Primus Pilus

Oh don't get me wrong... I'm not complaining about the competition... it should be a great series. Problem is the lack of sleep from those 10 pm game starts (especially with those OT games). Add in a bit of beer consumption and you have a recipe for a bleary eyed week at work.

Bah.. now that they've beaten Dallas it means San Jose/Detroit is round 2... Had Dallas won, Detroit would be playing them. Instead, it means that I have to stay up late to watch the stupid west coast games because Detroit is in the eastern f'ing time zone but for some inexplicable reason plays in the western conference. Humor me for a moment. If Detroit manages to beat San Jose, round 3 would be either Vancouver or Anaheim... yes, 2 more west coast teams, and several more ridiculously late nights just to watch grown men skate around on an artificial frozen pond slapping at a little black disk with wooden sticks. Arrrgh! Though I shouldn't be too upset, the Wings did manage to get by Calgary and the first round this year... something they've struggled with in recent years.

Which Brutus? Decimus Brutus was named in Caesar's will. M Junius... but I meant in the context of a primary beneficiary.

Ravenna was made the administrative center of the western empire during the reign of Honorius (circa AD 400 or so) after the previous capital Mediolanum (Milan) had been besieged by Vandals. Mediolanum was made the administrative capital by Diocletion about a century earlier. Ravenna was supposedly more readily defensible than Rome or Mediolanum. The departure from Rome as the capital was both strategic and probably political in nature. Mediolanum was closer to the frontier where the forces of the recently split empire could be more readily controlled. While the imperial government moved, the Senate remained in Rome where it was increasingly made less important. With Diocletian's move and political reforms, he also removed any remaining vestiges of Republicanism. However, as the power of the church continued to grow, Rome maintained its position as the the capital of western christianity. Rome was still Rome though regardless of the emperors presence. For all intensive purposes it was still the most important city of the western empire. The emperors just found a multitude of advantageous reasons to be personally away from it.

Thanks everyone for not taking this too seriously, hence my own interjection of the python bit with Pertinax. However, before the original context gets lost completely, I'm closing this one.

Had Caesar not been assassinated than its unlikely that Octavian could've or would've built a private army of Caesar's veterans, though he may still have been able to count on support from that sector. He still may have grown into a position of power based on the vast wealth and clientela that he stood to inherit, but the course of events are difficult to gauge. He would've had even more time to learn the arts of the political game, but perhaps he might not have developed that ruthless edge as a result of Caesar's more peaceful passing. The notion of vengeance, whether heartfelt or a tool, helped make Octavian. Without it he does seem to lose some of that luster. Assume for a moment that Octavian attempted to seize power using his uncle's veterans without an assassination. There would've been no basis for this ploy, and his support may have eroded and in fact inspired more open resistance. Of course this assumes no other political conditions which would've made that position available to him and supportable by the army and the public. It's why the hypothetical is so difficult.. the possibilities are immeasurable. By the by, I don't really see a basis for Brutus being seen as an heir over Octavian. He could've been named in the actual will but he wasn't. It's not as if Caesar changed it after the fact out of disappointment for having been assassinated. I agree that anything is a possibility when dealing with the hypothetical, and sentiments could've changed over time, but I'm sticking with the notion that Caesar would've preferred an heir with a closer familial lineage.

A completely intact Thracian chariot was unearthed by the Bulgarian archaeologist Vesselin Ignatov on Friday, Darik News reported. The chariot was found near a burial barrow close to the central Bulgarian town of Nova Zagora. Ignatov and his team have already dated the finding to 2 century BC. The chariot has two wheels with its roof made of heavy bronze in the form of eagle heads and a folding iron chair, where the driver sat. The chariot was aimed to be pulled by three horses... Novinite.com

It's been fixed, you should be able to download it now.

What sort of error are you receiving. I'm aware of no restrictions on downloading the files.

