Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Jesus Come Soon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Ah more speculative fantasies.
    Given how other sources provide details not included in Caesar's The Civil Wars, this does not appear to be speculation.

    As you said, it was "The primary source" but that hardly means he was the only source.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Just read Lucan.
    Why "just"?

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    We know that from Caesar and clearly this figure was a very brave soldier and he and his fellows were rewarded accordingly, but not [as you alleged]

    given double pay for life
    From the translation of the last sentence in the pertinent passage of The Civil Wars, after discussing Scaevus' reward

    For it appeared that the fort had been in a great measure saved by his exertions; and he afterward very amply rewarded the cohorts with double pay, corn, clothing, and other military honors.


    Although that doesn't specify "for life."

    As you yourself found, there are a number of articles about Cassius Scaevus (919 on Google), of which I read a number, ranging from scholarly to not so much.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    A comment for which, despite being asked, you have yet to provide an attested source.
    We could start with Caesar, "The primary source," as you put it.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    To provide context.
    Horse hockey.

    Providing a copy paste of the passages in Latin would only be "provid[ing] context" in a Latin class. If you were legitimately providing context you would have provided the English translation for an English language site.

    Face it. You got caught trying to impress everyone with your attempt to show that you "knows stuff," but as usual, it didn't work out as planned.



    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • I figure H_A is feeling content that she isn't being asked about all of her earlier screwups in this thread and feels she succeeded in distracting attention away from them.

      No.

      They have not been forgotten.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Given how other sources provide details not included in Caesar's The Civil Wars, this does not appear to be speculation.
        Caesar is the primary [first] source.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        As you said, it was "The primary source" but that hardly means he was the only source.
        As we know other authors wrote at later periods. Anything else is fanciful speculation - your speciality!

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Why "just"?
        To give you some perspective on what Lucan wrote.

        "Just" as in "Just go away and read the complete text."

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Although that doesn't specify "for life."
        Precisely. Despite your earlier contention that it was:

        double pay for life


        Which was something you presumably made up.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        As you yourself found
        I found two or three of the "Boy's Own" variety.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        We could start with Caesar, "The primary source," as you put it.
        And the reference in Civil Wars is quite brief.

        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

        Providing a copy paste of the passages in Latin would only be "provid[ing] context" in a Latin class.
        Re the text from Caesar - I assumed [given that you like to present yourself as the board's polymath] that you could translate it for yourself!
        Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 08-07-2022, 11:14 AM.
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • If a person's pay is doubled, that generally indicates that his pay is doubled (relative to the initial pay level) for as long as he continues to be paid. Of course, it may be that the connotations in Latin vary from those in English. Assuming that the connotations are the same, which is reasonable on the basis of information to hand, assuming "for "life"" is appropriate (subject to change if actual rather than conjectural information to the contrary is supplied.)
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            If a person's pay is doubled, that generally indicates that his pay is doubled (relative to the initial pay level) for as long as he continues to be paid. Of course, it may be that the connotations in Latin vary from those in English. Assuming that the connotations are the same, which is reasonable on the basis of information to hand, assuming "for "life"" is appropriate (subject to change if actual rather than conjectural information to the contrary is supplied.)
            Might I suggest you read up a little on the Republican Roman army and its pay structures.

            Furthermore, like all armies the Roman Republican army developed over the centuries, and like so much of history is complicated.

            The army in the early and mid first century BCE was not precisely as it had been in [for example] the third century BCE. In its very early centuries, the Republic had a citizen militia which armed itself at its own expense and those men deemed it to be a duty, a responsibility, and indeed a privilege to defend the state. Furthermore, joining the army was dependant on a minimal property qualification and once any campaign was over, those citizens returned to their previous occupations. However, as Rome extended its campaigns and its conquests a citizen army could not suffice.

            The institution of military pay for the first time is generally supposed to have taken place in 406 BCE. possibly connected with the war against Veii, likewise the recruitment in 403 BCE of cavalry with their own horses to supplement the equites equo publico, is again possibly connected with that war.

