Primus Pilus

Andrew Riggsby (Univ. of Texas) in his paper on "Roman life expectancy" claims the number to be 319/1000. I can't find a complete version of the text online, but if it's important enough, you could try to contact him via his faculty page (email included) http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/facul...by/Riggsby.html

I never intended to suggest that there were 60+ actual assassins, only that there were that many involved in the plot. That clearly would've been as dangerous to the liberators as to Caesar himself. However the idea that there may have been 10 to 15 actual knife-wielders and another 45 to 50 "supporters" within the theatre itself isn't entirely out of the question. I'm not necessarily attempting to count those with a passing knowledge (ie Popilius Laena via App. Civ. War. 2.115 but rather the likelihood of several who were involved in discussion and planning without active participation in the actual death (ie Brutus' mother Servilia and wife Porcia). Clearly we can be certain that many sung the praises afterwards (most notably Lentulus Spinther, Favonius, Aquinus, Dolabella, Murcus, and Patiscus immediately after [App Civ. War 2.119] and of course, Cicero) and that they would've been pleased at the events at hand, even if without personal knowledge and clearly frightened as surprise witnesses to the moment of action.

Just for the record and for convenience, I figured I'd list the references.... Suetonius claims 60+ conspirators in JC 80.4 Suetonius claims 23 wounds. ----- Nicholaus of Damascus unfortunately never limits himself to an actual number, but gives the impression (to me at least) that the number is even far greater. He liberally describes a fairly large conspiracy against Caesar even while explaining away many of its members as being motivated by greed and jealousy, etc. Life of Augustus... scroll down to sec. 19 for the beginning of the end of Caesar. Nicholaus claims 35 wounds. ----- Appian is also non-descript as to an actual number, but mentions several more actual names than I had listed in the post in the previous thread. The names from Civ. War 2.112-113: Brutus Cassius Caecilius Bucolianus Rubrius Ruga Quintus Ligarius Marcus Spurius Servilius Galba Sextius Naso Pontius Aquila Decimus Brutus Gaius Casca Trebonius Tillius Cimber Minucius Basilius He makes some insinuation that there may have been more, but not nearly so openly as Nicholaus. Appian suggests 23 wounds in ch. 117. ------- Plutarch suggests little to believe there were more than very few men involved. He doesn't dismiss the possibility, but clearly provides no evidence to suggest large numbers. Life of Caesar 66 (describes the actual assassination) He claims 23 wounds. ------- Cassius Dio is only slight more revealing than Plutarch. He suggests this in 44.15 Cassius Dio claims "many" wounds. ------- Even in the description of the aftermath, there is little recorded evidence to support a conspiracy as large as Suetonius' claim of 60+. However, the possibility of that being involved is not so many to think that the entire affair would have been assured of failure especially considering Caesar's noted dismissal of any such plot throughout the sources.

What's this recent biography? Is the theory based on any newly uncovered facts? In either case, a good reconstruction of events adheres to Occam's Razor and does not make any more assumptions to piece together what is known than is necessary. In your example, the author assumes that the ancient slander against Livia was correct, which simply isn't necessary to explain why an old man would die. Anthony Everett's. The author presents no evidence other than conjecture and does not revisit the premise that he puts forward in the early stages at any point throughout the work.

A fair possibility, though we know that there theoretically should have been at least 23... once for each of Caesar's wounds. Actually, that should be NO MORE THAN 23, no? Why assume just one blow from each assassin? If I'd been in Cassius' sandals, I'd not have been content with less than a dozen! Agreed, I'm only going generically by what the sources tell us. You may very well be right of course, but we have no independent confirmation that anyone stabbed him repeatedly (though considering that some were wounded in the process it would be admittedly ridiculous to assume that the deed took place with a single harmonious thrust of the blade by each participant.) [edit] Enough said on that, after reviewing the material (below) it's clear that my memory was failing me somewhere here.

Goldworthy's Complete Roman Army is easily among the best single volume overviews.

The use of Latin probably doesn't help any.. but I do prefer the atmosphere.

