, he was second to none.

A very interesting concept, but even Hannibal himself conceded that Alexander was the greatest general commander in history. Both heavily relied upon cavalry which would make a confrontation interesting. Hannibal though, never faced a brilliant enemy until Scipio, but by that point his own veterans were scattered and he was forced to rely on raw recruits. I could hazard a guess I suppose. I would go with Alexander simply because he just didn't lose. Hannibal, despite his successes was seriously challenged in Italy against inferior Roman commanders. He never lost big, but was never strong enough to finish the job either. By no means do I knock Hannibal who was a brilliant commander. If forced to make a guess I simply would choose the greatest conqueror in the history of the world.

I'm partial to the ancient sources. Appian - The Roman History (very underated ancient historian) Caesar - Gallic War and Civil War Cicero - Many writings Dio Cassius (Cassius Dio) - History of Rome Galen - On the Natural Faculties (Medical) Josephus - The Jewish War Livy - History of Rome Marcus Aurelius - Meditations Pliny the Elder - Natural History Pliny the Younger - Volumes of letters Plutarch - 'Lives' Over 60 biographies of Greek and Roman personalities Polybius - Histories Ptolemy - Geography (among other scientific and mathematic works) Suetonius - Lives of the Caesars (From Caesar to Domitian, its more about entertainment than history) Tacitus - Germania and Agricola, Annals (of Imperial Rome) Vegetius - The Military Institutions of the Romans

First though Valens, let's clarify. Do you mean Emperors who led armies while actually wearing the purple, or at any time during their career. Helps to limit the field a bit.

There are maps in the works for all provinces. I'm not sure when Illyricum and Moesia will be done, but there are plans for it

Possibly because I paid in full, rather than the $10 deposit. Still, every store may do it differently.

No not really. My impression of him is more based on his stabilization of the empire. Much credit often goes to the '5 good emperors', but without Vespasian, who knows if they ever would've had a chance to excel. The only knock on Vespasian... his son Domitian.

You mean you want a map of that area?

There are several who come to mind right off... Tiberius Vespasian (all the emperors of 69 AD, really) Titus Septimius Severus..... I'll stop there just because it starts to get fairly muddled with usurpers and so forth after. I've always felt that Vespasian and his accomplishments as both emperor and general are overlooked. Trajan stands out immediately, of course, but I really do lean towards Vespasian.

I beleive you missed a battle involving Alexander. Not entirely sure which one, as I didnt see it either.

A Font?? As in Times New Roman? =P

With the European imperialism and expansion to Africa and the Americas. 15th to 17th centuries. Primus = Prime or First (generally translated as first) Pilus = File (often translated as spear) The Primus Pilus was the the Top ranking Centurion in the legion. He was the field commander while the Legate and his staff conducted the battle from a strategic vantage point (generally). His actual position was as the lead centurion of the first century of the first cohort.

I think Ursus meant that Celtic pagans dislike Rome due to its conquest of the Celtic people. Its related of course, but still a different issue than religious tolerance. Then again, I know little to nothing of paganism. (by the way, nothing wrong so far, but please continue to be 'tolerant' enough not to get into various religious bashing. Open discussion of religion, especially as it relates historically, is encouraged, but we also like for our forum to be as inclusive as the Romans were. Thanks guys! =P)

There were several reasons for the first triumvirate. All 3 men had a considerable degree of power or clients at individuals, but there was also enough resistance to all to make individual efforts in the Senate a difficult proposition. By combining their power base, they were able to effectively pass through proposals that otherwise would have failed. Caesar seemingly gained the most, the Consulship and eventual appointment as governor of Gaul. Pompey got land laws and settlements approved for his veterans and Crassus was also able to pass his own proposals. Additionally they were able to secure provincial interests either through direct governing or through various clients. The Triumvirate was wildly successful. Each man benefited in some degree. Caesar got his Gallic conquest, Crassus got his Parthian conquest (which was a disaster) and Pompey got power and legitimate office in Rome. It collapsed for several reasons, but there are a couple that stand out as the root causes. 1) Crassus was killed in Parthia. 2) Julia, daughter of Caesar and wife of Pompey, died. With Crassus out of the mix, the triumvirate lost a third of its stabilizing force. With Julia dead, Pompey lost any obligation he may have had to Caesar. With the two of them left, and without Crassus to act as a third party, Pompey was very susceptible to the influences of Caesar's enemies in Rome. Call it fear, jealousy, legitimate concern over Caesar's growing strength, or whatever you'd like, Pompey simply switched sides. Cato's, and others, insistence that Caesar be prosecuted after his imperum was gone (the end of his proconsular governorship), was then the next major contributing force to Caesar's march. Would Caesar have done it anyway? Who knows, but I wonder what course history would've taken if Caesar had been guaranteed that there would be no prosecution upon his return to Rome.