I don't want anyone to read to much into this... but I think such a thing may sometimes need to be said... As can happen with any discussion forum, we can occasionally have visible personality conflicts. Sometimes these issues arise due to posting styles that make some people uncomfortable while those involved see nothing wrong. Some are perfectly comfortable with a more conversational perspective and others don't feel involved unless the heart pumps just a bit faster. As this is a site with members from around the world, sometimes there are issues with perception or intent of a conversation, based on primary and secondary languages. Sometimes people just aren't able to express exactly what they mean in a concise and proper manner. And, yes, sometimes some people even intend to be disruptive or agitating, or simply see nothing wrong with their own behavior. Regardless, we have been fairly fortunate to have such issues on relatively rare occasions. I ask only that people give the benefit of the doubt in most cases and also let bygones be bygones if continued discussion illustrates an open tone. I don't ask that people do anything that is against their personal nature or belief system, but I will ask that people refrain from or limit the interaction with those whom they know to be openly disagreeable on a more personal basis. If you know a topic, or the participants in a topic, will only infuriate you, consider any posts carefully. In contrast, if you know that a thread is carrying a light tone, don't attempt to derail it in an opposite fashion. I do not wish to censor the discussion of history, but in fairness to everyone, it's also important that discussions be carried out in civil tone. I will not be a utopian fool and ask everyone to be friends, hold hands and sing kum ba yah to their deity of choice while flowers and visions of happiness float down upon our heads from the heavens, but civility should be a reasonable expectation. People from all over the internet find this forum by different reasons. Some may be enthralled by a heated discussion of Republican Rome or ancient religion that others would find intolerable. Some may stumble across a light yet informative discussion of wine or poetry that others would condemn for reasons of personal taste. Some members of this forum enjoy aggressively debating to form opinion, extract information or to illustrate their points. Some simply want to be informed, others want to inform. Others enjoy a lighter perhaps more engaging conversational tone. In between these contrasting styles, our membership and visitors certainly represent the full spectrum of possible interests and preferences. I only ask that toleration be the key. While we view civility and courtesy as paramount for the course on UNRV.com, sometimes people bump heads. We'll do our best to straighten things out, but please just try to make this a place that anyone and everyone would enjoy. Thank You! Chris PS. A case in point... Pertinax' mother was a hamster and his father smells of elderberry, but I still think he's an ok guy.

The only thing that has always troubled me with the Norse legends is that most of the written records we have of it were recorded post Christianizing. Considering that the resurrection story is similar throughout the various human mythologies I don't doubt that the Balder story is also pre-Christian, but I thought it might be prudent to point out that there could be some tainting of the original oral traditions by monks with an agenda.

Some of Caesar's veterans were also probably legitimately outraged, just as a significant portion of the population was. The 'mob' included those who were fine with the events at hand once they realized that the bloodshed stopped with Caesar, and those who were angry regardless. This entire category of common people would seem to have little motivation other than pure reactionary emotion and their role in shaping the events is important. Plutarch describes just such a scenario of mixed feelings among the populace in Life of Brutus... Clearly though, Plutarch (as do other sources) makes it known that not all were angry with the liberators.

Iran on Thursday began filling a dam despite warnings from archaeologists that its reservoir will flood newly discovered antiquities and could damage Iran's grandest site, the ancient Persian capital of Persepolis. At the inauguration ceremony, attended by Energy Ministry officials, pipes were opened for water to start flowing into an artificial lake created by the dam spanning the Sivand River, 840 kilometers (520 miles) south of the capital, Tehran. The lake waters will be used for irrigation for the area's farmlands... Int. Herald Tribune

No attempt was being made to discredit, I was simply expanding the conversation. As the Julio-Claudian bios make up only half of the total of Suetonius' work, I was just validating MC's comment on context. At the time Suetonius published his work, there were probably many living people who may have had personal awareness of Galba, Otho, Vitellius and the Flavians. Suetonius' own father served Otho as a military tribune. The lack of living witnesses to the Julio-Claudians may or may not have had an effect on Suetonius' writing, but as Augusta points out, these later bios are far less scandalous in nature (Domitian aside) than their Julio-Claudian counterparts. It's quite likely that he was free to write as he pleased on the early Caesars since everyone of potential consequence was dead. Perhaps his more careful approach in regard to the later pieces may be a reflection of protecting himself from living contemporaries of these subjects, but its also quite possible that he simply didn't have as great a collection of material to work with on these individuals. This is the most interesting notion to me. We know that Suetonius didn't simply make these things up. The absence of scandalous material in some of the bios supports the idea that he may have been more scrutinizing than he is often given credit for. Clearly he had the material to work with on the Julio Claudians and did not have as much on later emperors. If he had it, such material would've been included in his work. He may have thought better of blasting Vespasian depending on the position and attitudes of living contemporaries, but why wouldn't he have been more scathing in regards to Otho, Galba and Vitellius. He was a bit more harsh with Vitellius (helping to justify the actions of Vespasian) but otherwise his treatment of Otho and Galba is noticeably absent of 'color'. The absence of this color is just a confirmation that Suetonius wasn't interested in publishing scandal for the sake of scandal. He published material that he had source material to work from. We can certainly question the viability of the sources he did use... but we can also be fairly comfortable that he was at least somewhat diligent and honest.

