P.Clodius

Unfortunately it seems that Hamas, as was Hezbollah, is in touch with the common people. Corruption is rife within most of the islamic states/organizations, and these two parties have built hospitals, schools, etc, where their current government failed to do so. Kinda like "Well sure Hitler sucked.., but atleast the trains ran on time!"

They were based mostly on Plu, Sue, Cic, though there is some Sal in there too. Caesar spoke AFTER the consulares, i.e. before the majority of the Senate, Cato much later...

More from M. Gelzer

Some may argue the true character of a people/state is in how it handles defeat. If this is so then there can be no nation in history to rival ancient Rome. Defiance in the face of adversity is something to be admired, and the romans were the masters of defiance.

I guess from my post you could find information for both first man, and new man. I made the post from the perspective of the new man. The elitism and snobery of the senate at this time was something I find abhorant. I guess that's the working class englishman coming out of me!

Reminds me a of a passage I read this morning during my daily study (commute). At the begining of 66 the tribune Gaius Manilius proposed to extend Pompey's command of the Mithridatic War and to grant him the right of declaring war, concluding peace and making treaties. In a word, the settlement of the whole eastern question was put in his hands. Since the restoration of the tribunate, the senate could no longer withstand the strength of such a movement. The senatorial leaders, Catulus and Hortensius, were fighting for a lost cause: on the occasion four consulars of their own persuasion, including men of note such as Publius Servilius Isauricus and Gaius Scribonius Curio, swam with the tide. Political opportunities of a kind which Sulla had won for himself as an outlaw in civil war were now placed on Pompey's lap by public authority. Those who did not wish to be crushed by the foreseeable new order had to humour their new master. Caesar was faced with this bitter necessity. But, since it had to be, he was not content to be a mere time-server; rather, he became an enthusiastic supporter of the bill, rivalled only by the praetor of this year, Marcus Tullius Cicero. He too could not act otherwise, if he ever wished to see the great wish of his life fulfilled, for, despite his equestrian birth, he was aiming at the consulship on the strength of his oratory. Although sincerely impressed by the glorious past of noble rule, under the existing senatorial regime he could not as a new man hope for the consulship. In the eyes of these high and mighty gentlemen he could count himself lucky that they had let him rise as far as the praetorship. M Gelzer. Caesar.

That would be interesting Cato. I'd like to see you list Caesar's good points to see if you're not blinded by your passion.

Well to be correct, the concept of imperator had been used for hundreds of years. Augustus was the first to utilize it as he did and therefore establish the emperor line as most people know it. Imperator meant "Great Commander", and it was the troops that hailed the general as such after a victory. Subsequently, the individual could use it in official titles. ex. M. Tullius Cicero, Cos, Imp. The was the official title of Cicero, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Consul, Imperator. Augustus put imperator before all other titles including name, hence Imperator Augustus Caesar. He did this to underscore that he and ONLY he was in command of all the armed forces. He was THE commander.

Wait...Do we get to comeback after a few hours or what? If not, mine would be more inline with Germanicus. I would still take my gun, or "Divine Lightening Stick" as I would call it. But I wouldn't take Tacitus as it would be my aim to get myself into The Annals as the most depraved animal since "Tiberius". Then you'd all be making posts about me saying what a scumbag I was.

