Caesar CXXXVII

It is useless , and I hope it is the last time . It is so fun to convince oneself and to say "I have proved" . The history of ancient Rome is writen (as any history) by professional historians , they and they alone have the last word . One can ask , one can answer , one can have empathy to characters or thories , one can have an opinion and one can even behave like a adult and say "nonsense" "nonsense" "nonsense" 789 times a day with regard to others opinions . But one can not dismiss scholars views and in our case , professional historians . They had the knowledge and we are students . So , if I may , please hear what professional historians have to say on the subject . Modesty is a virtue . "The issue in cicero's time was not the of freedom or slavery . The Roman republic of the first century B.C. was not a democracy but an oligarchy composed of a small and narrowly Roman group known as the ordo senatorius . The Roman revolution from the Gracchi to Caesar was directed against this oligarchy" . (Eternal Lawyer: A Legal Biography of Cicero, Review author: W. F. McDonald The American Historical Review , American Historical Association "In fact the strength of his analogy between the Roman late-republican oligarchy and the English political and cultural elite

Can anyone believe that Rome attracted less viewers than Six Feet Under ?!? Me . What can we do , we are the nuts , not them

There are no good guys and no bad guys. When it comes to republican Rome , you are right . Besides , "Good" and "bad" are subjective (my English) . Mummius was good for Rome but bad for Corinthus , Caesar was good for his soldiers but bad for the Gauls , Cato the Censor was good for himself but bad for the Scipio's , the Scipio's were good for Rome but bad for Carthage , Ronald Reagan was ...well that's my point . P.S. - If you are a "Liberator" than Caesar is pure evile , if you are a "Caesarian" than the "Liberators" are stupid

elected all the magistrates who formed the cursus honorum--from censor to quaestor--in addition to electing all the minor magistracies, including the tresviri capitales and monetales Unbelievable , One of 2 - That's what happened when you want to manipulate an argument Or when you are sincere but sticks to formalities without seeing the whole picture . since the 4th century BCE the Comitia Centuriata had 193 (some say 195) centuries , without entering to too much detailes (and to the Fabian reform of c. 241 BCE) - Less than 1 % ot Rome's population had 98 of the 193 , that is a majority . I say again , IT IS COMMON KNOWLEGE , less than 1% had the majority in the Comitia Centuriata , there is nothing to do about it . The 1% represented the Equites (1,800 men) and the first class (no more than 2,000 to 3,000 men) . The Proletarii (some 95 to 98 %) had one seat in the Comitia !!! As Mos' said , the senate manipulated the election as they wish , the ex-consuls held the election and they were senators . So , yes the people elected the Magistrates..............By the same way of argumentation we can say that Iran is a democracy

Take an extreme example: suppose one family adopted the whole Roman body of citizens, leading to all magistracies being "concentrated" in one enormous family. Under this situation, the distinction between new men and aristocrat becomes meaningless, as does the distinction between oligarchy and pure democracy. Thus, as adoption is more widespread, so too is the meaningfulness of family as a measure of oligarchy. And how is your example connected to the real situation in 1st centurie's Rome ? You have set your own rules , came to a conclusion and than dismiss a claim that was made with regard to the real situation . A: "I have 10 $ , I Bought a car (5$) , so now I have 5" . B: "You are wrong . I give you an example - In Timbactoo a car cost 4$ , so now you have 6" Got it ?

Dont forget adoptions. The whole Fabii clan in the late republic existed only because of them. Hi Mosquito , Agreed !

In the thread I'm starting, I'd like to see your source on this. After your previous claim that 99% of the consuls belonged to 30 families, I'm quite skeptical to the new numbers, but I'm happy to be persuaded differently. 99% as to make a point , I am realy amazed (again and again) to see your "squareness" My source is the Fasti Consulares from 200 BCE to 44 BCE , I counted the Consulships by Gens (Cornelii , Claudii etc') and came up with the numbers . Simple . P.S. - If we look at the family connection between the Gens (by marriage) , the percenage of the 30 will come very close to 95% (see Munzer) .

"since 200 BCE..." I forgot to add "until 44 BCE" and than "there were 313..."

When I said 99 etc' I wanted to show the un-democratic nature of the Roman republic just before Caesar's day , that is the point . Now numbers - since 200 BCE (not 59 or 91 or 133 or 167) there were 313 consulships (including Sufecti) . Fasti is for Consuls , not Quastors and surly not T.P. 253 of these Consulships were held by 30 families (Gens) that is 81 % . More important is that 287 of the 313 were held by 44 families , that is 91.7 % So , those numbers have any influence on my (and many) argument ? It was a pure oligarchy , the poeple had no shrare in the government .

