Caesar CXXXVII

BTW, lets say that Plutarchus and Sallustius' biographies of Caesar were writen in c. 100 (did Aurelius Victor wrote one ?) - When the next biograhy of Caeasr was writen ? I mean, there are about 100 books about the guy since 1870 or so, are there older ? Since c.100 to c. 1800 ?

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/assasination.php Thanks . Worth reading, I say !

It is bacause of "The leap year error" that was born after the Iulian calendar's reform of 45 BCE . The poor pontifices added a leap day (for Februar) every 3 years instead of every 4 years . It came to be that the Roman dates for the years 45 to 32 BCE were one day (or even two) before the same Iulian date . Here is a full (not simple) explanation - "The equation of Id. Mart. 710 A.U.C. ("The Ides of March") to 15 March 44 B.C. is undoubtedly the most famous calendrical conversion in all of chronology. It is almost certainly wrong..." http://www.geocities.com/christopherjbenne..._rom_anl-45.htm Now I will rename my movie to "What happened on the Ides of Mars minus one day" or maybe to "Caesar - The man and the "one day" mistake" . The man who changed his birthyear from 102 to 100 BCE in order to become younger lost a whole day because of the foolishness of the pontifices (he was their chief...) .

We can start by saying that the assassination took place on 14 March and not on the 15 Edit : Has anyone here read "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti ? Worth reading ? I understand that there is a new perspective on the whole matter

Thank you very much Nephele ! well, I am writing something (that includes lists of magistrates) and trying to fill the gap for the years 166-156 .

Could someone please mention Broughton's list of governers for the years 166 - 156 (in particular for Hispania Ulterior and Hispania Citerior) ? Thanks in advance and hail Duffy Duck !

Thanks Pompey . I have checked the cases - Cos. 259 was the brother of cos. 260 but, probably, got elected under Gaius Duilius so it was "o.k" Cos. 236 was the brother of cos. 237 but, probably, got elected under Quintus Fulvius Flaccus so it was, again "o.k." Cos. 202 was the brother of cos. 203 but was promoted by the dictator of 203, Galba, to the rank of magister equitum just before the elections in order to make him the new consul (a practice well recorded in the 2nd Punic war) . But there is a possibility that cos. 203 helped his brother . So, the case of 185-4 is not unprecedent in the matter of brother after brother but it is a precedent in the matter of conducting the elections - Appius presided an election in which his brother was candidate ! Secondly, he did not hide his intentions to make his brother consul - that was the big change in the rules of the game .

In 184 it was Publius Claudius Pulcher who won the elections under his brother Appius, cos. 185 . It was a political bomb by all standards and Develin called it a change in the rules of the game . can't remember, it was unprecedent ? (the case of the Fabii in the 470' is problematic because of its authenticity) .

He was the original drummer of the Beatles and was dismissed few moments before the band struck gold . He then served for 20 years as a civil servant in Liverpool's sewage department . Now, who said that God have no sence of humor ?

Good job ! About the Atratini and all of the "Plebeian" names of early consuls . First, we know that the surnames of the 5th and early 4th centuries were invented by Roman historians of the 1st century who looked at the surnames of the 3rd, 2nd and 1st centuries and used their imagination . Second, there are many theories about the "plebeian names" (not the surnames but the clan name, ie Sempronius, Cassius etc') of the early 5th century consuls - 1. There were Patricians pure and simple 2. There were Plebeians pure and simple, who won the praetura (the title consul came later) because until the XII tables there was no ban on them to become such 3. There were not Plebeian and not Patrician but a "clients" of the Patricians and the ancestors of the later Plebeian consuls 4. The list of early 5th century is nonesense (the imagination of Roman historians of the 1st century - again) The scholarship about option 3 is huge but this is not the place... Alas, we will never know the truth !