Two rare gold coins of the rebel Roman emperor Carausius have been discovered on a construction site in the Midlands. Gold coins of Carausius are extremely rare. Only 23 are known, and the last was found as long ago as 1975 in Hampshire. Carausius was a Menapian (an ancient Belgian) who commanded the British Fleet (Classis Britannica) operating in the English Channel and the North Sea in the AD 280s. Carausius fell out with reigning emperors Diocletian and Maximian. Hostile sources have it that he was lining his own pocket with plunder recovered from Saxon sea-raiders. It seems more likely that he led a regional rebellion against central authority, since the mini-empire he established in Northern Gaul and Britain survived for a decade, and must therefore have enjoyed strong local support... Current Archaeology

It's a disturbing trend... first New Zealand, now New Hampshire. Beware of horny animals if you live in a place with "New" in the name I guess. Bigfoot the Molester

The Aztecs, Mayans and ancient Egyptians were three very different civilizations with one very large similarity: pyramids. However, of these three ancient cultures, the Egyptians set the standard for what most people recognize as classic pyramid design: massive monuments with a square base and four smooth-sided triangular sides, rising to a point. The Aztecs and Mayans built their pyramids with tiered steps and a flat top. The ancient Egyptians probably chose that distinctive form for their pharaohs' tombs because of their solar religion, explained Donald Redford, professor of Classics and ancient Mediterranean studies at Penn State. The Egyptian sun god Ra, considered the father of all pharaohs, was said to have created himself from a pyramid-shaped mound of earth before creating all other gods. The pyramid's shape is thought to have symbolized the sun's rays... Physorg.com

It's a nice little find of course, but seemingly, my definition of treasure is considerably less liberal than these folks.

Treasure has been unearthed on a Silloth beach by a man out with a metal detector. Carlisle Coroners

A fair possibility, though we know that there theoretically should have been at least 23... once for each of Caesar's wounds. PS. fixed Dianamts post above... for some reason the quoting did not work properly and her post was attributed under my quote tags. Seems to be ok now.

Just finished "Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War for Independence" by John Ferling. A brilliant synopsis of the entire war with a particularly strong portrayal of the oft-overlooked southern theatre. Also of particular interest is the presentation of the naval war (and especially the exploits of John Paul Jones). I've read many books on the Revolutionary period and on the war in particular, and Ferling's definately ranks among the best. I am always universally impressed by any historian whose account flows like a non-fiction, capturing the feelings and sentiments of the people and of the day, while presenting historical events in a compelling fashion. If there is one point of contention, and it is only minor, the Native American participation could've received more attention. This is not surprising though when one realizes that the frontier war and the battle between frontiersman and native was ultimately a different sort of war for a different set of issues; as compared to the grand sweeping battle between patriot, loyalist and motherland. Perhaps the best gauge of a historical work is the inability to perceive the author's sentiments and Ferling does this with great skill. America's patriot leaders are analyzed both for the strengths of their courage and drive, but weaknesses, such as ineptitude in battle, is often and openly displayed. The British face equal praise and criticism where warranted. The politics of the Empire, including the difficulty in directing an 18th century war from across an ocean, is presented with fairness and general impartiality.

While Hannibal was marching east, the Romans, under the brothers Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus and Publius Cornelius Scipio (the father of Africanus), sailed to Massilia in Narbonensis (Marseilles, France) and became quite aware of Hannibal's progress. Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus did in fact arrive in Hispania prior to Hannibal's arrival in Italy, but it was hardly undefended. Hannibal left an army in Hispania under his brother Hasdrubal that occupied Gnaeus, while Publius returned to Italy to meet Hannibal (unsuccessfully of course) as he came down from the Alps. As for an invasion of Africa, the Romans had to secure Sicily and Sardinia, as well as fight on two additional fronts in Italy and Hispania (while also keeping a wary eye on the Illyrians and Philip of Macedon to the east) before attempting an African invasion).

Simplified? Sure, but when factoring a reason for fame, a simplification might be all that's necessary. I might only add that Lincoln is not only famous because it is he who issued the proclamation, but also because it was his administration that did ultimately hold the union together in the face of a true crisis. Whether folks view that as good or bad is irrelevant for why he is famous, but the resulting debate based on personal beliefs does add to that level of fame (or infamy as the case may be), and the discussion in this thread shows a keen level of interest in the topic. Notice we don't have such discussions over relatively obscure figures as Chester Arthur or Rutherford B. Hayes.

In my opinion, the union was not going to allow a single or group of states to secede unmolested at this time or any time, regardless of the slavery issue. The reasons why the union wouldn't allow the secession of the south is multi-faceted and includes (in no particular order) economics, territorial sovereignty (or imperial designs for those of you of that mind set), unity against international influence (especially Europe), the preservation of the legal arrangement between the states (the constitution), acting against the precedent that could have evolved into a complete and permanent dissolution of the union, etc. By the by, people often refer to past threats of secession by states (such as the New England states over the Louisiana Purchase) as proof that the right to secession was a given. However, a threat of secession is not nearly the same as actually doing it. Ultimately, the southern states hoped that the threat of secession would implore their northern neighbors to give in to their political "demands" for lack of a better term. When the threat failed, unlike the 5 threatened instances of the New England states (the Louisiana Purchase, the Embargo Act, the admission of Louisiana as a state, the War of 1812, and over the annexation of Texas) the south actually went through with it. Certainly it was something that was regularly discussed at least until after the Civil War, but the union was never required to ultimately declare whether secession was legal or accepted as a right of a state under the existing constitution, until a state or group of states actually went through with it. Just as any state can declare its independence at any moment so too can any of us can declare ourselves independent of our government. While the state would face resistance of that declaration via the force of arms, the individual might face legal prosecution for failure to pay taxes and other such "crimes" of their stated independence (provided they continued to live within the territory of their previous nation).

