Primus Pilus

Fantastic WW. Congratulations. That should look quite fine professionally mounted and framed, no?

Even if the true impact of supply were not effected for several years, just the idea of increasing domestic oil production and refining would put downward pressure on the speculative pricing per barrel.

Not a problem... just the fault of trying to do too many things at once without giving full attention to a single one of them Both items now corrected... thanks again.

True indeed, but of course in this case he thought he had the support of Octavian as a buffer. Little did he know that his stance would be met with a rather callous indifference by the young man he helped establish.

That is noted for 308 AD Indeed just a flat out error... the line has been removed rather than edited. Thanks. Point taken... I'll make a slight clarification (in addition to correcting the typo). Thanks!

I'm not quite sure how the military campaigns of Drusus and Tiberius, that resulted in the surrender of such tribes as the Canninefates, the Attuarii, and Bructeri, the Cherusci, etc. can not be classified as conquest? I don't disagree that Augustus was looking to extend the tax base as well as the defensible border of the empire from the Rhine to the Weser, perhaps extending to the Elbe, but the Germanics were not welcoming the Romans with open arms throughout their territories. A nice example is that of Velleius Paterculus, who was there on campaign with Tiberius. Quite the interesting read really... he is full of pride in the grandeur of Rome. Roman History Book 2.106 (Tiberius' campaigns actually begin in #102, but the direct link to 104 is quite telling)

Ahh... was judging only on first glance.

It appears to be a bronze or copper coin. Perhaps Byzantine, British provincial, Balkan provincial. I'm having a hard time deciphering the legend and the raised center is throwing me off a bit. Can you tell me what the actual letters are and where it was found? Appears to be AEx? In any case, I'm not very familiar with provincial coinage... these folks may be able to help Forum Ancient Coins

Well the Red Wings have returned to the finals for the first time in 6 years to meet the upstart Penguins. Should be one helluva series. I'm not sure who had the tougher road to get there... neither seemed all that incredible (though Dallas is a far better team than any faced by Pittsburgh), but both teams should be facing their toughest opponent yet.

Yes, and it's true of the Romans. The Roman generals were not up to Hannibal's challenge and were caught in a trap. The lack of discipline and the failure to hold their lines uniformly allowed Hannibal to envelop them and slaughter them wholesale. Had they held their center lines... Wrong. It was discipline - the adherence to orders and formation against the normal roman practice of turning to face enemy threat, that allowed Hannibals plan to work. The flip side of strong discipline is a lack of initiative for fear of punishment, and its very true the roman soldier was more afraid of his commanders than his enemy. No, it's not wrong. If one reads the actual source material describing the battle, it really isn't that big of a mystery. Unquestionably Rome was inadequately led by Varro and Paulus, but the source material is laden with evidence of a lack of discipline. Livy 22.44 Livy 22.45 Again 22.45 22.47 Perhaps most descriptive... Polybius 3.115 While you would argue that it was both inadequate leadership and the lack of a chain of command (which I do not disagree with), I believe it is important to point out the lack of discipline by the center maniples that allowed the envelopment to take place. They thought they had achieved a rout, but in fact had not. Had they maintained their center lines rather than pursue the enemy as an undisciplined lot, they very likely would not have been enveloped... unless of course Hannibal found another way.

I'll grant you that... the problem is that I didn't realize it until after I read it. Had I known before hand and my expectation been different, my reaction might have been as well. (at least slightly).

Thats true of warfare in general. However not all roman enemies broke so easily, and its easy to get swept away with the romance of roman military superiority when all too often they had no great advantage. Hannibal proved that. Yes, and it's true of the Romans. The Roman generals were not up to Hannibal's challenge and were caught in a trap. The lack of discipline and the failure to hold their lines uniformly allowed Hannibal to envelop them and slaughter them wholesale. Had they held their center lines... Their equipment was made to suit their purposes just the same as everyone elses. Granted it was effective (you can't deny that!) but does that suggest that a barbarian weapon is ineffective? Far from it. What the romans did successfully was to marry equipment and tactics better than most. Unfortunately they were often let down by operational control on the field. Exactly, lack operational control which can easily be understood as a lack of discipline in their lines meant that their tactical advantages were rendered null. The gladius and scutum... even those of the Republican legions... were designed for close, tight and disciplined combat. This shouldn't be surprising considering that every military historian of merit subscribes to the basic concept of Roman military formation, structure and discipline. Wrong. The issue is leadership and the amateur status of their HQ. Poorly led, the romans were lambs to the slaughter. Without such adept leadership, roman discipline counted for very little, because the initiative at lower levels, whilst it appears to be encouraged in some ways, was blocked by rigid plans and poor insight of the army commanders. So are you suggesting that inadequate leadership has no effect on discipline or only that the Romans were always an unruly, undisciplined mob but that effective leaders simply outgeneraled their enemies every time? Again, I'm not saying that Roman discipline was singly responsible for the dominance of Rome across Europe, but only that is was a major difference between them and their enemies. However, I find what seems to be your complete dismissal of it puzzling. Perhaps we are using the terminology in a different sense. By disciplined I do not suggest inflexibility... as in a phalanx... but simply adherence to order, command structure and reliance upon training, etc.

