Caesar CXXXVII

It is relevant for your assertion about the Republic institutions still in action in Augustus days . What is clientela ? It is about Leaders of factions and their clients via private armies . To make myself more clear - private armies based on clientela are the opposite of the Roman Republican "constitution" . How could little Caesar make himself a political figure (one of the two strongest men in Rome allready in 44/43) if he did not had clientela , based on the army of Ceasar ? Rebulican mechanisms ? in the 30' ? As Shoter said - The Republic was actually dead since c. 100 . As you can see "these lengthy quotations" are from 1991 , so I am update...But now , alas , I am not making relevant quotations... Keep your good spirit .

"The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate." The state of the Republic in c. 100 - "By the beginning of the first century BC, confidence in the standards which had seemed to represent the spirit of Republican life was severely shaken; in particular, the governmental stability of the early Republic was in tatters as the series of challenges to the senate's auctoritas had demonstrated the real weakness of that body. More important now were the individuals and factions who rivalled each other for supremacy. In short, the Roman Republic and its Empire were fast becoming ungovernable. (Augustus Caesar by David Shotter; Routledge, 1991) The solution - "Although it would be a gross exaggeration to say that there was any kind of consensus about finding a solution, a number of politicians for varying motives showed by their actions that they believed that the only real solution to the problems of the Republic lay in a concept which in traditional terms was deeply distasteful-namely permanent or semi-permanent supervision of the government by an individual. The distaste sprang partly from an old fear of kingship and partly from the practical anxiety that dominance by one man was bound to interfere with the freedom and legitimate ambitions of others. A more cynical view might render these as privileges and vested interests. The use of armies to gain office - "

Regarding the second explananda, I'd also suggest an interesting article by Fergus Millar (who also doesn't buy the clientela theory of late Roman politics): Millar, F. (1973). Triumvirate and principate. JRS, 50-67. Millar provides a very close reading of the primary source materials (letters to officials, inscriptions, etc) that reveal which powers Octavian had during the establishment of the monarchy. The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate. Restraint is a virtue . :blowup: With regards to? Me (Marcus Porcius Cato's viewpoint is so different from mine that there is no use to comment) .

216 Bce - Scipio is a military tribune at the age of 18 and chosen by the remains of the army to command it . 212 - Scipio is chosen to the office of Curula Aedile at the age of 22 ! 210 - Scipio is Chosen (by the people , not the Senate) Proconsul to Hispania at the age of 24 ! A huge and unprecedented success . By now the "nobilty" saw him as a danger to the regime . Scipio returned to Rome , was elected Consul (29 years old !) but now , the "nobility" (led by Cunctator) stood against him directly . From 205 until his death in 183 , Scipio did not manage to translate his popularity and superb generalship to a political achievements . Yes , he was Censor (and did nothing) , a Consul for the second time (and did nothing) and even Princeps Senatus . His success against Antiochus (as Legatus) made him more hated by the nobility , ending in the famous trials and death in self exile . Livy said that Scipio , in 201 , could have taken the Republic as Perpetus dictator/consul . Scholars dismiss the notion as a Caesarian insertion but accept his huge popularty and unique position , a position that no one held until caesar (Marius had less popularity , Sulla was not "popularis") . What were Scipio's interests in Rome ? Why the "nobility" hated him ? Why Scipio failed as a politician ? Did he failed ? If Scipio had wanted (my english..) to take the republic , could he was able to took it ?

Regarding the second explananda, I'd also suggest an interesting article by Fergus Millar (who also doesn't buy the clientela theory of late Roman politics): Millar, F. (1973). Triumvirate and principate. JRS, 50-67. Millar provides a very close reading of the primary source materials (letters to officials, inscriptions, etc) that reveal which powers Octavian had during the establishment of the monarchy. The basic thesis is that the traditional powers of the republic provided guidance for Octavian when he was in the uncharted legal waters of the triumvirate. Thus, it was the basic republican institutions rather than clientela which provided Octavian with the bridge to the principate. Restraint is a virtue . :blowup:

Yes , there were . Marcus Horatius "Pulvillus" Consul (2 times , apparently) in the last years of the 6th century . Gaius or Marcus Horatius "Pulvillus" Consul (apparently) in the middle of the 5th century . Gaius Horatius "Pulvillus" Consul (apparently) in the middle of the 5th century . Marcus Horatius "Barbatus" Decemvir with Consular powers (apparently) in the middle of the 5th century . Lucius Horatius "barbatus" Military tribune with Consular powers (apparently) in the middle of the 5th century . Lucius Horatius "pulvillus" Military tribune with Consular powers in 386 BCE (Varonian) . Marcus Horatius Military tribune with Consular powers in 378 BCE (Varonian) . The Horatii disappeared from the Fasti Consulares . Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace) , his connection to the Horatii of early Rome is problematic . That's it .