            However, it was the reforms to the army under Marius in the late second century BCE that changed it dramatically including reducing the property qualification. Nor was joining the army necessarily overly appealing to citizens particularly where campaigns could not be guaranteed to be successful and where booty was limited. It was booty that supplemented the soldier's pay. Hence campaigns in the Greek east, where rich booty was anticipated, would see a rise in the number of volunteers.

            However, by the end of the Republic in the first century BCE the Republican national army had been replaced by the armies of military commanders e.g. Sulla and Pompey, but perhaps above all, Caesar. These were armies that were totally devoted to their leaders and what military success [and personal wealth] their commanders could provide for them. To give an example, during his triumph, according to Plutarch, Pompey had distributed the colossal sum of three hundred and eighty four million sesterces to his troops, with each soldier receiving a minimum of six thousand sesterces, although larger amounts were paid to centurions and officers. And that was on top of any booty each soldier had acquired on campaign.

            It could be argued that the beginning of the Roman professional army was Julius Caesar's making, although as previously noted elsewhere it would be his great nephew and adopted son, Octavian [Augustus] who would later completely re-organise and standardise that army.

            On their long campaigns with Caesar his army [with its successes and booty] found an alternative life as professional soldiers. Loyalty to the man who gave them their military success [and their wealth] became the over-riding factor and Caesar was viewed by his soldiers as as the supreme authority. Caesar also dramatically increased his soldiers' pay.

            Livius described the First Triumvirate [Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus] as "a conspiracy against the state by its three leading citizens", which in many respects was precisely what it was.

            However, it was also self-evident that following the civils wars, and the later wars under the Second Triumvirate [Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus] resulting from Caesar's assassination, that the Republic could not go back to an earlier period in its military history. Hence the decision by Octavian [Augustus] in 13 BCE to completely reorganise and standardise the Roman army.
            Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 08-08-2022, 07:47 AM.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              Might I suggest you read up a little on the Republican Roman army and its pay structures.

              Furthermore, like all armies the Roman Republican army developed over the centuries, and like so much of history is complicated.

              The army in the early and mid first century BCE was not precisely as it had been in [for example] the third century BCE. In its very early centuries, the Republic had a citizen militia which armed itself at its own expense and those men deemed it to be a duty, a responsibility, and indeed a privilege to defend the state. Furthermore, joining the army was dependant on a minimal property qualification and once any campaign was over, those citizens returned to their previous occupations. However, as Rome extended its campaigns and its conquests a citizen army could not suffice.

              The institution of military pay for the first time is generally supposed to have taken place in 406 BCE. possibly connected with the war against Veii, likewise the recruitment in 403 BCE of cavalry with their own horses to supplement the equites equo publico, is again possibly connected with that war.

              However, it was the reforms to the army under Marius in the late second century BCE that changed it dramatically including reducing the property qualification. Nor was joining the army necessarily overly appealing to citizens particularly where campaigns could not be guaranteed to be successful and where booty was limited. It was booty that supplemented the soldier's pay. Hence campaigns in the Greek east, where rich booty was anticipated, would see a rise in the number of volunteers.

              However, by the end of the Republic in the first century BCE the Republican national army had been replaced by the armies of military commanders e.g. Sulla and Pompey, but perhaps above all, Caesar. These were armies that were totally devoted to their leaders and what military success [and personal wealth] their commanders could provide for them. To give an example, during his triumph, according to Plutarch, Pompey had distributed the colossal sum of three hundred and eighty four million sesterces to his troops, with each soldier receiving a minimum of six thousand sesterces, although larger amounts were paid to centurions and officers. And that was on top of any booty each soldier had acquired on campaign.

              It could be argued that the beginning of the Roman professional army was Julius Caesar's making, although as previously noted elsewhere it would be his great nephew and adopted son, Octavian [Augustus] who would later completely re-organise and standardise that army.

              On their long campaigns with Caesar his army [with its successes and booty] found an alternative life as professional soldiers. Loyalty to the man who gave them their military success [and their wealth] became the over-riding factor and Caesar was viewed by his soldiers as as the supreme authority. Caesar also dramatically increased his soldiers' pay.

              Livius described the First Triumvirate [Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus] as "a conspiracy against the state by its three leading citizens", which in many respects was precisely what it was.

