Julia C

There's also the problem that freedmen adopted the name of their masters--sometimes even clients adopted their patron's name. Wouldn't that be troublesome? So even if we could find someone with an ancestor that was named 'Gaius Julius,' it wouldn't mean that they were a Julian. Originally, of course, we could check what tribe they were enrolled it. It's doubtful such records exist, and the act of settling citizens across all tribes means that it's no longer useful.

To add to the rebuttul of Cato's point about the citizenship, Geta's act of universal citizenship removed the prize that could be attained by becoming the child of a Roman freedman or by enlisting in the auxiliaries. I submit that universal citizenship would have been the worst thing to do. Isn't it curious, indeed, that the Italian socii stood by Roma during some of her most precarious situations, where Italia itself was invaded by Hannibal and Pyrrhus. Both leaders tried to get Italia to rise for them, but the socii--save for some Etruscan towns and the Samnites--stayed loyal.

The unwillingness of a few small-minded few to see anyone with talent rise above the mediocre mire directly lead to the establishment of the triumvirate. Consuls proposing legislation was a by-product of the Sullan constitution. He, in fact, insisted that it was their proper role. Provincial commanders did not have a need to effect policies in Roma because there was a tacit agreement that their corruption and routine despoiling of the provinces was perfectly acceptable. Secret pacts, bribery, and corruption had been going on long before the triumvirate. Such things, in fact, are emblematic of the optimate opposition. How many times were tribunes of the plebs bribed in order to act as the senatorial watchdog veto? Personal politics, as you call them, have been a part of the Republic's system since the VERY beginning. How did Cato Censor even get into prominence if it wasn't for the initial support of the Fabii and the

You don't have to apologize. Well, the important thing about your fascination is that it isn't really "the next thing you know." There's several hundred years involved--nearly half a millennium. It's like saying that the United States was just a bunch of rebellious colonies and the next thing you know, they're the world hyperpower. That took 200 years in the making and a lot of things on the way. It's the precise same thing with the Romans.

I'm aware of what he meant, and I'm aware that he's aware of what he meant. But I was pointing out to him that it's still more useful to use proper terminology whenever possible.

Yeah. We'd really need to fill in one of the variables... since it wasn't around then, it's hard to speculate. :-(

Absolutely not. He was the precise opposite. Stalinism, however, shares many characteristics of fascism but the goal was different. In fascism, the state was held above all. In communism, there was to be no state. Stalin modified this a little bit in that there would be no states, just a universal communist umbrella centered around what used to be Russia. Sometimes it's important to ask how different fascists and Stalinists really were. Sometimes, there isn't much and sometimes there's a world of difference. For instance, when fascists throw out mounds of propaganda, they really want people to believe it. When Stalinists do so, they use it as a means to an end--but exaltation of the state isn't the end itself.

Since my title was intended to be purely Latinate, there's no need to use the modern practice of calling myself "Julia the First of Her Name". Were I to be giving myself a title as a modern monarch, then Her Imperial Majesty Julia I Empress of Everything would suffice.

whose powers were of a managerial nature and less an issue of executive control. It still bothers me a little, the coordinating conjunction 'and' suggests parallel construction. Yet to say their their powers were less of an issue seems a little non-sequitur. How about: whose powers were of a managerial nature rather [or 'moreso'] than executive.

Fascism comes from the Latin fasces, which is the bundle of rods tied together representing state authority. Etymologically, that's all it refers to. But insofar as Mussolini was the creator of fascist ideology, it refers to an extremist militaristic authoritarianism that features totalitarian controls and at least some aspects of xenophobia in order to inflame nationalist sentiment. See Francisco Franco and Adolf Hitler for other takes on fascism, one of which was a little more mild and the other was far more extreme.

I once read Robert Graves's Count Belisarius. It's clearly fiction, but it's decent--not anywhere near as good as his Claudius books.

This is why I like owning a DVR. Aside from the fact I can't take it anywhere, it's beneficial because I can watch Rome in its original high resolution anytime I wish.

More correctly, it's gens Julia. Gens is a feminine word.

Pah, I wouldn't consider any of the imperial families to be prominent throughout history. They had a short life span. What was a Severus to a Valerius, after all? Primus Pilus gave you two good examples. I'd also suggest the gentes Fabia, Claudia, Valeria, and possibly Julia. The ones with the most information on them might be the Cornelii Scipiones or the Fabii Maximi. Some of them are famous contemporaries!

Remember, cohorts are simply an organizational unit. What distinguishes the Marian legions is that they were an entirely different structure, so I would not simply use cohorts to describe them. One, after all, does not use platoon as a synonym for modern infantry. The reason the Romans only had a few provinces in those early days was that they were incapable of expanding. The legions could only be deployed during the campaigning season, afterwards, the soldiers had to go back to tend their farms. They did not have long enlistments and if they were offered, no one would have taken it. Even serving a few years away from home would mean ruin for a yeoman. There are numerous other reasons for the limited expansion until the ending years of the Republic, but this is the one that relates to the army. Rameses: The Roman army and society as a whole was very different in 107 BCE than it was in 14 CE than it was in the 400s CE. Your question is akin to asking if the French armies under Napoleon could defeat Germany, why wouldn't those in World War II? The conditions, technology, and leadership were vastly different.

Why? He certainly didn't crack down on the Jews, did he? They were just as vigourous in sticking to their own single God and denouncing the rest as false. Perhaps the Christians were bigger on converting others, but I doubt he would be foolish enough to kill members of a religion so willing to embrace matyrdom.

Imperatrix Julia C

Oh, fascism is far more extreme of an ideology than all that. If it weren't, then it'd be a wonder that it only appeared so late in history. Fascism is characterized as being totalitarian, and both C

Augustus wasn't too handsome in his older years. His health was always poor and his face was spotted. He certainly wouldn't want to appear that way in his portraits. Livia, on the other hand, held herself as the austere patrician matrona. It was essential for her to let herself fit that traditional mold, because she was often used as the embodiment of the ideal Roman woman.

Shakespeare would have us believe he said 'Then fall C