P.Clodius

No, they didn't. They spoke Punic, which was a variant of Phoenician, a West Semitic language (and so is Aramaic; Hebrew may be a member of the same group, but quite a bit different). St Augustine, who was bilingual in Latin and Punic, found Aramaic easy to learn in later life but Hebrew quite difficult. Interesting...Given that St Augustine is obviously christian and therefore relatively late, how come Punic is dead? Why is there no written punic texts anywhere?

If you look at Rome during this time span (27 BC - 117 AD) you will probably find very few examples--with the exception of Trajan, and to a lesser extent Augustus--of justice within her governance. You'll probably find no harsher critic of the principate than me, but even I find this charge absurd. Put down the Suetonius and pick up Ulpian and the other Roman jurists, and you'll find that for the majority of Romans, the Imperial government was functioning to deliver ordinary justice on an extraordinary scale. Roman law prevented a million petty tyrants from seizing the property of their neighbors with impunity, prevented thousands of petty magistrates from meting out punishments without trial, and thereby secured the countless commercial transactions that took place between parties that lived hundreds of miles away from one another. The fruits of these ordinary acts of justice--the manufacture and delivery of unprecedented material comforts-- surely did more to secure the contentment of the people than mere bread, murder, and circuses. BTW, the distribution of free corn during the Imperial period was established by the legislation of Clodius in 58 not 55 BCE. A commendable post that goes against the grain of someone who has allergic reactions and palpatations from the imperial period. Nice job!

Yes Fuller wrote "Scipio Aficanus: Greater than Napoleon". Itself an excellent work. I don't think Fuller was trying to say the Scipio WAS the greatest, but he was saying to his contemporaries, "Look here, you talk about and study Napoleon, while here in Scipio we have someone who is not only a great tactician and strategist, but accomplished more against greater odds". Liddell Hart--easily confused with Fuller--wrote it. Doh!!!

Yes Fuller wrote "Scipio Aficanus: Greater than Napoleon". Itself an excellent work. I don't think Fuller was trying to say the Scipio WAS the greatest, but he was saying to his contemporaries, "Look here, you talk about and study Napoleon, while here in Scipio we have someone who is not only a great tactician and strategist, but accomplished more against greater odds".

He's clearly not a partisan of Caesar if you've read it, which you clearly have judging from the page quotes. IMHO he's a neutral, always judging from a text book, war college, experience perspective. He judges the 3 greats based on certain merits of which he happens to deem Caesar the best of the 3.

When who was stopped, Rome?

Hannibal's strength was in cavalry, he had no siege equipment and was not predisposed to seiges anyway. Sieges require logistics and therefore local support would have been necessary, Rome was in the middle of Latium and the locals were decidedly hostile!

I play it regularly. I'm actually one of the founding admins of an FPS gaming community, www.after-hourz.com. We currently have 2 Red Orchestra servers

Well its not really territorial, but, in its military arsenal is the worlds biggest aircraft carrier...the UK!

Well, right up until the turks took over they referred to themselves as 'Romaoi'...

Cannae was a necessary school for Rome. It showed its true character immediately after the battle and, succesfully adapted its political and millitary system to persevere. Without Cannae there'd be no Rome as we know it. I think there's an argument that it wasn't quite such a necessary school for Rome but just a poor tactical decision and reinforced what a few Romans already knew was a better strategy against Hannibal. You are of course right. Fabius' tactics were working fine in confining Hannibal, his freedom of movement was severely restricted. The 'Bomb the Bastards' lobby were the cause of Cannae, and the Fabian method was reverted to afterwards, along with a balance of Marcellan pitbull tactics. Not really, he spent the 13 years relatively bottled up, and suffered atleast as many defeats as victories, a testament to his skill that none of his defeats was decisive, also, a testament to roman skill at not letting any of his victories be decisive. When the situation was reversed and a roman army was on Carthaginian soil, oh how quickly they folded! Hannibal's failure was not taking in the lesson Pyrrus had learned, rome doesn't fold now matter how bad it is beaten. This was a fundemental strategic blunder on Hannibal's part, had he prepared for it he'd have had steady reinforcements. sry for the messed up quotes //Cleaned them up - Moon

Cannae was a necessary school for Rome. It showed its true character immediately after the battle and, succesfully adapted its political and millitary system to persevere. Without Cannae there'd be no Rome as we know it. No he was KIA, last seen sitting on a rock bleeding profusely. A horse was offered to him but he refused.

