Primus Pilus
-
Posts
4,483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Primus Pilus
-
-
Sorry everyone... we have determined that some of the site load problems (and outages) we've been having are related to forum spam and bot activity.
Therefore it's necessary to upgrade the forum and the security features. While it looks strange for the moment, hopefully it won't be too much trouble.
In the coming days, we'll get the look reskinned to the more familiar theme.
-
Hi guys!
While none of this makes any sense to me, here's what I did:
I made some recommended changes to the robots.txt file that should slow down the numerous indexing bots that are rummaging through the site. Hopefully that will keep the host from shutting us down due to overloading the system.
-
The problem appears to be an overload of resource usage... we're working with the host to identify the exact cause and to eliminate it.
Hope to have this fixed soon, but there might be short term issues.
-
Crassus may have displayed a greater sense of ego than most contemporaries, he was still definitely a product of the political atmosphere of the time. To his credit, and despite his taking advantage of political opportunities as they arose, he seems to have been less indulgent in the whims of supreme power than his partners in the triumvirate. While his money may have helped make Caesar, he did not use that same financial and military authority to direct the Republic to his personal whims.
He certainly showed political acumen, and he could easily be charged as an enabler, but in the end Crassus always seemed a bit of a pawn amongst the true manipulators. I don't mean to suggest that he was a bumbling patsy who unwittingly fell in with the proverbial wrong crowd, but his ulterior motive seems that of a man seeking fame and glory in the historical Roman context rather than seeking absolute authority. His actions were among many cogs in the wheel that brought down the Republic and I don't personally absolve him of that, but unlike a Caesar, I never felt that he desired the finality that eventually came.
-
Discussion, whatever the topic, is obviously encouraged, but the use of baiting language is not. For now I'll move it to the arena, but let's refrain from the use of ad hominem (eg patriotards, conservatards).
-
I consider the two first books in the series to be among the very top of my favorite fiction list. Unfortunately, since George Martin writes so slowly, there are fears that he will never finish the series - thereby leaving everyone hanging. Alas
In any case, the show is very good - atmospherically authentic I think with character traits that seem in line with Martin's original concepts. I do wonder though, if someone coming in cold without having read the book would get the full grasp of the story. Yes, it's easy to like and dislike certain characters, but obviously much has to be tweaked to fit it into a television environment.
Regardless, I'm enjoying it very much, and considering I last read Game of Thrones sometime around 10 years ago, it's a nice refresher for the supposed next book due out in July (I'm definitely not holding my breath).
-
I figure its a good thing that the Romans didn't wear pants... it'd be less uncomfortable as they shit themselves.
-
This is from an old post regarding the Passion of the Christ movie and the language of the Romans stationed in and around Judaea of the time, but it may have some relevance here. I'm not sure how well my assertion holds water - as much can change regarding archaeological research since I posted it about 7 years ago. Anyway, here was the post:
Legionaries active during the time period of the film were still mostly recruited from Italy, but it was changing rapidly. Therefore, it is very likely that most active citizen legionaries still would have spoken Latin.
Specifically in Judaea there were 3 known cohorts of Auxilia.
There were two cohorts of auxiliaries in Jerusalem and a third cohort guarded the capital Caesarea. Two cohorts of infantry and one squadron of cavalry served throughout the province.
The Cavalry cohort was Ala I Sebastenorum that consisted of Samaritans and probably spoke a local dialect and perhaps Greek. We also know of the existence of a Cohors I Sebastenorum, which was also a Samaritan unit with similar language possibilities.
Other known units that functioned in Judaea are the Cohors Prima Italica Civium Romanorum, the Cohors Secunda Italica Civium Romanorum and the Italian Cohors Prima Augusta. These are obviously Italian units and it's still likely that Latin would've been the primary language.
Of regular legionary units, Judaea at the time was considered under the command of the Legate in Syria.
The known Legions operating in the region at the time of Christ were:
III Gallica - Recruits from Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul and likely Latin speakers.
VI Ferrata - Recruits from Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul and likely Latin speakers.
X Fretensis - Recruits from Italy and Latin speakers.
XII Fulminata - Also orignally Gallic or Italian recruits and likely speakers of Latin.
However all Legions were supplemented at times by recruits of various regions. It is possible that any of these main contingents would've have been supplemented by local citizens in the east. So yes, there were probably some Greek speakers, but the main body of troops would've have been from a Latin origin and the tradition of language, it would seem to me, would've required new recruits to speak the most common tongue of the main body. However, in Judaea, communicating with the locals would've been easier in Greek (as a commonly known tongue among all the various parties), but there is no reason to believe that the Legions would care what was easy for the locals. An argument can be made for either side, I suppose.
Inscription evidence, letters and so forth are mainly in Latin. But only so much survives, and inscriptions and letters don't necessarily indicate what the spoken language was.
-
1
-
-
Why are the Romans always made out to be the most superior army in every in the Classical Age including in weaponry,armor, and strategies and tactics?
Simply speaking... the results of several centuries of conquests and expansion. We all know that the Roman legion wasn't superior in every engagement, battle and war, but the legacy of the military machine is the known cumulative result.
