spittle

The Julii claimed claimed their name was derived from 'Iulus', the son of Aeneas, the leader of the Trojan exiles who had settled in Rome after the fall of Troy. Aeneas himself was the son of the human Anchises and the goddess Venus. So they actually did claim devine ancestry but from Venus, not Mars.

The Catholic Church. I don't mean catholics in general or even priests as individuals. I mean the organisation that is supposed to be spiritual but operates like a multi-national business conglomerate. It actually retains top quality attorneys and as a 'slush fund' for defending Pedophile priest's, sometimes by the character assassination of the actual victims! If that doesn't add insult to injury...... Its a million miles away from the teachings of Christ despite its entire existence being , supposedley, for the purpose of spreading his teachings. For a thousand years (plus) it as evolved into an evil political entity using the threat of excommunication to strong arm nations into towing the partry line. In effect issuing a 'contract' Elizabeth 1 in order to attempt to put a catholic back on the throne of England. Henry VIII broke from the Vatican over its refusal to grant him a divorce (usually little more than a formality for people of his rank except, in this case, the power of the King of Spain (kin to Catherine of Aragon - the woman he wished to divorce) held more influence over the Pope. They refused to acknowledge Robert the Bruce has king of Scots because the leader of the recently disempowered foreign occupying colonial power (Homosexual Edward II, King of England) ensured greater wealth for the Vatican than the Bruce could hope to. He was even excommunicated at one point. And to even mention the 'sale of indulgences' (in effect buying immunity for a mortal sin such as murder BEFORE it was actually done! "I'm considering murdering my neighbour so I can buy his land cheaply from his backwards son. How much for a 'get out of hell free card') is to accept that corruption was the norm to such a degree that it was standardized practice. But all this was centuries ago, right? When the FBI searched the house of Joe 'Bananna's' Bonanno (the leader of the Mafia family that controlled the flow of heroin into north America throughout the 50s, 60 and 70's) they found a framed certificate in latin hanging on his living room wall. When it was translated it turned out to be a decree/promise that, upon his death, he would go directly to heaven, withouit delay or detour (i.e purgatory). This was in the 1960s and it was signed by an actual Pope! If anyone deserved hell it was a man who had made himself obscenely wealthy by importing heroin into the communities of fellow Catholics where children robbed their own mothers to buy a temporary relief from the horror of withdrawal. Instead he had a certificated promise of priority acceptance through the pearly gates.

Yes. I always find an American accent far more convincing. Thats why I regard 'Hercules: The Legendary Journey' and 'Zena: Warrior Princess' to be of the upmost quality and historical truth. How long do these mushrooms work for....?

I'm as certain as possible that Cato would not have instigated widespread proscriptions as he regretted every loss of Roman life that occured in the civil war, whether Pompeian or Caesarian. Perhaps he would have been less upset at the death of Caesar himself.... But, intentions not withstanding, who would have had the ability to actually organise and complete a 'purge'?

In one of the later episodes of Rome there is a gathering of the Roman gentry and caesar says something like: "I am not surprised that Pompey had such an easy victory. A child with a stick could have done so. I doubt they have yet stopped running..." It is spoken quietly and is easy to miss but it seems a little out of place, not quite in charcter with the image of Caesar the programme makers try to impart. Does anyone know whether Caesar actually voiced such sentiments concerning a vanquished foe in any of his writings? (I believe he was referring to the Pontics (?). It was after his victory over Pompey but, obviously, before his death) And I did state 'obviously before his death' so I would appreciate it if the sarcasm, stating of the obvious or general, crass frat house comments of the forums resident wits (who shall remain nameless) did not reoccur.

Inherited conditions do seem to play a disproportionate part in the affairs of the leading families of history. It was an obvious consequence of in-breeding with the Egyptians (who regularly married their brothers, sister or even their mothers and fathers - shudder!) but what degree did limited gene pool contribute to the British, Russian and Roman (tenuous inclusion for the purposes of relevance to the thread/forum) 'royal' families. there does seem to be an awful lot of cousins marrying for the sake of dynastic convenience during the post Augustan race for succession.