August 2, 216 BC UNRV is linked at the bottom of the page too

Must ....resist...temptation..to..blow..brains...out! What a feckin' retard!! EDIT: The only way the public will know the truth is via sites like this, we're the light. Perhaps a lively Hannibal discussion on whether or not Hannibal was black, and why is it important anyway. His succesful 1066AD invasion of England and his rise to the Carthaginian throne!

First thing I would do if I was one of those guys is impale that kid who's wearing the Arsenal shirt with one of my pila!

HERE is the official site...Of the campaigns in Italy, only those of Hannibal's victories are listed...Hmmmm...I can already tell what this film will be like!

I was under the impression he was born outside Rome, the site being a popular pilgrimage spot after his death.

Cato did you read Everitt's Cicero yet?

Yeah I think Augustus himself played the tourist in Sparta one time. Obviously he is not representative but I would imagine the well to do doing tours here and there!

"Possession of citizenship was desired by Romans and barbari alike. Besides making one safe from the death penalty, a Roman citizen enjoyed: * suffragium - the right to vote * commercium - the right to make contracts * conubium - the right to contract a legal marriage Citizens did have responsibilities: they were taxed, and the men needed to complete a term of military service (in fact, only a citizen could become a Roman legionary). Only a citizen could use the praenomen-nomen-cognomen set of names. A complex set of rules determined who was or was not a Roman citizen. One could be a citizen by virtue of one's birth if certain circumstances applied. If both mother and father had conubium, the child was deemed a citizen and held the social class of its father (e.g., eques, patrician, plebeian). If a Roman citizen had a child outside of conubium, the child took the status of its mother. If the mother was not a citizen, the child was not a Roman citizen and could even be a slave. Children born to Roman legionaries during their military service were NOT citizens. it was illegal for legionaries to wed while serving their 20-year tour of duty and, thus, there could be no conubium. Since the mothers of legionaries' children generally were not Roman citizens themselves, in the eyes of Roman law the children simply received the status and nationality of the mother. Factors other than birthright arose over time to determine citizenship: * Latini, people from the Latin states, who took up residence in Rome were granted a class of citizenship with limited rights. * Slaves, upon being freed, became citizens. * Peregrini, foreigners living in conquered lands, could be given full or partial citizenship. * Citizenship could be bestowed as a reward for service to the state. For example, citizenship was eventually granted to all who served as Auxilii (Peregrini who served as auxiliary troops). In AD 212, all free inhabitants of the empire were finally granted citizenship." TAKEN FROM Still nothing on how to diferentiate other than the wearing of a toga and the use of the praenomen-nomen-cognomen.

I would assume they would both be subject to the judgement of the govenor, but the citizen would have the right of appeal to the emperor.

Simple really. The Anglo-Saxon invasion ocurred post roman. Therefore there wasn't an english to influence prior to roman departure.

His first case was certainly a brave affair. Roscius I believe his name was. No one would take the case because of the involvement of Sullan partisans in the prosecution. Cicero went after Sulla's freedman, Crysigonus (sp) and asked the crowd "Qui bono" (who benefits) from a guilty verdict. His Pro Milone, one of his most famous speeches was delivered meekly and unremarkably, as Cicero had the tendency to crap himself under preassure. The courtroom being packed with Pompei's soldiers after he'd been declared sole consul following the death of Clodius.

I'm not going to comment on the whole of your thesis but I do have a couple of observations. I have to question this statement as traditionally, conquered territory tended to be governed in an inclusive manner. Military 'oppression' is not condusive to stability and inclusion. The romans use of military action where appropriate would have been active resistence, insurection, rebellion, and conquest. Military campaigns were expensive! I once read somewhere though don't ask me where or what as I don't recall. The average individual paid in taxes the equivelant of 1 days pay, that's 1 day out of a theoretical 355 days of a year. And for that they get everything mentioned in the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" sketch. Pretty good deal if you ask me, certainly less than they would have been taxed under their own leadership. And what's more, they knew it!