Primus Pilus

I missed this on the first pass... He still sent for and received such financial support before he arrived in Rome. He did not arrive on the scene completely bereft of financial means. Nobody may have known him as an individual, but everyone knew he was Caesar's heir. He just didn't have enough influence to inspire Antonius into action. {EDIT} A clarification is in order. The inheritance that Antonius kept from Caesar was that under the control of the public treasury. Octavian still had enough money (according to Nicolaus) to make himself a player, he just couldn't use the inheritance money that was in state care (Antonius) in order to gain the massive support of the populace (through Caesar's donative).

True enough, it's just that the methodology lacks legitimacy in my mind. Therefore I personally find it harder to respect vs. someone who succeeds politically through force of will or conviction without threat or use of violence. Perhaps semantics, but I hope at least my point is understood. I find it doubtful that the Octavius on his own merit without the Caesar name would've played quite the same sort of role. Octavian(us) though, as heir to Caesar would have been a player in some capacity regardless of Caesar's fate (death by old age, assassination, retirement to private life, etc.). Regardless, I understandably agree that the hypothetical is a rather pointless thing for us to spend much time debating. Wild and unsubstantiated speculation can be fun though

All 3 of this sites triumvirs (Moonlapse, Viggen and myself) were all involved with the Roma-Victor community from its earliest inception. For various reasons, each of us moved away from it over time. For myself it was more rewarding to create this site and focus on historical research, writing and discussion for its own merit than to do so in an ancillary capacity for a computer gaming experience (no matter how historical its nature). In any case, Roma-Victor has been a project long in the making and a bit on the slow side. Redbedlam, the developers, are a small private operation, and are thusly limited in comparison to larger software houses. Unfortunately, that slow pace has hampered the ability to build and maintain an active and stable community. It has been terribly slow in implementing features that make the game truly playable, and is the significant reason for a low player population. Of course, low population = low revenue = slow development; a cycle that is difficult to overcome. As Diocles stated, graphics are hardly cutting edge either, but this game was indeed being developed with an almost MUD based community nature in mind. Nephele... if I remember correctly, the game has a random name generator using the trinominal system (at least for Roman characters). The praenomen and cognomen are the random components, originally made up from a list of true historical options (painstakingly done by a member of this very forum by name of Jugurtha), though I can't attest to whether or not that concept still remains in force. A character's nomen was the true individual identifier and was created by the player. Female characters are very much playable. I remember that gender specific roles were to be in place (ie no female characters in the legions or as magistrates, though non traditional roles were acceptable in free society), but I have absolutely no clue whatsoever whether this is followed or not.

He had the support of Caesar's veterans in Brundisium. He hadn't yet raised his army, but he did not arrive in Rome unprotected nor without funds. Cass. Dio. 45.33.2 Nicolaus of Damascus 18 Nicolaus, being a chronological contemporary, doesn't go as far as Cassius Dio in suggesting that Octavian sent forces ahead of him to Rome, but I highly doubt that the son of Caesar arrived in Rome completely alone in the midst of so much volatility. Clearly he did not bring enough men to manipulate Antonius, but frankly, arriving completely alone would've been rather stupid. However, Nicolaus continues to suggest that those soldiers who were already in Rome were not indisposed to Octavian even if they were not official supporters. They play a key role in legitimizing Octavian to Antonius (Begins with Life of Augustus chap. 29 A legalization of his private army that was standing outside of Rome without opposition (Antonius had already marched north against Dec. Brutus). The threat to the safety of the Senate was real, though those same senators also saw an opportunity to use Octavian for their own gain. Octavian may have been understandably protecting his own interests by raising a private army, but getting one's way by force (or threat thereof) is not the prime definition of being a master politician. I don't doubt his savvy or daring, nor do I doubt his skill at manipulating popular opinion under the circumstances, nor do I doubt that the opposing tyrant Antonius was failing to recognize Octavian's legal right to Caesar's will, but raising a private army and holding the government hostage is more akin to tyranny than politics. Despite the fact that circumstances are instrumental in the judgment of political ability, Octavian had the distinct advantage of being the son of Caesar, and the only one advocating the distribution of the donative to the populace per Caesar's will. Clearly a smart move when one is trying to gain public support, by it leads to the question: would Octavian have been recognized as a master politician in any other era but this one?

