Primus Pilus

Probably according to those living in the future. However, the concept of Democracies or Republics, is a several thousand year old form of government. Its always evolving to meet modern challenges or needs, and will continue to do so, regardless of where its practiced. Whether modern democracies/republics like those of the US and Europe survive or not, isn't the question, but whether or not the concept can and does 'work'. Communism, on the other hand, at least the form practiced in reality, doesn't evolve. So far it has either collapsed or radically changed. By evolution, I mean the concept that the fundamental ideology stays the same while laws and such are altered to face current situations. By radically change, I mean the introduction of capitalism or free trade, etc. into a system of government which, in theory, should be completely opposed to that. Perhaps some day a true communist utopia will develop. If people are happy and it shows a track record of maintaining itself for an indefinate period of time, then I guess one would deem it a success. There are plenty of 'positive' arguments that can be made in favor of the community, all for one and one for all concept. Just so far, it hasn't worked, where at least democracy/republic has consistently maintained a presence since the dawn of civilization.

The Chatti are mentioned fairly frequently in the ancient texts including Tacitus. Unfortunately there is very little detail available. They were, however, a regular nemesis of the Romans, including Tiberius, Germanicus and Drusus for much of the 1st century AD. In many cases Germanic tribes were simply called Germanic, and the difference between actual tribal names is often left out. While the Chatti are mentioned often, the Chattuarii are little known or referred to, at least in the ancient texts.

A failure as it relates to a grand scale. No large scale communist nations exist or have ever existed in the true sense of the word.

I occasionally receive emails from visitors pointing out minor mistakes in content, grammar or spelling. As these things occasionally slip through, your efforts are much appreciated. Please feel free to notify us either here in the forum or directly though email: primuspilus@unrv.com Thanks again!

Which is exactly why Communism is a failure. In order to be a success, communism must have uniform agreement. When it does not, even a detractor who is exiled from the society as a whole still creates ripples within the fabric of the system. Dictatorial government through elite party enforcement is what really occurs. There is no such thing as true marxist communism outside of small cult groups scattered around. Even then, there is generally a leader or 2 or several who tend to move out in front of the entire group.

I don't believe there are any known cases of Germanics using woad. Viggen can confirm or deny this theory better than I can, however. Woad (blue skin paint) was generally a Celt/Pict cultural phenomena.

There are no questions or topics that we feel too unsophisticated to delve into. If there is something that is on your mind, feel free to post. The only way to build a solid community is through people like yourself, asking questions, discussing, learning and teaching. Thanks!

Thanks, we are trying Hannibal fought so well against the Romans for a couple of reasons. He was quite simply a brilliant tactician. In the field, few men understood the concept of flanking, ambush and the use of superior cavalry the way that Hannibal did. The Romans, prior to Scipio Africanus, were also led mostly by incompetent generals. Their zeal to defeat Hannibal and gain personal glory led them into numerous traps or unfavorable positions. Eventually Hannibal's lack of reinforcements and a Roman change in philosophy (not fighting Hannibal directly in open battle) led to his downfall. The war of attrition worked against him, and as his troop strength was slowly depleted over the years, the Romans just waited him out. His purpose against the Romans was multi-faceted. First, Hannibal, and the entire Barca family, learned to hate the Romans on a personal basis from his father Hamilcar. Wrongs done to Carthage after the First Punic War was enough motivation for war in his mind. However, he did have other objectives, mainly the defeat of Rome and increase of Carthaginian power. When Hannibal first crossed the Alps, his goal was the complete revolt of the Roman allied italian tribes. Having the support of the tribes, Hannibal expected to be able to crush Rome itself. When this failed, he (and this is way simplified here), simply sought to secure peace on favorable terms, essentially reversing Carthaginian losses in the first war. You may want to check out the Second Punic War for more info. They most certainly did. Roman power was even more reliant upon political and diplomatic influence than open conquest. Enemy states, client kingdoms and allies were all inundated with Roman spies for various purposes. The word 'spy' may not have been used, in that Roman informers may have been disguised as diplomatic missions at times, but the use of these tactics are well documented with the ancient sources.

Can't speak for anyone else, but Communism is the farthest reach from my personal belief system.

The following legions were all based in the general area at some point. Legio I Adiutrix Legio II Adiutrix Legio I Italica and Legio IV Flavia Felix Legio XI Claudia Legio VII Claudia Legio XIII Gemina Legio VII Claudia is probably the best example. From the early until mid 1st century AD it was based in Burnum, Dalmatia (roughly modern Kistanje). It then moved to Viminacium, Moesia or modern Kostolac in eastern Serbia. There it stayed roughly until the fall of the western empire. Legio VII was involved in the final conquest of Illyria under Augustus, and played a major role in Trajan's conquest of Dacia. Hope that helps.

They are Latinized Celtic.

Well generally speaking, Augustus was much loved and admired. Not only was he the heir of Caesar, he put an end to the civil wars and much political corruption. Arts, culture and especially the economy flourished under his reign, which all bodes well for the common citizen.

Cato the Younger, in particular, wanted to charge Caesar with starting an illegal and unnecessary war against the Gauls without senatorial approval. The formation of the first triumvirate between Crassus, Pompey and Caesar, essentially formed a power triangle where the 3 men could divide up which provinces and have the ability to recruit new legions outside of Senatorial approval. Once at war with the Gauls, Caesar was accused of breaking the peace with the Gauls, and for slaughtering the Germanic tribes in a time of truce. Caesar was also accused of using his strength in legions to influence the opinion of the senate as well as using riches "stolen" from Gaul to bribe them as well.

