Primus Pilus

The 25th of December as the birth of christ has long been associated with the winter solstice, I guess the article is just placing the exact reasoning for Constantine's decision. Vig, the independent now seems to require a paid subscription to view the whole article. I know you've gathered several from there in the past. Not sure if this is standard practice for everything now, or just this one article? http://news.independent.co.uk/world/scienc...sp?story=475919

Hence the base unit of Roman currency, the copper As.

You'd certainly think that industrial lighting couldn't be good. Though I wish they'd worry less about the lighting and more about its ultimate conservation and restoration. A tourist attraction that valuable must make compromises though, I suppose.

Such a sad re-occurence... and not meant in a political context. Just the endless wealth of the history of human civilization thats sitting right there in the middle east, but so vulnerable to the current climate and unable to be explored.

Why is he exiting? Where is Moon going.. Pffffft.

I bought 40 fictional shares. LOL, the price dropped by $.50. I'm going to the poor house.

Yeah, pretty much all gone. There were copies of various books in other places around the world, but there are lists of works (some titles are known) that were there, and have never been seen again.

The loss of the library was immeasurable at the time. Its final destruction occuring not long before the fall of western Rome, it certainly played its own small part in ushering the dark ages of western Europe. Even today, while the scientific knowledge has been replaced and improved, the historical record and holes in time that the lost scrolls could provide is a tragedy.

Could be I just misread it. Or maybe it was just my zeal to jump to the defense of Caesar

I'm a bit confused. I think all the historian is claiming is that the location of the defeat may have been different. Caesar clearly mentioned the defeat of the 14th Legion under the command of Sabinus to the Belgae and the Eburones. He never mentioned place names but Belgica has always been widely accepted. The important factor here is that Caesar wasn't present, and there were very few survivors who made it to the camp of Labienus. Difficult at best to describe in any detail under these circumstances. He described what he knew: the legion was slaughtered. He didn't avoid the defeat at all. What he did do however was to put a bit of treachery spin on it. He acknowledged the defeat of Sabinus but then claimed that when he tried to surrender to Ambiorix, that Sabinus and all of the officers were executed. A brilliant move by Caesar to keep his image from being tarnished and also to motivate the Roman people for vengeance. We can read through that and see there is some political motivation and understand that we will likely never know the whole truth. But its important to also understand that Caesar didn't avoid the topic at all. I think the article does a disservice in that it makes it seem that this battle is a newly discovered defeat. That's clearly not the case at all.

The mosaics at one of Britain's most important Roman sites could be at risk unless

A unique Roman "souvenir" of the building of Hadrian's Wall has been discovered. The bronze pan, dating from the second century AD, when the Romans built the dividing wall across the north of England, was found in the Staffordshire moorlands. Archaeologists are excited because the names of four forts located at the western end of Hadrian's Wall - Bowes, Drumburgh, Stanwix and Castlesteads - are engraved on the vessel. The discovery was being made public at the Institute of Archaeology in London by the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), an organisation which records archaeological objects found by members of the public. More from the BBC Thanks KFR!

Or right within this very site.... Britannia Caledonia

The blue face paint, likely "ink" from woad, was worn by several Celtic and Brittanic tribes. Julius Caesar in his "The Gallic Wars" said, "Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem." which is commonly translated as "all the Brittani, indeed, dye themselves with woad, which produces a dark blue coloring." There is some debate to this and also debate to the naming of the Pict tribes which in Latin means "painted men". There is no question however, that many Brittanic tribes were tattooed or painted in some way. Julius Caesar also states in describing tribes from around where the Picts were, that they had, "designs carved into their faces by iron." So its possible that woad was not used and the markings on the bodies of the Britanni was actually ritual scarring of some sort. As for the Roman enemies in Britain, the list is quite long, as nearly every Britannic tribe considered themselves enemies of Rome at some point. So the following is just a rough outline of the most famous that can be expanded upon. .... 55 - 54 BC - Caesar's Invasion - Many tribes resisted Roman invasion but the main unifying force were the Catuvellauni under the command of Cassivelaunus. 43 AD - Claudian Invasion - Again the Catuvellauni were a principal player under the command of Togodumnus and Caratacus. 60 AD - Queen Boudicca of the Iceni led a revolt against Roman occupation and destroyed several Roman colonies and the 9th legion before her defeat. After the Boudiccan revolt the conquest of Britain essentially became a tribe by tribe Romanization plan. As the bulk of Britain south of Caledonia was subdued, Rome's principal enemies in Brittania were the northern Picts and Celtic tribes such as the Caledones. Among the most famous leaders of these was Calgacus, who united many of the northern tribes against the invasion by Gnaeus Julius Agricola between 80 and 83 AD. A full account of this, by Tacitus, can be read at http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitusagricola.php

