P.Clodius

Alrighty then! You're probably thinking of Cato the Elder. We're talking of Cato the Younger.

Of course. But Caesar was unlikely to get a fair trial. Please note, I'm not defending Caesar especially but his conduct whilst consul would give better grounds for prosecution than his actions as proconsul. OK--you play Cato for a while: how did Caesar's conduct as consul provide a good target for a successful prosecution? Furius play Cato? To do that he would need to be a miserly, twisted psychophant..However I will try to add some objective observations. Lets take a look at the situation. 1) Thousands (perhaps 100K +)of demobed veterans and their dependants awaiting their rightfully earned allotments, (think of GI's returning from Iraq and having their DD214 and GI Bill rights witheld). 2) Confirmation of eastern treaties (stabilization of borders and buffer state alliances). 3) A bloc of 20 senators led by Cato who were set to filibuster the consular year into oblivion. A middle of the road senatorial bloc (majority)led by Cicero who advocated compromise as long as senatorial authority was maintained. 4) At this point the "Triumvirate" had yet to be "formed". 5) The Senate was a delibrative body not a legislative body. 6) The Comitia were the legislative bodies and through the Lex Hortensia the Plebiscitia were binding on ALL citizens. Addressing and proposing legislation directly to the Comitia by Consuls was not without precedent. Scipio A had gone this route when he was being shafted by none other than Cato the Elder. So, Caesar proposes a reasonably drafted (and this can be backed up with numerous secondary sources, Meier, Gelzer, Holland) bill to settle the veteran issue. He is filibustered by Cato, he has Cato dragged off to prison by his lictors (his legal right as Consul to do so), but beats a tactical political retreat through acquiescence after the Cato cronies walkout in protest. Realizing nothing will be achieved going the normal route, he approaches the people via the Comitia Centuriata. He presents his bill, to which his co-consul Bibulus (a Cato crony) publicly decries with the famous statement "You shall not get it EVEN if you ALL want it!". Bibulus subsequently retreats to his house to "Watch the skies" in an effort to forsee "unlucky" days so any legislation passed on that day could be declared defunct. Caesar moving forward passes all his bills through the Comitia. Find me the "illegality" in the above if you please. Edit: Point 4, the "Triumvirate" was formed after Caesar initially presented the bill to the senate but before he addressed Centuries

Please provide some evidence for this. there were actually two brutus's around at the time of caeser's assassination, Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus who was a roman general and admiral and close friend and adviser to caeser, but also one of his assassins and Marcus Junius Brutus, he was a cousin of decimus brutus and nephew of caesers enemy marcus portcius cato, who's daughter he marries, he was a supporter of pompey who changed sides after pharsalus, he was made governer of cisalpine gaul and reluctantly drawn into the assassination plot. hope this helps a little True there was 2 Brutus' around but you're confused. It was Decimus that was the supposed govenor of Cisalpine Gaul.

It'd probably be helpful to break it down into periods. Sq/m at the end of 3rd Macedonian, sq/m in 44BC, sq/mile Julio-Claudian, Flavian, etc

IMO yes, he is responsible(among others). Is sticking to your guns, adopting a policy of no compromise despite Mos Maiorum indicating otherwise, and completely ignoring the social preassures that were forcing change commendable? I think not. Extremism should be recognized for what it is and not disguised with words like "Principle", "Incorruptable", "Moral" etc... Cato is the opitome oppression.

I like 2nd Punic through to fall of Jerusalem

HAHAHA, you mean the ancients didn't think of him as a useless sack of s**t in dire need of a nose job?

An absolute crock..!

I'm very far from conceding your point. I'm saying most of your bullet points were contributing factors to the formation of the triumvirate, and therefore DID exists prior to!

Cato, remember the 'Beast with 3 Heads'? Of course nobody can point to a period prior to the one you indicated simply because, 1 it exsisted but wasn't documented, or 2, it didn't exsist. The late republic is the best documented period we have of Rome, thankfully so. But, the question should be what caused these men to come together in the first place. Most of your points would be a contributing factors to the formation of the first 'triumvirate'.

"Today is the first time I fought for my life!" Caesar

I am currently reading Dodge's Caesar. So far (I'm upto where Caesar relieves Q. Cicero from beseigement) he is somewhat critical of Caesar's tactical decisions.

YOU were born on the ides? How ironic, hahahaha

If that is your reasoning then it is feasable for some to say that Pharsalus was its greatest victory.

Welcome Caesar..!

Hadrian is very famous, specially in the UK because of his wall.

Create a colonial essembly? What for? Lets just take a little look at the Roman system of colonialization. Colony 1) Colony of latins with Jus Latii (latin rights). This meant you had the right to intermarry with a Roman citizen, all offspring would be considered Roman. You enjoyed the benefits of being a Roman just not the rights, Civitas Sinesuffagio, (citizenship without the right to vote). Colony 2) Colony of pure Romans. Right to vote. Colony 3) Double Colony. Colony of Romans living in an exsisting town/city. The none Romans could be granted Jus Latii. Colony 4) Municipium. A self-governing exsisting town/city. It would be self-sustaining, independant, and the ruling class would be granted full Roman citizenship. So what would your colonial assembly do? Going off the above it seems that a colony would be well represented anyway as many of those who lived there would have had a say in theory.

A goat with the right hoof polish applied and a good grooming can be quite appealing!!

Happy bday. F*ck, I can't even remember when I was 28 let alone 18!!

Interesting...Anyone find parallels between the nazi concept of Liebensraum and Jeffersonian Manifest Destiny?

Josephus talks of Titus holding formal ceremonies under the besieged wall of Jerusalem, a form of psycological warfare. During these ceremonies, the soldiers would receive pay, promotions, etc..

There was a certain amount ceromony yes. You had to 'present' yourself in a formal manner infront of a desginated officer who gave you your pay. It went; At attention, salute, then say Rank and name Length of service Platoon commander's name "A Vos Ordres" (At your orders). Sometimes they'd make you do it in parade dress to bust balls, if your uniform wasn't up to scratch, you wouldn't get paid and they'd make you do it over again.

Sorry, my bad. Thanks. Interesting story about the solidus, or possibly so. I served in the french foreign legion as I think I've mentioned before. Their means of pay was to 'Touche la solde', or touching the solde as we anglo's used to say. A sergeant once told me the french word for soldier (soldat) was derived from the coinage of the roman army. I emailed an authored professor of classics on the question last year sometime and he indicated it could possibly be so because of the Solidus, (the first time I'd heard of this coin).

I see no mention of the Solidus on there though.

Anti-semitism is definately a central-east european phenomenon. My ex-wife is an east european jew from (then) Leningrad, she left at the age of 10. She told me the day before they left, the teacher of her older brothers class organized a trip for his class to go to their apartment building where they painted swastica's and slogans like "Good ridence jew", etc.... As for calling Irving stupid, I believe it is a mistake to do so. Controversial yes, stupid no. He knew what he was doing, you live in a country you obey its laws plain and simple. Unfortunately it does appear that there is a double standard and therefore I am against protecting any one group. You protect one, you protect them all, or you protect none. I do care what moderate (majority) muslims think and feel about such things, however, fundementalists (from any denomination) can lick my nutsack! I cannot understand why we keep giving them ammunition to throw back in our faces though.