Primus Pilus

Unquestionably. It was contact with the Greek colonies in southern Italia that directly influenced Roman coinage. Most early Roman coinage, especially silver, very much resembles Greek coinage of the time. Hercules was a popular artistic impression. David Sear provides a very nice intro here.

Thanks for sharing Guy... my own limited numismatic experience hasn't taken me into the Parthian empire. They present a rather interesting artistry.

Heh. Those guys have actually been around a long time. You can check out some more samples on the Ten Masked Men myspace. None are as good as Britney's though. Except for the "Baby, Baby" and the repetitive chorus, Britney's song actually fits in fairly well with death metal. LOL

I celebrate Christmas with an unrestrained capitalist zeal. Happy Christmas to some, a reflective Hanukkah to others and a Saturnalia of revelry and debauchery to a very (fortunate) few.

Intelligence is not necessarily indicative of taste in the "arts". Interest in finer thing is truly an individual thing... so the answer is he could have. . It may depend on his education - formal or informal, the station of his family or even his place of origin. In any case, books were a relative luxury, hand printed, bound or rolled, etc - not as much as compared to the middle ages when they were truly scarce, but still uncommon for the average Roman. Regardless, a fair case could be made for having exposure to such works without any great stretching of reality.

I'm in general agreement with Ursus, at least once Caesar "came of age". As a young ambitious patrician surrounded by the opulence of an eastern monarchy, I wouldn't be that surprised if a tryst or several took place.

It's also possible/likely that the publisher/publicist emphasized a rather tiny portion of the book in order to make it appealing to a larger audience.

I differ with you on a couple of issues - but not necessarily in the manner in which you might think. In any case, we do know that there were several prominent Deists among the founding fathers (as well as revolutionaries): Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and most prominently George Washington, but by contrast we don't know whether the majority of the founding fathers were deists or Christians based on the presence of these and likely other prominent non Christians. We can look through the list of notable members of the 1st Continental Congress, the signers of the Declaration and the members of the Constitutional Convention and find many quotations in support of and adversarial to Christianity (or a particular Church

The point is that their power did not derive from the military. Their power was electory - military authority came with elected power. They were not permanent military chiefs as individuals--well until one particular tyrant came along that is.

There are elements within the later Roman Republic which might be considered a stratocracy, but it's certainly not true on any sort of permanent basis prior to the rise of the imperatorial generals. (ie Marius, Sulla, etc.) Even in the later period, there were Consuls who would not be considered "military chiefs", even if their role was officially to act as such when necessary. Cicero comes to mind immediately-and there is a relatively long list of Consuls of whom written history gives us little evidence that these men ruled out of any sort of militaristic necessity. Perhaps this is a semantic argument, but for me, having the authority to wield military power as the Consular heads of state did is not the same as using that military power to wield authority.

Another thought while driving home... The USA was undoubtedly founded as a Christian nation - not a theocracy of course, but a nation made up of Christian citizens. While the 1st amendment of the Constitution intends to protect religious freedoms, it was surely nvever intended to be interpreted as to exclude Christianity from the mainstream. It was the fear of federal sponsorship of a particular church over another (Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc.) therefore limiting the right to worship freely, that was the most important aspect. NEVER (in my opinion) was it intended to imply a secular society... nor did it originally apply to individual states, but only to the federal government. It's interpretation today, while certainly valid in many cases, does not necessarily relate to what it meant at the founding. It is absolutely unquestionable that the vast majority of the revolutionary Americans were Christians, and there was little concern over such distant religions as Islam, Hindu, Buddhism etc. in their immediate future. There was however, a very real concern over one powerful church exerting its influence over another.

But were these values uniquely Judeo-Christian, or more universal, i.e. present in the value systems of other cultures, both western and eastern? For example there were many values of the Greek philosophers (stoics among others) that were not inconsistent with the values of the Christians. I agree that there isn't necessarily an inconsistency with either value system. However, it doesn't mean that the influences in the colonies should be ignored. Without delving too deeply the Puritan influence on the northeast is one that comes to mind immediately. The relationship between the colonial Puritans and the crown was strained throughout the colonial period. Summarizing here: they aligned themselves with anti establishment sentiment throughout the colonial period (the Glorious Revolution for example). Nearer to the time of the American revolution, New England Puritans were often at odds with Britain over the encroachment of the Episcopal Church, against their religious preferences. Their was a natural distrust among New Englanders when it came to their religious rights against the will of the crown. Boston, it should be noted, was the common man launching point of the revolutionary movement. Puritanism was influenced by Revivalism which led to the Great Awakening of the 1740's - creating some sense of solidarity among the colonies. There are many who disagree with the idea of the "Great Awakening" but there is little question that there was an increased level of evangelism and politicizing of pulpits. The "preachers" of the era were often in the forefront of local revolutionary movements. As a bit of an aside... While education was not limited to the northeast in colonial America, it's there that the modern system of educating children in an organized fashion took its roots. The Puritans were very much pro-education and literacy - a necessity in order to read and properly interpret the bible. Education was of course not limited to the colonial northeast, but can we dismiss that much of the written revolutionary rhetoric took hold in the very same place. Coincidence or not?

