Primus Pilus

Here's a couple of little problems that I've noticed can get interchanged somewhat frequently... quite and quiet quite=an adverb to emphasize the verb. i.e. I am quite happy about the Tigers making the baseball playoffs. quiet=opposite of loud lose, loser, loose, looser. These are also often incorrectly interchanged. lose = opposite of win loose = opposite of tight

Unfortunately, its a bit too early in season for me, but something that like is clearly a good idea for a meeting point.

Welcome to our little corner of Romanophilia Ummidia. You'll find that we have a good number of regular posters who are personally familiar with the wall.

A sound enough suggestion FC. If you are up for it, feel free to start a thread. Or anyone on any subject for that matter.

I agree that Pompey's command went beyond probably even what his supporters had wished for, but I disagree that this is the first instance of such a thing. Perhaps it is larger in scope than previous examples, but the notion by Harris completely disregards the commands of Marius and Sulla who both used their armies for personal political gain. Sulla also was given a fairly open objective in his command against Mithridates, but the antics of Marius and Cinna back in Rome forced him to come home early. Who knows what he may have done otherwise.

Scipio's imperium in Hispania was rather open ended as well. His continuation of the war into Africa sparked intense opposition in the Senate, but this was mainly on grounds of Hannibal's continued presence in Italy and various notions of humility vs. ambition. Appian asserts that one of the reasons Scipio was elected in the first place was because of his boast that he could conquer Africa and Carthage as well, though Appian may clearly be embellishing in hindsight. Appian 'War in Spain' 18

It's certainly a difficult concept to answer. At first glance, we might look and see a young ambitious man who simply wished to avenge his adoptive father and earn a place of importance within Roman politics. However, when we stop and realize that a youthful champion was no longer an abnormality in Rome (Pompey Magnus for instance) and couple that with the name of Caesar and Octavian's own heritage (in contrast to Pompey's humble novus origins in Picenum), its quite possible that Octavian thought that singular rule was possible from the very beginning. He may have been just as influenced by Alexander as Caesar and perhaps moreso because of the personal success of Caesar's exploits. Personally though, I feel any such agenda to ultimate power came much later... long after the defeat of the 'Republicans'. Despite the rivalry between he and Antonius from the reading of Caesar's will on, it's difficult at best to see Octavian (despite his savvy) manipulating an alliance with Antonius, etc. all with the ultimate goal of his own supremacy. It seems that the plan continued to develop with various circumstances. To me the key event seems to have been the defeat of Sextus Pompey. Not only was this one dangerous rival eliminated, but Octavian's shrewdness also managed to eliminate Lepidus as a political player at the same instance. It's at this particular time when rule of the empire was split between two men/factions that the possibility of singular authority becomes a reality and the anti-Cleopatra/Antonius propaganda begins in earnest. Perhaps Octavian planned it all along, but I think this event is key in making this plan a realistic goal.

That's true... such commentary routinely shows up in the mainstream press. Regardless of one's personal feelings about the matter, it can't do anything but help awareness of history, and therefore this particular discussion forum.

I split this thread and screwed it up, so I'm quoting part of Phil's post here. Lets get back to the relationships in the show rather than gentle chiding or bickering.

Well its written from the perspective of Cicero. As all Romans did, he had his own agenda which in his case was sometimes pro aristocracy and others pro populace. Harris, akin to Cicero in real life, seems to be more interested in telling the entire story from this more balanced perspective.

I vote a qualified no. There were special circumstances that had already set the precedent for special commands. Scipio in Hispania without proconsular imperium comes to mind immediately. The problem was not the law and/or the system itself, but the men who benefited from it. My qualification is that the law itself was part of a chain of events that toppled the Republic, but with other individuals it may not have happened the way it did, or not at all. Again, in my opinion it was not the law, but the people.

That's good news. I'd hate to think that Colleen McCullough will have the last fictional word on this period. Obviously novels are all about personal taste, but I have a feeling that Harris' version may soon surpass "THe Masters of Rome Series". It definately gives an alternative perspective.