Well I've been thinking about this and I've come up with a small list. I'll try to give limited details of each explaining why I think its important without going on and on. I've not included any Roman vs. Roman battles despite any major significant results, such as Actium, Octavian vs. Antonius (a minor battle with a major impact) or Milvian Bridge, Constantine vs. Maxentius. They are in no particular order save for my own particular leading candidate which I've saved for last. Also note that most ancient battles seem to have ended in routs. Many "results" of the battles in terms are casualties can certainly be glorified by the ancient writers to show Rome's dominance. I. 168 BC: The Battle of Pydna, Macedonia. This is the supposed classic Roman legion vs. Greek phalanx battle. 38,000 Romans vs. 44,000 Greeks. The end result was 25,000 Macedonian casualties, the end of the Macedonian Kingdom and establishment of Roman rule on the Greek peninsula for the next 6 centuries. The battle is described in detail by Polybius, but the Greek loss seems to be more of a failure in leadership by Perseus than a supremacy of Legion over Phalanx. II. 190 BC: The Battle of Magnesia, Asia Minor. Romans vs. the Seleucids under Antiochus. The Roman army consisted of some 33,000 men including 3,000 cavalry arrayed against nearly 70,000 seleucids. The battle was a complete rout with some 55,000 Seleucid casualties and only 349 reported Roman casualties. The result was the establishment of the Roman ally the Pergamums the dominate force in Asia Minor. III. 102 - 101 BC, Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae. Gaius Marius & Catulus vs. the Teutones and Cimbri. The Teutones and Cimbri threatening Italia and perhaps Rome were annhilated in the 2 successive battles. Over 100,000 Teutones and at least 65,000 Cimbri were lost with minimal Roman casualties. The result was the safety of Rome and Italia and the reduction of the German threat for 2 centuries. Perhaps more importantly, it cemeted Marius legion reforms allowing landless professional soldiers and began to set the stage for the imperatorial system and the downfall of the Republic. However, these victories followed 3 major Roman defeats to these tribes, tarnishing the victories in my mind. IV. 52 BC Alesia: Caesar over Vercingetorix and the Gallic Celt tribes. The impressive thing here is the Roman construction of fortications surrounding the town of Alesia more than the actual battle itself. Caesar established a two walled fortification keeping the besieged Celts in and the relief army out. A marvel of ancient technology. The end result of the siege was the surrender of the Gallic forces and the establishment of Rome as the ruler of Gaul for several centuries. Of course there are more, such as Trajans victories in Dacia and Germanicus recovering of the lost eagles at Idavisto, Viggens previously mentioned battle of Naissus, Agricola over the Caledonians at Mons Graupius, the defeat of the Bouddicean rebellion in Britian, etc., but my most significant battle is: V. 202 BC, the battle of Zama. Scipio Africanus vs. Hannibal. After a series of victories over Carthaginian forces in Spain, Scipio met with Hannibal in North Africa. Hannibal formed up his forces with Numidian light cavalry on the left wing and other cavalry on the right. He placed 80 elephants in front of his lines. Behind the elephant screen, he formed up his infantry in three lines. First, there were Mago

Hiya Reb, hopefully, we'll put up reviews of Roman themed media. Movies, books, television documentaries, etc. Its going to be a while since we're trying to get more history content up first. But thats the goal. Read or watched anything you want to review... send us your comments

Welcome to the forum Padraig, Jisz and Kashoggi... Have a cervesia on us

Not since the host was attacked by hackers.

It shows how overwhelming Rome's influence was. Sometimes we think of Northern Britain or Scotland as unconquered or barabrian territory, and it may well have been. But, serving in the auxiliary or owning Roman style goods was still a precious commodity to these "free" people.

Hmm, interesting question, since most content will be covered by the Main topic links. Perhaps a link for someone to submit a news story or article?

Welcome to boards Faol... please don't think you don't have anything to contribute because you aren't an "expert" on Roman history. I personally am no expert, just an amateur history buff who has read and will continue to read every and any book I can get my hands on. Anything you or anyone else wants to research and write about will find a home here. P.S. The original content of UNRV should be uploaded soon, we hope

Thanks Reb... just because this is going to be a historical site, doesn't mean we can't have fun in an off-topic forum. The "history" and "archeology" forums will just need to be closely monitored to avoid clutter, so no big deal. I think once we launch and start getting some visitors, we'll just decide whether more forum topics are needed PP

While an interesting theory, Constantine's "conversion" was more about political gain than any heavenly phenomona.

But this is Moon's forum. And yes, the smileys look much better.

They definately need to be different, whether new or modified is up to you. I suppose we dont even need them, but alot of people like the silly things.