Primus Pilus

Here's a start... Roman Pictures via Google

I think the bad luck notion came in retrospect. The date itself would not have been a bad omen, but rather other natural signs are more significant.

Click 'Back'. It will remember what you just typed.

The toga pulla was worn to indicate mourning or crisis. Cato wore it in protest to the political condition of the Republic... essentially against Caesar and his supporters. Plutarch, in Life of Cato Minor, Ch 5. associates it with a more moral condition.

I wonder if they had Super-Size?

Yes, clearly the word is known... but the average buffoon probably doesn't know where it came from. Then again, the average buffoon is probably not listening to Suetonius.

A 2,500-year-old stone coffin with well-preserved colour illustrations from Homer's epics has been discovered in western Cyprus, archaeologists said. "It is a very important find," Pavlos Flourentzos, director of the island's antiquities department said yesterday. "The style of the decoration is unique, not so much from an artistic point of view, but for the subject and the colours used."... Hindustan Times

Just as a U.S. Presidential state dinner does not reflect how most Americans eat and socialize, researchers think the formal, decadent image of wining and dining in ancient Rome mostly just applied to the elite. According to archaeologist Penelope Allison of the University of Leicester, the majority of the population consumed food "on the run." Allison excavated an entire neighborhood block in Pompeii, a city frozen in time after the eruption of volcano Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D... Discovery News

Which does he actually use? I'd assume that those who would take the time to listen to an audio book of Suetonius would likely already know that the modern English Cee-Zer is wrong, but it could potentially cause some confusion to use a more proper Latin pronunciation. A minor thing I know, but just curious.

Certainly, although the danger from faulty knowledge and the risk of infection among other complications probably made recovery a bit iffy. In any case, works by Galen and Celsus offer considerable detail on the subject. Galen lived considerably after the events in the show (mid to late 2nd century) but Celsus wrote De Medicina in the early principate. It's reasonable to assume that medicine would not have changed that drastically from the time of Caesar to the reign of Claudius, but others may be able to offer more detailed insight.

First a couple of overview recommendations... Chronicle of the Roman Emperors by Chris Scarre The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 BC-AD 476 by Michael Grant Both provide excellent introductions while offering just enough insight to lead you into more detailed biographies. In any case, a personal favorite is: Commodus: An Emperor at the Crossroads by Olivier Hekster. Commodus is an intriguing character and Hekster's biography is a thorough and fair analysis. All of Birley's biographies (3 that I am aware of... M. Aurelius, Severus and Hadrian) are also impressive. Anthony Birley

But what is the infinitive? This is not exactly a strong point but I will try... nasci (to be born) nascitur (he is born) natus est (he was born)

Caldrail's description reminds me much of Boudicca's revolt as well. She was clearly a leader with some charisma and was able to motivate a rebellion while the provincial governor was away with the main army. She sacked a couple of towns and defeated an understrength vexillation (roughly 2,000 men) of a Roman legion (IX Hispana), but when Suetonius came up with a full, veteran Roman army, the rebellion was soundly crushed. Spartacus is much the same. He certainly had some success but was not much of a match for the power of Rome once it had settled in upon doing the job. Even his successes against Lentulus and Gellius were limited in comparison to what he had done earlier against raw recruits and small contingents of legionaries. I don't mean to suggest that his efforts weren't impressive, because they most certainly were, but sometimes we tend to overuse descriptions such as "great" when describing generals, armies and campaigns, etc.

Perhaps natus or genitus could work

Some quick googling turned up a few possibilities. I make absolutely no claim to know the quality of any of these works nor the reputations of the vendors... http://www.francoermarmista.com/eng/busts.htm http://www.prometheus-imports.com/ http://www.talariaenterprises.com/product_...arble_bust.html http://www.emuseumstore.com/category/114 http://www.statue.com/items.asp?cc=BUSTGREE

Yes, Appian and Plutarch give slightly different accounts, but both confirm that Spartacus broke through... at least in part.

