Primus Pilus

In 51 BC, the Romans attacked and conquered Germania Ulpterior. After that all Germanic tribes were forced to give annual tribute of Frankincense. Unfortunately for the Germanics, Frankincense was only available by trading with Judaean merchants (3 of whom held a monopoly on the product.) The difficulty in the trading process led to resentment between the two cultures and was the cause for the ultimate rise of antisemitism in early 20th century Germany, but that is another story. After much haggling, the Germanics successfully traded for the necessary Frankincense thereby securing their successful cohabitation with the Romans... at least for a time. It was after the Judaean conquests of Vespasian and Titus (circa 60s - 70s AD) and the suppression of the Jewish revolts during the reign of Hadrian and the Antonine's (circa 130s - 140s AD), that the frankincense trade routes had been irreparably eliminated despite the breakup of the so called "wise-man" monopoly. The cessation of the Germanic tribute led to the punitive Marcomannic wars of Marcus Aurelius. Despite some successes the son of Aurelius, Commodus, ended the wars by challenging the Germanic King Axegrindorix to a single combat duel in the Colosseum. The overwhelming glorious defeat of Axegrindorix resulted in a permanent peace settlement called the Commodian Accord in AD 183. Among other settlements, as a contingency of that accord, the Germanics were forced to adopt the Roman custom of exposing one's genitalia as a standard form of greeting. This custom still exists today and is the single most directly traceable tradition from Roman times in modern western culture. Sources: Josephus, Ezekial: "The Jewish Wars" and the "Antiquities of the Jews" Tacitus, Bill: "Agricola and the Germania" Cassius Dio, Ronnie James: "Roman History" Commodus, Joaquin: "My Egomaniacal Life as a Gladiator" and "The Day I Conquered Germania with One Swing of My Gladius" Hitler, Dolph Lundgren: "How Frankincense Made Me a Little Crazy" Seriously though, here are some suggestions to get you started in your research: The Gallic War, Caesar Germania, Tacitus Roman Influence in the North, Dina P. Dobson (if you have access) You may find recent works by Peter Heather to be particularly relevant despite the later period of his focus. Another might be The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples by Herwig Wolfram Even the books by Peter S. Wells (Battle that stopped Rome) and Adrian Murdoch (Rome's Greatest Defeat) specifically focused on the Teutoberg disaster should offer some insight. I haven't read it, but "Roman Germany's: Studies in Cultural Interaction (International Roman Archaeology Conference Series)" by J. D. Creighton and Roger John Anthony Wilson certainly sounds relevant.

I only posted the article as an example of very divergent schools of thought on the matter. There truly is no consensus opinion on the issue of legionary tunica.

Archaeologists have made a major discovery in Western Norway, unearthing well-preserved Viking graves from the 9th century full of riches. The Viking treasures were found at Fr

Just a bit of a correction to your timelime... The M. Claudius Marcellus in question was actually first Consul in 166, then in 155 and 152. The one who was Consul in 183 was actually a different person. Regardless, you are still right that the ancient sources are largely silent on the reason. Several ancillary writings I've read but cannot recall in exact detail have suggested that a law was passed sometime after 152 BC and before the election of Gaius Marius, making it illegal for election to consul twice within 10 years. However no source, nor law has ever been specifically named and just a presumption seems to be implied. This presumption would also ignore the Lex Genucia in which Livy states that the 10 year gap was made a law some 40 years prior to Marcellus' 3rd consulship. Now, it could very well be that Livy was simply wrong on the matter, or that the Lex Genucia was either overturned at some point or simply ignored. Rather, I think perhaps the election of Marcellus to his 3rd consulship was simply in reaction to the emergency in Hispania (revolt of the Lusitanii and the Celtiberians) and the emergency superseded the law. Regardless, it might seem strange that there is no mention of the election of 152 BC (being either an oddity or unlawful), though unfortunately there are major gaps in the surviving texts for this period. With that in mind, it might not be that the sources are silent, but rather that the evidence is unfortunately lost to us.