From Tacitus: The Annals Book XII About the same time, the mountain between Lake Fucinus and the river Liris was bored through, and that this grand work might be seen by a multitude of visitors, preparations were made for a naval battle on the lake, just as formerly Augustus exhibited such a spectacle, in a basin he had made this side the Tiber, though with light vessels, and on a smaller scale. Claudius equipped galleys with three and four banks of oars, and nineteen thousand men; he lined the circumference of the lake with rafts, that there might be no means of escape at various points, but he still left full space for the strength of the crews, the skill of the pilots, the impact of the vessels, and the usual operations of a seafight. On the raft stood companies of the praetorian cohorts and cavalry, with a breastwork in front of them, from which catapults and balistas might be worked. The rest of the lake was occupied by marines on decked vessels. An immense multitude from the neighbouring towns, others from Rome itself, eager to see the sight or to show respect to the emperor, crowded the banks, the hills, and mountain tops, which thus resembled a theatre. The emperor, with Agrippina seated near him, presided; he wore a splendid military cloak, she, a mantle of cloth of gold. A battle was fought with all the courage of brave men, though it was between condemned criminals. After much bloodshed they were released from the necessity of mutual slaughter. When the sight was over, the outlet of the water was opened. The careless execution of the work was apparent, the tunnel not having been bored down so low as the bottom, or middle of the lake. Consequently after an interval the excavations were deepened, and to attract a crowd once more, a show of gladiators was exhibited, with floating pontoons for an infantry engagement. A banquet too was prepared close to the outflow of the lake, and it was the means of greatly alarming the whole company, for the water, in the violence of its outburst, swept away the adjoining parts, shook the more remote, and spread terror with the tremendous crash. At the same time, Agrippina availed herself of the emperor's fright to charge Narcissus, who had been the agent of the work, with avarice and peculation. He too was not silent, but inveighed against the domineering temper of her sex, and her extravagant ambition.

One of them already aired. The Battle of Cannae pitting Hannibal against the Romans in one of the greatest defeats in Roman military history. It was well done, but really think other forms of animation could paint a much better picture. The graphics are great for a video game, but for a television documentary, they are a bit lacking. Just my opinion. Still damn nice exposure for the total war developers.

Thanks Ursus, nicely done btw. I'm not sure how much interest Roman Paganism has, as you'd be more in tune to that. I'd think it's a fairly small segment of the population, though we may get a fair share of visitors here that follow that course. Regardless, if its related to the Roman world, I see no problem with providing information regardless of how many people it appeals to.

Well said, there are 2 sides to every coin.

I know little about it other than it was conducted on the Lacus Fucinus.

I bought the pre-order for the PC game Rome: Total War yesterday. I believe its due on the shelves on September 23. The pre-order came with a DVD showing the complete game trailer and some other walk through stuff. I don't know why I bought the pre-order, as I never do that, but hell, this is Rome . All I can say is, when it arrives, this game will keep me busy. I hope my content writing doesn't suffer for a while

Its pretty safe to say that I'm an admirer of Rome. Living in the ancient world would largely depend on the class status, however. I wouldn't suppose that being a heavy manual labor slave would be all that much fun. Was the Empire corrupt? Sure, at times. The ancient world was no different than the modern one in this regard. Corrupt politicians or business people is a recurring theme. Judging the Roman world in a negative light on this aspect is just plain wrong, if you disregard similar conditions that exist today. To discount Rome as an evil empire also discredits all the contributions it made. The Greeks were the innovators who created many of the concepts that the Romans used, but it was the Romans who gave them to the entire western world. Public sewage and plumbing, roads, medicine and other public institutions weren't surpassed in quality until the 19th and 20th centuries.

Not necessarily. Auxilia strength and positioning varied throughout the empire, and its importance also varied. The Roman legion wouldn't have conquered western Europe without it, but it sure wouldn't have done so without the discipline of the regular legionary. I don't recall anyone suggesting that. Welcome to our forum btw, schreuderjonkman

I honestly don't recall any literary evidence of the salute. At least not any describing it in detail. It certainly was mentioned at some point by the ancient sources. As I recall, Trajan's Column does show a small piece with legionaries saluting. I don't remember exactly where, but somewhere near the bottom.