              However, it was also self-evident that following the civils wars, and the later wars under the Second Triumvirate [Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus] resulting from Caesar's assassination, that the Republic could not go back to an earlier period in its military history. Hence the decision by Octavian [Augustus] in 13 BCE to completely reorganise and standardise the Roman army.
              Nice googling.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I figure H_A is feeling content that she isn't being asked about all of her earlier screwups in this thread and feels she succeeded in distracting attention away from them.

                No.

                They have not been forgotten.
                Point of information. You could have responded to my entire post [#203] You chose to merely respond to my last comment on your popular reading material re Scaevae.
                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  Caesar is the primary [first] source.

                  As we know other authors wrote at later periods. Anything else is fanciful speculation - your speciality!

                  To give you some perspective on what Lucan wrote.

                  "Just" as in "Just go away and read the complete text."

                  Precisely. Despite your earlier contention that it was:

                  double pay for life


                  Which was something you presumably made up.

                  I found two or three of the "Boy's Own" variety.

                  And the reference in Civil Wars is quite brief.

                  Re the text from Caesar - I assumed [given that you like to present yourself as the board's polymath] that you could translate it for yourself!
                  The fact that various other sources included many details not contained in The Civil Wars indicates that there were other sources available at the time. That is something even someone such as yourself ought to be able to grasp.


                  Now for a bit of fun...

                  Do you remember the quote from Caesar?

                  Thus six engagements having happened in one day, three at Dyrrachium, and three at the fortifications, when a computation was made of the number of slain, we found that about two thousand fell on Pompey's side, several of them volunteer veterans and centurions. Among them was Valerius, the son of Lucius Flaccus, who as praetor had formerly had the government of Asia, and six military standards were taken. Of our men, not more than twenty were missing in all the action. But in the fort, not a single soldier escaped without a wound; and in one cohort, four centurions lost their eyes. And being desirous to produce testimony of the fatigue they under went, and the danger they sustained, they counted to Caesar about thirty thousand arrows which had been thrown into the fort; and in the shield of the centurion Scaeva, which was brought to him, were found two hundred and thirty holes. In reward for this man's services, both to himself and the public, Caesar presented to him two hundred thousand pieces of copper money, and declared him promoted from the eighth to the first centurion. For it appeared that the fort had been in a great measure saved by his exertions; and he afterward very amply rewarded the cohorts with double pay, corn, clothing, and other military honors.
                  Ita uno die VI proeliis factis, tribus ad Dyrrachium, tribus ad munitiones, cum horum omnium ratio haberetur, ad duorum milium numero ex Pompeianis cecidisse reperiebamus, evocatos centurionesque complures (in eo fuit numero Valerius Flaccus, L. filius, eius, qui praetor Asiam obtinuerat); signaque sunt militaria sex relata. Nostri non amplius XX omnibus sunt proeliis desiderati. Sed in castello nemo fuit omnino militum, quin vulneraretur, quattuorque ex una cohorte centuriones oculos amiserunt. Et cum laboris sui periculique testimonium afferre vellent, milia sagittarum circiter XXX in castellum coniecta Caesari renumeraverunt, scutoque ad eum relato Scaevae centurionis inventa sunt in eo foramina CXX. Quem Caesar, ut erat de se meritus et de re publica, donatum milibus CC collaudatumque ab octavis ordinibus ad primipilum se traducere pronuntiavit (eius enim opera castellum magna ex parte conservatum esse constabat) cohortemque postea duplici stipendio, frumento, veste, cibariis militaribusque donis amplissime donavit.


                  The English translation offered is the same as that offered by Loeb Classical Library.

                  Now. Point out where in the Latin it says "pieces of copper money."

                  Did scholars just add something into the text for modern readers that was not in the original because the original audience would have understood?



                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    If a person's pay is doubled, that generally indicates that his pay is doubled (relative to the initial pay level) for as long as he continues to be paid. Of course, it may be that the connotations in Latin vary from those in English. Assuming that the connotations are the same, which is reasonable on the basis of information to hand, assuming "for "life"" is appropriate (subject to change if actual rather than conjectural information to the contrary is supplied.)
                    If I hired someone and then offered to double their pay, that obviously would not entail doubling it for one pay check. Or even to the end of the fiscal quarter. It means that their pay was doubled from now on.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      The fact that various other sources included many details not contained in The Civil Wars indicates that there were other sources available at the time.
                      "available at the time" i.e. in the mid first century BCE? What are they? Cite them. There may have been other sources but they have not come down to us. Therefore your contention is once again unwarranted speculation. Something that is your speciality.

