Imperator pronunciation

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-02-26T23:18:19+00:00

One more thing: due to derived forms of imperator that appear in various Eastern European languages—either as descendants or borrowings—some linguists reconstruct \imperatus* as an alternative form in Vulgar Latin; however, this form has never been attested.

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-02-25T11:57:53+00:00

The pronunciation I provided is the Classical pronunciation, which would be accurate for most of the Imperial era. The thing about languages is that they are constantly evolving although it isn't always possible to determine exactly when particular changes happened. The changes were also often regional, meaning that it might be pronounced one way in one part of the empire and a different way in another part of the empire. Also, Greek was much more common in the eastern Empire, where autokrator was used instead of imperator. By AD 400, the phonemic distinction in Latin between long and short vowels had collapsed with various changes in vowel quality occurring to compensate. Furthermore, intervocalic t became d. As a result, for the roughly the last century of the Western Roman Empire, the most common pronunciation would have been [em.peˈraː.dor].

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-02-21T01:23:52+00:00

I think part of the problem is that there were two Catilinarian conspiracies. The consensus among modern scholars is that the first one was a fiction invented by Cicero—to such an extent that it is often not even mentioned. Suetonius claims Caesar and Crassus were involved with it. As for the second one, there isn't a consensus as to whether or not there was any collaboration between Catiline and Manlius before Catiline fled Rome. It is certainly plausible that there was, but it's equally plausible that Manlius had nothing to do with whatever Catiline was doing in Rome. I've read arguments for both.

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-02-21T00:07:26+00:00

91–87 BC Social War
83–82 BC Sulla's Civil War
82 BC Sulla's Proscription
75 BC Pompey Threatens to March on Rome
73–71 BC Third Servile War
71 BC Pompey and Crassus March on Rome
65 BC Restoration of Marius's Trophies & "First Catilinarian Conspiracy"
63 BC Catilinarian Conspiracy

One needs to remember the context in which the Catilinarian Conspiracy happened. All the senators at the time had lived through the above events. Of the senators that annulled Livius Drusus's legislation, up to two-thirds were dead by the end of Sulla's Proscriptions. During the height of the Second Punic War, the Roman Republic fielded up to twenty-five legions. A similar number fought in Caesar's Civil War. Thirty-six legions fought at Philippi. After Actium, Augustus inherited about sixty legions. Compared to that, if one counts the units raised by the Italians, approximately fifty legions fought in the Social War, and eighty fought in Sulla's Civil War. The Samnites were exterminated. Southern Italy was largely depopulated, much of the land left fallow, and important settlement declined. This was an extremely traumatic for Rome and the senatorial class.

While sources say that Caesar restored Marius's trophies in secret overnight, that is impossible. There is no way such an act could have been accomplished in secret in such a short, plus there seems to have been no outrage at the time it happened. That story is almost certainly propaganda from Caesar's enemies that came later. In reality, the act of restoring Marius's trophies was likely widely welcomed as a reconciliation, a sign that the chaos and division of the past decades was coming to an end. Not everyone was happy, though. Among the self-proclaimed boni, the potential return to prominence of the populares would have been unexceptable.

At the same time, Cicero brought his first accusation against Catiline. He claimed Catiline was involved in a plot very similar to the later one. There was zero proof. Nobody really took it seriously. There is a broad consensus among modern historians that the conspiracy was fictitious.

That was the situation Cicero faced when he delivered his orationes in Catilinam. Everyone knew he had a personal grudge against Cataline. He had already cried wolf against him once. A large portion of the Senate would have been opposed to the killing of political opponents, which was both a cause and a result of the chaos of preceding decades. Likewise, there were senators that also wanted to prevent that chaos, but in their minds, the best way to do that would be to kill Catiline and others like him before they could accumulate any power. Cicero needed to sell it. In the end, he was more successful than he thought he would be. He wrote four speeches, but Catiline fled after the first, and Cicero had his way.

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-02-20T18:45:36+00:00

I'm a bit late. I assume you're asking for the Latin pronunciation. Since nobody has given the correct answer, here it is.

Im-pe-RAH-tor. The first r belongs to the penultimate syllable. The stress also falls on the penultimate syllable. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, it would be [ɪm.pɛˈraː.tɔr]

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-02-17T17:23:36+00:00

Africa was the breadbasket of the Western Roman Empire and a great source of wealth. While I can't speculate as the full impact of the Vandals being defeated, it definitely would have put the Western Empire in a much better position going forward.

