Primus Pilus

And it smells worse too.

Welcome back Germanicus... you'll find that the arena has become a not so subtle home primarily for political discussion.

The conspiracy theory, the modern politics, the tenuous connection to Rome... What more do you want? You need to see the trident and the net before consigning this sort of thing to the Arena? Indeed this is entirely political... I'll consign it to the arena for those who wish to participate.

Besides the fact that his tie in to the Roman Empire is absurd, it seems to me that the author has little if any idea how the internet actually works. Even if there is truth to the notion that companies are smartly attempting to manipulate the internet to their advantage.

I'm not aware of any such notion that the ancient Daci were exterminated. It's my understanding that the great bulk of the population was Romanized... admittedly some of this was likely done quite forcibly, but genocide and assimilation even if by force or threat of force are entirely different things in my opinion.

This may have had some impact had Caesar actually attempted the campaign, but it really has little bearing on whether or not he planned it. While it may have been a practical consideration, it would've been un Roman to think that such a concern should impact the grand strategy.

There is this rather old thread in which I went on a bit of a tirade regarding the Death of Germanicus Though I don't think the guy I was replying to read a single one of my posts... especially those that quoted the ancients verbatim... it was quite frustrating.

When all goes as well as I'm sure it will... please do pass along the questions you were faced with

Based on a conversation I had today with a regular contributor to the site, I just wanted to briefly recognize how appreciated all the various membership contributions have been to us (and to the greater community as a whole I would think). As the site grows in popularity, of course, we receive more and more articles for publication from a growing base of contributors. In addition to my own historical narrative, we can develop quite the backlog of queued articles waiting for publication. Please rest assured that there is no agenda at work to ignore or to favor one submission over another, Viggen simply has some vast conspiratorial master plan for how he does these things, and everything will have its name in lights at some point. If you have submitted something that you feel has been lost or ignored feel free to email or PM either Viggen or me at any time. Chances are, your article is waiting in this mysterious queue of his, but oversights can happen, so don't hesitate if something seems to be extraordinarily slow. Thanks Again, UNRV!

Then I am sure that you won't like the work of Anatoly Fomenko: History: Fiction or Science? I have never read his book but I had come across refrences to it across the internet for several weeks. I thought it was a joke to begin with, then I realised that this guys books have sold millions of copies in Russia (supposedly). Read the reviews on Amazon if you want to see something funny/depressing. I wonder how many of those reviews are genuine and how many have been written up by Fomenko's supporters. If Fomenko is right then we have all been studying a fictional Empire that is a product of the minds of the Sixteenth century LOL, there are exceptions to every rule I suppose.

Yes, 42 was instituted by Sulla, but it 39/40 before that. He revised the standing practice but, it wasn't an overwhelming departure from the norm. While Plutarch, Suetonius and Dio Cassius may have immortalized slightly different versions, it's origination is likely based in truth. Though some of the drama of the moment may have been invented for effect, I don't personally doubt that the incident occurred in some form. Romans were much more comfortable with traditions in this regard. Until the very late republic and inception of the principate, there are very few youthful Romans of great import throughout Roman history. Scipio Africanus was supposedly only thrust into prominence because there were essentially no other volunteers for the Hispania command (and because of familial prominence and relations). Pompey Magnus was the product of a civil war in which the standard rules were overlooked if one could support one faction over the other (Sullan over Marian in this case). Octavian's rise at such a young age was quite unique in retrospect. Without the name of Caesar, I don't believe anyone could make a case that he would've been accepted in any role of political prominence. The principate changed this outlook entirely, though the aristocracy seems always to have favored experience.

Narratives can easily contain analytical support or revision of understood history. I prefer a narrative that also explains the how's and why's of a particular school of thought, or why that school of thought should be scrutinized. However, I don't enjoy a revision that angrily dismisses all commonly understood history simply because it is fashionable to do so. Generally a balanced approach shows me that an author has an open mind and is interested in telling a complete story, while not being particularly focused on parading his own personal agenda.