A non serious attempt would be a few disgruntled Senators gathering to discuss a coup...and being found out and punished before any actual attempt was made. A serious attempt would be when a considerable 'power' emerged with the intention of counter-revolution. Perhaps even making the prospect of a new Republic a real possibility. After Caesars assassination Augustus and Antonius fought each other for ultimate power. Was this the pattern of things to come? Aspiring Emperors going to battle for the position? Or was there a Cromwellian/Napoleonic Roman strongman who led a faction/army intend on dissoving the monsrchy and re-instating true power to the Senate?

2000BC Egypt. Technological, agricultural (virtually anything) masters of the planet. 2000bc Gaul. Men with sticks. 50BC Egypt. An Egyptian dark age. Past its prime. Much of its secrets forgotten. Under the domination of Greece (monarchy/cultural) and Rome (actual power/cultural) 50BC Gaul. Forming coallitions of tribes that NEARLY prevented Roman domination. To me the original post to this thread is like saying: "Did America dominate the known world?" If we are talking about 1755 the answer is 'No'. But if we are talking about 1995 the answer is 'Yes'. So, again, what era of history are we looking at when we compare Egypt to Gaul? As for the Gauls having agricultural technology that was ahead of that of the Romans....Didn't the Romans introduce aqueducts to the province for irrigation?

After Caesar was there ever a serious attempt to return to republicanism? Why did the republic lose its ideals? I think that Marius' allowing non property holders join the army evolved into the idea that property holder didn't need to. The seed of decadence was planted once the wealthy could pay the poor to fight theor battles while they pleasured themselves in ever ostentatious ways. A friend of mine once said that the beginning of the end of true democracy started in ancient Athens when the wealthy were allowed to have someone stand as proxy for them during votes. It was the start of a political class rather than the direct democracy of every man making his own vote. I see the Marian enlargement of the recruitment pool in a similar light. As much as I admire Caesar I admit that he demonstrated much about himself by first ensuring laws to check the power of provincial governors to start wars (usually glory seeking) and then immediately broke them when given command of a province. One rule for them, No rules for Caesar.

Shakespear wrote propoganda for the late Tudors by the character assassination of the preceeding Dynasty (the house of York, "This is the winter of my discontent" said by an ugly, hunchbacked sadist). Rameses the Great had his monuments carved in a new way, deeply gorged in the rock rather than raised surface. This was to stop his name being removed from history be any succeeding dynasty, as had been the result of change during several new regimes in Egypt. What evidence do we have to support the idea that the latter Julio-Claudians were maligned ina similar fashion by the Flavians. Or the Flavians by their successors. Or any dynasty by its successors? I read once that Tiberius was more open to this kind of revisionism due to him not being deified whereas Augustus was a 'God' so similar attacks upon his name and achievements would have been sacriledge.

If Pompey had won he COULD have started massive proscriptions but WOULD he have? Had the 'teenage butcher' mellowed with age? Aurelianus. I do not understand your argument. Why was a monarchy Rome's manifest destiny? Could the death of Caesar not result in a restrengthened Senate?

So we have two of Augustus' grandsons dead (by the way, what were the causes of their deaths?). The third grandson, Agrippa Posthumous, exiled from Rome and, effectively, the succession (the reasons for this and the people behind his eventual death seem to be a grey area). His daughter, Julia the Elder, re-married off to Tiberius (whom Augustus adopted) His granddaughter Julia the Younger, married to his great nephew, Germanicus (whom Tiberius was made to adopt when he himself was adopted by Augustus). The children of Julia the Younger and Germanicus, Nero and Gaius 'Caligula'. Plus, on Livia/Tiberius side of the DNA the son of Tiberius and grandson of Livia, Drusus and his son, Germellus. Then the 'independent' in the bunch, Sejanus. It seems likely that Sejanus had Drusus killed (after Drusus became heir to Tiberius). Is it probable that Sejanus killed Nero and attemtped to clear the way for Germellus?

