Pompieus

I can't find anything definitive in primary or secondary sources either. Livy (26.22, 27.6) indicates that each century announced two winners, but nowhere does anybody say whether individual voters submitted one name or two.

When voting in the Centuriate Assembly to elect consuls, did the individual Roman citizen vote for a single candidate, or did he vote for two (one for each of the two consulships)? Similarly for the four/six/eight praetors? Is there evidence?

Alexander engaged in every type of warfare, and was victorious in all of them. He defeated armies of Greek hoplites, Iranian cavalry and asiatic masses, barbarian tribes and Indian Rajahs; besieged and captured great Greek and Phoenician cities, as well as remote, inaccessible, rock-bound mountain strongholds; succeeded in guerilla warfare against hill and mountain tribes, and defeated steppe horse-warriors. No army, city or people in arms ever defeated him. Nobody, not Pyrrhus, Hannibal, Scipio, Cyrus, Caesar, or his father Phillip were as successful.

The founding fathers of the US were interested by the concepts of "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" between magistrates, senate and popular assemblies they saw in book VI of Polybius.

Could be, the sources (Claudian, Zosimus V, and Orosius VII.36) are not much help. But the special title conferred on Gildo (Claudian says he ruled from the Atlas to the Nile (?)), the fact that he was a Moorish king, that he cut off the grain supply to Rome, remained neutral in the war between Theodosius and Eugenius, held his office for 12 years, and negotiated with Eutropius and Arcadius indicate he had wide control. Gibbon says he "usurped" the administration of justice and finance; but was it before or after he rebelled?

The comes Africae was the commander of the field army of Africa. There was a separate comes Tingitania for the Mauritanias. Gildo had the special title of magister utriusque militiae per Africum. A H M Jones says that the comes Africa also controlled the frontier guards; but that instead of alae and cohortes under a dux, the frontier was guarded by barbarian tribesmen (gentiles) under several praepositi settled along a frontier wall (fosse) on the condition they maintain and defend it. Hard to see how he could have rebelled without getting the support of the civil governors.

Check "Logistics of the Roman Army at War" by J P Roth. (available on-line)

The Greek colonies in Southern Italy and Sicily came from various towns in Greece and probably spoke the dialects of their original home. Most colonies were from Doric/Achean speaking regions: Tarentum - Sparta, Syracuse - Corinth (Doric); Poseidonia, Sybaris, Locri & Croton - Achaea (Achaean Doric). Cumae - Euboea, Rhegium & Catania - Chalcis (Ionian).

Ovid called it\Magna Graecia

If you can get hold of the Cambridge Ancient History (2d edition) Vol X pg 164-165; there E Gruen laments that "Confusion in the sources prevents a confident reconstruction of events, geography or chronology." and cites the sources (Florus II.33.48-50, Orosius VI.21.3-5) and "scholarly discussions" in a footnote. One of the discussions noted (which is in English) is R. Syme "The Spanish War of Augustus", American Journal of Philology 55 (1934) 293-317.

Apparently, in 2012 the Classics and Digital Humanities Departments of Kings College London were working on a project to create a data base that would consolidate data on Roman personalities, family relationships, offices held, priesthoods etc from Paully-Wissowa (Real Encyclopeadae) Broughton (Magistrates of the Roman Republic) et al. Does anyone know about the results? Is it done? Is it accessible?

You are totally right that there was no "regimental" quality to the legions prior to Augustus. There were anomalies like the "Valerians/Fimbrians" and it's possible Marius, Pompey, Lucullus et al instilled an "esprit de corps" of sorts in their units during their extended commands-but there is no evidence of this in the sources, and the legions were disbanded when the Imperator's command ended. It's also true that recruiting local defense forces or auxiliaries didn't require citizenship, but to call a unit a iusta legio citizenship was vital wasn't it? It's true Caesar was blasé about recruiting men with only latin rights in Cisapine Gaul, but even he didn't call the Alaudae a legion until the civil war, and commented on Pompey's legio vernacula in Spain. And freed slaves were technically citizens, and there was the precedent of similar recruitment of freed slaves in the Second Punic War. In modern times, repeating something enough tends to make it true, and this weird mythology about legio X is now in Wikipedia et al ....I just wondered where it comes from.

Apparently the idea that Caesar recruited Legio X of his Gallic Army while propraetor in Further Spain in 61BC, and that Pompey recruited Legions VIII & IX in 65BC has acquired the authority of the internet. Where does this come from? . Since Pompey was campaigning in the Caucasus against the Iberii and Albani in 65 he couldn't be raising troops in Italy. In fact he couldn't possibly have been further away! Plutarch says (Div Iul 12) that Caesar raised 10 cohorts when he arrived in Spain, but these were local levies like the 22 cohorts enlisted in Transalpine Gaul in 52. All governors were authorized to raise local troops in their provinces. Calling such troops a "legion" (as was done in the crisis of the civil war) drew comment in the sources. Besides, where would he have found enough citizens to recruit? There were probably plenty of Italian businessmen and contractors in Spain, but there were no colonies or settlements with willing young men to enlist. Nor were the legions of this period permanently organized entities that could be moved about from province to province. They were reconstituted and re-organized every year and given a new Primus Pilus new tribunes and, probably, a new number. Add to this the fact that four legions were probably already in Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul from at least 62BC fighting in Illyria under Q Metellus Celer and suppressing a revolt of the Allobroges under C Pomptinus. These units, reconstituted several times, are the four Caesar found there in 58. Does anybody know if there is any evidence for these assertions in the primary sources?

