P.Clodius

OK I see the point, and I now see there is mos maiorum for the Final Act.... :-) Anyway, back to Rabirius....

Wow...the thread was deleted? Why? This is a first I think to occur to an MPC hijacked thread, correct me if I'm wrong someone. Well, is this a new tone of UNRV that I am unaware of, censorship? To MPC, I know for a fact that you are capable of better, your post was nothing less than fanatical and hackneyed in its tone. Please lets get back to to-ing and fro-ing as usual and leave the inflammatory rhetoric behind. To Alibegoa, don't leave because of this misunderstanding, you'd be missing out and so would we me thinks!

You don't think Caesar was involved in the trial of Caius Rabirius? Not surprising--it's only attested to by all our sources. ...no, in the Catiline conspiracy. Take cover, there's sniping in the trenches!

...or, he wasn't involved in the slightest!

As accurate as any primary source. So there is no bias on the part of Polybius and Livy against the Carthaginians which would make them alter what really happened in their histories? Of course there was bias. Polybius was part of the Scipionic circle, and Livy was a roman. Having said that they are still both VERY good, and, widely available via the internet so start googling....!

Wasn't the movie 300 based on such? If so it wasn't half bad.

...the ideal religion

'Respected' post mortum, in life as much victims of fickle politics as anyone else. Cato was an extremist whose predictable and constant obstinacy contributed to the fall of the Republic more than most.

HERE. Nice vivid colors too.

That's my point. Antony was a loyal Caesarian as well.... Well you are both right to an extent. Hirtius and Pansa were moderate Caesarians who would probably have advocated a 'return' to the status quo of pre-civil war politics while seeking to implement some of the more widely acceptable policies of Caesar. Antony didn't appear to have much of a vision beyond his own dignitas initially, and sought to maintain it via the Gallic legions. He had, on the face of it, appeared to try to find common ground with some of the Parricides and would therefore been at loggerheads with Octavian over this issue, who, as Caesar's adopted son was duty bound to seek revenge, thus making him a radical Caesarian because of the obligation he would owe the army that would enable him to pursue his policy. I believe all the Parricides were dead within three years of the Ides of March.

So I'm clear on this then, Sulla was still considered afterwards to have been the legal Dictator of Rome? (no matter how repulsive his reign may have been) In short, yes.

Cato's participation in this is interesting and is certainly worth researching more. Caesar's participation and motives for such are obvious though. But to answer GMan's question, while it may not have been legal or prudent to attack Sulla, dead or not, it was an accepted practice to attack those who were part of the 'gang' so to speak. Look what happened to the Scipionic circle. Indeed, Cicero's first case devolved into a brave condemnation, however indirectly of the Sullan regime via his accusation and ridicule of Crysogenus (sp).

Wasn't sure where to put this, so I put it here!

Ultimately that's your call as it's your sweat! If you do go that route it could develop into a lengthy document, though, it would be nice to see such with ALL politically motivated prosecutions, outcomes, etc, with a brief description of each. Needless to say whatever you go with will add to the already rich content of UNRV.

It could be broken down a little further. A list of victims of political murder, motives, means, and perps...

Suetonius says nothing about Cato being bribed. That's right, we have previously established his angelic status here!. Cato was neither a bribee or a briber, cmon ASCLEPIADES, haven't you learned the art of cherry picking yet?

Is what this guy says true or a gross over-simplification? "America is paying the price for an economy based not on production, but on speculation and usury. The rich are enriched still further, the poor, the working class and even parts of the middle class are gradually being enslaved by debt."

...not being knowledgeable on such subjects, is the general doom and gloom justified by these people? Ignore the obvious rants!

Excellent link MPC, thanks...!

Seconded...Please stop!

Ever been in harms way? No one knows how they will react until tested...Here's one of Sherman's quotes, after he and Grant had been given a taste of southern 'hospitality'. "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" After a puff of his cigar, Grant replied calmly: "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though." Were Grant and Sherman cowards for not 'fighting to the last man'? Those who are quick to condemn are those who sit in front of the TV and Monday morning quarterback the Iraq war! Who won! Oh my, another dogma induced tirade! So Grant and Sherman's achievements were 'of rather dubious quality' I take it?

We need a Clodia, I'm feeling horny!

I would have barricaded myself in the Temple of Jupiter, and issued orders to my 'friends' to arrange things according to my outlook. Occasionally I would visit the Rostra and have the crowd chant to the rhythm of my toga tugs. Also, I would prosecute any who tried to emulate me!

Count me out, I like to be offended...But beware, I fire back!

Because we only get glimpses and we don't see the total. Tacitus, Caesar, Cicero, et al, along with archeology, provide only a peek of the whole that make up any society. As we know these tend to be subjective as there were no 'professional' historians back then, and no schools to study such. Hence absolute definition is not possible, only interpretations. Make sense?