Caesar CXXXVII

Welcome Donnaarises, In general, one can say that both had/have huge populations and territory, Indeed they both had/have strong armies and influence on their neighbors and even on the whole western civilazation and beyond .

Another speculation - "...Tiberius and Sejanus were both, in a sense, victims: for there are signs that the fall of Sejanus was ultimately due to a group of powerful politicians, who refuesd to tolerate his eminence and compelled Tiberius to overthrow him." (Sejanus. Whose Conspiracy? Ann Boddington ,The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jan., 1963), pp. 1-16) Boddington later recognise two men behined the whole conspiracy - Lentulus Gaetulicus and Lucius Apronius, the Rhine army commaders - "They were also willing to accept Sejanus as one of the governing oligarchy. but they were not prepared to tolerate him in a position of authority over them..." A great article, ACH...imperial politics...

"The German bodyguards, Corporis Custodes, numbering between 100-500 men were recruited by Augustus who seemed to use them as a private militia. They were disbanded after the Varus disaster and re instated before 14AD. It was Caligula who militarised them completely..." O.K What was the correlation between the Praetorians and the Corporis Custodes ? Where the c. 300 german bodyguards were when Chaerea stabed the mad god ?

1. Thank you 2. PIR A1095 and C269 says that he was a biological son of Caius Arrius Pacatus and Antonia Saturnina (her father was a Lucius) . He became a Patrician by adlectio, maybe his "Honoratus" is connected with it ?

I can't find any logic in naming a person (a nobilis) in the middle empire . let us see the case of the Arii Antonini (not the familiy of Antoninus pius') The founder of the family was Caius Arrius Antoninus (cos suff c 170), he married a Calpurnia Quadratilla . The couple had 3 childrens - 1 - Caius Arrius Antoninus (not a problem) 2 - Caius Arrius Quadratus (why another Caius ? Quadratus from the mother ?) 3 - Caius Arrius pacatus (why Pacatus ?) No. 1 had 3 childrens - 4 - Caius Arrius Antoninus (not a problem) 5 - ...Arrius Maximus (Maximus for what ?) 6 - ...Arrius pacatus (another Pacatus and for what ?) No. 3 married an Antonia Saturnina and had one son, 7 - Caius Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus Honoratus (two nomens, Calpurnius from the grandmother ? why ? Frontinus honoratus ?????) No. 7 married an Oscia Modesta or a Cornelia Valeria (two nomens ?) and had two childrens - an Arria (no problem) and 8 - Caius Arrius Calpurnius Longinus the Patrician (again, two nomens, Longinus stands for what ?) The Arria (above) married Marcus Flavius and had a son 9 - Marcus Flavius Arrius Oscius Honoratus !!!!! (Flavius for the father, Arrius for the mother, why ? Oscius for the grandmother?? and Honoratus for the grandfather ?) What is the rule here ?

The whole issue is a real enigma, first Seianus enemies were removed - Agrippina and Nero were exiled (the last one killed himself in 31) . Than Seianus became a Senator by a Consulship given to him by Tiberius, he had the very rare honour of sharing his consulship with Tiberius himself, a clear mark of favour . Dio tells us that in 30 Tiberius called Seianus "socius laborum" (ally in my work) . Than the senate voted that Seianus and Tiberius would hold joint consulships every 5 years and have the same ceremonies when entering Rome . Sacrifices were made to Seianus images (he became a part of the imperial cult !) . Than he betrothed to a daugther of the imperial house . The next stpes were the t.p. and adoption as Tiberius son - it did not happened , why ? Richard Alston - "Sejanus status in 31 was such that Tiberius had remaining few choises. The next logical step was to rais Sejanus still further, but that would have been to make him virtually co-emperor...Caligula...Tiberius may have found this young man congenial company. It was becoming clear that to promote Sejanus would mean the death of Gaius...the issue of the security of Tiberius' young grandson, could he be protected ? If Tiberius was to promote Gaius, than he had to deal with sejanus. He was too mighty to be just a subject." Pure 1st' century politics...

