Primus Pilus

Translations will vary from text to text, but it's a "quote" by Agrippa to Augustus (pre final settlement) in 29 BC I put quote in parentheses because Dio, my personal favorite ancient historian, is well known for quoting important figures in rather long speeches with a certain dramatic flair. From Cassius Dio Book 52.30

I also have a suggestion that others may scoff at. Try some "easy to read" historical fiction. Robert Graves' I' Claudius is brilliant despite any creative license taken. Another author that I personally enjoy is Robert Harris (Pompeii, Imperium). Fiction allows one to whet the appetite and get familiar with the settings without being laden with some of the uncomfortable detail. Aside from that, I'll join the chorus. While the ancient sources are truly the best (in my opinion), you may want start with authors who present history in such a prose as to make it easy and engaging reading... while actually giving you a truly in-depth experience. Adrian Goldsworthy, Anthony Everitt, Tom Holland, Adrian Murdoch and our own forum regular Philip Matyszak, to name a few Also, keep in mind that Roman history is vast in it's timeline and culture. Pick an era that means something to you. Don't start with Julius Caesar and the fall of the Republic if it's the foundation of Christianity that appeals to you. Most people start with something that really draws them in, and find that the interest continues to grow as they learn more.

Silly girls, just go to Kiev Depot and buy a hot water heater.

Condemnation is a bit strong. I can't speak for the UK, but in the States its still largely split along political party lines. A vocal number condemns it outright and always have, with an equal small number giving it zealous support. Somewhere in the middle are those who think it was just a bad idea overall and those who weren't overly supportive but think it has at least worked out ok. How those numbers balance out either for or against, I have no idea, but I bet that ultimately it would be a fairly even mix.

I hope Obama wins.

Agreed; the same well communicated veteran units from the Italian war plus plenty of not so well communicated mercenaries and fresh recruits in his own country against less Roman legionaries than those he was previously facing in the hostile Italy under the same commander three years before. If I didn't miss anything else, Massinissa and his Numidians seem to have been the main (if not the only) significant adverse new factor for the military equation at Zama. This is an interesting theme, as is your question, Sylla, regarding why Scipio did not attack Hannibal when Consul in 205BC. However, I was originally just looking for an opinion on the book "Hannibal's Last Battle". Would you be interested in putting a new topic in the Gloria Exercitas forum to develop these themes more fully? Specifically, why do we think Scipio did not attack Hannibal in Italy and which factors in his and Hannibal's tactics led to his victory at Zama? One could say risk vs. reward, or simply that Scipio didn't need to engage Hannibal in Italy. Hannibal's army was virtually out of gas as it relates to an sustained offensive campaign, but was still formidable on the defensive. By taking the fight to Africa, Scipio could achieve the glory of removing Hannibal from Italy without direct confrontation, while adding the possible bonus of Carthaginian conquest. But of course, all that aside, the specter of politics was also ever present.

That's much better than "Stronger Eunuch". I don't care to think about that.

Nooooo, you ruined it! Actually, a little birdy told me that I'm quite wrong and that no spambots have been harmed in the making of this thread. This topic seemingly has dark and mysterious domestic roots. Fear the unknown! ...and now back to your regularly scheduled tangent into cat urine ...

Actually, Caesar never used any names for his legions in his writings; as usual along all the Republican period, their identification was exclusively numerical (even when they were re-enlisted). With the multiplicity of legion numbers after the Civil Wars and the coming of the military-based principate, most legions eventually accumulated honorific titles from satisfied emperors across many years, even centuries. Additionally, subsequent new legions were named after their recruiting emperors. For example, the Legion XI (and the VII too) were awarded with the title of Pia Fidelis (

That, and the nature of Hannibal's army in Africa vs. Italy (ie heavy reliance on fresh recruits/mercenaries in Africa and the lack of time for coordination vs. veteran "professionals" in Italy) No, because the veteran "professionals" from the war in Italy were evacuated to Africa; hence, Hannibal had at his disposition in Africa (202 BC ) both such veterans and the fresh recruits/mercenaries, a far bigger army than in Italy (205 BC). Besides, not all African Carthaginian troops were necessarily rookies; surely some of them (for example, many of Syphax

Spambots make for good conversation I guess.

That, and the nature of Hannibal's army in Africa vs. Italy (ie heavy reliance on fresh recruits/mercenaries in Africa and the lack of time for coordination vs. veteran "professionals" in Italy)

Welcome, Bill Thayer! It's so nice to have you join us here at UNRV! I hope you'll stick around! -- Nephele Thanks for the correction to the reference Bill... rather than change it though, I just removed it. Not sure why I ever singled out that one link for such a notation anyway. I think people will figure out where they are once they click [edit] By the by, I'd also be remiss to not thank you for hosting so many ancient source translations. Your site is and has been immensely helpful in many research projects and makes referencing in study or even in casual conversation a terrific convenience.

He's too busy drinking heavily, cheating on his wife with hot young girls and blaming Jews for all of it.

