Caesar CXXXVII

I am sure you heared it before - "There is only one Football - 11 Vs. 11 , 90 min' !!!!!!!!!"

Sometimes it was successful, sometimes not. Neither the Romans nor the Parthians could inflict complete victories over the other, though the war of Septimius Severus was devastating for the Parthians (leading the establishment of the Persian Sassanid dynasty). In my opinion... simply, the Roman infantry based armies had difficulty with Parthian cavalry, and the Parthian armies were not well equipped for the siege warfare necessary to defeat and hold Roman strongholds. Agreed . The Romans even took Ctesiphon (Parthian: Tyspwn) , one of the 2 parthian "Capitals" more than ones . The interesting "fact" is that actually there wes a curse ! "And yet in the decree which was passed regarding his mission there was no mention of a Parthian war. But everybody knew that Crassus was all eagerness for this, and Caesar wrote to him from Gaul approving of his project, and inciting him on to the war. And when Ateius, one of the tribunes of the people, threatened to oppose his leaving the city, and a large party arose which was displeased that anyone should go out to wage war on men who had done the state no wrong, but were in treaty relations with it, then Crassus, in fear, begged Pompey to come to his aid and to join in escorting him out of the city. For great was Pompey's reputation with the crowd. And now, when the multitude drawn up to resist the passage of Crassus, and to abuse him, saw Pompey's beaming countenance in front of him, they were mollified, and gave way before them in silence. But Ateius, on meeting Crassus, at first tried to stop him with words, and protested against his advance; then he bade his attendant seize the person of Crassus and detain him. And when the other tribunes would not permit this, the attendant released Crassus, but Ateius ran on ahead to the city gate, placed there a blazing brazier, and when Crassus came up, cast incense and libations upon it, and invoked curses which were dreadful and terrifying in themselves, and were reinforced by sundry strange and dreadful gods whom he summoned and called by name. The Romans say that these mysterious and ancient curses have such power that no one involved in them ever escapes, and misfortune falls also upon the one who utters them, wherefore they are not employed at random nor by many. And accordingly at this time they found fault with Ateius because it was for the city's sake that he was angered at Crassus, and yet he had involved the city in curses which awakened much superstitious terror." (Plutarch , Crassus) . Imagine that...

Already in 1920 , scholars knew about Tacitus' strong bias against Tiberius - "Among the many problems which for long have interested students of Tacitus' Annals not the least important has been the character of Tiberius . Ubdoubtedly Tacitus has presented an extremely unfavorable portrait of that emperor - a portrait , in the opinion of most scholars in resent years , not true to life . The opoinion was formed through a more complete understanding of Tiberius able rule of the Roman Empire ." "Tacitus and Tiberius", by G. A. Harrer , The American Journal of Philology 1920 So , today (too) Scholars criticize Tacitus approach towards TIberius . "...but what makes , say , Tacitus' account of Tiberius' early years so provoking is precisely its unfairness . Although Tacitus mentions virtuous actions by Tiberius , he can hardly ever bring himself to do so without passing immediately to his faults or adding a snide comment , as when , after reporting Tiberius' refusal to permit the terms divinus and dominus to be used of himself , he remarks 'unde angusta et lubrica oratio sub principe , qui libertatem metuebat , adulationem oderat' (Ann. 2.87) ." Translation -"Consequently, speech was restricted and perilous under an emperor who feared freedom while he hated sycophancy" .... "Tacitus" , Review author[ s]: J. W. Rich , The Classical Review 1994

Thank you for your reply , I thought I was losing my ability (some kind of...) to read English . I hope (too) that the writer have good evidence to support his thesis (or otherwise joke) .

I have read it some 10 years ago . 366 pages for some 800 years . Rostovtzeff is one of the most prestigious scholars for Roman history but for me it was way to short (2 pages for the whole first punic war !!!) . He makes a good narative for the social and economic aspects of Roman expansion after the 2nd Punic war and provides controversial (already in 1927) expelations for major events in Rome's history (the Gracchii , the fall of the republic , the decay of the empire etc') .

Sorry , who's consent ?