A fair analysis . About 1 - Let say that Caligula had a son (biological or adopted), it is not logical to assume that he would have been the next Emperor, unless some general usurped it ?

Here is a list of some secondery sources - Tiberius Caesar By David Shotter The Reign of Tiberius By Frank Burr Marsh Tiberius and the Roman Empire By Charles Edward Smith Tiberius the Politician By Barbara Levick Tiberius. By Ernst Kornemann Tiberius, the Tyrant By John Charles Tarver Tiberius By Allan Massie Tiberius By Gregorio Mara

Just for re thinking about the whole matter, see - Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus,by Joseph Atwill http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-Cons...d/dp/1569754578

Including Nero ? I see him as an aged actor in the amphitheater of Mutina...

Sure ! I can't find any subject that is not debated among scholars Is there any rival table ?

Some Modern sources - "Elected quaestor for 53 BC, Brutus refused to join Caesar's staff in Gaul but went to Cilicia" (The McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of world biography By David I. Eggenberger) "In 53 Brutus was quaestor : apparently Caesar wished to have him with him ..." (Caesar's son and heir By Monroe Emanuel Deutsch) "In 53 Brutus was quaestor : apparently Caesar wished to have him with him ..." (University of California Publications in Classical Philology By University of California) Did not a Marcus Iunius Silanus served as Legate under Caesar in gaul in 53 ? Maybe Victor confused them ?

*Bad English alert* He was normal and survived, just like Augustus and Tiberius (another normal person...) Just a thought that haunts me (lucky me)... 1. Who would had become the new Emperor ? 2. What would had become of Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasianus, Titus, Domitianus. Nerva and Traianus ? 3. What would had become with the Empire ? 4. Without the Colosseum, would the Romans had invented PC games 1890 years earlier ?

CC Read you last post; In this article, Gruen denied the existence of "an anti-Scipionic movement in the late 190s and early 180s BC", but he never denied Cato and Africanus were enemies. Do you see any contradiction? It matters. What ?

Ah, O.K. ASC' Read your posts , at first you said that Gruen did not denied that Cato was an enemy of the Scipio's and now -"There a many objections against Gruen and others' denial of an anti-Scipionic movement in the late 190s and early 180s BC" . No matter .

And then... It's a misstatement too. First mention of both Q. Petillius is in page 80; here comes the whole sentence: "According to his narrative (Antias'), two tribunes, both named Q. Petillius, brought a range of allegations against Africanus". What Gruen actually dismissed is that there was a trial against Africanus, not if Cato may or may not have been behind the Petillii: on that, he said nothing. Now... 1.- Last time I checked, being against Lucius Scipio is anti-scipionic. 2.- Actually, one of the main points of Gruen is the quite convincing and absolute discarding of 184 BC as the date of Lucius Scipio trial by V. Antias, based on his missinterpretation of a quote on Maevius as prosecutor. No, he didn't said that; that is not among the conclusions in this article. Again: any mention of Cato by Gruen is tangential at best, as he was not the purpose of this article. Now... All of this is indeed what Gruen said; as you can see Gruen is very far from denying Cato's anti-Scipionic opposittion; actually, he quoted it many times; the very first one is in page 59: "And he (Lucius Scipio) endured the ignominy of removal from the equestrian order by Cato..." Please check on the primary source (Livius Ab Urbe Condita Liber XXXIX, cp. XLIV, sec. I). There's virtually universal consensus among the primary sources used by Gruen (and there are no more): Cato and the Scipio brothers were enemies; no one denies it. I have read Gruen, and you too - We came to a different conclusion - Fine with me . You ignored Gruen's conclusion that Cato acted (there is no proof for that but historians who lived hundreds of years afterwards no matter how many time you quote them, Polybius said nothing about Cato's involvment) with regards with ad hoc politics - fine with me . You ignord Astin words - No matter You even ignord the marriage between Scipio's niece and Cato's son - such an enmity !!! If you want to think that Cato hated the Scipio's or was their enemy - Fine with me . Dichotomy - Such a nice thing...

