Primus Pilus

Many simply use BCE and CE as its becoming routinely accepted and easily understood as a replacement for the Christian nomenclature. (Though personally, despite my religious views, the BC/AD thing doesn't bother me much). Being an oil hungry American, I immediately thought British Petroleum

Spain already was effectively detached from the greater Republic in the years of Sertorius' administration. Even in spite of his continued victories against Metellus and later Pompey, petty ambitions, jealousy and rivalry amongst his supporters, and native Celt-Iberians alike, spelled his demise. It was Sertorius' charismatic leadership alone that held the breakaway coalition together. Had he not been assassinated, my guess is that the reconquest may have taken longer, but Rome never would've conceded. Of course a sustained Sertorian victory over Pompey may have altered the political scene of the period and its aftermath significantly, but I still don't believe Rome ever would've relented regardless of who eventually would've become responsible for reclaiming Hispania.

Gaius Caesar was at least wounded while on campaign in Armenia, and it's quite possible that this would've played a part in his death considering the nature of infection and ancient medicine. I too am personally of the belief that the death of Augustus' heirs was an unfortunate coincidence.

Poor old Amerigo Vespucci... forgotten, except for his name. At least he knew where he was.

To me Agrippa was the quintessential "right-hand man". Without him, I can't fathom Augustus achieving even a fraction of the success he did. However, without the political savvy (and name) of Octavian, Agrippa may never have been much more than an obscure character in history despite his pivotal role in both the military success and administrative roles of the early principate. It's truly a two-peas-in-the-pod scenario. Agrippa did have considerable ambition and Augustus knew how to use this ambition to his own benefit. Despite the issues between Agrippa and Marcellus there is little to suggest that Agrippa was not the consummate loyalist, but rather that his (and Marcellus') ambitions needed to be continually stroked in order to maintain the status quo. Having a capable man of great skill who could be trusted in all facets of Augustus' plans... as legionary commander, co-princeps in the east, provincial governor and reformer, great patron of the arts and public works, heir and/or regent for Gaius and Lucius Caesar, emergency proxy ruler, etc... was vital to the success of Augustus and establishment of the principate.

YES YES, Philippi!

I think I've done this already and it didn't work. I'll give it another try and see what happens. Seems to have worked me in firefox! Thanks Moon!

Augustus' daughter Julia (often called the Elder) barely outlived Augustus. Her story is actually quite tragic and interesting. Julia the Elder

Guys, why must our conversations devolve in such a manner simply because of disagreement. If we truly feel that certain discussions become futile, we must reach some "agree to disagree" accords, and not make things seem quite so personal or distasteful.

I've had the same problem. It's irritating, no? Clearly it must be originating from within the forum itself.

I've had it for the past couple of weeks... can't figure out what the problem is.

Yes, adoption among aristocratic Romans for familial alliances, issues of estate heredity etc was commonplace. In this case, Nero's blood father Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus was dead by AD 40 when Nero was only about 3 years old. However, Nero was already about 13 years old when Agrippina married Claudius. In general I suppose one problem is the translation from Latin to English of the word pater. We view the term quite strictly and differentiate between biological, adoptive and step parentage. The Latin word pater had far more connotations to it than the English word father and the Romans themselves were less strict regarding such familial connections.

From the Hitler page...

Just to clarify for everyone... though I did feel that Hinds is somewhat lacking in in my own vision of what Caesar was like... I do not feel that he in any way damages the credibility or enjoyability of the show. He does have several redeeming qualities that make him a fine cast member and I respect his part in the show. I have just always been modestly disappointed by what seems to be the afore-mentioned lack of energy.

Seems a reasonable suggestion

Maybe, but isn't it possible that written histories are also motivated by the same force that leads people to write personal diaries? People like to bear witness to important events--to say to themselves and the universe, I'm not crazy, this thing really happened! I don't deny the social component, but historians aren't motivated simply by the desire to please the populace. Sometimes, they don't care a fig for what others think--they want to speak the truth (as they see it) for its own sake. Agreed, by saying people find it interesting, I meant the writer as much as the reader. The writer may or may not care if anyone else finds his work interesting, but can personally still be interested enough to write it.

Sure there are many other dynamics other than Caesar's charisma at play in the setting described, but I just think you underestimate how sleepy Hinds makes me feel Seriously, I'm not suggesting that Hinds should've played Caesar in the McCullough mold of all powerful godliness, but his portrayal strikes me as a man who reluctantly reacts to events around him rather than the energetic force who proactively conquered Gaul and crushed the opposition en route to toppling the Republic. Caesar was also noted as perhaps being second only to Cicero in oration, and Hinds seems lackluster in this regard (as does Cicero's character for that matter, though he had little screen time to show much).

Because the written word can provide a static record of the past that may be open to interpretation, but is not subject to the dynamic nature of oral history. More simply, there is written history because people have always found it and will continue to find it interesting. If nobody liked it, nobody would write it, and nobody would read it.

I've always personally applied it roughly to the fall of Rome and the beginning of the "dark age" of Europe. However, from a military perspective I think an earlier pre heavy cavalry date is more appropriate.

Is there any relationship between succubi/incubi and vampirism? I have no idea their origin, but they are clearly named in Latin.

It wasn't my original intention to suggest that the early christians usurped various pagan holidays but the later organized church adopted certain dates and practices in its efforts to expand the faith through familiarity. Also, some people probably simply accepted the new faith but as communities refused to give up their traditions. The arrival of the passover and the spring equinox just happen to be convenient and coincidental in the particular case of easter. Though clearly even today some pagan ceremony exists within the christian holiday (bunny and eggs as symbols of fertility, sunrise service originally intended as worship of the sun, etc.)

There is no evidence that the salting ever took place and is likely a later period fabrication invented to add emphasis to the defeat of the Carthaginians. The city may have been razed, but it was eventually rebuilt and the Punic people continued to live in Africa and the surrounding area. Septimius Severus, an emperor with African Punic roots who came to prominence some 3 to 3 1/2 centuries later proves as proof of Punic survival. Sure it may have been assimilated into Roman culture, but complete elimination was never the intention. The city of Carthage was a symbol of Roman defeat and was destroyed to prove superiority, not to eliminate a race of people. The difference between Hitler and some of these other historical issues being compared is the intent. Did Caesar intend to wipe the Gauls off the face of the planet? No, he enslaved some for profit and to inspire fear. He massacred the opposition until the greater populace would submit to his authority. It was both cruel and vicious, but once the task of subjugation was completed, the Gauls were not subject to any further "cleansing" by Caesar and they in fact would eventually flourish. The question I suppose we must ask when comparing the actions of Hitler to the examples above is... would a Jew or a Gypsy ever have flourished under the Nazis, as Punic and Gallic people did under the Romans despite the hardships of initial conquest? Krackalackin, this entire post is completely subjective in nature (meaning it is simply your opinion and cannot be proven). It is absolutely fine if you think Alexander is the greatest XYZ person in history. However your suggestion that others are somehow flawed for not agreeing with you is outside the realm of courteous discussion. In fact, while speculative conversation regarding the ancient world is encouraged, posts such as this have routinely been sent to Tartarus in the past. Additionally.. to all (myself included) we definately seem to be diverting from the original topic, so why was Alexander Great?

Edward Scissorhands?