I've always been baffled by alternate spellings. Why C Iulius Caesar became G. Julius Caesar I will never quite understand. It's not as if the English G and J are equivalent in pronunciation to the Latin C and I. Why do we pronounce Kikero (Cicero) as Sisero, but yet Cato is Kato and not Sato? Sorry for the aside, it's just an irritant that I felt compelled to complain about.

Just be aware that this is historical fiction. Dando-Collins is often berated for being inaccurate apparently because his work is written in such a way that it seems authoritative. From what I understand he mixes the histories of Legio X Fretensis and X Gemina as if both are Caesar's famed 10th legion (For instance, X Gemina was not at Masada but X Fretensis was), but both are entirely separate legions. For the record X Gemina was Caesar's 10th. To be fair though, I haven't read it myself, but this is the rather common complaint that I'm aware of. Editing myself... actually nobody seems to know if this is historical fiction or non-fiction. Therein lies part of the problem I suppose.

Just be aware that this is historical fiction. Dando-Collins is often berated for being inaccurate apparently because his work is written in such a way that it seems authoritative. From what I understand he mixes the histories of Legio X Fretensis and X Gemina as if both are Caesar's famed 10th legion (For instance, X Gemina was not at Masada but X Fretensis was), but both are entirely separate legions. For the record X Gemina was Caesar's 10th. To be fair though, I haven't read it myself, but this is the rather common complaint that I'm aware of.

Yes, but his claim is regarding the "ancients", though his admitted goal was to impress upon the emperor how the old ways were best. However, since no other surviving source that I am aware of indicates a height requirement for recruits, we are indeed very much left wondering where this information came from.

Vegetius is quote often challenged for his lack of personal experience regarding the legions. The height issue in particular is often challenged. However, it's not impossible to believe that the Romans targeted the tallest and the biggest amongst them for military service. Keep in mind what Vegetius actually says though.. or the original context for those so inclined... Here he is claiming that (translated into modern measurements) 5'7" to 5'9" is the target height for the first legionary cohorts. This is key because the first cohort was considered the best troops of the legion. He mentions nothing about the rest of the army. We can presume that the requirements were less strict for the remaining nine cohorts.

They must block outside 'hotlinking', we haven't blocked them as far as I know.

Just a quick note to let everyone know that we've extended the UNRV moderating team beyond the neanderthalic stage. We've invited our first Domina into the group to keep the rest of us on our toes. To reflect the continued growth of the forum and in recognition of her warm and welcoming presence as well as her dedication to the community, we are pleased to have Nephele as the first female Legatus in the history of Rome. Now be nice, or she'll give you a really unflattering blanagram name.

I could take a look at that. I'll dig around and see how many threads apply to each side of the equation and if it makes sense.

Reporting is fine for something that is a forum "emergency", ie a *or* spammer or something to that effect. A "reported post" is sent to all the mods, so whoever happens to be there first can take care of it. If it's something less of a priority like moving a thread from the Imperium folder to Res Publica, a PM would be fine. Thanks!

You may or may not have noticed the creation of 2 new subfora. Nomina et Gentes is a subforum of the Humanitas folder and will be for the discussion of Roman Names, Gentes and related threads. There will obviously be some overlap here with discussions of other historical merit (such as plebeian vs. patrician issues in the Republic, etc.), but I hope this specific folder helps bring some attention to a relatively popular area of study. A very special thanks to Nephele for searching and identifying the threads to move (they were truly scattered all over the Roman world...) Circensis is a subforum of the Colosseum and is specifically for the discussion of Roman related games such as Rome Total War. The Colosseum folder is just so full of movies, television shows and DVD's that Ursus suggested a specific home for gaming products. There's no need to go well out of your way searching for old long forgotten threads, but should you notice anything that should be moved to one of these new fora, please do let us know.

Indeed, I might have to start editing this thread... I suspect that the extra bandwidth transfer won't be good for our server load, though Moonlapse would probably know more about that than I. Btw... G-Manicus you've been promoted to the Equites group and have access to the gallery section of the site.

Just a quick note (as the topic says) on moderation. Our mods don't necessarily read every thread as a review for inappropriate material, nor do they (we) always notice when a thread may be better suited in a forum other than where it was started (or it needs to be split, etc.) Some citizens do this already, but should anyone notice something that seems amiss, or a thread better suited in another location, etc. please feel free to drop any one of us a suggestion. Thanks!