Independent of defined state church, yes, but not independent of Judeo-Christian value systems. Of course, more important to the revolution itself is political circumstance, English common law traditions and revolutionary commentators of the time such as Locke and the Cato Letters. Unquestionably, if we speak directly of the American revolution we see far less of a biblical influence than if we look at the entire colonial period. However, the revolutionary period is a sum of all the eras that preceded it. I agree and would never advocate that the revolution was a Judeo-Christian event, but I believe it's impossible to disassociate the influence on the culture. Despite the religious affiliations of some prominent founders, it's easy to see the existence of "Providence" throughout their letters and documents. It was not the primary force, and again, I'm not suggesting it was. Many colonists arrived in the new world as a revolt of sorts against the Church of England (and others) heavily influencing American ideology, but the revolution was political, not religious.

Yeah but what's with the guy that just got murdered by the people getting married. Call the cops!

People spend far too much time on labels anyway. Does it really matter what the label is if whomever it is intends to take your freedom, right, left, top, bottom, what have you? Please just refrain from making current political statements in the Roman history section.

The foundation draws from both really. There are many elements of Christian influence in colonial America and the revolution - personally, I don't know anyone on the far right that completely excludes the historical influences. Some may tend to look more earnestly for Christian thought processes in early America, but the people I know on the deeper right don't view it as a mutually exclusive thing. Of course, there's also those people on the far left that seemingly refuse to think that Judeo-Christian values have any positive influence whatsoever. In any case, the influence of the Roman republic on the American system of government is fairly clear. People who don't realize it can be informed. Anyone who seriously refutes the notion despite already having been informed should be disregarded as intellectually inferior. My opinion only of course. Haven't read it, but you can try this. http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Classics-Gr...t/dp/0674314263 Dig around within similar books and you're bound to find something.

I had rhinovirus once. It made me horny.

Attalus has a been a great research tool on a number of fronts. This is just another example. It's great have the entire chronological conversation in a single place and in the proper context.

O blithe little soul, thou, flitting away, Guest and comrade of this my clay, Whither now goest thou, to what place Bare and ghastly and without grace? Nor, as thy wont was, joke and play. (Translated by A. O'Brien-Moore). The main problem is of course the original source: the Historia Augusta ("Aelius Spartianus") is entirely unreliable, even for Hadrian. Agreed, likely even more so than Cassius Dio, much of the Historia Augusta seems to have been presented with a distinct flair for the dramatic. I say likely because despite the inherent issues with the Historia Augusta, the book on Hadrian appears to be somewhat more reliable than the later works. As I recall, it is more in line with other historical evidence than the books related to other later emperors. Of course, I readily admit that "somewhat more reliable" is completely subjective and open to interpretation.

It makes sense, bankrupt automobile producers are always a desired target... UAW ~ PLA, what's the difference really.

Much of it was filmed within a couple of miles of my house. There are already plenty of communists living here in Michigan... a few Chinese wouldn't make much difference. =P I just can't believe that there is so little hollywood creativity left that they had to remake Red Dawn. AVENGE ME BOYS!

The source data for the chart is here - no published paper per se, but rather a list with accompanying ancient source references: http://www.unrv.com/government/political-v...an-republic.php I don't recall that we ever published MPC's chart in conjunction with the above data, but he obviously posted it in this thread.

Yeah, 16 years later and Somalia is still a shithole of islamic genocide and tyrranny. Yeah, really funny stuff. Asshat.

The classical source here is presumably SP Festus, De verborum significatione Book 14. From this text, it seems no hint was given by the author on which Africanus (Major or Minor) was he talking about. Lacus Curtus provides some quick reference background on the who said what. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...raetoriani.html

Here's another start http://www.redrampant.com/2009/07/ancient-roman-armor.html This post has a bunch of links to pictures of armor and such. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5301