Sextus Roscius

I don't believe that Roman soceity and culture had any more to do with the mental state of the average person compared to the actual conditions they were in personaly. Like Primus Pilus said, the average Roman had a lot less knowledge about what was going on in the world considering that they didn't have T.V., radio, or the internet, they had to rely on source of mouth for most of their information. Only the Nobility, and even not all of them, would have been knowning what was going on world wide. However, even these patricians could only get information of something a day to several weeks after it had already happened becuase everything had transported by boat or road. Both where incredibly lengthy depending on how far away the information source was. I think that most people would've not been affected by the ovious violence in roman culture becuase quite simply they grew up in it which would've made them acustom to violence or hate. Wheras now adays, parents are constantly sheilding their child from the "horrors" of soceity which can be the cause of kids and adults alike being so flabergasted by things to day which really aren't that bad. There are obvious excpetions such as Caligula, but who can blaim him. I would have gone insane too if I was him. But more likely killed by tiberius.... All said I think there was no more or less pychopathes and lunatics than there are today because the culture they were in was the same through their entire life.

I felt like creating this topic after reading another one which is the reverse of this topic. I wanted to figure out who was the worst general in Roman history and what other people thought about the subject. I thought this would be a better result than the normal questions asking about who the best was. Anyways, in my opinion the worst general of the Romans was (out of the major ones) Hardian, becuase he ultimately signed Romes death wish be sealing off the frontiers. The constantly expanding frontier was vital becuase new conquests provided slaves and wealth for the empire which we needed to keep things being built and to maintain the mass infastructure of the Roman Empire. Though I do see why he sealed off the frontiers, I think he sorta took the sore losers way out by saying "well, I give up, fine, we'll just stay right here!" instead of saying "Oh ya, well your mom is smelly too! Come over here and say that to my face! Thats it I'm a coming over" I know this isn't at all acurate but I sorta think that is how the Empire started being once Hadrian sealed off the Frontiers.

Oh, I took in incorrectly, my apologizes. I'm still not sure if that had anything to do with it, i'm sure Pilus would know but as for now I'll try to look into it.

While I'm not entirely sure, I beleive that there wasn't any specification between the signifer and his armor depending on the century he represented. That wouldn't make too much sense and would end up being costly and silly becuase if you were the 59th or 60th signifer, you would be wearing the equivent to the a large resturant sink filled with metal dishes, which would be too hard to wear or to even stand with. Wheras the signifer of the first century would have 1 or no discs what so ever and would be left fighting with chian mail which wouldn't be sufficent protection. So it is most likely that the discs on armor had little or nothing to do with the century's place in the legion. They were just their for protection and to make the enemy scared since most of the discs found on armor are faces...

I'm glad they finaly took up the challenge and did it. I remember watching a show when I was about 7 or 8 years old that spent part of it talking about the mysterious shafts and their purposes. I've always had it stored in the back of my mind wondering what WAS up there. Thanks, I wouldn't have found out most likely had you not told us.

Interesting view on life Violentilla. Personaly working in a brotherel doesn't sound to fun to me but what ever suits you. I'm glad to know at least one person followed along my path with being a rich merchant of a not incredible prominate stature.

Your standing on white vs black racism is questionable but interesting, but I don't want to start anything. I believe that in a way, it made sense for the Romans to see the celtics a inferior. They were in my mind at that point inferior and unproductive. Wheras the Romans made huge architectual triumphs, couquered most of the known world, and had the most or among the top complex system of life with tons of different standing, classes, and means to get where you wanted. The barbarians at the time formed no mass organized armies, lived in smelly hovels, and were massly illiterate. It makes sense that the Romans viewed them selves as superior, while they looked up to the greeks as people with great liturature and culture and worthy of admiring. They judged by cultural sophistication and power. Its strange but I remember a book I read with a story in it. The story was about a fight between students at a Roman school between who was better, the Greeks or the Romans. Part of it went "The romans build useful things!" and it showed a picture of a Roman toilet. Then it showed the Greek kid going "But! The greeks make beautiful things" and it showed a sceen from a greek tragedy. I laughed at it but I guess it has some meaning to it.

Agreed, had agustus been smart he would've placed germanicus as his heir, personaly i think i would've gone along the same lines as Ursus and bribed the preatorians to murder tiberius and assume position on the throne. Tiberious would have been a easy target anyways, considering how he was constantly doing stupid things, and I won't go any further but to say Island Villa. Anyways, you could probobley take control of the empire with out tiberius even noticing it happened (i'm exagerating but oh well). Well, I also wouldn't have gone along with being sent to asia minor and I would've kept better control of Caligula, not to mention have the older sons of Germanicus become heir, too bad they were killed off by Tiberius. Only poor little boots left to run a empire that he couldn't.....

while i'm not quite sure what you mean by differences. Antony and Cicero both followed very different walks of life from different places, I find it hard to imagine them being much the same. Cicero was always very upright and was very keen on republican values while Antony, being a ceaserian, was fairly new age and was in the army making him most likely have a more militeristic view on life and how things work than Cicero who was a politician with no battlefield experiance. So I'm just going of presumtion here and saying that they most likely weren't very alike.

Not exactly, you see the Romans did not call Greeks barbarians. The greeks called every other people barbarian... A interesting point you bring up, the greek word barbaros (I believe that is correct) meant anyone who didn't speak greek. Since anyone who didn't speak greek was basicaly saying giberish to them, it sounded no different than a dog barking or the song of a bird. Thus we get the idea that barbarian implies animal or primative. So if you think about it, aren't we all barbarians to the greeks any ways (unless you speak anceint greek like one of my teachers lol). Sorry to digress. Any ways, there wasn't much racism in roman soceity, however it is undoubtable that there was some, as in juveneal as some one mentioned.

