Primus Pilus

Pertinax has graced us with yet another book review... This is not to be confused with the work

Welcome Skiman! This provides an opportunity to reiterate what UNRV.com is all about. While there may be some subjects that people will not be comfortable discussing (there certainly are for me), I sincerely hope that new members and/or students are not too intimidated to join the conversation. What better way to expedite the learning process than by engaging in conversation with like-minded peers. Whether one has made ancient history a professional career choice, a private passion, or simply a passing interest, nobody should feel that they don't meet a certain sort of criteria to post on this forum.

I put together a list of Roman provincial acquisitions and organized it by date of initial influence (rather than actual provincial incorporation). Whether military involvement is aggressive or reactive in nature might be subjective so I left that off and leave it for open discussion. [EDIT] Oops! I accidentally left Mesopotamia (including Osrhoene) and Armenia off the list. Considering the military nature of these acquisitions, they aren't terribly necessary for this exercise anyway. [EDIT 2] I incorporated this document and revised an old page here... http://www.unrv.com/provinces/province-chronology.php Provinces.pdf

Other than Cyprus, Cyrenaica and Pergamum (later a part of Asia Minor), it would seem an argument could be made for military involvement in the expansion in every other territory. Even Bythinia, which was peacefully bequeathed by Nicomedes in 74 BC, might be viewed as the direct result of Sulla's intervention against Mithridates in the first war (roughly 10 to 15 years earlier).

Massilia was much the same way. Because the tremendous assistance it gave Rome during the 2nd Punic War (both finacially and maritime support) it operated independantly under its own constitution and government but with a high level of Roman rights until they shut their gates to Caesar during the Civil War. Indeed... in the cases of all the "Asia Minor" territories they might all be considered direct results of the invasions of Lucullus and Pompey, including my afore-mentioned Cappadocia and Lycia et Pamphylia. Other than Asia Minor/Pergamum which had already been established prior to both invasions, all the remaining (eventual) provinces had Roman forces marching through at some point. The difficult thing to judge here is whether or not these territories may have come under Roman political control even without Lucullus or Pompey. Such a scenario seems unlikely because Mithridates and successor kingdoms would have continued to exert themselves. Despite the fact that the Romans established theoretical autonomous rule after the invasions, the vassal/client status was a direct result of those invasions. Perhaps this is semantics, but we might also find that there is no true example of Roman acquisition without some sort of prior military involvement.

One might include Mauretania in that list. Rome exerted some influence there since the Punic Wars and, of course, the defeat of Jugurtha in Numidia as well as Caesar's civil war played a major role in Mauretania's eventual annexation. However, Mauretania was a client kingdom for roughly a century prior to that official annexation by Claudius in AD 44. As suggested... was it peaceful by choice or the evolution of much earlier military threat/success. Edit: Additional provinces of interest: Lycia et Pamphylia (affected by the wars with Mithridates and Pompey's Lex Gabinia) Cappadocia (incorporation seems mostly a result of changing allegiances in the civil wars) The other provinces of modern Turkey could all be argued as peaceful annexations but all were directly effected by the Mithridatic wars and the Lex Gabinia. Galatia as an example, was made a client state in 64 BC after the invasions of Lucullus and Pompey, but wasn't made an official province for another 40 years (25 BC after the death of client king Amyntas).

Here's a list of Roman clothing links that may help...

Will it be subtitled or language voice over?

Excellent!

It's not necessarily wrong per se, but its written in a horridly subjective manner and without much detail.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but from what I remember, the October Horse was about Sulla's rise to become the "first" man in Rome, at this stage in the series of books Caesar was only a child and in the story I think it was actually Caesar's mother Aurelia who likened Sulla to the October Horse to which Sulla replied something like "that's all well and good but look what happens to it" or words to that effect anyway. I've just bought Imperium by Robert Harris today, I've been meaning to buy it for a while now but just haven't got round to it. Has anybody read it? Is it any Good? October Horse is the last book in the series and retells the events after the death of Caesar. The books about Marius and Sulla were "First Man in Rome" and "The Grass Crown" (which were by far the best of the bunch, btw.) As for Imperium, I absolutely loved it and would highly recommend it... My own review.

Despite the typical Hollywood inaccuracies I very much enjoyed "Fall of the Roman Empire" with Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd, Alec Guinness, etc. Of all the big epics of the 50's and 60's this one is often forgotten, but it shouldn't be.

The last book I 'finished' was The Blood Knight by Greg Keyes. I didn't find it quite up to the same level of his previous two entries in his "Kingdoms of Thorn and Bone" series, but I enjoy fantasy fiction nonetheless as a departure from history. Presently, I'm reading Gruen's "Last Generation of the Roman Republic" and "The Summer of 1787" by David O. Stewart.

Welcome to the forum Monkeyboy! You are in luck as there are a couple of ancient sources that provide some detail on Vercellae. Plutarch provides considerable detail in his "Life of Marius". It begins roughly around chapter 24/25. Unfortunately, Appian only mentions it in passing, and Cassius Dio's account is very fragmentary. The loss of his description of the battle is particularly disappointing because Dio had a certain dramatic flair which included recreated speeches of participants and such. While most of these rather lengthy monologues throughout his work are probably highly fictitious, it certainly adds something to the description of a battle. Livy's original account is also lost, though it is briefly mentioned in book 68 of the Periochae. Livy's account is also preserved through The Epitome of Roman History by Florus, but unfortunately I can't find an English version online. (If anyone can find one, please let me know and I'll add it to our ancient source link thread). In any case, Florus deals with the Cimbric war extensively in book 38.

