Caesar CXXXVII

The Leges Sextia-licinia allowed non-Patricians (you can say "Plebeians") to be Consuls (the proof is in the Fasti) . The Leges Gnucia ensured that one of the 2 Consuls must be a Plebeian (again , the proof is in the Fasti) . From var. 343 BCE (Genucia) the system was that the Patricians stood for their place in the Consulate and the Plebeians stood for their place , so there was no option for 2 Patricians to win . You can see this system in work for the eletion at the end of 192 where Livius is saying thet there were 3 candidates for the Patrician place and 3 for the Plebeian place .

"Archaeological findings have strengthened notions amongst scholars that quite a few Norwegians, from the farthermost north of Europe, in all likelihood served as soldiers in the Roman legions. Ancient weaponry, cups and coins all points towards a more extensive cultural exchange between Norway/Scandinavia and the Roman Empire than previously assumed, an assumption, (article in Norwegian only), Professor Heid Gj

O.K. It is hard , I will try it anyway - "509" - What happened there ? (try to ignore my English) - part I In c. 520-510 BCE , one (later known as) Lucius Tarquinius "Superbus" took control of Rome , the richest , largest (in land and population) and strongest city in Latium Vetus in even in Central Italy . Who was "Superbus" ? An Etruscan (from Tarquinii) and probably a son of (later known as) Lucius Tarquinius "Priscus" . In contrast to his father , "Superbus" took control of Rome not as legitimate King but as a Tyrant , that is , without the consent of the Patricians who controled the Comitia Curiata , the one and only political body thad had the power to invest the kingship . "Superbus" was not the first to take the Roman Kingship by using armed forces , he was one of many tyrants who ruled Rome in the middle of the 6th century (between them - "Servius Tullius" , Aulus Vibena , Caelius Vibena , Mastrana and maybe Gnaeus Tarquinius "Romanus") . It is possible that "Superbus" did not became "Rex" but "Magister Populi" (Mastrana=Magister as Lucomu=Lucius etc') as his antecedents to signify his aliance with the people (as represented by the Hoplite army in the Comitia Centoriata) . The aliance between the Tyrants and the people as such was confirmed by the establishment of the Comitia Centoriata by "Servius Tullius" who based his power on the Hoplite army (consisting Patricians , non Patricians but also non Plebeians but "Clientes") . So , since c. 550-570 BCE through "Superbus" reign Rome was controled by a Tyrant who had an Aliance with the Comitia Centoriata and some kind of understanding with the Patricians of which they had monopoly on religious matters . This Political situation was firmed for decades until something , somewhere , somehow activeted a process that ended in "509" .

"The notion that this monster--and I'm being generous by not mentioning the Queen's more outrageous personal perversities--was honorable makes me wonder if anyone even knows the meaning of the term. (I guess Caesar137 will call this another issue of 'semantics'.)" Ah , at last . I knew it ! And they say that there is no such thing as monsters...

His move against Octavian's position in Sicily was bold and decisive (one of the few such examples of decisiveness shown in the sources). Unfortunately for him, he simply didn't have the loyalty of his legions necessary to carry it out. Is is another enigama . Why Lepidus took this step ? Why in 36 ? Why in Sicily ? What was his object ? Why his soldiers abandoned him ? How come that Lepidus survived this episode and even his son's conspiracyand death in 30 ? There is a very good biography for Lepidus - "Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir" , by Richard D. Weigel; Routledge, 1992 On Lepidus last days - "Dio Cassius says that Octavian made Lepidus

So you claim that a dictatorship is more liberating than a balanced republic? That will require some explanation, I am afraid. And I defy you to name one law (excepting Sulla, of course) that limited the rights of the people to participate in government. Last I knew, the Republic had been on a steady course toward more equal representation for centuries. After all, wasn't that what the Social War was all about? It seems that your definitions are too schematic . Your perspective in a modern one (naturaly) . Try to define "Democracy" , "Republic" , "Dictatorship" , "People" , "Aristocracy" etc' by the ancient standarts . Did I say that "Populares" = Democrats ? No. So , you are saying that the "people" did not had limitations "in participating in government" ? As you said "That will require some explanation, I am afraid." One example - Just look at the structure of the Comitia Centuriata where 0.1 % of the Romans (the "nobility") had the majority!! The liberty that you are talking about was the liberty of 300 senators and their sons , it is a common knowledge . The Dictatorship of Caesar was not a "Democracy" , the Republic was not a Democracy , they did not have a Democracy ever . The Dictatorship was "Popularis" , that is for the people and against the control of the Oligarchy . How is that ? Caesar 1. Declared a general amnesty for all who had taken arms against him 2. Founded many civilian and military colonies overseas, to which eventually Some 80,000 of the turbulent Roman poor were transported 3. Granted citizenship (and all its benefits) to doctors and teachers, many of whom were Greek 4. Inserted Gauls and other Westerners (my English) to the Senate 5. Favored the Jews living in Rome 6. The owners of large landed estates were required to hire a third of their farm workers from free men, rather than slaves 7. Made laws limited the terms of provincial governors 8. Abolished the existing tax system (the corrupt Publicani) and returned to the earlier policy of permitting the provinces themselves to collect and pay tribute without middlemen And on "In this, unlike the Gracchi, Caesar was a progressive with more than ideas. It is difficult to separate the valid criticisms of Caesar's actions from the suspicion that many of his peers were motivated largely by their own greed and envy of his stature among them." http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Caesar/legacy/index.html Enough said .

