P.Clodius

Hmmm, seems I need to re-read Tacitus, its been a while.

Cato, you have, along with a pathological hatred of Caesar a poor understanding of military tactics it seems!

I don't recall Tacitus depicting Augustus as an evil tyrrant. Does anyone else? For Tacitus to do so would be to attack a god and he would certainly not have done that. He does "indirectly" criticize some of Augustus' decisions but depict as an evil tyrrant!

Yes there is, don't ask where. It would probably be in the Imperium Romanum thread. The thread is atleast a year old so you'll have to dig.

Agreed, but he is a VERY close second. However, the second place position could be tied with with Marcellus and Nero. Some authors/historians might even place G. Claudius Nero first. He is certainly one of the ablest military leaders the world has ever seen!

Hooraay, we have another 2nd punic war fan. These are great choices and two of the ablest generals the world has ever seen. "The consul Nero, who made the unequalled march which deceived Hannibal and deceived Hasdrubal, thereby accomplishing an achievement almost unrivaled in military annals. The first intelligence of his return, to Hannibal, was the sight of Hasdrubal's head thrown into his camp. When Hannibal saw this, he exclaimed, with a sigh, that 'Rome would now be the mistress of the world.' To this victory of Nero's it might be owing that his imperial namesake reigned at all. But the infamy of the one has eclipsed the glory of the other. When the name of Nero is heard, who thinks of the consul? But such are human things." Taken from Wikipedia quoting Lord Byron

You're on the right track yes but not at Zama. Zama was the culmination of the Carthaginian policy, a policy that had been implemented atleast for the previous 16 years. This is one of Hannibal's few faults, he didn't secure his political position at "home". I put "home" in quotations because he hadn't been to Carthage since he was 9 years old. He was 22 when he took command of the Carthaginian forces in Spain. This brings to mind a paragraph I read just this afternoon. "When Hannibal reached Italy he began his campaign with a bold offensive. Rome had been used to no system other than taking the offensive herself. To be driven to the defensive was so much of a novelty to her that it required the lesson of three or four bitter defeats to teach that there was something greater than her military audacity in the genius of Hannibal. The defeats, however, did teach Rome the necessary lesson. She went diligently to school to Hannibal, and first under Fabius, but more intelligently under Marcellus, began a system of what is called offensive-defensive, which was her only safety. From the time she did this, and put her ablest men to the front, the scale began to turn in her favor, because her body-politic was sound and her system right, and because the system of Carthage was blind in not supporting Hannibal, and her political structure feeble from the cornerstone up. While Rome was acting the patriotic part, and with military sense, Carthage was intent on nothing but the holding of Spain as a mere mart for trade." T.A. Dodge, Hannibal. Pheew...That was some typing!

I think you might want to re-phrase that to "Some of Caesars conquests were considered illegal by some of the senate members." These senate members would number about 18 and were led by Cato.

Welcome SPQR, may you rapidly ascend the group of slaves. Any friend of Scipio is a friend of mine. Though Scipio was AWESOME, I reluctantly disagree.

True. And it is the servilty of the senate and it worship of a diminished authority that is surely laughable!

What do you find strange about him?

Firstly, I would like to address your use of the word Senate and Lex in the same sentence. Res Publica literally means "public thing" as I have previously stated in this or another thread. The Senate did not pass laws end of story. The Roman Senate was a deliberative body, and did not possess legislative or judicial powers. Laws were put to the people in the Concilium Plebis and the laws passed here were called Plebiscitia and were binding on ALL citizens. I would like you to clarify this statement for the record please. The use of the word Tyrant. Do you mean this in the modern connotation or the ancient greek word for sole ruler? I, and am sure many others have fallen into this trap. It is easy and perhaps natural for us to apply our modern sensibilities and experiences to our studies. However, I have learned to some extent to distance myself from this "habit" and urge you and others to try also. It is a necessary step if you desire to benefit from your studies. The concept of a political party to the romans would be as alien to them as not having them would be to us. Roman politics was nothing more than a system of temporary alliances. Alliances formed to advance a common cause then the alliance was disintegrated. In regard to Sulla True, he was a power grabber. But there again, he was a champion of that body of morons your namesake championed. Bathed in blood? Nah. You've fallen into the trap ancient disinfomation. Sulla was no more bathed in blood than was the senate during the Gracchan killings. Look up the numbers, they're actually quite small when you consider that Rome was at this time a city of perhaps 750,000. Sulla was guilty of nothing more than not reigning in his lieutenants and letting the system of proscriptions be abused. Something the emperor Tiberius would be later condemned for (Sejanus).

