Primus Pilus

And while both Melvadius and MPC touched on this, it's quite important to make clear... there simply were no immediate methods of communication except for open oratory. Certainly there were books and written postings in community fora, etc. but oratory was the primary method of delivering one's message in the ancient world. Part of being a politician is mastering the art of communication in their particular environment, regardless of the form it takes.

If someone doesn't see it in the same results as you, it's possible that they are accessing a different database. The results should be similar though. In any case... witness the power of UNRV at work!

Wow! Simply amazing. The Northern Irish connection is just undeniable. Somewhere down the road Americans seemed to have brought about a change in vowel pronunciation though. I don't know, the Illinois accent seems to have a native American influence as well once compared to the British and Irish samples.

I know McCullough has an extensive bibliography and was quite meticulous, but as expected in a novel, she doesn't provide extensive support of every piece of conjecture. I vaguely remember reading something about this incident in a work by Christopher Mackay. I think it was this. However, I can't find it now, so I'll simply accept responsibility for the unverified claim and move along.

That's quite strange... I don't see it on my browser, and I'm using Firefox as well. Do you always see it, or was it just the one time?

Interestingly as well, Hadrian's ego may have been a major motivating factor in his various popular building endeavors. Perhaps simply seeing his own designs come to fruition outweighed any sense of popular appeal. I am not suggesting that Hadrian was not a benefactor of the arts or a great contributor to 'culture' by any stretch, only that I find his personality quite intriguing. The Historia Augusta and Cassius Dio are very similar in that they both present widely conflicting views of the man's behavior and personality depending on situations.

Oh but they did. Remember people exposing their children at the palace gates because Nero had murdered his mother? Public image was as important then as now. patronage too was a vital link in popularity. If your patron is executed, your bonus and support has gone. The common people really didn't have a lot to look forward to, and knowing their emperor was to going to provide free entertainment and the essentials of life without restrictive laws could mean a great deal to the masses. For example, look how the plebs felt about Tiberius, who was stingy about staging entertainment. Emperors do care about popularity with the plebs - to fail to do so risks your rivals taking that popular support for themselves and we know what happens then. I agree that the people were certainly interested in the goings on of the aristocracy. However, I disagree that Hadrian in particular was very concerned with what the people thought... at least the people in Rome anyway. Hadrian seemed to have a personal disconnect with the city, the senate and the common inhabitants, hence part of the reason for his many travels. He was probably vastly more popular in the provinces than in the capital.

Nov 18 is fast approaching... prepare for the Ford Field spank down G-Man! Holy crap... it's been a very, very, very long time, since any Lions fan had even a remote opportunity to act even slightly cocky. However, I am also painfully aware that we still need to play such playoff contenders as the Giants, Dallas and Green Bay at home as well as San Diego & Green Bay on the road. Regardless, we are enjoying this while it lasts.

There are so many influences... immigrants from all over Europe in various stages of history (British, Irish, Italian, Dutch, German, the list goes on and on)... that it's certainly difficult to pinpoint an exact origin of the current "accent". I'd imagine that the earliest settlers sounded quite like the people from their point of origin (British in the NE and Viriginia, Dutch in New York, etc.). I suppose today the northeast maintains the closest relationship to British English, but it's still a far cry after many generations of absorbing various language groups and sounds. Much like most people in the US are a mixture of various cultural or national origins, our language too is equally mixed. Hopefully, some of those linguists with a far better understanding than my terribly basic overview will offer some insight.

Very nice interview Flavia... I enjoy the way you approach the history from a cultural perspective of how people would have appeared and behaved, etc. Forgive my ridiculous naivety, but I was actually quite surprised not to hear a British accent, despite knowing you were raised in the US.

Yep, I do. Same here... I may not post, but I keep checking for something interesting to watch. Thanks for doing this G-Man.

From my selfish perspective, I'd rather see Musharaff than islamic fundamentalism, but there are clearly some issues to be concerned with. Of course, it's really up to the Pakistani people to decide their fate.

I find myself very impressed by this article, as I thought it would be ridiculous after reading the title. It's a most intelligent text. Thanks for posting it MPC! Indeed, it's well written and the point is clear. If I wasn't so bull-headed, I probably wouldn't mind being a traditionalist pagan.

The guy is a strange amalgamation of George Michael and Samuel L. Jackson. He's going to get medieval on your rest stop.

Indeed, his populist movements were very minimal, really. When he first arrived in Rome (nearly a year after his accession) he ordered a large cancellation of public debts, enacted numerous honors on his popular predecessor Trajan, and commissioned the previously mentioned building programs. However, one of these such programs, the removal of Trajan's theatre on the Campius Martius, was very unpopular. He did it because he felt it was necessary. Largely, he seems to be one of the most practical rulers Rome ever had and he did not seem do things simply because it made him popular. His problem was the poor relationship with a portion of the aristocracy, and a rather noted arrogance. The accounts of Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta are, for the most part, quite positive. I'd actually argue that the reign of his successor, Antoninus Pius, would probably fill this description better; but I suppose that's a discussion for another thread.

