Caesar CXXXVII

I am glad to see interest on the subject . The period c. 630 to c. 450 is elusive yet so interesting and fascinating .

According to the H.A. (16.7) in 202 Severus allowed his son Antoninus/Caracala to celebrate a Triumph for his victory against the Jews . Scholars worked very hard to find in the sources more detailes/clues about a Jewish revolt but alas , they did not find any . One scholar (Stern) had enough , he came to a conclusion that no such Jewish campaign had ever existed . IMHO , Stern is right . Any objections ? We know how many Triumphs Caracala celebrated .

Perhaps not, but this was an interesting exercise nonetheless.

Completely my error... Not so sure , Livy said what he said (quoted above by you) , all the rest is interpretations . He even did not mentioned the hot debate about the law . Now , 36 , 39 , 42 , 2 years and all that is our understanding and not reffered by Livy . It is very logical to include the 10 years gap in the law as the lex valeria of 300 included notions from the Lex Valeria of 450 var. and 509 var. It was a Roman custom to repeat notions from older laws in new laws that dealed with the same subject . All in all , it is not so important...

Because the Lex Villia only established minimum ages for magistracies and confirmed a bi-annual separation between eligibility for minor magistracies. Neither Livy or Cicero (in relating various references on the post Sullan version of the law) claim that the law impacted Consular election (other than minimum age). Develin in "Patterns in Office-Holding, 366-49 B.C." and Astin in "The Lex Annalis Before Sulla" also do not mention a 10 year Consular gap in relation to that law. From Livy book XL, XLIV: Strange , the UNRV site mentions the 10 years gap in the Lex Vilia....................... "Lex Villia Annalis (180 BC) - first law to set minimum ages for curule magistrates, Aediles 36, Praetors 39, Consuls 42 and forced a period of two years between each magistracy. Required a ten year interval between two successive tenures of consulship. Rejected by C. Servilius in 202 BC and Marius in 107 BC." Here - http://www.unrv.com/government/index-of-roman-laws.php

Ah, but they weren't Muslims. There were no Muslims before Muhammad, who lived in the 7th century AD. Heh , The Muslims call Abraham "the first Muslim"...

Does Mitchell's Book have new information about the period since the publication of J. B. Bury's "History of the Later Roman Empire" ?

The last time I read about the "Byzantines" they call themselves "Romaioi"/"Romei" . I believe that your fellow Greek is very very very Patriotic and that his argument is based on that (you know about the endless debate about Alexander III as a Greek...) . And yes , Ellinas = Greek/s .

That's more like it .

I am not sure that Masada, in and of itself, was of any great import to the Romans. It was subdued to teach other people a lesson - don't fool around with Rome! Correct . But , think about it , some 6,000 to 7,000 Romans and allies spending a year or so to take a hill...Silva got a Consulship for that... If I am not in error, the Israeli army no longer swears in its recruits on Masada. Perhaps the reason is that Masada is not a good example for soldiers. Correct . But I would add "the mith of Massada" .

Here's what Astin writes (p. 38): Although in the course of the year Marcellus was to become involved in a dispute about Roman policy in Celtiberia, it is unlikely that this had arisen as yet or that it influenced the outcome of the election. Marcellus is much more likely to have won his consulship on the strength of his military reputation; for he was clearly one of the foremost generals of the day. With the possible exception of Ti. Gracchus, who may still have been alive but would have been nearly seventy, Marcellus was almost certainly the only man living who had celebrated two triumphs, and the second of them was as recent as 155. Moreover he had had some experience in Spain, since as praetor he had governed both provinces together and had engaged in at least some successful warfare. It is probably that no one in Rome seemed more suitable for the command in Celtiberia in 152. But in Rome a man needed to be not only suitable for an appointment but eligible in law. A considerable variety of conditions of eligibility had been laid down, and among them was the rule that one individual should not hold the consulship twice within ten years; yet Marcellus' second consulship had been in 155, only three years before. If it is easy to understand why many were willing to vote for him, it still remains to be explained how a man who by law was ineligible came to offer himself as a candidate, to be accepted as such by the presiding magistrate, and to be declared elected. [emphasis added] Thus, the situation in Spain may have played some role in Marcellus winning, but a precedent was needed even to allow him to enter the race. Yet , Astin himself did not came to a solution . He did answer one important question , that is "why Marcellus ?" And now "we know" that it was the crisis in Hispania that was the factor for Marcellus third Cos. As PP said , it is very odd that the sources did not tell us about the extraordinary election . I did not find a solution to the problem by any scholar . PP , why are you ignoring the Lex Vilia of 180 and refer only to the lex Genucia of the 340' ? About Corculum , he was elected Consul for 162 so he was of consular rank (he actually took office and was in his province) and eligible for Censorship (for 159). Crasus Dives was Censor before he became Praetor . Now he (corculum) was elected Consul for 155 by claiming that he did not serve as Consul in 162 (he left his province in seconds...) . In both cases (159 and 155) he had the law with him (more or less) . Marcellus had nothing in 152 . So again I think that the Senate used the 2nd Punic war custom - "We can ignore the law in times of crisis" .

