Primus Pilus

Try a red mullet next time out. Mine was blonde... pretty much brown now though. Well that and it's no longer a mullet, but rather simply a lid for my scalp

That's a fantastic read regardless of the nature of the 'fall of the empire list'. Thanks for that.

26% here. I blame the mullet I had in high school.

Certainly. I think that what's happened here, like many other events in history, is that over time simple common sense or the awareness of the benefits of invasion in retrospect have been applied to these things rather matter of factly. It doesn't make them wrong, but they are not necessarily supported by any ancient text.

This is all that Plutarch says.. and I'm afraid I would not be able to translate the original Greek in case something is missing or mistranslated. Evidence from Suetonius: of which Bill Thayer on his Lacus Curtius site says: Unfortunately he doesn't provide the arguments. Also from Suetonius who may have simply been quoting Plutach by the looks of it.

Ahh, well I believe this reason to be a bit shallow and not telling the entire story but... From Suetonius Life of Claudius chapter 17 And the very first sentence of the previous from Cassius Dio

Cassius Dio book LX starts with chapter 19.

I also made passing reference to the theory in my own text, however there seems to be no ancient source material to corroborate this claim. That's why I attempted to be rather dismissive of it. (hard to know if that comes through or not)

That's the same sort of reaction I was having. Is it intended to make fun of the "this or that reason is more important than another" theory by overinflating the options, or is it simply trying to make clear through over-emphasis that Rome's fall can be at least partially attrributable to numerous concepts.

The Last Legion Apparantly it is based on a book by Valerio Massimo Manfredi which I am completely unfamiliar with. One might think that a film about the final fall of the western empire, the arrival of Odaecer in Rome and the reign of Romulus Augustulus, might have some merit. However, judging by the synopsis, it sounds like a disaster in the making, despite such noted actors as Ben Kingsley and Kevin McKidd from HBO/BBC 'Rome'..

LOL, what nothing for W, X, Y or Z? Considering the absence of those letters, that list is clearly completely inadequate

This is both getting back to original topic and taking it on an entirely new tangent. I have been under the impression that post Sulla, the legal age of the consulship was 42 regardless of Patrician or Plebeian origin. In my narration on Caesar I wrote the following passage... Does it hold water or have I written this under the mistaken assumption that the legal age for the consulship was 42, when actually it was only 40 for a Patrician. Clearly the law regarding issues such as this in the era of Sulla/Marius/Cinna and beyond was much more open to instantaneous change and interpretation than in prior eras, but considering the nature of Caesar's politics there likely would have been a record of opposition on this issue from his rivals. Perhaps I am incorrect in assuming the required age of a consul was 42 and that this is not the reason some people believe he was born in 102 BC. Perhaps it is some other magistracy age requirement that has helped to develop this concept. However, clearly I believe he was born in 100 BC as reported by Plutarch and Suetonius.

Actually Rameses, the thread has nothing to do with Roman ethnicity, but rather the ethnicity of the rest of Italy and the 'empire'. At any rate... I think Neil's very valid point about the tribal and ethnic diversity in Italy from the beginning of Rome's rise makes the concept of ethnic mixing as a cause for the fall of the empire fairly irrelevant.

Ok, I think I should do the same. The theory was just fascinating. It really choked me. Therefore I have felt the need to share it. One would have had to imagine the Italians of the Empire not as an European people as commonly thought, but as a mostly Oriental breed, perpetually on the dole, which was devouring the wealth of conquered territories in an everlasting feast , and guarded on the limes by Gallic, Balkan, and Teutonic legionnaires. Then during the late Empire, this disparate people would have been elimitated from the peninsula in a massive die-off triggered by the collapse. Indeed, the population of Rome went gradually from roughly 1.000.000 to 30.000. Later, the Italians would have been replaced by different waves of invaders, because they do not look Semitic today. So Ancient Romans as a kind of dwellers of Atlantis? But if it looks as a crank theory, most probably it is. Thanks for your opinions. Well I don't think the idea of a massively diverse population is out of the question. What you describe... various people of differing communities filling different roles isn't necessarily a disagreeable concept. I think what we are resistant to is the notion that non Italian racial makeup contributed vastly and directly to the fall of the empire.

