P.Clodius

HAHAHAHA, oh to live in an idealistic world...!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037575895...glance&n=283155

So this implies Octavian was in North Africa with Caesar?

Another reason he vetoed the bill was because he would have had to give back all monies he took from his province. You can do a lot with money, including buying a supposed no flinching, unbendable constitutionist!

Why did Cato veto the bill to overturn the laws of a political enemy? One of these laws was Cato's appointment to the govenorship of Crete. The propsal to overturn Clodius' laws occurred after Cato's return from Crete.

Please let me offer my "child" like excuse. Caesar and his partisans didn't see it is wrong, it had been done before as you acknowlege. What WAS new however was Clementia , offered by none other than "Caesar the Merciful" as you scornfully refered to him in another thread. I'm still interested in what you have to say to this.

Octavian fought against Anthony. Anthony just so happened to be laying siege to Mutina where Decimus Brutus was. See Octavian's reception of Decimus Brutus after the battle. He retreated to Gaul This conjecture is sumpremely unlikely. Octavian was himself one of the most radical caesarians, not to mention the others, Balbus, Opius, et al. Awesome strategem on Cicero's part. He legitimized Octavian's private raising of troops (illegal) by giving him a pro command (don't remember if it was propraetor or proconsul). Of course, Cicero realized his folly after Forum Gallorum. The reference to Aggripa serving under Cato, this is the only place I have ever read this. I'd be interested in knowing where this little tidbit was gleaned from. PP?

You learn something new everyday, what are your sources for Caesar's condemnation of Aggripa, Aggripa's service under Cato?

Are you speaking of Decimus Brutus at Mutina?

Wherever he deems the threat to derive. Caesar's incursion into Britannia was a means of showing the celts that he could successfully strike anytime, anywhere. In other words he was telling the celts to behave.

Doubtless your ability to communicate in english and to post in these forums was due to the millitary sucess of the Dutch and the demise of the english colonists.... A governor of a province had imperium. The right of life and death, the rights to make war. End of story. Was Pompey's war in the east any less legal?

I don't think there is a need to start another thread, this one seems adequate. Lets take a look at the political environment of Caesar's time. Remember that the political and legal system was based on precedent. 1) Political murder,(Caesar never did). Tiberius and Gaius Graccus, Livius Drusus..murdered by senate fanatics 2) Political persecution of national heros by the senate, ex. The Scipios 3) Political corruption. see M.P.Cato Minor and governorship of Crete (veto of the bill to overturn the laws of Clodius). 4) Taking of Rome using millitary force. Conducted by partisans of the senate, L.C. Sulla et al. Note item 3, even Rome's ardent constitutionalist was willing to bend when HIS interests were at stake.

Stay focused folks, we're waiting for Cato to tell us which country has achieved greatness without millitary action of somekind.

The Dutch!! Argument won!

Really! Name one.

It is highly unlikely he would have gone on to become Augustus but I do agree with others who say he would still have carved a niche for himself. Afterall, he is arguably the worlds greatest politician ever to have existed.

Originaly from Manchester, UK. Have lived in NYC for 15 years and have been a US citizen for 9 years.

Ahhhh, Cato, Cato, Cato....You certainly picked the right user name... Anyway, as previously stated it was not Caesar that caused the "downfall" of the republic end of story. Caesar was a product of his environment. Nothing more nothing less, and he did NOTHING without precedent. I have to quote the above. The keyword here is "personal", and should be read as "self interest". On or around 19th March, 44BC the senate was convened by the consul Mark Anthony and a proposal was submitted that Caesar should be declared a tyrant. This proposal was welcomed by the "tyrannicides" and their supporters as it would legitimize their murder of a lawfully appointed official. However, when it was pointed out by Mark Anthony that all of Caesar's legislation, laws, and appointment would be annulled if he was so labeled, the proposal was unanimously denounced. Why? One answer. The so called tyrannicides owed their position to none other than the very legally appointed official they had murdered and they would have had to step down from their various post/positions. This is ONE example of the kind of self interest that did "destroy" the republic. As for your bullet points, I welcome the starting of a discussion pertaining to these.

Why is everyone so anti Tiberius? I don't get it, the empire prospered under his watch, he was an able administrator, and a great general. Tiberius rocked, Tacitus had an agenda. I believe we've already covered this in another lengthy thread.

I served in the french foreign legion in the 80's. One of the traditions on xmas day was for the officers and NCO's to server the rank and file. Hmmmm, wonder where they got that from?

Thanks be to all the gods. Happy Saturnalia

I'm content to be of plebien decent, in fact I'd consider "elevation" to patrician as "rellegatio"!

You should be bothered. Since 1920 there have been 23 proven wrongful executions with many more that are questionable. This could happen to you, or someone close to you. While overall the law enforcement community does a good job there are those instances where there have been neglegent investigations. You recall how the police and FBI went after Richard Jewel for the Olympic Park bombing in the 90's. They literally tried to railroad the guy.

No he didn't, he was found not guilty. He was a victim of Crysoganus' conspiracies.

First language =english Lived in France for 4 years in the days of my youth, used to speak fluently but am now rusty but I could probably get around. Would love to learn latin.