Primus Pilus

There is no surviving source material identifying any legions by name prior to the imperatorial period. There are two known imperial legions carrying the name Primigenia (XV and XXII), but both date to Caligula (AD 39). Suffice to say that some of the Marian legionaries who served the Jugurthan war may have been individually recruited for the Cimbri-Teutonic war, but Marius recruited new legions upon returning from Africa to deal with the Cimbric threat. The Marian legionary reforms occurred after the Jugurthine War. If there is some material suggesting more detail about the Marian legions that I am unaware of, I'd certainly like to read it. Though I suspect that this comes from a novel? (Iggulden I fear )

If the Romans used long swords instead of gladii from the earliest development of the non phalanx legion, it would have meant that they developed completely different military tactics. Had that been the case the Roman armies likely would've been no more capable than other European forces. My guess is that western civilization might have developed quite differently.

Moved this to off-topic as it is much more about civ 4 than the extended Roman Empire.

Generally it is magistracy and year, though there are some religious appointments mixed in... cos = Consul pr = praetor tr. pl. = tribunus plebis cens. = censor q. = quaestor aed. cur. = aedile curulis pont. = pontifex

Jan 49 Excellent... so it's in line with the actual event. The list should therefore not be tainted by knowledge of any pending victory. Clearly there would be some who supported one side of the other based purely on how it might have benefited them personally, but this wouldn't be the overwhelming factor.

A question about the compilation... Do we know the time frame that this compilation represents? Is it immediately before Caesar crossed the Rubicon, after the same, or in the heart of the war, etc.? It's unlikely to be a major factor but could have had an effect on the allegiances of some players.

Telling evidence, but we are of course left wondering how large the client pools were for each of these individuals and the total influence that could be accumulated. Additionally, as the nobiles are not necessarily members of the Senate, it also does not necessarily indicate that Senatorial support for Caesar followed the same pattern. Regardless, since the Roman jurors of Caesar's era included both Senatorial and Equestrian representatives, even if the Senate were overwhelmingly against him (though I am not saying it was) there is little within the law to believe that Caesar could not have successfully defended himself in court through the support of equestrian jurors.

Archeologists in central Greece have discovered thousands of miniature clay pots and statuettes in the ruins of an ancient sanctuary possibly dedicated to the Three Graces, officials said Wednesday. In volume, it is one of the richest finds in recent years, they said... CNews

Then why the pretense at all? Octavian was methodical in his accumulation of power and careful not to strip the facade of Republicanism as he did so. If the Republic meant little, then there was little need to disguise the shift to monarchy. The so-called oligarchy that was the Senate had been replaced with Caesarean constituents through various purges, and for the most part, he therefore held the support of the existing aristocracy. If there was no outcry among the Senate for Republicanism who was left to make the case to the people and motivate them? Had Augustus not been careful in his approach to accumulating power, there may have been a greater potential for just such an occurrence. Of course, on that we can never be quite sure. I do agree that the average citizen might not have cared. After all, a great number had lived through the turmoil of the politically charged street gangs, the 'triumvirate', and two decades of civil war. Complacency/relief in the name of peace might have been the more practical motivating factor, rather than a disinterest in form of government.

What is your very good reason? They smoked a big bong and crashed their VW Van into a tree out in front of the house... the oldest tree in Pottersville, mind you.

My 2 cents on why they weren't sending them to Italy is becase the were sending them to Spain which is were their economic interests were actually already invested. Hannibal himself was more than likely prudent enough to concur with that decision don't you think? He probably knew more than anyone that if Hasdrubal Gisco & Mago lost Spain any major victory in Italy would be bitter sweet. Additionally, the very notion that Rome was able to maintain a front in Hispania (and an aggressive offensive one at that) while denying reinforcement and supply to Hannibal in Italy is a clear indication that Hannibal's campaign was not nearly so devastating or overwhelming as is often implied. Simply... it's hard to disagree with the original assessment by professor B.D. Hoyos that Hannibal was a brilliant battlefield tactician, but lacked the necessary strategic capabilities to compliment that battlefield skill.

Rather than the Roman and Greek gods being the same, a better explanation may be that the Roman gods were adaptations of the Greek. Many of the traits and functions of the deities were similar but they may have also included traits of other cultures (Etruscan for instance). I am no expert on the subject though and I hope others will intercede.

Do be careful on the history of the Dando-Collins books. They are well researched, but they are quite filled with presumption and historical fictional. As for "the Greatest Legion", I'll nominate Legio VII Claudia Pia Fidelis. This legion was founded by Julius Caesar and took part in the Gallic War and as such was one of the oldest legions in the imperial Roman army. In addition to the Gallic war, during the civil war with Pompey and the Republicans it participated at Dyrrhachium, Pharsalus and Thapsus in North Africa. After Caesar's death it served Octavian and was present at Mutina against Antony, Philippi, and probably against Sextus Pompey in Sicily. While unconfirmed, it quite possibly was also present at Actium. It served Tiberius in the Pannonian campaigns and earned the name Claudia Pia Fidelis by putting down a revolt against the emperor of the same name. It was engaged in Corbulo's Parthian campaigns and was instrumental at Cremona to aid Vespasian's victory over Vitellius. It was involved in Domitian's Danubian and Dacian campaigns of the late 1st century and was again instrumental in Trajan's Dacian conquest. Legio VII was heavily involved in both Lucius Verus' Parthian campaign and the Danubian wars of Marcus Aurelius. It sided with Severus against his rivals after the death of Commodus and served the Severan dynasty in various eastern campaigns. It most certainly had it's ups and downs against invaders such as the Visigoths from the 3rd century on, but the legion was still present and attested for on the Danube in the late 4th century.

