Primus Pilus

Then I moved it back, and realizing the error, simply deleted the extra thread. I also edited the thread title to help out a bit. Now hopefully discussion will emerge.

Allow me once again to reiterate that this format will only involve a few particular threads, not the forum as a whole. As Cato suggested... consider it almost as an antithesis to the arena. A place where detailed source information about particular subjects can be gathered, perused and debated. Free discussion on a variety of issues will still be the prevailing theme of the forum.

We have the option of removing an inappropriate thread to another area of the board, if it misses the mark. Additionally, since each post would be subject to immediate dismissal if not properly cited, jackassery isn't quite the concern. Since it seems to be coming up a bit, allow me to reiterate that this is for these particular threads ONLY. It will not apply to every thread in the forum.

Livy's work in that era is mostly lost, but at least there is the brief Periochae. Frankly, there aren't any good sources.

Just a correction on a technicality. Operation Torch was actually November of '42. The US actually preferred a direct invasion of Europe, as urged by the Russians. The British convinced the Americans that a more peripheral approach was prudent. It proved to work, but we'll never what might have happened with an earlier direct assault on France. As for your analysis of American opposition to direct war with Hitler. Evidence of support 'or at least tolerance' for Hitler among some American leaders (Henry Ford being the most notable in my locality) is voluminus, but the lend-lease program (initiated many months prior to Pearl Harbor) supporting the allied efforts does provide some contrary evidence for the government as a whole. Again, conjecture is difficult, but I suspect American indifference may have been jostled out of inactivity with a German ground force assault on Britain (assuming other factors would've allowed such an event to take place, of course).

So what level are we talking about here? Is "As Livy frequently remarked" going to cut it? Or do we need to cite chapter, verse, and translator? Also, a complex argument comprises many independent claims--does every claim require a citation? What about common knowledge? Can we just take as given that Caesar defeated the Helvetii, or do we have to cite the chapter, verse, and translator of the edition of the Commentaries where Caesar described his defeat of the Helvetii? Indeed we are talking full citation. However, there will be instances that are common knowledge, but we'll play these by ear. Remember it will be completely up to the 'moderators' discretion. (provided I can figure out how to do it) If a citated fact is manipulated to show something other than its original statement... ie quoting Caesars invasion of the Helvetii to suggest personal ambition, its not the citation of Caesar vs. the Helvetii that must be included, but other documented notions that give us reason to believe it was ambition rather than his stated goal of helping allies that must be provided. Yes, it may be difficult and damn near impossible at times. We'll definately try to create a new subforum, but I wanted to experiment a bit first, discuss the rules, make refinements etc. Is it feasable, practical, etc.? I think Gaius originally intended for this to be compiled into articles on the site, but I am thinking that it could also be used to build a complete bibliography of source material on obscure and noted subjects.

Gaius Octavius (along with Antiochus, as I understand it) has/have proposed an interesting new discussion format that is worthy of a bit of experimentation. The general idea is to increase and/or improve upon the content of the site and/or the reference pool on various subjects. Often times, controversial subjects become inundated with opinion without supporting documentation for the casual (or learned) observer to understand the source or place it in a particular context. If successful, its been suggested that each topic could be appointed its own individual moderator who can decide the merits of a post, enforce the rules, direct a topic towards a certain goal, perhaps ultimately compile a database of primary source material on a subject, etc. Unfortunately adding moderators to individual threads may not work all that well for us administratively, but I like the concept. Here are the suggested rules.. 1. Citation of sources for a contribution or argument (essentially a post without a cited source is unwelcome) 2. Rebuttal allowed but only within the context of the original statement and with supported documentation 3. No tangents, stay on topic 4. No personal affronts. 5. No gutter language. 6. Moderators will be considered Tyrants for their own particular subjects. (Subject to technical capability) 7. New topics should be proposed by a potential qualified moderator via PM by to an admin First any additional feedback is most welcome. Second, I thought of starting a test subject, but would rather if the first test were a subject that people may feel strongly about rather than something arbitarily selected by me.

A fairly common misconception because everything that happens now is contemporary for us. Since contemporary = at the time the events occurred, in this case, the original context is correct and the ancient writers (rather than modern) are contemporary.

49 years since a championship (1957 pre superbowl) and 1 playoff victory in that entire span has a way of warping one's outlook on your team's chances.

The Detroit Lions will win the superbowl again this year. After winning 12 straight superbowls, including a brilliant victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers in a home field rout, there is no question as to the superiority of the big cats from Motown. Every year some feeble minded adversaries attempt to dissuade me with lies and jealousy, but I know the truth. :drunk: :beer: :thumbs_up:

Sextus may be more important as a counter-force to the established alliances, rather than Agrippa as a part of the Octavian camp (I'm not comparing effectiveness or contribution to history, but simply their influence as 'statesmen' to that point). I suppose Sextus can hardly be classified as a Roman statesmen, having operated as rogue commander in Sicily, but (despite his own personal motivations) he was still in some ways a representative of his father's side of Caesar's war. The defeat of Sextus directly influenced the downfall of Lepidus and led to a final confrontation between the remaining two powers. I'm rather indifferent to his inclusion and was simply suggesting a couple of names in case they fell off your later period radar.

