Primus Pilus

I may be wrong here, not being a personal user of the stuff, but isn't Deepeeka rather controversial among re-enactors? I know some seem to swear by it, and others think it is junk. I suppose that's all a matter of preference, but am I off-base on this?

Welcome Ryan, and to many others since the last time I posted in this thread. I try not to post here too often, simply so as not to cover up the posts of new folks, but I'd be remiss if I didn't at least give the occasional blanket "welcome" to the people who make this forum what it is. Cheers!

Just for further confirmation Sura was executed on the 5th of December. Cic. Pro. Flacc. 40, Sallust. Cat. 55 The trial of Rabirius predates such other events in the same year as Caesar's election as Pontifex Maximus (early to mid year) and Crassus receiving the anonymous letter regarding the Catiline conspiracy (October).

In fact, I believe that the Red Deer that inhabits and thrives in the area around Chernobyl cannot be found anywhere else in Russia.

Bad weather in metro Detroit might effect the turnout at the polls today. It's not terrible weather mind you, but Democrats with little incentive might just say, "to hell with it". By the by, not that it really matters in the big scheme of things, but I do take politics quite seriously. My earlier post regarding each individual candidate was meant to be quite tongue-in-cheek, for those of you too literal folks who may stumble across this. I'm still struggling terribly as to who I will vote for today despite my professed support of Ron Paul.

This definately doesn't provide all the detail you are looking for, but it's a decent start. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...A*/Ambitus.html You can use the William Smith Dictionary as a guide by referring to each individual office as well. Each one will provide some more insight into the individual election process. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...IGRA*/home.html There doesn't seem to have been a recorded minimum age... at least not in the Lex Villia Annalis. It was a relatively important office and was often used as a stepping stone to the praetorship and consulship (min age 39 and 42 to campaign for office, respectively). Sometimes one might be a quaestor first (min. age 30 post-Sulla... the requirement seems to have been 10 years of military service prior to Sulla which probably would have made a candidate roughly the same age anyway) which is an indication that a tribune would be older, but this was not a necessity. There are tribunes recorded at widely varying age ranks, but some of the more notable tribunes of the late Republic (just prior to Marius) were around 30 years of age. A couple of samples... (office, years old) Tiberius Gracchus (Qua. 31, Tr. Pl. 35) Gaius Gracchus (Qua. 28, Tr. Pl. 31) Gaius Marius (Qua. 34, Tr. Pl. 38) A Legatus was not the same as a Tribunus militum, but they could serve in the same function. A legatus as a permanent commanding officer rather than a part of the supporting staff of the consul or proconsul seems to have developed some time after the Punic Wars. Legati were generally hand selected senior officers by the magistrate with imperim (generally after approval by the senate) whereas tribunes could be either appointed by the senate, elected by the people or selected by the consuls depending upon circumstances. The tribunes in the post Punic War era were senior officers but still subordinate to the legatus (generally each legion would have one legatus along with 6 tribunes) I make this distinction regarding the Punic Wars because there is little suggestion of this arrangement in the sources until the Marian period and beyond. While Polybius describes in detail the duties of the tribunes in the Punic War era, he isn't as clear about the functions of Legati. They are mentioned but detail is lacking so I'm not quite sure if a legate were in charge of each legion or not. According to Polybius legions were under the direct command of one of the 6 tribunes that were appointed to each legions, who were then subordinate to the consul/proconsul. In the case of your example above, the Marii were traditional clients of the Metelli and Marius seems to have been individually selected by Metellus. The power, authority and background of legati varied widely. One might be a young officer of potential serving as a staff officer to the consul, a career officer with proven command ability, a former consul or praetor who was a friend of the acting proconsul, etc. Again, I'll refer you to the William Smith Dictionary for an excellent overview. Refer to section III. Legatus

German academics believe they have solved the centuries-old mystery behind the identity of the "Mona Lisa" in Leonardo da Vinci's famous portrait. Lisa Gherardini, the wife of a wealthy Florentine merchant, Francesco del Giocondo, has long been seen as the most likely model for the sixteenth-century painting. But art historians have often wondered whether the smiling woman may actually have been da Vinci's lover, his mother or the artist himself. Now experts at the Heidelberg University library say dated notes scribbled in the margins of a book by its owner in October 1503 confirm once and for all that Lisa del Giocondo was indeed the model for one of the most famous portraits in the world... Reuters

