Germanicus

Can't accept that challege, you make a really good point !

I think the exploitation / protection varied a lot depending on the particular Emperors administration. Reading Pliny, one can see that he was only in Bythnia and Pontus at Trajans orders because the last two Governors had been charged with extortion and other offences while in the post. Trajan realised something was wrong in the provence - and dispatched good old Pliny to sort it out. Most of Trajans replies to Pliny seem very concerned for the happiness of the province and it's people. I dare say that may not have been Domitians or Commodus greatest concern.

The media reports and recent round of Mike Moore docos do all they can to convince us that the US is no longer a democracy. I guess I should be happy our government chose to be "with" the US. As Texas Bush said "If you ain't with us, you're against us"

They are poles apart, Nero was a possibly psychotic despot, and Marcus was a kind, philosopher emperor, considered to be the last of the "five good emperors". Marcus Aurelius only real failing was leaving his freak son as heir. I guess another similarity is that they probably both composed verse - Aurelius "Meditations" of stoic thought, and Nero endless poetry and music which he forced his court to sit through for days on end, putting to death any senator that happened to nod off. Thats really where the similarity ends though.

Having read the Masters of Rome series by Colleen McCulloch, I was interested by the chapters she has written detailing recon work done by Sulla and Quintus Sertorius at the order of Marius, to find out and infiltrate the Cimbri and Tuetones prior to their arrival and subsequent defeat. I wonder what factual basis there is for this conjecture. She goes so far as to say that they both learned the languages and had families with their germanic wives, and became quite respected by the two tribes, gaining some social standing. There is even an implication that Caesar meets a germanic son of Sulla on the banks of the Rhine during his incursions into Germania. Can anyone advise if this has been included in the books due to factual evidence ? Is there much writing detailing reconissance/spy work carried out by units within the legions ? Were there units formed and dedicated to such a purpose ?

Part of the problem was this ever increasing cost though, was it not ? Not that the military kept expanding, but the donatives payed by successive emperors to each soldier to retain their loyalty and the throne undermined many of the principles the rebublic and then the emipre were founded on ? But once again, just one of a large number of factors.

I'll join in, I just printed out a copy.

I agree wholeheartedly with you PP, that the offer by Marc Antony of the diadem was staged, I think Caesar knew to an extent just how much the Romans loathed kingship, and he wanted them to know he did not intend to rule as a king. I believe it was offered two or three times on the same occasion - definatly a show for the crowd. Caesar did not want to be king, and it's my unfashionable belief that he would have actually followed the example of Sulla in another way if given the eventual opportunity, that of stepping down from the dictatorship.

yes they did use small pick style axes to some extent, and I believe they also sometimes used Roman weaponry after military and trading contact.

Maximus, whatever rules you decide on - you have to call the document "the twelve tablets" , give it some instrinsic authority.

Hi PP - could you tell me where you got this info - is it on UNRV somewhere ? Is there a listing of conflicts - legions involved ? That would be great.

I go walking in the bush, and I like fishing in the local river. I play computer games. I read as much as I can. I do a lot of oil painting. and draw every day. I listen to music, mostly 80s, and the recent surge of neo 80s music is exciting to me. I love the beach and surf when I can, but am happy just to beach comb. I am also fascinated by space, and all things astronomical.

Ursus - can't remember what string it was in, but there was a discussion some time ago about how the Romans incorperated foriegn deities into their pantheon because, being superstitious, and considering their contractual relationship with their own gods, they simply did not want to run the risk of offending potentialy powerfull foreign gods, and hence payed them a certain amount of respect in many cases - like Mithras and Isis. It didn't mean they were only doing it to "Pacify" the natives, but that they had their own reasons ?

Wow, that point you mention Ursus regarding the troop numbers involved is so true - and really interesting. Am I right in thinking around 25 standing legions ? I guess in varied slightly throughout the empires history.

Yes - and also the main strength of the legions was in organisation - working together. Their weapons and sheilding was designed so as to work when groups were locked together, covering each others flanks. Most of their training drills I assume revolved around learning to obey commands for formations, in small groups these attacking/defending formations would have been impossible. In a lot of ways the barbarian enemies of Rome were more suited to fighting one on one, thats why when they came up against a disciplined legion with a good commander who could get his troops into the formations he wanted, the barbarians were trashed.

lovelyme, you might actually have to do some research on this one. There are many differing opinions, and you're going to have to make up your own mind. Maybe just start by reading some of the information on this site.

The legions involved were II Italica and III Italica.

Hello all, Ursus has looked at my review of "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" in the Roman media section, I don't think anyone else has but the whole book is pretty much a discussion of this very topic - from a "No he was not a Tyrant" perspective. P. Clodius - I think you'd really enjoy this book if you haven't already read it. The author, Parenti, seems pretty close to your position.

I believe Scanderbeg that there were two extended conflicts with the marcomanni, but only have any real knowledge of one in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Can anyone elaborate ?

http://www.unrv.com/empire/early-roman-timeline.php

Good one PM - saw your new thread.

I think he was totally justified, and in a sense, a march on Rome to preserve his dignitas is completely Roman, Dignitas being a Romans most important quality among his peers. I think he did probably want surpreme power, at least for a period, to push reforms he wanted onto the agenda, but his clemency (ultimately costing him his life) shows that he only followed the example of Sulla in terms of the march, not in terms of a reign of terror after the fact. He was just misguided in his expectation that the oligarchs would "come around".

From Melbourne, Australia

Thanks Ursus !

The book titled "The Assasination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti, makes for compelling reading. It provides a detailed account of the events leading up to, and including, the fatefull Ides of March. Written from what I can only term a modern day "plebian" perspective, Parenti separates the book into chapters which compliment each other. They range in subject from discussions about Caesar the Popularis, to Cicero.....the conservative but brilliant orator who's position at the time was certainly anti Caesar, and whose same position has been adopted time and time again by historians ever since those fatefull days of the late republic... ...read the full review of The Assassination Of Julius Caesar by Michael Parenti