Greek influence on Roman culture ? Massive .

Did a little research , the best study on the whole question is IMHO the works of Christian Settipani (most of them in French ) ) . He is reffering to the subject in so extend manner ! Tons of genealogies with good sources . A review on Settipani's major work can be found here http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:kgWYn...=clnk&cd=12

There is one , David Hughes , who published some 1,873,982 genealogies on the net . I don't know his sources and methods . IMHO his genealogies are not scientific . An example (used by me partly in another thread) - Imperator Caesar Augustus Iulia Iulia Iulia Gaius Octavius Laenas Octavia Curtilia Domitia Lucilla Domitia Lucilla Marcus Aurelus Caesar Augustus Annia Luccila Aurelia Commodus Pompeianus Aurelia (the wife of Claudius Ceaser Augustus 2nd) Claudia Constantius Caesar Augustus Constantius Gella Iustina (wife of Magnentius Caesar Augustus) Galla (sister of Valentinianus Caesar Augustus 2nd) Placidia (wife of Constantius Caesar Augustus 3rd) Valentinianus Ceaser Augustus (3rd) Placidia (wife of Olybrius Caesar Augustus) Iuliana Olybrius Proba Iuliana Anastasia Areobinda Iuliana (daugther in low of Mauricius the "Byzantine" Emperor) Ardebasto Ervigio (King of "Spain") Aupais Charles "Martel" Pepin "Le Korte" Charlemagne Pepin Bernard Pepin Heribert I Heribert II Robert Adelaide Ermengrade Judith Robert "Diablo" William "The Conqueror" . . . . . Elizabeth II of England Now , this is just one example of so many "genealogies" runing on the net I , too a descendant of Roman nobility , I am the 83rd generation from Scipio Africanus , hooray for David Hughes !!! Edit - David Hughes just called me and said that I am the 67th generation from Marcus nothingius anythingius , a prattler who lived in Paestum in the 2nd century BCE , damn

This is purely my personal opinion, Caesar137, but I believe Augustus stepped in quickly with these men to avoid a growth of the factions that he had lived through himself in the civil wars of 44-31BC. Gallus, for instance, was making himself popular in Egypt as Prefect. He would do the same (and I apologise if I am pre-empting you here) with Egnatius Rufus and his fire brigade. Agrippa was the prime example of the self-deprecating servant and Augustus expected others to be the same. Augustus had not won sole power and concentrated all old magistracies into his single person for nothing. I honestly believe that his first rule was to avoid the factional conflicts that had killed the old republic, and this was his way of nipping things in the bud. Yes , Augustus acted quickly to avoid a growth of factions . Yes , Gallus was popular (may be even in Rome , as Crassus) and dangerous for the new regime . Yes , Agrripa was an example for self deprecating servant (as Maecenas , Salvidienus and many others) . According to some scholars , including Syme , Augustus did not won sole power but was the first among equals . He was the head of a coalition that included the commanders of the army , the heads of the Italian communities (Dux) etc' . Of course , he was not a Tyrant . And I totally agree with you that Augustus and his men wanted to smash any one who did not follow the principles of the new regime because of the fear to return to factional conflicts . About Egnatius , I will be happy to read your narrative .

Yes . So , I am using the word "conspiracy" and not conspiracy . But , the important thing is that Augustus saw it as a conspiracies , and had them killed .

Oh . at last , a simple question and a simple answer - Man. U.

At first there were less than 12 lictors for the Consuls (in the 6th and 5th centuries - only 1 Lictor) . The notion that the 12 Lictors represented the 12 citys of the "Etruscan League" is not accepted anymore . Why the number was raised from 1 to 2/3/4 to 12 is not know (maybe someone know's why ?)