The value of the "silvered" coin in the ancient marketplace theoretically would have been the same as a denarius... provided the ruse wasn't discovered. That was the intention after all. We might presume that they could fetch slightly more value than a similar weighing copper coin, but not nearly so much as a true silver denarius. However, Pliny the Elder references counterfeits in Natural Histories... Book XXXIII, ch. XXXXVI Interestingly, while Pliny may be suggesting that the counterfeits were purchased in order to study the differences between legitimate and fake coinage, he may also be suggesting that ancient Romans collected coinage as a form of art much as we do today. Consider that a Roman living in the 1st century AD could collect a Republican era coin that was several hundred years old, just as we might (and do) collect coins from recent generations.

It's silver, just not pure silver. The composition of Flavian era denarii was still in the area of 90% pure though. A "silvered" coin is actually a contemporary counterfeit called a Fouree. The processes varied but all included adding a small economical amount of silver to a coin of another metal. If the base metal of the coin (copper, bronze, etc.) is not visible via any cracked or corroded areas of the "silver plating" identification can be difficult. Some use coin weight to help determine a fouree as silver is heavier than copper, but denarius weight can fluctuate. Generally though, a Flavian era Denarius will be more than the 3.0 grams that your coin is. A true denarius would typically be in the 3.2 to 3.5 grams area, but this alone is not definitive.

It's unquestionably simplistic and hardly representative of the diversity of the empire (especially by the mid imperial era.) However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest central and relatively uniform authority throughout the empire. What I think is often lacking when we think of Rome is the myriad of cultures and identities that made up the social framework. Clearly the structure of local authority would have had a different flavor based on social customs from region to region, but what Rome did brilliantly throughout its conquests was to incorporate these existing ruling hierarchies. I view the 3rd century crisis as less a condemnation of "Rome" as a central authority but rather a condemnation of the leaders that held that authority. For the most part, the provinces had little reason to reject the concept of Roman authority especially the longer they were accustomed to it. However, it is easy to understand what civil war and oppressive rule can do to a mindset of a population. While we may look at breakaway provinces and regions as a rejection of a central authority, we must also understand that these "revolts" took place where rogue governors (whether legitimate rejection of corrupt authority or personal ambition) had access to large standing armies. The population did not reject the Roman idea per se, but rather the current imperial regime in favor of their own favored local general. It's a start anyway

The Concilium plebis (Plebeian Council) only had the power to enact legislation for the Plebes and other lower classes (free, freed, slaves) prior to 287 BC. The passage of the Lex Hortensia in that year made "plebiscites" binding on Equites and Patricii as well as Plebes. The Comitia Tributa or Tribal Assembly (of which the concilium plebis was a subset) became the major legislating force not only because it had the advantage of using "popular politics" but because it was easier to organize and vote based upon citizen membership in the 35 tribes. Using the Comitia Centuriata (Centuriate Assembly), which divided citizens into 193 centuries, was a far more difficult organization process. The Centuriate maintained some legislative power of course, but the Tributa was far easier to use.

Yes, I saw some clips of it online somewhere. Aside from the visual appeal, it seems to be pure junk from a historical perspective. I don't suppose you've got a link for the clips you saw have you PP, I wouldn't mind taking a peek to see just how bad it is, I really hope it's not that bad because I thought the book was pretty good. I can't find the darn thing, and I think it was quite illegal as it was actually the entire film. I did not post here at the time as I didn't want to propagate piracy

Welcome to all new members since the last time I posted in this thread. (That should cover several months worth of new folks in a very impersonal manner )

Stabiae's seaside villas will soon be resurrected in one of the largest archaeological projects in Europe since World War II. It was Malibu, New York and Washington, D.C. all rolled into one. Before A.D. 79, when the erupting Mount Vesuvius engulfed it along with Pompeii and Herculaneum, the small port town of Stabiae in southern Italy was the summer resort of choice for some of the Roman Empire's most powerful men. Julius Caesar, the emperors Augustus and Tiberius and the statesman-philosopher Cicero all had homes there.... Smithsonian Magazine

(This should interest a few folks around here...) A Delaware brewery known for its specialty beers has created a new one based on a 9,000-year-old recipe. VOA's Liu Enming recently traveled to Dogfish Head Craft Brewery to taste Chateau Jiahu beer... VOA News

Yet another review has been added, this time by Divi Filius... With his first publication, the young Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, Josiah Osgood, does not attempt to challenge the mainstream beliefs on the decline of the republic; nor does he propose any new theories, he makes this clear in his introduction. Instead of focusing on the very few at the top; their politics and their wars, he focuses on how all of this affected the very many on the very bottom: the men and women around the Mediterranean who lived through, or died as a result of, the turmoil engulfing the final transition between Republic and Empire. With Caesar

Yes, I saw some clips of it online somewhere. Aside from the visual appeal, it seems to be pure junk from a historical perspective.

Keep in mind that much "social law" was dependent upon the era. For instance, in the early Republic (prior to the Lex Canuleia of 445 BC) it was forbidden for Plebes to marry Patricians. Alternatively Constantine issued a series of laws in the early 4th century that formalized marriage between citizen men and manumitted concubines, freedpersons, freepersons, etc. The formalized code included restrictions on provincial authorities marrying freedwomen that had previously only existed for Senators. Of course this is not necessarily in relation to "barbarians" per se, but presumably since many slaves were of "barbarian" origin, one can make a general correlation. One might also assume that much of the Constantinian code (and later Theodosian, etc.) was in response to "social issues" that had arisen after Caracalla's citizenship incorporation of AD 212. Such a massive incorporation of provincial freepersons into citizens would have made marriage between citizens and "barbarians" an inevitable occurrence.