I stick up for Tiberius because of all the many emperors I have studied, he is the one whose personality is laid bare for us all to see. He was a psychologist's dream, and all his actions (good and bad) can be explained so easily by events that shaped his adolescence and earlier career. He was a man not suited to his times. I have the utmost sympathy for him as a person, and when you analyse his reign objectively, he governed well for a large part of it. While we can never acquit him of the Treason Trials and the Reign of Terror that followed, I understand exactly what caused them. Indeed . Tiberius was one of the most prepared "heirs to the throne" ever . He became Perinceps at the age of 56 after a good long military career , he was respected by the army (I am not ignoring the rebellion of 14-15) , a Senator for some 30 or 40 years , a descendant of a honorable Patrician house (the claudii Nerones , less honorable than the Claudii pulchers) , and an able politician . Yes , he was bitter , cruel (as any Roman Emperor) and allways under the shade of the delightful Germanicus . The Empire under his regime was firm and stable . Tacitus saw in him as the best example for a Tyrant (maybe after Domitianus) but we must remember his (Tacitus') perspective . Tacitus saw himself as a representative of the disinherited republican aristocracy (actually he was a "new man") "fighting" the bad Tyrants .

In a library Are you asking for recommendation about a good book on the Republic ? Or just where you can find one ?

I was surprised to hear Caesar words too . I heard "Pompey/Pompeius" and ''Pontus?" so my conclusion is that the writer (of the series) is familiar with the notion/assumption/fact that pompey was famous as a one who stealed victories from others (from Metallus against Sertorius , from Crassus against Spartacus , and from Lucullus against Mithridates 6th king of pontus) . I think that Caesar was reffering to that , so he actually was saying "Pompey magnus... , even a child with a steak could have beaten pontus" . But perhaps I am wrong .

Saw , just now , chapter 12 , damn ! This is the c. 10th-20th televisionic/cinematic version for caesar's assassination since 1900 or so and everytime it is a different one . The sources (Plutarchus , Dio Cassius and more) differs also about it . HBO's ROME managed to show us important things like the "removal" of Antonius from the scene , Casac's hand on caesar shoulder , Caesar response , Brutus unwillingless etc' but they ignored the fact that Caesar knew about the conspiracy , that the conspirators were in haste to kill him before his intented departure for the east , that the senators , including the murderers , run from the Senate house etc' . What do modern scholarls have to say about the whole (historic , and maybe televisionic) scene and the complex relatiomship between Caesar and Brutus ? (my bad English)

"...Nerva was one of a few men alive who could claim a family tie with the house of augustus ." note 9 - "...The Laenas who was the father of nerva's mother , Sergia Plautilla , may not have been the C. Octavius Laenas whose son married Rubellia Bassa . moreover , while the latter was certainly the daugther of the C. rubellius Blandus who in 33 married Julia , daugther of Drusus , it is quite possible that Blandus , who had been consul sometime before 21 , had been previously married and that Rubellia was a child of the earlier marriage ." From "Second Thoughts on the Imperial Succession from Nerva to Commodus", by Russel Mortimer Geer Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association . "Nerva...his grandmother Plautilla's brother Octavius Laenas had married one Rubellia Bassa , great grand-daugther of Tiberius ." From "Dio of Prusa and the Flavian Dynasty" , by Harry Sidebottom The Classical Quarterly So , there is a consensus about the line starting in Augustus or Tiberius until "Octavius Laenas" the son . There is a strong connection with Nerva but still did not find the marriage between Octavia and Curtilius - the missing link .

I voted "abstain"

Let us take it step by step as you suggested , so : Syme wrote in "The consuls of a.d. 97 : addendum" (JRS 1954) that Octavius Laenas "the presumed parent of sergius Octavius Laenas Pontianus (con. ord 131)" was a first cusin of Nerva , his father , the maternal uncle of Nerva , had married Rubellia Bassa "daughter of Rubellius blandus and of Julia , the granddaugther of Tiberius Caesar" !!! In "The marriage of Rubellius Blandus" (AJP 1982) Syme said that Nerva's mother , Sergia Plautilla had a brother , "Octavius Laenas" who married (as mentioned by him above) to Rebellia bassa . Now Syme is saying that "...their son leaves no trace" ! So syme actually recognised that there was a son , no name , no trace . My conclusion is that Syme did not dismiss the possibility that the unnamed son continued the line .

So ,Primus Pilus , your conclusion (again) ? Smith dictionary was written in c. 1870 or 1880 , so may be that he did not know of some materials ? I have access to JSTOR and I have read Geer's article a year ago , I don't remember a refference (sp?) to Mancia or Curtilia (may be I am wrong about that) . Any way , do you think that the genealogy can be a true one ? You said that you don't know about a source (so do I) , did syme reffered to the subject ? , PIR 2 ? Alfoldy ? Eck ?

