Primus Pilus

That depends very much on the who and when. Typically it was 9 cohorts of 1,000 men... here's a VERY rough lineage. 133 BCE - Scipio Aemilianus created a personal guard of clients called the cohors praetoria. This practice continued for imperatorial generals throughout the late Republic and the civil war period. 31 BCE - 14 CE - Augustus essentially created an imperial guard based on the previous practice - there is some debate on the beginning numbers but it is often accepted that there were 9 cohors of 500 men or roughly the same size as a legion (4,500 men). Before the death of Augustus the number of men per cohor doubled. 69 CE - Under Vitellius it swelled to 16 cohorts of 1,000 men. c. 69 - 70 CE - Vespasian reduced it back to the original 9 c. 81 - 82 CE - Domitian, his son, increased it to 10 c. 193 CE - Upon the assassinations of Commodus, Pertinax and Didus Julianus, Septimius Severus disbanded the praetorians and reformed them from his own loyal legions. The number may have increased nominally, but the base 10 cohors remained. c. 312 CE - Constantine disbanded the praetorians permanently though a form of guard units would always remain. (ie Scholae Palatinae)

"Hospitals" were a later Roman concept developed from the earlier Aesculapium. It was essentially a temple where the sick could go to pray to Aesculapius (the god of medicine whose serpent entwined staff evolved into the medicinal symbol) for help. There was limited care provided by the priests in order to comfort those seeking help, but not likely any real medicinal intervention. True hospitals in the Roman empire seem to have developed with the growth of Christianity and the church in the Constantinian era, though the modern concept of hospitals (or simply large facilities to treat and comfort the sick) pre-date Christianity in places like India. Two "famous" Roman doctors: Aulus Cornelius Celsus who wrote De Artibus and De Medicina Octo Libriand Aelius Galenus (simply Galen) who wrote an exhaustive number of treatises and encyclopedic works (which are unfortunately mostly lost)

As did I... I was afraid that that Harris became permanently distracted by other subject or works. Glad to know I was wrong.

In his early reign, Nero seemed content to allow able advisers to administer the empire. It's after he asserted his own authoritarian power that the trouble seems to begin. Was this negative connotation a case of resentment by the aristocracy? It was certainly influenced by the perceived slight against the traditional roles of the same aristocracy, but Nero wasn't exactly revered for his leadership skills either. Some quick successes of Nero off the top of my head: Quelling of the Iceni rebellion of Boudicea in Britain and essentially putting the final stamp of Roman rule in southern Britannia. Victory of Corbulo over the Parthians in Armenia. The two previous examples not withstanding, the empire largely experienced a continuation of the "Pax Romana". Despite later connotations that Nero was the cause of the great fire in Rome, he was pro-active in rebuilding the city, providing housing and care for the numerous who were displaced, and re-building to prevent future outbreaks. He filled the swamps of Ostia with the rubble from the fire which could be credited for reducing malaria (and or other mosquito born disease), whether it was intended or not. He instituted corruption oversight of some forms of tax collection and restricted fines and legal fees for those of lesser means. He also protected the rights of freedmen against former slave holders. He was a great proponent of arts and "culture". Although the extravagance of building gymnasia, arenas and theatres all over the place was a major factor in the drain of the treasury, and he was a cultural embarrassment to his socio-economic class and political station by performing on stage and in the "gym", one can't really argue that Nero didn't promote the arts.

I don't discount that. There is clearly a great deal of evidence to show that non-military/non-accomplished "emperors" focused a considerable amount of attention on grandiose campaigns or dramatic "showmanship".

The butchering and enslavement of Epirus after the 3rd Macedonian War (c. 168 BC) by L. Aemilius Paullus. Epirus became the "example" for resistance to Rome in the Aegean/Macedonian theatre.

Conditioning (ie being raised as an imperialist) and simply embracing the idea of supreme power, mixed with the extreme embellishment of aristocratic opposition (the historians).

I think that my answer is generally unpopular with other Romanophiles, but I tend to feel that the Germanics of the middle to later periods (Goths, Huns, Vandals, etc.) were the biggest threat; essentially because it was the Germanics who pressured the Rhine and Danube borders almost continuously, eventually driving the proverbial nail into the coffin of the western empire. Understandably, the Germanics were a collection of many differing tribes, so perhaps one single tribe (ie the Marcomanni) may not have been as menacing as the entire Parthian empire, but I am referring to a collective Germanic people. While I agree in part with your assessment on the status of Persian/Parthian "civilization" as compared to Rome, militarily the threat was local. There was an unquestionable long-standing rivalry between Rome and it's eastern neighbors for influence in "Asia", but the core of the Roman empire was never truly threatened. Roman gains (under the likes of Corbulo, Trajan, Septimius Severus, etc.) were never permanent, but nor did the destruction of Crassus or the failure of Macrinus for example result in permanent gains for Parthia. The eastern Roman empire maintained itself against its eastern neighbors long after the fall of the west. (Also note that my quote is only regarding the "imperial" period, therefore conveniently discounting such Republican era threats as Carthage, Seleucia (Antiochus), Pontus (Mithridates), etc.)

