Caesar CXXXVII

NN, if you are dealing with 312 CE, and not 40, 50 or 90 than It is acceptable that there were 60,000,000 people in the Roman empire of 312 CE, Gibon, Friedlander and Bury estimated the nunber of Christians as 5,000,000, Richter - 6,000,000, Zockler - 7,000,000, La Bastie and Chastel - 8,000,000, Scbultze - 10,000,000 and so on . Today the acceptable ratio is 5 to 10% with tendency to the lower figure . A minority but not tiny . One can call it a success and the other - a failure but the bottom line is that there was no spiritual triumph of Christianity as many thought .

P.P. Are you aware to the notion (running in the net) about Tacitus being somone else ? There is even a book "THE TRUE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" by Abelard Reuchlin who says "...First, the Pisos used their friend Cornelius Palma, the jurist. Writing under the name Cornelius Tacitus between 115 and 120..." There is another version that he was Neratius Priscus and so on . I know that Syme dealt with the subject but did not came to such an extreme conclusions . Personally I alwayes tend to dismiss such bizar hypothesis but it is intriguing . Indeed it is very intriguing, I've come across this before. If you read further on in the book it goes onto say that infact ,Tacitus also used the names "Cornutus Tetullus" and "Cornelius Priscus" as well. But probably the most interesting part is the connection he makes between Tacitus and Neratius Priscus, he goes onto say............ When one reads, for instance, "The Life of Hadrian," by Aelius Spartianus, one learns that (at least supposedly); "There was, to be sure, a widely prevailing belief that Trajan, with the approval of many of his friends, had planned to appoint as his successor not Hadrian but Neratius Priscus, even to the extent of once saying to Priscus: "I entrust the provinces to your care in case anything happens to me." One would wonder just how it is that Trajan had thought to make Neratius Priscus (Tacitus) his successor. Well, having looked into this further by comparing the alias names of the emperor Nerva and those of Neratius Priscus, as well as doing more studies into the various alias names used by other persons of the time the reality of the matter has now come to light. "Neratius Priscus" is now seen as "Ner(va) Atius Priscus", and this along with other facts reveal that Neratius Priscus or the person that history knows as Tacitus was actually son of emperor Nerva. You may see this in the genealogical charts that give the true relation-ship between ALL of the Roman emperors Galba up to Constantine I. I've also read that In 100, he, along with his friend Pliny the Younger prosecuted Marius Priscus (proconsul of Africa) for corruption. Priscus was found guilty and sent into exile; Pliny wrote a few days later that Tacitus had spoken "with all the majesty which characterizes his usual style of oratory" (wiki) There's almost some definite connection between Tacitus and Priscus but just what it is we'll probably never know. So, GPM, Tacitus is an enigmatic figure. A son of an emperor - This is too much for me . The possibilities are endless . It seems that we don't know exactly what happened there in the years 95-100 and 115-117 . There is a strong feeling that "Tacitus" and others were hiding something very important .

Woops...lucky me

Many scholars try to harmonize different accounts in order to create a narrative . I agree that there is no evidence to connect Seianus and pilatus but it is logical to assume that a powerfull man like Seianus was involved in appointments, such as the appointment of Pilatus and others . I did not read Philo, what he has to say about Seianus anti-Jewish sentiments ? Whatever he says, I had found scholars who built a whole theories on much less (my bad English) . For example - J.D Grainger wrote in his book "The Roman War of Antiochos the Great" that the seleucid king and Flamininus had very good relationship . Now, there is no evidence for that pure and simple but Graniger conjectured that Antiochus' delegates to Rome must have met Flamininus several times in Greece and must have formed a very good relationship with him on behalf of their king . The article had new ideas and they are based on fragile evidence but it is interesting, well writen and cautious . Edit : BTW P.P., who is the author ?

P.P. Are you aware to the notion (running in the net) about Tacitus being somone else ? There is even a book "THE TRUE AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" by Abelard Reuchlin who says "...First, the Pisos used their friend Cornelius Palma, the jurist. Writing under the name Cornelius Tacitus between 115 and 120..." There is another version that he was Neratius Priscus and so on . I know that Syme dealt with the subject but did not came to such an extreme conclusions . Personally I alwayes tend to dismiss such bizar hypothesis but it is intriguing .

The recent one is absolutely terrible. Caesar appointing Crassus and Pompeius Co-consuls in the end to settle their dispute.... Brrrr. In 70 ? damn ! Holywood at its best ! Did Spartacus co-operateted with Hannibal to smash Anthony ? Why they are doing this ?

Be in ? Not for me... Watch ? The list is endless . First I would like to see how Caligula smashed Poseidon , Oh... The strategy, the tacticts, how he outflanked the seashells and than killed them like they were seashells

My pleasure, Augusta

Did contemporary historians or writers (let say since 100 CE until 150) mentioned him in their works ? By his full name, part of his name or by a clue ? Thanks

Genealogical charts are very useful . Let say you are reading a biography - "The life of Piso, Galba's son" . One can say "in Mars 69 CE Galba adopted Piso" and than continue the nerrative for another 100 pages or so . that would make me frustrated (my bad English) because the first thing I would like to know is who this Piso was, a descendand of the aristocratic republican Pisones ? a relative of Piso from the Pisonian cosnpiracy of 65-66 ? who was his father ? His mother ? did he had family connections with Galba ? etc' . IMO a geneology chart could answer these question quickly and precisely .

