The Augusta

Just a warning note, Marv. Suetonius was not contemporary with Julio-Claudian events at all. Nor was Tacitus. The only Roman historians who 'were there' at the time were Velleius Paterculus, Asinius Pollio and Livy - and Livy's work for the Julio-Claudian period is largely lost, and Pollio's hasn't survived at all, as far as I am aware. But some valuable insights can be gleaned by reading between the lines in the poets too: Horace, Virgil, Ovid, to name the 'big three'.

The thread pertains to Caesar, and the legality of his march on Rome. As has been stated, marching an army from your province against Rome was illegal. No one is saying that illegal actions had not happened before in the Republic. Thank you, Germanicus. As a Caesarian myself, Caesar 137, no matter how we dress it up, and no matter how much hindsight we may employ, Julius' march on Rome in 49BC was illegal. It was illegal for a Roman general to cross the pomerium and enter the city in arms. There is no disputing this. Yes, Caesar's murder was also illegal, as was the murder of Gracchus, but you started the thread about Caesar's march alone. But even the diehard Caesarians among us cannot offer the argument that Julius was acting for the People. He may have used the popularis ticket but he was acting largely for himself. I cannot accept - and will never accept - that any Roman of this period had the same social philosophy as a 20th/21st century politician. I just do not believe that it was in the Roman make-up. Others may disagree, but to imbue Julius or Augustus, say, with altruistic motives for their illegal actions is somewhat spurious.

Dio places the election of Tiberius and Marcellus in 24BC in my copy in the year when Augustus and Norbanus were consuls! The elections took place while Augustus was on his way back from Spain. Therefore Marcellus was aedile in 23. And after all - he did stage those silly games of his in 23 (Dio). And thanks for clearing up the praetorian business. I realised that was what you must have meant as soon as I'd posted!

A lot to digest there, Caesar 137...... and an awful lot for me to get my teeth into. Could I come back to you soon? The Saturnalia being upon us, things are hectic at my end, but I do want to carry on this debate with you, so I thought I'd just post an interim. If only to say - 'Castricius' was Caepio's freedman (off the top of my head). By the way - that is an extensive bibliography you have up there, but the articles etc. will be opinions and conjecture I presume. Dio is the actual source, and so he must be the starting point. I read Syme's account some years ago, and as he still sits proudly dog-eared on my shelves I shall take him down for a skim. I have the consular fasti too. I greatly admire Levick, but I haven't read the work you cite in your list - I will endeavour to obtain it. But three things I must say immediately: In which of your sources is it stated that Marcellus was praetor? Or are you meaning that he was given a pro-praetorian rank during his military service in Gaul? And in which of your sources is he named as aedile for 22BC and not 23BC? Surely, he was aedile in 23? - or at least that's what I've grown up with for the last 30 years As for Augustus's reasons for 'going for the settlement', I rather think it is something he had in mind for a while, but I agree that the crises of this year probably came as something of a catalyst. He had to get it done. But let's not forget the most important piece of legislation from this settlement - the tribunician power. In my opinion, that one had been part of his plans for a while! It not only linked him to the People but he actually numbered his regnal years by it thereafter; that was just how important he saw it - it was the cornerstone of his rule, together with his proconsular imperium. I hardly think he arrived at it purely because of the events of 23BC. And just one more - Terentia, acting on information from Maecenas, warned Murena that Augustus was on to him, yes - and this is why he managed to escape. He had already been involved in the conspiracy at that stage. If he had been warned, why the heck would he then 'join a conspiracy' unless he had a death wish? I will post more as time allows. If I do not get a chance to come back to the Forum before the holidays - please accept my best wishes for a cool Yule

I actually remember my grandma painting her foot with belladonna because of the gout! This must have been in the 60s when I was a tiny tot - but it was definitely belladonna. Do we know when it was withdrawn?

Does anyone know what has happened to this project, by the way? (Ye gods - do we care?) But I was interested to note that the link cited by Wot was done over a year ago. Has Vin's Hannibal been confined to the Hades of Hollywood already? Anyone have any updates?

Well, I think this sums everything up perfectly. Welcome, Callaecus!

An excellent point, Pertinax. I have often wondered how many 'poisoning' cases were the result of over-zealous and ignorant usage of the medicinal elements of such plants. Wot's post quoting Livy's story of Cornelia and Sergia is enlightening. Isn't there a case for saying that if Cornelia and Sergia drank their own preparations, they were ignorant as to the harm they could cause? This could open up a whole can of worms.

Phew - a tough one, Caesar 137, and I can only really answer from the Julio-Claudian point of view. Certainly the name 'Germanicus' was an agnomen or extra nickname, rather than a title as such, but things were very different under the early Principate, when names could be handed on. It is my understanding (perhaps not the best) that the 'Africanus' awarded to Scipio was also more of an agnomen than an actual title. In this case, I am sure his sons could have used it had they chosen to - although someone with greater knowledge of this exact period may contradict me.

Looks to me he was put to sleep before his little surgery. Check this link out http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...&of=ENG-348 Thanks for the link, Tflex. It explains why he looked composed, and in a way makes things even worse! It's a terrible situation over there. I have always wanted to visit Iran to see the great ruined sites of the Persian Empire, but I just could not bring myself to go. I have too big a mouth - I wouldn't return! I work with a lady who is married to an Iranian. She won't believe any of this stuff goes on. This is despite her first visit to the country when her husband's relatives slaughtered a lamb before her eyes in her honour. This sort of thing only goes to show how backward these states are.

