Primus Pilus

Toga Pulla, literally dark pulla, was worn for periods of mourning. Can't find any sources to site though... still looking.

In reply to nobody in particular, but simply my own thoughts... We as a society are always looking to place blame on anyone or anything except the person, place or thing that deserves it. It wasn't a gun that killed these 32 people it was a disturbed sociopath, or a homicidal maniac, or whatever series of labels you deem fit to place on him. I already hear main stream media suggestions of this being a warranted response to elitist society rejection. The blame game and the spin has already begun, but let's be clear that it wasn't a pistol, or a rifle, a knife, a club, a hand grenade, a strapped on bomb, an automobile, an airplane or any damned thing else that killed these people. It wasn't the police, the supposedly poor reaction of the university administration, the law, the guy that provided/sold the weapon(s), the killer's parents, a teacher, a school guidance counselor, a psychiatrist, American society in general, the privileged elite, the poor, the indifferent masses, Don Imus, South Korea, global warming, the economy, Satan, the NRA, GW Bush, Iraq, "Terrorists", US foreign policy, Smith and/or Wesson, Glock, all residents of politically neutral Austria for allowing the manufacture of Glock, the University of VA Tech as an institution, its student body and faculty, video games, television, and not even the self glorifying sensationalist media for thriving on such moments. It was this murdering prick who decided all by himself that the right course of action was to purposely murder 32 people and attempt the same on countless others with his own actions. I just hope that somewhere deep down, as the politicians, pundits, lobbyists, talk-show hosts, journalists, etc. line up to place blame where ever it best benefits them, that people remember that a myriad of lives have been horribly altered by the actions of this disturbed prick.

And once force established it as the dominant party, it smartly absorbed existing pagan concepts to make the transition more attractive to those outside the urban environment. This may have been less a condition of the church itself and more an indication of the spread of the religion, but the church wisely ignored such issues that may have been otherwise compromising if it helped bring people into the fold.

It was built to repel invaders from Roman Britain and for centuries withstood the vagaries of time. But some of the buried artefacts at Caister, near Yarmouth, have met their match after archaeologists mistakenly used a mechanical digger to uncover the fort's secrets. Norfolk Archaeology Unit (NAU) was commissioned to carry out a dig last year ahead of plans to build houses on a garden bordering the north-east corner of the fort at Uplands Avenue... EDP24

Archaeologists have found a camp thought to have been built to accommodate Roman construction workers who constructed the Antonine Wall. It was discovered in a dig following the demolition of the former OKI factory at Tollpark, near Castlecary, North Lanarkshire. Ross White of CFA Archaeology said the rectangular camp's outline was first identified in cropmarks on aerial photographs taken in the late 1940s, before the development of the area... Scotsman

It

I think that when the Church canonized their Saint Procula (who is supposed to be the unnamed individual mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew who was married to Pontius Pilate and who tried to dissuade him from crucifying Jesus), the Church "filled in" the details regarding Procula's origin. There don't seem to be any historical sources to back up the claims that Claudia Procula was (as one version of the story goes) the illegitimate daughter of Augustus' own daughter Julia, and later adopted by Tiberius upon his marriage to Julia. Perpetuating the myth of Claudia Procula is the 2006 novel titled Pilate's Wife, written by Antoinette May (famous -- or infamous, if you prefer -- for being the biographer of Sylvia Browne). I believe Tiberius had only the two wives -- Vipsania and Julia. -- Nephele Just an agreement with Nephele here. Yes, only Matthew's biblical account mentions her at all, but he did not mention her by name. There is no confirmation as to who she was or where she came from. Even the supposed letters of Procula are of debatable origin. While it would seem reasonable that she might be related to Tiberius in some fashion according to the name Claudia there is absolutely no source material indicating that was her name. As Nephele suggests, its more likely that her origin was invented for canonization purposes.

