Primus Pilus

I'm not quite sure I understand the concept of not idealizing the Republic. I do understand that the characters of the later republic may have taken advantage of the systems and the institutions, but reflecting that the Republic and Principate are ideally the same because of the evolution of the client system, fails to recognize the fundamental opportunity for political freedom and potential for choice that the Republic provided... even in it's weakest state. On either extreme there were those who we may deem as oligarchs and those that we know as demagogues. Each had their own methodology for maintaining or obtaining power. Either way, until the destruction of the system through proscription and civil war, neither side ever held complete sway, and in more cases than not, the status quo was a respectable balance with give and take on both sides. I'll grant that it wasn't perfect, especially in the early stages when the people had lessor opportunity/influence and later when the corruption of individual greed and lust for power destroyed the concept, but the alternative was absolutism without opportunity for choice. Just consider the similarities in the Roman governing nobilitas and elected officials in modern 'democracies'. Those who hold power in these systems are generally societal upper class. Granted, the potential for a 'new man' to work his way into this system is far greater than it was and of course more opportunities are available based on gender, etc., but government representation is generally a revolving door of the upper classes. Even these modern 'new men' generally must conform to the behavioral/societal status quo within the system or they are chastised by their counterparts. (I am by no means comparing basic human rights, societal ethics, morals, etc. but simply the governing class throughout history.) If we allow ourselves to be disillusioned by the Republic because it evolved into the Principate and eventually into medieval monarchy, should we not also idealize it for its influence on modern constitutional monarchy, parliamentary government, federal republic, etc.?

Frankly, from my perspective, there is no amount of academic pursuit that can definitively prove the subjective argument relating to which culture, army, etc. was better. I don't really care if people here say that Romans were better because they had trained flying midgets with propeller arms or if people on this other forum say that the Chinese were better because they had locomotives that shot razor blades out the side as they passed by. It simply doesn't matter. Hence the relegation of these types of endless hypothetical threads to the obscure "arena" section of the forum. Comparison for purposes of general historical awareness is one thing, but such attempts routinely devolve into 'my culture is better than yours' shouting matches.

I think the entire soundtrack is rather Wagnerian... It's hard to get the full effect in these sample tracks, but it's a quick way to get the feel for it. I didn't really recall the Orff similarity though? Anyone else? (Speaking of Orff.. the scene in Excalibur with "O Fortuna" and the revival of Arthur leading up to the battle with Mordred has always had the effect of making me want to run out and slay someone in pitched battle. )

True, but few infantries in the history of the world were as disciplined as Roman legions. Though this can be more heavily associated with societal duty (earlier Republic) and training than through the fear of punishment. While decimation is a clear historical fact, there are relatively few instances (and most written incidents are rather obscure) over the course of the 1,000 year history of the Republic and Western Empire. The fear of punishment is more likely to be a deterrent to mutinous behavior on a large scale and insubordinate behavior (including desertion) in smaller and individual conditions. On the field of battle, the morale of the legions was far more likely influenced by strategy, tactics, training and the belief of the individual soldier/unit in these things than the thought that, "If we run away, we may be decimated". Still, I'll readily concede that the idea of discipline through physical punishment was at least a minor influence. At any rate... after a lengthy tangent into cavalry tactics, legionary discipline, etc. have the detractors finally been convinced that the primary function of the gladius, and the Roman military organization, was to thrust? I concede that the gladius was capable of slashing and there was likely some training in this respect, but my impression of the thread was to determine the core function.

Generally, on this forum, we attempt to put things into the context of ancient world standards, rather than modern sensibilities. Simply speaking, the Romans were an advanced culture and society, hence civilized. At any rate, I don't find resistance in the face of enemy invasion in order to preserve one's identity, culture or society to be uncivilized regardless of the definition used.

Primus climbs from the impluvium, disheveled and toga askew. Staggering and misguided, a look of confusion on his brow, he stumbles, clearly inebriated, but grinning obliviously to his own potential peril. He laughs unapologetically at the whims of Fortuna, who convinced him of the merits of wearing shoes made of meat to a party overrun with dogs. With a whimsical and thoroughly uncoordinated drunken motion, he removes said shoes and throws them to the street... sparking a riotous rush of canines out of the house. Temporary calm restored, the confused Primus strikes a conversation with and stares seductively at a rather crudely proportioned statue of Athena. He offers the lady a drink while searching the folds of his toga for that amphorae he just knows he nestled in there somewhere.

There are a few that are considered novels... Apuleius - Metamorphoses (or the Golden Ass). It's my understanding that this is the only complete Latin novel to have survived. Apollonius of Tyre wrote the novel Historia Apollonii Regis Tyri based seemingly on an earlier Greek work. Of course, it's hard to discount such epics as Virgil's Aeneid or Ovid's Metamorphoses. They are hardly novels, but one might stretch the criteria a bit to include poetic fiction based upon both mythology and history. One might even read some of the other satirists... Ennius, Varro, Horace, Juvenal etc. Personally I like Seneca's Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii, or the Pumpkinification of the Divine Claudius. There are several Greek novels by writers such as Xenophon of Ephesus - Ephesian Tale of Anthia and Habrocomes, Heliodorus of Emesa - The Aethiopica, Chariton - The Loves of Chaereas and Callirhoe, Longus - Daphnis and Chloe, Achilles Tatius - Leucippe and Clitophon. I have not read any of these personally.