?Que? Its Yorkshire dialect. "Tintintin" = "It isn't in the tin"

Quote from Goldworthy: "Bibulus fought with dreadful savagery but was not alone in this. From the beginnings of the war few Pompeians had shown any inclination to compete with Caesar in displays of clemancy and moderation. Cicero had been shocked by the attitudes he encountered in Pompeys camp. Most of the leading Pompeians declared that men who remained neutral were almost as bad as Caesars active partisans, and there was talk of widespread punishment when they finally led the army back to Italy." To me this makes me think of Sulla's proscriptions ONLY worse. Maybe, after the civil war had started, Caesars victory was the best option Comments plaese.

"At the end of the day Tiberius was preferable to Agrippa" on condition that he adopt Germanicus. Again we come to the bloodline. maybe Augustus believed this was his best bet at a dynasty, a slight detour for Tiberius followed by his true heir Germanicus, rather than trusting the future to an incompetant Agrippa? as for 'disagreeing with scholars" it is my opinion that several of the forum members ARE scholars.

I hope to see the evolution of 2nd Roman monarchy (Augustus onwards) from Republic during the Julio-Claudians. I accept that Augustus did plan on his bloodline becoming THE dynastic future. He saw Tiberius as a stop gap BUT made him his successor (?). So, I assume, making an actual descendent 'Emperor' (at a very early age - like James VI/I) with Tiberius as a Roman equivalent of Regent was not an option? In the later Empire were there examples of very young boys becoming 'Emperor' with the actual decision making being left to older, more experienced individuals? Maybe like the Emperors of Japan being little more than figure heads with the actual power belonging to the Shoguns or more genuine attempts to keep the throne safe until the coming of age of its actual recipient? Could Augustus have desired the exemption of Drusus for reasons other than it placing his own blood decendents in favourable positions? Did he consider Drusus to be unsuitable in a similar way to his view of Agrippa Posthumous? I am playing Devils Advocate in order to exclude any possibilities other than a long term strategy for the Augustan bloodline to become the dynastic rulers of the Roman Empire. Edited for this: What actual blood relation were Germanicus and Claudius to Augustus? Apart from Germanicus being the father of the Augustan grandchildren (thus placing direct descendents of Augustus in line to be 'Emperor' after himself) would Augustus have had any other motive to ensure Tiberius left the title to Germanicus rather than Drusus?

Would this situation have been different later in the Empire period? When the succession method was more solid? What I mean is when King James VI took the Scots throne at a very early age there was a Regent to rule but James was still King. If Tiberius was a stop gap til a member of Augustus' bloodline became old enough to actually rule could he have been made anything other than 'emperor'. As the idea of hereditary rulers became accepted did a Roman equivalent of REGENT occur?

English Bitter. Avoid any breweries from south of Nottingham like the plague! Yorkshire is the center of the universe when it comes to bitter. Especially a small town called Tadcaster. John Smiths, Sam Smiths (generations back the brothers split the company. Johns is a far larger company but Sams is the choice of the man in the know) Tetleys, Stones. From the other side of the Pennines (Lancashire - The people who take sole credit for victory during the war of the roses but were in fact a small part of a nationwide coallition that HAD to combine to win the might of the House of York) we have Websters. Courage is a southern brew invented so Northern folk could be sure of their inherent superiority. A simply awfull drink! Trophy (despite being from Sheffield - near Tadcaster and in the haert of Bitter country) is another best left well alone. "On Ilkley Moor bar tat..."etc Barnsley Bitter. Tiny brewerie but SO special. Dun't thee thar me, simmer darn, se' thee. Tinternet or no!.

The Succession. Biological v Adoptive Heirs. When Augustus died he had one biological Grandson (Agrippa Posthumous), his Grand-daughter Agrippina, her husband Germanicus (What relation, other than husband of Augustus' Grand-daughter was Germanicus?) and their sons Nero Caesar and Gaius 'Caligula'. Also the brother of Germanicus, Claudius. He also had his wifes biological son and his adopted one, Tiberius. Despite the fact that Tiberius had been 'Second man in the Empire' for a decade, effectively co-ruling with Augustus, and his adopted son, if a biological link had been the main factor for inheritence surely Tiberius would have been several places away from the first choice as 'Emperor'? Behind Agrippa posthumous, Nero and Gaius?