Whether practical or not... it doesn't mean he didn't convince himself and those around him that such a campaign was possible and therefore planned on it. I think you'd agree that the man had a highly inflated opinion of his own abilities.

I always thought he more interested in settling the region of the Danube, but not greater Dacia itself. Considering that Raetia, Noricum and Pannonia were still marginally independent, and that control of Illyria was not complete, I believe that the focus would've been on this territory that made more logistic sense. However, a punitive expedition across the Danube could still have been attempted I suppose. And of course, I wouldn't put it past Caesar to march through hostile territory without secured supply lines in order to punish an enemy for such a personal affront (supporting Pompey over himself). In the end, I think the death of Burebista proved satisfactory enough.

Or so goes the story. Keep in mind that Livy is most likely writing almost purely from his own conjecture and word of mouth legends. I'm not suggesting that the stories aren't based in fact, but Livy certainly takes some liberties with the details. At any rate, as I recall, Livy states that the Roman flanks were overwhelmed. Considering that the center of the line was generally considered the most important at this time in ancient warfare, these flanks were probably occupied by the weakest most ill-equipped Roman troops. An outflanked and surrounded army, no matter how supposedly superior the Roman center may have been, would've had little chance to recover in the midst of a pitched battle. A weakness of the early Roman phalanx system I suppose.

In general no. Most of them are interviewed in order to lend their expertise, and they may be given a working "production title" of the film, but have no idea its final incarnation. Blame the producers not the "experts" in most cases.

I know most of you don't care about baseball... but OMG the Tigers are in the Series! OMG!!!! Wooooooo hooooo (please nobody mention the Detroit Lions at a time like this )

Be careful!!! You might rip a hole in the time-space continuum!!!! Beware the giant sucking sound...

If I imagined earth without people, I'd have to imagine it without myself. Without myself, I wouldn't be here to imagine it in the first place.

Alot of people read history in chronological order. It's a fairly practical approach.

Merged!

Additionally, China is not a concern because despite its authoritarian government, it is not run by lunatics. Even if China evolves into the most powerful nation on earth, what do people think will happen? Sure there are contradictory agendas at work and some western ideals may be sacrificed in the greater context of world influence, but this does not spell the end of civilization. If China beomes the prominent world power, I'd be willing to bet that the gradual change in the western world will not alter our individual lives that significantly. In fact, their own rise will probably change them out of necessity more than the rest of us. Hell, maybe they'll be sending jobs back to all of us jobless bastards in the west. A greater concern is the collapse of westernism due to passivity in the face of fundamentalist Islam. Sure, GW lacks focus on the issue at hand, and sure as hell didn't help anything with his half baked ideas on ousting Saddam (the middle east's only buffer against Iran), but this bane was on the rise whether it was accelerated by current strategies or not.

Frankly, I'm a bit tired of hearing about this psuedo American empire myth... which seems to be generally perpetuated by non Americans, while always throwing in caveats about how our supposed empire will be falling in the near future. We may admittedly be a superpower but this hardly constitutes empire. While the Soviet Union may no longer exist and hold that supposed superpower status, does Russia and it's confederated states no longer have influence, importance or merit on any scale? Is Britain no longer an international player simply because it's "empire" fell? Did the collapse of its empire in the not so distant past spell imminent doom for all its population? This whole rise and fall, prominence to obscurity thing is rather absurd really.

Columbus opened the exploration and expansion of a 2 new continents to the entirety of Europe and proved that cross Atlantic journeys were feasable. The Vikings hardly left any record at all. Despite their cultural achievement of exploring and even temporarily settling the American continental north east, the exploration was not widely known and had no bearing on the eventual European colonialism.

I didn't read the entire article, but simply the excerpt. Is reference made to the indigenous Picts as an example... of whom nobody seems to know their true origins?