One example - "What Josephus has to say about the suicide is that after the Romans entered Masada and discovered the dead bodies: "Nor could they [the Romans] do other than wonder at the courage of their [the Sicarii] resolution, and at the immovable contempt of death which so great a number of them had shown, when they went through with such an action as that was" ... "The absolute resolution and courage of the Sicarii and their act of collective suicide in Masada raised, apparently, much respect and wonder among the Romans and in Josephus Flavius. ... "After all, the heroism in the Masada narrative and in the context is not at all self evident or understood. ... "Three main elements from Josephus' historical account are, more or less, kept in the mythical narrative. These are: The Jewish rebels who took part in the Great Revolt against the Roman Empire found themselves at the end of the rebellion on Masada The Roman imperial army launched a siege on the mountain in order to conquer the place and capture the rebels When the rebels realized that there was no more hope of either winning or holding out against the Roman army, they chose to kill themselves rather than surrender and become wretched slaves. These details can be found in nearly all forms of the mythical narrative, both written and oral. Viewed in this manner, it is indeed easy to be impressed with the heroism of the rebels on top of Masada." Nachman Ben-Yehuda Department of Sociology and Anthropology Hebrew University, Jerusalem Josephus was first of all , a Jew , he tried his best to show that his People were hero's as any "patriotic" historian would do . Yes , he gave the rebels a bad name but just because he was a patriot who did not want to see his People vanish , But if they did , they would do it with style , Graeco-Roman style . The Jews became a "freedom or death" People and the Romans became a nation that conquered such fearsome People . That is the concept .

where did all these "Christians" spring from BEFORE the diaspora of the 70s AD? 1. Not all early Christians were former Jews . 2. The Jewish Diaspora begun before 70 CE . Philo of Alexandria visited Rome as a member of an embassy to the emperor Caligula in 40 CE , he gave a overview of the life of the Jews in Rome at the time . With regard to Augustus reign , Josephus mentions a lawsuit in which 8,000 Jews from Rome sided with one of the parties (Jewish antiquities 2.80). From that we know that there were some 40,000 Jews in Rome at the time . Edit - Twice (before 70 CE) Jews were exiled from Rome, in 19 CE and in 49-50 CE , The second exile occurred because of disturbances caused by the rise of Christianity .

250 pages ? A.H.M. Jones "The Later Roman Empire" had some 800 . I am not saying that Cameron's book does not have quality but quantity is very important when dealing with hundreds of years .

To show that the Jews were heroic as the Romans , it was a pure propoganda but the possibility for mass suicide exists (1 to 10 %) .

:blowup: The name is the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Poplios Valesius is an archaic form for Publius Valerius , read about it before posting Enough for me .

As I have said , without the tradition we have little information but Lucretia , Curiatii , Brutus , Cocles , Scaevola...it is fairy tales , childish or not .

Don't be so negative , we have more than nothing ! O.K. , How ancient history is made , small example - The Publius Valerius Poplicula case - 1. According to ancient sources , one named Publius Valerius Poplicula took a great part in the events of 509 BCE (Var) . 2. These ancient sources are from the 2nd and mostly 1st century BCE , that is some 400 years after the events took place . 3. Scholars do not accept the Livian (for example) nerative about "509" because they don't have any external evidence for it . 4. Scholars do accept the notion that c. 509 there was something that ended the Tarquinian Tyrany . 5. Scholars do accept the notion that a "Valerius" played a part in the episode because they do not dismiss traditions on a regular basis . But what part ? 6. Now , we have the Lapis from Satricum dated c. 500 BCE !!! about A "Poplios Valesios" and his "Sodales" , that is his private army . 7. The date is the same , the name is the same , the concept is the same (Private armies did act in central Italy at that period) so we have 90% confirmation that Publius Valerius did exist but he was not a Roman but a Sabine from Satricum , he had a private army , he came to Rome c. 500 , he became so strong that he was accused as being a Tyrant (4 Consulships and other royalistic symbols in the tradition) and so on . Scholars took the Latin sources , combined it with the inscription and the Political situation in Rome , added a Philological insight and managed to construct a historical episode that is more correct by any standard than the childish tradition .