                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Now for a bit of fun...
                      Indeed. Let us do so.

                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      The English translation offered is the same as that offered by Loeb Classical Library.
                      My emphasis.

                      My link is indeed from the Loeb Classical Library the Wiki link is not.

                      Once more you are wrong. Why do you never check your facts?

                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Wiki has a brief, but unsourced, entry:


                      This is the Wiki link

                      Thus six engagements having happened in one day, three at Dyrrachium, and three at the fortifications, when a computation was made of the number of slain, we found that about two thousand fell on Pompey's side, several of them volunteer veterans and centurions. Among them was Valerius, the son of Lucius Flaccus, who as praetor had formerly had the government of Asia, and six military standards were taken. Of our men, not more than twenty were missing in all the action. But in the fort, not a single soldier escaped without a wound; and in one cohort, four centurions lost their eyes. And being desirous to produce testimony of the fatigue they under went, and the danger they sustained, they counted to Caesar about thirty thousand arrows which had been thrown into the fort; and in the shield of the centurion Scaeva, which was brought to him, were found two hundred and thirty holes. In reward for this man's services, both to himself and the public, Caesar presented to him two hundred thousand pieces of copper money, and declared him promoted from the eighth to the first centurion. For it appeared that the fort had been in a great measure saved by his exertions; and he afterward very amply rewarded the cohorts with double pay, corn, clothing, and other military honors..

                      /box]

                      Firstly the Wiki link is not unsourced it tells us that it is - my emphasis.

                      Translation based on W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn (1859)


                      Secondly, that translation does not appear to be an edition in the Loeb Classical Library which did not originate until 1911 [https://www.loebclassics.com/page/history]. A search in its catalogue offers no such translation by those two authors.

                      An early translation [1901] by Renatus du Pontet likewise omits to mention any reference to copper coins.
                      Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 08-09-2022, 08:19 AM.
                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        "available at the time" i.e. in the mid first century BCE? What are they? Cite them. There may have been other sources but they have not come down to us. Therefore your contention is once again unwarranted speculation. Something that is your speciality.
                        laugh-harder-oh.gif

                        Still wholly incapable of doing that linear logic thing I see. smiley snicker.gif

                        The various portions brought up by other writers not mentioned by Caesar would constitute what was extracted from other sources and unless those authors mention their sources we will probably never know who they were.

                        That is unless you want to posit that Suetonius, Plutarch, Valerius and anyone else, simply made what they wrote up out of whole cloth to act as filler.

                        If you do that would not surprise me at all given your propensity to disregard anything that does not match your ignorance-laden narrative.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Indeed. Let us do so.

                        My emphasis.

                        My link is indeed from the Loeb Classical Library the Wiki link is not.
                        The Latin text presented by both are identical, are they not? If so, then it matters not. It isn't like you presented a translation.

                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                        Once more you are wrong. Why do you never check your facts?



                        Firstly the Wiki link is not unsourced it tells us that it is - my emphasis.

                        Translation based on W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn (1859)

                        The Latin text presented by both are identical, are they not? If so, then it matters not. It isn't like you presented a translation.

                        Secondly, that translation does not appear to be an edition in the Loeb Classical Library which did not originate until 1911 [https://www.loebclassics.com/page/history]. A search in its catalogue offers no such translation by those two authors.

                        An early translation [1901] by Renatus du Pontet likewise omits to mention any reference to copper coins.
                        The translation offered by William A. McDevitte and William S. Bohn, both of who were noted translators, includes "copper coins" -- which is not included in the Latin original -- in their translation. Something you repeatedly insisted would not happen.

                        Others I've seen added that he received "sesterces" (which I understood was a small silver coin[1]), such as HERE and THIS from Dr. Nicola Hömke, Chair of Latin Studies at the University of Rostock who appears to have based it on Lucan's translation.

