Favonius Cornelius

Research associate in parmaceutical drug discovery, cellular biology.

I think auxilia from the Italian allies during the Republic were more than just light infantry. From many areas they were just as heavily armed as the legions coming out of Roma.

The Pantheon

What is your nationality Demson, so that I can tell you what your version of honor is?

What is dignitas to the Romans? It was personal honor, as defined by social mores and expectation of a culture. It depended on personal accomplishment in all things, not just war: financial, political, social, personal. I do not know if the concept was as alive in the times of the Empire, but during the Republic it helped define the over all success of the Roman man.

I enjoy reading about these almost forgotten ancient minor kingdoms. Do you know anything about the area/kingdom known as Colchis? It would be east of the Bossporian Kingdom, along the northeast coast of the Black Sea.

Virgil, now that you mention it, I think I do agree with that! So I assume we have all heard of the tale of Caesar weeping before the bust of Alexander in morning of his lack of achievements. Was Caesar's planned invasion of Parthia an attempt to ultimatly outdo Alexander? When you think about it, if he could pull off conquering the Parthian empire then he would indeed have claim as the greatest conqueror in the world. I'm actually sad he did not get the chance.

I guess it all depends on how early you are talking exactly. The Latin fighting form naturally went through evolutions. At some point they did indeed fight much like phalanx formation, but before that it was more loose. For instance, I have read it speculated that the Salii brotherhood is actually an ancient (ancient to the Romans even!) seasonal grouping of young warriers who would go and fight bands of other young men in the next tribe.

Considering the fact that he at least knew of Marius and his tactics vs. Jugertha, and considering his avid use of siege tactics, my guess is he would take a slow and steady approach. Perhaps like Marius constructing fortification in key areas and isolating all important points to eventually scatter and starve the Parthians and their hungery horses.

So fellow historians, tell me why the Romans never conquered the Parthians.

Of all the characters in Gladiator, my favorite was Proximo: "I am Proximo! I shall be closer to you for the next few days, which will be the last of your miserable lives, than that bitch of a mother who first brought you screaming into this world! I did not pay good money for your company. I paid it so that I might profit from your death. And just as your mother was there at your beginning, I shall be there at your end. And when you die - and die you shall - your transition will be to the sound of... " [claps his hands] "Gladiators...I salute you."

Awesome, more power to them. Any Italian/Roman equivalent you think? Doubtful probably in the face of Catholic power.

They had flopy hats and short ones, also many priests had special conical hats. I think it would be correct to say that the rich formed the trends, but we know next to nothing about what the poor did because they did not leave us inscriptions or statues. I think in general the poor didn't give a damn about style and just did what was practical. Getting tonight's dinner was far more important. You can find all sorts of evidense for styles, from statues, archaeological remains, and even in the histories.

Jesus was black.

For me the loss of this library is the worst thing that ever happened in the ancient era. People and empires come and go, but knowledge is immortal. Unless you burn it!

It would be pretty amusing to see what Caligula or Nero were really like a year or so before their deaths.