The Augusta provides an excellent overview of the I, Claudius television program. It may be a classic from days gone by, but she explains quite nicely how the program withstands the test of time. Good drama never dies

Money and Government in the Roman Empire by Richard Duncan-Jones. Provides an in depth review of Roman monetary policy by one of the foremost authorities on the subject. It focuses on the imperial era, but provides tremendous detail on all aspect of the Roman economy. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700 by Kenneth Harl. An exceptional blend of economic history and numismatic resources. This book bridges the gap between in depth historical insight and the introduction to specific coin issues. Dr. Harl is also quite open to challenging conventional wisdom on the state of the Roman economy while offering sound alternatives. Handbook of Roman Imperial Coins: A Complete Guide to the History, Types and Values of Roman Imperial Coinage by David Van Meter. An excellent introduction to collecting Roman coins. If there is one book that a novice collector should own it is this one (considering its broad overview and relative affordability). There are more advanced studies, but Van Meter's book is an exceptional beginning. Ancient Coin Collecting by Wayne Sales. This is the first in a comprehensive 6 volume set on collecting ancient coins. Perhaps introductory in comparison to other volumes, it is probably the most widely used set based on both price and quality of information. Roman Coins and Their Values by David Sear. This is the first in a 4 volume comprehensive set. It's terribly expensive (roughly $85 per book) but might be considered the bible of the ancient numismatic industry. The Sear numbering system is widely used in cataloging and identifying ancient coins. Honorable mention: H.A. Seaby's numerous volumes on coinage.

Indeed, its certainly a reference to silk. The Romans seemingly just applied the name of the popular good to the land (and people) that it originated from.

Here is some more... Ptolemy Geography Actually, while digging around, I found that the wiki has a nice collection of quotes including the one above... Seres

DW-WORLD.DE spoke to French marine archeologist Franck Goddio, who brought lost parts of the legendary port of Alexandria and the ancient cities of Heracleion and Canopus back to light. "Egypt's Sunken Treasures," an exhibition of artifacts unearthed during Goddio's excavations, went on show in Bonn on Thursday. DW-WORLD.DE: After thousands of excursions to sunken cities and shipwrecks around the world, your living room must look like an adventurous place. Franck Goddio: Well, it's not an adventure. I would say it's a job, and we are doing this job very professionally. We plan each mission carefully and train our staff for that, and before starting, there is a lot of paperwork that has to be done... DW-World.de

There are mentions of Chinese and silk by Pliny the Elder and Seneca but only Florus makes any mention of diplomatic contact that I am aware of. I can't find an English version but I'll do my pathetic best to translate... From Epitome II; XXXIV relating the reign of Augustus

Crassus can be seen on either side of the debate depending on how the circumstances applied to him directly. He appears to have been less motivated by political ideology and more so by personal social standing. Had Crassus found that it would have been more beneficial to him personally, I have no doubt that he would have stood against Caesar and Pompey. In fairness, I suppose a case can be made for many politicians that they were towing the 'party line' in order to benefit their own careers rather than truly support a certain ideology, so I don't mean to suggest that others were far more righteous in ideology than Crassus. However, he simply stands out as one who cared little for how he got there, as long as he got there. Yes, he and Pompey reversed Sulla's anti-Plebeian laws, but was this because he supported a populares position, or because he stood to gain by it? A fine line I know, and it's difficult to truly assess such motivations after 2,000 years, but I truly think Crassus is an oddity that should be left off either side of the list.

As most everyone here can attest (personal use, family, friends, etc.), the use of eyeglasses or contacts is a common occurrence (perhaps more common than not) in the modern world. We might expect that this would be a symptom of a population with an advancing average age, but any of us can identify children, young adults, etc. with corrected vision. After digging around a bit in Pliny, I was unable to come up with anything on vision issues from a Roman perspective. I assume that this must have been an issue for ancient people as much as modern. Or perhaps did diet and environment lend itself to different circumstance regarding the health of the eyes? It would seem to me that as many people there are today that need correction for their vision, it must have been a terrible issue for ancient people. Since eyeglasses were not invented until the 14th or 15th centuries, did the "blind" line the streets of ancient cities, or did the resourceful Romans have other methods of coping?

The concept of partium is readily understood, and the rest of the translation perfectly acceptable. We still might argue that the definition of the term from the Roman context to modern is completely different, but I don't think its actually necessary. I am still left somewhat torn on this and the passage actually helps support my sentiment. I believe that these "party" alliances existed in extreme situations, but that the patron/client obligation was a more important factor in less turbulent situations. I am still of a mind that these extremes created temporary and perhaps more strictly defined factions, but that otherwise, political alliances were far less static.