Do you include Octavian/Augustus in this statement?

Hear hear. Tota Romanitas!

"Amazing claims"? What is more amazing, the fact that a guy can raise himself from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, or that a billion people believe this crap? I think MORE people should sue god, maybe it'd lead to less idiocy!

True, he also met and talked with Massinissa. Polybius is the most important historian of the 2nd Punic War, having gleaned information from many of those who fought (including Carthaginians), though he was not a client of Africanus as was implied!

Cato would have done whatever he could to suck up to the senate elite, just like Cato Major.

I couldn't say it better than that. HAIL CAESAR

I never read Rubicon but it appears I should probably get it as it seems highly recommended by others. There has only ever been one book about Clodius and that's called "The Patrician Tribune". Its one of those very dry, analytical modern books. But it is certainly useful for disecting Clodius' legislative agenda. The "Cicero, Life and Times of Romes Greatest Politician" is a good source too.

The ceremony itself is something of a mystery. It was actually first initiated by one of the Claudians, but it was a female only ceremony. It took place in the residence of the Pontifex Maximus and during Clodius' time this would have been Caesar's house. He snook in in drag, probably as a prank. I see Clodius (Claudius as he would have been known then) as an arogant patrician son of a millionaire who didn't know what to do with himself. Today he'd probably be driving his dad's fararri at 120 down Santa Monica Boulavard and telling the cops to go f**k themselves when he was pulled over, etc...Anyway, he was discovered and smuggled out by a slave girl. For some reason, during his trial he said something to the effect "It wasn't me, during that time I was at Cicero's house. Ask him" Cicero of course denied it. Clodius got away with it by bribing the jury. Cicero commenting "How could they possibly walk with so much gold in their pockets!" or something to that effect. Clodius of course never forgot this.

That's mine. Guess we'll have to fight over it!!!

Well if we think back to Caesar's consulship, Bibulus retreated to his house to watch for omens. A means to undermine Caesar's legislation due to it being passed on "bad" days. Hence Clodius' legislation. This wasn't religeous in nature though, this was nothing more than a prank undermined by Cicero.

All hail Clodius and his lex on prohibiting "bad" days!

When it comes to Caesar's army the only major player to change sides was Labienus. The famous saying "The die is cast" is passed down by Assinius Polio who was present during the contemplation on the banks of the Rubicon. Caesar's army was well staffed by officers.

Scipio rules. And it is with the greatest reluctance that I undercut your argument. Saved rome? I don't think so. Rome's victory is a result of a flawed split policy on the part of the carthaginians. Hannibal received lttle support from Carthage, which sought to maintain its hold in Spain. From a strategic perspective the Romans/Scipii did the right thing by carrying the war to multiple fronts and ultimately wresting Carthage's breadbasket. Had Carthage's support been focused on Hannibal the war would have been a different, more desparate struggle in Italy, though I do believe Rome would still have been successful. Hannibal attained 4 major victories over the Romans during the entire 14-15 years he was there. What did these victories accomplish? They succeeded in molding a new breed of generals, Fabius, Marcellus, Gracchus, Nero, and of course Scipio. Scipio never fought a major engagement in Italy against Hannibal, against the old guard of Hannibal's army. The others did. Scipio's victory was attained by standing on the shoulders of men like Fabius, Marcellus and Nero. Scipio was also something of a demagogue, taking his legislation/deriving his imperium from the concillia as opposed to the senate. Also, Polybius never met Scipio, but was a client of Scipio Aemellianus, 40 something years after Scipio was dead.