Primus Pilus

We are happy to announce a December book give away in association with ArmorVenue just in time for the holiday season. Eight active participants of our forum will receive prizes in a random drawing. The prizes are as follows: HBO Rome, Season 1 DVD or (winner's choice) I, Claudius DVD G.P. Maximus 1 Roman Empire Map Honorius 1 Roman Empire Wallmaps Rameses the Great The Constitution of the Roman Republic by Andrew Lintott MALADICT The Complete Chronicle of the Emperors of Rome by Roger Michael AEGYPTUS The Making of a Christian Aristocracy; Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire by Michele Renee Salzman A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions by Frank Frost Abbott Venus: A Biography by Andrew Dalby Docoflove1974 The Enemies of Rome: From Hannibal to Attila the Hun by Philip Matyszak Augustus: A Novel by John Edward Williams Spittle Pompey the Great by Robin Seager The rules are as follows: * Email your entry to drawing@unrv.com. It should include the subject line "December UNRV Giveaway" and the simple content: Entry for (your publicly known forum name). Delivery information need not be provided until winners are announced. * Participants must be a registered member of this forum and email entry must match the forum member profile. * Participants must be a member of the "Plebes" or higher membership group (10 qualifying posts or higher). Forum spamming to reach this qualifying level will result in immediate disqualification. (at discretion of www.unrv.com administrators) * 1 entry per participant. * Entries must be received by Midnight (12 pm or hour 00) Eastern Standard Time (GMT -5 hours: East Coast United States) December 14, 2006 (Wednesday night for the date/calendar challenged ). * Limited to locations that Amazon.com (or affiliated group) can ship prizes to. * Winners will be announced on Saturday, December 16, 2006. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Special thanks to ArmorVenue for their generous sponsorship. Armor Venue is a seller of authentic Roman armor and weapon replicas Please feel free to use this thread to discuss the drawing, the prizes, etc.

This really has nothing to with whether or not the man was a political success or failure, but Scipio reminds me of a conjugation of Cincinnatus and Caesar. Clearly there are differences from both men but similarities as well. Scipio may have lacked the same aristocratic popularity as Cincinnatus, perhaps stemming from his ambitious military campaigning, but following the political onslaught of Cato the Elder, he willingly retired without attempting to use his overwhelming plebeian support to circumvent the Republic.

There is a brief mention of the Cilician pirates regarding Spartacus in Plutarch's "Life of Crassus".

Archaeologists have unearthed what they say are the only existing imperial insignia belonging to Emperor Maxentius - precious objects that were buried to preserve them and keep them from enemies when he was defeated by his rival Constantine. Excavation under Rome's Palatine Hill near the Colosseum turned up items including three lances and four javelins that experts said are striking for their completeness - digs usually turn up only fragments - and the fact that they are the only known artifacts of their kind... Forbes

(This may be a bit post Roman, but it fit better here I suppose) Archaeologists excavating near the edge of Trafalgar Square in London have found evidence of early Christianity in England, suggesting the area has a much older religious significance than was originally believed. A team from the Museum of London has discovered a hoard of what is almost certainly royal treasure, buried in a mysterious, empty human grave laid out in the traditional Christian manner - east to west... The Independent

I'm not sure if by contemporary, you simply meant ancient source, or if you truly meant witnesses to the events. In any case, here a few ancient sources that discuss piracy just to get you started. Mind you this is just a tiny sampling... Appian Illyrian Wars Appian on the Cilician Pirates (ch. 92, 93) Appian Civil Wars book 5 ch. 77, 80 Livy History of Rome book 37 ch. 11, 13, 37, 38

Any such ban on the rights of individuals or dictation of rules for privately owned establishments is simply ludicrous. Supporters of such tyranny should be ashamed. (Coming from an ex-smoker who is largely indifferent to the habit of others).

And it shows that the Egyptians were not as smart as the ancient inhabitants of modern Bosnia... who let the earth build their pyramid for them. (Sorry I couldn't resist )

I'm not necessarily claiming he is the best, but I'd hate to see him go unmentioned. Just imagine if Sertorius would have had the entire resources of Rome behind him, rather than just those of Hispania. He literally ran rings around Metellus and Pompey until treachery did him in. It would've been interesting to see what he could've done in an offensive campaign.

No, you've assumed correctly that this is complete, yet reasonable (imo, of course) conjecture. However, consider this from book 4 of the Gallic Wars pertaining to the invasion of Britain. How many individual soldier's might recall a quite different scene with a myriad of possible reasons and circumstances? It doesn't necessarily mean that Caesar's account is wrong or even dishonest, but not every soldier on that shore would've had the exact same experience in what seems to be a rather chaotic moment of the war.

Yes, the notion that he might have to limit his own propaganda is understandable due to number of witnesses to the actual events has merit. However, consider that a writer is not necessarily concerned with whether or not everyone agrees but rather that their story is told. As a case in point, consider the voluminous number of works regarding modern American politics. Depending on the subject and the audience, some will believe or disbelieve, agree or disagree, but in 2,000 years if only one survives will people say it must be true because the contemporary audience would've known better? Clearly, the number of works available and the condition of 'media' in the ancient world is hardly comparable. However, there were most certainly detractors in Caesar's own army who told friends years later, while lounging at the baths or over a few amphorae of wine, that Caesar's book was full of BS. In this case, there were certainly more who supported Caesar's version of events than did not, but it does not necessarily relate to every detail being true. If a battle did not quite go as planned or was not nearly as monumental as Caesar may have suggested, but the legion in which a legionary had served in was glorified in the process, would he as an individual be overly concerned with correcting the details? Or would he simply say something to the effect of, "Well, Caesar may not have got this just right, but we sure as hell did fight our asses off that day!" Consider that today we as information consumers expect to hear many versions of events. There are innumerable accounts of the same events told in different ways, perspectives and agendas by various historians and event participants. If an event is on a scale considered grand enough, we can expect many novels based on the event at hand to also provide another perspective. In the ancient world, there were very few such accounts at all, and perhaps people were more accustomed to accepting what was written as a general truth, and not fretting over the accuracy of the details.

