Primus Pilus

Fortunately, most ancient sources are available online. I can build a list if it would be beneficial. And let me repeat again... this format discussion will be limited to this subforum only.

Looks like Moon will have to make some slight graphic updates to the categories themselves, but otherwise, everything should be good to go.

I've compiled a partial list here, but would be glad to have updates.

LOL, well no worries. It's not like you sure as hell can't use your own conjecture in every other part of the forum. We'll see how this particular experiment pans out.

Indeed, this may simply be a case of generating revenue by offering a different sort of model. Seriously, they didn't reply to your inquiry?

Do you know if its the BBC or HBO Version out of curiousity.

While I appreciate and support the freedom of discussion... all this mafia innuendo has me a bit nervous. I mean my name is plastered all over the site you know. And well, I don't like wearing cement shoes.

Clearly as MPC pointed out a few posts back, we are going to have an issue where we may need filter topics for more casual discussion. Such conversations, while perhaps less academic may help flush out other ideas and concepts. Clearly this thing may have to evolve over time.

Keep in mind.. I made up the topic of the top of my head without knowing even if it was possible to manipulate the sources to support me. It's why I called it a simple topic, because I'm operating from an unknown premise just to build a sample for people to refer to.

Ok FC, I don't mean to single you out here... but I'm going to do it anyway to really help develop the exercise. Your reply is good in that you clearly put some effort into it, but how am I supposed to verify the claims on your sources? There is no documentation in support of your claims. Yes, you provide sources as an overall concept to support the idea, but nothing individual to help me understand some of your conclusions (even though I may or may not agree with some points based simply on knowledge of the sources material in question). As a couple of examples. Maybe they were, and maybe the statement is logical, but where is this supported in the source material? In this quote first it must be proven that indeed the opposition to Scipio was actually Anti-Hellene. There is source material to support it, so I am not suggesting you are necessarily wrong, but only that I can't tell from this statement how you know this. I also agree Fabius Maximus clearly supported a "remove Hannibal from Italy first" policy over the invasion of Africa, but the documentation must be provided. For this one you could have provided "Livy, History of Rome, Book 28.41" Anyway, this is a good exercise. We are making some headway into providing a nice example of the type of discussion this forum will be about. (by the by, I haven't conceded the topic yet, and I'm still working on a reply to MPC, but I'm terribly pre-occupied and its going to take me a bit to work up a reply)

The people of Puerto Rico have the right to begin the process of statehood, but "votes" (these were not binding but rather more like a public opinion poll) over the last century have consistently shown that they have no desire to change their status. They are citizens of the US with all corresponding rights, except the right to vote for President. As a tradeoff, they do not pay US income taxes.

Yes, that's the killer. I am operating most likely from an invalid premise... but it did the job of providing a good sample. Though I don't think that the pre-existing factional rivalry necessarily means that the Scipio/Cato fight didn't have some repurcussions. At any rate its been a good exercise so far, but it does require considerable effort.

Yes both. For the time being, I am personally in a resource gathering mode, because there is alot to go through. This sort of discussion will be slow, because it requires considerable review. I'm not attempting to only quote the ancients and leave it at that (I'll attempt to make a case of it at some point, or prove myself wrong in the process), but it takes a bit of effort to find the material in question. Yeah, I sort of jumped in with both feet ... wasn't exactly my intention but I had to pick something that interests me personally and am comfortable with the source material.

Andrew makes an excellent point that Cato himself probably did not care about a specific rivalry with a Scipio in particular, but thrived on all such political challenges. The difficult thing to prove is not so much the rivalry between Cato and Scipio, but how it influenced the political factions to a point of instability. Even more challenging is that later Scipiones, such as Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus and Scipio Nasica Serapio were either indifferent to or directly opposed to Tiberius Gracchus respectively. For Aemilianus' indifference... Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus 21.4. For Nasica Serapio involved in the slaying of Tiberius... PL, Gracchus 19

OK, I've posted a fairly simple beginning. Feel free to comment on the subject, presentation, etc.