I have found this interesting genealogy in several websites

Indeed the debate is long , some 2050 years old . "Many Romans themselves put the key turning point in 133 BC. ...Gracchus proposed to distribute to poor citizens stretches of state-owned land in Italy which had been illegally occupied by the rich. But instead of following the usual practice of first consulting the 'senate' ...he presented his proposal directly to an assembly of the people...In the process, he deposed from office another tribune who opposed the distribution...Gracchus's land bill was passed. But when he tried to stand for election for another year's term as tribune (a radical step - as one of the republican principles was that each office should be held for one year only), he was murdered by a posse of senators. "Gracchus's motivation is much less clear. Some modern historians have seen him as a genuine social reformer, responding to the distress of the poor. Others have argued that he was cynically exploiting social concerns to gain power for himself. "Whatever his motives were, his career crystallised many of the main issues that were to underlie the revolutionary politics of the next hundred years.The consequences of Rome's growing empire were crucial. Many of the poor had fallen into poverty after serving for long periods with armies overseas - and returning to Italy to find their farmland taken over by wealthier neighbours. "How were the needs of such soldiers to be met? Who in Rome was to profit from its empire, which already stretched from Spain to the other end of the Mediterranean? Tiberius's decision to use the revenues of Asia for his land distribution was a provocative claim - that the poor as well as the rich should enjoy the fruits of Rome's conquests. "But Tiberius's desire to stand for a second tribunate also raised questions of personal political dominance. The state had few mechanisms to control men who wanted to break out of the carefully regulated system of 'power sharing' that characterised traditional Republican politics. Mary Beard (Reader in Classics at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Newnham College) 2006-09-11 So "simple" , so "traditional", yet so true , up to date and more important , the standard point of view of one of the most prestigious schools on earth . P.s. - I welcome any other view

A good question . Livy's books 11 to 20 - The end of the 3rd Samnite war , the "3rd secession of the Plebs" , the Dictatorship of Hortensius , "New" evidance for the "Phyrhic war" , a chronology for the invasions of the Boii and Sennones , an information about Dentatus , Luscinus and Gurges , about the revolts of the Sabines , Volci and Volsinii , a "new" interpretation fot the breaking of the first and second punic wars (the "Ebro treaty" , the Sardinian affair etc') , an information about the major reform of the Comitia Centoriata and Tributa , about elections in the 3rd century and on ... Is there any chance in the world that they will find a hidden copy ? 100,000 $ for one

Caesar could not have lost , he was a descendant of Mars . Seriously , Caesar was a unique person but first of all , he was a product of his era , an era so different from the middle republic that he or another able , popular and charismatic general would inevitably have won . The outcome of 03.15.44 BCE makes it clear that no matter who will win the civil war , the republic was dead . It was , as Ronald Syme said , a revolution , a contest between dynasties . The Republic was dead since 133 BCE when Gracchus used his Tribunician power against the "Optimates" and they used armed force against him . Caesar was the outcome of a long and irreversible process as his murder proved .

I agree with every word .

"Citing a single quote says no more than that you have read that quotation." Not nice . Maybe I have read the whole article ? Or the whole book ? A single Quotatin ? Make it 2... So now I should bring tons of quotatins just for 1 or 2 arguments ? "ah 1936..." "ah 1 qoutation" , "ah we are scholars" , "ah , who you are to question our knowledge" - not Academic , not nice

"as for 'disagreeing with scholars" it is my opinion that several of the forum members ARE scholars." If you say so . It is my opinion that we should keep some modesty . saying "We are scholars" does not make our argument stronger and that is in contrast to quoting scholars . "but Claudius chose Nero over Britannicus." As I said , this case is the extraordinary one . We should not forget that Britanicus was under age in 54 !!! Listen what Agrippina (Nero's mother) is saying when Britanicus was 14 - "that Britannicus was now of full age, he who was the true and worthy heir of his father's sovereignty, which a son, by mere admission and adoption, was abusing in outrages on his mother " . In a short time he was dead , why ? Suetonius - "When he (Claudius) expressed his intention of giving Britannicus the gown of manhood, since his stature justified it though he was still young and immature, he added: "That the Roman people may at last have a genuine Caesar."

