Primus Pilus

Allow me to be the curmudgeon... I just don't understand why anyone would spend their time willingly giving away free advertising for a staged event, or even why they would gather in such large numbers without knowing why in the first place. I feel bad enough for wasting a couple of minutes watching that. Sheeple suck.

I also tend to believe that any prognostication by Caesar is simply retrospective creative license by the historians to add a dramatic flair. Sure, Caesar was probably well aware of rumors, but his behavior up to that point doesn't indicate a willingness to simply let his opponents have their way and win.

Who was that masked man?

Kirk is just so much cooler when he is young and not quite so fat... and doesn't have the nappy hair piece. I love the TOS and it's characters though and this movie looks pretty damned entertaining. I can't wait to see Simon Pegg as Scotty.

What's a chick flick? As a good friend of mine once said... "I like movies where stuff blows up"

Salve Tomos... feel free to jump right in. Cheers!

Regardless of the circumstance, I just don't find it unreasonable that Caesar would've offered a position to Brutus. Perhaps it was shrewd, perhaps it was at the request of Servilia, perhaps the source is wrong, perhaps it was cunning, or perhaps it was simply one more of many head scratching moments by Caesar.

Hmmmm... in 53, how shrewd would this really have been? Brutus would have been an inveterate opponent of Caesar's ally Pompey (who had killed Brutus' father), so wouldn't it have also served to split his own faction too? Maybe Caesar just wanted Brutus to take love notes to Servilia. Sure, perhaps it was early, and in retrospect we can see the failure of the concept, but Caesar could've allowed a rift to grow larger or attempt to heal it... regardless of how misguided it may have been. In the post civil war era, we can see the struggle for Brutus to join against his old ally despite many obvious points of opposition. There is suggested evidence of Brutus' struggles to join the liberators at full capacity, and perhaps Caesar's attempts to reach out to him (be they superficial or legitimate) was part of the cause. Then again, had Caesar just removed Brutus as he did other opponents, perhaps his bid for unconstitutional authority may have gone completely unchecked.

Sorry to hear that Doc... Oddly enough, our local community college (where my brother happens to work) is overloaded with registrations. Of course, the fees aren't nearly on par with the university level, but if I understand it correctly the education industry is experiencing a bit of a mini-boom state wide. Then again, a hefty percentage of the population here is out of work and has received various incentives (corporate buyouts and government) to re-educate. (circumstances, shmircumstances I guess)

And in retrospect, the popularity of Caesar's own de Bello Gallica among the masses might come into play. Though this isn't measurable as a statistic of literacy, and Caesar's exploits (or exploitation as the case may be) may very well have spread through word of mouth to the previously mentioned masses, it bears further thought.

Or expected the literate to read them to everyone else. You may be right of course, but taking into account the literacy of the entire population, I find it unlikely that the vast majority of civil war era soldiers were literate. [EDIT] Granted, of course, that the literacy level of the Roman world citizenry is disputed in this conversation.

Here's an English translation if that helps... http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/rosivach/...riuselogium.htm Gaius Marius, son of Gaius, consul seven times, praetor, tribune of the plebs, quaestor, augur, tribune of the soldiers. He was specially appointed to wage war with Jugurtha, king of the Numidians, whom he captured and at his triumph in his second Consulship ordered to be led before his chariot. He was elected consul for the third time in his absence. In his fourth consulship he destroyed the army of the Teutones. In his fifth he routed the Cimbri, and triumphed a second time over them and the Teutones. He freed the republic, when consul a sixth time, from the rising of a tribune of the plebs and a praetor, who had taken up arms and had seized the Capitol. When over seventy, he was expelled from his fatherland in civil war and restored by arms, and became consul a seventh time. From his war-spoils taken from the Cimbri and Teutones he built, as the victor, a temple to Honour and Valour. In triumphal garb and patrician boots he entered the Senate.

Interesting point, but was the spread of education as prevalent in those earlier times as during the imperial period? Not in the sense of an organized system, though small schools "ludi" began popping up in the 4th to 3rd centuries. Still these were targeted for children of means and were not intended as a comprehensive system for everyone. Parental home schooling and private tutoring was still the key component in education by the middle and even late Republic. While I shouldn't give the impression that the so-called masses of the post-Marian armies were all uneducated and unruly sots, the societal level of these recruits was very likely to have had less exposure to education than their earlier land owning counterparts. As the first generation of these professional soldiers began to gain wealth and privilege as members of the Roman military system, they were likely able to afford to offer education for their families... with each passing generation we should be able to conclude a gradual increase in the education level of the army from Marius through the middle imperial period.

The Vindolanda tablets were written by and for legionaries from the middle and late Imperial eras; I'm not aware of any archeological evidence that might imply an even higher literacy level for the Roman soldiers of any previous period. That's an important distinction and my comment is misguided... I was really projecting middle republic against late Republic and early imperial periods where "the masses" were first granted carte blanche access to a military career. My apologies for not being clearer and letting my own time frame area of focus influence the comment.

Era is also extremely important... early to mid Republic legionaries consisted of landed citizenry and were likely to have better access to education than military counterparts in the later Republic and imperial eras or in armies of other "states".

Thanks guys... I figure the strike through method of leaving the record of the original posts works better than just deleting everything...

Tacitus mentions: Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Annals 15.60-64) Marcus Annaeus Lucanus (Ann. 15.70) Annaeus Mela (Ann. 16.17) Suetonius more dramatically claims that all the children of the accused were also executed but provides no names: Life of Nero, 36 In a quick scan I don't see any specifics other than Seneca himself Cassius Dio mentions: Seneca (History 62.25) Annaeus Cornutus was exiled (62.29) but this was unrelated to the plot against Nero Like Tacitus Dio, claims that many were killed, but the details are missing. That's all I could get through at the moment...