Thanks for the info .

Lars Porsena is an interesting one

Oh , Cato , being semantic again ha ? I am not so naive as to say (like many scholars until some 50 years ago , and you too ?) that the Populares wanted a Democracy... Rome was not a Democracy ever , they even did not know what is Democracy in the modern sense ! The people could gain power (benefits) in just one way - Caesar's way . But again , I am sure that you know that . Populares , a simple defination from wikipedia (a source used by you in another thread) - "Populares ("Favoring the people", singular popularis) were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman Republic who tended to use the peoples' assemblies in an effort to break the stranglehold of the nobiles and optimates on political power. Populare plans included some moving of Roman citizens to provincial colonies; expansion of citizenship to communities outside of Rome and Italy; and modification of the grain dole and monetary value. The populare cause reached its peak under the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, the most avid leader of the populares. After the creation of the Second Triumvirate (43 BC

Ah... yes , thanks

Please explain your choise Damn , I can't make the poll to work !!!!!!! Never the less... Those were my options - 1. An extremist Optimatis - give the power to the oligarchic nobility 2. A moderate Optimatis - A mixed government between Consuls from the nobility and T.P from the people 3. A moderate Popularis - Give the power to the poeple bt their T.P with subordinates generals 4. An extremist Popularis - A dictator by the people for the people 5. Bring back the Tarquins

We all (?) know that the Gordians claimed to be a descendants of the Grachhi ? The clime is represented in ancient works and recognised as false . 1. How exactly they represnted themselfs as such , that is , what was thier claimed genealogy ? 2. What is the true ? The real genealogy ? 3. so , how the name "Sempronianus" came ?

Or perhaps simply because they fought to preserve liberty, where Caesar fought only to crush it. Who's liberty ? Surly not the people's ("The Mob")...

Thanks . Is there anybody who could make some kind of historical narrative for this alusive period ? (That is , the fall of the Monarchy , not the Monarchy as a whole) . I will read my sources again and will try it . Obviously there will be Lacunas . The method is to combine the Archeological evidence with philological research + criticism in one hand and open mind in the other . IMHO , one can't read , or understand Rome's history without knowing its origins as good as possible .

Republic - 1. Gaius Iulius Caesar (the Dictator) 2. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Maior) 3. Gaius Marius 4. Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus 5. Lucius Cornelius Sylla "Felix" 6. Quintus Sertorius 7. Gnaeus Pompeius "Magnus" 8. Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus 9. Manius Curius Dentatus 10. Lucius Papirius Corsur 11. Marcus Claudius Marcelus (2nd Punic War) 12. Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus Empire (not ranked) - Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa , Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo , Marcus Ulpius Traianus (Trajan) , Marcus Aurelius , Lucius Domitius Aurelianus , Flavius Valerius Constantinus , Flavius Aetius , Flavius Stilicho , Flavius Belisarius [edited out the humor for the sake of legitimacy=PP]

Hey , But those two had God by their side

Reading some 5-6 books and some 15-20 articles conserning the beggining of the Roman Republic , I am still confuse ! Why Superbus was forced to leave Rome ? Who were the initiators of the removal of Superbus ? When Superbus was removed ? How Superbus was removed ? Did all the Tarquins banished from Rome ? What Tarquinius "Collatinus" and Iunius "Brutus" (another member of the Royal family) were doing there ? What was the part of Lars Porsena ? Who he was ? What was the roll of the "Praetror Maximus" ? The "Magister Populi" ? What was the part of Publius Valerius "Puplicula" ? Did he was the Poplius Velasius of Satricum ? What was the part of the Latins and Aristodemus the Tyrant of Cumae ? Did the Plebeians support the removal of Superbus ? What did they gain ? And on . I didn't find even two scholars with the same narrative . All of them are using Livy , Dyonisius of Hallicarnasus , Cicero and the ancient sources and all of them do not accept their narrative as a whole . Will we ever know what happened there in "509" ? Any comment ? New insight ?

The crisis of 23 At the end of 24 BCE Augustus gets information about a conspiracy in the senate againt him . He desided to go for the 2nd settlement . The first days of 23 BCE - Marcus Primus , the former governer of Macedonis is brought to trial because he attacked the Odrisians without permission . Primus said that Augustus and Marcellus gave him the permission , than he said that the Consul Aullus Terentius Licinius Varro Murena gave him the order...Augustus (as Consul) arrvied to the scene and asked by the Praetor "did you gave the order ?" Augustus swear thad he did not . Murena (his sister Terentia is married to Maecenas) asked Augustus what he was doing on the trial and who summoned him, Augustus said - "The People's will !" . Primus was convicted but by small majority . Augustus was (by now) sure about the conspiracy . Maecenas told his wife that her brother Murena is in danger . By now Murena joined a real conspiracy to kill Augustus , led by one named Faenius Caepio . Castricius (who is he ?) told Augustus about the Murena-Caepio conspiracy . The cospirators fled from the city and brought to trial in absentia . 1 july - Augustus abdicated from the Consulate . The Senators are in favor of the conspirators ! Augustus passes a bill for open vote in their trial and they are convicted . Murena , Caepio and the others are killed . The end to the year - Augustus sends Agrripa to Syria (also) to remove its governer , Marcus Terentius Varro , the brother of Murena . The election for the Consulate - The Consul elected...Tedius Afer is making accusations agains Augusts , the Princeps was furious , Afer is dead and Varro vannished . The End .

