Primus Pilus

I'm not sure about the actors and don't really care what nationality they are, but if the movie is half as good as the book, then it'll definately be worth a couple hours of my time.

Re-read my post. I already listed two secondary sources--Goldsworthy and Long. Andrew Stephenson also addresses it in the dated but relevant Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Republic Section 17.

Simply, as MPC suggests, military discipline and loyalty to comrades seems the most likely factor. Perhaps Caesar's impassioned and charismatic suggestions of impropriety against the people's tribune (Antonius) had some minor effect motivating the average soldier, but it seems more likely that the simpler explanation is most valid. It's also possible that Caesar had his men absolutely convinced, through various forms of camp propaganda, that without him they would be left high and dry upon retirement. Right or wrong in this case is irrelevant because if the men believed it...

I just want the bottle stopper... not the Season 2 DVD. I'm watching Ebay.

I'm Spartacus

The suggestion of atheism existed long before a video game. In the link provided earlier Ammianus Marcellinus wrote the following in the 4th century regarding the Huns (though clearly before the age of Attila himself). The Histories 31.2.11 (Of the houses and customs of the Huns, the Halani, and other nations of Asiatic Scythia.)

But in this case, it was her own son.

Attila wasn't an atheist with superstitious beliefs, he was a pagan, as was Hunnic culture. Because of the wide diversity of the Hunnic population, these beliefs were probably not uniform, but a lack of 'christianity' doesn't constitute atheism. (Despite the incorrect claim of Ammianus Marcellinus in The History 31.2.11). In any case, I believe it was Priscus who suggested that Attila feared the fate that Alaric met after sacking Rome a generation earlier in AD 410. Alaric died shortly thereafter at the young age of 40ish. (I can't find the exact passage, alas) However, Procopius doesn't even bother mentioning the meeting with Attila and Leo. He claims that Attila simply interpreted an omen and decided against invasion From Procopius, History of the Wars Book IV:

Thanks A, that's even more detail than we need for the purposes of the chart. As most should be aware, in presenting any provincial makeup of the empire, there were any number of local clients that remained in some position of influence throughout the provinces. My purpose was to simply identify the basic incorporation of the territory into the greater whole. The border of that particular territory and/or it's governing authority may have been in flux for any number of years after that initial date, but it's the foundation of the process is what's being presented. Now if you wanted to begin the compilation of a list of historical client kingdoms (and monarchs), that could be one interesting (and horrifically time-consuming) project.

The Lex Vatinia (via the Tribune Vatinius) was passed through the people's assembly. Though the initial acts of the triumvirii were opposed in the Senate, laws passed through the assemblies were binding on everyone despite political resistance (and even the illegality of the initial proposition). The Lex Julia Agraria and the Lex Campania were two land laws which for all intensive purposes settled Pompey's eastern veterans on public land and distributed land to poor Plebes. These were the first of the triumvirii's several motions to be forced through the people's assemblies. While the Senate opposed these measures and attempted to thwart the triumvirs with various legal procedures (though they did not necessarily oppose the entire ideology of settling veterans, but rather the methodology and the detail of the bills) Caesar, along with Pompey and Crassus, went directly to the people and convinced the assemblies that these were necessary measures. Of course, having Pompey's threatening veterans around waiting for some sort of settlement probably didn't hurt their cause. Once the precedent was set and the method proved to be effective, Caesar didn't bother with traditional senatorial deliberation and simply ram-rodded his measures through the tribunate. It's obviously a bit more detailed and complicated than that, but it opens the door.

Somehow I just can't see a crowd shouting anything but "Caesar". Domitian had been declared such as early as AD 69 when he presented himself to his father's supporters in Rome even prior to Vespasian's arrival. As Titus had no children and did not adopt (nor had he apparently made any plans to do so), Domitian was clearly marked as second in line for the past decade. It might be confusing for the audience, but somehow the crowd shouting out anything other than Caesar just doesn't feel right.

Unfortunately, the ancient sources don't say much at all about what Domitian was doing during the short reign of Titus. He was co-consul with Titus though in AD 80 (not that the office carried much weight at this point, but the princeps still cared enough to name themselves consul periodically). Caesar seems an appropriate designation though in any case.

Just a suggestion, and I'm sure a publisher is well ahead of me on this, but it might be a wise idea to get permission from Franco at r-e.net before anything is altered or reprinted. If he's anything like me, he'd probably just be tickled at the compliment, but one can never be entirely sure on such things.

A rather simple way to determine it I think... Suicide would assume that the Republic purposely and willingly established conditions that destroyed itself. One must ask, did the legislative process of the assemblies or the deliberative processes of the Senate as a whole purposely enact conditions that brought about the downfall and establishment of monarchy. Certainly, there were many attempts to create or hold onto factional authority, but can an attempt to hold one's position of influence be equated to intentional suicide? Consider that a suicide can not truly take place without the intention of doing so... without intent, it is simply an accident. Murder assumes that a person or group of people worked to establish conditions that brought about the end of the existing system, even if there was no intention to do so. One must consider that a murder can take place even without premeditation. It can be premeditated, a spur of the moment brash action, or an accidental accumulation of damage. How the evidence is presented and proving the "who, what, when, how" of the choices is up to the writer of the essay. Even the justification of the actions and policies and which faction was "in the right" has often been hotly debated around here.