"Now, however, we know the truth at last, because archaeologists have identified as many as 15 predynastic kings listed on the Palermo Stone. They were real. They existed." So they have the stone for some 150 years and just now they managed to read what was writen on it ? (a question not a criticism) . 15 predynastic kings is realy amazing because until now (recent years) we have only these kings from dynasty 0 - Naqada III period - "Scorpion", Ka, "king A", "king B", "Crocodile", Iry-Hor and maybe Narmer (who is considered as 1st Dynasty King) . It is realy great news .

Me too . BTW There is the possibilty that the Christian belife about Lucifer as an angel who rebelled against God came from the Greek mythology about pathon (?) who had crashed to the ground (my English) after trying to ride his father (the Sun god) chariot etc' and from the story of Hephaestus who was thrown to Earth by Zeus . (Sorry if it was mentioned before) .

well, I have found this - "As Clovis worked his way south, Catholic Christianity apread throughout the tribes that had been Arian . Consequently, because of Clovis, Arianism began to die out in the western part of the empire." (A Popular History of the Catholic Church‏, Carl Koch, 1997) . But - "...Clovis sister Lenteildis, who had apparently recieved Arian baptism before converting to Catholicism. From these sources, Wood marshals evidence to suggest that Clovis had been an Arian Christian before his baptism as a Catholic". (Conversion Among the Germanic Peoples‏, Carole M. Cusack, 1998). From other books I came to the conclusion that Clovis converted to Catolicism with a possibility of an early Arianism . That is the hypothesis, some accepts and others rejects .

Good point . And if the statue was a replacement for an earlier one it realy allow us to have a glance on an early famous figure .

"Not surprisingly, most Romans in the first century BC regarded the Cimbri as Gauls...From the Augustan perios onwards, however, Roman writers always class them as Germani...No definite answer to the problem is possible...It thus seems best to accept the Roman identification (ie Germanic), while keeping in mind that it involves some unprovable and highly questionable assumptions." (Germania‏, Cornelius Tacitus, J. B. Rives, 1999) .

The style (ie the beard) gives me a 2nd century (AD) artist's rendition feel to me. Yes, seems Hadrianic . I wonder why M. Aemilius Lepidus cos. 187, 300 years later . Who knows ?

It seems that Diocletianus started the process and Constantinus continued . "...More successful were the steps tacen by Diocletian, and afterwards by Constantine, to make all economic activity subservient to the military...the device used was to tie every man to his occupation and make it hereditary from father to son." (An Economic History of Italy: From the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Beginning of the 16th, Gino Luzzatto, Philip Jones, 2006) . "Diocletian had already taken steps to ensure that most occupations and social positions became hereditary under pain of law...Constantine continued this..." (The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance‏, John Boswe‏ll, 1998).

Marius intentions were reforms ? Or maybe he just wanted to recruit new soldiers because of the redused Roman manpower after the battles of Arausio, Noreia etc' ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...s_Lepidus_I.jpg Huuumm ?

Essentially, for lack of any other evidence Marius simply wanted to be consul and wouldn't have entertained a special dispensation or his supporters would've proposed it. One might guess that at that point, Marius would've been appointed to any position he may have wanted. He was continually "elected" because the Cimbri/'Teuton threat had not yet been alleviated since they had moved on to Hispania after crushing the Romans at Aurasio, and the Roman people seemingly didn't trust any other general to deal with the threat than Marius. While this gave Marius time to prepare and recruit a new army, there was still great fear among the people that the enemy was still out there somewhere. Presumably had Marius marched north after being appointed to his second consulship in 104 and been victorious at that point, there would've been no need for further consecutive consulships. I'm not suggesting that there was any great conspiracy afoot, but their movement away from Italia made Marius' political position rather convenient. Perhaps his lack of true political acumen (including the art of compromise) along with his seemingly enormous ego is the reason he chose actual consulships rather than special pro-consulships as Scipio had done. Just saw history channel's episode 1 of "Rome - Rise and fall of an empire" . They had the idea that the people and the aristocracy wanted Marius generalship no matter what and that is because of the sheer terror with regard to the Cimbri and comp. Both realised that he, and just he, could have won the war against them . More than that, Marius won the consulship for 101 (and 100), that is after the defeat of the Cimbri, because the people get used to the idea of one strong man on the seat of power etc' . So - 104, 103 and 102 for his generalship, by the people and the aristocracy 101 and 100 as a reward, for sheer political power, by the people and with no support from the aristocracy

