Primus Pilus

Generally speaking then.. we are all in the same proverbial boat.

From Velleius Paterculus: The Roman History 2.59 on Octavian Book 2.88 on Maecenas and Agrippa Book 2.96 on Agrippa's death Book 2.127 on Agrippa's lineage not being an obstacle Neither Cassius Dio, Appian nor Livy (in the limited Periochae) make any mention of Agrippa's heritage. Cicero's letters also do not seem to mention him, though I have not yet attempted an exhaustive search. It would stand to reason that if Octavius and Agrippa attended school together, they were likely of similar economic station, but so far there seems to be no written evidence to directly support Agrippa's descent from a "prominent" equestrian family.

I've moved PNS' post of ancient source links here.

Just for reference: Tacitus says of Agrippa in Annals book 1.3: Suetonius Life of Caligula 23: I suspect further comments are buried in Cicero's voluminous letters but am not having much success locating any particulars.

The more I think of it, the more bothered I am by the death of Brutus. While I did find the way it was done to be both artistic and even redeeming for the courage of Brutus, the aftermath failed to show the reverence that even Antony held for him. Plutarch Life of Brutus: Appian Civil Wars Book 4: However, what is interesting to me, despite the inaccuracy of Brutus' death and the scavenger cutting off his finger, this sort of symbolism may be a bit more redeeming than at first realized. The theft of Brutus' signet ring symbolizes the ironic death of the Republic as the ring itself was a symbol of the birth of the Republic after the Tarquin expulsion by the Brutii. Once I stopped to consider the details, I am rather impressed with the writers on this subtle yet powerful message.

Agrippa's family history is rather unknown... Tacitus says simply that he was of 'humble origins'. I believe Agrippa's father was the first of his family to reach the equestrian order, though I'm afraid I cannot find the proper documentation. The Octavii seem to have been long established equestrian family, but Gaius Octavius Thurinus (father of Augustus) was the first to achieve high political rank (Praetor). Suetonius reports in Life of Augustus that the father of Augustus took the cognomen Thurinus in honor of his victory over Spartacan forces there... or was it perhaps an ancestral home? The cognomen was dropped by Octavian (Augustus) very early in life and we know that Antony delighted in mocking Octavian as the descendant of money-lenders (perhaps the two are related). At any rate, Octavian was definitely of humble familial origin compared to the political aristocrats, but the grandson of a slave (making his praetor father the son of a slave) seems an unlikely fit.

While I agree with the birthday cake frivolity as being a bit stupid, according to both Plutarch and Appian, Brutus and Cassius were quite reconciled and accommodating by the time of Philippi. Both express Brutus' mourning at the death of his friend. Still, I agree that writers missed some interesting possibilities. MPC expresses similar disappointment in this episode in the 'Rome TV Series' forum, though he clearly has a different angle on the details.

Sounds good... a new Celtic/Germanic subforum is being added.

Certainly, Cicero was a politician too after all. While he was clearly interested in the health of the Republic, he was not above the age old Roman practice of self-promotion.

The Pullo/Cicero scene was nothing short of ridiculous, though it at least showed the intestinal fortitude of Cicero in the end.

While it's true that Cicero was supportive of Caesar's war in Gaul, and was instrumental in voting public giving of thanks (Supplicatio) to Caesar for his victory over the Belgae, Caesar's base of power in Rome at that time still rested in Pompey and Crassus. Cicero probably could have damaged Caesar's position to some degree, but he was by no means singularly responsible for Caesar's continuing war. Cicero's return from exile and subsequent conciliatory gestures towards the triumvirs is interesting and quite opportunistic for Caesar (which has also led to a good deal of speculation over the years), but Caesar wasn't going anywhere just yet. Even if Cicero had led a scathing attack on the Gallic War, it seems unlikely that he could have forced a recall that Caesar and his faction would abide by. Had the popularity of Cicero been in clear opposition to the triumvirs at this point, I think only that it may have expedited the civil war or even led to proscription. (Though I am not suggesting that Cicero took this particular stance to avoid any such unpleasantnesses just yet.) Yes, I suppose Cicero could have taken a stance that would be more in line with the historical vision of him as a great Republican, but at this point I believe he was doing what he thought was the proper course to mend the political wounds. Cicero's fault may have been the inability to get the two sides to agree to political compromise, but I can't blame him for the actions of Caesar (or the opposition).

In the crystal-clear waters of a Florida spring, decades-old remains are defying identification, tantalizing experts who are trying to solve a Suwannee River mystery. Local legend has it that the remains are all that's left of the steamboat Madison, a floating general store that chugged up and down the Suwannee in the mid-19th century. On a sunny September afternoon in 1863, the story goes, E. J. Davis, Jonathan Caldwell, and Joab Ward steered the paddle-wheel steamboat out of the sluggish current of the Suwannee River and into the basin of Troy Springs... National Geographic

In an effort to create a chronological assessment of Turkey

A rare double wooden statue of an ancient Egyptian scribe and his wife has been found in their tomb south of Cairo, Egypt's chief archaeologist said on Monday. The double statue, dating from around 2300 BC, was among a total of five wooden statues found at the tomb in Sakkara, the necropolis of the ancient Egyptian city of Memphis, said Zahi Hawass, chairman of the Supreme Council of Antiquities... Reuters

There has been a good deal of work regarding climatic change (and resulting drought) in northern and eastern Europe that led directly to the Germanic "migrations" of the 4th through 6th centuries. However, I admit to having only a cursory knowledge of the theory and have always been more interested in the effects of such movements rather than the causes.

