Primus Pilus

Too true, excellent point!

The Great Wall that we are familiar with today... stone walls with battlements etc., was built between the 14th and 17th centuries and really isn't comparable to the ancient "wonders of the world". There is also much debate about the wall being visible from space. I won't go into all the details here, but wikipedia provides a good introduction.

Oh btw, what is the truth? Bush makes a speech for politicizing the day. The opposition counters by saying he politicized it and ask for on air opportunities for their own grandstanding purposes. It's a joke to think that either side doesn't politicize such things.. whether it be blatantly obvious or subtelty veiled.

Simple enough logic that has convinced me to add a vote. The ironic thing about Giza is that because it's still there, its left so much less to our imagination I think. To see them in their full splendor may have had an effect on that outlook however.

Is this offered in the same spirit as, "Maybe Antinous was really Hadrian's prospective heir?" No, its quite serious and shouldn't be all that astonishing of an observation really. However, as it is purely speculation, in which I apologize for simply finding interesting, I'll concede further discussion. As for the original premise of the agrarian bill, I find no evidence of some grand stoic scheme in Cato's proposal but rather a logical response to a dangerous political threat. If not for Caesar and the mob, there seems to have been little reason for the bill to have been introduced.

Perhaps it could be viewed in another manner. By regaining some semblance of power within the government, the optimates failed to understand the need to still compromise with Caesar. Their own position seemingly bolstered in strength, underestimation ruled the day. Perhaps had Cato not had so much competitive success in the absence of the triumviri, Caesar would've returned to Rome in triumph from Gaul, continued the political battles that were the status quo, and eventually faded into history to let the next generation continue the struggle. Caveat... I am not blaming Cato's political success here (part of a politician's very nature has always included attempting to increase the viability of his own faction), I'm just pointing out the devastating irony.

Click here and scroll down to the bottom. In the article there is no mention of an author, nor is a bibliography submitted; it is highly likely that the part about Spartan auxillia is a product of the writer's imagination. So we may in fact have been sent on a wild goose chase. Either way, I am still going to scan some more sources. Thanks for the link. I'm going to peruse some older documents to see if I can find any reference to Spartan auxilia at all, just for some verification. (PS, I've edited the topic title to make more sense)

Well I just don't like any of them. At any rate, I don't personally need to be reminded and don't watch any of that stuff. My personal memory is still quite vivid. On a side and related note, I was disappointed seeing our (US) flag flying half-staff all over the place. I understand the notion of respecting and paying homage to the deceased, but I'd personally rather not give the bastards that did it the satisfaction of a reminder.

We don't know the origins of all the legions still in operation in the later 2nd century, but since there aren't any specific references to Sparta I'd agree that its unlikely for Spartans to have been legionaries in any mass quantity. (I meant only to suggest that individual and small unit replacements should be excepted.) Auxilia was made up almost entirely of cives peregrinae, not citizens, though. Out of curiousity, do you have a link to the site?

Likewise. Maybe there is some epigraphical evidence for Spartans serving under the Roman eagle. Chances are that there were plenty of Spartans who joined the legions, but perhaps by that point (late 2nd century) they were largely citizens recruits and were not differentiated from any others.

I've also skimmed Dio's accounts of Severus and Caracalla as well as the Historia Augusta's accounts and can't find any mention of Spartans specifically.

This is a fairly complex question that we debate quite regularly around here. It's not that the Roman people just suddenly gave up their 'liberties', the transition from Republic to Principate was a long gradual process. Additionally, the principate established by Augustus, while politically altered from previous eras, was still a veiled Republic as far as institutions and magisterial offices, etc. are concerned. The plebes, who long held a somewhat adversarial relationship with the aristrocracy were also not necessarily aware of the subtleties of change being implemented and were perhaps distracted by grain doles, games and donatives. The politics of the populares (the side which theoretically ultimately won... though Augustus hardly maintained the same stances as his adoptive father and political predecessors) were, at least on the surface, of benefit to the Plebes and their support of populares politics was instrumental in the ultimate transition of the entire system.

Indeed, but as Plutarch plainly states in both books (Caesar and Cato Minor), this was done to prevent a riot in support of Caesar rather than some great act of constitutional kindness. Plutarch, Caesar 8.6 I'm not denying that what Cato proposed was lawful and done with good reason, only that we should also understand the environment in which it was done.

As far as we can tell the coin standards prior to Diocletian were not removed from circulation. Though the argenteus was heavily produced it was never widely circulated and the 'old money' remained the common form. Additionally, in this instance, the silver purity of the argenteus was so much higher than the predecessing antoninianus and denarius that its intrisic value was far higher than face value. This, coupled with the additional currency in circulation, (as has been suggested) further added to the hyper inflation problem. Had Diocletian been able or even made a widespread effort to remove old coinage, perhaps his reforms may have had a more positive effect.

Dio Cassius in the terribly fradmented book 71 simply says... The Historia Augusta doesn't mention it. I can't find an online text of Herodian, though I doubt he would've mentioned it. (if anyone knows one, please add it)

The coinage introductions and reforms came first and were a miserable failure. The new Aureus was introduced in about AD 290 and was followed by the Argenteus and Follis in about 294. The idea was a miserable failure due to the lack of actual metal supply to support the coins (actually causing inflation rather than curbing it) and was followed by the equally ineffective and oft ignored price reforms starting in about 301.

I'm not saying that he said it. That was completely my idea

ALL politicians and media outlets, vs. normal citizenry.

Agreed, evidence sure would suggest that Antinous was Hadrian's young lover, but the possibility exists that he was simply being groomed as a successor. Perhaps both, perhaps not, but the Historia Augusta suggests that Hadrian preferred adult men over adult women (SCANDALOUS!). It also suggests, however, that Hadrian maintained several relations with other women, perhaps having an effect on the poor relationship between he and his wife Vibia Sabina. Perhaps Antinous was just an overwhelming favorite or perhaps there was more than meets the eye (hence my suggestion that he was a potential heir, keep in mind that Hadrian did not have children).

You're right, it wasn't a debasement, but a sample of the sort of things he was doing---high and low purity introductions. It's hard to classify his reforms as debasement or improvement of purity because he truly was replacing the existing structure and starting over with new standards. A follis was 1/5 that of the Argenteus or 1/120 of a gold Aureus. It was roughly equivelent to an early imperial sestersius which was about 1/100th of a gold Aureus at the time. [EDIT] let's stick to Rome here guys

Oddly enough, he did both. He introduced the new high purity silver coing, the Argenteus (similar to the Denarius in the reign of Nero or about 3.8 grams of silver). Conversely he also introduced such coins as the follis (modern name... ancient identification is unknown) which was about 5% silver and 95% bronze.

Yeah, clearly there is some liberty taken for dramatic effect.

I had a thumb through Suetonius, and according to him the song actually goes: Read about half the page back up where the actual Latin is posted. The English translation varies based on era and the translator.

Hmmmm 5th century. That's really late for a new Roman building in Britannia, isn't it? Late yes, but not the sort of thing that should really be surprising.