CiceroD

Its no wonder. Coins really traveled in those days. Whether it was Bezants in medaeval England or the Norse Penny in Maine, Norse Penny Coins turn up in unexpected places! The only real wonder is that it was one issued by Nerva rather than an emperor with a longer reign.

What was Claudius' conquest of Britain, a ball game? But never had it been so explicit. Moreover if the recruitment of the landless poor had been going on. Wouldn't it have been to eke out legions instead of creating them en masse out of proletarii?

I noticed that her detective character Falco has a best friend (Petro) who is a member of the vigiles, and he seems to be more policeman than fireman. At least, from what I've read so far in her novel Saturnalia. -- Nephele She does run roughshod over Roman naming conventions, doesn't she? This is especially so with women. As I recall Falco also lights "a match" in Silver Pigs (or Shadows in Bronze). That being said I've loved (LOVED) the series ever since I picked it up. It's probably because the characters are so vivid. What preoccupies me is: what will Falco do when Domitian succeeds Titus? I think our "Sam Spade in a toga" will be the first to be purged!

Don't sell Augustus short either. As the author states in the quote he did succeed in "consolidating" the Roman Empire. He got a people who loathed monarchy to resign themselves to his rule and he created a system that would survive his hideous heirs. But ultimately the question is: did his actions define Europe and later culture? Why don't we take a look at a world without Augustus? Without him this period of civil strife could not have continued. Either: 1) Another strongman would have filled his shoes as Imperitor. 2) External enemies (Or breakaway provinces) could have ended a Rome weakened by extended civil wars (as they did later) If the former, then Rome could conceivibly have continued to provide the backbone to western culture. If the latter "Romanized" successor states could have fulfilled the same role.

Wouldn't the Torcs give the Gauls away? I would highly doubt that if Quinctilius Varus hadn't walked into the Teutoberger Wald the Romans would have had little problem assimilating Germanic Gods just like every other polytheistic people they conquered (The zealotry of Veleda and her followers not withstanding). After all they didn't seem to bat an eye at the self-made eunuchs that worshiped Cybele! Perhaps we can't be conclusively sure one way or another. It would really help if some local city magistrate had raised a temple in Germania Inferior or Superior to Wotan or somthing. Still we can't rule out that they picked it up from the Thor comics!

Ditto. But I have to register how awesome it is that you were born on the Ides of March!

Ok I've pulled the book off the shelf and this is the quote directly Just how did he define Europe as a region? Sure he conquered Illyricum and finally brought Spain under Roman authority. but this doesn't define Europe. I would say that it was the Medieval Church that created the sense of "Christendom" and therefore Western Culture. I think that no one holds the title to "founding father of western civilization"

What I seem to hear is that Caesar was just bad or indifferent as an anthropologist. It seems clear that the Germans did have Gods. However it is conceivable that they were different ones from the Norse, since Tacitus didn't see fit to provide their local names. Didn't every little city in Sumer have its own local God/s? given hundreds of miles I can believe that someone can wind up in a new religion really quick!

What is Tacitus' description of Germanic religion? Is there anything that sounds cognate to later myth? One always must remember that the book is Propaganda. I have to admit the Bos Cervi, Alces and Uri dont ring a bell except that Alces refers to Moose. Perhaps I haven't gotten there yet. But couldn't an innaccurate description be caused by ignorance? I mean how often did he hunt? People didn't believe in Gorillas until one was shot. Dugongs were mistaken for Mermaids. Similarly Caesar, and his men wouldn't have spent much time observing German religion. It really would have been counter-productive to turn Gauls into monsters since he put them in the Senate! He also engaged the Britons and didn't conquer them. Still they do not come off nearly so barbaric as the Germans. That explaination alone cannot be completely the cause for Germanic bad press

(Note: It was a toss-up in my mind as to place this topic here or in Forum Peregrini. I hope that here is acceptable) I have been reading through Caesar's the Gallic Wars for the first time. (and getting to the good parts! ) But I noticed at the beginning in Caesar's description of the Germans, especially their religious practices being far removed from later Germanic (and yes Norse) Mythology. This is what he said: Obviously this differs greatly from the Eddas or later Uppsala Temple worship. What is the source of this cultural inconsistancy? Three possibilities spring to mind. 1) Caesar was a bad Anthropologist. He didn't really care about being accurate, took rumors as true, made assumptions based on a lack of built temples, and/or wanted to disparage them. 2) There was a change in religion. it has been known to happen. A simple animistic people can develop a pantheon and mythology in the hundreds of years between Caesar and the Vikings. 3) It's apples and oranges. "Germanic" is a linguistic definition and not a cultural one. While they may have shared language traits two different religions can easily operate between the Rhine and Scandinavia. What does everyone think?

Thank You Melvadius! I shall have to investigate further.

My dreams of Toga-making have been stymied by finding the right material. Does anyone know where to find suitable cloth wide enough?