Yes, but your account is more appreciative of Lentulus and Gellius

Spartacus destroyed a Praetorian led (Glaber) but hastily recruited and raw force of 3,000. He followed up this irritating surprise by defeating legionary cohorts under another praetor in Publius Varinius. Understanding that the glowing slave rebellion was becoming a threat and/or bad example if left unchecked, Rome finally responded with full consular armies under Gellius and Lentulus. That both consuls were soundly defeated, leaving a sudden void in the command hierarchy (which reasonably fell to an active praetor for the year 72 in Crassus) is not weakness on the part of the Senate but rather weakness of the part of the consuls and/or a testament to the guerrilla abilities of Spartacus.

Spartacus may have been an effective opportunist and leader but sharing of spoils is hardly a trait that equates only with communism. Many ancient armies operated under these conditions and Spartacus was simply maintaining the status quo. The army was not fighting simply for the individual freedom of it's members, but for opportunity and wealth as well. Perhaps the initial goal of those 70 men in Capua was to free themselves from the life of gladiators, but the goal certainly evolved. The followers of Spartacus were not simply a community of the disenfranchised that simply wanted to live in peace, but was an aggressive plundering army. They fought matched pairs of captured Romans, and certainly murdered, raped etc. civilians of any and all social classes in the process of plundering Roman cities and the countryside. Some may have wished to simply leave Italy disperse and attempt to live free, some may have wished to build a new society and their own social system on Vesuvius and others wanted to fight and loot and perhaps even capture Rome itself. The simple fact is that there was absolutely no universal ideology behind the revolt or the events that took place including the abolition of slavery as an institution. I am not suggesting that Spartacus has not been an effective symbol for communism, as the revolt of slaves and lower class society against authority is an easy correlation to make, but the concept of 'communism' was certainly quite alien to the man himself.

I hope Gaul doesn't sue Disney

An interesting comment Maty. I was under the impression from your book "Sons of Caesar" that you were a bit more sympathetic to the Caesarian legacy. Perhaps you were being objectively 'matter of fact' regarding the events and people at hand. Of course, the focus was on the resulting principate rather than Caesar himself, so perhaps I am simply failing to put the information in the proper context. I think I'll have to give it another go. With that said... it seems generally that the pro Caesar argument is that the Senate was either corrupt or an overbearing oligarchy, or some combination/derivative thereof. What I can't understand about that argument is that the potential for political freedom that the Republic offered, even if we accept that it was often corrupt and institutionally exlusionary, was replaced with a form of government that stripped any potential for that freedom. I can understand that there is a perception that the plebes were the beneficiaries of an increased role in the post Republican system but is it not actually the equites and freedmen who benefited politically more than the Plebes? In any case, however we wish to interpret the benefits or detriments of the monarchy on the individual well-being of the citizen classes, am I to understand that the argument suggests that it is preferable to operate under known tyrannical rule than to face the political risks inherent in the "corrupted" Republican state?

*****... this is dire news. As both a former christian and former GW supporter I'll see if I can fake it enough to get past the first wave on judgment day and avoid being among the first to suffer divine banishments into the ghastly torment that is hell. I figure, the first wave of heathens and sinners will take the brunt of the demonic wrath that is sure to come. I'm hoping to arrive with the second wave when the foul beasts of the underworld are a bit worn out from previous tormenting and disemboweling. That way, if all my plans fall into place, I can just sort of slip into an eternity of being chained to a big rock and chopping at it in vain with some small utensil. Thanks for the heads up Moon!

And how many had died due to Caesar's greed, besides, Caesar tried (and succeeded) in destroy the republic, so why should he benefit from its laws on a fair trial. With rights come responsibilities, when you shirk those responsibilities (such as stepping down after one year as consul) you lose the rights as well. Caesar thought he was above the law, there

It's definately not on the BBC America schedule. I will admit to being a curmudgeon and generally don't like television/films with children playing the lead roles, but once available I will give every effort to watch with unbiased sensibilities. However, I have recently ordered the first two books and will introduce them to my nearly 7 year old son shortly. I just hope they aren't too heady for him... he often prefers "goofier" reading material.

So the alternative is to circumvent the system twice or more in order to produce the desired result? Regardless of circumstances, such an act, in my opinon, would've been equal to the proscriptions of Sulla, Marius/Cinna and the second triumvirate, as well as the executions of the Gracchi and the Catalinarians without trial, etc. Caesar may have bribed his way out, and we touch on that potential in the Nobiles thread, but if the supporters of the Republic did not uphold the laws that they sought to preserve than they were no better than those who wished to destroy those same laws.