CiceroD

Did I ever say that liberty was equality?

Thank you guys!

Thank You Germanicus!

I realised I had no idea what UNRV stands for

Is This True? I really hope this is another instance of the unreliable internet. All Ive heard is that his executioner commissioned a statue of himself sitting by Cicero's head but public display? That makes me sad for my namesake

It goes without saying that modern democracies recieved their inspiration from the Republic. And based upon the responses from "The Eternal Republic" and the plots of Gladiator and I Claudius there is a nearly universal deep fondness for SPQR. I entirely support Gaius Octavius. But arent we overlooking the more practical achievements of the Republic? "The Principal conquests of the Romans were achieved under the Republic; and the emperors, for the most part, were satisfied with preserving those dominions" Edward Gibbon. The Roman Triumph, as an institution, drove these men to conquer the world! And this institution could only come about in such a government. Its no coincidence that upon the rise of Augustus generals not of the Imperial family were only given Triumphal Ornaments. PS by the way good avatar Augusta I love that miniseries too!

wow someone should do their research

Now just to make sure that all of you dont assume Im a communist, Yes the communist party of San Marino has had several periods of rule since the end of World War Two. Yet unlike other Communist nations San Marino has had other political parties. Despite their predominance during some periods they never instituted single party rule. After all In 1986 the Communists had to join a coalition with the Christian Democrats. Then in 1990 the Communist party became the Democratic Progressive Party. But even when the Communists were their strongest 1947-1957 the country didnt really socialize according to the August 1967 National Geographic (yes Im citing a 40 year old magazine article). this same article goes on to state that the communists were given the boot (constitutionally) when they infringed upon religion. so I dont consider them a communist state because they retained their constitution through all of those times. And to my knowlege there was no Tiannamen square like incidents so I still admire them. P.S. and thanks Gaius Octavius for scaring me . when I read your reply my heart dropped into my stomach. ha ha

I guess this is the point Brotus when I, an American retorts with some fault of the great nation of Canada. Then I could still assert (In the typically chauvinistic American way) that we really are the best. But I wont yah many Americans have their heads up their keisters yes The American Government is far from Angelic yah we voted in a complete idiot as prez in 2000 and yes at some point we will lose economically, diplomatically, or Militarily duh I think this comes out of the very natural and understandable Canadian resentment for Cowboy Americans. after all we tried to invade you in 1812 (stupidly) South Park animates you crudely And 99.999% of us have never heard of Steven Harper (the Prime Minister) "for instance canada is already becoming a superpower slowly((very slowly)too slowly for me though)" Perhaps you should enjoy you country's innocence before youve traded it for superpowerdom. This is inevitable. With wealth and power comes corruption. That's why I think the closest country to Perfection is The Most Serene Republic of San Marino. It's the world's oldest and smallest republic. one that has held on to its liberty since the end of Rome They understood that with wealth and importance came a terrible price. Napoleon after all offered them more land and they turned them down recognising their independence and freedoms rested on their insignificance. (Although everyone in that country is related and their dependant on selling stamps to tourists)

Its soo sad that people seem to be forgetting Cicero. Whenever I approached someone about reading Anthony Everitt's Cicero about two out of three people thought that he was an EMPEROR! those that didn't heard the name but really had no idea who he was. I guess its inevitable though with the decline in classics taught in schools. Want to talk about someone rolling in their Grave! Its depressing

This Article (Not by a Nose) was very interesting, Ober also maintains with the semi independence of Egypt a) there would have been an ancient feminist movement (Egyptian women enjoying great freedoms) The ptolemaic handling of religion in the near east would have been more adept. Therefore no sacking of the temple, no Jewish diaspora, and no crucifixion of Christ. This sounds a lot like a stretch to my mind after all the Greeks had been in contact with Egyptians for centuries and that never curbed their masogeny and even if Egypt was a semi independent client-state, I cant forsee them letting ptolemys have possesion of Palestine? What do you guys think?

So Phil your saying, like Octavian, Antony was intending to rule but not appear to. ie calling the shots event thought he was in the east. So in effect he wouldnt be king of Rome but king of the east. Makes sense

well yeah Phil it sounded really ridiculuos three men against an army but while the history of the time blurs into legend, Id still expect the Romans to remember if they had made someone their king! LOL

Caldrail, Im not really trying to speculate. Im really trying to find out if Ober's assertions of Antony being more like Sulla instead of Caesar is plausible. Ober dismisses the idea that ANtony would have made himself Emperor in the sense we understand it. I personnally ( In my inexpert opinion) cant believe that Antony would have stopped at just purging the Senate. He was in the caesarian camp and would have understood Caesar's philosophy. And secondly even though he purged the senate how could he have turned his back on Rome and then depart again for Egypt as Ober maintains? Im trying to get a conversation going, and saying "Speculation Over!" doesnt help

Lars Porsena as a king of Rome? I read somthing about this in I Claudius but as its Robert Graves I wasnt too sure of its accuracy This would then make the entire Horatius and the Bridge myth impossible right?

One of my history teachers in school once said that the Romans were about the most practical people on earth, but they were not necessarily the most noble. Therefore when The Romans with their practical outlook of religion met the seemingly impractical aspects of Judaism (not being able to worship any other Gods, circumcision, laws of kosher) its not hard to se how they didnt trust the Jews or the Christians and were frustrated with their failed conversion into standard Roman citizens. "The Romans never had much patience with dissent" Barry S Strauss, "The Dark Ages Made Lighter"

In "Not by a Nose" By Josiah Ober, our author ponders the effect of a successful Antonian campaign against Parthia in 36 BC. Ober maintains that with the laurels of such a victory, Marcus Antonius Parthicus would not have been nearly so vulnerable to Octavian's smear campaigns. This coupled with the forces he actually lost in Parthia, would have made him a sure win at Actium. This at least, to me, makes sense. What doesn't is his assertion that " There is not much reason to suppose that Antony shared Octavian's monarchical vision for the Roman Empire. It is more likely that Antony would have purged it of Octavian's supporters and packed it with his own. But then he might of let the aristocracy to rule (within the bounds of the military strongmen of the hour) as it had throughout the entire period of the Republic. Antony might have divided his time between working to ensure the continuity of a stable Antonine aristocracy in Rome and and establishing Egypt and its queen at the center of a stable group of quasi independent client states in the East. What do you guys think?

Hello, I hope that everyone didnt leave because of ME

When did these Gordianus novels come out? was it before or after Falco? It really doesnt matter if the concept of an ancient roman sleuth isnt original as long as they're good reading. but Im still curious

The Senate was also incredibly reluctant to fork over Public land as well. not hard to understand why the proceeds of this ager publicus were supposed to go to the state but ended up in the pockets of some senators themselves! "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves" Were they all blind!?

what do you guys think?

I guess that was also back when the Romans were actually worried that the Gods might not be on their side. on a related note Dont most historians believe the Gallic sack of Rome was the turning point that sent them on their amazing series of conquests? So was this the Pre-Gallic sack way of declaring war? The ritualistic way before war got "serious" for the Romans. what do you think?

Thank you, Sztripi an answer like that was what I needed

personally I dont think a TV show could ever really do Falco justice unless he narrates the whole thing! also producing somthing in Ancient Rome is not cheap! personally I would be willing to wait until CGI gets cheaper and better before I get to see Falco's Rome I would also be afraid of what would be lost in adaptation

If they had cycled troops like they are now in modern armies Pompey would have had more experienced men Although I understand the logistic difficulties of doing just that between Gaul and Italy