What are you talking about ?!

And just what did the Pompeians do after Dyrracium? Heh , that was my point...

So now you know about the fresco in the Francois tomb ? It is dated 340-310 BCE and described what ? An episode from mid. 6th century that Livy did not refer too but Tacitus and Claudius did . The Fresco is more genuine than any of livy's or others notions (propoganda from late first century BCE) about the period , by all scholars . At 1857 they had no idea what the fresco is but when they found (in the 80') Claudius' speech in Leon they knew . More important , Evidence has been found in Veii of votive offerings by one Avele Vipenna of Vulci and is associated with this time of conflict (Mid 6th century) ! You don't know about Poplios Valesius of Satricum ? Here - http://www.telemaco.unibo.it/rombo/iscriz/satricum.htm About Gabii , one example - "...460 BCE...the foundation date of the temple of Semo Sancus where the Foedus gabinum was preserved..." (R. M. Ogilvie , The Classical Review, New Ser., Vol. 16, No. 1 (Mar., 1966), pp. 94-98) Dionysius of Halicarnassus notion about the Gabii treaty is the perfect example for geting historical facts from fiction - The stratagem by which Tarquinius obtained possession of the town of Gabii is a mere fiction, derived from Greek and Oriental sources. According to arrangement, his son Sextus requested the protection of the inhabitants against his father. Having obtained their confidence, he sent a messenger to Tairquinius to inquire the next step. His father made no reply to the messenger, but walked up and down his garden, striking off the heads of the tallest poppies. Sextus thereupon put to death all the chief men of the town, and thus obtained the mastery. The stratagem of Sextus is that practised by Zopyrus is the case of Babylon, while the episode of the poppy-heads is borrowed from the advice given by Thrasybulus to Periander (Herodotus III 154, V 92). Now . he and others said that they saw the treaty in the temple so from that we know the truth - The town came under Tarquinius' dominion by formal agreement, not, as the tradition states, by treachery and violence Sorry , what is your point ? I have no problem with off topic discussions , but instead of a discussion about early Fasti Consulares i find myself trying to show you that we have other information besides livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus... What are you trying to say ?

Ave Caesar You may have a point there. I was just saying that because the Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in not only the final diaspora of the Jewish people from the Holy Land, but effectively the changing of Jerusalem into a totally pagan city, as you probably know. There were many Jews in Judea still after the first revolt. Hi G xx Off topic again - Yes , the Bar Cochba's/Cozba's revolt sealed Jews fate for some 1,800 years , no doubt . It is a possibility that without the 132-135 revolt the Jews could have survived as a political entity despite the destruction of the temple in 70 . Hadrian edicts about Judaea/Palestina , Jerusalem/Aelia Capitolina etc' were too much for them .

but if I was there, I would certainly not have sided with Pompey or Juba against Caesar Heh One would think Caesar was unbeaten (all the Pompeians together - "dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium dyrachium")

Or what about Horatio at the bridge? Single handedly he kept an enemy army from crossing into Rome until the bridge could be destroyed. Yes ! It was something like 0.85 against 4,200 !

The fact is Severus could say pretty much anything he liked. The praetorians were replaced with his men and control was very firmly his. That is the bottom line . When reading about another accident I came to a conclusion that Severus had a cynical character . At the end of January 205 Caracala had Plautianus (the Praetorian Prefect , a senator of Consular rank , a Clarissimus Vir , a Comes Principis , No. 2 in the Empire , some say he was No. 1 , the best friend of Severus since 193 , a relative and more) to come before Severus alone . Caracala pushed his former father in law and orderd a soldier to kill him , the shoked Plautianus was dead in seconds . Severus said that he was sorry that the ambition of his friend brought uppon him his death... Now , It is in my opinion that Severus had fun to show up in the Senate and to praise the man whom the Senators feared the most . he had the power , he used it (29 Senators , many of them with Consular rank were dead after the speech of June 197) . Maybe Severus acted politically , but surley he combined business with pleasure...