I certainly agree with your second point there. I do see Caesar as a villain, but Caesar = Hitler? Warfare has always been a savage thing and back then it was even more so. The modus operandi for any ancient general capturing the town was to kill most of the defenders, rape the women, loot the place, and cart of much of the remaining population as slaves. That's why Augustus sparing Alexandria got so much press. Just to get things straight 52xz. Do you put most ancient generals on par with Hitler?

We're also missing somthing else here. Martial Art or no, Pankration was part of the larger world of Greek Athletics. I always heard that the Romans were never very thrilled at the institution. Didn't they see it as leading to certain character defects. (Well excluding Emperors Nero and Commodus of course!)

Thank You Viggen! I was absolutely sure I had heard that somewhere. Glad I'm not going soft in the head

Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar I've read an essay by Carlos Eire that maintains it was in Roman self interest to protect a leader who told people to pay their taxes and turn the other cheek I cannot find the reference but I have heard that the soldiers who executed Christ were in the service of Herod (whichever one it was) and patterned on the Roman Army proper. I don't know how much creedance to give this theory. I'll try to find it, but in the meantime has anyone else heard this?

They elected Military Tribunes for 14 uninterrupted years between 408 and 394 BCE. I can't imagine that this could be allowed if the patricians could so easily "freeze the plebians out" and return to consuls. There was another long stretch between 391 and 367 thats 24 years without a consul. (Admittedly the "Anarchy" also was in there)

I was reading through my copy of the Chronicle of the Roman Republic by Phil Matyszak and stumbled upon references to "Military Tribunes". Here's what the author had to say: Military tribunes or to give them their official title - tribuni militum cum consulari potestate - came about in 444. The powers of the consuls were divided between two new magistrates - the military tribunes and the censors. they could be chosen from both the patricians and the plebeian and the system was a compromise to the idea that the consulship should be open to both orders. In any year the people could choose to elect either consuls or military tribunes, and while there were always two consuls in a year, (If consuls were elected) there could be two, three, or even six military tribunes. (Sometimes their colleagues, the censors, were also described as military tribunes making the the number even higher.) The sysstem lasted until 367 and was abolished by the Licinian Law This raises far more questions for me than it answers. Ostensibly the election of multiple "Consuls" would be useful in leading separate armies (as Praetors would). But a look at my timeline indicates that there were few wars of note in this period except the spectacular capture of Veii and the Sack of Rome by Brennus. In addition I have another reason to doubt the "military" nature of this office: wouldn't a tribune's military imperium evaporate on crossing the pomoerium? How would they ever convene the Senate or Tribal Assembly? As Matyszak relates this was a compromise amidst the Conflict of The Orders. But if this was a way for plebeians to win seats of power I was shocked to see that L. Quinctius Cincinnatus (a Patrician hardliner) himself served in one of the first years Military Tribunes were elected (could have been his son). Reading the UNRV consul lists brought up another little enigma. The Licinian Rogations occured during a run of Military Tribunes from 391 to 367 BCE. The Licinian Rogations a.k.a. "the anarchy" was that time period when the Tribunes of the Plebs held out for access to the consulship. Then what do they do but elect military Tribunes for several years more. This doesn't make any sense! Why commit to a knock-down drag-out war for access to the consulship when Military Tribuneship was already available to plebs? I found another source that contradicts the UNRV consul list. It maintains that the Licinian Rogations came at the end of this period (367) this seems to make sense. (Lex Licinia, Licinian Rogations) Someone please clarify this! The last question is pretty much semantics the official title was "tribuni militum cum consulari potestate". Forgive me but didn't Consuls hold imperium rather than potestas?

I've been away for awhile, and I dont recognize this feature on Profiles called "Reputation". Mine is neutral. That's good right?

"Better to win by admitting my sin than to lose with a halo" From Evita Nothing new in the extremely ambitious guerilla leader who thinks that the ends justify the means. At that point though (During WWII) was Ho Chi Minh communist? Or did he align himself as such after the Nationalists in China were pushed to Taiwan and he could count on support from Mao?

Was he corrupt though? He was all too happy to subvert the constitution for political ends, but he was fighting an apparently endless ideological war with the aristocrats. It made sense, in a way, that if there was no way to legally change the government one was to set themselves against it. Unfortunately Sulla had set the precedent. If the Ides didn't happen he could have had his fun, packed the senate with his creatures, and retired like Sulla or Diocletian. Who knows?

It is really interesting: I had heard that towers were usually inside the wall in early forts. I thought that the Romans didn't care about enfilading fire. The Silures must have been a major threat for that much energy to have been devoted to defense. Does anyone have a good idea of what this fort was actually guarding? I would think that if it were a critical post that they would have a larger garrison than a cohort or ala and devote less time to fortification. I highly doubt that they would've wasted time on a bridge. In an attack it wouldve been very exposed itself. It could easily be burnt, and if the enemy could get underneath it they would be sheltered from the defenders' missles. Plus it would have provided an access in if it was breached. I would've made the towers' defenses stronger as a stand alone unit.