Primus Pilus

But the Carthaginians of Atistotle's Politica were semitic. By language, but not necessarily by genetics. I'm aware of a theory that the Phoenicians pre-date both the Indo-European and Semitic groups, but this is something I would not claim to have any expertise in. It seems unlikely for the Roman influence to come from Phoenicia but rather that the Greeks influenced the Carthaginians, but again this is not a claim I make with resounding magnanimity. In any case, the development of democracy/citizen assembly, etc. by the non indo-european Phoenicians (via Carthage) wouldn't necessarily preclude the development of similar governing ideology as a cultural phenomona throughout the Indo-European world, or would it?

And we have little source evidence for how the Roman system developed. Livy and Dionysios attribute the original division of the tribes to Romulus (Livy 1.13, Dion. 2.7) but this is also terribly steeped in legend. Other developments of the assemblies throughout the regal period are also uncertain due to the mythical context of early Rome's history. Regardless, Kosmo is probably accurate in suggesting that it was an Indo-European cultural development across the board. We can't be entirely sure which specific culture or government had the most direct influence on the early development of the curiae, though it certainly has a Greek city-state similarity.

Certainly, but what are the alternatives. They may have had access to information that no longer exists, but there are times they are wrong just like any other writer/historian. It's all a matter of opinion really, and of course some opinions may have more merit than others based on your own convictions. They believe that the circumstances of the entire era/political environment point to a definitive result, even though the ancient text itself does not provide the detail. They may not be wrong and are actually quite right in pointing out the possibilities, but we can understandably challenge the conclusions based on what the ancient source material does actually tell us. You are not incorrect in using any modern source to support your cause, but MPC is equally correct in challenging them based on the source material.

Salve, Amici. The Latin original of this so critical clause (both in Bill Thayer's site and in the Latin Library) is: ", ne Catone quidem abnuente eam largitionem e re publica fieri." It's an affirmation of a negative statement; even if it was true, it simply meant Caius Suetonius Tranquillus had no knowledge that Cato Minor ever expressed himself against bribery, specifically referring to Bibulus' election. Gossip in the purest Suetonian way, if you ask me. Indeed, there is a great deal of such language in both Suetonius and Tacitus... "I heard this from soandso and have not verified it"... Taking these particular passages as anything other than hearsay possibilities often is the root of the problem we are discussing. I had a lengthy discussion on whether or not Tiberius murdered Germanicus some time back. My argument was that there was no evidence, but yet history has often implicated the emperor. Reading the source material, one sees clearly that Tacitus and Suetonius only report second hand rumors as possibilities (and admit to it openly), but present no actual evidence.

With those powers of perception, imagine what he could do as a detective. -- Nephele Unfortunately, he probably can't relate the things he sees into an investigative mindset. His brain takes a photo (as complex as it may be) and simply recalls it later (albeit in exact detail). Of course there are many levels of autism so the capabilities are very dependent upon individual circumstances. As obviously brilliant as he his in this one segment, I wonder even if he could function as a witness to a crime, let alone a detective. I don't mean to discredit him by any stretch (as I clearly have no clue to his capabilities), but only to reflect on how amazing the human brain is.

Very interesting... and related to the site theme http://www.break.com/heroes/autistic-man-d...ma-of-rome.html

Someone set us up the bomb. Now if you can somehow convert this into a Roman theme, you will forever have the luck of the Irish. Leprechaun in a tree Of course, one must follow up the original story with the remix...

The problem with the secondary sources is that they interpret the events described by the ancients using conjecture to fill in the blanks, just like the rest of us. Despite their scholarship, their conjecture is no more valid as proof when the source material that does exist either provides little detail or countering evidence. Conjecture is perfectly valid and valuable when used to help understand a broad range of events, the presence of possibilities, human experience, etc., but it provides no more hard facts than what the ancient sources do or don't provide. An excellent example is Professor Stewart Irvin Oost's "Cato Uticensis and the Annexation of Cyprus" available via JSTOR. (The key information begins roughly midway through the 6th page) It is not only a detailed overview of the events, but it provides just enough subtle conjecture to work as a sample of how the secondary sources may or may not be misleading. His conjecture may be correct, but the ancients don't necessarily corroborate it. One excerpt... This is a fairly clear condemnation. However, if we read Suetonius, we see that it's not quite so clear. According to Suetonius, Cato could easily be seen as being guilty of a failure to prosecute here. However, nothing is mentioned about Cato himself actually bribing anyone or personally contributing to a fund, despite acknowledging that it was probably a good thing. Semantics perhaps, but the jump to the conclusion is by the secondary source, not Suetonius. A similar theme can be surmised throughout the publication. Though to be fair, Oost is also quite conscientious in pointing out that extortion can't be proven despite some rather harsh, though entirely legal, methods by Cato in Cyprus. Regardless, an interesting read.