There were 3 of them . Sorry for my lack of clarification- All of them. All distinguished themselves valiantly. The first Publius Decius Mus - certainly The second PDM - maybe The third PDM - not so sure All were very brave and heroic of that there's no doubt but good generals ? IMO the jurys out on that one. Out of topic - The story of the Muses is another example for the roman's love of legends and distortion of history . All scholars recognized that the first and second muses commited themselfs and the enemy to the gods . The Romans had to invent that mus the third did the same and died in battle , alas , we can find him in the siege of Vulsinii in 265/4 some 14 years after his death.... Edit - Btw , IMHO the second Mus was the best of the three but less successful than Rullianus .

There were 3 of them . Sorry for my lack of clarification- All of them. All distinguished themselves valiantly. OK .

The Second "conspiracy" - April 29 BCE - Gaius Cornelius Gallus the Praefectus Egyptus begins to write his name on the Pyramids and to distribute his statues all over Egypt . 28 - One , Valerius Largus informed Octavianus about Gallus' acts , Gallus is called by Octavianus and removed from his post . At the end of 29 BCE , Marcus Licinius Crassus (the grandson of the known Crassus) is proclaimed Imperator by his soldiers in Macedonia . Octavianus took the title from Crassus to himself (for the 7th time) . At the end of 28 BCE , Crassus demand for the Spolia Opima is rejected by Ocatvianus . The two starts to argue for a long time about it . Crassus' Triumph is postponed (my English) because of the disagreement . Now , Crassus' cousin (Licinia) is the wife of Gallus !!! 07.04.27 BCE - Crassus' Triumph With Augustus . At the end of the celebration Crassus disappeared ! (probably killed by Augustus men) . The end of 27 - Gallus is accused (by Augustus men) that he have done ....(Lacuna) . One of the accusations is that he gave shelter (in 28 , at Egypt) to Quintus Caecilius Epirota , Caecilia Atica Pomponia's (Agrripa's wife !!) lover . The Senate brings Gallus to a public trial , finds him guilty and sentence him to exile etc' . Gallus killed himself . Largus (the above) is excommunicated by the people (who apparently preferred Gallus and Crassus) . The Crassus-Gallus faction is dead . The end of the "second conspiracy against Augustus" .

There were 3 of them .

Well , I can only agree on that .

There was the battle of Nola (a draw with Marcellus). Symbolically important even if it was not an outright defeat. For the 3 "battles" of Nola we have only the Roman version , as you know , a biased one . Let us read between Livy's lines - 216 BC

The ancient historians talked about 7 (if I am correct) conspiracies against Augustus between 31/30 BCE and AD 14 . The problem is that we have only fragments of Dio cassius' work , Tacitus did not write the history of Augustus reign , Livy's books are lost , Nicolaus of Damascus did not reffer to the subject , Plutarchus' work on Augustus is lost etc' , so we do not have the detailes . Any information is welcome . I will start from the "first" conspiracy as showed by Ronald Syme in his works . At the end of 31 BCE , Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (The son of the Triumvir) conspired with his men to kill Octavianus when he return from Egypt . Octavianus recived information about the conspirscy and left Egypt although Antonius is still alive and active . In Rome , Maecenas decide to act against Lepidus before Octavianus arrival , He ordered Lepidus and his wife Servilia's (the daughter of the Consular Servilius Isauricus and the former fiancee of Octavianus!!!) execution and crashed the conspirators . Any sign of the conspiracy is silenced by Maecenas . Now Maecenas wanted to kill Iunia , Lepidus' mother but she is saved by the Consul sufectus designatus (for 30 BCE) , Lucius Saenius . Octavianus landed in Brundizium and left Italy after 13 days . The End of "The first conspiracy against Augustus" .

There was the battle of Nola (a draw with Marcellus). Symbolically important even if it was not an outright defeat. For the 3 "battles" of Nola we have only the Roman version , as you know , a biased one . Let us read between Livy's lines - 216 BC

From Amazon - Publishers Weekly - "British author Everitt begins his biography of Augustus (63 B.C.

Hannibal won the day with c. 35,000 men against c. 85,000 , why should we take it from him ? Btw , the Roman senate did not considered Varro a stupid general , he had a very good career after Cannae for two decades . You can get lucky in one or two battles , Hannibal won every Battle until Zama (despite Livy's attempts to make him lose some...) .

Did not find a Biography for the Byzantine Emperor Phocas , and except for J. B. Bury's "History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene" (2 vols. London, 1889) , Did not find a full (less than 10 peges)narrative of his reign (8 years) . Thanks in advance for any help on the subject .

Ursus , what Everitt has to say about the Varo Murena conspiracy ? (maybe that Augustus ordered it ? ) Seriously .