I read Astin's "Cato the Censor" again and surprisingly he had the same ideas as Gruen . First he says that behind the details were " A complicated history of carelessness, cavalier speculation, and colourful fabrication, extending even to the names of the participants . Events have been telescoped and distorted, gaps filled by surmise and invention , narratives enlivened with dramatic detail , and patently incompatible versions combined to produce bewildering confusion" . I agree with that . And now for his conclusion - Astin recognised 3 possible motives for the (so un proven involvment of Cato) in the case : 1. "Political expediency, notably in the form of attempts by rival candidates for the censorship to discredit each other" - Gruen's and mine "ad hoc politics" 2. "Partisan and factional conflicts between individuals and groups, notably between Cato and the Scipio's" - In other words, generally, the notion that Cato was an enemy of the Scipio's 3. "A genuine concern about improprieties in the conduct of public affairs" - Gruen's notion about the attempt to curtail commanders Astin conclude - "in view of this surprising lack of evidence there must be a cautious reserve about those passage which reffer in general terms to deep and long-standing enmity, a suspicion that they are indeed generalizations, projecting backwards the intense and exacerbated antagonisms of the 180' and exaggerating the significance of any earlier ill-feeling" . So, at least for me, there was no grand struggle between Cato and the Scipio's. We must be careful not to fall to a dichotomy . EDIT : A comment - In 181, just 3 years after the "Great struggle between Cato and the Scipio's", Marcus Porcius Cato the son, married Aemilia the daguther of Scipio Africanus' brother in law - Love overcame hatred !

You see, I have got the impression that he denyied Cato's anti-Scipionic opposition ! In the same year (187) Vulso was attacked to, He was no Scipionic . Much more important, Gruen said that Cato's involment in the case was Zero to allmost nothing . Cato, maybe (and Gruen actually dismiss the sources for that notion) was behind the Petillii brothers - that's it . No more . To conclude from that, that he was an enemy of the Scipio's - It is up to us . Cato was behind so many things, and attacked so many politicians . my conclusion, and Gruen said so, is that the inviolment of such a great figure as Africanus catched the eyes of ancient historians that they covered the, not so big issue, with romantic detailes about a strugle between these two men . Gruen was explicit when he said that the "Trials of the Scipio's" was not a political trial but a part of a larger process . Cato's motive (If he was involved in the case at all) was not hate for the Scipio's but an attempt to strengthen the control of the Republic with regard to booty . So say Gruen - "Cato - and doubtless not he alone - probed for means to curtail the aothority of commanders over the spoils of war" . I see no political strugle with the Scipio's here . In addirion, Gruen said that the attack was against Lucius (not Africanus) and rasied the possibility that it was connected to the election for the Censura of 184 . Again, no hate, no strugle, no enemy - just ad hoc politics . That's Gruen .

I hope this helps - "Generatoins of male historians have maligned his wife, Faustina, while contributing to the apotheosis of Marcus Aurelius . Faustina, so the gossip goes, strayed from the conjugal embraces of her platitudinous husband (as what woman of spirit would not?) and sought felicity in a society less odorous of tuberoses and calla lilies" (prometheans: Ancient and Modern, By Burton Rascoe, Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2005) . If so, the History channel was right !

Cheers Mate !!!

