Primus Pilus

A survey of ancient Greek sources reveals the surprising properties of certain wines that continue to provoke the curiosity of scholars today... Kathimerini

The initial gains in access to raw metals certainly made immediate contributions to the Roman economy. However as time passed, the cost of maintaining this access may have outweighed the benefit (as materials became less accessible due to ground depth). Like Neil says, the "profitability" of Britain may have been more valid in later periods, but Rome may have benefited more throughout if it had simply traded for access to the metals. Clearly Roman technology aided the mining industry and increased the output exponentially, but the locals had been mining long before the Romans came. I suppose there are a few important questions: Would the locals have been able to provide enough raw material to help the empire at a time when new sources of metal was a dire need (and would this trading over several centuries have been any less expensive than the Roman invasion/occupational period anyway?) Also when and if did the provincial tax revenue, coupled with local industry, surpass the military occupation and civilian needs such as grain imports?

The folks on the Moneta Yahoo Group will probably be able to help you.

You are following the proper course of the cursus honorum. After serving as an aedile, you've been elected to quaestor. Should you prove capable in your role of supervising the treasury, you may find yourself standing for election to praetor and even, dare we say it... Consul!

Sulla by Arthur Keaveney. Aside from the ancient sources of course.

Even though the obvious bulk of the armed services is made up of the common masses (and the equally obvious proportions of wounded and killed among those who have served), it should also be quite obvious that the greatest majority of Americans haven't "paid in blood" in Iraq. To suggest that the masses pay in blood while the aristocracy manipulates our lives is not correct. I am not in any way discounting the hardship of those who have served on extended tours, but only pointing out that applying such magnanimous hardship to all Americans due to class structure is simply wrong. I am quite middle class and neither I nor any member of my extended local peer group have yet to pay in blood. To accept being equated with those who have paid in such a manner would be shameful on my part. (Note: I understand the underlying point that "the common man pays while the aristocracy plays", but we should be mindful to speak plainly so that such tangents to the original point are limited.)

Egads, so his invention of the internet was just a ruse to blind us all!!!!

The mountains of garbage that often fill the streets in the Italian city of Naples and surrounding areas aren't just a modern-day problem, suggest ancient wall inscriptions. Using infrared reflectography, a non-destructive technique commonly used to peek beneath the surface of paintings, Italian researchers have brought to light two inscriptions against garbage dumping in the ancient Roman town Herculaneum... Discovery News

As more evidence of otherworld involvement, please notice the 2 skinny, and slightly blurred aliens (an obvious attempt to mask their presence) riding the horse (perhaps some other sort of beast in the guise of a horse?) in the lower right foreground. Pertinax, you are infested! Seriously though, an excellent photo!

Thanks for posting that Ludovicus. Despite the simplicity of the ND, as it is truly a rather massive list, its an invaluable document. I've also added the link to the ancient source list post.

Honorius chose a wallmap. Spittle is next and finally Kosmo.

Caesar did not need to cross the Rubicon at any point. Had he stood and waited for Pompey to come to him the matter would be different (though others will dispute your interpretation of events, I am still trying to prove that Caesar was guilty of violating the law on this single point... the crossing of the Rubicon). Despite charges against him for other actions while in Gaul, Germania, Britannia, etc., Caesar could've claimed complete legality until he willingly crossed the Rubicon in violation of the law. Even his own consternation before doing so implies the understanding of the calamity of the event. If I am fraudulently accused of a crime that I did not commit (a crime in itself... fraud, conspiracy, etc.), but decide to kill my accuser in order to preserve my freedom/innocence, I am guilty of murder despite being innocent of the original crime.

Caesar broke the law, regardless of right, wrong or indifference. It doesn't matter what the Nazis did, or Revolutionary Americans, or modern Americans, or even Caesar's contemporaries. The law was the law regardless of how many people may or may not have broken it. I'm really having difficulty understanding the complexity. If the argument is that Caesar was justified in breaking the law, that's fine (even though many will still disagree), but arguing that he did not break the existing laws is just simply incorrect. Caesar marched on Rome and broke the law because of the affront to his own dignitas. This should never be confused with a righteous cause, regardless of the uncompromising and sometimes foolish positions of some of the optimates. Frankly, this has to be the strangest argument I have yet to see grace our forum.