I get the impression that the relationship with Servilia may be just the event that will harden Octavia. I hope so anyway... like you I'm not real fond of the way they have portrayed the historical character (though I do enjoy the character in the context of the show).

Harris is far less dry than McCullough. I know I may be overusing this description but I really feel that he does a much better job of humanizing his characters. He also freely passes over the minutiae and is more inclined to focus on the meat of the story.

The later catholic church did oppose the institution, while also owning slaves and allowing individual members of the clergy to do so as well. There is a good deal of contradictory evidence regarding the institution that seems to have been effected by regional and individual circumstances, as well as a need to conform to some established social conditions. I believe it was St. Gregory (late 6th and early 7th centuries) who was among the first open and vocal leaders to oppose slavery.

Nero was the last of the dynasty because he was the last to have any familial relationship to Caesar and Augustus. He was the great great grandson of Augustus through the maternal side of the family... Augustus/Julia Major/Agrippina Major/Agrippina Minor/Nero. A nice easy to follow stemmata After the death of Nero, the civil war of 69 AD was between generals who had no familial relationship to the Julio-Claudians. Vespasian, the ultimate winner of the war, established his own Flavian Dynasty that lasted through his sons Titus and Domitian.

They were both published 30 years ago. I found the Marshall book at the original publisher (Hakkert): Crassus: A political biography but the Ward book doesn't seem to be available any longer through the University of Missouri Press (original publisher). Maybe check in with Ancient World Books? Check the Worldcat Library too. You never know either book may be available locally.

Other than Plutarch's bio, most of the attention focussed on Crassus has only taken place as sidebars to bio's on other later Republican figures. (Caesar, Sulla, Cicero, etc.) If you can find them for reasonable prices, these are options... Crassus: A Political Biography by B. A. Marshall Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic by Allen Mason Ward

As I said in the previous discussion, I am planning some sort of east coast trip next summer and would gladly make a stopover at any locale between Detroit and the Virginia area.

I think he was actually killed in Argos, he was knocked out by a tile thrown by an old woman who was watching the battle from her roof, and while unconcious he was killed by the enemy soldiers, or so the story goes? Yes indeed, my bad. After he defeated the Spartans he continued on to Argos.

Yes from a large scale perspective Epirus was only a minor player after the death of Pyrrhus, but the Epirotes maintained some independent regional signifance until the Macedonian Wars. Though Pyrrhus was not 'defeated' after his invasion of Italy. He still spent some time trying to expand Epirote authority on the 'Greek Peninsula'. Had he not been killed, seemingly by a fluke, in Sparta, who knows what may have happened.

It's always interesting to me how many ancient stories have similar counterparts. This one is conspicuously similar to the story of the buried treasure of the Dacian King Decebalus.

This may tie in directly with the swiftness of Caesar's armies. They may have been undersupplied in order to travel lightly, but I think the fast moving armies had more to do with circumstances than any purposeful intention of Caesar to travel unhindered. Since he was constantly being pulled in various directions (whether in reaction to rebellion or because of his own ambition) his armies were in many cases simply not given enough time to procure the necessary supplies. Of course the Gauls did a good job of cutting off Caesar's existing lines of supply and the suggested logistic weakness of Caesar may be that he failed to secure these lines. Bridging the Rhine and Crossing the English Channel were logistic achievements in their own right (despite his military failings in Britain) and when we consider the speed in which he accomplished these things perhaps its easy to understand why his army could never quite gather enough resources. In this case perhaps ambition or impatience truly was a weakness. At any rate, it may have been a weakness, it may have been conscious decision, or as Pertinax suggests, it may have a bit of everything with a bit of simple propaganda in order to illustrate the toughness of the Roman legions (and perhaps to tell the world, "look what I can accomplish even with an underfed army").

You actually have a trojan rather than a virus. Subtle difference. When you're done with spybot... it won't hurt to run adaware too. Adaware And if all else fails, you can try Hijack This! but you should really have a pretty good idea of how to manipulate your system registry before playing around. Hopefully spybot and/or adaware will do the trick.