Hello all, Just want to quickly make it known that we've added another moderator to our little administrative staff. Since Pertinax left us some time ago we've been left with a void in "coverage" in the UK and Europe. In the meantime, and in line with the addition of the new Provincia Britannia subforum, one of our numerous high quality British members has stood out to us as the sort of person we'd like to show off as another face of UNRV, and the community, in much the same way as Pertinax did. As such, please welcome Northern Neil as the newest member of the team. And don't make too much of a fuss or he'll be forced to beat you about the head and neck with his Vitis.

I do have a problem with your answer, I think that the "adoption" was intended to court popularity for Severus with the common soldier, who probably didn't care much whatever the senate legitimized this proclamation or not. and I'm not agreeing with the second part of your answer, if the only thing the soldiers cared about was money why to make such a claim in order to gain popularity with them in the first place? There isn't a need to "look deep enough" to see the truth as the adoption happened 15 years after Aurelius death. what I'm interesting is suggestion how Severus has manage to counter this "little" problem with his propaganda and make the "adoption" legit in the eyes of the common soldier. I think you misread what I'm suggesting. The western legions (save for Britannia) were mostly in his fold, and he brought those in with the adoption of Clodius. After the defeat of Niger he had them all save for those allied to Clodius... and of course once Clodius was defeated, the army was his in its entirety. Therefore, I believe the adoption into the Aurelian line was more for the benefit of the people and the consolidation of his political power. Niger was considered by many to be a "people's champion" after the murders of Commodus and Pertinax and Severus needed to counter this with claims of legitimacy and historical prudence (ie comparing his victory over Niger and Clodius in a similar fashion to that of Octavian over Antonius, etc.) It's just my opinion that his claims were political in nature and not necessarily a military advantage (though it obviously couldn't hurt either). As for how he did it... Severan Culture chapter 17 provides some initial insight

I agree with the general sentiment and find that celebrities lauded as "the most beautiful" are largely just figments of someone's marketing imagination. However, as a testosterone driven male, with the option of acting as emperor in this case and with no strings attached other than feeding my own filthy uninhibited filth, I would enjoy all three equally and lustily despite not finding any of them as attractive as popular culture attempts to make them. Of course, the empress would probably not approve.

I do believe the Senate legitimized his claim legally, whether coerced or not. Of course, anyone could see through such things if they chose to look deep enough, but we know the role of propaganda in such things. And... the legions were probably just happy with the donative of one thousand sesterces per man and ultimately to have one of their own in command.

Jolly good idea, old boy - I think there are a few ongoing topics which could be moved here already! Yes sir indeed. I'm working on moving some. If anyone finds any, feel free to post links in this thread.

Due to the proportionally large number of active British members of this forum and thus the popularity of regionally targeted discussion, it made sense to give Britain a home of it's own...

Book Reviews and Articles Reviewing books and submitting articles relevant to the Romanophile community have become a celebrated part of UNRV. Here is a suggested format for a book review. * I. Introduction. State briefly what the book is about, who the author is, and whether or not you like it. As the first paragraph is always posted to the UNRV front page, make sure it is something that entices the viewer to read more. * II. Organization. Discuss the overall layout of the book. Give the reader an idea of how the book is divided into chapters or sections, and what ground is covered. * III. Hypothesis/plot. Discuss the author's main themes, ideas or arguments, and their relative merits or lack thereof. * IV. Readability. Mention any resources that may be of help to the reader (glossary, maps, etc). Discuss the author's prose/tone, and for whom the author is writing (general readers, academic, etc). Does the author have relevant credentials? If the book is badly edited, be sure to mention it. * V. Conclusion. Restate in general terms whether the book meets its intended goals or not, and whether or not you recommend it. Quoting short passages from the book is welcome if relevant. Articles can be on any topic relevant to the Romanophile community. They should contain citations or end notes as needed. Do try to edit your work for grammar, punctuation, sentence structure and spelling. Be advised the UNRV staff reserve the right to make minor edits to any submissions along these lines. All submissions should be in English, the de facto language of the fora. If you are a not a native speaker of English and need help, ask a member of the moderating team. Please send all book reviews or articles as a private message to Viggen.

Regarding Religion We understand that passionate debate is a common recurring issue with discussions in the religion folder (Templum Romae - Temple of Rome), and likely always will be. However we hope only that the passion we feel, wherever it may be directed, can be tempered with civility towards others and their belief systems. Just as Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, etc. don't want overzealous monotheists telling them what to believe because not to means damnation and suffering of eternal torment; Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. don't want militant atheists telling them that their religion is absurd and that they are ignorant. We are not asking anyone to stifle themselves completely, only to tone down the aggression in open discussion. It's understandable of course that such topics can lead to argument and hostility; and to expect complete utopian harmony is ridiculous. We only ask that people realize that arguing until "blue in the face" neither convinces nor invites new input from other members. If a point is being made simply to agitate or discredit with hostility, please think twice before making it. For example, if someone makes what appears to be a thoughtful and valid point, direct any questions or counterpoints against that particular point, rather than against an individual, a group as a whole or some underlying ideology. Clearly there are times when there are people, that we might describe as having a thin skin, that should simply avoid direct discussion of such concepts. However, sometimes banter between participants in one thread can spill over into unrelated topics involving participants who are actually attempting to avoid such things. As such, some animosity can be reduced by making an extra effort to restrict said discussion to appropriate topics. With that said, this is not a ban on the discussion of religion or its merits by any stretch. To do so, especially regarding topics so closely related to Roman history, would be in direct opposition to the idea of this forum. Its simply a request for renewed courtesy and civility per guideline #1, in the post above.