The Dem walking orders are to vote "uncommitted". The hope seems to be that the DNC will see this as some sort of apology and that they will reinstate the delegates at the convention. Of course, the delegates would be free to choose whomever they deemed most appropriate since "uncommitted" would in theory have won the election. Whether or not this has any merit of course we won't really know for some time, but the notion is definately making the rounds in the local media here. In any case, whatever happens you're quote right that we'll find out tomorrow.

Another issue in the Michigan primary is that it is an open primary. Anyone can vote for anyone regardless of party affiliation. Typically speaking, this wouldn't be a problem as most people tend to vote for the party that means more to them anyway, but because Michigan moved up our primary on the calendar, the DNC penalized the state by taking away the democratic delegates. Essentially, the Democratic primary is meaningless. The result is that many Democrats will cross over and will vote for the Republican candidate. McCain will gain a great deal more votes from independents and disenfranchised democrats than Romney will.

Truer words have not been spoken. Her terms have been nothing short of disastrous. In addition, our two national senators (Levin and Stabenow) have done little to fight for the state they represent. However, the biggest issue is that we are just too reliant upon a single industry. Combine this with the fact the single industry we are dependent upon is under constant assault by environmental/energy concerns, and there is our formula for ongoing dismay.

His mother was white (I use 'was' because she passed several years ago... cancer I believe).

It's not that I thought the Cowboys were as good as most people claimed, despite only dominating a very weak NFC, but I just didn't see Manning being able to not screw up. The Giants defense seems to be really turning into a force to watch, though. The championship game should be interesting.

As I understand this the tribunicia potestas mean that Augustus didn't actually serve as tribune but had the powers of one without actually serving in this office. Agreed, I meant only to further illustrate just how unique this was.

Excellent list Neph... this sort of thing really helps humanize the ancient world. I'm sure this took some time to compile, but I hope you found it interesting enough to consider similar lists for other prominent gens. I have what may be a tough question... do we know of any cases where a cognomen/agnomrn was dropped by a family because it was perhaps considered embarrassing?

I'm a metal/rock guy, but like fairly specific sub-genres. Generally "popular" music bores me to the point of losing interest in music all together.

Does the documentary discuss what would happen if Pauly Shore survived in his bio-dome?

