Germanicus

Cato, does Ward-Perkins mention the decline in realism in later Roman portrait sculpture as an indicator ? I always found it ironic that the Arch of Constantine was decorated with facades from earlier, better arches....as if Romans had forgotten or grown less interested in craftsmanship.

Welcome to UNRV Crassus. In answer to your question, Primus Pilus would be the author, and UNRV would be glad to read any contributions you'd like to make. Just post your information in this thread, and be sure to list your references. Reasons behind the higher legions you mention not having a great deal of information I guess would be time, as Primus Pilus (Chris Heaton) writes everything you read on the site, and this information is in a constant state of update and he is yet to get to those legions in detail. Your conjecture regarding lack of credible sources on these legions may also be the case.

I guess men that pushed the limits. IE - Men that saw a precedent and wanted to surpass it. With that in mind I suppose Cicero doesn't really need to be in there, I put him in there as you were referring to him when you said "They wanted to outcompete their colleagues and surpass their ancestors". What I was aiming at was whether after a Marius, Sulla and a Pompey, did the competative makeup of Roman society guarantee there would be a Caesar ? IE - was it in their nature ? My question could have been clearer.

Hi Cato, reading it at the moment. It's gripping, and I think the author really logical in the way he goes about things. Not that far into it, but I think you in particular would enjoy it !

Prince - there's already a thread :- English to Latin translations Just type what you want in there.

Unless he was cheap and you wanted a good death ?

Good point !

As citizen Cato mentioned of Romans in another thread "They wanted to outcompete their colleagues and surpass their ancestors". To what extent do you think this competetive nature and ancestor worship, indeed the need to surpass the deeds or actions of ones ancestors and fellow Romans help in producing men like Sulla, Cicero and Caesar ? My own view is that nothing is entirely based on ones environment, but I can certainly see why and how a society so geared to competition for dignitas and esteem would produce the likes of Sulla and Caesar where they may not have been produced in a different situation.

Merry Christmas Viggen, sorry to hear about your grandmother.

The day is winding down, I am stuffed full of delicious treats, and am now relaxing after a day of family related affairs. I received some great gifts (Including a copy of "The Civil War") , and people were happy with what I gave. All in all a good Christmas day.

Interestingly enough, Galba promised a massive donative when he usurped power, but never came through with the cash. Otho on the other hand, didn't offer anything in the way of a donative, yet the Praetorians were fanatical in the loyalty they showed him. But yes, I do get your point.

Are you saying he was a product of his environment ?

Not that I live in the US but agreed. I can see the rationale in learning about Islam in school. I'd imagine it aint hard to learn about Christianity over there. Learning about Islam might be aimed at preventing some xenophobia, like what what we saw in Australia in the last month. Back to the great wall - we've got some stone walls here too, but we didn't learn how to build em from the great wall. We've got no Disneyland, but undoubtedly Movieworld on the Goldcoast owes some debt to it

I mentioned corn - as per Gallic Wars. That's where I got the chickpea and lentil from too. Virgil, Can you elaborate at all on what Flavius is talking about in terms of legion food being taken from their pay ?

Yeah, I was more curious about the bread thing. And your claim regarding their wages.

Interesting, Flavius can you post the sources for this ?

quote]Cicero said it best. The liberators had the courage of men, but the foresight of children. Some courage....what was it 12 armed men to one unarmed ? Sorry, had to say it.

Lucilla ? Cornelia ? Claudia ? Clodia ?

Lentil, Chickpea, Corn - bacon bones for some flavor. It would depend on where they were campaigning and what was on hand in quantity. I understand Barley was eaten, but was considered terrible and decimated legions were forced to eat it as part of their punishment.

I have not seen a thread about Cicero and was prompted in another thread where it was commmented that Cicero had a knack for spotting political talent. It seemed odd to me because he neglected to spot he who is often considered the very best talent on the rise, Octavian. (something about using him and discarding him ??) I haven't read the man himself, so can't claim to be an expert, but the impression I have gleaned is one of a truly amazing speaker, who's carefully chosen words were not always so carefully chosen, and landed him in trouble from time to time. No military man, he longed to be the savior of his people so much that he beat up the one intrigue of his consulship to make it so. If anyone had a talent for a good beat up, it was this man. So that's my current feeling on the subject, what's your's and why ?

If you accept what is fact, and what Virgil mentions :- Then you should realise that Parthia was not the far superior force you claim it to be. Aside from Carrhae, Parthia toadied to every Emperor or would be Emperor (handing back the taken standards to Augustus, offering Vespasian 40,000 horse archers to fight for him) and when they didn't Rome stepped in and kicked some Parthian backside, usually over a dispute involving the Armenian throne. Reasons Rome didn't expand lastingly into Parthia relate much more to either internal, or external threats to Rome on other borders, not to any fear of Parthian superiority.

Thanks for clearing that up.

So all are in relative agreement that the war in Gaul or Gallic wars may well have been legal. The incursions across the Rhine and the channel may well have been legal also, depending on what camp one is in. I have read that Caesar went to Britain specificly to secure hostages from tribes who had given aid to Gallic tribes in their fight against him. He crossed the Rhine to aid Gallic tribes allied to Rome who were under attack. If one accepts Caesars version - these incursions were legal as they were important to the security of his governorship. If one does not accept his version, they were not legal, merely opportunistic. As the senate awarded him the Governorship and extended it, voted him thanksgivings for victories etc etc, it seems to me that there was some personal beef or jealousy that lead certain senators to begin to doubt Caesars account of events. So as you said Cato, the question remains - Was it Justified ? I take P Clodius view on this, and as far as we agree that it was very possibly Legal - then it was just.

It's hard P Clodius to stay to the thread, with posts like the one above, but for you I will resist temptation and wait.