Gaius Octavius

OK! What is the difference between 'navy' and 'ladies' strength gin? A few names please. Which is more suitable for 'muddy tinis'? :drunk: Manly snuff doesn't have that stuff in it!

'Encores'?

Aside from the alleged pirate affair, please expand. In any event, a persons personal proclivities need have nothing to do with his public actions. The Roman government needed reforming if it was to control its empire. Caesar was the man of the hour. If personal proclivities are the gage, then Brutus was a usurer - which was not an honorable business for a Senator. ----------------------------------- Tyrant, dictator, monarch, etc., are certainly undemocratic, but not in opposition to 'liberty'.

In the sense that we are speaking here: Nobilitas, Leading Families, Better People equals oligarchs. The words may be used without any confusion.

Occasionally, members ask about English usage. This site may be helpful. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learning...ish/index.shtml

WW, flatulence is great! Especially in elevators and crowded trains. As long as it is SBD. Remember Pythagoras? You might get thrown out of Court though. I used to break wind for my college. World champion, four years in a row.

MPC, (Iupiter forbid!), are you saying that it was similar to the Soviet system? They did have 'bottom' up elections.

I'm strictly speaking of oligarchy in the sense Polybius used it: rule of the few. Whether came from money, military success, good looks, brains, whatever doesn't matter. To put it differently, if there were a small number of wealthy citizens who had no political ambitions for themselves or others and the magistrates were chosen by lottery, it wouldn't be an oligarchy--1. it would be rule by the many. If everyone were equally rich, but only 10 hereditary families controlled all the offices of the state--it would be an oligarchy. 2. Thus, the definition of oligarchy is independent of economic control. 1. No, it would be rule by lottery. 2. Economic control is the essence of oligarchy. Were voters sometimes bribed? Our sources certainly say so. But I think one has to question what's really going on with these bribes. The fact is that the ballot was secret. Thus, a voter might be paid to vote for Bibulus, yet vote for Caesar, or vice-versa, and no one would know or get their money back. Moreover, there were laws against bribery, courts devoted to prosecuting it, and elections entirely annulled because of the scandal of bribery. Finally, and I think this is a critical question to ask: if votes did not matter, 1. why did anyone want to buy them? If Rome were a hereditary monarchy, votes would be worthless and no one would care to buy them. Doesn't this suggest that the votes of the people really did count for a whole lot?? Then, why did they? Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not claiming that the Roman republic was a democracy, nor that it was a utopia, nor that the civil rights of the people were never violated during the long history of the Republic. My claim is that Rome had real democratic elements and that it's incorrect to call Rome an oligarchy. In contrast, a system of hereditary rule by a single extended family through their appointed magistrates--that IS an oligarchic system, and it was the one that was in place during the principate. What would you call the Republic? You have an excellent thread going here, and we all shall learn much from your erudition. I feel that its applications to today are very important.

MPC, sounds nice, but the adoptions were amongst the oligarchs.

Well said, MPC. Yet the word 'oligarchy' encompasses not only political control but also economic control. Insofar as voting is concerned, were the 'better' families' clients not told how to vote? Were not the voters bribed? I am foggy here, but wasn't there an order of priority in which the tribes voted and this had a lot to do with the outcome of elections?

WW, take a gander at post #68.

'Tis not a reward. He searched me out, many years ago, after reading my thesis on "Flying Zorches Have No Grelics". Have spoken to His Grace on the matter in the past. It has come to light that the Gerson Therapy is quite useful in curing the SFB syndrome, a malady most associated with politicians.

HRH, Prince Charles, is in Philadelphia for an award. Will be in NYC next week. Am having lunch with him at Fairway.

A long time ago, I read a tome about economic decline (and fall), of nations past. I remember neither author nor title. One of the ideas attributed to Rome's collapse in the west, and Italy in particular, was the deforestation of Italy, particularly the south, during the Punic wars. This deforestation is still evident today.

AoS, when was the last time the U.S. Congress exercised or defended it's Constitutional obligation to declare war? Who was the last president to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution'? But, Pres. Clinton was impeached because he obfuscated about an affair that was neither illegal nor any of that garbage's business. Questions that no one had a right to ask.

I would like to know how Roman citizens were apportioned into centuries at the very beginning? When legionaries were needed, how were they chosen within each century? Were there 30 centuries to begin with?

Snuff is tobacco. Only six courses? Pshaw! Good luck with your presentation.

:notworthy: Bothy? http://www.mountainbothies.org.uk/

I get the impression that you pick and choose your 'evidence' according to your prejudices. Because it is modern, doesn't make it so.

Shark ain't that bad! Also some restaurant's "scallops' are shark meat... Yup! When your sea and bay scallops are all the same size, they have been stamped out of shark fin. Same prices though. Most people don't know what they are eating or drinking anyway.

My personal rabbi agrees with N.C.: No, shark is not kosher to eat. Technically, only fish that have fins and scales are kosher, so of course that automatically rules out all shellfish. But there are fish that have scales which have been ruled to not be kosher, because their scales are different from most other fish and can't be removed without tearing the skin. Swordfish is one popular restaurant fish that is not considered kosher, because of its type of scales. N.B. Years ago, when one ate at a restaurant, and ordered swordfish steak, he usually got shark steak.

I'll check it with my personal rabbi, and let you know. :smartass: I shot and ate the last Passenger Pigeon! Sorry!

We know that Jesus was a great person because of the devotion showed by his following and from the fact that he was willing to lay down his life for a cause. (That comes from the Bible, no?) Just because some parts of the NT are plausible, it does not logically follow that the rest of is automatically plausible too. (WHO said that it did?) What school of logic is that? The Josh McDowell School of Logic for Bible Thumpers? [We get a little personal here. Questions are not syllogisms. (No charge.) Perhaps YOU are a practitioner of the flush rimflower retarded school of logic.] Many parts of many other ancient manuscripts are shown to be partly plausible and partly implausible (A Revelation of Biblical, nay historic, import!) And I know that Christianity is not Judaism. You're not telling me anything new. (I am orgulic!) That is my point. Jesus was a devout follower of Judaism. (Did I say he wasn't?) His modern day worshippers are followers of the pagan aberration known as Christianity (Aha!, a conclusion without premises, or a middle! This equals road apples.)

Why not? Would be fun to see.