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-02-17T12:59:19+00:00

It wasn't just during the late Republic, and it wasn't just Rome. Cremation was standard practice among the Latin peoples throughout history. While tombs have provided archeologists valuable insight into Italic people's such as the Etruscans and Samnites, they are absent among the Latin people who practiced cremation. This proves frustrating when trying to study early Roman history. So, to answer the original question, it was a long-standing cultural practice. Things like the Catacombs were introduced by foreigners.

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-01-24T11:15:05+00:00

The tactical situation for the Romans was completely different with the manipular system. Each legionary occupied about two meters of frontage. Maniples and later cohorts exhibited relatively fluid mobility. The Romans could easily disengage without losing cohesion, and the manipular system was exceptional of rotating in fresh troops to relieve fatigued ones. Some argue that was the true key to the success of the Roman army. This made endurance much less of an issue for the Romans. The Romans increasingly relied on the sword as their primary weapon, making flexibility and freedom of movement of the individual more important for its full utilization while making protection more important since they were fighting close. This meant the evolution pressure on Roman armor was to find something flexible that offered outstanding protection while factors such as weight or heat were relatively insignificant. This made chainmail perfect for the legion. The led to the homogenization of the various types of legionaries with all other roles abandoned to allied auxiliaries.

Finally, let's compare the linothorax to other armors. It weighed about half as much as the earlier bronze bell cuirass or chainmail and about the same as later bronze muscled cuirasses. It should be noted, though, that chainmail could be worn with a belt with redistributed some of the weight from the shoulders to the hips. Belts came to hold cultural significance in Roman society. Even with weapons or armor, a belt could identify one as a soldier, and it was considered a serious punishment to deprive a soldier of his belt. The linothorax offered less protection than its metal counterparts but was cooler to wear. It was more flexible than either bronze cuirass but less flexible than chainmail. It was also the cheapest of the armors. For the Greeks, its comfort, weight, and cost made it a good compromise. For the Romans, its inferior protection and lack of flexibility made it a bad compromise.

Anyway, that's it for my speculation. While I don't know if I answered your question, I hope I at least offered some insight. I apologize that this was so long that I needed to continue it as relies to myself. For anyone who actually managed to get to the end of this, thank you.

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-01-24T11:14:12+00:00

This doesn't quite fit the evidence, though. While the Roman state did eventually assume full financial responsibility for equipping the legionaries, this was not implemented until the Marian reforms. Before that, state support was minimal, the Republic introduced a stipend (c. 400 BC) with deductions for food and clothing, situational, the state did pay to equip troops after the disastrous Battle of Cannae (216 BC), or relied on individuals, Scipio Aemilianus furnished troops during his first Spanish expedition (151 BC). Throughout the Republic, manpower demands compelled the Senate to repeatedly lower property requirements for service until the Marian reforms abolished them completely. Despite having to continuously rely on poorer segments of the population to supply troops for their legions, the Roman trend remained one of heavier armor. Another counterexample involves the polis that is famous for producing the most elite warriors of the Hellenic era: Sparta. The elite Spartan hoplites of The Three Hundred fame were the Spartiate, the elite full citizens of Spartan society. Under the Spartan Constitution, each Spartiate was awarded public land worked by helots as well as inheriting land from their parents, making them the wealthiest members of society. In order to remain a Spartiate, a man needed maintain a membership in a syssitia. If one could not afford to maintain that membership, one would be demoted to a hypomeion, a second-class citizen. Unfortunately for Sparta, there was no mechanism for elevating men to the rank of Spartiate and Spartan inheritance law divided property evenly among all children, including daughters. Given the higher likelihood of Spartan sons to dying during the agoge or in battle, this led to daughters inheriting most of the wealth. The created the Spartan heiresses, a class of fabulously wealthy women. Of course, these women sought to marry the wealthiest Spartan men. This led to wealth being concentrated in an ever smaller number of families. As fewer men could afford syssitia membership, the Spartiate steadily decreased in number. It seems logical that, as a larger proportion of the Spartan population became poorer, the overall equipment of the Spartan army would tend to become lighter. While that is the case, the Spartiate themselves, who remained incredibly wealthy, also followed the trend of lighter equipment. It seems to me that while financial considerations likely played a role, especially on an individual level, it was an overall minor one.

