Primus Pilus

The people believed that Augustus was the deliverer from the woes of civil war and political strife that had been taking place for as long as anyone could remember. Taking "executive power" away from him left the impression that this strife would be renewed and certainly wouldn't have made the position of the senate a comfortable one. Regardless, it's much more likely that the entire episode was staged and/or embellished as part of the Augustan political mastery. Looking at his history, it seems highly unlikely that he ever had any intention of truly relinquishing his authority. Of course, even if I am completely off-base on this, one must also consider that many of the leading men of the senate had been purged in various proscriptions and civil war over the last generation. It may very well be possible that the inexperienced leaders of the day were simply unsure of their ability to lead or were legitimately frightened by the possibility of renewed danger in the absence of strong leadership.

Not necessarily. In the earliest part of the Republic, when the senate/ruling aristocracy was much more exclusionary towards plebes, this was more likely to be the case. However, by the time of Gracchus the senate was made up of many supporters of both political ideologies and everything in between. As an example, Caesar was a "populares" of the oldest patrician lines, while M. Porcius Cato was a staunch conservative of plebeian origins. Both were aristocrats of course but as members of the senate they maintained completely opposite political stances.

I suppose it really ought to be Pilatus. In any case, I find the Anglicized "Pilot" pronunciation similar to that of Pompey, who seems to be pronounced most often like the city buried by Vesuvius. As I understand it, the pronunciation should be Pompee (short for Pompeius).

This is not quite related Moon, but I was reminded of it while thinking of how much I dislike the state of affairs with forced indoctrination (er education). As part of the new "orientation" for incoming kindergarteners, the school principal (supported by the board of education) has asked people to sign up for having a social worker visit their home simply to make sure the child is "ready". The form to sign and "grant permission" doesn't contain any suggestion that one can decline this concept but simply provides for a time for the visitation to take place before enrollment is completed. Since these people are government employees and have the potential ability to manipulate my family's status and personal freedom, I view this as a direct violation of the 4th amendment (since clearly they are doing this to evaluate and stem off issues that they see as problems either at the moment or in the future.) I suppose if people sign up willingly it is their own problem, but that's because very few people in this country are aware of the constitution and it's founding principals. I've been making a stink about this locally, but I generally get looked at with blank stares by the sheep who think that schools are actually designed to be helpful and positive influences. Of course, I readily admit my own hypocrisy in that I am sending my children through the public education system because of requirements for future employment, but I am "educating" them at home in addition to the public indoctrination.

Probably. It's likely that he still would've been required to return to Rome and report to someone, but clearly there were major and more important events taking place at the moment. Pilate was only at odds with Vitellius because Vitellius had to field a complaint regarding Pilate's heavy-handedness in dealing with some of his administrative duties. I wouldn't call him a rival as such, but he was a superior according to social rank. He would not have been considered a direct superior except for affairs of the military and/or if commanded by the emperor to intercede in some matter of import. However, because of his rank as a Proconsul he was clearly able to make discretionary decisions above that of a Praefectus. Josephus relates the story in Antiquities of the Jews book 18 ch. 4.1-2

In a thread from ages ago I attempted to hammer the notion that Legionaries in Judaea at the time would've spoken Latin. Keep in mind that I am not talking about auxilia but true legionaries. Latin or Greek in Judaea c. 30 AD

Failing to manage the emperor's expectations, and at odds with Vitellius (the legate of Syria) he probably faded away into obscurity. I believe there are some apocryphal accounts written in the 3rd to 5th centuries that make Pilate (and his wife) out to be christians, but the veracity is certainly questionable. In any case, Eusebius gives a plausible theory in the Historia Ecclesiastica (History of the Church). He claims that Pilate wearied with misfortunes and had killed himself. (Hist. Eccl. 2.7.1). (Scroll down to ch. 7) Based on the circumstances, it's certainly not far-fetched.

You'll find most of the sources with English translations available in this post. As for the "populares/optimates"... the issue was relatively moot in this period of Roman politics. The parents of "Caligula" were Germanicus and Agrippina. While Germanicus was definately a popular figure, he was a member of the ruling family and his political position was completely dissimilar to the political battles of the late Republican period. I am by no means suggesting that political "conservatives" and "populares" did not exist, but the ideological differences in philosophy that defined the late Republic was not as relevant in the politics of the empire. For all intensive purposes, the politicians of the imperial era would've been considered populares by Republican standards. Are you perhaps mixing a touch of Gaius Caesar the 3rd emperor with Gaius Octavius (later Augustus)? If so, the issues of the populares vs. optimates would be more relevant. His father Gaius Octavius Thurinus was a relatively obscure figure, but since he was married to Caesar's niece Atia and was appointed to the governorship of Macedonia while the first triumvirate dominated Rome in 60 BC, one might assume he was a "populares". He died when Augustus was only 4 while en route to Rome in 59 BC to stand for the consulship for 58 (presumably with the support of the triumvirate). However, Atia remarried Lucius Marcius Philippus and Augustus' step-father seemed to have anti-Caesarian leanings. When war broke out between Caesar and Pompey he actually sat it out without openly supporting either side.

It could be broken down a little further. A list of victims of political murder, motives, means, and perps... Yes, I believe that's the angle I'll take. There still may be some uncertainty in some cases, but it's far less ambitious than attempting to break down individual alliances over the course of 100 years. I'm in process on this, but it's even more daunting that I at first realized. From the Gracchi to the first triumvirate, I have some 90 names using mainly Appian as the source. (And I have not yet even begun to review the war with Sertorius). While I have been forced to corroborate some names via Plutarch, Livy, etc. I have not yet even begun a thorough review of each potential source. Should I include names of people convicted of bribery or other politically motivated charges?