I don't think there has ever been a more classic lyric than... Now poop on them Oliver.

An old Indian music video with English subtitles... not the translation, but how the language sounds if it were English. I really enjoyed the random lunacy of it. http://www.break.com/index/absolutely-hila...usic-video.html

No, that doesn't appear to be it either. If I'm reading it correctly, the suggestion is that Caepio got himself into a position to be destroyed at the urging of Marius (which isn't much different than other accounts). However, I'm still not seeing an accusation against Marius Minor. I'm completely baffled. I suppose I should just write this one off as an honest mistake, but it's quite frustrating. Anyone please feel free to correct me if I'm missing something in the translation.

I do hope you let us read you paper when you finish. I would certainly be interested.

Don't flatter yourself ... it ain't that hard. Primus ... if you come across the original source I'd be interested in hearing more about it. It certainly sounds like something that anti-Marian types back in Rome at the time would have reflexively spit out in response to Caepio's death. Do we know if Marius the younger was indeed part of Caepio's forces at this point in the Social Wars? Frankly, it's been driving me crazy for the past couple of hours. I have nothing in my notes and can't find anything in the usual sources. I suppose there may be something in Cicero, but his work is definately more time consuming to search for such details than other traditional narratives/bios (Appian, Plutarch, etc.). I think it best to rework my original passage at this point, and restore it should I find anything definitive.

Wikipedia however indicates the following: Can somebody please clarify this for me? Were the accusations about Marius the younger just a political bloodsport of the times? Or is there some basis in truth for this? The two aren't really contradictory. My contention is that Marius Minor was accused of being involved because of political enmity between factions, but I am not disputing the nature of Caepio's death. In any case, despite scrounging around here frantically, I am unable to pinpoint my own source for the contention that Marius Minor was accused of anything. Quite embarrassing really, but there must be something, somewhere. Regardless, because of the speculative nature of the passage anyway, I think it appropriate to edit that piece of information out. My apologies for confusing you, but thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Truly excellent stuff. I vaguely remember reading about this guy in a local newspaper in the past couple of years. He's been at this for a considerable length of time. Here's his home page.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely it would seem. The emperor's ego was not bound by the constraints of law that most everyone else was. It's civilization led by autonomous power. Such a combination will certainly have it's moments of incredulous behavior, but such behavior does not mean the absence of civilization. Here's the full passage relating to the death of Apollodorus from Cassius Dio Book 69.4. Strangely, the Historia Augusta ignored this particular piece of juicy gossip.

As PP explained you, that depends in what you define as Greek. The supremacy ended by Rome at Greece was Macedonian, not strictly "Greek" (ie, Hellenic); this distinction is cardinal.. Presumably the end of Macedonian supremacy was determined by the defeat of the King Philip V by Titus Quinctius Flamininus in DLVII AUC / 197 BC at Cynoscephalae ("Dog's heads"); from then on, Macedonia was mostly a Roman satellite until it became a province at DCVIII AUC / 146 BC. I agree completely that Cynoscephalae was a resounding victory for the legion over the phalanx, and was the first step in the defeat of Macedonia. Clearly Macedonia was forced to give up it's influence over the Peloponnese and was made a tributary to Rome. However, the difficulty here is that Philip was left as an independent buffer with Asia minor and Seleucia, while his own kingdom was still quite intact. It wasn't long after that Philip's son Perseus began to challenge Roman authority in the surrounding region. Engaging the Macedonians was initially resisted by the Romans, but they were eventually forced to act when the allied state of Pergamum was placed in direct danger. (Provided of course that we trust the reported Roman method of supposedly maintaining a non aggressive stance until an ally called for help... a recurring event throughout Roman history). Ultimately, I feel that it's the victory at Pydna that left Macedonia as a virtual colony, forced the break up of the Illyrian kingdom under Genthius, decimated Epirus, left Achaea under the absolute hegemony of Rome, and opened the door to the east. Of course, once again, any of this is a matter of relative perspective and I suppose it's up to longshotgene to decide what criteria he uses in his paper. In any case, I hope the banter he provides a solid starting point.

Nero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus and was adopted into the Claudii gens by, appropriately enough, Claudius. Both emperors Tiberius and Claudius were born into the Claudii gens with the same given names... Tiberius Claudius Nero. While its certainly possible, one would have to follow the line back to see if the Caius Claudius Nero in question is a direct ancestor of either or only a distant relative of the same family branch. Maybe Nephele can provide some insight.