OK, but first understand my bias before you read it, which should be quite apparent. For all practical purposes I am a constitutional conservative. Essentially that means that I believe the federal government has only a few key responsibilities - provide the basis for a strong economy (basically by staying out of it), provide for the national defense and to provide infrastructure where it is not covered by individual states and really just stop legislating ridiculous new frivolous crap all the damn time. In my history, I have largely voted Republican because they have been the closest to my philosophy in economic terms... at least until recent years (for a variety of reasons). I will probably still vote Republican despite the fact that I hate them, simply because I hate them less than the other guys (and gal). It's hardly encouraging, but I've included more Republicans because the race is less defined than the Democratic side despite the fact that a few of the Reps listed probably don't have a chance. In any case, on with my politically incorrect guide to the 2008 politicians (in no particular order). After 8 years of the bumbling jackass, this is apparently the best that America has to offer. It's damned stunning... Republicans... Mitt Romney... I see nothing inspiring about this guy. What a tool. I think he tries to be the most Reaganesque (Ronald Reagan being the hero of modern Republicans) in policy among this crop of candidates, but his political history shows some rather wishy-washy "say whatever is necessary" behavior. Reminds me of John Kerry, just on the opposite political spectrum. Being a Mormon and a New Englander will not help him get elected with the kooky Christian zealots who seem to control the party these days. If he were a traditional Christian my guess is that he would be the forerunner by far. This, however, is not a reflection of my opinion, because again, I think he's a tool. But to most Republicans these days, being a tool is ok if you are a Christian. (See Huckabee below.) Rudy Giuliani... Other than looking like a hero when the trade center was destroyed by Islamic lunatics, what's this guy really done? Considering his social policies, I can't figure out why this guy is a Republican, though he does appear to support conservative economic policy. He is clearly a moderate candidate and would have a chance to win in the general election by taking votes from both parties, but it will be near impossible for him to get the Republican nomination. He has baggage issues with family history and health problems. Also, his name is hard for me to spell for some reason, so screw him. Mike Huckabee Holy s***. WTF? This guy is an ordained baptist minister so the so-called "base" likes him. Other than doing the typical modern conservative thing of preaching to everyone about how abortion is evil and wasting everyone's time trying to stop gay people from doing the dirty (literally and figuratively) I don't see why the Republicans like him. I mean c'mon people, does it really matter? Anyway, he seems to be all over the place on other key issues (taxes and immigration as examples... like giving benefits to illegals) and seems fairly worrisome regarding foreign policy. Then again, for all us Romanophiles... unlike Bush, he probably knows where Italy is. Here's a fun quote... "I got into politics because I knew government didn't have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives." John McCain... McCain's biggest problem is that his time is past. His best chance was in 2000 in the primary against Bush. I wonder how different the world might be... Anyway, I may be wrong here, but the guy is 72 and I just don't think he's going to motivate enough votes. For all practical purposes, the guy is a moderate who (like Jooliani or however the hell his name is spelled) might be able to generate some votes from both parties. However, he is a bit hawkish and the Dems clearly don't like that. Still, I believe he would be far more reasonable with the use of military force and regarding foreign policy than the current administration. His support of illegal immigrant amnesty has put him at odds with "the base". Whatever, a more pressing concern among voters may be his rather large jowls. Ron Paul... This guy isn't a Republican. He's a Constitutionalist or a Libertarian or whatever the hell goofy impossible to get elected third party you want to call it. He's a Republican simply for that reason. Much like me, he chose a party that was simply closest to his views even though he really doesn't agree with much of it. Regardless, pretty much this guy stands for individual freedom, the rule of constitutional law and the rights of individual states (and the people) to govern. He doesn't care what gay people do, he doesn't believe in the use of proactive military force, he believes in free trade and that taxes should be at a minimum, etc. Essentially if it is in our constitution, he supports it. Most people think this sort of thing is extreme... and he looks a bit like Mr. Magoo so his chances of getting elected are only slightly better than Arnold Schwarzenegger (considering that he isn't eligible to run for president based on foreign birth. By the by, I even find Arnold's name easier to spell than Guleani). Fred Thompson... This guy might be the most ideological Republican of the entire bunch, but I don't think it really matters. His campaign really just isn't very refined and he seems to bumble around quite a bit. His campaign just can't seem to get off the ground. I guess he might be back on "Law and Order" soon. Democrats... Hillary Clinton... I really don't know if she'd ever had a chance to get close to this point other than because she is the wife (and I use that term loosely) of Mr. Popular, but she is, and that's that. It's not the first time a relative of a former president... Anyway, she is much less of a moderate than Bill was but like him she would probably be quite popular overseas. She's a socialist (supports high taxes, socialized medicine, restriction on free market, etc.) in order to enforce equality but she's also an intelligent player of the political game and understands how to twist and turn in order to manipulate the vote and political whims. Unfortunately, her thighs make it hard to twist and turn without drawing uncomfortable glares. If elected she would probably be as polarizing as the current jackass, but just from the opposite direction... and more importantly she sure shouts alot. After listening to Bush stumble over his words for the last 8 years, I just can't imagine listening to her grating voice for at least the next 4. Whatever. I'll see you in line to get our government mandated prescription. Barack Obama... He's the young super-hip, great new hope. Young girls swoon and the media just can't contain their giddiness at the very mention of his name. His political history is relatively short so we really need to draw his stances from interviews, various campaign stumps and debates, and what we are left with is rather confusing. He tends (in my opinion) to say whatever is necessary to gain the support of whatever group he happens to speaking to at the moment. While this is not terribly unusual in the realm of politics, this message of good things for everyone and everything is clearly resonating with his supporters. In the end though, it'll probably just lead to disappointment when that political reality sets in. Like Hillary, he's a socialist and therefore diametrically opposed to everything I think is important, but unlike her I don't know if he knows the game. Regardless, I don't really care whether or not his father was a Muslim from Kenya or whether or not he may or may not have once been in the same room with a Koran somewhere in Indonesia, but it sure would be interesting from a pure entertainment perspective if the general election ended up being him vs. the Huckabee kook. Whatever... For some reason I want to put 2 R's in his first name, but I find Obama to be far easier for me to spell than Jeweleani. John Edwards... Yeeeeeeeeeeasaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggg! This dude is still around? Except for trying to be a vice-presidential candidate, his chances are pretty much hopeless. There you have it. If you are offended by my clear lack of reverence for your particular preference, and subsequently my view of your views... well, uh, you can just go... well on second thought, I don't want to offend you any further . I hope that my view helps everyone make a decision that would be to my liking . And for our non-American friends, I hope you all have great new hope for relations with the United States over the next 4 years.