Clearly McCullough did her research, as did novelists such as Robert Graves, but a novelists nature is always to take that research and insert their own interpretations of it. Are they wrong? Not necessarily, but there is often not enough actual historical to support some of the details. However, in this case, Plutarch provides some interesting information. He, unlike us unfortunately, would've also had access to Sulla's personal memoirs. Plutarch provides a decent summary of the 'blotchy' skin condition in Life of Sulla ch 2 Describing his death, Plutarch goes on to explain the condition with worms that Kosmo mentioned. Life of Sulla ch. 36

Congrats H... watch out for rabid llamas.

Unfortunately, I don't think you really are. I was only pointing out that there are still a few of us older-schoolers around.

Indeed, a clear winner. There's a thread on it around here somewhere, so I won't repeat the vitriol. I also despised the 2004 King Arthur film with Clive Owen. I have no opposition to the theory of Arthur as L. Artorius Castus or Ambrose Aurelianus or what have you, I just thought the movie was terrible.

You may want to review this essay "Laying New Foundations" regarding Augustan propaganda as a starting point.

There are still people who are not afraid to discipline their children. My boys are very accustomed to "the look" and are aware of the looming potential for having a reddened buttocks. Generally speaking... all I have to do is use the gravelly dad voice and they know it's time to stop whatever it is they are doing. Thankfully, they are generally well behaved and rarely have to experience "dad is just about to have an aneurysm" moments.

It's a shame that Kitna blows.

It could be broken down a little further. A list of victims of political murder, motives, means, and perps... Yes, I believe that's the angle I'll take. There still may be some uncertainty in some cases, but it's far less ambitious than attempting to break down individual alliances over the course of 100 years.

It was fortunate for them that PP was not Sulla's secretary. Great job indeed, PP; congratulations. After so many lists, it's extremely hard to find mistakes at your work. Thank you kindly, but I'm sure there are some here... especially omissions. I bet more get hashed out as I add the next generation of names, and the historians mention names of relatives who lost lives in the Marian/Sullan conflict. I wonder if this entire project should be merged together with MPC's nobiles in the Caesarian civil war. A comprehensive list of names and their general affiliation, how they died, etc. could prove useful. Any thoughts?

Possibly, but it needs to be hashed out a bit. This was really a first pass. I'd also like to add the names of those killed in the Sertorian War, due to it's relationship to the Marian/Sullan conflict. I could also use your help via Broughton's on some of those names that aren't associated with an office. Of course, it would probably make sense to continue this through the Caesarian War and the second triumvirate. Perhaps I should go back to the age of the Gracchi and begin there?

It would be interesting to compile a list of those killed by the Marians. Unfortunately, the lists are rather disappointing in their detail. I put this together via Appian, Livy and Plutarch. Paterculus adds some confirmation, but nothing unique. Cassius Dio's account is, of course, horribly fragmented. The great bulk of the deaths appear to be un-named victims as attested by some of the Plutarch and Appian quotes at the end of the list. Killed during Social War Q. Servilius Caepio Minor, Pr. 91, (killed in Asculum by Italians) App. 1.38, Liv. Epit. 72, Vell. Pat. 2.15 L. Postumus, Pr. 90 (killed at Nola by Samnites), Liv. Epit. 73 M. Claudius Marcellus, Aed. 91, Liv. Epit. 73 P. Rutilius Lupus, Cos. 90 (Marian), App. 1.43 Q. Servilius Caepio, Qua 100 (likely Marian), App. 1.44 L. Porcius Cato, Cos. 89, (Sullan) App 1.50 Asellio, Pr. 90?, (killed by money lenders) App. 1.54 Marians killed 88 BC (also proscribed) P. Sulpicius Rufus, Tr. Pl. 88, App. 1.60, Liv. Epit. 77 Publius Cethegus, App. 1.60 (exiled) Iunius Brutus, App. 1.60 (exiled) Gnaeus Granius, App. 1.60 (exiled) Quintus Granius, App. 1.60 (exiled) Publius Albinovanus, App. 1.60 (exiled) Marcus Laetorius, App. 1.60 (exiled) Sullans Killed 88 - 87 BC Q. Pompeius Rufus Minor, (son of the cos of same name for 88 BC and Sulla

This Republic of Rushey Platt sounds like a cover for what's really a cruel and unusual dictatorship... count me in! No spiders please though.

Here's a start. The William Smith Dictionary links the following instruments: Buccina (horn)

I thought the same thing for a moment, but I think ASC means that you can't browse the actual text of the book at Amazon. No worries, we're all on the same page. As for Justinian's flea, I really enjoyed this review. Like Ursus, I have lesser personal interest in the later periods of Roman history, but this really piques my curiosity.

The emphasis is mine. Definitely, I was thinking in a similar fashion to the law index.

Your dessire is my command. Circa DCLXXII AUC (82 bc). An important note on the Sulla coins is that these were issued by Q. Pompeius Rufus in 54 BC. Yes they pre-date Caesar, but they were not issued by the man whose portrait appears on the coin. There are many portraits prior to Caesar, but Caesar was the first Roman to actually put his own portrait on the coin while living (though not for long in this case). Sulla did put himself in quadriga on a coin while living, but its just a distant image of him riding a chariot and is not a portrait. This was also a rather common coin form. I know this isn't what was asked, but a Macedonian sample would be Ptolemy I after Alexander's death.