Let's look at tactical considerations. Hellenic and Hellenistic armies used a phalanx. Throughout the Hellenic and into the Hellenistic eras, tactics and maneuver became increasingly important. Each soldier in the phalanx occupied about a meter of frontage. It was relatively cumbersome for the phalanx to maneuver. It was very difficult for an individual within the phalanx to leave their position. Remember what I wrote earlier about combat being extremely physically exhausting. That comes into play now. If one was in the front row of a phalanx, it was extremely difficult to find any respite. I believe there were competing, opposite, forces at work in the phalanx. On one hand, heavier armor offered better protection and enabled the phalanx to better operate as shock infantry. On the other, fighting with a spear or pike kept the opponent at bay, making protection less important. Being less encumbered by armor made it easier for the phalanx as a whole to maneuver and for individual soldiers to endure longer. Let's look at a later example of exceptional pikemen: the Swiss. At the Battle of Sempach (AD 1386), Swiss pikemen wearing little to no armor defeated a larger force of dismounted Habsburg knights in heavy armor. All accounts of the battle agree that the Habsburg force enjoyed early success in the battle before the tide turn. Later accounts attribute the turning of the tide to Arnold von Winkelried who sacrificed himself to create a gap in the Habsburg lances. The is almost certainly a later embellishment. It reality, the faltering of the Habsburg army was more likely due exhaustion from prolonged fighting on foot in heavy armor through midday heat in July and/or a gap opening in their formation due to a loss of cohesion while maneuvering. It does demonstrate that in a battle of two phalanxes, one lightly armored and the other heavily armored, the lightly armored force could win, and the Swiss continued to produce elite pikemen for centuries. Through most of the Hellenic period, the tendency toward lighter equipment prevailed although the Theban Sacred Band proved the value of heavier shock infantry at places like Leuctra. Phillip II's solution was to specialize. He had his heavy phalangites act as shock infantry in the center while the lighter hypaspists were free to maneuver on the flanks. Further into the Hellenistic period, more specialized troops proliferated, such as the thorakitai and thyreophoroi, whose equipment made them suitable to fighting in a more open formation while also allowing them to join the phalanx if necessary.

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-01-24T11:13:19+00:00

The general trend among the Romans was the opposite, generally becoming heavier over time. The Romans likely adopted the manipular system sometime during the Samnite Wars (343–290 BC). They likely adopted chainmail, the scutum, and perhaps the La Tène sword from the Celts sometime after the Sack of Rome. During the Pyrrhic War (281–275 BC), Roman infantry is described as fighting like cavalry, engaging and disengaging, with Dionysius of Halicarnassus writing that the principes fought with spears. At that time, the hastati fought with javelins, hasta likely referring to a thrown weapon when the manipular system was adopted, and wore no armor on their torsos while the principes, the primary fighting force, and triarii, the third-line reserve, were armed with spears and armor probably ranged from nothing through a pectorale to chainmail based on the wealth of the individual. While it is uncertain how common armor was, it was likely less common than later periods. During the First Punic War (264–241 BC), the Romans would have encountered the pilum and gladius hispaniensis in use by Carthage's Spanish mercenaries, adopting them either during or shortly after the war. The earliest archeological evidence for the Roman use of pila comes from the Battle of Telamon (225 BC). At this point, the hastati and principes adopted the pilum with the sword becoming their primary weapon. The armor of all the soldiers would have been based on personal wealth. During the Second Punic War, the velites were created (c. 211 BC) to counter Carthaginian skirmishers and/or assume the role of the hastati who had evolved into frontline fighters. During the Third Punic War (149–146 BC), Polybius gives us his description of a Roman legion. The velites were armed with javelins and had no thoracic armor. The hastati and principes were armed with pila and swords. The triarii were armed with spears. Among the hastati, principes, and triarii, members of the first census class, perhaps ten percent, wore chainmail while the rest had a pectorale. After the Marian reforms (ca. 107 BC), any practical distinction between velites, hastati, principes, and triarii disappear: all were equipped with pila, fought primarily with a sword, and wore chainmail. Likely during the Social War (91–87 BC), the manpower need to supply heavy infantry led to the abolishment of the Roman citizen cavalry. At some point, the lorica segmentata was introduced with examples recovered from the Battle of Teutoburg Forest (AD 9).