The Romans typically fared badly in major campaigns against eastern armies (eg Persian, Parthia, etc.) save for a few exceptions, but neither did those armies make massive inroads against Roman territorial domination... until long after the collapse of the west.
-
I suppose the good thing is that your name matches your attitude. Congratulations!
-
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the story, so it's very difficult to track down potential source information. Is there a way to look up the original story and find the person's name or any additional information to help track it down?
Even a general time frame will help indicate which possible ancient source authors we may be looking. For example, if the story dates to Pompey the Great's "conquests" it may indicate certain authors as the likely sources, whereas there are any number of sources on the eastern expeditions in the centuries that followed. If it's a Muslim story it would likely date to the Byzantine era which changes the potential sources dramatically.
-
Consider today... there are many who believe that nations like China and India, etc. are on the rise whereas the USA is in decline. Conversely, there are people today who take a contrarian position and believe that the Chinese rise and its economy is a house of cards, and the USA can recover. There any number of positions in between
The truth is irrelevant here. The point is that much like modern people, the ancients have proven to have differences of opinion and belief systems on every possible point of interest. I believe that it is unquestionable that there were people in position of leadership who "knew" that Rome was failing, while there were also those who couldn't fathom the possibility.
I simply can't or won't believe that there was an institutional understanding that Rome would eventually fail, simply because others had. Even if there was, there is certainly no consensus to when such a failure might occur, or how, or why.
-
A couple random semi-connected thoughts...
Is it truly looters or is it the radical Islamic rejection of "western" heritage and ideals?
Tourism being such a giant industry in Egypt, destruction of cultural icons certainly won't aid anyone in the future. I understand that many Egyptians may feel that the expenditures of tourists only fill the coffers of the elite and the aristocracy, but everything has a relative domino effect.
-
Why make expensive documentaries when you can put 15 people in a house for $50 each and watch them belittle eachother endlessly in between bouts of aggressive sexual tension?
Seriously though, the expense of documentary production (if they are a quality production of course) vs. low budget "reality" series production (yes, even on channels that have a traditional history focus - in the US market think American Pickers, Pawn Stars, etc.) means that there are fewer opportunities for the advertising dollars and fewer production companies with the appetite to pursue them.
They will be fewer for sure, but I honestly hope that the competition continues to improve quality and impact of the historical documentary.
-
I actually have modestly decent expectations for this film. I'm going to do everything I can to dismiss the hollywoodization as a necessity for laymen audiences and simply try to enjoy it.
-
Hi gang - I keep finding different names for this guy. This is the fellow that ordered the rape of Boudicca's daughters and caused all that trouble.
So - is it Catus Decianus or vice versa. I can't find much internet information on him at all :-(
Cheers
Russ
As far as I can tell there are only 3 source points for him, two by Tacitus and one by Cassius Dio:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html#2
Found them via William Smith, btw - one of the easiest ways to look up source references for individuals.
My guess is that the fellows name is Catus Decianus with a missing praenomen (eg Gaius). Unfortunately though, both Catus and Decianus have evidence as agnomen, so it really could be either way... maybe Nephele can help?
-
What legal pretext, if any, did Octavian have for executing him, or was it a straight forward murder?
There's scant evidence of the entire affair. Suetonius only says that he (Augustus) slew Caesarion. We know that it was a great scandal in the Roman world for Antonius to name his non Roman children by Cleopatra as his heirs, but there was no law that allowed for their execution. And, of course, this doesn't really apply to Caesarion anyway.
Dio Cassius, recording his own thoughts centuries later, suggests that Caesarion was used to incite Egyptian resistance to Rome.
Now among the other preparations made for speedy warfare, they enrolled among the youths of military age, Cleopatra her son Caesarion and Antony his son Antyllus, who had been born to him by Fulvia and was then with him. Their purpose was to arouse the enthusiasm of the Egyptians, who would feel that they had at last a man for their king, and to cause the rest to continue the struggle with these boys as their leaders, in case anything untoward should happen to the parents. Now as for the lads, this proved one of the causes of their undoing; for Caesar spared neither of them, claiming that they were men and were clothed with a sort of leadership.http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/51*.html#6
-
My quick replies in Red
CLAIM: When Rome became an empire, it went from
-
I received an email from mediamatters.org yesterday regarding a commentary from Glenn Beck on Fox News relating the Fall of the Roman Republic to his perception of current political circumstances. This thread has nothing to do with your personal political affiliation or whether you think Beck is a destabilizing lunatic twit or if you think mediamatters.org is the Marxist beginnings of George Soros' attempt to take over the world.
I'm just curious what you think of the questions, how you might answer them etc. They didn't use any of my answers as there were obviously some respondents with considerably more clout than an internet historian hack like myself.
Anyway, first the background on the email, then the next post provides the questions as presented by Ned Resnikoff of mediamatters.org with the original Beck assertions (I did check to make sure Beck actually said these things before I responded. Nothing he says really surprises, me but I had to do the due diligence.)
