Primus Pilus

After much anticipation (dread?), the following classic oddity has found its way onto Youtube. Fishheads

Hello to you, May I ask why you simply copied the text from Jona Lendering's site? http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/v_parthica.html

They found one in Las Vegas too. Clearly it was built by aliens though, so I don't think it counts.

Why would they be searching since Trajan brought the vast bulk of any Dacian royal treasure with him to Rome?

nope. The term "barbarian" refers to them basically as the "bearded ones." The term came about when the Romans started considering being clean-shaven, or as they called it, barbered, as civilized. Everyone who wasn't barbered was termed as a barbarian. That's a new one One of several theories... I've heard that one before as well. I also read one that was a take on the Greek origin of Barbaros about the word being a simple replication of the sound that sheep make.... Baaaaa Baaaaa. Heh.

Always please give credit to the source of images... (I know it can be found with a simple right click, but I still think its a goodwill gesture). www.Romanity.org

Makes me wonder if Osmanegic will soon discover that 30,000 year old Bosnians were the first to erect monolithic "henges".

History of Rome by Michael Grant is an excellent introduction. Grant provides quality insight while writing in a style that doesn't overwhelm the newcomer with historic academia.

I was stumbling around the AHA site on a completely different matter and came across this... History PhD programs in the US and Canada This has to be purchased but could be quite valuable. I'm thinking it would come in quite handy to have around here anyway. Directory of History Departments and Organizations in the United States and Canada

Perhaps, but the reverse can also be true. Many people defend it/maintain belief also without understanding the whole story.

I loved her work as well. (at least the first two books) Please do... and be sure to update us with a link if you should have success.

I meant to correct it by spelling it properly and re-added the extra S. Instead I made you look further... Sorry 'bout that Frank.

Emessa was a city in Syria, now known as Homs or Hama.

Your quack informant suggests righteous fact. About the Chianti Classico Black Rooster By the by, I'm not a very good wine snob... I simply know what I like without being able to truly express what it is that I like. One of my criteria is... Does my wife like it? Yes, then even if I don't it's still a decent choice. No she doesn't like it... Well generally I'll skip it, though I can't give up Shiraz simply because she has a softer pallet

That is an odd set of unanswered circumstances. Seriously considering the story I am left only with an odd sense of incomplete notes... *guy finds sword *sword goes to museum *sword returns to guy (stolen? given? returned?) *sword ends up in a suitcase in an attic completely out of view for untold number of years (lends itself to the stolen theory?) *guy dies *workers begin to clear house (I assume no heirs?) *students go to house presumably to loot his books before they are sold (illegal or legal selling? and its ok for these students to just show up and start kicking stuff around?) *sword is found while students are supposed to be looking at his books but are instead scrounging through suitcases in his attic *sword is obviously forged for an Anglo Saxon king because it was found in a castle 50 years ago. That is some damned fine journalism there. LOL

But who measured this percentage and what might it truly mean? Considering that the Romans controlled any urban areas and therefore the bulk of commerce, chances are that the Dacian natives were forced to pick up a bit of Latin whether they were under the direct yolk or not. I'm not sure what percentage of the Dacian population in the 2nd to 3rd centuries was urban but 14% seems like a terribly low number to maintain any semblence of control for such an extended period of time... against an enemy that had been persistently aggressive for over 2 decades. (Though there was a rather disproportional presence of legionaries in Dacia compared to other provinces, but I'd be willing to go out on a limb and attest this to imperial border security as much as control of the Dacian population.)

A recurring phenomena you've given to Canadians in earnest especially regarding hockey players. The Y example is quite common (ie Shanahan to Shanny).

A very exciting dynamic. It may be interesting to research how many of those men who won further election after their defeats actually offered themselves as candidates. If 26 to 33 of the reported 96 actually won elections, did the remainder meet defeat or simply not run as a result of dismal public support? Additionally how many of those badly defeated above and beyond the 96 did not return either as a result of death in combat or later suicide. Just some thoughts I hope are answered within the book at first glance.

Indeed, but I suppose I'm trying to tie this into the statements by Plutarch and Suetonius that Caesar died in his 56th year. We are fairly certain that the date surrounding Caesar's death is accuracte (44 BC) thanks to complete consul lists and such, so clearly its only the year of birth at issue. (Not that Cato is suggesting otherwise but I am simply expressing thoughts out loud) Ok an understandle rebuttal. What if once a precedent was set, the matter was simply a non issue. If Caesar had already been allowed to run early has an aedile, perhaps each successive stage was granted dispensation as Furius suggests. Again just thoughts trying to tie together possibilities here. A politically viable option. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities considering Caesar's well known connection to Crassus. I can see a dispensation being granted on these grounds for the Consulship but does it really mesh going backwards to previous elections? Of course Crassus could've bought anyone off along with supplanting Caesar's debts to help him gain office, but it just seems like a more difficult explanation than the notion that either Sulla's laws were still in effect for Patricians or that some other dispensation had been granted. I'll have to try to research some other names and dates to see how these wash together. Perhaps this special dispensation was common theory comes together if there are others with dubious dates of birth vs. magistrate eligibility, etc. Agreed as a definate possibility as per previous Crassus comments. Or that the age was really 36 and not 37 and that Caesar was born in 102. Understood, and it would tie things up nicely, but the Plutarch dating haunts me I don't care your motivation as long as it helps figure it out I skipped a bit as I am simply late getting out of my office but there will be more...

And this is where the theory that the dispensation from having won the corona civica can also be easily applied.