A related article

Conn Iggulden's books are generally quite fictional. The terms no longer existed in their original context when dealing with the post Marian organization and armament of the "Imperial" legion. However, the names did remain as a sort of honorific title to rank the centuries within each cohort as can be attested by the names and classification of the centuriones. (scroll down to the officer section and the chart showing the layout for an example here). Additionally regarding the honorific title from the William Smith Dictionary: It just needs to be understood that the legions were standardized at this point and there was no distinction to speak of regarding armament or general purpose of these titles. Also from the William Smith Dictionary:

RANU RARAKU, Easter Island: As remnants of a vanished culture and a lure to tourists, the mysterious giant statues that stand as mute sentinels along the rocky coast here are the greatest treasure of this remote island. For local people, though, they also present a problem: What should be done about the hundreds of other stone icons, many of them damaged or still embedded in the ground, that are scattered around the island?... International Herald Tribune

I will second this completely. I am still thankful to Moon every day for introducing me to Opeth. (much to the general chagrin of my wife though) =P

Both were used, but IIII is far more common at least on coinage. In fact, I can't rightly think of a Roman coin that uses IV rather than IIII. If someone knows of one, please do post to satisfy my own curiosity. Anyway, Below is a Neronian era inscription from Chichester to illustrate the use of IV . It would seem logical to me that the introduction of IV and IX were simply space saving measures. NERONI CLAVDIO DIVI CLAVD AVG F GERMANICI CAES NEPOTI TI CAES AVG PRONEPOTI DIV AVG ABN CAESARI AVG GERM TR P IV IMP V COS IV S C V M "To Nero Claudius Caesar Augusus Germanicus, son of the Divine Claudius Augustus Germanicus, grandson of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, great-grandson of the Divine Augustus, great-great-grandson of Caesar, in the fourth year of his holding tribunicia potestas, hailed imperator five times, consul four times, under his care this offering deservedly (is made)." From Roman-Britain.org

Happy New Year to everyone (yes I'm slow)! I spent my New Year holiday fighting off various viral invasions, which unfortunately limited my intake of wine. A quality Tempranillo is definitely in order this weekend.

Agreed, Appian is an appropriate choice. Cassius Dio can also fill in some blanks with his lengthy narrative ranging from the foundation through the Severans. Also, some individual Lives by Plutarch may help (scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page for the list).

Frankly, I'm rather in agreement with you. Seems the largest point of contention is its dubious origin. Claims of varying authors along with 3rd, 4th or even 5th century origination (even possible forgery) had made the content as questionable as the source. There are some clear errors, but could it not simply have been written by a rather poor historian(s) rather than an actual attempt to mislead or fictionalize?

Quick Off-Topic: I moved this and the Iran thread to the Arena, not because of any overwhelming lack of civility or abhorrent behavior, but simply as a matter of course related to the nature of the topics.

From Aristotle: The Constitution of Carthage (c. 340 BC)

Yes, agreed, but Hannibal's war was largely an independent action without clear support from the Carthaginian government. Of course, we have no idea whatsoever what the sentiment of the general populace was, but I'd be willing to bet that Hannibal's exploits and defiance of their Roman 'oppressor' were quite popular with the masses. This ties into the passage mentioned by WW. Essentially, Hannibal's war happened because of popular support and military independence rather than that of the aristocracy. According to Polybius, Carthage was in an era of demagoguery similar to that of the late Roman Republic. Polybius book 6; 51 (continues throughout the rest of book 6) Polybius' accuracy in assessing the state of Carthaginian government is debatable, but we don't have a great deal of surviving written evidence to provide alternative opinions. I suppose in the end we must ask: did the Carthaginian Senate have the authority to "recall" Hannibal, or did he simply acquiesce to the request because it was the prudent thing to do (for both his own state of affairs in Italy and that of Africa)?

