Primus Pilus

Most of the entry type pages were put together by Viggen who is writing English as his second and perhaps third language. (Yes I am passing the blame off on my poor unknowing Austrian friend )

I dislike the term ruptured spleen.

Prior the imperial period, its seems that having enough independent wealth, political and social popularity were the keys. The earliest versions were more about honoring an event rather than the individual. Much like moneyers used coins to illustrate the importance of some ancestor or patron, aristocrats could use the arch for a similar effect. However, prior to the imperial period, most arches seem to have been temporary structures. Here's an excellent summary courtesy of Lacus Curtius and the William Smith Dictionary.... Arcus Triumphalis

Just a word of caution... Discussion of ethnicity and culture in the Balkans tends to go off on tangents fairly quickly. I'll be moderating closely. At any rate, there is much debate on the origins of Macedonians and Greeks. Some say that the Macedonians were actually a Greek tribe that was somehow left isolated when the Dorians invaded. Some say both are of the same Doric stock. Some say that even if there is a connection, it doesn't matter because while Macedonians were Hellenized they were considered barbarians by the Greeks. And so on and so forth. [edit] Additionally, there is mass disagreement over the effects of the Slavic migrations and the relationship between modern Balkans and the ancients. Nationalism can run rampant and many like to feel a connection to the glory of the ancient people that occupied the same lands. I am no expert, but I just wanted to put in a bit of a disclaimer for this topic... [edit 2] Oops, I missed Kosmo's post above where he alludes to the same thing.

Insert a "to" between corvus and accomodate. Cheers. Thats what the thread is here for... thanks!

I didn't? I'm more daft than I led myself to believe.

Have I stifled your comments? I don't understand how I could be accused of such a thing when I have the power to do so but have not. I was attempting to beg off from the conversation because I don't see the value in my own continued personal involvment in a subject which has nothing to do with ancient history. {edit, what I mean is, I think its bad form for me as a representative of the site as a whole} However, I will answer your questions for the sake of courtesy. I read into the extolling of the virtues of communism and repetetive haranguing of our current government that you would prefer one before the other. Forgive me crossing the bridge. No, I didn't like Clinton, but other than not doing much of anything for 8 years I didn't really care what he did with his personal parts.

By the by, please don't tell me to shut up. Just as you are allowed to freely express yourself here (and in fact encouraged to do so) I also believe strongly in my right speak freely. Ginevra literally translated the idiom and usage of her language. It is not meant to be an insult to anyone. I was using it to take a veiled shot to illustrate that communism is not free. Didn't work I guess. Oh well.

You have my permission (if required), to think what you will of yourself. BUT, you do not have permission to get between my ears! If you would be so kind as to supply me with one example - one mind you - (Don't burden yourself with two.), or a valid syllogism that you may validly construct, where I have ever 'wished' for ANY form of government or economic society on anyone, then I will kiss your naked bottom in Macy's window at high-noon on Presidents Day. Just in case you are not aware of it, I AM FREE to 'attack' or criticize MY government when called for and just. The Alien & Sedition Laws have expired! From what you have written, is it fair for me to conclude that you were in the forefront of those who confronted the malignant, malformed, cretinaceous, cowardly liars and propangandists who maligned the very breath, of our last DULY ELECTED president every moment of his eight years and then some??? Hah??? If you cannot fulfill the request contained in the first paragraph, then you owe YOURSELF - not me, mind you - an apology. :wub: Take a peek at my earlier post. I'm sorry Gaius, I'm not smart enough to understand all that. Maybe if you used simpleton words I wouldn't make the dreadful mistakes I make (by the by, I personally don't want anyone to kiss my naked butt in front of Macy's)

I believe you are misunderstanding the communist party as a part of a larger government rather than my assertion of what happens whenever 'communism' has been instituted as a singular entity. It has always been oppressive to its own populations. Its not necessarily the fault of good people who believe in an ideal, but in large scale practice communism has never worked as intended. By the by, please don't tell me to shut up. Just as you are allowed to freely express yourself here (and in fact encouraged to do so) I also believe strongly in my right speak freely.

They are also having some rather large clearance sale it seems, but I haven't had a chance to check around for items and prices.

Gaius, someday you may get your wish of communism, and it will certainly devolve into dictatorship and oppression as it always has proven to do. Rather than being free to attack our current government with such zeal as you do now, you might not have such a luxury under another form of government. I guess I'm just an ignorant moron though.

Suetonius simply says this: Plutarch didn't even bother to mention it (though many believe there may be a missing paragraph or two.) Dio Cassius' account of this time period is unfortunately fragmentary and this particular incident is lost. I don't recall Appian mentioning it in 'The Civil Wars'. (whose work is brilliant and often under the radar IMO) Caesar doesn't mention it himself. I don't recall Cicero mentioning it either. Hmm sounds like a challange to me! Indeed, I'm not sure where such a discussion might be more appropriate, but one never knows I suppose

There's not much information available really... here is the entry in the IMDB.

Ahh thanks for clearing that up

After he publicly spared Juba's life when he was displayed in a triumphal procession, Julius Caesar paid for his education in Rome and he was raised as a royal hostage. I assume that like other client hostages (e.g. Arminius of the Cherusci), Juba received Roman citizenship. Very well could be as many client kingdom royal families were afforded such an honors.

I remember reading about that island. It is believed to modern day St Michael's Mount, just off the coast of Cornwall. Yes, I believe that was during the time of Augustus. Does anybody have any information on the expedition? He may be the one that supposedly populated the island with prisoners or slaves or some such thing? My recollection is a bit fuzzy and I don't know the source. Technically though, I don't believe Juba was a Roman (citizen).

What I meant to show is that politicians are pretty much double talking schmucks. We can find such moronic things in the quote history of any politician. Let's not make the thread political.

Teutonic? What do you base this on? The Romans had a lot more Celtic contact. Indeed, the scutum seems to have been introduced well prior (perhaps as much as 2 centuries) to open Roman contact with Teutons.

Bill Clinton... "the purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" "You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly ... [Now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." "The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."

I knew you weren't trying to suggest that the map was a proper political representation of the ancient Celtic world FC. I remember past discussions where you clearly oppose the notions of 'Celtic Empire'. I'm just disgusted at the map itself and the claim it seems to be trying to make.

Much of the early Roman army was based on the Greek phalanx systems, so much of the early armor and weapons was influenced in that manner. The scutum (large oblong shield) may look unique but it really is just a continued evolution of the earlier types. While the introduction of the lorica segmentata is a bit mysterious, I have always been under the impression that this style of individually plated armor was a uniquely Roman invention.

And just to add to Pantagathus' disgust, the Celts may have had religio/cultural similarity (and perhaps uniformity could even be argued) but they were politically divided according to tribe and there was no centralized government. There are those revisionists who suggest that druidic law functioned as a central authority, but this is fed by wishful new age Celts who fail to understand the actual history and culture of the people they seek to emulate. I also feel that they fail to understand the myriad of motivations involved with Caesar's commentaries on the political situation in Britain. (from whose words is derived much of the ammunition for the notion of centralized Druidic authority.)

Now thats a necro post. :mummy: