Primus Pilus

Just be aware that the sources who are typically accusatory of the Julio-Claudians (Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio Cassius) are also generally careful in how they phrase things. Over the course of 2,000 years historians have taken their reporting of possibilities as fact. The narratives of these writers are often quite open in admitting that they do not report absolute truth but often times only what they heard from unverified sources. This doesn't mean that the narratives are completely invalid, but only that we should understand that they are not investigative in nature. They reported everything, whether it be rumor, innuendo or substantiated fact. There is still a great deal to be learned from Suetonius especially if we realize he is reporting a general sentiment of the day, rather than what may or may not have been the complete truth.

Just so you know, there is a calendar feature on the forum. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=calendar It's been some time since anyone has played with it, but I believe equestrians and above have the ability to make additions to it.

I like Nephele's confidence, she thinks she's so clever that she can change the rules when ever she likes!! C'mon Nephele get with the program! You must speak about the person above! It seems that GPM would make a fine moderator.

The lineage to the Scipiones (and therefore patrician) was maternal. Impressive as this lineage may have been, the Grachii were still plebes via their paternal lineage, the lineage that dictated class and status. Therefore they had full legal authority and social approval to hold the tribunate. Prior to the Leges Corneliae of Sulla (81 BC), it was perfectly acceptable to run for the tribunate as a stepping stone to higher magistracies. (Sulla's law made it illegal to hold any higher office of the cursus honorum after being elected as a tribunis plebis).

The Gracchii branch of the Sempronius clan was plebeian. At this point in Republican Rome, plebes were fully integrated into the senate and magisterial orders, so there aren't any conflicts of law to be concerned about (in this particular case anyway).

There's not alot to know really. The sources (Tacitus and Dio Cassius in particular) don't offer much detail on the lives of the some of the ancillary imperial family member. We do know that she was married to Nero Caesar Germanicus (son of Germanicus and Agrippina). Nero was accused of treason and the two did not have children. She later married Gaius Rubellius Blandus and had either 2 or 4 children, depending on the source. According to Seneca in "Octavia" Claudius had her put to death following an accusation by Messalina of incest and deviant behavior. Unfortunately Tacitus' account of this period is lost and Dio Cassius doesn't this.

I thoroughly enjoyed this review. I'm not sure I agree with the underlying "Christianity is better than the evil empire theme", but as it was prevalent throughout the "epic" era, it's a perfectly understandable notion. In any case, this definately gave me the itch to watch old cleft chin duking it out with Romans once again.

As a departure from reviews of historical literature, Ursus has delved into a classic film of the Hollywood era of epics... A young and ambitious Kirk Douglas apparently did not care to lose the title role of Ben-Hur to Charlton Heston. On the policy that outdoing rivals is the best revenge, Douglas plotted a new project. A best selling novel on a Roman slave revolt, light on history but heavy on drama, was written into a screenplay by a writer blacklisted as a Communist sympathizer. A nearly all-star cast was assembled, which included Laurence Olivier (who reputedly thought he would perform better in the title role than Douglas, and only grudgingly excepted a secondary role). The original director of the project was fired, and in his place was brought the artistic Stanley Kubrick (whose eye for dehumanization clashed with Doug' humanism). The Spanish army was enlisted to ape Roman legionaries, and an epic score was composed to bring orchestral notes. The result, whether foreseen or not, was one of the best films Hollywood ever produced. But it is not about history, and never was... Spartacus DVD Review

Good catch... I'll be adjusting the timeline. In fact, the entire timeline needs some serious editing as it was compiled from numerous existing online sources.

Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus? Yes, though it is rather subtle. He suggests in the Annals that the death of Gaius and Lucius may have been illness/accident or due to the treachery of Livia. Cassius Dio also suggests suspicion, but neither writer directly accuses. This seems to be the basis for the legacy of Livia's supposed poisoning... Tacitus Annals book 1.3. Hardly overwhelming evidence. I'd suspect that Cassius Dio used Tacitus as the source for his suspicion since there seems to be no other evidence. Here is what he had to say: Book 53.33 Seems that he is suggesting a rather widely held suspicion if it was controversial? Also, book 55.10a

Everitt makes this very claim in his bio of Augustus, but provides little proof. His theory was that Augustus silently consented to it to provide a smooth transition for Tiberius and prevent a civil war. How did Everitt reach this conclusion? I don't understand the reasoning. Why would civil war be averted by the appearance--but not actuality--of his natural death? Unfortunately, it is exactly as Ursus described. Everitt makes the claim in his preface but never expounds upon the theory at all, nor attempts to prove it in the text of his otherwise well presented bio.

Keep in mind that this is regarding a permanent structure. As Caldrail previously suggested, Gladiator combat and funeral games were present in Rome since at least a century earlier (264 BC, for the funeral of Junius Brutus) and much earlier in Etruria and surrounding Latium. In any case, here is some basic information regarding Curio's amphitheatre from the William Smith Dictionary.