If Caesar had simply cried (when given Pompey's head) it could have been an excellent cliff-hanger type scenario. Wondering his actual intentions....Were the tears relief? sadness? Anger?.... As for the writers wanting a revenge factor, Servilia is cast as the main instigator of opposition and, eventually, assassination of Caesar due to personal reasons (in the guise of Republicanism). I always think that by putting much of the momentum of the backlash against Caesar on Servilia's shoulders that the story does no justice to Brutus. He is little more than a naive pawn used first by Caesar and then by Servilia. If my reading of his character is correct he was a citizen of devout principle AND INTELLIGENCE. Not someone who could be so easily manipulated by others for their own benefit. "How could Caesar hate someone who had cherished his beloved daughter...." Cato was Servilia's half brother and Brutus' uncle (both loved Caesar) yet he despised him. I am sure that better examples of personal hatred existing next to mutual affection. The Roman elite was a very small world of tangled alliances and love/hate.

Revisionist was the wrong word to use. I enjoy Terry Jones' but get sick of white/western/christian guilt leading authors into downplaying certain aspects of history and conflict. In the final analysis its a form of manipulation and I'd rather have the facts in order to come to my own conclusions. Since 9/11 I have found that many liberal historians use their work to place Islam on a pedistal. 'Saladin's forces were the first occupying regime to allow freedom of religion'..., etc. I don't see how that excuses the radicals of a millenium later from encouraging suicide bombers and mass murder.

Julius Ratus quote "I am pretty sure the Persians and Selucids used scythed chariots...." My contention that no evidence exists of this practice comes entirely from Goldworthy. It would not be the first time an author was wrong so I am far from dogmatic in the belief of it. To be honest I would prefer it if there was proof of cultures that used Scythed Chariots. Just the thought of them is exciting! I am remembering the scene from Gladiator when the female African gladiator is decapitated by the scythe on her own vehicle!

It helps a lot, Phil, but I am a little confused about parts of it. "Augustus/Augusta came to be the titles used amongst his successors". This is the first time I have heard this. I know that in The Caesars Tiberius turns down the title of Caesar but Gaius and Claudius seem happy to be addressed with the title. (In my reading I am only upto the late Republic so much of my curiosity stems from this forum or the Caesars...this may explain me never hearing the Augustus title being used for others after Octavian). If I am understanding the situation correctly the first few 'Emperors' (I'll stay with that title for simplicities sake) had a type of contradictory balancing act to politically perform. On the one hand they took the title Caesar (and/or Augustus) which came to mean 'more than King' and on the other hand they avoided any suggestion of being a hereditary monarchy as the powers that be went along with an act of a functioning republic and the hatred of monarchy was an essential factor. (?) I'll be reading up on Augustus within the next few weeks so I may be able to answer some of these questions myself.

Good title for a biography "From Ithica to Utica: The Life and Times of Internet Cato" What is the difference between sour mash and bourbon proper? I can tolerate Jack Daniels or Jim Beam. I think they are the only two I have sampled. I'm assuming Southern Comfort is a mixer or something. Surely its too sweet to be a genuine bourbon whiskey? As for the Single Malts and Fine Blends I must confess that if it came in a medicine bottle I would flush it down the toilet! I accept that millions of people cannot be wrong (four times as much scotch whiskey as French brandy is bought in France each year - and they regard themselves as the arbiters of good taste) but I cannot tell one whiskey from another. To me they are equally horrid! I'm do not wish to belittle another persons passions, I accept the problem is with me but spirits are just so sour! I like German. Czech and American Lagers (beers). And Irish stouts (Guiness). Have any of the Americans who post here ever tried a pint of English bitter?

Unlike his successor, Tiberius, Augustus was never made 'Emperor' for life. Instead he had it awarded by the Senate, then the Senate increased the length of his position, and then they did it again. Upto his death. My question is this: Did the Senate have any real option? Did any Senators attempt to curb his power (witha view to returning to ultimate power being held by the Senate as under the Republic)? Any other information relevant to this thread, such as Senate intrigue's or the fate of Senators who earned the enmity of Augustus would be greatly appreciated.