I really think that the crisis of 23BC is worth a thread of its own, Caldrail. I have very serious misgivings about Marcellus and the Murena/Caepio business, but I do believe that Augustus favoured him strongly. However, whether Augustus was really grooming him for the succession is far from certain. Agrippa, and no doubt Livia, played a huge part in the events of this year. But I want Caesar to come back with his source for the chronology of this year so that we can proceed properly. The only thing I would say at this stage, in answer to your thoughts about Augustus curbing Marcellus' ambitions - if Marcellus was actively involved in Caepio's plot, then this MUST have been kept from Augustus, as he allowed the boy's ashes to go into the mausoleum. He did not allow this for either of the Julias, who had transgressed against him. Although I am not a 'fan' of Marcellus at all, I cannot see that he was actively involved, but his popularity would have made him the target for some of the malcontents. Either way, I don't believe he was any loss to history.

I'm sorry - he looks remarkably composed to say his eye is being gouged out. I have looked at this site. Who is responsible for it, Tflex - do we know?

Caesar 137 - before we discuss the above, please could you refer me to your source material for the sequence of these events. (I refer just to the one above - the 23BC conspiracy) There also seems to be an element missing - which is why I'm asking for the source - in that you haven't mentioned Augustus' near fatal illness and his passing of the signet ring to Agrippa, thus quashing any hope the Marcellan party may have had of using the lad in their plot. But I do look forward to discussing this one in more depth with you...

Well said, Ursus. Nor do I see the need for some posters to be discussing this question so intensely - as though they are trying to 'rescue' their heroes from some kind of taint. Alexander the Great could have slept with his entire army, had his Companions for breakfast and then ravaged Darius' entire harem for all I care. His choice of bed partner makes him no more or no less of a hero than other things - notably his military strategy and willingness to assimilate other cultures into his empire. By all the gods - what does it matter?

I'm always willing to show my ignorance, Ram. Please can you enlighten me: What exactly is a Copt? It's not a word I know. This reminds me of that charming quote by Mahatma Ghandi. When asked by an interviewer what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied: 'I think it would be a good idea'. We have gone off topic, haven't we. Still - it's nearly Saturnalia

I have despatched Laslo, my Nubian, over with my recipe book, Pertinax. Sorry - I couldn't resist it.

In that case, you might want to use their proper names yourself. The "manura" should be the Menorah; and unless it's much more exciting than it used to be, the "nativitity scene" is a mere nativity scene (not that I wouldn't care to see nativititties on courthouse lawns all over the nation). CATO!!!! You have shocked me - you really have! And you such a paragon of rectitude....

Thanks for the link, Decimus. Yes, she is an excellent choice for this project. Roman women who somehow left their mark on their own society. Does your interest in her mean that you would be willing to contribute a piece on her?

OK - I'm going to shock you all! Let me say first of all that my choice of what kind of Roman I would have been has nothing at all to do with my present day political leanings - which are a sort of liberal/drenched Tory. However, as I've always been able to 'think' myself back into the era, I would have been an extreme optimate. The nobiles all the way for me, I'm afraid. To me, it was the aristocratic families who made the Republic great from her earliest days. I would have had no time at all for the mob, and I would not have trusted them to have any meaningful say in great matters of policy. (I'd have made a good Claudian!) Of course when things began to degenerate and the nobiles were squabbling among themselves then a strong leader was needed to take things by the scruff of the neck. Nothing lasts forever. I am only basing my choices within the context of the age, and NOT using any modern parallels. The monarchy too has its attractions for me. But one question I'd love to ask Decimus as the starter of the thread: even if a person chose to be with the populares, would he really be acting for the people? Call me a cynic, but I have my doubts. I think the People only mattered when they lined up in their tribes. It's an interesting poll, Decimus - it could open up a real can of worms. Be warned

Thanks for that, Ursus - it was fun. I loved it.

Thanks for the positive response, gents and Doc. I will certainly get a few bios up and running over this weekend. There'll be no prizes for guessing who my first lady will be...... But how shall we decide who is doing what? Take it as read that I will start with Livia and Antonia minor, and we'll see how it goes from there. Paul - you seem to have an interest in Servilia. Would you be willing to write a piece about her?

OK, I'm not quite sure where to post this - in fact, I'm not sure whether it should be posted on the Forum as a whole or whether it should be addressed to a mod in a PM. The thing is, on our History section, we have several articles on the Empire, the Republic, a list of emperors, a list of Republican statesman etc. I have noticed that there isn't a section devoted to famous Roman women. I am thinking of women such as Cornelia, Servilia etc., not to mention the later famous ladies of the empire: Livia, Agrippina Major and Minor, Messalina, Julia Domna etc. My question is this: Would anyone be interested in compiling 1) a list of famous Roman women, and 2} would anyone be willing to contribute biographies? These could be as simple or as complex as you wish. I would certainly be willing to submit a few biographies, but I couldn't do it all on my own! Would anyone out there, male or female, be willing to help? PP, Viggen and Moonlapse, perhaps you could offer your guidance in this.

I have to agree....

Cheers, Moonlapse - this is exactly what I was getting at. Publius - in your post above you directed me to places where the US have troops. Does the US actually administer those places governmentally? Hawaii, obviously, as it is one of the United States. It may all be coming down to what we define as an empire here, of course. The British Empire, for instance included territories that it actually ruled - e.g. India. Soldiers from the sub-continent were obliged to fight in the Second World War for King and empire etc. Could the US now call upon men from the Philippines to fight in Iraq?

Please don't take this the wrong way, my American cousins: It always bewilders me to hear the USA termed an 'empire' as Rome was. What foreign territories does the USA rule? How can we speak of the USA as an imperialist culture? It's something I have never understood. Perhaps you could enlighten me - modern politics not being my strongpoint. (I stick to pre-Christian times - much safer! )