There are no surviving records of names for Crassus' legions. Some of the legionaries may have come from Gaul with Publius Crassus when he transferred from Caesar to his father's command, but I can't even recall any ancient sources mentioning where Crassus even recruited the others. (His campaign was a painful embarrassment to Rome and was not overly detailed in the ancient accounts). One Augustan coin from 20 BC, showing the return of the standards shows an X on the standard that is returned. Perhaps one legion was Legio X, perhaps not. Regardless, at this point, all 7 legions would have been numbered and were not likely to have been given extra names of distinction. For the most part, the imperators attempted not to repeat legionary numbers, but Consular forces were always numbered in order of recruitment, beginning with Legio I. Crassus could have taken Legio I - VII (Syria was a pro consular command) assuming all legion's were recruited from scratch. This doesn't mean that all the recruits were green as many were likely veterans of various conflicts (Gaul, the eastern campaigns of Lucullus and Pompey, Hispania, the Servile Wars, etc.) but simply that the legions themselves were newly founded.

Allow me a reminder here as the discussion slowly evolves... the subject is "What was the motivation for Caesar's soldiers." Let's not rehash the repetitive arguments over how we feel about Caesar himself.

Ping an admin. ...and welcome! Welcome... as suggested, send me a private message.

Excellent site. Do you know of something similar for the Empire (Dominate in particular)? Afraid not, but you may want to email the site owner in question?

The Marian reforms had absolutely nothing to do with Consular authority or constitutional processes. It only allowed non landing holding citizens to be recruited without special circumstances. Roman legions had been involved in long term campaigns well before Marius (the Punic wars being the most notable). The time limit of consulships were to limit the length of governing power and to create a check and balance between two authorities (therefore reducing the threat of monarchy). While restriction of military authority may have been an ancillary benefit, this was not the primary reason. Shared consular military authority largely prevented rogue military action. The Marian reforms only made recruiting of armies for long term campaigns easier but it was the Lex Gabinia (also Manilia) and Lex Vatinia that allowed the long term campaigns of Pompey and Caesar, not the military structure developed by Marius. These commands still would've been possible without the Marian reforms, depending on the available manpower of course. If you wish to blame tribunician corruption, foreign threat or the ineptitude of previous generals for the conditions which allowed the consecutive Marian consulships and the precedents for personal ambition that clearly affected the following generation, I can understand. However the reform of legionary structure and the recruiting pool did not make Caesar cross the Rubicon. All players involved had choices to make. Some choices might have been more brash than others, but everyone has to make choices. The conditions that existed may have made certain actions plausible or the idea of 'chivalrous' behavior unlikely, but pre-destination is absurd.

Gaius Marius was born.. Here's a few more... 157 BC

I'm not sure I understand the point, or what it has to do with the motivations of Caesar's soldiers? Civil war was not unavoidable because of the Marian reforms, it only made the possibility more viable. At any point men such as Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, etc. could've voluntary given up their commands. The fact that some didn't isn't the fault of the military structure, but of the individuals who chose to take advantage of that structure. The Republic survived Marius and Sulla (even if we might view its status as precarious with the benefit of retrospection), but it did not truly survive Caesar. The actions of predecessors should not excuse the actions of later individuals.

Creating a condition that may have aided the ambitions of unscrupulous men is not the same as being guilty of the murder itself. While Marius (along with men such as Sulla and Cinna) may have contributed various precedents that men like Pompey, Crassus and Caesar were able manipulate to their own advantage, it was the latter who actually did the deed. Not all generals of the later Republic took advantage of their armies loyalty and marched on Rome... most of them did their duty and disbanded their armies (or transfered the command to the successive proconsul.)

I've always been intrigued by the disappearance of Roanoke Colony.

The most thrilling thing about finds like this is the affirmation that there is still so much out there to be discovered. If a statue of this size and detail is still under the ground, imagine how much else we may yet learn about the ancient world.

A huge, exquisitely carved marble statue of the Roman emperor Hadrian is the latest find from Sagalassos, an ancient Greco-Roman city in south-central Turkey. Archaeologists estimate that the figure was originally between 13 and 16 feet in height (four to five meters). It is, says excavation director Marc Waelkens, one of the most beautiful portraits of Hadrian ever found. The discovery was made by archaeologists from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), who, under Waelkens' direction, have been investigating the site since 1990. Last month a new excavation campaign started, and the Belgians resumed work at the Roman Bath, focusing on the southeastern corner of the complex... Archaeology.org

Indeed, as confirmed again by Livy in book 22.38.1 (and Frontinus Strategems 4.1.4) the oath was a formal one sworn in the presence of the tribunes. The soldiers were bound by oath to follow their consular commanders, or most assuredly, anyone authorized to wield command in a pro praetorian or pro-consular capacity. In theory, one might think that swearing an oath to a Consul was the same as swearing an oath to the Republic (since the Consul was a representative of that Republic), but it didn't function this way in practice. It's one reason, in a complex political environment, why Augustus changed the sacramentum to be to him in particular, rather than a consular authority or the state itself. An interesting read... The Imperial Oath of Allegience

Unfortunately, Claudius has largely been ignored by recent biographers, but Barbara Levick provides a reasonably acceptable bio. Claudius