One thing is beyond doubt - After 12/190 Rome was the master of the western world . There wasn't any political entity that could challenge her supremacy . But we have a historical perspective that the Romans and their neighbors did not have in 01/189 . The question is what the Romans and Antiochus III thought after the Battle and what was the real situation . For example, Briscoe said the the battle was decisive (not in terms of numbers, Livius numbers are nonesense) and the Seleucid empire was on her knees and could not continue the war . Greinger said that Antiochus III was beaten but not decisively and was able to continue the war, he choose to minimize his loses and went for an agreement . Your opinion ?

"I'd suspect that it is most likely to be less than 1,000 years old," leading expert Peter Williams, Warden of Tyndale House, University of Cambridge told Reuters. I'd suspect too .

His 5 consecutive consulships is amazing and worth an explanation . Let say the Germanic threat was huge (IMHO not big than Hannibal's or the Celtic before) and Marius was the one and only (I doubt that although he was great) - why not give him a proconsulate like many other Roman generals before ? Scipio was 10 years the no. 1 commander with only one consulate (211-201) ! Or maybe the senate would not give this novos homo a proconsulate for 5 years and the comitia gave him the command by consulates ? so the people, by their comitia were smarter than the senate ? But the upper class in Rome (including the senators and familiy members) dominated the majority of centories in the comitia - So this expalation is a paradox....

While I don't disagree with the fact Scipio was one of the greatest generals of the republic era there is one point I think we need to be mindful of. Scipio faced Hannibal when the latter's power was on the decline. He was stuck in Italy waiting for reinforcements for a considerable period of time when the Romans took the battle to Carthage in Spain and Africa. Hannibal's tactics in truth did not change much as well. By the time Scipio faced Hannibal in Zama he knew perfectly well how to handle the war elephants. Keeping these points in mind I don't think he was as brilliant as many paint him to be. The greatest general in my opinion was Caesar. He was a great politician as well as a master tactician. The seige of Alesia was testament to his brilliance - he surpassed Alexander's brilliant seige of Tyre. To add to that Caesar's invasion of Gaul was the greatest undertaking of that era - he conquered Gaul in just over 8 years. To add to that he defeated a German army as well as expanding the frontier to soutern England. This is to name just a few. On the topic of conquests, Caesar's feats were not matched till the days of Trajan's successful conquest of Dacia. As a politician he paved the way for the waning republic (with its corrupt senators) to be dismantled and reorganised as the Roman Empire. I won't go too much into detail with his political achievements; most are well aware of his achievements here. As a sidenote, while some might disagree, Rome gained true success when the government was reorganised as an empire. But that's just my personal opinion. I agree . Scipio won Zama when Hannibal had no chance because of the objective circumstances . I agree . Caesar was the greatest . But, Scipio was great and the most successful general until Caesar . He conquered Hispania at an age of 23 to 29 against 3 Carthaginian generals, he bacame consul at an age of 30 and pressed an invasion for Africa against most of Rome's old politicians (Hannibal could have stay in Italy until 170...), he smashed Hannibal (a good point for him no matter what), he knew, in 194 (3 years before everyone) that Antiochus was dangerous and finally got the command against him with his brother . He was a legend in his own days .

It is a possibility and Most scholars thinks that there were elections, Fulvius skipped Aemilius and Manlius won . but at least two (there are more) thinks that Fulvius co-opted Manlius to the consulship (Scullard, Roman politics, 135 and U. Hall, Appian Plutarch and the Tribunician elections of 123 B.C.) . The question is how ? I can't ask Scullard....