Anyone that wants to read more of these kind of justifications for what should be indefensible in excruciating detail can find much still. Might want to start with the opposition debate to the civil rights act of 1964 or that great statesman Orval Faubus, for modern examples. Like I said the mindset is still alive. The states rights concerns of the South were their fears that slavery would be abolished, that's it. That was also their noble 'philosophy' if you can call it that, this wasn't the second coming of the founding fathers after all. Most of us over a certain age have heard it all before ad nauseum hell, George Wallace received 10 million votes. Pointing out that the Indian wars were genocidal or that there were no black officers in the Federal army is apples and oranges. There were Jews in the Wehrmacht also, so what. The fact is northern society was not based on slavery and over the years actively fought it, slowly and unevenly to be sure but it or racism was not officially condoned. The South was entirely based,dependent and proselytized slavery and racism as a philosophy and way of life. It infected the whole nation. I think to give them any legitimacy whatsoever is absurd. Why is self governance indefensible? My statement said nothing about slavery. In multiple posts throughout this thread, I've stated that slavery is wrong and that the northern states were morally justified in their stance against it. However, I do believe that each state has the fundamental (if not legal) right to declare their own course. What's important to note is that the actions of declaring that course will have repercussions, such as being simply identified as immoral and unjust (in the case of slave owning states) or perhaps civil war in order to prevent such a course of action. I did not mean to justify the southern position, only to say that every state has the individual right to take that position. As always, there are consequences. You seem to think that I support the fundamental right of southern secession and the continuation of slavery rather than just understanding the position and their individual states right. In actuality, I wholeheartedly support the moral, ethical position of the north to oppose slavery and indeed the actual LEGAL right of the union to oppose secession. While this may seem confusing, it's important to understand that understanding a position does not mean that one supports it. Actually it's better than that According to The State v. John Mann. 13 N.C. 263 1829 it was perfectly legal to murder your 'property' This can be used to justify more barbarism I suppose after all it's the law. What you failed to quote was my continuing statement that "The difference is that the slave did not willingly enter into the contract with his master". You incorrectly make the assumption that I am attempting to justify anything to do with slavery. You missed the point entirely that I was attempting to make and that is that the slave had no legal authority to do anything despite not himself entering into a legal contract. The southern states had some legal authorities and limits based on the constitutional agreement with the other states, but unlike the slave, they did willingly enter into that legal contract.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to protect against a stabbing function. so I hope the poor model didn't lose any saline in the puncture testing process.

Maybe Captain Kirk did it with a phaser? Damnit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an archaeologist. [My apologies for this off-topic, and hopelessly geeky diversion]

I agree that King George's (via Lords North and Germain) hand was forced and he had an objective right to attempt to stop the American rebels. The colonies had the fundamental right to demand representation and/or the fundamental right to declare independence. King George as sovereign of the British Empire (and again, along with his government) had the authority to resist such claims by virtue of established colonial charters. In the same manner, I don't by any means discount the concerns of the southern states over the perception that their individual states rights were in danger. Ultimately, I do understand that they had a fundamental human right to secede and establish a self governance that fit their philosophy. However, Lincoln and the congress of the United States had the legal and constitutional duty according to the agreement between the states to oppose that secession regardless of whose interests were better suited (and he admittedly had the advantage of the moral ground that benefits him in posterity.) For an analogy of my own... a slave had the fundamental human right to resist his master, while the master had the legal authority to control and punish his property for any such transgression. The difference is that the slave did not willingly enter into the contract with his master (in the vast majority of cases, there are exceptions such as indentured servitude). In contrast, the states of the union did willingly unify with written agreement and made no written basis for breaking the union other than the possibility that a majority of congressional vote (and/or the states) was required to alter the contract.

Agreed, but there has been some contention that it was wrong for the north to respond to secession with war, simply because the southern states exercised a preference for independence. If there was no legal basis for secession under the constitutional agreement between the states, than Lincoln was really only acting as he duly should have. If the south won, then so be it, but his hand was forced.

I'll give McCain credit... he sounded damn presidential today at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. I still disagree with him on several issues, but he is slowly earning my nominally committed support. Not that I would ever vote for Obama or Clinton anyway, so to be perfectly fair, the point is admittedly moot.