Guess who didn't exercise his democratic franchise? I abstained... but reconsidered.

I think it's an excellent idea. You are thinking outside the proverbial box so to speak. The theory of Roman expansion as a cause for the fall isn't necessarily new but identifying it specifically during the time of Trajan (the obvious apex of territorial expansion) should prove promising. As for your foreign emperor theory... this you would be a far more difficult challenge. Trajan and Hadrian (even Septimius Severus later) may have been provincial by geographic origin, but they were still Roman. Pursuing this course would probably require a more detailed treatise on the Roman exclusionary practices regarding Plebs in the struggle of the orders, Italians (the social or marsic war), Gauls until Claudius, etc. Why would the introduction of an emperor of provincial origin be so much more damaging than other political evolutions resulting in the acceptance of a particular group or what have you. Is your thought process to prove that Trajan wished to prove himself via military conquest because he was an outsider? Military conquest had long been a glorification practice dating from the Republic and even for certain emperors (Caligula in Germania, Claudius in Britain, Nero in Armenia, Domitian in Dacia/Germania). None of these save Claudius were quite to the comparative level of Trajan's expansive campaigns, but proving that this was the result of a provincial emperor rather than a general emperor would be difficult. Perhaps tying in Claudius as almost a Julio-Claudian outsider to Trajan as a provincial outsider could be interesting. I'd look forward to reading this, but would expect this part to be far more difficult than the first. PS. excellent choice of avatar.

At this rate, we may be sending the folks with the white coats after the whole lot of you

And what about the Carthaginian army during the Punic Wars? Yes, professional, but not necessarily in the same sense as the Romans. Carthage's army were not levies but recruited and paid troops who were assigned to specific regions and tasks, though that assignment was temporary. They are often identified as mercenary, but the bulk of these "mercenaries" were recruited from within Carthaginian controlled regions. They were perhaps more akin to later Roman auxilia than mercenaries. However, allow me to clarify what I mean by the garrison concept in establishing the legions as a professional army. While many ancient armies would be professional in the sense that they were trained paid soldiers with uniform military structure, Rome was among the first to truly develop a permanent standing army with static points of assignment. Perhaps surprisingly, I'm suggesting a much later period than what we might be thinking. It's not until after the civil wars and the reforms of Augustus and the evolution of the Caesarian/Antonian legions that my criteria really takes hold. It's at this point where legions were permanent forces and not temporary levies (even if earlier armies were clearly professional by training, discipline, standardization. Think Scipio, Marius, etc.). I'm focused on when the legions themselves became permanent entities (ie Legio II Augusta, Legio III Gallica, Legio IV Macedonica, etc.) that continued to exist with a continuing and defined task/assignment while replenishing existing units with new recruits when veterans retired, rather than retiring an entire legion and levying an entirely new army for a different task. Perhaps my concept doesn't quite conform to the traditional sense of what a professional army was, but I hope that clarifies my thought process. Of course, I'm open to opposing points of view.

Absolutely, again its nothing I claim any expertise in and freely admit to being largely conversational on this topic (linguistics/genetics, etc.).

Hopefully, that's a start... http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5301

I haven't given RTW a go in a while. This mod sounds interesting. Is it an early 'beta' version or is it complete and playable?

I view permanent garrison/assignment rather than temporary levy to deal with a threat (regardless of payment method) as the definition of professional. By that standard, would Attila's Hunnish warriors have been considered professional or not? The Huns didn't necessarily garrison, nor did they routinely fortify, nor as far as I know were they paid a "salary", but they were certainly not temporary levies. Is a tribal army professional? Probably not in the strictest sense, but we also know they employed mercenaries and acted as such themselves.

I agree, though the 5% seems a touch too low in order to represent the number of followers the bishops would've needed in order to influence the emperor. I'm less inclined to quibble with the numbers after the 'legalization' of christianity, though. Though the whole of Asia Minor was the hotbed of christian growth in the earlier period. There was likely a higher percentage concentration of the cult in Pliny's jurisdiction than in the west or other parts of the empire. Consider if you were a mayor of a major city or governor of a state/province and there were some 5,000 non conforming rabble-rousers making the rest of the population uncomfortable. You might send a letter or several to your boss as well. 10,000 certainly seems low, but it really depends on the concentration of the numbers, I suppose.