Primus Pilus

Egads, you're right... from this. Well I'd still like to revisit it though if anyone is interested of course.

My wife and I communicate only in broken sentences between intermittent shouting of children, things breaking, and the barking of rather large dogs. It's why wine is so popular in our house.

This merely for the sake of discussion. I have not recently read anything to inspire such a discussion, but since we often debate the merits of Caesar, Cato, Pompey, the Conspirators, etc., its also appropriate to give some attention to Cicero... We all know of Cicero's many reported assets such as his exceptional skill at oration (related to his abilities in the courts) and his lead role in quelling the Cataline Conspiracy, but does Cicero truly deserve his generally accepted station as one of history's great politicians? Even some of his greatest orations were in a failing cause (Pro Milo) for instance. Most of his career seems to have spent either in an attempt to fit in with the old and honored contemporary families around him, or playing middle ground between the two major factions. While this role (that of a more compromising moderator) should not be overlooked for its benefits to the system, the fact is that in the end he was unable to succeed in his attempts for compromise. It is interesting to me, that perhaps his greatest achievement of taking a lead role in the settling of political affairs following the assassination of Caesar, his own support of Octavian (in a clearly misguided attempt to use the popularity of Caesar while underestimating his heir) against Antonius led not only to his own eventual demise but obviously that of the Republic itself. In his defense, at least he was one of a few leading statesmen who made an attempt at compromise. However, would Antonius have had the power or the political wherewithal to develop a singular or collective (perhaps a triumvirate involving other members) government without Octavian's role in agitating the compromise which allowed for the legal amnesty of the conspirators. While Cicero will clearly be remembered for his brilliant oratory and his reputation as a politician, it is perhaps only because Cicero's written works were fortunate enough to survive to the present day that he has such a fine reputation. Yes, he was a fantastic writer and an invaluable contributor to our knowledge of the turbulent time period in which he lived as well as to the workings of the Republican government, and he was clearly well known and respected among the citizenry of the day, but without Cicero's surviving works, would his name be much more than a blip on the radar of ancient history?

You'll have a few issues to contend with from that perspective. Rome didn't really become an Empire (in the sense of territory not government) until its defeat of Carthage in the Second Punic War (c. 202 BC) when it acquired either direct control or controlling interests of Hispania and North Africa, and confirmed its domination of the Italian province, Narbonensis, Sardinia, Corsica and Sicilia. From another perspective, many view the beginning of the "Roman Empire" as when the Republic was finally destroyed in the late first century BC and early first century AD. Additionally, others argue that the Roman empire continued to live on for another millenia in the east under the guise of the Byzantines (which is a more modern historian classification as the Byzantines themselves still considered themselves to be related to the predecessing western empire.) While the size and longevity of the empire is clearly impressive (especially when viewed as a percentage of the potential population and habitable areas of Europe at the time), I think LW is on track in pointing out that these things are the result of the greatness of Roman culture, military, etc. and not the end all determining factor of Roman greatness. At any rate, you definately should include such arguments as size of the empire (keeping in mind its fluctuation over various periods of time as it was only a single city state at the Rise of the Republic in the 6th century BC and was at its greatest extant for only a short period in the early part of the 2nd century AD) but focus instead on other factors for a far more compelling paper. Some other ideas to consider: * The dominance of the legion * The influence of Roman (Latin) language * Romanization and absorption of foreign people and cultures * Roman Roads (for military use but also in allowing the rapid spread of culture and influence) * Aqueducts and running water Just some random thoughts...