What Cato means here is what was the actual Latin. The word or words that were translated to party in English may not quite have the meaning in the original. If you happen to have it handy or the actual passages, I'll look it up.

Tight cohesive Roman military arrangements makes the concept relatively clear. The gladius was primarily a thrusting weapon to be used in conjunction with protective shielding on either side of the actual sword. Whether a combatant targeted the groin, abdomen, chest or neck may have depended entirely upon circumstances, but most re-enactors would agree that the motion remained a relatively simple forward and sometimes upward motion. Obviously, anyone could swing a gladius with the intention to slash (especially in pursuit of a fleeing enemy, or when cohesive lines broke down, but it's primary function under optimal conditions was the forward thrust regardless of what vulnerable area they may have been targeting. Also bear in mind that the scutum itself was a tool of some capability. Using it to push, smash and keep an enemy off balance might be all that was needed to open a vulnerability for the thrust of the gladius. Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De Re Militaris I.12

This "pro vs. anti" seems to be the key as I've been trying to come up with some sort of list of my own. Much support and opposition often seems based on the who rather than the what or the why. Aside from certain key players who led their own factions the affiliations often change based on the nature of the proposed law or ideology. Yes there are some tendencies that are easy to see, but defining the optimates or populares as a "party" ignores the more typical factional/patron-client basis of Roman politics. Notice that the key events of the late Republic are tied to dynamic and overwhelming personalities. The events themselves (agrarian issues or magistrate eligibility for instance) had been a part of the political battle from the earliest days of Rome. It is with the arrival of these particular personalities that the political processes and reasonable compromises are thrown out the window as the factions lined up on one side or the other. I am not attempting to suggest that the Plebes or even Italian allies had no right to make various demands throughout Rome's history, but it was the demagogues who forced the people and the aristocracy to take a defined stand on one side or another. I am also not trying to suggest that such tactics were not occasionally effective and at times a necessity, but it is in these times only that stringent political affiliations seem to take place. When compromise was reached, these strict affiliations made room for a less defined factional environment. When one really looks through the whole history of the Roman Republic, the "struggle of the orders" was not a constant battle as much as it was a relatively healthy political debate. Again, I don't mean to suggest that everything was a rose garden utopia by any stretch of the imagination, but am merely pointing out that it is the extremes that are most remembered. These extremes make up relatively short portions of the whole of Roman history. Again forgive me for rambling without citing any clear references on my thoughts, but this is what I have been struggling with while trying to define the lists per Cato's criteria.

We all know about those hand-sized Ice Age women carved in stone

While I agree that Caligula's negative aspects have been over-exaggerated by history, if we take a look at his rule from a constitutional standpoint it's fairly clear that his rule was an assault on what remained of old sensibilities. The damage to the Republican system had been done long before, and others would have a far more significant impact on Rome's stability, but Caligula should be remembered as the first emperor to completely shun the Republican facade. However, I also think it's fair to say that Claudius made at least a minimal effort to rebuild the Augustan state of affairs. With that in mind, Caligula cannot be entirely blamed for the altering the state of government perception, but I suppose he did set a precedent.

Paperbackswap There isn't a lot of ancient source material, but I did manage to get a few penguin version copies of some things I didn't have in print. It's a great site really... all you do is pay postage.

Not quite in the fashion we associate with modern police and fireman. The urbanae were primarily soldiers. Their duty included forcibly putting down the mob when necessary, but they weren't the same sort of 'police officers' that we are familiar with today.

Hmm, I wonder.

If there were a good descriptive list of Roman magistrates, it might help. Allow a simple generality for a moment... In my opinion, the Optimates and Populares were much the same. Each group essentially had the interests of the Republic at heart, while attempting to advance those interests in line with a course that would support their own individual positions. There are extreme circumstances of personal demagoguery, rigid conservatism and/or personal enmity that taint the averages, but for the most part I believe the typical politician (both "parties") was trying to his job to the best of his abilities. I think this exercise will also help illustrate that all magistracies were not cases of greed and/or personal advancement as has been sometimes suggested. With that said, familial holiday obligations beckon, so I will be slow in suggesting a list.