A great list, my only problem is that I think sulla should be moved up a higher teir. He was a great general and one of the few awarded the grass crown (I thank tobias for that). I believe that he deserves a greater position than what he got.

A little bit I picked up which might suggest that my our idea is correct but it may not be for the time up to after this. Command of the legion was usually given to a legatus legionis picked by the emperor from the senatorial class who generally had some previous military experience through service as a tribunus. In Egypt and from the the start of the third century also in other provinces the command was not entrusted to a senatorial legatus, but to a praefectus legionis, an acting commander drawn from the equestrian order. This means that they probley did dash between the administrative capital and the legions. I'll let you know if I find more.

you strike a interesting question, one that I have no answer for and will most likely press myself to look into. perhaps they simply stayed where they were more needed. A legate wouldn't have sat around at a border fort all day doing nothing besides running a camp. He would be where he was most needed, which in certain cases might be a fort. they might have stayed at the administrative capitol most of the time near the proconsul incase they were needed imediatly or were called upon by some one higher ranking. Then when they were needed on the frontier or a legion was moving or going on a campaign, went with it. A general needed to have legates near by.

I'm a spellsword! Aggressive, but with the brains to back it up: You are a Spellsword! Score! You have a prestige class. A prestige class can only be taken after you

Magnus means simply great, not good or nice or any of those. Words do have different means to different people though. In my mind anyone who can gather so many people to a insane cuase has to haave much skill and ability. I'm not saying that he did any thing "good" but I'm saying he did things that I doubt any of us have the ability to do; rehabilitated a destroyed nation into a powerhouse, rally the constantly warring departments of the military and government to his camp, and control almost all of western euorpe for a time. I'm not trying to say that he achived "good" things but I'm trying to say that just becuase he didn't do "good" things doesn't mean he can't be great. Think past the horrors and think about whether you could've done what he did, not whether or not you would've done it. You might see where I'm coming from, if not. Then I respect your position. I'll stop I guess before we get into a agruement here.

I rather like mine, its Lenw

Poli Caligae

Fun, but if your hurt badly, your hurt badly. No real path to health once you've lost a limb. Still would be fun, if I was in the army I would be a centurain or tribune. Not a front line soilder..........Then again, I'm sort of a wuss. Any one else?

Einstien should have Magnus added to his name. Many people will think wrongly of me for this, but Adolf Hitler. Despite his inhumanitary treatment. He managed to do something that many of us who insult him and ridicule him daily lack the ability, determination, or ideas to do. Think about what he achieved, many bad things, but look at it deeper. He managed to rally an entire nation to his cause counquered more land in less than a year then the Romans could do in centuries and managed to hold almost the whole of western europe in his power, something that even the Romans never truely achomplished, in fact, no one had ever achomplished before. Look at it that way and you might see some light. NOTE: I am not a facist or a Nazi, I'm just trying to say that we should look beyond prejudices against people for their beliefs and see how much effort and skill and time it takes for some one to do something of the magnituted they did.

Sounds fun, but not so much on the kicking, I'm not too good at that. Alas, my heart lies with technology and other such things, I'm not so great at the things outside.

this gets my vote. I've only used them once in my short time on the forum which was a gasping face, otherwise. Begone with them!

When it comes to historical series, band of brothers is the best, hands down for me. However, HBO's Rome might come with some compotition at some point or other, unlikely. I'm not sure if it can be called a historical movie or not but Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail is a hilarious film and brings back laughs no matter how many times I see it. But if I'm speaking seriously. The actually version of Gladiator, not the TV 14 version, is my favorite just for its great gladiator matches despite some bending of actual history.

What would you be in Roman soceity, any era, job, class, or stature you would want to be in Rome. Describe what you would want things to generaly be like and such. Personaly, I would like to be a banker durring Agustus's rule. A member of one of the more successfull but not inceribley well know, some what like the Caecilii of Pompeii. I would want to have a fairly nice town house but would spend most of my time in a villa out in the countryside, preferably tuscany or in the area around Naples. I would want to have a nice family, a wife and a son preferabley along with a good commidation of slaves so I didn't have to do anything becuase I'm lazy. All of these would let me have a fairly laid back lifestyle. Praise Bacchus! Thats just me though, what would you want to be

My areas of speciality so to speak are probley around the fall of the Repubilc and a little past the reign of Agustus. This in my mind is the most interesting era of Roman history as it is the epoch turning point in the legacy of Rome. A time where among the best remembered Romans wared for power and the entire whole of the mediteranian was holding its breath for what was to befall it. It is also in this era that the military might of the empire was about the coolest in history. The legions of Rome marching against each other! It must have been a truely scary and eventful time beyond any of our imaginations. Miltary tactics and battles are my favorite area with a very close runner up of politics and culture of the era. A personification of the mediterainian: However i can't deny that the punic wars and other periods are interesting.

As viggen said, a completely interesting subject. Though it is hard to tell if technolgy changed a lot as the empire expanded or if inventions made life incredibley different. Most tools are now gone and many buildings still around are half destroyed at best in most areas of the empire. However there has been some evidence to show slight changes. Aquaducts were changed slightly over time with the addition of the roof to keep water clean. Also, bath houses were changed as the Romans and other cultures created better heating systems and found better fuel sources. All of these are small and relitively unnoticable changes. But, in my opinion, the area of the Romans most notable for changes was the Army. The armor and organization of the Army changed dramaticaly over the ages. Roman hastati (excuse my spelling) were massly different than the khafaracts (once again, spelling) of the eastern empire. Roman military tactics and Equipment changed to fit the enemy they fought. Such as the Romans adopted a different formation for fighting macedonian and greek phalanx and again for fighting the barbarian hoards. These were all made due to a different "invention" so to speak of the enemy.