A noble effort of course, but might I ask how the ministry is expected to pay for or accomplish this? Not knowing the circumstances of the Greek economy it's difficult for me to sign a petition in good conscious (though it's unlikely that a signature from a non citizen would have much impact anyway). Is there a plan in place to enact the preservation of this artifact or is it simply a petition to pleading with the Prime Minister to do something? I'm afraid that the actual petition text... "We declare ourselves against the mentalities and practices that lead to the destruction of the world's heritage and we ask the Greek Prime Minister to exercise his authority so that, without any further delays and hypocrisy, the Diolkos is finally saved and restored." ...doesn't tell me much. I don't mean to oppose such an effort. Clearly the existence of unrv.com is an indication of how I feel about historic preservation, but I do hope there is "more to the story". I'm willing to bet that the ministry would be far more likely to heed a petition if they were presented with a cohesive restorative plan, rather than a desperate plea, no matter how necessary that plea may be. If such a thing exists, please do provide more information on your petition page.

Actually if I remember correct, both Brutus and Cassius receive imperium maius in 43 BC. I'm not sure about that one, Octavian had had them both declared enemies of the state by 43, and such a grant would have been conferred by the senate. Without question it was a short lived affair, but it was seemingly a legal appointment despite the somewhat chaotic atmosphere of post-Caesar politics. According to Livy's Periochae, they were granted transmarinis provinciis. Essentially, imperium over the provinces across the sea. This was provided after a similar proposal by Cicero had been rejected earlier. Paterculus is much more detailed in Book 2.62. Here he suggests that Brutus and Cassius held the imperium with confirmation by the Senate. Appian offers that the confirmation of the imperium took place after Antony besieged Dec. Brutus in Gaul which resulted in him being declared a public enemy. Book 3.63 is similar to the account of Paterculus while BC 4.58 reconfirms it. [EDIT] By the way, I'm sure it's been noticed by now, but this was moved from the off-topic forum

Certainly not at first, but I think they would've gradually understood the nature of the principate. Had Augustus simply been replaced by a "next best man", rather than an heir, the veil would've remained. By the end of the Julio-Claudians, the people would've been fairly dense to not recognize it for what it was. Though I suppose the adoptive period after the Flavians could've altered the perspective slightly, considering the re-emergence of the Senate as an advisory board. (Except perhaps under Hadrian). Then again, we are simply talking about Caesar as an emperor. So clearly, the people would not have seen it as such.

It is unfortunate that such discussions have a tendency to devolve into personal slights. I understand the passion on all sides, but there must come a point when we can agree to disagree. I'm sure the topic will be revisited at some point in the future, and details within can always be referred to.

Alex Smith really is fairly disappointing. At least he's playing and learning though, unlike the other guy you could've grabbed (Aaron Rodgers) who seemingly will be sitting behind Favre for another several seasons.

That's the sad part, there's no explanation other than that Ford's just an idiot.

Considering that McNabb dismantled the Lions, the Giants victory has me a bit concerned. However, the Lions have been notoriously horrific on the road since the accession of Matt Millen as the King of the Jungle. (I label him thusly, because apparently it would take regicide to remove him from office since old man Ford will clearly never fire him). I take solace in the fact that the Lions countered the sack record of the G-Men, by setting an NFL record with 34 4th qtr. points in their 37 - 27 victory over the Bears. Fortunately, the Giants will be traveling to Detroit rather than the opposite. Nov. 18 is shaping up nicely indeed, but first, the Leo's travel to Washington where they are a 0-20 all time. If I had a shame smiley icon it would be inserted here, but I'll settle for sad...

True enough, we can't deny the function of class in the earliest phalanx structure, but for the purposes of this thread - identifying the elite units of the Republican army - I was operating under the impression that we are discussing the more defined legionary functionality of the middle Republic. In this period, experience played a more important role than class status alone. (I am not by any means suggesting that class did not play a role though.) A member of the first class certainly would not have found himself fighting in the velites regardless of his experience, but he would have started in the Hastatii, not the Principes or Triarii.

The Tullian constitution is from the Regal period. Polybius is a much better source for the Republican army. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...olybius/6*.html Regardless, there is some emphasis on class... Velites being not only the youngest (inexperienced) but also the poorest (Velites needing the least amount of equipment)... and non property owners were still largely excluded until the second punic war. However, organizationally, experience was the key, not necessarily class.

I view permanent garrison/assignment rather than temporary levy to deal with a threat (regardless of payment method) as the definition of professional.

Quod gratias agas. My source was the latin library. Indeed, there are many conflicting reports on this. I'm going to have to do a thorough review.

Excellent, thanks for the updates.

It should read "among the first", and now it does. Thanks.

On further review, it should actually be V.7 I believe. Thanks for the correction though.

Seems like a reasonable place to me... for anyone who is search challenged: Here's the link to the Roman section. http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/bsearc.../HIS002020/Rome

Considering how Michigan rolled ND (after its intolerable loss to App. State), I shudder to think what USC will do. Really, that one could be horrific. Though, considering I've been a Lions season ticket holder since 1990, I really don't have any room to talk about anything.