Primus Pilus

Welcome Roman Legion, Currently about Rome, but we will eventually be adding more information. Eventually we will also be adding more domains about other historical periods, but as there is still a ton to add on Rome, those plans are still an item for the future.

Amazing find, though the story fails to point out that it wasn't a special method of execution used only for Jews. The Romans could certainly be very indiscriminate when it came to crucifiction. IE. Spartacus and the slave rebellion.

We hope guests will find the book list useful. We hope to eventually include thousands of titles, but will build it slowly so it doesn't get too bulky too fast. Right now there are only a couple of sortable categories... Fiction and Non-Fiction, but eventually we may add more to help with searching. Non-Fiction may include things like Army, Atlases, Coins, etc., and we'll also add a separate link for movies to keep things easy to find. Please provide any suggestions or comments you may have to make this work well for everyone. Discussions about any particular titles can be started in a new thread within this Book forum category. Check out the Roman Books list. Thanks!!! UNRV

The TNT special was actually quite good, nothing to be ashamed of learning a little and being entertained at the same time Unfortunately, with movies, mini-series and specials they are limited by time and sometimes budgets. Because of that they sometimes have to leave part of the story out, or cut corners to make it watchable and understandable to a wide audience. Anyway, the son of Cleopatra and Caesar, Caesarion, and the presence of the Queen of Egypt as Caesar's mistress in Rome, was certainly one of many factors leading to Caesar's death. Octavian, Caesar's heir, certainly wasted no time eliminating the child after his victory and annexation of Egypt in 30 BC. Egypt was originally tied to Rome through the efforts of Ptolemy XII. In 59 BC, after negotiations (bribes) with both Caesar and Pompey along with other influential Senators, he sealed Egypts fate by becoming friend and ally status with Rome. He was deposed by his own people after the Roman conquest of Cyprus in 58 BC and fled to Rome. He was promptly, within a couple of years, put back in power with Roman influence, but died a few years later. In his will, Cleopatra VII and his son, Ptolemy XIII, were made joint rulers, but the catch was that Rome was the executor of the will. Caesar's and Antonius' relationship with Cleopatra cemented Roman influence on the state and by the time Augustus defeated Antonius and Cleopatra in 31 BC Rome was firmly planted as rulers of Egypt.

No, of course not, I only suggest that embellishment, in all forms of sociology (including history) is a common feature for those who write it. Just consider that after the fall of the Roman Empire the Church (and some noble houses, etc.) was all that remained of literacy and recording of knowledge for nearly the next millenium. There could be no dispute of the church's writings because very few other people pursued literary fields or similar endeavors. The church alone, in many cases is the only source of written evidence for this time period. Just as Tacitus and Livy were certainly biased towards Rome, we can't assume that men of faith weren't the same towards Christianity. Remember, the recorders of this history were just men like anyone else. They had a definate agenda to increase the influence of the faith. While there was some certain destruction of many pieces of anti-church literature and artifacts, we can at least be thankful that the church was there to keep even a limited record of medieval history in Europe.

Interesting, but if crossing the Rubicon was not a big deal, then why did Caesar's rivals, Cicero, Cato, Pompeius, etc. make a big deal about it. There is evidence in ancient literature. They wouldn't have gone to civil war because Caesar conquered a restless tribe, it only occured because he crossed the Rubicon with the full intention of descending upon Rome.

Moon's been drinking guinness all day, again. Pay him no mind Nice uniform Kama, when are you going to put the sucker on?