North America's oldest church may lie beneath a small town in Newfoundland, according to information cobbled together from the research of a historian who recently died before publishing her seminal work. An Italian friar and sailing companion of explorer John Cabot erected the church during his second trip to the continent in 1498, according to the late Alwyn Ruddock, said Evan Jones, a University of Bristol researcher who investigated and pieced together Ruddock's notes... Yahoo

LOL. I love how onion tries to insert moments of practical sense into these completely nonsensical stories.

Truly. Any necromancer worth his weight in lizards tongues could raise a perfectly preserved army of these ancient beings.

The problem with Vegetius is the translation from Latin to English, or more appropriately, Roman measurements to imperial English. The original Latin of the quote that GPM provided above In Roman measurements... VI pedum (6 feet) is considerably smaller than 6 modern imperial feet. Therefore the same is true for V et X unciarum (5 and 10 parts of twelve). A Roman foot, or 12 inches (uncia), is the equivalent of about 11 1/2 modern inches. Reducing the ancient measurement by 1/2 inch for each of the 6 Roman feet described by Vegetius (1/2 inch x 6 feet is a total of 3 inches) we would get a measurement that was roughly equal to a 5 feet 7 inches minimum to 5 feet 9 inches standard... rather than the 5 feet 10 inches and 6 feet described as the standard height by Vegetius. This is rather tall for the time as the average Roman height is considered to be about 5 1/2 feet, but its certainly within the realm of normal human development. Of course this is all dependent upon believing Vegetius in the first place. He is often criticized for a lack of military experience and knowledge, but one would not need those skills in order to know the general height of recruits. Of course this only accounts for the later imperial era. (This was modified by a post I made some time back in another thread)

Context: Wasn't 69 AD the year Vespasian took the throne? Yes, and in fact there would've been a reasonable number of elderly folks in the reign of Hadrian that had both read Suetonius' published work and would've personally remembered the Flavians and Domitian in particular. If you had been 20 at the death of Domitian (AD 96) one would've been 62 at the death of Hadrian (AD 138). edit: and I believe the Twelve Caesar's had been published long before that (the 110's) making the availability to those who were event contemporaries much greater. (ie. Someone who was 20 at the time of Nero's death/Vespasian's victory (AD 69) would've been roughly 65 or 66 if Suetonius' work was published circa AD 115.)

This debate has raged quite strongly around here. You'll find that there is no consensus opinion, but there are very strong convictions on either side of the issue. Personally, I believe Caesar deserved to be tried for his crime of crossing the Rubicon. Until that point everything else could've been negotiated. Fault is another issue entirely, so whether we blame the so-called Optimates, Caesar, the people, Caesar's army, or whomever you choose, it was Caesar who broke the law and marched on Rome. He may have been acquitted or convicted depending on circumstances, but he did deserve to be tried. His death was a result of consolidated power and the limited choices available to the opposition. Caesar did both great and horrible things, but even if you consider most everything he did to be great, he was still a man who helped crush one of the world's greatest historical institutions. For all the Republican system's flaws (of which there was an acknowledged many) after Caesar the opportunity for freedom of choice in election and lawmaking processes had been severely handicapped.

A team of British and Egyptian archaeologists made a stunning discovery Monday, unearthing several intact specimens of "skeleton people"

I am unfamiliar with this. Is it a translation of Suetonius by Grant or an actual independent book on the same subject (presumably heavily influenced by Suetonius at least)?

Well you both beat me to it, but at least we are in agreement.

An incuse is an inverted (or indented) stamp. By contrast an image on a coin that's raised above the surface of the coin is called a relief. I believe the square term originates when the stamp in question was smaller than the overall surface of the coin. It leaves the appearance of an indented image of whatever was on the stamp enclosed within a square. The second coin in the image is an example. Link to Doug Smith's original source