Just in case anyone is curious like me why we yanks call football soccer... Soccer is an abbreviation for Association Football. The Football Association was formed in London in October 1863 when representatives of eleven clubs and schools met in an attempt to standardize the rules of the game. One of the rules prohibited the carrying of the ball, a rule that would lead to the Rugby-oriented clubs leaving the Association several months later. The name Association Football was coined to distinguish it from Rugby. By 1889, the abbreviation socca' was in use, and the spelling soccer had made its appearance by 1895." We have to thank the students of the 1880s for the word "soccer". It seems it was the practice amonst the well bred students of Oxford to abbreviate words whilst adding "er" to the end; "brekkers" for breakfast for example. On asked if he wanted to play "rugger" (i.e. the "rugby rules") a student replied "no, soccer", an abbreviation of "association", or the "association rules", i.e. the rules of the Football Association in London. "Footer" was also used, but could have referred to either code. From a combination of posts in here... http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=6442

Just to add some lighthearted fodder for silliness factor... Plutarch, in addition to labelling Caesar as having died in his 56th year quotes Caesar thusly... This was supposedly said while Caesar was serving as Quaestor in Hispania for the year 68 BC (following election in 69). If Caesar had been born in 100 BC and this occured after July (his birth month, and consider that Caesar's departure to his province had been delayed by his aunt's and wife's funerals) he would've been 32 years old... but technically entered into his 33rd year And of course, Alexander was 33 when he died. LOL. Sorry, but it struck me funny picturing Plutarch basing Caesar's age on this bit of literary drama.

No, I didn't mean to suggest that he overturned it, but that he modified it. I guess a good question would be whether or not the law remained in effect with the same name, but with new definition. That's an understatement! LOL, that there was questionable legality or that you point it out often? Ok friendly ribbing aside... 37 (or 36 at time of candidacy) is the lex villia age though I believe and not the Sullan. Considering that Sulla lowered the patrician age for everything else by two years it would make sense that he lowered it to 35/34 for Aediles as well. In this case Caesar was right on track according to the Sullan laws. I suppose that's a possibility, but I'm sure that Catulus' remark has more to do with policy making than with Caesar's age and forced magistracy, but it's interesting looking at it within this context. Yes, but I have been operating under the assumption for some time that this particular portion of Sulla's reforms had been overturned some time previously, hmm... I'll add some more conjecture below. Now this is a damned fine theory in trying to piece together some possibilities based on information that has not been preserved with the idea of giving us the answers we are looking for in this context. However, the key thing for me is that I can't reason why if Caesar was indeed too young that somewhere this would not have been recorded, especially when we consider the fairly large amount of data that has been preserved. Agreed, and despite the enmity growing for Caesar among certain members of the Senate, I think its safe to say that we all agree that he was still considered the junior member of the partnership at this point. Pompey and his legions, and not Caesar, despite the guilt by association concept, were still the major worry. It's possible that anything could have been overlooked in order to make appeasing gestures on more practical concerns, but why would Pompey's enemies allow Caesar to take office at two years under the required age (as a conciliatory gesture with Pompey) if they were not necessarily aware of Caesar's total connection to Pompey at this point (and therefore the likelihood that Caesar's election would cause them trouble). Granting this concession prior to the announced triumvirate doesn't quite tie together, especially if there was any notion at all that Caesar might support Pompey. Allowing Caesar to become Consul by circumventing the age laws, if there was concern that he would support Pompey, doesn't make sense unless Pompey's opponents were hoping to influence Caesar away from supporting Pompey and his legions by making a concession. That would seem a bit naive of his opponents though and considering their political acumen, I certainly doubt it. I think the illegal aedile election based on both 100 and 102 BC is solved if we can assume that the Sullan laws were still in effect. Whether or not this was overturned is still in question though I suppose. However, considering that each of Caesar's offices were held 2 years prior to legal age according to the Lex Villia (if he were in fact born in 100 BC), there is a fairly clear pattern developing which indicates that the Sullan laws were still active. Considering how few Patricians were still around in this period, maybe it is not quite so extraordinary that the old Villia law gets cited most often when in fact the Patrician adjustments of Sulla were still in effect. Since the Consulship age of 42/43 for other families was the typical and by far most common measuring stick for the time perhaps it is simply an error in made by the ancients on account of what was the norm. We know that Cicero makes reference to the ages in the Villia Annalis clearly after the time of Sulla, rather than anything left over from those reforms, but Cicero was also not a patrician and was perhaps making an oversight. Since the primary factor that records Caesar's year of birth as 100 BC are the recorded words of Plutarch, there is certainly the possibility that Plutarch was just wrong. Is it possible that the change in the calendar adopted by Caesar created some confusion? Or, did Plutarch simply backtrack Caesar's date of birth by calculating it based on his magistracies? If this was the case the chance of mistakingly using the Sullan laws rather than the Lex Villia doesn't seem all that shocking. And I apologize to anyone that doesn't find this interesting, but its fairly intriguing to me. Though I suppose nobody forces anyone to read it.

LOL, but I'd rather drink wine from a box than regrow my mullet.

The lex Vibia annalis (180) set down that one had to be 43 to hold the consulship. Perhaps one had to be at least 42 to establish one's candidacy? Makes sense to me, though to overlook such a requirement does not exactly fall in line with other strict guidelines regarding election law... such as absentia laws and prerequisite magistracy requirements (though there were loopholes in everything). I believe it was Sulla's reforms that introduced the age of 40 for a Patrician consular candidate and 42 for a Plebe, but as most of his laws were eventually overturned I'm sure this did not apply in Caesar's case. Do we know for sure if the lex Vibia annalis was restored after Sulla or was something else adopted. Of course as you often point out, there was a great deal of questionable legality surrounding the time period.