sylla

You can read it in Plutarch.

The bulk of the available evidence on Roman age for the first marriage comes from the urban population in the principate. There is direct evidence for the elite; the early to mid-teens for women and the late teens for men. Regarding the non-aristocrats, the evidence is almost entirely indirect, fundamentally the age at which spouses replaced parents as commemorators for young adults in epitaphs; at least in Italy and the western provinces, it was circa age 20 for women and age 30 for men. As usual, Egypt has the best records (census): late teens for women and early twenties for men.

Plutarch attributed this innovation in the pilums's design to Marius during the Cimbrian War. Interestingly, Ammianus attributed Julian

That was indeed the conclusion of Polybius, given an even distribution of human and material resources. In practice, there were naturally additional factors that affected the battle's outcome, like the leadership, cavalry support and even the Roman elephants. In any case, the phalanx was routed by the legion in almost any battle across this period (Pyrrhus was another story).

Indeed; one must agree with Cleopatra's image being more literary than historical (Ms. Schiff's depiction included), but hardly with her 21 years ruling "alone". As any other of the late Ptolemies, she was a client puppet monarch, essentially a Roman pro-magistrate backed by the legions from the beginning to the end and with questionable executive capabilities, despite the Augustan propaganda.

Nope. It was Tacitus the first one that mentioned the rumor ("the infirmities of Augustus increased, and some suspected guilt on his wife's part"). Dio elaborated on this theory and attributed Augustus' death to poisoned figs.

I do believe the Senate legitimized his claim legally, whether coerced or not. Of course, anyone could see through such things if they chose to look deep enough, but we know the role of propaganda in such things. And... the legions were probably just happy with the donative of one thousand sesterces per man and ultimately to have one of their own in command. By his own account the opportunist Dio began his literary and courtier career with a lavish treatise on Septimius Severus' dreams; it seems he had no problem in abusing his former benefactor. This passage must had been written (or edited) after Septimius' death, and we might reasonably infer Alexander Severus was not displeased by its content.

Unsurprisingly, Livy's answer to a related question (Alexander III versus his contemporary Romans) was definitive too; Alexander wpuld have been utterly defeated.

Nothing new under the sun: all countries (peaceful, innocent or not) have always considered evil incarnated any Empire that tries to subjugate them, all and each one of the Empires included: George III for the American fathers, Napoleon for the British, Attila for the Romans and so on,

The origin and timing of the gladius seems to be still an unsettled issue, chiefly because of the ancients' uncritical use of ethnic labels (like the "Samnite" weapons), the equivocal archaeological evidence and some controversial references on the earlier use of this kind of sword (like Manlius Torquatus). Sadly, this issue's debate has been heavily contaminated by (presumably misunderstood) national pride's considerations from (and maybe also against) the modern Spanish side. Regarding the swords used by the Romans previous to the Gladius, Polybius mentioned both the Gallic Machaira and the Greek Xiphos; archaeological evidence is equivocal again, basically because, contrary to other Italian peoples, the Romans didn't include weapons in their burials.

From the BBC's site, their current article on An Overview of Roman Britain (by Dr. Mike Ibeji) states the following regarding people's view of Rome: "... grand, monolithic dictatorship which imposed its might upon an unwilling people, dictating how they lived, how they spoke and how they worshipped. They see the Romans as something akin to the Nazis (which is hardly surprising since the fascists tried to model themselves on Rome)." Dr. Ibeji's own impression: "Yet perhaps Rome's most important legacy was not its roads, nor its agriculture, nor its cities, nor even its language, but the bald and simple fact that every generation of British inhabitant that followed them - be they Saxon, Norman, Renaissance English or Victorian - were striving to be Roman."

All in all, one of the best Pepsi

...whereas mine, on the other hand, does. An EXTREMIS POPULARIS for me - sometimes the will of the people demands a temporary suspension of democracy The "suspension of democracy" (temporal or not) and the "will of people" in the same phrase seems like an oxymoron to me; that sounds more like modern dictator's chat.

All due respect to Phang and Scheidel but I've no reason to accept their argument because they apparently reviewed everything. They seem to be searching for deep inner meanings in something straightforward. Sometimes learned people search for clever and subtle connotations in a field of study. That doesn't make them right. The Romans weren't subtle at all, and in dealing with warfare, had very practical mindset. They knew full well young men without partners are more competitive and aggressive - exactly what they wanted for their legions. People back then weren't fundamentally different from today (apart from some customs and lifestyles) and you don't see any of this inner subtlety in men trained to fight and kill. back then, fighting was even more acceptable and a way of life for many. Even with religion involved, I seriously find it hard to accept the Romans were intellectual about warfare. Then, your sources speak for themselves; inferring is indeed easier than reviewing. We don't even have an argument here.

No Roman politician would have considered himself a "popularis"; it was always used as a pejorative term against others. Everybody's own perception was as an optimas, the best of the best. And naturally, virtually everyone used his influence on the mob to cheat where and whenever it was possible.