Actually it doesn't seem that any of us have questions. It appears that we are rather collectively dismissive of the notion.

Ahh thanks for that little dictionary link Cato, I wasn't familiar with that. It reminds me a bit of the William Smith Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. (Scroll down to the government section for the stuff you are looking for Severus)

You're right... it's highly dependent upon time frame, any in particular in which you are targetting? As for a book... I highly recommend Constitution of the Roman Republic by Andrew Lintott.

I think there is some basis for Frank's conclusions regarding population shifts based on conquest and slave imports etc. However, I'm hot quite sure how it is relevant to the fall of the empire, considering that the massive influx began largely with the 2nd Punic War, and the western empire lasted another 7 centuries from that point (and of course another millenium in the east). Was 'Italian' indifference (and other imported people) a factor in the eventual fall of the empire? Maybe. We've discussed the notion of indifference as a result of Caracalla's mass citizenship law as well as the implications of extending citizenship beyond Italic peoples, etc. Might non 'Roman' cultural shifts have also been a factor? Possibly. However, I will never be able to lay exclusive or majority blame on the notion of "laziness of foreigners" or reduced foreign "ethic" or lack of racial purity when Rome never would've established an empire as large as it did without the influx of foreign labor and auxilia military. Frank's hypothesis regarding dilution of Italian/Roman racial purity may have some semblence of accuracy, but then again I've never bothered to do any DNA tests myself.

I think its an indication of the trouble HBO had with the "Sopranos". They didn't sign the actors to long term deals and when the show took off in popularity, HBO was forced to pay some very large contracts. The signing of Purefoy isn't necessarily an indication that Rome will continue beyond the 2nd season, but it is a clear indication that they are thinking ahead and will be ready if it does.

An interesting link provided in a similar thread some time ago... Romanarmy.net

This is the type of invention that will be remembered and honored throughout the remainder of human history. Until... The stifling heat inside the makeshift vinyl pub and the accompanying perspiration associated with 30 drunken beer gutted patrons has all the earmarks of disaster. Thank you, but I'll stand outside

how fit was wendy james :wub: wonder what she's doing now? I don't know why, but that immediately reminded me of Lita Ford Kiss Me Deadly Hey and here's one for Viggen... 99 Red Balloons and the original

Same as Pertinax... There aren't any specific rebellions of 'Welsh' tribes after the Roman conquest, but it is likely that there were some disturbances. Considering the massive military presence though, the Romans were probably fast to react to the slightest incident. During the rebellion that occured under Commodus through to the civil war following his death, I would find it hard to believe that the west wasn't at least a bit unsettled. When Clodius Albinus withdrew the legions from Britain to meet Septimius Severus, he essentially left the bulk of the province unmanned. Severus had his work cut out for him restoring order once he defeated Albinus and arrived in Britain. Though most accounts suggest that any tribal unrest had stemmed from the north (and hence the warrior emperor's return to the idea of Caledonian conquest), it would seem likely that the frontier regions of modern Wales was a bit troublesome as well. Additionally, as I understand it the Ordovices and Deceangli never had their own tribal administrative center (civitas) as part of the empire, meaning that they were likely under Roman military government. Though most sources, including archaelogical evidence suggest that the Ordovices were severely punished by Agricola and the area did not recover for several generations. (I'm not sure that the Ordovices ever recovered but clearly other tribes would've moved in at some point).

Indeed, unlike Caledonia where there was always a vast territory of unexplored hiding places (from a Roman perspective) Wales was inundated with auxiliary policing forces. What I find so intriguing, is that despite this rather attested 'area-denial' strategy (which I also find rather agreeable), Rome had to remain ever vigilant regarding it's "Welsh" subjects. The rather large network of forts for such a relatively small area is telling I think. http://www.roman-britain.org/military/forts_wales.htm

If we couldn't tell by the review, I think we just got the message Have you moved on to the other books in the series?