...murdered by disgruntled Gracchans. It is a possibility , I would say at least 50 % .

The first serious book on Rome that I have read wes Theodor Mommsen "The History of Rome" (11 years ago) . Mommsen ranked Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Major) , Gaius Iulius Ceasar the Dictator and Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Sylla ?) "Felix" as the 3 greatest Romans of the Republic . I (and I think everybody) took his assertion as absolute truth . With Africanus there was no problem (one of the greatest men ever , loved his stand against the "nobility" and his popularity) . with Caesar there was no problem (IMHO the greatest man ever , again I am a "extremist popularis") . Despite my "hatred" to the "Optimates" I accepted Mommsen assertion about Sulla (Sylla ?) . Why ? He did not lost a battle (correct me if I am wrong) , he was a great general , he had a massive influence on Rome the sity , the state , the Empire . There are so many resones . But , what about him leaving the war against Mithridates 6th ? (80,000 dead Romans !) , What about his misunderstading of the political situation in 82 (the so called "Restoration" . already in 78/77 Marcus Aemilius Lepidus did not followed it...) what about his unfaithfulness to Marius in 102 when he came to Catullus . Desite his alleged popularity he did not make it for the Praetura in 99 and bribed the voters for the Praetura of 98 . He bribed ... Marcius Censorinus in 92 not to prosecute him . In 91 he convinced Bocchus the King of Mauretania to build a statue in Rome showing Iugortha submiting to him !!! (not to Marius who had the Imperium) . In 89 he convinced the Senate to remove Marius from the command in south Italy . The same year he tried (via the T.B. Publius Sulpicius Rufus) to remove Gaius Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus from the election for the Consulate because he feared defeat . And on . Such greatness ! BTW - I have no problem with the proscritions , the march on Rome or the massacre of the 9,000 Samnites . The first was a response to the Marians actions , the second was a Machiavellian move and the third , well that's war...

It is there , I have seen it on the arch when I was in Rome 3 years ago . Amazing . But I have to say , I was looking for it ... . The image of the Menorah on the Arch of Titus is one of the sadest (sp , my English) sights for Jews . Yet , it is a proof for the Menorah existent in Titus' days and earlier . !עם ישראל חי וקיים

The Acillii Glabriones - The only (that is the only) Republican familiy to survived through the late Empire . The first known Acilli Glabrio lived in the 3rd century BCE and the last one - in the 5th century CE . We know only 27 members of the familiy , that is only 2 members per generation . The problem is a Lacuna between 33 BCE and the reign of Nero and again in the (whole) 4th century BCE . Another problem is where did they go ? Where are their descendants ?

Did you see the Menorah/מנורה (I mean , the seven-branched candelabrum used in the Jewish Temple) ?

Augustus and the use of cilentela , just another example

I see--we may be arguing at cross-purposes. That's not the definition of 'clientela' I would provide. On the one hand, your definition is too broad. Factions had leaders (like Caesar, Pompey, and Cato), but the non-leading citizens in the faction were not necessarily the clients of those leaders (e.g., Bibulus followed Cato, but Cato was not the patron of Bibulus). Further, leadership of a faction did not require a private army. For example, the factions of Cato/Ahenobarbus/Scipo had no army, nor did the vast majority of patrons have an army -- even in the late republic. On the other hand, your definition is too narrow. The patron-client relationship extended far beyond politics. Its genesis in the early republic was as a mechanism for providing legal protection to plebs who lacked the civil rights enjoyed by patricians, and as civil rights for plebs in Rome expanded and as Rome expanded into foreign territories, patronage was increasingly an Italian and later foreign affair. So , as you and I know there were at least 4 kinds of clientela - between Patricians and Plebeians until the 3rd century BCE , between the "Patricio-Plebeian nobility" and the "Plebs" from the 4th century BCE until the fall of the Republic and between Rome (SPQR as a whole or as leading individuals) and foriegn nations from the 4th century BCE until the fall of the Empire . I was reffering to the 4th kind - between Roman generals/faction leaders (such as Scipio Aemilianus , Marius , the Metelli , Sulla , Pompeius Strabo , Pompeius "Magnus" , Crassus , Caesar , Lepidus , Antonius and little Caesar) and their soldiers/clients from the mid 2nd century until the Principate . When you said that Augustus did not use his clientela to gain control in Rome , it was not logical for me to reffer to the last criteria ?