Keep in mind that the 'persecutions' have always been a bit embellished by the Church. By no means am I being revisionist and suggesting that Christians led a wonderful life of free religion under Roman dominian, but there is always evidence to take with a 'grain of salt.' Labelling the early church as a victim standing up against opressors for the good of the people certainly did much to spread its awareness and influence. When researching the Christian Persecutions, just be aware of the source material it is coming from. Did some atrocities take place? Of course. But the prevailing notion, among most people, that the Christians were brutalized for centuries under Roman rule is as much a falsehood as saying they were openly welcomed from the beginning. The simple truth of the matter is that Rome was far too pressed by a plethora of issues over the centuries which would weigh far more heavily than the issue of the Christian cult. As an example, Domitian has always been labeled as one of the great persecutors. He was indeed a persecutor of many people and certainly ranks near the top of the list of 'nasty' and at time incompetent emperors. Real evidence shows no involvement on the part of Domitian in massive persecutions of Christians, however. Tacitus, Pliny (who were both Senators during his reign and quite familiar with him), and Seutonius never mention these Christian persecutions. Tacitus, the son-in law of Agricola (a subject of one of Tacitus' many works) had plenty of reason to dislike Domitian, but yet never mentions any religious persecutions against Christians. Agricola, however, was a well documented victim of Domitians paranoia and had a fine career as a governor and legate cut short for this reason. Contrarily, both Seutonius and Tacitus did leave a written record of Nero's actions, but strangely left Domitian alone. Tacitus also quite blatantly faulted Domitian on several fronts, but never this one. Pliny wrote to the emperor Trajan years later, "I have never taken part in trials of Christians; consequently I do not know the precedents regarding the question of punishment or the nature of the inquisition." Seems strange that a Roman senator during the reign of Domitian, who is supposed to have widely tried Christians, had no clue how to proceed on such matters. A century later, the historian Dio Cassius wrote a commonly cited passage regarding Domitian. In it he claims that a particular Consul, his wife, and many others were killed for being Atheist or of Jewish persuasion (which can be translated as Christian since they did not believe in the Roman pantheon). This seems damning evidence against Domitian, but this passage was written a century later and abridged in the 11th century by a monk by name of Xilphinius. The original texts of Dio Cassius do not exist, and only the abridged versions do. Even Eusebius, the esteemed writer of "The Ecclesiastical History", suggests that Domitian was the second to raise persecutions against Christians (meaning Nero as the first), and that there were many christian martyrs. Yet, no where in his work, written 2 centuries after the fact, does he cite any evidence of this, or any names of the martyrs. While, Origen, another christian writer, wrote 50 years earlier, that only a few had been killed and whose number could be easily enumerated. Eusebius didn't even bother to cite the 'easily counted' figures of Origen, suggested only a generation earlier. What does all this mean? Does it clearly define Domitian as innocent? No, but his guilt can be questioned as much as his innocence. There simply is no overwhelming evidence (there is some, I don't deny that.) All I intend with this, is to illustrate my point of embellishment by the early church of crimes against Christians at the hands of Romans. Domitian may have been guilty, but there is equal lack of evidence that he is not. As I said, take all source information on the issue, including this lenghty post =P, with a 'grain of salt.'

Yes, the Ptolemies, and other ruling class people in Egypt and the Asian provinces had some Macedonian descent carried over from the conquests of Alexander. The entire eastern world had some connection to its language and culture. As such, much like the use of modern English for economic reasons, Greek was a universal language in the ancient world. Almost every culture had a bit of understanding of it, so in many cases, it was the best language to communicate with many different people. And dnewhous is right in his assessment of Romans preferring Greek to Latin. Well at least partially right. Some did, some didn't, just depended on the personality or profession, I suppose. Philosophy, the arts, medicine, etc. were Greek cultural endeavors, so those inclined to that sort of thing may have preferred Greek. Some found it a far more soothing language than the bluntness of Latin. A good Latin orator was rare indeed, due simply in part to the particular style of the language. Still, there were many Romans who would prefer using Latin, because well, it was Roman, and for many nothing was better than being a Roman.

It relates to his personality

This is a very simplified answer. Greek was more widely used in the east. To communicate with the residents of Judaea Roman officials likely would've have spoke Greek rather than Latin, as it was a more widely known language there.

Its amazing to me, that in ancient times, the Romans were even able to recognize the failures of their own calendar. The fact that the Julian calendar was in use for 15 centuries and was only off by the same number of days is shows the scientific capability of the time. Today there are still several calendars in use... The Gregorian or that of 'west, several middle-eastern versions, and even more in the far east. Yet somehow, international commerce seems unaffected. People all over the world recognized January 1, 2000 as the change in the millenium, even though they use different calendars, go figure. Of course, all that celebrating was technically done a year early, but who's counting

Welcome Martijn... Thanks for the pictures, they are fine addition. Are you involved with re-enacting, or with organizing these events in any way? I admit that I can't read Dutch, but I did stumble across your Roman calendar. I've been working on a calendar page for unrv.com, and something like that would be a great illustration. Is it something you developed, or something that would be considered public domain? Yes, for now, our active members is a bit small, but far more guests visit than post (because of the archaeology news), so hopefully more will join up over time. Thanks!!! Chris

There are also so many strange connections between ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians and Native South Americans. Various plants and trade goods that were only available in the Americas have been found with burial sites or excavated in Africa. I don't think there was any question that there was inter-continental contact in the ancient and even pre-historic world. It may have been limited and infrequent, but once in a while, one of those little boats would make it.