Its quite likely that one goal of Caesar was simply to cut out the Veneti middle-men and establish the prominence of Rome for that very position. However, I would be more inclined to believe that the trade/tariff profit with Britain would have been more prominent between the Caesarean and Claudian invasions rather than before Caesar. Largely unprovable of course, but it stands to reason that the reduction of large tribal competition on the shipping/naval front would've favored Rome financially.

Salvageable yes, but not nearly as captivating as season 1. Philippi was fine and the death of Brutus interestingly conveyed. The tie in to the manner of Caesar's death was a nice artistic touch despite it's relative inaccuracy. James Purefoy as Antony continues to impress me. During Philippi I took his comment to Octavian that he had no idea who was winning that battle as more of a slight towards Octavian's inexperience rather than any sort of commentary against Antony's abilities. Though his decision to follow that up by charging into the battle leaving continued to give the sense of his brashness. I was slightly disappointed that the writers didn't work Octavian's near total defeat at 1st Philippi into the script, but the need for simplification and brevity is understood. The death of Cicero.. while I was heartened to see Cicero show a sense of Roman honor in accepting his fate, the behavior of Pullo as the goofy and friendly assassin was just plain stupid. Like Julia, I am confused by the Jewish angle of Timon and his brother (that certainly was a sudden shift for Timon). This is an indication to me that despite what the network may be planning, the writers appear to be looking beyond season 2. Otherwise, what possible bearing could this plot line have on the circumstances of the current time. I have a feeling that the show is going to work the Christian angle in (the brothers working against the Jewish aristocracy in the temple is reminiscent of Jesus expelling the money traders). I'll be fine with an episode heavily dedicated to Jesus, Pilatus, etc., but I hope such an angle doesn't become overwhelmingly prominent in the future.

(Not "Roman" but close enough for the purpose of posting in this particular forum) Sections of an ancient Greek theater were discovered on Thursday during construction work in an Athens suburb, archaeologists said. Until now, only two such buildings were known in the ancient city where western theater originated more than 2,500 years ago. Fifteen rows of concentric stone seats have been located so far in the northwestern suburb of Menidi, according to Vivi Vassilopoulou, Greece's general director of antiquities... USA Today

While I am not trying to say that the Romans did not do this... who can be sure for certain... I don't believe you'll find a good deal of evidence to support this theory either. However, if you are applying this theory to the era between the Julian and Claudian invasions (54 BC to AD 43), you can assume that the people of Britain remembered the invasion of Caesar. Though this invasion was hardly the smashing success that would lead us to believe the people of Britain would've been forever intimidated. Consider too that Caesar did maintain a massive army in Gaul, at least prior to the generational civil war that followed, it's entirely possible that the Britains were wary of a renewed invasion. Consider too that Caesar's books were meant for the Roman people and political enemies and less so for tribal adversaries across the channel. With that said, once the Roman invaded and occupied after AD 43 why threaten against revolt when they had 3 legions and numerous auxilia already stationed in Britain? Even if they did threaten this, it wouldn't really be considered propaganda when there were up to 4 legions stationed along the Rhine at any given time. When Boudicca revolted, heavy losses by Legio VIIII Hispana were in fact heavily reinforced by men from these Rhine legions. I'll admit that it would be surprising if the Romans did not make it known that they controlled a vast empire with claims of limitless reinforcement, but Romans methods of consolidation and control was much more invasive than simple threats. Threats and intimidating positioning certainly played it's role, but it was only one piece of the "Romanization" puzzle. The Romans divided tribes and played them against one another diplomatically and economically. They supported strong tribes and elevated or rewarded other that were compliant and/or tolerant of the occupation. They used receptive tribes to influence and to bring resistant fringe tribes into the fold, etc. Coinage and architecture from Roman Britain do not indicate any grand campaign to intimidate the Britannic natives with threats of increased occupational forces above those already there. The propaganda on Roman coinage relating to Britain was intended more to impress Roman citizens (ie praising Claudius for his triumph). In fact this particular coin of Hadrian at the British Museum "Exercitus Brittanicus" makes it quite clear that the Army of Britain was in itself quite important.

"He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the holy grail in the Castle of Aaauuuggghhh..." --Joseph of Aramathia

I've only read the first couple of chapters, but other than the 'willing victim' notion that Everitt mentions in the introduction, it is quite highly readable.

Though, it would seem that tastes can and have shifted over various periods. There was a time when a bit of plumpness may have been regarded simply as healthy and abundant living. Today, due in part to the poor quality of our cheaper and readily accessible foodstuffs, such notions are often quite the opposite. In much the same notion, it's difficult for us to look at a coin of Cleopatra and appreciate the sensibilities of the ancients, but I don't recall any ancient sources calling her "ugly" even after all of the propaganda of Augustus. However, all do attest to her effectiveness as a seductress. If she had been considered truly ugly, then I doubt anyone would have believed it despite her wealth and position. (And of course, as some have mentioned, there are other attributes other than facial appearance that men tend to find attractive). Plutarch does say this though in comparison to Octavia... It would seem that there were those who hoped that Octavia's beauty would lure Antony away from the Egyptian.

Everyone Patrician and above who are not themselves entering. And possibly an equestrian or two or three if we need some extra help. While we can't yet be entirely sure who the judges will be, I can assure everyone that it will be a deliberative process.

It's now recorded on my DVR and I hope to watch it over the weekend. I'm a bit involved with Everitt's "Augustus" at the moment (and like Ursus I am bit baffled by Everitt's notion that Augustus willingly allowed himself to be poisoned) but I'm sure I can squeeze in a few hours and a bottle of wine to watch Downfall.

Yes, it would seem so.