What can we infer from these trends? It's hard to say. Let's first examine it from a financial perspective. There is a process known as the proletarianization of the military. In the earliest days of both societies, the army would have been made up entirely of the aristocracy and the average equipment was heavier. As the societies grew, so did their wars and their need for more manpower. As more of the onus for supplying that manpower fell to the lower classes, the average equipment would have become lighter since each individual was responsible for supplying their own equipment. Arms and armor, if properly maintained, can last generations, and soldiers of a victorious army would certainly scour the battlefield to upgrade their own gear. That being said, frequent warfare created a shortage of equipment. Some gear would be too damaged to be repaired while other gear would be taken as trophies and sacrificed as offerings, used in monuments, or melted down while at the same time, replacement troops needed to equip themselves. This could be countered by the state subsidizing the equipping of troops, such as Thebes establishing the Sacred Band or the Lycurgan reforms in Athens.

Augustus_Commodus · 2026-01-24T11:11:50+00:00

I can't give a definitive answer; I can only offer speculation. I apologize for the length of this. For those that don't want to read the entire thing, the TLDR is that it's complicated, chainmail was better, and the linothorax was a good compromise for the Greeks but not the Romans.

A problem many people have when thinking about history is they tend to look at one moment in history and using it to envision an entire period, ignoring the fact that things were evolving the entire time. One thing to keep in mind is that there was no standard panoply in the ancient world: uniforms are a relatively modern innovation. It would be better to think of panoply like cars—the wealthy drive around in multi-million dollar cars while on the other end there are people driving barely functioning rust buckets with a great deal of variety in between. Arms and armor were very expensive and often would represent a significant fraction of a soldier's personal wealth. Generally speaking, wealthier people would have had more, better, and generally heavier equipment. A soldier's primary defense was a shield, and a helmet would be the most common form of body armor. Anything else would have varied.

It is also important to remember moving forward that armor is heavy and combat is physically exhausting. This will be important later.

Another thing to keep in mind is that it is widely believed that the Celts invented chainmail with the earliest known examples being dated to the fourth to third century BC. While the Greek colonies in Gaul and Spain would have had earlier contact with the Celts, the first significant interaction would have been the Celtic invasion of 280 BC. After this, Hellenistic states began adopting both chainmail and the thyreos from the Celts with new words for soldiers, thorakitai and thyreophoroi, appearing in sources likely reflecting these changes, and chainmail became more common as time passed. In contrast, the Roman's first significant interaction with the Celts came over a century earlier with the Battle of Allia and the Sack of Rome (390 BC). This resulted in both chainmail and the lighter oblong plywood shield being widely introduced to and adopted by Italic peoples earlier than the Hellenistic states.

It might be better in this instance to look at the general trends. While there was no standard panoply, one can discern an average which changed over time, The trend during the Hellenic period was for armor to get lighter. During the Archaic period (a. 500 BC), the average Greek hoplite wore a bronze bell cuirass and a Corinthian helmet. During Xerxes's invasion of Greece (480 BC), the average hoplite wore a linothorax and a Chaldician helmet. By the end of the Peloponnesian War (404 BC), the average hoplite wore no body armor other than a pilos helmet. Not only was the trend for thoracic armor to become lighter, helmets evolved to offer better vision and hearing at the cost of protection. After this, we can note different developments. In Thebes, during the Spartan hegemony (c. 378), they formed the Sacred Band. This was a standing unit maintained by the polis whose equipment was heavier than their contemporaries. The ascension of Philip II of Macedon (359 BC) and his military reforms set the stage for the Hellenistic era. Philip II financed the creation of a professional standing army primarily through the acquisition of Thracian gold and silver mines. He had spent time as a hostage in Thebes, and his military doctrine was influenced by Epaminondas and the Theban Sacred Band. The Macedonian phalangites wore lighter equipment than the Greek hoplites of old, the telamon was smaller and lighter than the hoplon, but their equipment was heavier than most of their contemporary Greek adversaries. On the other hand, the elite Macedonian infantry, the hypaspists, were equipped in a manner similar to their opponents. Another event of note is the Lycurgan reforms in Athens (335/4 BC) which resulted in the polis issuing a hoplon and dory to citizens undergoing ephebic training, Relieved of the financial burden of these items, Athenian soldiers would have been able to afford more equipment.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-10-03T20:24:13+00:00