A bronze horse, possibly the work of the Parthenon sculptor, went on display Friday at a Rome museum after a decades-long restoration. The horse was returned to the Capitoline Museums following a $680,000 restoration that began in the late 1970s, museum director Anna Mura Sommella said. Leaning on its hind legs with its head held back, as if preparing to break into a wild dash, the horse is one of the few surviving bronze equestrian statues from Greek times

The Israel Museum unveiled a unique 2,200-year-old stele (inscribed stone block) on May 3 that provides new insight into the dramatic story of Heliodorus and the Temple in Jerusalem, as related in the Second Book of Maccabees. "The Heliodorus stele is one of the most important and revealing Hellenistic inscriptions from Israel," said James S. Snyder, Anne and Jerome Fisher Director of the Israel Museum... Epoch Times

I may be wrong, but I believe this is the same area where the moronic college kids have been painting the glyphs with various team slogans and such.

A boulder bearing petroglyphs several hundred years old has been stolen from federal land near Yuma. The boulder, covered with American Indian petroglyphs, was found missing recently during a routine patrol of the area. "We know the boulder was there a few months ago because the area was monitored by an Arizona site steward," said Sandra Arnold, an archaeologist for the Bureau of Land Management... Yuma Sun

You missed my point entirely. Alas.

I am puzzled, Primus - the political correctness part of this story eludes me. It's an American thing. The repeated mention of Washington's slaves carrying equal importance with the nation's first president and symbol of our fledgling Republic, yet no other workers, residents or ancillary characters receive a mention.

I posted this relatively obscure piece of archaeological news simply as evidence of political correctness run amok.

Archeologists digging at a site where George Washington and his slaves once lived have unearthed portions of the president's house, a "long-shot" discovery that is already changing ideas about how the house was built. Officials from Independence National Historical Park and the city announced Wednesday that a section of the kitchen wall as well the foundation walls from the main house had been unearthed at the site, about a block from Independence Mall... CentreDaily

A silver Roman ring found in a field in Cottered may indicate that a treasure hoard could be buried on the edge of Buntingford. The Roman 'Empire ring', right, dating from the 1st-3rd centuries and made of solid silver, was discovered by a metal detector in the same field and on the same day as a 3,500-year-old Bronze Age penannular ring. It is believed more ancient artefacts were found during the same hunt, on August 6, 2006... Herts-Essex-News

Also Shipways' Imperial Governor is highly considered by most fans of the Roman historical fiction genre.

Out of curiosity, what about the ending didn't you like. It's been a while since I read it so a refresher may be in order. Was it the heroism of the main character, the finality of it all, or something else entirely?

I suppose that would depend entirely on the era, though I do indeed get the impression that we are speaking of the imperial era.

Robert Harris (Pompeii and Imperium) has been lauded by several members of this forum... myself included. I find his research equal to that of McCullough and yet far more balanced.

OK guys... enough of the personal quibbles here. This topic has evolved well beyond the original scope anyway. Nothing wrong with that in theory, except for the noted bickering. Just tone it down a bit.

It is much better. Just be prepared to scoff at some of the 'Hollywoodization' of history and you should be entertained. Despite the twisted history I think Joaquin Phoenix is brilliantly creepy.

What is the account... Ancient source? I'd like to read it to understand the context before I comment. Generically speaking though. Yes certain streets likely could've been very dangerous places where authority was established by local street gangs, work "unions" etc. General welfare and public safety could depend very much on the scrupulous or unscrupulous nature of these local petty authorities.

First, not all the Cisalpine Gauls were slaves. There were many freemen and allied tribes within the territory. With that said though, the Romans had been colonizing the territory since the defeat of the Gauls at Lake Vadimanus in 283 BC. This was probably a slow trickle until the passage of the Lex Flaminia that gave land rights to Roman citizens in northern Italy. With the increased colonization many native Gauls (chiefly the Insubres and the Gaesatae) began to be pushed out of the region. Eventually, the Gauls rose against this Roman transgression in or around 225 BC. A large army was gathered and it marched south as it's ancestors had done nearly 2 centuries prior. However, this army was stopped in separate events by Flaminius and by Marcus Claudius Marcellus (the same general that stymied Hannibal in Italy after his early victories). With the defeat of these Gauls, northern Italy was completely open to Roman colonization without resistance from the original inhabitants. By the time Hannibal came marching through a few years later, there were certainly a good number of disaffected Gauls who joined his cause, but there were probably also a good number who remembered their own crushing defeat a short time before. My guess is that Hannibal stripped the region of any Gauls who were of a mind to fight Rome, and by the time his army was bled through attrition, those who remained in northern Italy wanted little to do with fighting the victorious Romans. In short. Rome had already begun re-establishing control of northern Italy even before Hannibal's ultimate retreat to North Africa. Once he was gone, and the war ultimately spread to Illyria, Macedonia and Greece, resistance was minimal. For all practical purposes, the Romans did simply march back in.

The power struggle between Agrippina, Seneca and Burrus is interesting and laced with irony. Without Agrippina, these men (and Nero as well of course), likely never would've held the station they did. Seneca was in practical exile until her intervention. Burrus' appointment as Praetorian Prefect was essentially pushed onto Claudius by his wife. While there seems to be little evidence to suggest that Claudius opposed Burrus, her involvement and influence regarding the advancement is clear. Seneca's distaste for Claudius is well recorded though (see Apocolocyntosis Divi Claudii) and without Agrippina he was destined to a life excluded from politics. Of course, it wasn't long before Seneca and Burrus began to oppose the influence of Agrippina as they secured their own authority. However, once she was removed and Nero fell under the influence of Poppeia (and his own devices), these two once powerful men were removed from their own positions of importance. Essentially, Agrippina brought them in... and she took them with her.