OK, here goes.... 1 Hadn't Rome just come through the Sullan regime where the kind of divisive retoric that reigned during those years was again being used again? The leading members of the senate, including the Consulares already spoke in favour of death. What kind of trial would that have been? It wouldn't have been a trial, more a lynch mob. 2 His motivations were to add a sense of calm, reason, and to promote stability to roman politics. And yes, he was an "intimate" of some of the accused, but Caesar was an intimate of almost everyone, including many of those who were now speaking in favour of death. He was also an "intimate" of Cato's half sister Servillia. Muuhahahaha! 3 His recommendations for exile were made when the full extent of Catiline's plans were not yet fully known or disclosed. Again, this was to avoid unecessary bloodshed. 4 While consul, he did have Cato arrested, true. But it was his legal right as consul to do so. Cato was not voicing his opposition though, he was filabustering. There is a difference. But wait, what was Cato filabustering? It was nothing more than the "hare-brained" scheme to provide land for veterans of the army as a reward for service. Fulfilling a promise made to the soldiers when they'd enlisted, and what's more, it was the duty of every consul to see such promises enacted! But again, why hadn't the land settlements been enacted? Because of Cato, sucking up to his rich friends who wanted the land for themselves so they could make MORE money. He was also trying to get Pompei's eastern settlements ratified, they'd been hanging in limbo for almost 10 years. Cato had cronies, around 18 senators who walked out, the rest of the senate didn't. Cato was released 3 hours after this "arrest". 5 We'll address Spain first, Gaul will be addressed further down. There were regions of Spain that were as yet unconquered and had been a thorn in Rome's side for a longtime, this region would roughly correspond to modern day Portugal. Caesar conquered this region to restore law and order to what had been a troubled frontier. And what's more was widely congratulated for doing so. 6 These "tax-paying trading partners" did not pay tax end of story. They were inhabitants of a region called Gallia Comata by the romans. The romans had long occupied a strip of land in southern France called Provincia. Gallia Comata, or Long Haired Gaul was the rest of France and parts of Belgium. Gallia Comata was invaded by the Helvetii, a tribe that inhabited modernday Switzerland. The Gauls who inhabited the region the Helvetii were passing through appealed for help to Caesar. He acted and crushed the Helvetii. Next a germanic tribe invaded, he crushed those too. He crossed the Rhine as a means to show the germans that he was capable of doing so, essentially saying, behave or else. He then subdued the rest of Gaul, a traditional, and growing threat to rome. His war was "declared" illegal by Cato and his cronies who undertook to try to undermine Caesar at every and all opportunity. 7 Caesar offered to lay down his arms, the senate refused. Face trial? It wouldn't have been a trial, but more of a money motivated lynch mob. He utilized the treasury for use by the state. The Caesarian movement was the state. 8 This "cream" was responsible for the conflict in the first place. "It was they who would have it so." They represented the interests of the few over the welfare of the majority. This same "cream" held the majority of the land, and had complete political monopoly. The modern day term would be Mafia. Labienus did desert, but he was the only senior caesarian to do so. On the contrary, many flocked to Caesar. 9 The Dictatorship was a legal constitutional office used in times of emergency. Caesar was voted this office by the senate first for 5 years, then for 10, then for life. It was VOTED to him end of story. Caesar never cancelled any debts, he stabilized the interest rate at which these debts were to be repaid. This enabled those in debt to pay it off and not be subjected to a life of debtbondage which was very common under the republic. Now, isn't it time someone wrote an "Anti-Cato"?

HAHAHA, welcome back Cato. I shall compose a substantial response to this in due course. Work is ruining my ability counter optimate propaganda

Well some publishers have a tendency to "chop up" some ancient authors to concetrate their writings to a particular aspect. I for one welcome this on occasion. For instance, my copy of Lives by Plutarch contains only roman personalities. I'm only interested in roman personalities and do not care about Gelon, or Hypias, etc..Look on amazon, you'll find the original, penguin or not.

I'll write your esay for you. "Caesar rocked!" A+ score for you if you use that. Cato might write "Caesar stunk!" D- score if you use that. Seriously, dig around the forums after reading the Caesar entry on the main page and you'll get a good idea.

A camera, tape recorder, and a gun..!

Religious fundementalism, a portion of the planet is out of its collective mind!

Sorry, should be .

He's Canadian!

I have a feeling this individual is refering to Dyrracium and the instance of the caesarian troops cooking "roots" and throwing them to the pompeians.

I believe Cholcis is modern day Georgia. There's a documentary floating around on PBS with Michael Wood, where he investigates The Argonauts story.

Glancing around, seems Polybius writes more on the subject than all the others.

Viggen hit the nail right on the head. This is about precedence, end of story. Once the gvnmt gets their foot in the door that door will remain open to monitor whatever content it sees fit to monitor. Google is doing the right thing, fight it...The child *or* thing, or kids searching for *or* is smoke and mirrors...!

Unfortunately I can't find much information out there, wikipedia details are skant to say the least. I do know by destroying Corinth Rome sent a VERY powerful message to the major powers of the time, essentially saying; "Look, we just destroyed two major cities almost simultaneously. Behave!" Think of the US capability in WWII and its 2 front war. Anyone know any primary source references? Probably Polyibius or Livy.

I spent a significant amount of time in the military. The romans generally spent a significantly more amount of time in the military than I did. One thing that pisses a soldier off more than anything is hunger. I SERIOUSLY doubt the roman army was as illfed as you imply. Would any of the late republic generals have accomplished what they did if the soldiery wasn't behind them? Remember, at this period the army was heavily politicized and would certainly not follow a moron that made them go hungry and at the sametime expect rewards at the end of the campaign. I too wish to see these "sources" you refer to!

Echo everyone. Admins rule, as do the "core" posters.