At the very beginning ? It is one of the most intense debates regarding ancient Rome . I will not bother you with the 4,328 theories (sorry , it is 4,329 since the last 2 minutes) but will go straight to (IMHO) the best one - The citizens registered in the 4 urban tribes (adult males fit for service) were divided into 2 classes - The "Classis" (haevy infantry , Hoplites) and the "Infra Classem" (light infantry , "Velites") . The "Classis" in every tribe were than divided in to 60 equal Centuries each contain 25 soldiers in theory . Than they took the 25 from each of the 4 tribes to build a century of 100 soldiers , again , a theoretical number (it could be 70 , 80 or 113) . So now you have 6,000 haevy infantry and 60 centuries . The "Infra Classem" had 24 centuries = 2,400 Velites . The Cavalry was made of the young Patricians (for the most part) to build 6 centiries of "Equites" = 600 . So the "Tulian" army was of 9,000 soldiers (6,000 Hoplites , 2,400 "Velites" and 600 "Equites") and the early "Comitia Centuriata" was of 90 centuries (the 6 "Sex Sufragia" , the 60 "Classis" and the 24 "Infra Classem") . Polybius said thet the early "Legio" was of 4,200 infantry . If you have 2 "Praetores" that is Consuls from c. 500 BCE than you take the 8,400 infantry and get 4,200 for each of the Consuls . 9,000 adult males fit for service = some 15,000 males = 30,000 free born citizens for "Tulian" Rome . According to The CAH Vol. 7/2 there were between 25,000 to 40,000 free born citizens in "Tulian" Rome .

It is true that Antonius was only marginally less a "lap vomiting wretch" (as Cato says) than Octavianus, but he was willing to compromise and negote to avoid civil war. And though he was undoubtedly determined to remain at the head of the Caesarean party, he didn't use his name to raise an illegal private army, march on Rome (twice) or demand a consulship at age 21. Agreed . But think of it , Octavius made himself Caeser and if you are a Caesar , what is left for you to do

Perhaps you'd care to redefine 'revolutionary' such that everything and nothing becomes revolutionary? Ha? Ha? I realy trying to understand what do mean by that , but alas...Maybe it is just that you wanted to say something sophisticated ? Now if one is saying that A was not revolutionist (and you said that about the Gracchi) one should know what he is talking about . It is up to you to define 'revolutionary' because it is you (based on a minority of scholars) that are trying to dismiss the common view . Let me qoute just one scholar who saw (for you and me) the Gracchi as revolutionaries - "In order to gain some insight into Cicero's reaction to the revolutionaries of his own day , it will be the purpose of this paper to try to focus attention upon his remarks cocerning two non-contemporary revolutionaries , the Gracchi , with whom the period of great unrest "officially" begun" (Cicero and the Gracchi, by Robert J. Murray Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association) I realy can't see how Cincinnatus and Dentatus came to your argument but if you want an example of an earlier revolutionaries just read (again) about the Licino-Sextian Laws of 367 Var. And again , why the Gracchi are so remembered ?

Given these facts (see Rosenstein's "Rome at War" for a more complete discussion), I think the reform bills of the Gracchi should be completely rethought. Rather than being a rational response to a legitimate set of new conditions, they were simply political maneuvers designed to bring two blue-blooded aristocrats more power, more fame, and more glory than they could have achieved otherwise. Nor, indeed, were the proposals as revolutionary as is commonly believed (see Lily Ross Taylor's article on the subject in the Journal for Roman Studies), and they certainly shouldn't be viewed as contributing substantively to the crises that Marius, Sulla, and (above all) Caesar brought on the republic. "commonly believed" - Commonly = usually , generally , ordinarily . Or Commonly = in a common manner . If you are saying that the commons believe that the Gracchi were so and so , I would say that they (the commons) do not know who were the Gracchi...so we have to remove them (the commons) from the equation and your argument becomes problamatic (a least) . But I think that you refer to scholars when you said "commonly believed" . Now , why we should accept some 1 or 2 scholars opinion and ignore the majority (of scholars) opinion that accepted the notion that the Gracchi were revolutionaries ? Ha ? How do you know what went on the Garcchi minds when saying "...they were simply political maneuvers designed to bring two blue-blooded aristocrats more power, more fame, and more glory than they could have achieved otherwise" . Otherwise ? Since when a Roman could achieve "more power, more fame, and more glory" before he became Praetor and had an army ? What could he do as T.P. other than proposing laws ? Eat 50 egs in 2 minutes ? And actually T. Gracchus had more military fame in 134 (that is before 133...) than 99.99% of the Romans ! And if the Grachii's proposals were not revolutionary , how they could bring them "more power, more fame, and more glory" ? Ha ? And if their proposals were not revolutionary how did they brought them immortality or in your own words "fame" and "glory" ?