For the most part, people on this forum are quite tolerant and accepting regarding the occasional broken English of non native English speakers. If someone wishes to, they can put their place of origin right in their avatar profile (which is visible to the reader with every post). Occasionally, threads such as this do irritate me for the nonsensical approach and complete disregard for the reader's ability to comprehend (in addition to the inflammatory style). In that case I'll dismiss the poster as undesirable. However, there are many members of this forum who use English as a second, third, etc. language and they are most welcome. Generally speaking, I find that most who don't use the language as their native tongue are more concerned with being mistake free than those who use it naturally. I think most of the issues with misunderstanding around here have to do with (as Spurius alluded to) the inability to properly express emotions, tones, sarcasm, body language, etc. more than the misinterpretation of a few broken sentences.

Seems we forgot to mention that we will be closing entries on Friday, September 1, 2006. The drawing will be completed over the weekend immediately following and winners posted the next week. (original post updated as well)

Perhaps getting too far beyond your scope but perhaps M. Vipsanius Agrippa (first time suffect consul in 37 BC) or the sons of the Pompeius (Sextus in particular - consul in 35 BC)?

C'mon PP, this is the Arena, thats a politically correct answer. I didn't mean to be PC, was just throwing something in to explain the move to the arena.

One doesn't need to read a modern account to understand various human relationships, socio-political affairs, etc. to understand potential biases in the ancient writing. For example, you can easily understand that Caesar has very particular motivations in his accounting of the Gallic War and the Civil War without reading Tom Holland. Regardless, I don't mean to go in circles over this. There's certainly nothing wrong with modern accounts... hell this very site is, for the most part, my own interpretation of ancient accounts... I just hope that everyone with an interest in ancient history eventually goes directly to the ancient sources themselves.

Based on the notion that he was mocked for the irony even as a child for having such a presumptuous name, I suppose its possible that it was in fact his given name. This is probably one of those obcurities of history that we can never be quite sure of though. My question:

You make good points, but you must consider that every modern account of ancient events is based on various interpretations of the ancient sources. Without them, modern historical works would be little more than guesswork. Because these accounts exist we can attempt to filter through the propoganda , bias and sometimes lack of scholarly approach, otherwise we would be left with inscriptions and busts as our sole sources.

Pre-emptively moved this as I expect more of the same.... Different systems work for different folks. "Best" is relative and subjective.

Just a small discrepancy between the wikpedia article and the source that PP gave us On wikpedia it says the book was dedicated to the emperor Theodosius The Great and in the other it says it was dedicated to the emperor Valentinian Which one was it?????????????? It makes more sense that the work was dedicated to Theodosius since he clearly was more prominent at the time, but there are a number of possibilities. Valentinian I was dead by 375, and the book was not yet written Gratian, Valentinian's immediate successor was not a soldier and the book being dedicated to him wouldn't make sense. Valentinian II was only 4 years old when proclaimed Augustus by his father's legions and was probably still quite young when the book was finished. Theodosius presided in the east (in addition to having great influence in the west) and Vegetius has been associated as being a Count in Theodosius' court (though this is unproven). Theodosius was noted for military skill, and it was this skill (in addition to his familial rank) which got him promoted to Augustus in the first place. Anyway, the problem is that Vegetius doesn't actually say who the book is dedicated to, but uses such generic words as princeps, emperor, majesty, sovereign. The dedication in Latin In English

Dio Cassius. He is actually quite vague but I'll let his words speak for themselves rather than paraphrase.

An interesting question. Personally I don't see Jesus as a combination of the three archtypes in question. He would qualify as a 'maven' and perhaps a 'salesmen', but was hardly a unifying force as a 'connector'. Arguably I suppose one could say that Paul of Tarsus was a little bit of all three types. At any rate, I personally feel that the Antonine Plague is a major tipping point. The middle second century is a time when the empire was at its greatest population and corresponding highest need for alimenta (social welfare). Add a devastating plague to a giant mixed population of largely poor common workers along with the growing political instability of the early 3rd century, and the people were losing "faith" in the old gods. In this case I think the 'virus' may have been an actual virus.

Yes you can sort by member in a drop down list. Or you can click on a member to see all of their gallery's. For instance, I clicked on Pertinax

Roman measurements were shorter than English imperial. A Roman pes (foot) was 12 unciae just as imperial feet are now 12 inches. However, a Roman uncia (inch) was only about .97 the distance of a modern inch. Therefore, a Roman foot was approximately 11.6 inches compared to a modern foot. With that in mind, a Roman who was 6 feet tall according to Vegetius would actually measure approximately 5 feet 8 inches using modern measurements. The lower end (5 feet 10 inches according to Vegetius) would be approximately 5 feet 6 inches in today's measurements.

Vegetius, De Re Militari A translation is here.