I wouldn't dismiss your original thesis so quickly; I think it's still the best explanation. I don't think the reported frictions between the Great Scipio and Cn.C. Lentulus were enough to discard a close association, given both their previous administrative relationship and especially the fact that the later succeded the former as Censor. In addition to the virtual monopoly of the patrician executive magistratures for those 15 years, TRS Broughton identified some of their plebeian counterparts as Scipionic proteges (eg, M. Acilius Glabrio, praetor for 196 BC and Consul for 191 BC). T. Livius also assumed such interconelian cooperation during the consular elections of 192 BC (Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXXV, cp. X): " There were many strong candidates,.. But all men's eyes were turned to Quinctius (Flaminius) and Cornelius, for as they were both patricians they were competing for the same place and they each possessed strong recommendations, for each had covered himself with military glory. But it was the brothers of the two candidates who most of all made the contest such an exciting one, for they were the two most brilliant commanders of their day. Scipio (Africanus) had the more splendid reputation, but its very splendour exposed him all the more to jealousy... Moreover, the former (Africanus) had been continually before the public eye for nearly ten years, a circumstance which tends to diminish the reverence felt for great men as people become surfeited with their praises. .. By these arguments he (Quinctus) succeeded in beating his competitor, though his competitor was supported by his brother (cousin) Africanus, by the house of the Cornelii - it was a Cornelius (Merula) who was conducting the election - and by the splendid testimonial which the senate gave when they pronounced Africanus to be the best man among all the citizens and most worthy to receive the Mater Idaea on her arrival from Pessinus". Now this was how the Senate was working those years. Actually, the main support for your thesis would be negative; the virtual dissapearance of cornelian magistrates after the Asiatic judicial affaire and the subsequent decline of the Scipio brothers. In fact, the younger Scipios (Asiaticus & Nasica) were defeated as candidates for the Censorship, both in 189 BC & 184 BC, the last time by their sworn enemy MP Cato. It was Nasica who received the Mater Idaea on her arrival from Pessinus in 204 CE and was titled the best man among all the citizens . See, among numerous sources, Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy : Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday . No matter For another view about the Scipio's "sworn enemy MP Cato" see Erich S. Gruen - THE "FALL" OF THE SCIPIOS in Leaders and masses in the Roman world ,studies in honor of Zvi Yavetz . He saw no enmity between them and saw no fall of the Scipio's . A very interesting article . Gruen tries, successfully, to break out of old cenceptios about Cato Major as leading an Anti-Scipionic faction etc'

Hi members I have the table for the years 218-167 BCE but could not find the next one and I know that it is somewhere in Brunt's book page 420 onwords (my bad English) If you please... Thanks in advance ! Hail SpongBob !!!

Thanks for the details Nep' and Asc' So, we can conclude that the 2 Consulships of Africanus are not a problem The consulship of Lucius (later Asiaticus) was reasonable and even that of Nasica ("The best man in the Republic" according to Livy) The Consulships of the Lentuli brothers are a little more problematic, they went (at least one of them) against Africanus with regard to his command in Africa and explicitly were not his adherents . My conclusion is that the Lentuli were able to represent themselvs as a family/gens by their own, ie "don't count us with the Scipios, we deserve Consulships regardles..." . That is 6 out of 9 but still unusual . Now, the Cethegi brothers - I can't think of any reason for their sudden rise than their very good relationship with Africanus . Even Develin, who is famous for his opinion against the "factionalistic scholars", was not able to explaine their rise without that notion . I say, one Cetehgi is reasonable, but two ?? and, in addition, a Censura ? a puzzle ! The biggest enigma is, certainty, Merula . No famous father, brothers (?) or sons . Again we should look for his mysterious connectoin with Africanus . One can imagine how the Senate worked in those years - The Cornelian Consul - "O.K. we now decide who is gonna be our candidates for the Consulships, for the next year" . The Priceps Senatus (It was Africanus since 199...) - " I suggest ... Ahhhmmm....Cornelius....!!!" . Senators X, Y, Z, A and B - "Again ???" . The Priceps Senatus - "It worked well the previous year..." . Senators D, E, F, G and H (Brothers in law of the Cornelii) - "let us all be friends, give them another Consulship and maybe they will give us, mortals, a Consulship in A.U.C DLXXXIX" . The Cornelian Consul - "It is closed ! We will represent Novos Cornelius leechus to the Comitia Centuriata and give to the mortals a Consulship when the Moon tures to a Green cheese "

[? We the poor mortals without JSTOR access always enjoy such nice information pearls; gratiam habeo CC. It seems the proud Catones were able to survive a little more than other nobile families by hiding themselves in remote provinces when required. Poor mortals...LOL Yes, it seems that they did . Very smart decision with regard to the murderous situation in Rome .

I think it's very much an issue since the Roman themselves didn't make any distinction, however if you talking about blood you forgetting that Augustus was the great nephew of Caesar, so he had in him Caesarian blood. Is there any disagreement between us ? Or should I delete my comment that Augustus was adopted by Caesar ?