I'll check it with my personal rabbi, and let you know. Personal Rabbi

That is my point. Jesus was a devout follower of Judaism Correct . Yet he was a reformator . Ironically Judaism after 70 became much more close to his preaching than it was in his days . No more sacrificing of animals , no more priests etc' .

Is it Kosher ? :angel:

I removed the previous version and unfortunately had to chop the current version down at least so Cincinnatus was visible. It's a Tiepolo from 1730. The Dictatorship Offered to Cincinnatus Thanks . Beautiful . As I thought , "Cincinnatus" looks calm , not surprised , had a look as "Please leave me alone , I have a family to feed...but O.K. , lets get it over with" . I wonder who is the boy ? I have allways thought that "Cincinnatus" was much more older . He looks like 35 to 40 . Let me see , Niebuhr wrote that "Cincinnatus" was born in 519 BCE so in 458 Var. , when he became Dictator , he was 61 years old ! Not to mention that Cicero said that the story belongs to "Cincinnatus" 2nd Dictatorship , that is in 439 Var. when he was 80 years old ! Poor Tiepolo...

About the Equites , a great book (not successful name) - The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period by H. Hill; Greenwood Press, 1974 Again I say , great book that answer any question about the Equites .

O.K. Please post the painting so we could see the reaction on Cincinnatus face BTw - Do you know who painted it ?

he is still a man to be respected and admired for his principals. With no doubt , one of the most influential man of Western antiquity . Just look at the scope of his works and their influence on Western civilization . His political movements (in great controvercy as any Political movement) do not "damage" his greatness . He is often described as the "Pure Roman" or the "Perfect Roman" .

At the Severan Conference International Centre for Severan Studies in 31 May 1996 said Caroline Bryant "According to Dio and Herodian, the Alexandrians' humor about the fratricide was fatal to them. Caracalla became infuriated by their jokes and went to Alexandria during his tour of the empire, ostensibly to honor the city, but in fact to preside over a massacre of the inhabitants. Dio says that the emperor sent a report to the senate from his headquarters in the Serapeion during the massacre, describing sacrifices he was performing; the barely concealed message was that he was sacrificing the people of Alexandria to their god. In a separate excerpt Dio says that Caracalla dedicated on the altar of the Serapeion the sword with which he had killed Geta . "This last detail has the ring of rumor. Dio was in the senate to hear the letter sent by Caracalla, so we can trust what he reports as its content. The reference to the dedication of the sword, however, is not excerpted in the same passage as the account of the letter, and it certainly seems improbable that Caracalla would have included it in a formal report to the senate. More telling is Dio's mention of one of the alleged portents of Caracalla's death, a fire that filled the Serapeion at Alexandria but damaged nothing except this sword, which disappeared completely. "A little before" the assassination is when this prodigy is said to have occurred, and as Caracalla died less than a year after the massacre, only a short and chaotic period is left during which visitors to the Serapeion should have been able to see the sword. The rumor may only have started after Caracalla's death. "Why this particular rumor? What does it reveal about attitudes toward Caracalla? It imputes to him a logic that sees the murders of the Alexandrians and of Geta as mutually justifying. It imputes a motive to him for the massacre, namely, the vindication of his own interpretation of the death of Geta as the just punishment of a dangerous traitor, a political rather than a family matter. Most immediately, it gives narrative form to the fear that the emperor would treat his subjects the way he treated his biological family. Those who circulated the rumor of the sword in the temple identified with Geta and saw Caracalla in the role of frater patriae." Caracalla....

BTW how do i get access to JSTOR? Information here - http://www.jstor.org/about/participation.html

so be ready for a thousand questions and requests for clarification on the era. Hi , spittle We have a deal !

Considering the source... the Historia Augusta, I doubt the accuracy when compared to other sources. What were Aelius Spartianus (himself a fiction IMO) motives when he wrote at the end of the 4th century about a Triumph for Caracala in 202 ? Go figure...

Hmmm.... :sp_ike: Gaius O. is right .