While Robert Graves, the writer of I, Claudius, relied heavily upon the ancient source material to write his fiction, we must still acknowledge that it is in fact a fiction. After a rather cursory review of Suetonius, Tacitus (though much of his account of Claudius' reign is lost) and Cassius Dio, I couldn't find any instance of Claudius' (nor anyone else) suggesting that his children were not his own. It definately would not have been advantageous for any of the major players in this particular case for Claudius' children by Messalina to have been accused of not actually being his. It certainly wouldn't have helped Messalina any, and Agrippina needed the popularity of Octavia to tie Nero to the Julio-Claudian line through marriage. However, accusations against Britannicus in particular might have saved his life since he wouldn't have been a potential challenge to Nero. In any case, his murder makes it quite clear that the Roman world had no doubt that he was the son of Claudius.

I'm afraid access is limited to students/faculty at educational institutions, or through membership in private organizations such as the American Historical Association.

Both Cato's were Plebs and both were Senators. The ancient sources don't necessarily indicate the exact moment when various Romans became Senators, but there are many indications that someone had in fact been enrolled in the Senate. In Plutarch's Life of Cato Minor, for example, there are instances such as Cato's election as Quaestor (at the proper age of 30 years - 65 BC) that provide evidence as to his inclusion in the Senate. After Sulla's constitutional reforms some 15 years earlier, an elected Quaestor was immediately entered into the Senate after his year in office. As for Cato the Elder, without a more thorough investigation, I'm not entirely sure of the exact moment in which he was enrolled in the Senate, but you can be sure he was at some point. More than likely, it was immediately after he served as Quaestor (also at age 30, 204 BC). He was also elected as Aedile, Praetor, Consul and even Censor throughout his career. Plutarch's Cato Major

Gaius was only 7 when his father died. He may have turned into a raging megalomaniac as he grew older, but I find it unlikely that a 7 year old would've been conspiring against his father in such a manner.

It's actually a complicated question. This article by Mary White Singer via JSTOR highlights the difficulty. The Problem of Octavia Minor and Octavia Major.

Welcome Miguel... my apologies for taking so long to give you access.

By the by... I occasionally promote member to the Equites rank without notifying these individuals, as I am often and easily distracted, so you might have access to the blogs and galleries without even realizing it. Additionally, as it is a manual and arbitrary process, we might unintentionally overlook promoting deserving members for no other reason than our own mental deficiencies. Feel free to let us know if there are folks we may have missed (private message works best for such things). And finally... sometimes community members come and go... we sometimes go through the lists and 'demote' once active equites to plebes just to free up unused blog and gallery space. If you ever look at the member lists, it should explain why there are some members of the Plebes group with unusually high post counts. Should these folks return, we will gladly reinstate any lost privileges.

Titles Post Count Titles Every member of the site has a title. Some of these are based on post counts and are automatic 'promotions' as each new threshold is reached. These have no real meaning other than providing site atmosphere. These are a mix of Roman legionary ranks and positions within the 'Cursus Honorum' (the Roman political advancement process). A sample of the earlier ranks and number of posts required to reach it... Tiro 1 Miles 10 Imaginifer 25 Optio 50 Signifer 100 Aquilifer 150 Centurio 200 Primus Pilus 250 Personalized Titles Some members have received personal titles (the 3 triumviri each have one for example). These have been issued either as a reflection of an individual's personality or particular involvement on the site. There really is no rhyme or reason as to how these are 'awarded'. Having such a title doesn't really represent 'higher' status over any other member, it simply means that they have a personalized title.

I sometimes get questions about user groups, ranks, titles, etc. so I figured I'd post this (hopefully) simple outline... Member group (every registered member is assigned to a group): Servi (slaves) have less than 10 posts. A Servus (from the servi group) is manumitted on his/her 10th post and is automatically promoted. The Plebes group is really only an illustrative way to separate active participants from non-posting readers. There is no difference in site access or functionality between the Servi and Plebes. Promotion from the Plebes group is an arbitrary and manual process by the site admins. If a Pleb shows active and quality participation, we will manually promote him/her. The Equites group is the next step and allows access to additional forum functions. As an 'Equestrian' a member can create their own UNRV community blog and Galleries. If a member of the Equites group shows particular dedication through topical, high quality forum discussion and/or through site contributions such as book reviews and articles, they will be considered for additional promotion. The Patricii group is considered the UNRV Senate. This group is often solicited for advice and suggestions for site issues and ideas. These members are also eligible for various book distributions (either purchased or provided by publishers) in exchange for submitting reviews to the site. The Legati group is the UNRV 'General' staff. Also members of the Patricii group, they can direct discussion, police where necessary, provide general guidance to the community, and perform forum maintenance such as moving topics to appropriate fora, editing posts, etc. The Triumviri group represents the three 'founders' and site administrators. It should be no great surprise that it was thusly named for its coincidental and atmospheric relationship to the late Republican political arrangements.

Thankfully, I don't get very many emails, but those I do get generally require fairly in depth responses. (ie, Students or teachers asking for bibliographies or footnote information, various requests for help in research, questions about our maps, copyright reprint requests, etc.) Still, I love it