The HBO/BBC series will have potential. The ABC one will likely be crap akin to something like Xena, Hercules or garbage like that. I'll still watch both and try to not be too skeptical before they even air

Edited poll, removing the repeated question, hehe. And yes, I'm partial to the abilities of Caesar

I feel more strongly that the mines were the major motivation for the conquest. The supply of silver and other metals was declining by the mid 1st century, and Britain provided an excellent opportunity to replenish the supply.

I don't buy the Ben Stada story any more than any other. The entire religion is based on adapted stories from other cultures, with some sprinklings of contemporary events. Too often, atheists try so hard to find an exact reason to counter the historical existance of Jesus. It really isn't necessary. Christianity is about faith, simple as that. You either believe it or you don't. The lack of historical evidence will never change the mind of a believer, whereas no amount of mythical evidence will do the same to a non-believer. I like movies such as this for the portrayal of the theme. (though I still haven't seen it yet, lol). Like Gladiator, despite its horrific butchering of history, it still presented what I felt was a very compelling setting and climate during the mid to late Roman Empire. "Passion" will likely be the same for me, an entertaining depiction of one person's view of history.

Welcome to the forum Julian. It seems we are building a general consenus opinion here. One of the reasons Hannibal is faulted for his campaign is that he didn't force the Roman's to make the decision on settling or continuing to fight. By not threatening Rome directly (until it was too late), the Romans were never in a position to feel all could be lost. (Well I'm sure some felt that way, but the state as a whole managed to resist.) Had he taken he fateful plunge of besieging Rome, the world would know whether Rome would've negotiated or not. As he didn't, the conclusions we all have regarding Carthage will likely be similar.

The end result, of course, was a Roman victory. Both the first and second punic wars were both highly contested wars that could've gone either way. The first resulted in gains for Rome in Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, but also led to Carthaginian expansion in Spain. The third was really only a late continuation of the second war, in which Rome decided to put an end to any potential new threat. By that time, Carthage indeed, did not have a chance. The Second Punic War was, in my opinion, one of the great pivotal events in world history. Hannibal laid waste to the Romans in Italy, but they proved their resiliency over and over again. If not for Roman successes in Spain, Phoenician, just possibly, could've very well been the dominate culture of ancient Europe. However, Rome was never really in a position to be completely destroyed or dominated. At best, Carthage could hope for a reversed outcome where Rome was a client state to Carthage. Alternatively, Carthage faced the very real threat of total destruction, as eventually happened later. Some argue that had Hannibal only sieged Rome itself, the Romans would've been forced to sue for peace, but in reality, I think Hannibal was smarter than most, and he realized that the cost of that siege would've hurt him more than the Romans. I voted that it took a monumental effort by Rome to win, because it did. However, I think the successes of Hannibal were even more monumental. Even had the Romans 'lost' the war, I don't think they would've disappeared from history as Carthage did. It just would've taken longer for their eventual emergence, or their role in European domination would've been slightly reduced.

No offense to my northern neighbors, but I think putting Canada second has to rank as some sort of North American bias. Canada has very little major influence on the world stage. Yes, they have a wealth of natural resources, but it is largely untapped. The others I tend to agree with, though my ranking would likely be different. Seeing as how oil seems to be an important factor on your list I might include Venezuela some day, if they ever straighten out their own socio-political issues. Brazil would really be the only South American nation with any chance at the moment, but they have their own problems (hell who doesn't). Israel might also be considered, not because of their power, but because of their everyday influence on world events. You've got to admit that they are often the center of world attention, regardless of the reasons. Of course, that has nothing to do with economics, I'm only factoring 'influence' into my equation.

Thanks for the compliment and welcome Morphus. The more the merrier...

Yes sometimes we think of ancient people as cave dwelling barbarians. In reality many tribes were adventurous explorers and innovators. They had minor capability to build large formidable cultures similar to the way we are organized today, but it didnt affect their ability to organize and develop on a smaller scale. Well, until the Greeks and Romans anyway.

Prior to the 1st century AD this was very important, but with the death of Nero, it no longer mattered.

Including partial inscriptions, fragments, etc. there are indeed countless ancient texts that are known and catalogued. Unfortunately, most of these pieces don't reveal a great deal so they have little value to archaeology. This is off the top of my head, but one major find was the actual documentation of Pontius Pilate as the Praefect of Judaea in the time of Tiberius. Prior to that discovery, in the 1970's if I remember right, there was no proof of his placement in Judaea at the time of christ, other than references from sources written long after the fact. There are new discoveries all the time, of course, but rarely anything that would be classified as shocking anymore. Though recently, the discovery of a coin confirmed the existance of a previously disputed emperor. That story can be read here.

Regardless of how a 'New Man' was received by the populous, one cannot discount the achievements of men such as Marius and Pompeius simply because they weren't of Latin descent. The fact that new men such as these were able to achieve so much reflects even more highly upon them. Cicero too was a new man. He is without a doubt one of the greatest Romans ever to have lived. In fact, Marius and Pompeius were both adored by the public, (except for Pompeius after he opposed Caesar). All were Roman citizens, thereby making them Romans, regardless of their birth lines. If it were based on the feelings of patrician or equestrian families, then yes these men were not exactly revered. Any man with considerable power was never the favorite of other senators, and in this case, especially because of their Italian heritage. However, Caesar, as patrician and latin as they could come, was no more liked by his colleagues than Marius or Pompey. In fact, Pompeius, when opposing Caesar was preferred as the lesser of two evils.