Hello,I am a researcher at Media Matters for America compiling a piece on Glenn Beck's use (and abuse) of historical events and analogies. He's made a few assertions about the fall of the Roman Republic yesterday and today that contradict my admittedly crude understanding of Roman history, and I was wondering if you could take a few moments to tell me and our readers whether or not they are accurate....
Here is the link to the final story. Notice the missing questions (provided below) that didn't work their way into the story. Ain't politics grand! The Romans would be proud.
-
Any suggestions for sizes, shapes and formats are also appreciated. For example, our Empire map is 24"x36" in a landscape format whereas a poster of a particular province or region may be an entirely different size and layout.
-
I believe the wikipedia map is incorrect. Sala was located on the ancient Salat river (modern Bou Regreg) near the modern Moroccan city of Rabat. Banasas is near modern Sidi Aji Boujnon and Mount Maatga on the Sebou River.
Morocco Map of Sidi Ali Boujnoun
Just scroll out a bit to get the full perspective of Rabat to the southwest. It's difficult to find this stuff in English Google mapping... the true Arabic is probably much easier.
-
So .. all in all, it's not just another brick in the wall?
You don't need no education.
-
Hmmm... To me that sounds more like intelligence gathered from traders, speculatores, exploratores, or in a few cases meetings with individuals from that area. It doesn't really convey any sense of military adventure and Agricola's estimate of a single legion required for conquest is a little less than carefully considered, don't you think?
Agreed, as the translation above stands, one can easily reason that Agricola (via Tacitus) was simply speculating, but there has been much debate about the translation of that text. Additionally, and as you know, there is some archaeological evidence of Roman presence in Ireland, though it too presents debate as to the scope of that presence. In any case, here is the basis for some of the original discussion on the merits of the translation... a series of articles between Alfred Gudeman and F.J. Haverfield that dates back to 1900.
-
Hi,I've a question. Why the romans didn't conquer the Emerald Island? Was it too well defended? Or was it too resourceless (from a roman point of view)?
It's quite possible that Agricola did in fact invade Ireland (c. 81 AD), even if only for a short exploratory expedition. There is some contention about the translation of Tacitus' quote found in Agricola 24 as follows:
24. In the fifth year of the war, Agricola, himself in the leading ship, crossed the Clota, and subdued in a series of victories tribes hitherto unknown. In that part of Britain which looks toward Ireland, he posted some troops, hoping for fresh conquests rather than fearing attack, inasmuch as Ireland, being between Britain and Spain and conveniently situated for the seas round Gaul, might have been the means of connecting with great mutual benefit the most powerful parts of the empire. Its extent is small when compared with Britain, but exceeds the islands of our seas. In soil and climate, in the disposition, temper, and habits of its population, it differs but little from Britain. We know most of its harbours and approaches, and that through the intercourse of commerce. One of the petty kings of the nation, driven out by internal faction, had been received by Agricola, who detained him under the semblance of friendship till he could make use of him. I have often heard him say that a single legion with a few auxiliaries could conquer and occupy Ireland, and that it would have a salutary effect on Britain for the Roman arms to be seen everywhere, and for freedom, so to speak, to be banished from its sight.excerpted from Ancient History Sourcebook
Some interpret this to mean that Agricola did in fact engage in enough exploration to understand that Hibernia would be easily subdued, while others suggest that Agricola (via Tacitus) was implying a bit of optimistic bravado. Whatever the case may be, there was still work to be done in northern Britannia and Caledonia and Agricola; and whatever the reality or his ultimate intention, he never had a real opportunity to attempt a full scale Hibernian conquest. His recall in 85 AD by Domitian ended any known records of an invasion.
There were others who continued the advance into Caledonia of course: most notably in the reigns of Antoninus Pius (the command of Urbicus), Severus and Caracalla, but success was fleeting at best. The inability to completely secure a northern frontier border probably played a major role in leaving Hibernia its independence. In addition, weighing the the financial and manpower cost against the lack of major sources of known mineral commodities, the Romans in Britain likely found it more profitable to maintain tenuous trading relationships. Playing the native tribes against one another politically, at which the Romans were proven experts, also probably helped secure western Britain from significant raiding on Roman interests without the cost of garrisons.
UNRV Site Ownership Change
in Renuntiatio et Consilium Comitiorum
Posted
It's been a terribly long time since I've visited here, posted in the forum or written any content... and I'm obviously a year behind this particular topic.
When Christian (Viggen), Jon (Moonlapse) and I started this UNRV project over 15 years ago, none of us ever imagined it would be anything more than our own little personal corner of the internet. I can't speak for my two old partners but I know the hundreds (probably thousands really) of hours spent writing the original content is still a particularly proud lifetime achievement for me personally.
While it seems that our good old days of rapid fire forum post activity have probably been beaten down by the preferred social media platforms, it's fun to scroll through the endless depth of conversation, history and general banter that still populates this massive forum (and I do still see a few old familiar faces with an occasional post).
I'm thrilled to see my writing still has a public home after all these years and that it must play some small part in helping to advance general knowledge of Roman history. (though I sure wish I had had an editor back then... I still cringe a bit on certain articles)
Peter, for what it's worth, and quite belatedly, I wish you the very best of luck with UNRV!
- Chris Heaton