Julia C

Well, I've actually seen that commonly repeated in all sorts of books, though they differ on whether it was an annual amount or simply land value. A brief look for primary sources did yield Suetonius's Augustus section XLI, which states that Augustus increased the requirements for senators from eight hundred thousand sestertii to 1.2 million sestertii. This isn't quite the same as what I've seen elsewhere, but it is a source with a qualification. I've never ever seen eight hundred thousand as the figure, though. Odd.

Yes, but Hadrian ran things during the middle years of the principate. Under the republic, when senatorial privileges were at their zenith, the Senate could not legislate.

I was going to mention a bit about the duality of Cicero's character, but Cato's doing a better job than I could've done. I'll just say that Cicero was vain, hypocritical, and hungry for praise. With that in mind, he definately had talent and plenty of wisdom. He might've always been conscious of his status as a new man, which could explain why he had to play up some of his triumphs--he didn't have the easy acceptance that others would've gotten. Cicero is a flawed persona, but he certainly deserves his reputation. It might be embellished a little, especially by his own pen, but it's certainly authentic.

A few additions to Cato's posts: There were several ways of getting into the Senate. Most of them had a requisite property qualification: one had to own land in Italia worth (or yielding an annual income of) one million sestertii. For censorial purposes, all of a senator's wealth had to come from property related investments or duties performed for the Senate. The first way was getting elected as a quaestor, where one would enter the Senate after a year in office. The second way was applying to the censors when they revised the rolls of citizens of each rank. The third way was, in the post-Sullan period, to win a crown of valor on the field. This presumably waived the property qualifications. The fourth way was holding an augership or flaminate that would allow admission into the Senate, e.g. the flamen Dialis. The speaking order was different during certain phases of the republic. For the majority of the time, anyone not in the third tier (the aforementioned pedarii ) was permitted to speak by asking the presiding consul, though there were rules of order that allowed certain people to speak first. For instance, the consuls could speak first, followed by the princeps senatus, then various curule magistrates and ex-magistrates, then those on the second tier and so on. Sulla altered the rules of order to shuffle ex-magistrates and the princeps senatus behind the magistrates of the year and the magistrates-elect of the next year. Individual senators had many unofficial powers as well. Since the rule of the Senate was guided by tradition and custom, senators were generally seen as unimpeachable (at least they SHOULD be!) pillars of good conduct. They were allowed to draft wills for other citizens as well act on the behalf of their clients as a witness for certain contracts. The affairs of patronage formed a very big part of a senator's life, and it may be the closest thing to literal 'representation' that the Senate did. Senators looked after their clients, after all, but on a more personal basis than a modern representative would since the patron-client relationship was far different from any concept of a voting constituency. Externally, people born to a senatorial family would technically have senatorial rank, but they would be classified as equestrians. Until Gaius Gracchus, there was no difference between any members of the First Class--save that senators were senators. The introduction of the senatorial rank changed things up just a bit, but sons of senators were not entitled to any senatorial privileges until they actually became members of the Senate.

But immense traditional weight! Recall, the Senate outlasted the emperors! There was still a Senate administrating the Eternal City long after Romulus called little augustus was deposed. A lot of the Senate's prerogatives were shed, but one should remember that the Senate never had any legal weight anyway! Even the Senate's control of the Treasury and matters of war were matters of custom: no laws allowed this.

Divus Augustus in Hades? Try Olympus! With regards to the thread topic, I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Augustus was certainly a Roman, and he wanted to advance Roman civilization and culture to the rest of the world. If he could do this while rendering his potential rivals unable to amass wealth from the provinces at the same time, then it was even better!

An essential element would be to emphasize the influence the Roman Empire had on all her provinces. That's crucial, because many empires are known for conquest. Many are known for all-powerful military forces. Great Britain and the Mongols had larger empires and the USA has a greater degree of military superiority over its rivals than the Romans did. What's so special about the Romans is their pervasive influence. The idea that the almost everyone regarded the sack of Roma as the end of the world is a compelling one! When France fell in 1940, no one thought that. If London or Washington were to be attacked, no one would think that either. Everyone else here as brought up great suggestions for the meat of your paper. Draw those together with the unifying theme that Roma represented something greater than just power and territory. That's the ticket.

Cato certainly holds a large share of the burden of responsibility, but it'd be an oversimplification to say that he destroyed the Republic.

I don't imagine that the next season can end anywhere before Actium. PP: Crassus was a little dead when the first season started.

At the expense of duty and rectitude, of course. Epicurean habits were the downfall of the Republic.

Erm, Caligula was related to Augustus. His mother was Agrippina, who was the daughter of my namesake and Agrippa. Augustus, therefore, was Caligula's great-grandfather. Interestingly, Germanicus was the son of Drusus and Antonia, so he was the grandnephew of Augustus as well as his adoptive grandson. Caligula never liked being related to Agrippa, though, so he invented a relationship between Augustus and his daughter to strengthen his patrician blood, but this was not the case. Were he not adopted by Tiberius, he would have legally been a pleb.

Catullus is a poet. Mightn't you be referring to Catulus?

A greater taste for wealth also means a greater desire for it at the expense of other things.

How can you say that when the majority of its expansion occured in the Republic, when it still had half a millennium to go? The Empire reached its greatest height in 117 and still had three centuries to go. When those other empires got 'overstretched,' they didn't last too much longer. Certainly not three centuries.

Since the series is going deeper into the selfsame characters, it is reasonable to assume that the series is a continuation of the last one. That is, it starts where the last one left off.

The Augustan era is my favorite period, followed by the late Republic.

Hurrah! We'll be seeing Octavian rise to the top! Huzzah! Huzzah! My hero! How tremendously exciting! *gasp* And JULIA!

I believe there have been some proqu

Were they after total power? Can you prove that, absent extenuating circumstances, any of them would have taken absolute power if it were not necessary? They simply wanted their due. Pompeius Magnus and C

The Roman Empire fell when it stopped being Roman. When it became this monolithic thing that only had a name to it. This happened long before the fifth century.

Ambrose: He was a great tool, that's for sure!

I'm not so sure they would have accepted differing spheres of power. At that point, it wasn't so much territorial control than the notion of being primus inter pares. Being the Emperor wasn't an end itself, but a means to an end. If you're the Emperor, then you're unquestionably better than the rest of your peers. Accepting some provincial backwater would give someone a great deal of power and wealth, but it would mean nothing if there was nothing to compare it to. Why settle for being a petty potentate when one could lord it over actual Romans?

Corruption of society, indolence of youth, strange humanized religious practices with flawed gods, luxuries, the infamous "Greek love," the list goes on. Whether or not he was actually correct about these is debateable. On one hand, it did help Roman society progress and evolve, especially in foreign relations. On the other hand, they lost some of their steel, dedication, and piety. Julia would have strongly disagreed with Cato. Very strongly.

The face was painted red with minim not because Jupiter's face was believed to be red itself, but the great terracotta statue of Jupiter Optimus Maximus had a red face, so the triumphator was to appear in the form of the greatest of all Roman gods.

Julia, C