Despite these issues, it is important to note that the lack of discipline by most Roman enemies meant that enemy lines often broke quickly when facing a uniform and disciplined Roman wall. Roman weaponry and armor was designed for just such and engagement. Provided the lines held it was after that the most carnage ensued... and this could occur quite quickly after the initial contact. While the Romans may not have held such unrelenting discipline as is often projected, I think we can all accept, the Roman military machine functioned best when it maintained that discipline. Disaster loomed when centurions were acting in an independent manner without regard for it's neighboring century or the structure of the entire cohort. While pure aggression had its practical value and could overcome lapses in discipline, it was the discipline that made the Roman legion what it was. Those great battles where the Romans themselves faced massacre are usually coupled with stories of ambush (ie Teutoburg), disorganization and/or inept leadership (ie Aurasio, Cannae, Carrhae). While I agree that the Roman century, cohort or even an entire legion could be an unruly lot of unsavory characters, it's when they acted in such a manner on the battlefield that they got into trouble. It doesn't mean that they won every battle when they were the most disciplined and organized or that they lost every battle when they were not. However, it should be a given that the Roman odds were better when they behaved in the manner that their training dictated and used their equipment in such a way as to maximize that training and proficiency.

I'm sorry folks, but this thread either never really hit the mark of it's point, or has lost it entirely. If you guys wish to get back to discussing the levy of the legions, rather than going back and forth on modern vs. ancient terminology, please do so... but let's just try to focus on the subject at hand.

No worries... but I'll redirect this one, so as not to confuse anyone... Arles Find of Caesar's Bust

Indeed. Considering the subtle differences between typical posthumous representations and this bust, I'm left with the impression that the artist may have had direct visual evidence for his work. Could be the fault of the photography, lighting and/or simple personal perception, but I do find it interesting.

Agreed, the former would seem to be the case. The artist at least seems to have been among the more accurate with the representation of Caesar's hair line. Most of his busts give him a rather healthy head of it, while this presents a rather thin layer.

That's terrible! LOL, the pun wasn't intended. Must have been subliminally influenced... Just sparked off, did it? Indeed, I was mentally charged.

Ursus reviewed the latest offering of our very own "Flavia Gemina" (Caroline Lawrence)... "Inspiring kids to read these days is no mean feat in the wake of crumbling educational systems. One is considered lucky if one's child buys into the global media hype of Harry Potter. Even luckier, supposedly, are those who start studying Elvish at the behest of Tolkien. I am not myself a parent, but I wonder offhand if there is something better to inspire children than overblown fantasy epics. Were I to have kids, I'd want to teach them something more valuable. I'd want them to learn history, to taste of the knowledge and glory of our illustrious cultural forebears. In so many words I'd want to groom them for Romanophilia. Thanks to Caroline Lawrence and her Roman Mysteries series, we now have something to educate the next generation of UNRV members"... Read the full review of the Sirens of Surrentum Also check out the attached author interview

Indeed, this is really the core of the issue. Why not just stick to the actual ranks rather than "Captain Junior", "Liason Officer", etc? The mixing of ancient titles with invented combinations of modern names as acronyms only confuses the issue.

my time line in reference to my reply to PP was early republic. before Rome possess any province PP - The habits of discipline and drill were already present. The 'militia' form of army worked because it was the accepted roman way, that they all needed to be ready to defend Rome. From childhood men would have been raised with this idea, and no doubt older men were only too keen to instill this attitude and some practice with weapons to prepare them for manhood. I'm not disputing the basic underlying concept of the above reply... just wanted to clarify that it was incorrectly directed at me. Wasn't me who asked the question... Forgive my vanity

That's terrible! LOL, the pun wasn't intended. Must have been subliminally influenced...

That photo is art unto itself. Quite striking.

A mass Roman grave, discovered in Gloucester in 2005, may have contained the victims of an acute disease of epidemic proportions, possibly plague. This is the startling conclusion to a new report by Oxford Archaeology and archaelogical consultancy CgMs, who have been conducting an 18-month programme of scientific study on the grave, which contained around 91 skeletons. The discovery of a mass grave of Roman date is almost unparalleled in British archaeology and archaeologists now believe the remains were of individuals who had been thrown in over a short period of time during the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD... 24 Hour Museum

A ROMAN cemetery containing items of national importance has been uncovered in Herefordshire. One of the biggest historical finds in the Marches has been made at Stretton Grandison. A complete wooden coffin