That was an accepted risk of the time. The Romans never thought about 'societal stress' until the mob was banging on the doors. Roman soldiers of the Republican period were not allowed to marry. Simple as that. It made for aggressive men willinging to fight. Depends on the period. During the early Republic, the ruling would have been very strict, and given the limited size of consular armies easier to administer. As time went on, this ruling was relaxed somewhat. Still in place, still a traditional expectation, but conveniently ignored if a soldier could get away with it (which pretty well sums up what sort of men they were overall). Of course it doesn't. The Romans already understood why. I can see why the notion arose. Illegitimate sons of serving soldiers were viewed favourably by recruiters. Nonsense. A legionary swore to serve a legion and it's commander in a special ritual. They were already symbolically seperate. Nonsense. Roman soldiers never willingly surrendered to civilian law and shielded each other from it. Juvenal wrote a piece in his satires about 'judges in boots'. No. It had everything to do with preventing distraction of soldiers motives and keeping them angry. Having sex is a known calming factor. Having kids is a known motive tio settle down, thus working against the requirement to be mobile at a moments notice. As for citizens, it's recognised that recruiters thought highly of legionaries sons (a somewhat hypocritical view?) and Augustus wasn't against population increases at all. Far from it. His franchise system required the distribution of populations and the more successful the new town, the more wealth came back to Rome. You know, the extensive papyrological research of Dr Sara Phang is still regarded as the standard text on the study of the Roman military family issues , and Professor Scheidel reviewed virtually all the available literature to comment her; so it would be really helpful if you might quote the sources that allow you to so easily dismiss them.

Livy's verdict was definitive: "(The Macedonians) were armed with round shields and long spears, the Romans had the large shield called the scutum, a better protection for the body, and the javelin, a much more effective weapon than the spear whether for hurling or thrusting. In both armies the soldiers fought in line rank by rank, but the Macedonian phalanx lacked mobility and formed a single unit; the Roman army was more elastic, made up of numerous divisions, which could easily act separately or in combination as required."

"Everybody lies" Gregory House, MD

Some legal prescriptions regarding the irregular families are known; for example, Hadrian decreed the children of soldiers who had died intestate be able to inherit if there were no legitimate children or relatives who took precedence. The problem with the pool theory is that the soldiers' offspring were not Roman citizens, meaning they couldn't be recruited as legionaries; there's no evidence (according to Scheidel) that such individuals would have had any additional advantage or incentive for being recruited as auxiliaries than any other peregrini.

In fact, Dominican researchers have been Hawass' partners for some time, including many of his highly publicized findings.

Also a reason one must not forget but is very valid from at least augustean period would be to have the soldiers free to move quickly from one place to another : no spouse means no tie to the land and the ability to go from Rhine to Persia without growling ( of course they were malcontants, but the rationale can be understood. I've not looked for the date of introduction of the rule, that might provide us with elements. Roman soldiers actually had women and children on a regular basis, and they were not banned from doing so; it was just that such unions (conubium) were irregular but legal, out of the marriage usual prescriptions. Irregular families were probably as much a tie to the land as the legal ones. The precise legal text for the military marriage ban has not been identified yet; it seems this rule came from the early principate, quite possibly close to the Lex Iulia et Papia (18 BC).

The Roman state didn't prevent its soldiers from sex with local women or even raising children; it just denied these unions the legal status of regular marriage, at least up to Septimius Severus and maybe even later. As far as I know, no available primary source explained the rationale behind this measure. The traditional notion that it created a pool of illegitimate sons within a military environment that would eventually join the army has been largely discarded. Phlang considered that it symbolically dissociated the soldiers from the civilians. Scheidel stressed that it might have shielded active soldiers from legal claims by civilians. Personally, I think its obvious goal was preventing the unwanted proliferation of Roman citizens, quite in agreement with the Augustan reform as a whole.

There is, actually. Plutarch's Life of Antomy: "Many kings and great commanders made petition to Caesar (note: Octavian) for the body of Antony, to give him his funeral rites; but he would not take away his corpse from Cleopatra, by whose hands he was buried with royal splendor and magnificence, it being granted to her to employ what she pleased on his funeral." Later: "When she understood this (note: that she was about to be sent to Rome), she made her request to Caesar that he would be pleased to permit her to make oblations to the departed Antony; which being granted, she ordered herself to be carried to the place where he was buried, and there, accompanied by her women, she embraced his tomb with tears in her eyes, and spoke in this manner: "O, dearest Antony," said she, "it is not long since that with these hands I buried you; then they were free, now I am a captive, and pay these last duties to you with a guard upon me, for fear that my just griefs and sorrows should impair my servile body, and make it less fit to appear in their triumph over you. No further offerings or libations expect from me;" And after her suicide: "But Caesar, though much disappointed by her death, yet could not but admire the greatness of her spirit, and gave order that her body should he buried by Antony with royal splendor and magnificence." Thanks a lot. BTW, you have a great notebook.

We agree on Alexander; there are no records of any Persian reports that might have countered the semi-legendary accounts on the remote Persian campaigns. To find an analogous narrative from Caesar, we ought to check on the Helvetian campaign; its figures are clearly beyond any ring of truth. Roman accounts on the Republican Civil Wars (Caesar's included) should certainly have fallen under the "swallowable" category, analogous again with the Soviets