Primus Pilus

I haven't had the heart to watch it yet, for fear of being unable to suspend reality for the entertainment of historical inaccuracy, but there is a discussion of it here. That discussion is mostly speculative though... It doesn't seem that many of us here wanted to take a chance on it. I'm going to see it this afternoon. I will report back. But I think you are right not to get your hopes up... Ben Kingsley is a fine actor anyway. Hopefully his character will overcome any other deficiencies, so yes please do let us know if there are some redeeming qualities.

As you can see we've presented several possibilities, depending on what you mean by Greek. Do you feel that the Roman wars with Magna Graecia are the beginning? If so see Asclepiades post #3 above. Livy does not really a provide a description of a specific battle, but you can see the beginning of the Roman conflict with the Greek colonies of southern Italy. For a battle with a truly Greek or Hellenistic Phalanx army, see my post #2 above for the war with Pyrrhus. The first major battle was Heraclea in 280 BC (an Epirote victory). Pyrrhus was not really defeated until Beneventum in 275. If you believe the starting point is after the unification of Italy and the Roman conflicts with Macedonia, then you have to begin considerably later. While Rome may have been technically at war with Philip perhaps as early as 215 BC, there were no definitive recorded battles between the 2 nations until considerably later. (Rome was too pre-occupied with Hannibal in Italy to focus on Macedonian aggression against Roman interests across the Adriatic.) Though there were likely many skirmishes, the first battle of note was at Aous in 198 BC. One more if.... If you are focusing on war between the Romans and actual Greeks (rather than Macedonians or Epirotes) then you must start much later. The Greek cities were largely under the influence of Macedonia prior to the Roman wars, so there was little military interaction directly between the two. In fact the Achaeans were allies of the Romans (see the battle of Gythium) until they felt that the Roman influence had become a yolk that was too heavy to bear. Metellus Macedonicus defeated the Achaeans at Scarpheia in 147 BC and Cheronea in 146. These battles were followed up by the destruction of Corinth by Lucius Mummius. That effectively ended any resistance in the region to Roman authority. (However, the invasion of Mithridates in the mid 80's BC did inspire thoughts of independence, but it was rather short lived.) Forgive my rambling... but as for the actual question: Yes Pydna (the first one in 168 BC) would definately represent the decline of Macedonian influence and the rise of Roman supremacy. Second Pydna 20 years later was really the proverbial nail in the coffin.

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum), Salve, Amici. The earlier I was able to identify was at CDXXVII AUC (327 BC) against Palaeopolis and Neapolis within the Ist Sammite War (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VIII, Cp. XXIII-XXV): Was there not an earlier encounter with Capua... hmm, this may have been later than I recall? Anyway, Capua was not Greek. My bad, I confused Cumae and Capua... also in Campania. Regardless, the Samnite Wars and later battles between Rome and Magna Graecia are not quite representative of the classic idea of Greece vs. Rome, but I suppose that depends on what the original poster was getting at.

This is definitely just the very first step. We are also well aware that we have some work to do on the total reorganization front.

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum), Salve, Amici. The earlier I was able to identify was at CDXXVII AUC (327 BC) against Palaeopolis and Neapolis within the Ist Sammite War (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VIII, Cp. XXIII-XXV): Was there not an earlier encounter with Capua... hmm, this may have been later than I recall?

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum), but these were hardly the epic sort of engagements that we would consider defining moments. The first major encounters between what we might consider a classic Greek\Hellenistic state and the Romans was during the invasion of Pyrrhus of Epirus (c. 280 - 275 BC). Pyrrhus is famous for having won just about every battle, but losing so many men in the process that he couldn't win the war... a Pyrrhic Victory. [edit] Sorry, I failed to answer the entire question. The first major battle was Heraclea in 280, followed by Apulia in 279. The traditional territory of Macedonia and eventually Greece did not completely submit to Roman authority until after 4 "Macedonian Wars" (215 to 205, 200 to 196, 172 to 168 & 150 to 148) and the revolt of the Achaean League in 146 BC, resulting in the razing of Corinth to the ground.

Nothing really functional... it's more just appearance. I like the new look far more than the old big header. Additionally, the new look isn't a single large banner header (which is slower to load and used more bandwidth.) You might also notice that the blogs and the gallery now have a link featured at the top of the page. They were quite hidden and available only through the forum before.

I haven't had the heart to watch it yet, for fear of being unable to suspend reality for the entertainment of historical inaccuracy, but there is a discussion of it here. That discussion is mostly speculative though... It doesn't seem that many of us here wanted to take a chance on it.