Could you name the year, the two emperors and the event ? It seems that an emperor would call an emperor "brother" but we need to know the details .

I thought so too . None the less - Caesar bad attitude towards Antonius repeat itself in documentaries . Can't understand it .

The documentary dealt with the years 52 (before Alezia) to 48 (after Pharsalus) . So two points - 1. It was before Caesar absence so why his attitude ? 2. Let say that we are dealing with the years after 48 - Do we have sources for Caesar attitude ?

We know that Antonius was Caesar's most trusted ally/friened/officer etc', he became consul and magister equitum under him so Caesar must have "liked" him . We have a detailed narrative for their political relationship . I saw BBC' Caecar the other day and was surprised again to see Caesar's attitude towards Antonius, "he" talked to him with bitterness, ignored his advices and actually behave like someone who hated him . It was the same as in HBO's Rome and the same as in other shows about the couple since shakespeare . Why ? I can't remember Plutarchus', Cicero's, Sallustius' and the others words about their personal relationship (my bad memory) . What do you think ?

"He (T. Gracchus the father) reminded his hearers how severely Scipio rebuked the people for wishing to make him perpetual consul and dictator" This is nonesense (?), there is no way that in the political atmosphere of 200 BCE' Rome, the people would suggest to a general a perpetual consulship and dictatorship . It was unthinkable . I can imagine an Augustan politician/soldier standing behined Livius when he wrote the line in order to make Caesar's moves in 49-44 less unprecedent .

Suetonius (The Lives of the Caesars, the Life of Claudius, 32) - "Dicitur etiam meditatus edictum, quo veniam daret flatum crepitumque ventris in convivio emittendi, cum periclitatum qvendam prae pudore ex continentia repperisset." "He is even said to have thought of an edict allowing the privilege of breaking wind quietly or noisily at table, having learned of a man who ran some risk by restraining himself through modesty." But it never was illegal to **** at a dinner party...so why the edict ? Was Suetonius in a good spirit when he wrote this ? Was he joking ?

We can call it "the shoes incident" . In my language the word "accident" have double meaning . Michael III knew what he was doing, but he did not eveluate (that is the word ?) the outcome of his action . Basil I saw the shoes on Basiliscianus' feet and acted .

Basil I was co emperor (with Michael III but only as no. 2) before the shoes accident, he saw the new situation and organized the assassination of Michael III (23-34 September, 867) .

When Michael III celebrated his chariot race victory at a banquet at the palace of St Mamas, the patricius Basiliscianus was invited by him to put on the imperial shoes (the very essence of imperial status). Basiliscianus hesitated (because he knew that Basil I was the designated emperor) and Michael said to Basil: "They suit him better than they do you. I made you emperor, don't I have the authority to make another?" Eudocia (Basil I's wife) replied: "The imperial dignity, O my lord, is a great thing and I too was unworthy to have been honoured with it. But it is not right that it should be treated with contempt" And Michael III concluded: "Do not distress yourself , it is my firm intention to make Basiliscianus emperor

Yes . There is no doubt that Traianus was behind the whole scene, the question is since when ? Nerva was more politician than Galba, but Galba was no naive, he surely knew how things works or maybe he didn't ? Maybe his stodginess was his problem ? Maybe the role of Icelus, Titus Vinius and Cornelius Laco had a part in his downfall ?

I wonder why Galba's rule ended with a disaster and Nerva's rule with a dynasty (not in biological sense) that lasted for some 100 years and was the paek of Roman success . Galba was 72 when he became emperor, Nerva was 66 . Galba became emperor after the last descendant of the former dynasy and Nerva likewise . Galba ruled after 14 years of Nero's rule . Nerva ruled after 15 years of Domotian' rule . Both were elevated to the "throne" when the former emperor was murdered (Nero commit suicide not because he wanted to) . Nero and Domitian are considered as "bad" emperors from the aristocracy point of view, they both killed many senators etc' . Galba and Nerva both had the support of the senate (they both came from the nobility, the first was a Roman and a Patrician and the second from well known Italian nobility) . Galba and Nerva were childless . There is more . Now, Galba had Legions and the support of the west and Nerva did not had any support in the empire (Traianus and the army came later) . So , could we say that the one and only cause for the failure of Galba was his mistake about not paying the praetorians ? Of course not . Whad do you think ?

Exactly .

I have founf some refferences in the Jewish Talmud and other Jewish ancient books about the Earth being round . It is hard for me to translate ancient Hebrew and/Aramic to English so here are the original words - (אמר רבי יוסי...כבר תנינא ממאריהון דמתיבתא דעלמא סגלגל הוא ככדורא דא..." (זוהר-חדש בראשית טו" "מזרק אחד כסף כנגד העולם שהוא עשוי ככדור הנזרק מיד ליד..." (מדרש רבה במדבר, נשא יג" כדור

There are other opinions, Clarke (in his book "The Noblest Roman: Marcus Brutus and His Reputation") think that the adoption was legit and occurred a short time before the death of the adopted relative. I don't think that he ever return to be named "Marcus Iunius Brutus". for example, this coin which was struck in the east a few months before the Battle of Philippi give Brutus full name as "Quintus Caepio Brutus". Amazing ! So why we all call him M. Iunius Brutus ? It is the same as calling Scipio Aemilianus - Aemilius Paullus . I am buffeled (that is the word ?)

Oh, the possibilities... Caesarion (Titus Pullo' son...) escape to Judaea, fall in love with Marriammne and the couple...oh...nevermind