Primus Pilus

This, of course, is not the first time that the "slaughter of innocents" perception has been raised. While the viewpoint is understandable according to our modern sensibilities, the position of the ancients was a bit different. Even the opposition to Caesar's actions was based largely upon legality, and not necessarily the victimization of foreign people on moral grounds. We know Caesar slaughtered a great number of people, as it was his own words that very proudly boasted of it. The "Conquest of Gaul" while an incredible historical account was also propaganda, without a doubt. Nobody here, I presume even the most ardent Caesar supporters, would argue with you on that.

GPM chose a map. AEGYPTUS is next

Humans first moved out of Africa about 70,000 years ago, but 30,000 years later some of them moved back. That's according to a new study based on DNA evidence from ancient human remains found in Africa. The study shows that a small group of early humans returned to Africa after migrating to the Middle East... National Geographic

Rameses' chose "Constitution of the Roman Republic". Gaius Paulinus Maximus is next

Docoflove chose "Enemies of Rome" Rameses is next.

Maladict chose "The Complete Chronicle of the Emperors of Rome" Docoflove is next.

I hope it doesn't mess with the pending arrival of the jolly fat fellow.

As promised by Saturday (in my time zone anyway) here are the winners of our December, 2006 giveaway. The competition was close, but in the end, using a random number generator makes it fairly indiscriminate. The following list is in order. Each member of the list will get to choose the item they prefer prior to the next selection. Yes, I'm afraid it might take a bit to get this all resolved and it would be shocking if anyone gets their prizes prior to Christmas, but this will ensure that each winner gets the most appropriate prize. (If somebody gets lined up with an item they already have, we will work out an alternative... no worries.) Without further ado.... 1. Maladict (choice of any) 2. docoflove 3. Rameses the great 4. Gaius Paulinus Maximus 5. Aegyptus 6. Honorius 7. Spittle 8. Kosmo Here's what will happen. I have PM'd Maladict asking him what he prefers. I will post his prize and winner #2 (docoflove) will get to pick. In the meantime, if any of you are too impatient, you can PM me a list of all the prizes you prefer in order.

No worries mate. But still I am quite at a loss for the legality of this particular piece of the system. There must be some evidence somewhere that we are simply overlooking.

I was in the middle of posting my reply with appropriate reference material when you apparently posted this and didn't notice your mention of it. Regardless, are only you allowed to offer evidence on the matter? yes he did, because of the intervention of the augurs (Clearly inspired by Patrician resistance). I agree, but it's still a wrench in the system. I'm not disputing the way the system worked in various time frames, but only that there are inconsistencies. What I am saying is that the exact laws in question are indeterminable, despite our reasonable ability to access the systematic processes. Though regardless of how long it may have functioned in general principal, there seems to be no law on record indicating the change in 172. Simply, two plebes were elected without incident. This would tell me that there was no law in the first place needing to be repealed or altered. Livy narrates this important piece of history as if it were no different than any other election.

So that's how it worked... But doesn't this mean that there couldn't be two Plebeian Consuls? No this is after there were already 2 Plebeian consuls elected in 215 BC. From Livy book 23, 31: Note that Livy does not indicate it was illegal for 2 Plebes to be consul but that the augurs were displeased by the omens. Additionally the election of 192 referred to in a post above does not mean that the Lex Genucia was definitely responsible for the idea of split class candidate elections From Livy 35, 10: If the notion that Patrician and Plebeian candidates consistently ran for office on a "split ticket" so to speak, how then do 2 Plebes get elected in 172 BC (C. Popilius Laenas and P. Aelius Ligus.. Livy book 42.9). After this, two Plebeian consuls is a somewhat common occurrence. If the election law provided that Patrician and Plebeian candidates should be split for each consular position, it was a very short term circumstance, and despite the clear circumstantial evidence, I am not entirely convinced that the Lex Genucia provided for this. Of course, Livy was writing his description of the Genucia some 300 years after its passing, so clearly some details could've been lost over time.

Hmm, whatever happened to Hannibal and his adventures in Britain? Anyway, at least Mel knows how to make movies. They might be a bit short on accuracy at times, but they are usually entertaining.