                        Not a scholarly historic source, but Miryana Dimitrova appears to have also run into mention of Scaeva receiving "200,000 sesterces" as well, which demonstrates that translation of Caesar including a descriptor of some sort of what the "200,000" he received actually were[2] was hardly uncommon.

                        The point of all this is that we have here an example of modern translators / historians doing what H_A proclaimed simply does not happen. They added to the original text something to clarify something for a modern audience that wasn't needed for the original audience.

                        You know, just like how some modern translators added "Roman" after "soldier" in Florius' account about Spartacus.






                        1. and trying to determine a value got quotes of it being worth the equivalent to around fifty cents to just under a dollar fifty (American currency) -- so he got somewhere between $100,000 to $300,000.

                        2. anyone care to wager that H_A will focus on this source to the exclusion of all others totally missing the point that it was included to show that translations, by noted authorities, exist (and are relatively common enough to be cited) in which the translators added to the text to help clarify things for modern readers.
                        Last edited by rogue06; 08-09-2022, 09:06 AM.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          The Latin text presented by both are identical, are they not? If so, then it matters not. It isn't like you presented a translation.
                          The translation is not a faithful rendition of the Latin. There is no mention of cuprus or coins in the Latin text.

                          cohortemque postea duplici stipendio


                          Literally double pay.

                          Any other insertion is invention or overly free paraphrasing.

                          As the Latin text is absolutely explicit what exactly are you trying to contend?
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            The translation is not a faithful rendition of the Latin. There is no mention of cuprus or coins in the Latin text.

                            cohortemque postea duplici stipendio


                            Literally double pay.

                            Any other insertion is invention or overly free paraphrasing.

                            As the Latin text is absolutely explicit what exactly are you trying to contend?
                            Edited to add for fear of confusing you.

                            The text mentions two hundred thousand [assumed sesterces] but not copper coins.

                            From John Carter

                            The Latin text has been reconstituted anew for this edition on the basis of the readings as given in Fabre's apparatus criticus of the five principal MSS listed below (on which see V Brown The Textual Transmission of Caesar Civil War Leiden 1972. The reasons, explained more fully in the Introduction to Books I & II, pp. 28-29,are the evidently corrupt state of the single archetype of the Bellum Civile which lies behind all five of these MSS, and the lack of any wholly satisfactory modern 'standard' text. It is an indication of the unreliability of the transmission of this work that the present edition contains no fewer than eleven apparently new (and I hope well-justified) conjectures or corrections. [J M Carter, Julius Caesar, The Civil War, Book III, Aris and Phillips, 1993]
                            Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 08-09-2022, 10:52 AM.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              Point of information. You could have responded to my entire post [#203] You chose to merely respond to my last comment on your popular reading material re Scaevae.
                              Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                If I hired someone and then offered to double their pay, that obviously would not entail doubling it for one pay check. Or even to the end of the fiscal quarter. It means that their pay was doubled from now on.
                                Again from Carter on that specific text in Book III. 53.

                                Four centurions from a single cohort: there were six centurions in a cohort (except the first, which had five). A hundred and twenty holes: the MSS have added an extra hundred holes, probably in error. The story was famous and is repeated in several other accounts, with broad agreement on the number of holes. See Valerius Maximus 3.2.23 (120 holes, name given as M. Caesius Scaeva); Plutarch Caes.16.2 (130 holes); Suetonius Div Iui .68.4 (120 holes); Appian BC 2.60 (120 holes, name given as Minucius); Florus 2.13.40 (120 weapons lodged in it, name given as Scaevola).

                                For all these the present passage must surely be the ultimate, if indirect, source. Lucan's overblown treatment of Scaeva's heroism (6.140-262) is uncomfortable testimony to the literary taste of his time. 200,000 sesterces: a vast reward. This was over two hundred times the annual pay of an ordinary legionary, and amounted to half the capital required to qualify for the status of an eques at the Roman census. Promoting him... to leading centurion: The senior centurion of the first cohort, and therefore of the whole legion, was called primus pilus or primipilus, occasionally is qui primum pilum ducit. The post was prestigious, and lucrative: under Augustus, probably continuing the practice of the late Republic, an ordinary centurion received 15 times the pay of an ordinary legionary, a centurion of the first cohort 30 times, and a primus pilus 60 times.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X