"Let us leave aside later examples, since "Spittle's" question related to Augustus. There is NO example in the principiate of blood-son succeeding father - Augustus was succeeded by his step-son; Tiberius by his great-nephew; Gaius by his uncle; Claudius by his step-son. Not until Commodus do we find a successor "born to the purple" (porphyrogenitus)." ? Vespasian - Titus - Domitianus Regardless , the suporters of the "adoptive theory" tends to look at adopted Emperors as a proof for their assertion that Emperors choose their heirs from a pannel of candidates and repeatedly ignore the simple fact that all , that is , all the biological living sons succeeded their fathers !!! I preffer to base my arguments on scholars - "according to the orthodox view , when Marcus Aurelius designated his son , Commodus , as his successor , he broke a century-old tradition that the best man available should be called to the purple . actually no such tradition existed . Nerva's choise of Trajan was dictated by circumstancens beyond the control of the aged Emperor . Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were the nearest male kin of Trajan and Pius , and in each case the bond was strengthened by a dynastic marriage . Verus owed his elevation to his relation to Aelius Caesar . Finally when Hadrian in his first settelment passed over two ner kinsmen , he paid the highest tribute to the strength of the dynastic tradition by puting them out of the way . The succession was a definitely dynastic in the second cantury as in the first". Russel Mortimer Geer (BROWN UNIVERSITY , "Second Thoughts on the Imperial Succession from Nerva to Commodus" in TPAPA vol. 67 , 1936) . I really can't say it better . P.s. This is the almost Standart position of scholars since 1936 . Anyone who disagree with my views about the subject is in disagrement with the view of at list one scholar .

K.H. Waters in "The second dynasty of Rome" (Phoenix 17.3 1963) - "The founder of the Roman Empire achieved two remarcable feats...He established a hereditary monarchy in the most aristocratic , conservative...and he succeeded in securing the acceptance , if not the enthusiasm , even of the Roman Senate for both the monarchic and hereditary principles . "...The imediate point is that as early as 25 b.c. an heir apparent had been designated , soon to be removed by crual fate . Designated - for the lack of a son , or at least a legitimate son...He determind that his succesor should be a member of his family: The blood tie had always been important in Rome: In this particular case the continuance of the regime itself might well depend on how plausibly the transfer of power could be made to resemble a normal legacy to a son and heir . But in Rome , the long established custom of perpetuating a familyiline in name if not in blood rendered adoption an acceptable device for the purpose of establishing a successor..." So , again , the only way to transfer the "throne" is from father to son , a biological son . In a case when there was no such a son , the only way was to adopt one . the facts are that when a biological son was alive he took the "throne" (the only extraordinary case was Britanicus and Nero , but that is another story) . There is no example of a biological son who did not succeed his father . when Constantine the great won the empire in 324 he orderd Licinius and his son to be murdered , why ? Because the son was the heir to the "throne" About the army - Every un-democratic regime is based on the army . In Rome the army was the key factor regarding competitors but even the winners had to connect themselfs to the previous Emperors (Severus made the dead Pertinax to adopt him....

2 corrections , if I may - "Augustus was the title that came to be the imperial one among his successors (Augusta for empresses) - and this Tiberius NEVER took - indeed, as i recall, he REFUSED it." A Denarius from a.d. 20 titled TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS - http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/tiberius.html "But Tiberius was no allowed to have his son Drusus succeed him (Augustus insisted that Tiberius adopt Germanicus as his heir to the throne). Germanicus was adopted as a son and heir to his property , not as heir to the "throne" . Tiberius could choose between his (now) 2 sons for the "throne" or even to choose them both as he did in 37 in redard to Gaius Caesar and Tiberius "Gemellus" . Yes , the "Imperial throne" was hereditary pure and simple . If an Augustus had a son (biological or adopted) , he was to succeed him . Tiberius was the son (yes , adopted) of Augustus , Gaius was the son of Tiberius (adopted) . Gaius was dead without a son . Nero was the son of Claudius (adopted) , he died without a son . Titus was the son of Vespasianus , Domitianus was the brother of Titus and died without sons . Traianus was the son (adopted) of Nerva and so on . Even the consept of the "adopted Emperors" is wrong - The adoptive Emperors (Nerva , Traianus , Hadrian and Pius) simply had no biological sons and in the very first instanse Commodus the biological son of Aurelius - succeed him . Geta and Caracalla succeeded Severus and were dead without sons so their relatives , Heliogabalus and Alexandrus succeeded them . You could have only 2 ways to become Emperor - To be older son of the previous Emperor (or his closeset relative) or to took the "throne" by using power .