I wouldn't say that necessarily Skarr. In no particular order: Troy, Braveheart, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven Alexander, Last Samurai, Master and Commander.... Those are just quickly off the top of my head. The real problem is not that the era of making historical is dead, but rather most of those that are made just aren't very good. Perhaps I should have stated a little differently... I meant the real elaborate kind of movies like "Ben Hur", "Cleopatra" etc.. Most of those kind of movies cannot be produced today. Braveheart didn't have many sets and England has many castles still which can be converted easily enough. Gladiator / Alexander used a lot of CGI and so did Kingdom of Heaven. Although the Last Samurai and Master and Commander are historicals, I don't think they really qualify for the epic scale I'm talking about .... Recreating a Japanese village and a ship are not that difficult as compared to say, shooting a film set in ancient Rome, where you have to show the city. This is the point I was trying to make and it didn't come across clearly. My apologies. Ahh yes, I understand that. Though even the recreated CGI effects can have an epic feel. Lord of the Rings comes mind immediately. I agree though that the chances of seeing a multi location epic with hundreds/thousands of human "extras" on hand is highly unlikely.

I wouldn't say that necessarily Skarr. In no particular order: Troy, Braveheart, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven Alexander, Last Samurai, Master and Commander.... Those are just quickly off the top of my head. The real problem is not that the era of making historical is dead, but rather most of those that are made just aren't very good.

That's impressive from a language perspective, but it does nothing to address the customs of the vernal equinox (and perhaps other traditions). There is a bastardization of ancient rituals within the christian resurrection event regardless of the origin of the word "Easter" itself. Simply identifying the word Easter as a Anglo-Saxonic derivative of resurrection (which I believe you do quite convincingly, though I am not a linguist) does not discredit the notion of pre-existing resurrection stories and/or related rituals in various mythos. Is it not also completely possible that the lesser Latinized Germanic tongues would use a word that corresponds to the goddess Eostre (whichever) that could pre-date the influence of Passover/Christian resurrection on their language culture? It seems to me that it is entirely possible that Easter is both a Christian and Pagan event, that truly falls within the same general time frame: Christian resurrection dating from Passover and Pagan Resurrection dating from the Vernal Equinox, the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre, eastern Ishtar or what have you. In a sense, Anglicized Easter is pagan in language origin where the Romanticized/Latin and Greek language bases "Pesach, Pascha, etc." are Hebrew in origin. I may be getting over my head here on the language front, so anyone feel free to correct my logic at any point. [edit] After re-reading my reply, please allow me a clarification. What I mean to suggest is that the Germanic word Easter would not have developed if the origin of the holiday were purely Judaeo-Christian. At it's root it may have meant resurrection but it developed independently of the rest of Europe and seems very likely based on Pagan mythos .

I'll take a look at Lintott's "Constitution of the Roman Republic" when I get home this evening.

The Lex Licinia Sextia did not guarantee that at least one Consul must be Plebeian, but rather that a Consul could be a Plebeian. In fact, the main purpose of this law was to abolish the Consular Tribunate. Other than the fact that Licinius Sextius was elected as a Plebeian consul there is no evidence that the law mandated the election of at least one Plebeian Consul (there were several years afterwards with two Patricians). There were actually 3 "Lex Licinia Sextia" passed in this 2 years period. The Lex Licinia Sextia de modo agrorum limited the amount of public land that could be owned by an individual. The third limited the indebtedness of the Plebes. Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic... page 18 provides the basics. As for the Lex Genucia, it's main purpose was to introduce the 10 year gap between individual election to a magistracy. It did allow for two Plebeian Consuls to be elected Consul but did not mandate that 1 or both had to be Plebeian. From Livy book 7.42

As attested in another conversation. HBO has confirmed a January 14, 2006 start for season 2. (Still no definite answers from BBC on its air dates)

I would be quite surprised if it aired in Australia prior to its debut on HBO or the BBC (due to propriety rights, licensing and such). Are you sure it was season 2 that aired and not simply a repeat of season 1? According to the HBO Rome home page, season 2 begins January 14 in North America.

From the Blotter: If there was ever a time to stand your ground and fight, surely this must be it.

Submission for the drawing is closed. Thanks to all for your entries. We will announce the winners on Saturday.

Poop crimes. A dangerously growing trend in Bozeman.

Yes, I suppose Celsus has always been overshadowed by both Galen and Pliny. I've been browsing De Medicina since finding the Mithridates piece and. am finding it quite interesting.

Clearly this is much early than the Julio-Claudian subject matter at hand, but I thought I'd mention the Mithridates story. Two different accounts mentioning Mithridates famed tolerance to poison. From Appian's Roman History From Dio Cassius Book 37; 13 Celsus in De Medicina, mentions Mithridates' formula in detail (book 5; 23),

I rather enjoy doing it really, and am glad we are able to. By the by... Today is the last day for entries.