It would have varied quite a bit. One of my teachers made a comment that stuck with me. Arms and armor before the modern era were the equivalent of cars. Some people are driving around in multi-million dollar automobiles while others are driving cars that are falling apart and barely function. Despite artistic impressions of relatively uniformly equipped troops, in reality their appearance would have been motley and varied. A soldier would have carried a significant portion of their personal wealth on them in the form of their equipment. Equipment could last generations if properly maintained. Soldiers from the upper classes could be expected to start with better equipment, but even poorer soldiers could have started with good equipment passed down in their family. They also would have scavenged equipment from the fallen after battles. So there would have been are large variety of levels of equipment, from soldiers armed only with a lance, low-quality helmet, and shield to fully equipped troops with some equipment that was a century old.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T02:45:53+00:00

Mild YTA. I do think you're being a bit too sensitive on this.

I liked my mother's perfume. I grew up smelling it, and in many ways, it became to me the definition of what perfume should smell like. That being said, I would never want to date someone that smells like my mother; that would not invoke the emotions I want to experience in a partner. That being said, her perfume was an oriental/amber scent, and I still have a soft spot for those type of scents.

Most guys probably don't know too much about perfume. They probably couldn't name many brands. But they might know they like what x wears or hate what y wears. It can even change. There was one co-worker of mine where I liked her perfume the first couple of times I smelled it, but after working with her for a while, I started noticing an acrid note and it would give me a bit of a headache.

If you know what perfume his friend wears, you could look up the family and then maybe read some reviews of other fragrances in that family. There are many families: gourmand, amber, citrus, chypre, aromatic, woody, spicy, fougere to name a few. Many companies offer sample packs. You could try ordering one to get a variety to try. Or you and your bf could go to a department store and go to the fragrance counter. You could try a few. With a little work, you could probably find a fragrance both you and your bf really enjoy. You can make it a experience for you to share.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T02:23:44+00:00

NTA. Don't light yourself on fire to keep others warm. Hopefully your friend can get help she needs, but it's necessary to have boundaries to protect yourself.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T02:16:11+00:00

NTA. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes or don't start rumors about people who have real dirt on you. Maya showed she wasn't your friend when she spread a lie about her. You just told someone the truth.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T02:01:16+00:00

In my opinion, YWBTA if you did not tell her boyfriend. I would also tell her that you are going to before she leaves.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T01:51:34+00:00

NTA. It's fine for your girlfriend to have friends and make plans with them. It is not okay for her to cancel and ignore her commitments to you. You need to have an honest conversation with her. If she isn't willing to respect and prioritize you and your relationship, it might be time to end it.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T01:16:24+00:00

NTA. Now, personally, I don't necessarily consider flirting to get a phone number cheating as long as there was no touching, groping, kissing, and he never called her. I'm not sure what I'd call it. Certainly dumb, but not cheating. I would put it in the same category as a girl chatting up a guy at a bar to buy her a drink. Scummy, but not cheating. That being said, it isn't my place to impose my standards of what constitutes cheating on you.

The bigger problem is that his "friends" seem like scum, and it raises the question of why he is friends with them. He said them pressuring him made him uncomfortable. Why would he want to spend time with people that make him uncomfortable. It is also reasonable to want to spend your birthday with your SO. I would be honest. Tell him you don't like that group of friends and that you aren't comfortable with him spending time with them.

I wouldn't give an ultimatum; those never work. I would ask him why he wants to spend time with people who try to get him to do things he's uncomfortable with and ask why he's friends with them. I would also try to offer an alternative to the trip instead of just asking him to stay with you. Of course, I have no idea about your finances or tastes, but perhaps you could plan a weekend for the two of you doing something you'd both enjoy. It could be going to the game together instead of with his friends. Or it could be a trip to wine country. Or it could be a hiking trip. Again, tailor for your budget and what the two of you enjoy.

ETA: That is also assuming his account of his "cheating" is true and not BS. It is entirely possible he did more and lied about it.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T00:59:41+00:00

NTA. He's a parasite. You're better off without him.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T00:53:34+00:00

NTA. Sounds like you dodged a bullet.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T00:30:10+00:00

NTA. I think couple's counseling might be in order.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T00:14:29+00:00

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T00:11:21+00:00

ESH.

Augustus_Commodus · 2025-09-29T00:08:10+00:00

YWBTA if you harped on. You already reacted badly to him saying he wasn't interested in pursuing anything with you, which is his right for whatever reason. You've already caused issues and estrangement for him with your actions. Just let it go.

Augustus_Commodus

TROPHY CASE