I quite literally find the non fiction category impossible to answer in a single example but will throw out a few titles I particularly enjoy: I think my favorite non fiction historical account of all time is the American Civil War 3 volume set written by Shelby Foote. Its an extensive account of the war from battlefield to politics to personal implications written in a style that reads likes a novel. Another relatively recent writer of American history is David McCullough. I am very much enjoying his "1776" at the moment. An excellent account of the American Revolution: "Patriots: The Men Who Started the American Revolution", by A.J. Langguth I must also mention The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. As for Roman: I'm most partial to the ancients, Tacitus and Dio Cassius in particular, but of more contemporary authors I rather enjoyed Tom Holland's "Rubicon" for just pleasant reading material. Favorite fictions: Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. First Man in Rome by Colleen McCullough Game of Thrones, George R.R. Martin Gates of Fires, by Stephen Pressfield I'm sure there are plenty of others that I am leaving out of there...

Certainly to match the glory of Caesar and even Pompey... to go along with his fortune I suppose. (or perhaps simply to add to that fortune)

Prior to Spartacus he joined Metellus in Africa and later was a legate under Sulla, but otherwise no, he did not lead an army during the time period suggested.

I split off most of this topic and sent it here as it really had little to do with Roman Wine. (this posted as both a notice and a thread bump)

As far as the details go, I personally sit somewhere in the middle between perceived biases of the ancients, purposeful propaganda and honest reporting of the information that was available, while understanding the potential for Phil's more grandiose theories. However, ignoring the ancient narrative for the chain of events that unfolded would leave us with a near impossible trail to follow. Despite available archaeology, numismatics and art (architecture, statues etc. along with inscriptions), without such written words of Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio our view of the imperial period may be considerably different, but we'd also be lacking such incredible and fascinating primary source insight that the entire era may be shrouded in complete mystery. At least we can read the words of the ancients for ourselves and make interpretations of their biases, etc. As for the madness of Gaius... I personally find the development of his supposed madness an unlikely scenario and that his behavior may have been more indicative of the Shakespearian "Absolute Power Corrupts" concept. (Somewhat related to, but still a considerable step down from Phil's concept of a intended Hellenistic Monarch approach.) Regardless, the ancients seem to concur that Caligula had some problems and there is enough evidence to suggest that there was at least a rather abrupt change in his style. Was this sheer propaganda intended to defame the otherwise immensely popular son of Germanicus therefore providing an excuse for his assassination, was it an accurate description of events (a terrible sickness altered otherwise and previously exemplary behavior), or was it perhaps the simplest way for the ancients to understand and describe how a young man could change so rapidly (when in fact he was simply living his life to the fullest that a young man with supreme power could... who also happened to have been raised in an environment of death, shifting loyalties and alliances, treachery and murder?)

Egads! Beer comes in cans?!?!?

I think perhaps the argument works much better regarding Germanics than Celts.

I found it at a small market in Perry, NY, about an hour or so SE of Buffalo.

While on vacation around Letchworth, NY I discovered two beers previously unknown to me. (ahh the joys of small breweries). Saranac Black Forest is a dark and robust black bavarian style beer. Damn good stuff! I wasn't quite as impressed by Yuengling's Traditional Amber but it was quite good. Since it also has the distinction of apparantly being America's oldest brewery it is certainly worth a taste.

Suetonius makes it quite clear that Augustus was born on the Palatine but that a nursery was maintained in the ancestral home of Velitrae. Other than Dio who I recall suggests the same as Suetonius other sources may be the usual culprits, but in obscure passages. Maybe Plutarch (in Life of Caesar) or perhaps Appian makes a passing reference in the Civil Wars. Nicolaus of Damascus work survives only in part and any mention of Augustus birthplace may be missing. As something like this is not generally a concern of mine I don't recall any primary source evidence for Velitrae but it certainly was his ancestral home and the place where he was reared (at least early on.) I'm not sure what difference it makes because the city was clearly Roman by this point in history anyway.