There were Greek cities in the Crimea and Taman peninsula as early as the 7th century BC. Diodorus Siculus says there was a kingdom which united several of them around 480BC. It was conquered by Mithridates VI of Pontus and became a Roman client kingdom after his death in 63BC, sometimes with Roman troops for support. Was it ever an actual Roman province? There is a little info in the WIKIPEDIA article on "Cimmerian Bosphorus".

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that State acceptance of Christianity (rather than the personal conversion of the emperor) was decisive. The Roman state provided the new church with patronage in the form of land and money, as well as recognizing the status and sanctioning the actions of bishops; and pushed efforts to define orthodoxy at the various councils. Of course the State WAS the emperor.

The oldest cities in Germany are those that were ancient Roman towns such as Trier, Cologne, Mainz et al; but what is the oldest city NORTH/EAST of the Rhine and NORTH of the Danube...that was NOT derived from a Roman settlement? Paderborn? Fulda? Utrecht?

There are several well attested examples of resistance to conscription during the Republic. Particularly for service in Spain. In 151BC the consuls were incarcerated by the tribunes for persisting in the levy and only the intervention of Scipio Aemilianus prevented worse trouble. (Polyb 35.4, Livy Epit 48). This happened again in 138.(Livy Epit 55).

All true, and the separation of powers idea was remarked on by Polybius and was adopted as a fundamental principal by the American founding fathers. But to be the devil's advocate - what actual "powers" did the Senate really possess? It could not legislate or declare war, it had no coercive power to enforce it's will, it could not even meet without being convened by a magistrate.

Was the Senate the actual government of Rome or a particularly distinguished and prestigious advisory council for the magistrates? Apparently this was a controversy in antiquity...Cicero called the Senate an eternal council (consilium sempiternum) in charge of the republic and the magistrates mere servants. Many consuls like L Postumius Megillus, L Marcius Phillipus and M Popilius Laenas, not to mention Marius, Sulla and Caesar refused to be ruled. Any strong opinions?

Officially at least, King Charles II disbanded the Army of the Commonwealth/Protectorate (viz "The New Model Army) at his restoration in 1660. Three New regiments were then formed, then more, a few at a time. It is from these units that British regiments of the 18th century to today take their history, traditions, precedence etc. The Yeoman of the Guard (from which the "Beefeaters" are derived) were apparently also re-established at this time. The original units (now the senior regiments of the British Army) were all serving overseas when the English Civil War broke out, and continued to do so until the restoration; serving in the French or Dutch Armies and as garrison of Tangiers in Morocco. When Charles was restored to the throne he brought them home, and along with the guards who served him during his exile (later the Grenadier Guards) they were the original regiments of the British Army.

I believe Plutarch is the only extant primary source for Marius' youth, and Appian the only one for for the last stages of the Numantine War.

Usually...actually there are lots of them...usually acronyms (NOTU, SUBLANT, SWFPAC, SUBRON, SRU etc, etc)

HA!!! The Navy is simpler....you're either on a ship-or not (usually). Though they've abandoned the old system of naming US ships and submarines. An Admiral once told me that fish don't approve appropriations.

As there are several residents of the UK active on this site perhaps someone with an interest in military trivia can help a dim colonial understand the designation of British infantry battalions in World War 2. I vaguely comprehend the "Regimental System" with its ancient traditions, county affiliations, and numerous battalions serving apart from each other all over the Empire. But the system is confusing, especially since cavalry regiments used a different system, as did artillery, antiaircraft and antitank regiments; and the Indian Army and Commonwealth Armies were each different again I understand that in peacetime each infantry regiment normally had two battalions, often one serving overseas and one recruiting and training at home (e.g. 1 & 2 Essex). I even see that the associated "Territorial" battalions (volunteer reservists somewhat like the American "National Guard") had a different designation, but why "fractions" (1/4 Essex) and what do the additional fractions mean? (2/4 Essex) Are all "fractional" British infantry battalions Territorial units, and vice versa?. Additional numbers (8 Essex 9 Essex) originally were assigned to units of Kitcheners "New Army" volunteers in World War 1, what did they designate in World War 2? Why are there gaps in the sequences and why do some regiments have no fractional battalions? (no Territorial units?). For example, Joslen (Orders of Battle Second World War) shows the following battalions for the Essex Regiment: 1, 2, 1/4, 2/4, 5, 1/5, 2/5, 8, 9, 10, 19 and for the Black Watch: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 10 Why no 3rd battalions? why no fractions for the Black Watch? why does the Essex skip 6th battalion and the Black Watch skip 9th? why three 5th battalions in the Essex Regiment? Is there method in this?

Is there a tradition that the Greeks sacked the city and caused "cultural" damage? I understood that relations between the Greeks and the Mauryas were friendly, including marriage pacts. Tarn's theory was that the Greek "invasion" was an attack on the usurper who murdered and supplanted the last Maurya king who was an ally and relative by marriage to Demetrius, king of the Bactrians. Tarn adds the possibility that the usurper (Pushyamitra - a Brahman and native (possibly king) of Sunga in the South) persecuted Buddhists so that the Greeks could pose as "liberators".