It looked like this... Yahoo Cache Google has the new page indexed. If this page should update and it looks like the new page, than you can see our old pages via the Internet Archive. The link provided is the home page in July, 2007.

It's important to note that this policy changes during the late republic times and Rome tend to grant citizenship to the local aristocrasy for services it has done for her (A good example for this is that Caesar granted Antipater citizenship for his aid during the Egyptian campain) and in the empire auxiliary soldiers were made citizens after they finished there service. There is also the rare circumstance of individuals granting rights to colonies or foreign towns (not just Latin rights), but clearly this was politically motivated and was not the normal path. Sulla did it while dictator (see the Lex Cornelia de Civitate of 82) and the Lex Gellia et Cornelia de Civitate passed in 72 which made it legal for generals to confer citizenship for service to Rome.

I haven't read either, nor am I really familiar with the works, but your presumption on recent scholarship probably has merit. Archaeologists in the UK have been highly active in recent years and I would feel comfortable that any finds over that period would be included in the newer book. In digging around some reviews of the book, it appears that one of Fraser's major contentions is that the traditional site of the battle is invalid.

No worries on the Italics issue. The reason that part is in italics is because it's an actual quote of the article. It's not an automatic font. There's no reason we have to keep using it for future postings.

This may be difficult for many of you to understand, but really it's quite simple. The passage of time is the key. Now that that's all cleared up, try to have a good birthday.

Egads Doc... why didn't you tell me this ages ago. I had no idea there was a UK version too. That should be great fun yes?

We don't watch a lot of TV, but we do set the DVR and watch a couple of shows (or a movie) with some wine on Friday/Saturday night. I do like cooking shows.... and the thing is, I don't cook a damn thing. (Except BBQ). I will watch regularly: American Football (college & pro) & Hockey My wife and I will watch: Kitchen Nightmares (I don't like Hell's Kitchen but Gordon Ramsay kicks ass in this one) Top Chef (I know "reality" tv blows, but I like the cooking aspects) Ghost Hunters (they never find a thing that isn't easily explained away, but I enjoy it for some unexplained reason, and my wife likes it) Things we will stop and watch for a few minutes if we happen to stumble across it... Iron Chef (and "The Next Iron Chef") - similar to Top Chef with lots of silliness thrown in. Dirty Jobs - Mike Rowe provides some good clean (er dirty) fun. Survivorman The dramatics are a bit much, but its entertaining What Not to Wear Embarrassing to admit, but I like it... I get a kick the fact that the hosts tell everyone else how to dress, but rarely seem to follow their own rules in their personal styles. Stand-Up Comedy Full length HBO specials or short "Comedy Central" type shows... we'll give most of this stuff at least a shot.

And I deleted one

That's an interesting notion. It's clear that the Barca's were the primary authority in Hispania, and it made up a sizeable portion of Hannibal's recruiting ground for the war with Rome. What's difficult to define is the nature of the Carthaginian army. As we touched on in another thread somewhere, Carthage was heavily reliant upon mercenaries, but not necessarily in the traditional sense. Most of Hannibal's "mercenaries" were not permanent units for hire to the any bidder, but were tribal warriors who simply happened to reside within Hannibal's sphere of influence. While I can't be certain of this, I've never had the impression that the Celt-Iberian infantry or even Numidian cavalry were offering mercenary services to the highest bidder wherever work could be found. These were simply men who were paid by Hannibal to serve in his army. It's why I view his army more akin to Roman auxilia, then true mercenary. In any case, the "client" concept has some merit, especially in Hispania. For lack of a better term, the Barcas ruled there, and the people likely had a stronger sense of loyalty to that family rather than the Carthaginian state as a whole.

More downtime overnight and in the morning... Oct 24-25, 07. We are aware of some recurring service interruptions are still investigating whether this is a site configuration issue or a server issue, or what have you. Hopefully, things will be resolved shortly.

We gave this article it's own unique home in the article section of the site. I hope more people out there in cyberspace get a chance to see it as a result... http://www.unrv.com/culture/names-for-roman-dogs.php

That's news to me. Source? Antonius definately accused him. Whether or not is true is debatable, but Antonius at least seems to have believed it. Appian gives a solid account in Civil Wars 3.39

Welcome to Imperium. This sub forum is intended for the discussion of issues related to the Roman Empire.

Welcome to Res Publica. This sub forum is intended for the discussion of issues related to the Roman Republic.

The Libri forum (literally book) is for the discussion of Roman related authors and books, including book reviews.

The Circensis (the games) is a forum for the discussion of Roman and ancient world related video (console/PC) and board games.

This forum is for the discussion of Latin and other ancient languages as well as translation requests.