NOT A REPLY AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION BUT AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERJECTION This forum is here to let people air their opinions in whatever form that may take. If antagonism spills over into the regular part of the forum than we will have to assume that the experiment is a failure. What is said in this forum stays in this forum. If individuals are not able to separate one discussion from another than individuals should probably not join the discussions in this forum. Again, we do not wish to censor or discourage frank discussion, but the tone of an argument and the manner its conducted can be respectable even if laden with disagreement. Thanks all

Just curious, if Jeb runs and wins (especially if it's 'close') will that raise any eyebrows that the Republityrannicrats just maybe have America by the proles? I'd be a bit surprised if Jeb runs, but if he does and somehow manages to win in spite of his brother... its even more telling that the Democratic party has absolutely no clue how to appeal to middle America. The farther the Democrats lean left to counter the Republican right side base, the more trouble it at least seems to have appealing to the voting populace. It's sad that our two party system seems to have such a tiny undefined middle ground (which I think would appeal to the vast majority). Though I suppose having a candidate with a dynamic, charismatic personality and platform may help win the appeal of the masses. With that said... I don't really see Jeb running, but wouldn't a Jeb vs. Hillary election be fun? I'd expect a military coup eventually from such a development. I'm voting libertarian next time anyway. You guys can have your religious nuts, gay marriages, illegal immigrants, welfare systems, national health care, social security, oil profits, etc. Just give me a rifle, a beer, a slab of meat and low taxes and I'm happy. /exits thread PS. Try to be civil to one another guys, just because its the arena shouldn't give free reign to abusive and/or crude language.

I see no reason to believe that Augustus was much different than most other politicians throughout history... he was simply better at it. I think its fair to say he was attempting to accomplish several tasks. * Pacify, Romanize and assimilate conquered populations. * Remove provincial corruption and the opportunities for rivals to develop in those provinces. * Strengthen Rome as a central authority * Establish military, cultural and economic stability (in whichever order and as many subcategories as one would like to insert... sort of the generic catch all item here ) * Secure his own position and legacy as first citizen Considering the nature of politics over the century prior to his usurpation of power, I don't think its out of line to suggest that Augustus first priority may have been to secure his own position. This may seem a discredit to the man, but to accomplish the other tasks with limited or precarious authority would've been far more difficult. I don't think you're being unreasonable at all.

Yes I'm well aware of this... US oil imports My point was that with the availability of more oil sources, or the development of alternative fuels, without oil as an export product the stability of the middle east could be even more unpredictable than it currently is. Perhaps the lack of said product would reduce foriegn interest in their government operations thereby reducing tension, but its difficult to see that happening considering the Israel factor. A bit more worrisome to me than some of the banter going on here about George W Bush (considering he won't be in office in 2 years anyway).

The other sugar substitute causing problems is aspartame. Though some say its pure evil, others say its heaven sent. Who knows, either way I don't plan on living much past 87 (relatively speaking of course).

Well, we could just drill for oil in Alaska and at least some of this would be completely unneccesary. One day we'll have some alternative source of energy and we'll collectively laugh at the futility of trying to shape the middle east into some western ideology. (That is until they actually do have WMD's and oil is no longer a cash crop... things could be even more predictably unpredictable.)

Ahh very well.

Yes, post count titles are singular intended to say that you as an individual are a: Tiro, Quaestor, Praetor, etc. Group ranking is plural indicating membership in a collective category: Equites, Plebes, Patricii One way or another, Locutus says you will all be assimilated

Yes, all member groups were changed to reflect Latin rather than the Anglicized form and others were adjusted from singular to plural, etc... Servus to Servi Plebeians to Plebes Equestrians to Equites Patricians to Patricii Legatii to Legati Triumvirate to Triumviri As for post ranks which simpy record the number of posts and have no real reflection on anything... For Military ranks (scroll down a bit) For the basics on the cursus honorum positions... Magistrates For more in depth information on the Cursus Honorum 'ranks' from... William Smith Dictionary of Roman Antiquities scroll down to government. In particular for Aediles Phew!

The same Marcus Aurelius also strongly encourages the use of oppium in "Meditations". That must have been some Contubernium to chill in. I don't recall where I read this (whether it was taken from Meditations or some other speculative source) but I have a vague recollection that the oppium was also enjoyed while mixed into the wine. I think the picture of Commodus' later lunacy begins to unfold.