Just a minor clarification... The Nerva in the circle of Tiberius was the grand father of the future emperor. As for the subject at hand... While I have always agreed that Tiberius was overzealously vilified by contemporary historians, I can never quite be completely sure on what details to dismiss. It's easy to understand Tacitus' position as a closet Republican and the general disdain he shows for the Princeps throughout his works, but why the sordid details unless there was at least some basis for them. What I mean is, did Tacitus and Suetonius invent the rumors or simply expand upon that which already existed? It's interesting that Tacitus definitely leaves a poor impression of Tiberius by the end of his works, but he is not without praise for him either. As Ronald Mellor put it:

I believe that Rome Total War in particular has led to a great interest in further historical study. While we might often bemoan poorly produced/written books, games, movie/documentary filming and television programming, each has the potential to introduce the ancient world to the curious. We certainly wouldn't want to saturate the market with poor examples of such media for fear of turning people off entirely, but yes, I do believe it does help.

In 73 CE, the Roman governor of Judea, Flavius Silva, laid siege to Masada with Legion X Fretensis. When the walls were broken down by a battering ram, the Romans found the fortress' defenders had set fire to all the structures and preferred mass suicide to captivity or defeat. Masada has since become part of Jewish mythology, as has the name Silva, who Josephus Flavius mentions in his writings. It is therefore no great surprise that Hungarian archaeologist Dr. Tibor Grull, studying in Israel three years ago, was excited to discover a stone tablet during a visit to the Temple Mount with a Latin inscription of the name of Masada's destroyer... Haaretz.com

Oh you must. It's brilliant. (though the 3 volume narrative can be quite the time consumer) I too loved Grant's memoirs. Though not necessarily a Civil War history, "Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald is simply one of the finest examples of single volume biography there is. For me, the politics of the era is as interesting as war itself. I remember after watching Ken Burn's excellent Civil War documentary deciding to read the personal memoirs that were so integral to that film for myself. The Mary Chestnut diary (confederate) and the diary/letters of Elisha Hunt Rhodes (Union) are fantastic for personal insight. (I can't quite recall the exact edition I read, it has been some time.)

We already do. The first report I remember giving, probably in 6th grade, was on the Roman Empire. Couple of years ago, I was rumaging through some books that survived from my parents' library and I came across an organizational chart I had drawn of a Marian legion, stuck between the pages of a Bible dictionary; I vaguely remember drawing it about the time I was in 9th grade. My point was simply that I can't recall more than a cursory introduction in comparison to the heavily weighted focus on the age of explorers through the American civil war period. I do remember a regular bashing of the Romans as decadent and authoritarian in my earlier lutheran school days however.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the lex Gabinia specifically avoid mentioning any particular general by name? As I understood it, no laws were allowed to name specific citizens. Parenthetically, I always thought this prohibition was another instance of the genius of the Roman constitution, and I'm almost positive the same principle was not applied by the Athenians. Indeed, it was a generic command in concept, though the political opposition was well aware of who the candidate was for that command. Semantics it would seem, but in the strictest terms of interpreting the law itself you are correct that the Romans avoided this practice. Perhaps what might be interesting is whether or not the assemblies were aware of the implied appointment of Pompey through his tribune Gabinius, or if the matter were truly open in their hearts and minds. But I do suppose that I digress from the topic at hand...

I think it is the simplicity of direct culture. While we as Romanophiles can understand the impact of Roman civilization on the 'western world' whether it be Europe, the USA or Australia. The average person more easily identifies with the history that follows a direct lineage in their own place of origin. While I believe that introducing students to ancient history in primary school would help them identify more readily, I still think the 'national' histories would take precedence in the hearts and minds. And of course, we have to take into account the unfortunate truth that most elementary and pre-university teachers have little to any practical knowledge beyond a basic introduction to these events.

Oh yes... It is definitely present in the archaeological record of Archaic & Early Republican Rome. Also consider that the Lupercalia was perhaps one of the most archaic of all religious festivals at Rome and most long lasting into the Christian era. If the casting is from the Middle Ages, why does that have to undermine the importance of what came before? Surely there was an inspirational model. Think about Michelangelo's 'David'... Indeed. Their conclusion, which ignores literary evidence of the she-wolf ideology, is full of enormous holes.

There was the battle of Nola (a draw with Marcellus). Symbolically important even if it was not an outright defeat. For the 3 "battles" of Nola we have only the Roman version , as you know , a biased one . Let us read between Livy's lines - 216 BC

Due to inactivity, we've decided the academia experiment no longer warranted an individual subforum. Of course, any such discussions are welcomed in other areas of the forum. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions and initial participation.

Of course, just because that particular statue may not have originated in antiquity does not mean that the she-wolf was not a symbol of Rome in ancient times. They make a rather poorly supported leap in my opinion.

There was the battle of Nola (a draw with Marcellus). Symbolically important even if it was not an outright defeat.