I honestly see a LOT of close compairisons between the fall of the Roman Republic and the situation America is in right now. I am going to post something I wrote a while back. It could be edited and expanded, but I don't quite have the time right now. It does lay the groundwork for the parallels I speak of. I also wanted to mention that expecting to see a modern day empire in the same mold as an ancient one is impossible. For one thing the annexation of land is largely useless these days. Real empire today comes in the form of military and economic power, not the number of provinces you have or indeed the superficial/supposed governmental form you have. Does it not make sense that a new empire would be of an altogeather new form, because this is how humans progress. ******************** The Parallels Between the American and Roman Republic When I read my Roman history and think about our modern times, I am always struck with the remarkable similarity of the history timeline of both. I believe it's the Chinese who believe that all history is cyclical, and if you do any reading of the history of man I think you will indeed notice the pattern. I'm not sure I ever listed out the similarities, so here it is: First think of the origins of both nations. The Roman Republic was created from the grip of Kings after they threw out the last Etruscan overlord, Tarquinus Superbus. So too in America did we throw off the regal control of the English crown to maintain our independence. After both of these occurrences, the structure of the Republic was formed. For the Romans it was more of a gradual development, but the Americans had the benefit of previous experience and much of the original structure is still there to this day, but even our Republic has undergone change over time. The Roman government was composed of the Senate, the elected magistrates with 'Imperium,' and had courts and a state religion. American government has basically the same thing, except that we have a congress of two houses rather than one, elected magistrates who are the executive branch, and the judicial branch, which in many ways functions just like the courts, tribunes, assemblies and religious leaders of the Roman Republic combined. In politics there developed two general factions in Rome, the optimates and the populares. Now historians get pissed about this when you compare them to American Republicans and Democrats, but you have to admit, especially today, there are remarkable similarities. For instance the optimates were a conservative bunch, favoring the status quo and the rich and the old customs. The populares favored attaining their goals through the voice of the people by using the power of the tribunes and the assemblies. They were also rabble rousers who didn't think anything of antiestablishment rhetoric to attain their own goals. (And really for both parties those goals always boiled down to personal power as it does today). Those who were actually elected to high office in both Republics are a part of the aristocracy. Clearly with Anglo-Saxon names predominating the government of America we can see this old money and old blood influence, though in the outlaying 'provinces' of the American republic, such as California, you get leaders of a different stamp, just as local leaders of Further Hispania could be expected to have Iberian ties. The moral fiber of the Roman Republic was based on the citizen farmer who had an share in the function of the government and its administration. So too was America founded upon an agrarian base, and we romantically view the farmer's life as a simple and Godly way of life. Over time the successes of the Romans, with the treasuries of foreign kings pouring into the pockets of rich and ever richer Romans, brought an end to the idealistic farmer past. Huge farms called latifundia were formed by rich men buying out all the land from citizens who eventually could not keep up with the money power of the rich, who populated their farms with slaves. So too in America have we seen the effect of industrialization squeeze out the small farmer as during the industrial revolution during the turn of the century. Mega monopolies grasping all control and enforcing ever stricter work hours and conditions on their workers. Rome had a convenient way of rationalizing its empire building: it was all defensive. THEY started the war, and Rome must complete it for its own defense. I know of no wars America has started without giving the same 'moral' pretext. Then came the revolutionary change started by the brothers Gracchi. They realized that this trend could not continue, and so too did America impose monopoly and social reform from late 1800s to the 1960s. The old ways however could not be revived, because Rome swelled with money, foreigners, and foreign ideas which so besieged the collective Roman conscience that it lost its old identity, and the only social glue which kept it all together was the universal concept of greed. So too in America, after the liberation of African slaves, immigration of Asian, Latin and other peoples from across the world mixed up the united conscience of the Anglo-Saxon colony into one of world metropolitanism. America has more social problems than many for the simple fact that all are so different from one another. But as America swells with power from the fact that it alone is the only super power in the world, the remaining trait that all share in common is greed. So in Rome the old morals were thrown out the window, and the decadent Roman ways became more popular. So too do we see a social relaxation of the classic morals of America's yesteryear. Shocking is not shocking enough, ideas of sexuality become blurred, and we are bombarded with a blitzkrieg of extravagant crap on the TV that tell us a million vapid messages about how inadequate we are, how we need more and more, how we must buy ever larger vehicles, make ever bigger boobs and biceps. And so the Roman Republic ended when one man of military standing, leading legions who could not be beat, who dominated the world, made a grab for it all. I wonder what America's fate will be.

Felix, would you say that opinion is shared by all your brothers in arms? Lets say hypothetically that Bush claimed that terrorists were running rampant in some American town and it had to be bombed, or some people killed. Would your brothers follow orders without asking questions? What if they were under orders to apprehend rioters or protestors? What if you were asked to fire on protestors? I am not trying to be provocative, I am honestly curious about your opinions on this.

My vote is for Julian the Apostate. I got a thing for Romans who 'keep it real.'

You know at this stage in my life I need to devote my money to other things, but I figure later in life I will be collecting them. After all, they've been waiting for me for two millenia, they can wait a few more decades..

Hello all! I just wanted to say that I got my prizes today. Thanks! Believe it or not, this is my first ever Roman coin.