Actually, no, you're not entitled to anything, but that's beside the point I suppose. Personally, if it were me, and I believed in this sort of thing, my guess is that I'd want to digest more detailed source information. Here's just a couple of suggestions: Hun Specific: Huns: Peoples of Europe The End of the Empire: Attila... Attila the Barbarian King... Less Hun specific late western Roman empire: The Fall of Rome... The Fall of the Roman Empire...

Howdy, Pan... nice to see an old familiar face (er internet avatar). You and some others, like Pompeius Magnus, Germanicus, and Virgil were among some of the first real active participants to get this place going, and it's a testament to some of the passion for history of folks like you and they that we are still here

Agreed, what we miss a great deal of is simple context. One thousand years from now, people may have a very warped view of today's USA if the only surviving book is either decidedly pro or anti Obama. It's one of the things that adds to the struggle in interpreting eras with a far smaller literary scale... there is a less diverse point of view (in addition to the previously noted issues with methodology of the ancient historians). Domitian was in fact quite popular in the public context, but history has long told has that his was a "reign of terror". Of course, this has been over-emphasized by the Catholic Church in relation to martyrdom issues, but the root of all of it was the adversarial relationship between Domitian and the Senate/Aristocracy (and Tacitus on a very personal note because of his father-in-law Agricola).

Just as an for comparison of primary source material on a similar subject... when we compare the "evidence" presented by Tacitus (and Suetonius) against Tiberius in the death of Germanicus, the death of Titus lacks the much deeper perception of criminality in the previous case. Of course, public and/or source material perception is not necessarily indicative of guilt, innocence or direct circumstances in a case, but the overwhelming sentiment in case 1 seems to have been that Tiberius was involved in the death of Germanicus (despite the complete lack of actual evidence and only hear-say opinion by the sources). In case 2, there is far less of that same sentiment, despite the relatively low opinion of Domitian by the aristocratic sources (though he did have public and military support for the most part).

Great link Guy... It's important to really emphasize that the beginner should attempt to focus on a time period, a moneyer, an emperor, a subject, a type of coin, etc. until they really get the feel for what they are doing. When I first started, the only thought in my head was that I wanted to get a denarius of every emperor... while a relatively easy target (provided one has the funds) it lacks any sort of clarity. When it dawned on me that there were literally thousands of choices, the notion of what to look for became daunting. I re-focused my attention on Julio-Claudians and the targeting became a bit easier. Later, I realized that the pre-civil war (Sullan and Marian) Republican era is more important to me on a philosophical level, but I digress...

Purge completed.

Happy belated... the story of my life

Notice to everyone: In order to help deal with the prevention of spam accounts, I will soon be deleting all membership accounts with 0 posts. If you happen to be a forum "lurker" that prefers to read and not participate, please either make a single post in the "introduction of new members" thread or send me a private message asking to be excluded from the purge. It's also understandable that recently activated members may not have yet had a chance to post, so I will also exclude recent sign-ups from the purge. Thank You!

You've been promoted and should be able to create a blog now =P

Indeed. Twice I have been told to wait because only one PM can be sent per day or every 6 hours. I believe the flood control has now been disabled on your accounts... took me some time to figure it out, but I hope it's all working now. Cheers! Chris

Thanks Nephele. I only have, what is saying 4% of my mailbox used. I am going to fully clean it out right now to have as little as possible in there. I know for sure I will have 1-2 PMs sitting in there that have to still get answered. I've checked system setting and don't see any reason why your account would be acting funky. Anyone else having any issues?

I welcome you to the forum, regardless, but you force me to ask... what brings you here if you "know nothing about Roman History"? I don't mean in any way to discourage, but you have me curious, is all.

Actually, Maty is talking about a book published just a couple of years ago. I can't recall the title or author either, but I do have a faint recollection of what he is talking about.

What's the Latin for... Doesn't really want to get stabbed?

Indeed, the more plausible realization is that the conquest was simply untenable, not that the empire was weakened in any measurable or permanent way. (though it didn't stop future punitive and rather successful expeditions by Tiberius/Germanicus)

I actually dread to think what would happen if he ever re-arranged Lacus Curtius. I have so many deeply embedded links from this site to that one, it would be a disaster. (On this page for example http://www.unrv.com/government/legal-insti...chronology.php)