AL JIZAH, EGYPT

I assume the professor was trying get a look at your ability to manufacture/develop a theory from a single piece of evidence. There should be no correct answer as each individual will interpret it differently. There may be many similar conclusions, but the details won't match. If the professor is expecting a single answer, then he's a nazi. =P

There are many ways to do things in accounting... every transaction or entry must have a counter on the opposite side of a ledger, but otherwise there really is very little set in stone (even the ridiculous US tax code is full of "different perspectives"). For you, accounting seems simple, because it's what you do and what you know, but for the average person, an accounting career can seem terribly daunting. I'd hazard to guess that whether you are a corporate "bookkeeper" or working for a CPA firm, you specialize in something... whether it be taxes, audits, daily accounting, etc. The study of history really isn't much different when you stop to consider it. While you will need a basic understanding of the overall arc of time involved, you will eventually end up with a relatively focused specialty. Focus your passion and there will be less reason to fear the bigger picture. (Then again, this is coming from an amateur historian with an advanced education in finance as well... so what the hell do I know )

If you enjoy lizard-like aliens, masked as humans, who are revealed for the beasts they are when they eat hamsters and other small furry rodents in one single gulp, mate with their human prisoners and have lizard-human babies, and who also can't ever seem to shoot straight at human resistance... it's the show for you. Despite the way that sounds V was actually fairly entertaining

Well I can't speak for all of trekkies, but I happen to love women of all kinds. Well at least I used to before my wife convinced me that monogamous marriage had it's advantages. Now I just sort of grin sheepishly as they pass pay from under the protection my sunglasses.

Indeed, we differ greatly here. I don't disagree that Caesar was a "great" man by historical standards. Whether we label him famous or infamous, great or terrible, we know he had a huge impact on human history. I respect his impact, his ability to lead and his gamesmanship, I'm just not sure why I should admire a man with utter contempt for political freedom. Additionally, I just don't see how the world improved for the majority. Ignoring any look at empirical data for the moment, I don't think we would see much difference in the economic condition of the common citizen in the Augustan era of the Pax Romana and say the middle Republic from the end of the Punic Wars to the time of the Gracchi and the Sullan/Marian civil war. Some had it better, some did not, but I doubt we see any great improvement in the environmental/economic conditions for the vast majority of citizens... unless one considers state dependency to be an improvement. In the Republican era, at least the people had choices to make for leadership, be it tribunes or consuls (whether they were ambitious demagogues or puppets of the elite). With Caesar, there was no choice but his.

You guys must be on drugs... this is clearly the best song ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edaJP3Lp0Gg

I don't disagree that the Republic wasn't well suited for managing an empire, I just don't see how the tyrannical system was better. At least there was choice pre-Caesar, be it flawed choice or not. There was no choice whatsoever for the people in the imperial system and limited circumstantial choice for the aristocracy. Did the principate prolong the life of the empire, thereby providing for opportunity for its citizenry beyond that of the Republic? Perhaps, but I can't quantify it. It's unquestionable that the principate also was equally responsible for countless civil wars, challenged successions, political upheaval, etc. Again, I'm not denying that the system was flawed, but replacing flawed opportunities with absolutism doesn't seem at all the practical solution to me in any time, place or circumstance. For everyone. Aristocracy and common. At least the aristocrats had some opportunity for continued power, but again, did the citizenry have any true right of election or potential beyond that offered in the Republic? (It's also important to make a side notation that Equites were members of the aristocracy/nobility for all intensive purposes... lumping with the base plebs, freedmen, slaves, etc. is incomparable) Was not the same aristocracy still the general pool for positions of importance? Other than the appointment of freed men to positions within the imperial "cabinet" the oligarchs, as you refer to them, maintained continuing potential for advancement while risking confiscation, exile and/or death at an imperial whim. The people simply lost any say in the matter whatsoever. And of course once monotheism was enforced for all, a by-product of absolutism, all bets were off for everyone eventually. Agreed I'm afraid I must disagree vehemently, as Caesar was a tyrant by absolute definition. Sure, they looked to and secured their own absolute power. While Augustus did initiate a period of cultural rebirth after the close of many years of civil war, I disagree that tyrants who refused to give up that absolute power had any great intention for humanity other than their own best interests. I can't say that it surprises me given the political reality of the day, but I don't see how Caesar's invasions of Germania and Britannia, for instance, were truly in anyone's best interest other than himself. If it helped everyone, or no one at all other than himself, would Caesar still have done it? Yes. Only what the historians tell us. For the large part, histories distorted and manipulated by political motivations and influence of a particular period, emperor or events. Other than that, they could say very little as they had no real say in who ran the empire... only the legions and praetorians held that power. I agree that most didn't care, especially with each passing generation, but the people of the late Republic sure took sides. This is rather subjective, especially when compared to the massive number of poor within imperial borders. I'll admit that it's difficult to compare, say mid Republican economics with later imperial, but I'd like to see proof of this "general misery". I'm not sure how this vast improvement can be quantified, but what system other than his own absolute authority and conquering Persia did Caesar have in store? (which was undeniably the Roman system of forcible wealth creation throughout it's history, both Republic and Imperial)

It's hard to see how the acquisition of such an Empire can be seen as a sign of administrative incompetence at all. It's evident that from at least two centuries before the Hannibalic War, Rome's territories in Italy were effectively many times larger and more populated than any Classical city-state; countless city-states were actually included within its boundaries (all Magna Grecia poleis, to begin with). If territorial continuity is your criterion for defining city-states, then Russia would just be an overgrown Moscow. Gaining an empire the Republic managed quite well. Ruling it they did not. I really don't see how you can argue that the Republic was managing in a manner that could in any way, shape or form be described as "competent". Quite the opposite really: the system was being torn apart by numerous crisis'; economic, social, and political. Reform was desperatly needed, and reform was precisely what the ruling oligarchy had no intention of ever allowing to happen. While I concede that the Republic was failing in its pre-imperial state, it was not simply because of an incompetent system, but rather the corruption, greed and overzealous ambition of individuals and political groups. If the Republic was incompetent as a system, it would have been incompetent from the start, and it's clear that it worked for some 5 centuries (including healthy civil disturbance that led to systemic improvements). Granted, the dynamic changed as Rome grew from city to regional power to empire and allowed for the afore-mentioned issues to manifest into dangerous problems, but the system itself was set up to work despite requiring individuals of quality in order to thrive efficiently. In any case, give me incompetence over tyranny any day.

Humbug!