The story of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus obviously well known, but his fall from grace due to politics is generally just a small caveat in comparison to his noted military career. Cato the Elder on the other hand was known as a steadfast traditionalist politician, was revered for his various written works "De Agri Cultura (on Farming)" and "Origines", is perhaps most notable in history simply for having said "In my opinion, Carthage must be destroyed." 1 What I am looking for here is evidence of the rivalry between Cato the Elder and Scipio Africanus and how factional politics were developed as a result. The rivalry begins early in the career of Cato and during the height of the Second Punic War. Cato served Fabius Maximus who was a rival of the youthful Scipio. 2 Fabius opposed the victorious young general, who after defeating the Carthaginians in Hispania seemed in line to receive Africa as a new proconsular province without a proper legal vote. 3 It was also his contention that any expedition should be taken directly to Hannibal (who was still in Italy at this time), rather than an attempt to invade Africa. Speeches reported by Livy from both Fabius and Scipio indicate (Livy, 28.40 - 28.44) the nature of this rivalry. Fabius accused Scipio of personal amibition above the interests of Rome, while Scipio responded with accusations of jealousy. Furthermore, it was believed that even if a Senatorial vote should go against Scipio, that he would've taken the matter to the assembly through the Tribunes. 4 As it turned out, compromise in the Senate resulted in Scipio's cause winning the day (continuation of Livy book 28) and Scipio moved to Sicily to prepare for an invasion of Africa. It's at this point that Cato (the afore-mentioned adherent of Fabius) becomes involved. As a quaestor assigned to Scipio he accompanied the general to Sicily where charges of excessiveness were filed with the Senate which could potentially have resulted in Scipio's recall. 5 1. Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder, 27 2. Pl, Cato, 3 (Of the elder statesmen, he attached himself most closely to Fabius Maximus, who was of the highest reputation and had the greatest influence, but this was more by way of setting before himself the character and life of the man as the fairest examples he could follow. In the same spirit he did not hesitate to oppose the great Scipio, a youthful rival of Fabius) 3. Livy, History of Rome, Book 28. 40 (The next question before the senate concerned the raising of troops and the distribution of the various commands. There was a rumour that Africa was to form a new province and be allotted to Scipio without having recourse to the ballot. Scipio himself, no longer contented with a moderate share of glory, was telling people that he had been returned as consul not simply to carry on the war but to bring it to an end, and the only way of doing that was for him to take an army over to Africa. In the event of the senate's opposition he asserted openly that he would carry his proposal by the authority of the people. ) 4. Livy, HR, 28.45 (Scipio was listened to with impatience, for it was generally believed that if he did not succeed in inducing the senate to decree that Africa should be his province, he would at once bring the question before the Assembly...) 5. PL, Cato, 3, 5-8 (Cato therefore left Sicily, and joined Fabius in denouncing before the Senate Scipio's waste of enormous moneys, and his boyish addiction to palaestras and theatres, as though he were not commander of an army, but master of a festival.)

This may or may not work, but we aren't going to know unless we test it out. I'm starting a sample subject and it will be posted shortly.

Here's one for all you Bush bashers out there, courtesy of the Onion Bush Urges Nation To Be Quiet For A Minute While He Tries To Think Alas, sorry for the non serious interlude.

Everything is completely ready to go, we'll need someone to take the lead on this particular subject. This is not a personal historical strong point for me, but I'll do it for the sake of having an example topic.

I've spent a couple of hours browsing De Bello Gallico looking for any instance where Caesar describes his legions have been involved in combat without armor. Caesar mentions no such detail in the following encounters which would seem most likely. In no particular order... The ambush of Sabinus and Lucius Cotta by Ambiorix The precarious battle against the Nervians The first landing in Britain involving a heroic effort by a standard bearer of the 10th A Legion that was ambushed while foraging in Britain The siege of Gergovia that almost ended in disaster and the attack against Labienus immediately thereafter There are any number of possibilities I suppose, but I am well convinced that the miniature maker has taken some artistic liberty.

Well it shouldn't be a quote fest of ancient sources... that would just be boring. I think a sample topic is in order, but I'm failing to come up with anything enticing at the moment.

I've worked my way around the 'thread moderator' issue. Here's how it will work. Anyone who proposes a thread, thereby claiming right to be that thread's particular tyrant, will be named a Tyrant and will be granted moderation abilities for this subfora only. [edit] special note... please only propose a thread if you consider yourself to be relatively qualified as having an excellent grasp of a subject. The merits can be judged fairly readily based on everyone's posts on the forum as a whole.

To avoid confusion... I've gone ahead and created a subforum. If there is interest, the forum will thrive. If not, then we can bid it adieu.