Divi Filius recently reviewed Rome's Gothic Wars by Michael Kulikowsky. It's been sitting on the site home page for a few days, but I forgot to post a link here. (When will Christmas be over so Viggen will be back to handle this stuff which I am clearly inept at...) At some point in the third-century a hitherto unknown group of people appeared around Rome's Danube frontier. These people would come to be known as the Goths. They began their history during one of Rome

Not for the British , they saw them as outlaws exactly as the "Roman nobility"/cato's faction saw Caesar . That is the whole point . I am returning to my first post (above) - It is all in ones point of view . Surely Washington (sp) did not saw himself as an outlaw . Now if Law had nothing to do with moral (as you said ?) so what is the point to call Caesar an outlaw ? If Law and moral are the same , surely the "legal government" of Rome had had no moral ! and to call Ceasar an outlaw on that basis does not mean anything . The leaders of the American Revolution were quite aware that they might end up at the end of a rope. They considered themselves patriots but also understood they would face the harshest of British law in the case of defeat. Caesar had plenty of valid personal reasons for his march (I completely understand his desire to protect his personal well being, dignitas and authority), but I obviously disagree vehemently that there was anything legal about it.

Yes it was according to British law. Thank you . For what? Are you attempting to debate right and wrong or legality? Calling the American Revolution illegal, just as Caesar's march was illegal, does not mean that both are on equal terms. In my opinion, and especially considering the ideology of several founding members of the American revolution, the conditions, results, etc. are quite the opposite and not entirely related.

Yes it was according to British law. Again, moral right or wrong is irrelevant, you questioned the legality of Caesar's march. It was against Roman law.

AEGYPTUS chose "The Making of a Christian Aristocracy; Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire" by Michele Renee Salzman. Honorius is next.

Agreed, the Appian quote is fairly telling since he, writing centuries later, depicted it as a title rather than a hereditary name. The evidence is fairly scant though. It's a shame that Plutarch's Life of Scipio is lost... it might help answer your question.

Yes . But the two above are not talking about the people but about the nobility . In Cicero and the republicans view nobility = legality . Now if most of the nobility stood by Caesar (such is the claim) , what was legal and what was not ? Did Ceaser assasination was Legal ? It was without a "legal" trial... Nobility didn't equal legality. Law equaled legality. If the bulk of the nobility supported Caesar than they should have found a way to change the law. His supporters certainly tried legal methods, but they failed and Caesar broke the law as a result. I'm not arguing right or wrong on this account, but simply the law at that moment in time.

Sticking with ancient authors, of course your choices are rather limited. I'd recommend Appian since he is most often overlooked. His Civil Wars is an excellent account of the period between Caesar's war and the defeat of Sextus Pompey by the second triumvirate.

Basing this on the perception of the personalities and only on the surviving written historical record only... Caligula is the appropriate choice for me. His behavior, even if he was perfectly sane (and even if some of the stories are clearly embellished) better describes "craziness" than Nero's more eccentric habits.

I can't find any evidence that the blood sons of Scipio Africanus Major also used the agnomen Africanus. It doesn't mean they didn't use it, but since his sons never advanced beyond the praetorship their historical record is rather limited. As for Scipio Aemilianus... From Appian Histories, Book 8; 98 Others mention the name Africanus for Aemilianus prior to the defeat of Carthage, such as Livy in the Periochae from book 49: But this doesn't mean he had yet earned the title, but rather Livy could just be referring to him by his commonly known name (after the fact). Plutarch says this in the life of Aemilius Paulus: Obviously inconclusive since we the use of the name Africanus may have just been a common way for later writers to identify the family line of Africanus Major rather than being proof that it was an actual hereditary name for the entire line. I'll keep digging around to see if anything else interests reveals itself.

Regardless of perspective, marching an army from your province against Rome was illegal. It doesn't matter that the people may have supported him, or even if people felt that it was the preferred method of action. It was still quite against the law.

They were threat enough and/or provided a solid enough opportunity to sway Caesar from his conquest of Illyria and the Danube region. I believe that Caesar wasn't personally all that concerned with the Helvetii, but I'm reasonably comfortable that the Roman allies in southeastern Gaul may have been honestly worried.