I am taking his word that he meant to punish Britannic allies of his Gallic enemies, I just believe that there were other motivations (admittedly unspoken) that were more (or at least equally as) prominent. Regardless, evidence is largely subjective (ie Strabo's insinuation that an expedition had long been planned, the exploratory nature of Caesar's force, limited size, baggage and lack of cavalry, Cicero's and Suetonius' implications of economic pursuits...). Since it really has no bearing on the original topic of the thread, I suppose I shouldn't put much effort into it here (since it really doesn't matter what his intentions were, I suppose) and divert an otherwise interesting thread. That takes me back to the subject at hand. Let's assume for one moment that Britain itself was never occupied. Did Roman Gaul truly have anything to fear from Britannic invasion forces? I suppose it's entirely possible that a Britannic maritime tribe could've replaced the Veneti as a naval force in the Mare Britannicum, but no such threat truly developed in the century between the invasions of Caesar and Claudius. It's never been suggested in any way that the invasion of Claudius had anything to do with retaliation for raids or events on the Gallic mainland, but rather had everything to do with the politics of tribal Britain (and economics of course). I think it's safe to say that the Romans controlled the Mare Britannicum from the defeat of the Veneti onwards and would've continued to do so even if the Claudian conquest never took place. However, I will concede that occasional exploratory campaigns into southern Britannia would've probably been necessary to repress the possibility coastal resistance.

Caesar certainly considered punitive and preventative measures, but I doubt the security of coastal Gaul was ever the primary objective. While I see no reason to completely disbelieve Caesar's report: "in almost all the wars with the Gauls succors had been furnished to our enemy from that country", it seems unlikely that the Romans ever faced any real crises from coastal invasion by Britannic tribes after the defeat of the Veneti. I don't mean to suggest that coastal raiding incidents would not have taken place had Britain not been occupied, but simply offer that the border security aspect was far less important a factor than the possibilities for economic gain. (and of course the all-important pretext of providing aid to an ally in both the Caesarian and Claudian cases). The Romans did invade Caledonia several times (Agricola, Urbicus, the Severans). They just weren't able to, or found the effort far too costly and without any tangible benefit, to consolidate and hold any gains north of the Antonine Wall (essentially the highlands).

Yes, it was considered as Scipio besieged Utica, but they decided instead that the Numidian Syphax would be of more immediate benefit. After this failed, Hannibal was eventually recalled but it was a bit of a "too little, too late" situation. Polybius paints a rather bleak portrait of Hannibal's position in Italy anyway, and his "recall" may be just as easily viewed as an abandonment of his offensive campaign. Polybius, book 15; 1

Thanks very much for the link -- I missed that earlier thread. How were the Welsh tribes governed? I got the impression, when researching for "Language in Danger", that there was some very slight evidence (towards the end of the Roman period) of Welsh tribal rulers being responsible to the Roman governor of the province. Can you confirm that, or am I imagining it? As far as I am aware, the Romans left the Welsh to their devises after they were subdued; the area did not seem to be 'Romanised', and the local tribes do not seem to be mentioned in the sources. The area was most probably governed via self-autonomous civitas, or tribal centres. As mentioned earlier, the only real reason for the Roman presence there was to keep the status quo, so that local minerals could be extracted. Though there was a rather disproportionate number of auxilia forts located within Welsh territory (in comparison to Romanized southern Britain but similar to the outposts of norther Britain). This could either support or disprove that claim depending on how one looks at it I suppose. More forts might indicate more direct centralized authority, but considering that they were all auxiliary, and that the actual legionary outposts only guarded the 'border' (no legionary vexillation outposts existed within the territory), it stands to reason that the Romans were happy to let local chieftans rule via auxilia authority so long as the tribes were generally quiet. Roman Britain.org Fort Map

A ROW has broken out in Norway over a decision to move three ancient Viking ships, which may not survive the journey. The University of Oslo has decided to move three longships, probably by lorry and barge, to a new museum, despite dire warnings that the thousand-year-old oak vessels could fall apart en route... The Scotsman

What was traded with the Picti? The Picts didn't seem to have access to the sort of raw materials or goods in any great quantity that would interest the Romans, but it would seem likely that small scale foodstuffs/cereal crops were traded regularly on local levels. Flax and wool (sheep of course) were also abundant in the area.

Well it worked twice in my house... (less the SLEEPING part of course)

A statue belonging to the Roman era was found in an olive depot located in Gemlik, Bursa.... Sabah

How do you know it's been an extraordinary year in archaeology? When the discovery of the earliest Maya writing and a 2,500-year-old sarcophagus decorated with scenes from the Iliad don't crack ARCHAEOLOGY's Top 10 List. Archaeology.org