Welcome journaldan, That's certainly always been a major source of debate between theologian and historical scholars. In a strict Roman sense, the concept of Pilate apparantly showing such concern over the execution of one more man doesn't make much sense. As you suggest, his tenure was as wrought with as many executions as any other provincial governor. His history doesn't indicate any deferrment to the people in recorded cases. There are no first source documents from Pilate nor is the trial of Jesus recorded in any Roman documents. A few references regarding Pilate and random Roman records not mentioning him doesn't indicate a great deal, as there would obviously be far more missing than what is preserved. The only thing it shows is that there was no historical trend or basis for Pilate's behavior regarding Jesus. In fact, Passover was not a good time for Romans in Judaea. Pilate likely wouldn't have been in the greatest of moods during this period, due to numerous social disturbances. Being away from one's luxurious palace in order to attend to these issues wouldn't make anyone happy. However, could it be possible that social conditions would supercede his 'normal' governing behavior? Perhaps in light of unrest with the population, a lighter hand was thought to ease tension. One of the gospels (or was it Josephus?) mentions the Passover release of a criminal (ie. Barabus) as an annual event, but that seems pretty implausible to be an every year event that the Romans would participate in. I think what would be more telling is the historical relationship between Caiphas and Pilate. Were Caiphas and Pilate at odds in most situations regarding the Jews? Possibly. Devaluing the judgement and authority of a community leader could lower his esteem among the people, and reduce Caiphas' station. Normally, if Caiphas would suggest to not execute someone, Pilate's reaction may have been to send him immediately to the cross. Pilate was likely an appointee of Sejanus, a known anti-semite. Maybe the request from Caiphas to eliminate Jesus made Pilate think... hmmm, perhaps not. Of course, they were said to work well together, as Caiphas was Pilate's appointed high priest and close advisor, (I believe) for his entire tenure. So I doubt there is anything to pursue there. But then again, all that aside, the relationship between Pilate, Sejanus and Tiberius plays a major role as well. The timing of Sejanus fall is pivotal to Jesus' crucifixion and Pilate's behavior. Its a fascinating topic without even getting into the theology of it all.

Welcome Panman, Like we've discussed elsewhere, its one of those things that is difficult at best. You'll find that most information readily available on the ancients will be limited to comparisons with Germanic people of the time and the weapons and armor that they used. Later in history, as you get closer to the medieval period, more distinction between peoples begin to develop and a clearer picture will be formed. Regardless, I'll see what I can come up with in my library. I must admit, though, that I have very little information on eastern peoples within my reach. Research has definately been done, and is available somewhere, its just not a subject I have any expertise on whatsoever. I'm sure this person can help though... http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/en/ http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/en/about.htm http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/en/contacts.htm

There are assuredly many more usurpers, however, very few likely minted coins, or were recognized officially by the senate.

We're fairly confident that we won't be moving or changing too much anymore Demson. So welcome to what should be our permanent home. We hope =P

Who's that there? I don't know, must be a King Why? He hasn't got ***** all over him.

Excellent reference Jug. LOL, I was watching 'Holy Grail' as I read that, and couldn't help but bust out laughing

Can't wait to see it. The history of it is what appeals to me more than anything else. Gibson gave us a fantastic re-creation of medieval Britain with Braveheart, despite the ridiculous inaccuracies, and at first glance "Passion" appears to do the same. I'm curious how much was taken directly from the book of John, as the story itself is one that has stood the test of time and doesn't require alteration. It doesn't make it historically accurate, according to my own beliefs, but it would be true to the bible which, in a movie like this, is vital. If nothing else it'll give me a chance to practice Latin.

Oh I think you have part of that story confused with that of the Alps Crocodile.

LOL, ok Professor, how do you explain Koala's then

Aside from the Caledonians and some Welsh tribes, most of the Celtic tribes willingly bought into Romanization. Many found that the opportunity to increase their own wealth, influence and standing improved dramatically with the support and friendship of Rome. With the consolidation of the British conquest in the late 1st and early 2nd century, rebellion from within Roman controlled territory was rare. While there was a rather high concentration of 3 legions permanently stationed there (1 in Eburacum for the eastern wall, 1 in Deva for the western wall and northern wales, and 1 in Isca for southern Wales), cooperation from the natives was generally beneficial to them. (or at least a lesser evil than war.) The noted exception to this were the Brigantes who were a large and powerful tribe. Prior to the Romans, they held considerable sway over other tribes, so Roman influence was in direct competition to their own. The Brigantes revolted several times, until the late 2nd century, when the permanent presence of 2 legions within or near their territory certainly must've played a part. By this time in history, the empire was heavily reliant on non latin recruits for the legions and British celts found new opportunities for advancement within the Roman system. Citizen rights and representation within the Senate was becoming more readily available. Many tribes were left to relative autonomy as far as customs went, provided they abided by Roman law. In fact, Britannia was divided into 2 provinces (4 later).. Superior in the south and Inferior in the north. Britannia Superior was considered as Roman and peaceful as any province within the empire. Inferior, however, always maintained some doubts.

Agreed, the Romans only discriminated against anyone who wasn't actually a Roman. It is widely agreed that the ancients would allow anyone of a particular economic or heirarchal standing to be included within their own social fabric, regardless of culture or ethnicity. I can certainly accept this consensus. I can't, however, believe that things were any better for those who didn't fall into the 'elite' status. While accepting biological differences and some cultural practices within their own environments, the Romans still preferred their own. A poor man of differing color would be judged the same as a poor man of their own culture, but he was judged just the same. In theory, thats certainly more just from an ethnic standpoint, but still doesn't exempt the Romans from discrimination and prejudice.