I edited this entry to say Augustan Settlement. However, if one clicks the item itself one will see that there is indeed a description. I think I like short entries better, it encourages one to be curious and to click...

Call it a hunch, but I expect Ron Paul to lose despite the 1 vote I'm bringing to the table.

He did. Also, the son of Drusus Major may have been named after his brother the emperor. The records are not entirely clear but he was named either Tiberius Claudius Nero (after Tiberius the emperor) or the conventional Nero Claudius Drusus after his father. Later he was awarded the agnomen he is commonly known by - Germanicus. It was again changed to Germanicus Julius Caesar after Tiberius adopted him. In any case, the brothers (Tiberius and Drusus the Elder) somewhat broke from typical naming conventions in doing so, though such conventions were on the wane by this period anyway. Nephele may have more insight into this particular issue though.

Leaving the ideology out of it (ie the restriction of political freedom, elimination of rivals, etc.), he was an unquestionably effective administrator. The economic prosperity of the empire grew and Roman authority was cemented throughout after a few precarious years of instability and divided loyalties. Art, architecture, literature and culture entered what is sometimes referred to as a golden age. Despite some issues with potential mutiny in Illyria and the failings of Varus in Germania, the legions were positively reorganized for central control and the defense of the empire. He was a propoganda wizard who simply had people feeling good about their world and their future. While I disagree with the principle of it and it's ultimate result, he established a line of succession that (temporarily) eliminated civil war. The plebes were treated well (or kept in line via bread and circuses should anyone prefer, but this was nothing unusual in Roman culture regardless of Republic vs. Empire). After the purges of the second triumvirate political supporters were advanced and a semblance of old constitutional practice continued to exist. At least there were no more purges after the Augustan settlements and what we might consider the official establishment of "empire". He did revise the senate rolls at least 4 times (27, 18, 11 BC and 4 AD), but these do not seem to have been accompanied with proscriptions. As far as emperors go, he was a good one. Whether or not people consider that an oxymoron is their own decision.

Drusus Julius Caesar (or Nero Claudius Drusus, also Drusus the Younger) was the son of the emperor Tiberius. He was therefore the nephew of Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus (Drusus the Elder).

As Hirtius lost his life in battle during this war, and Pansa shortly afterwards from a wound, the rumour spread that he had caused the death of both, in order that after Antony had been put to flight and the state bereft of its consuls, he might gain sole control of the victorious armies. The circumstances of Pansa's death in particular were so mysterious, that the physician Glyco was imprisoned on the charge of having applied poison to his wound. Aquilius Niger adds to this that Augustus himself slew the other consul Hirtius amid the confusion of the battle. Suet Aug 11 The first bit regarding Pansa is semi-plausible, but considering Octavian's rather dubious record on the actual battlefield, I would highly doubt his personal involvement in killing Hirtius (let alone actually getting involved in hand to hand combat). Had Suetonius said that Octavian ordered someone to do it, or perhaps even that Agrippa were involved, I might at least understand it, but otherwise it seems to be wild Suetonian titillation. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Suetonius seems to be validly reporting an honest rumor of the time.

Personally, Harris is among my favorite historical novelists. (I haven't read alot mind you, but he is quite good.) I'd be quite disappointed if this doesn't make it to the big screen. By the by, any word out there about the second novel in his Cicero series?