Suddenly it smells like schnitzel, strudel and kangaroos around here. What gives?

Historians need not be quite so impressed by Alexander the Great's defeat of the island of Tyre in 332BC. Geological studies of the region show that Alexander's army had help reaching the island, in the form of a natural land-bridge lying just a metre or two below the water's surface. Alexander the Great was just 23 years old when he stood on the coast of what is now Lebanon, gazing offshore at the tiny Phoenician island city of Tyre, a powerful commercial centre. Alexander knew that Tyre had to be seized before he could safely move south to Egypt and then turn inland to conquer the Persian Empire... Nature.com

Archaeologists have discovered a 4th century Christian church in southern Serbia, the Blic newspaper reported Tuesday. "It's an exceptional discovery," Gordana Jeremic, the lead archaeologist at the Mediana site near the city of Nis, was quoted as saying. The ruins were located only several meters (feet) from another church that was discovered in 2000, the paper reported... Middle East Times

Yes, wasn't the Legio IX transferred to the East? Yes, there is evidence of it's existence on the Danube and in the east. Jonah Lendering's article on Livius.org provides the admittedly scant detail. I don't mean to suggest it's not possible that the legion suffered a defeat in northern Britannia/Caledonia, only that it was clearly not completely destroyed.

It's a shame that the myth of the total destruction of Legio VIIII Hispana at the hands of the Picts will continue, but at least it's more Roman historical awareness.

I would just like to add my own voice to others that suggest we should not really be equating modern economic classes "lower, middle, upper" with the Roman social classes of Plebs, Patricii and Equites. The Roman classes certainly had implications with wealth, but they are oriented far more with social rank than with wealth. Modern economic class may carry a social stigma depending on the perception of the particular class, but wealth is the criteria for the modern labels. I'm not lamenting the comparison, as it's perfectly understandable to make it, but it's not quite accurate either and can tend to skew any discussion. ie. There are no wealthy members of the modern lower class while there were in fact many economically wealthy Plebes. Members of the modern upper class would lose that standing if they lost their wealth while in Rome, a patrician was always a patrician, even if fallen from economic grace. Does this mean that Patricians can be equated in some sensibilities with a ruling nobility? Certainly, but it doesn't mean that the ruling authority was limited only to Patricians either. (Much is era dependent of course). In any case I digress from the nature of this evolving discussion. What literature does Gelzer site for a source on this? Admittedly, the later historians such as Livy probably lacked some understanding of the origination of the word, but they relate the context of Patrician with Pater and they certainly would've had access to any literature that Gelzer did. Granted, I think all can concede that a Patrician was a member of the original founding 'sheep-owning' tribes, but I can not personally relate the connection of the words Pater and Pecus-Pecoris. Perhaps Mr. Dalby can shed some light on this?

Not a new ship necessarily, but Agrippa's fleet used larger, heavier ships. The original planked boarding device, or corvus (the crow), was improved to be more stable presumably to prevent damage to ships and men going overboard in rough waters. It's new name was harpax or arpax (seemingly a root of the word harpoon). Its seems only to have been used at Naulochus as naval warfare on any large scale virtually ceased after the defeat of Sextus Pompeius. Appian Civil Wars book 4; ch. 118 - 119 As far as I can recall, none of the main sources (Appian, Plutarch, Nicolaus of Damascus, Cassius Dio, Paterculus) mention him as taking part, but his presence is presumed. This thread... Agrippa or Octavian -- descendents of slaves?... should prove useful. There is very little source material for this. The sources (such as Nicolaus of Damascus in Life of Augustus ch. 7) all do mention that Octavian and Agrippa were friends but specific interaction with Caesar is limited.

There is actually considerable detail in the story as related by two major sources. Tacitus, The Annals - book 14; ch. 29-37 Cassius Dio, The Histories - book 62; ch. 1 - 12 Suetonius however, in Life of Nero, barely finds it worth mentioning...

We must give the folks at HBO/BBC credit. They certainly did their research and were quite faithful to realism in season 1.

From this post by Violentilla...

Updated story... A newly discovered mosaic might depict a "superstar" gladiator

When analyzing the work of a historian, I simply relate their work with the source material in question. Does the source material support the concept or idea being put forth, or does it force a good deal of conjecture. Is any resulting conjecture based on what might be perceived as a particular agenda or is related with a preconceived underlying ideology? If my perception tells me that the answer to that question is no and the historian is truly attempting to provide honest historical analysis even with limited source material, then I can readily appreciate the concept whether I agree with the conclusion or not. If the source material in question (whether it be ancient text, archaeology or what have you) is counter to the conjecture of the historian, than in my opinion, the historian has no basis for that conjecture and should be summarily dismissed. (However, we must also account for legitimate mistakes throughout an entire work that we might otherwise deem acceptable.) Yes, as one might imagine, my analysis is very dependent upon my own flawed (though rarely ) perceptions.