Mosquito

In other words you say that an extraordinary person, an outstanding person, someone who is better than others - in case of Caesar - in politics, on the battlefield, as the lawyer in the court, as the orator, as the writter - cant be normal and need cure? I wont discuss Caligula's case here because it is different topic and there are also some different more controversial modern theories about his personality, claiming that it wasnt madness but clever strategy to lower the rank of senate and the dignity of senators.

Forgive me my poor english. I know its far from being perfect as it was stressed before by one of members but Im right now starting new topic - the first since I joined this forum. I hope that inspite my poor english, most of you will be able to understand what I mean and what Im asking for. Like many of you I have read many biographies of Gaius Iulius Caesar, I have seen many movies in which actors were playing his role and have read many books including Shakaspare's drama and many novels. All of this didnt help me even a little bit. The more i read, the bigger mystery he is. I still cant feel (maybe it is some kind of lack in my intelect and imagination) or imagine - what kind of man Caesar really was. I have read first books wich were concerning his character about 20 years ago (now Im 31). I have read his own works about gallic war and civil war. It didnt help even a little bit. You all cant even imagine how much Im happy, that I found this forum and can give you this question. Most of you - like me - have read many books concerning his personality. But after all I have read and have seen, I still cant see the real man behind the picture he and his legal descendants have created. I see the God! I see the image created by his own or Augustu's propaganda. Divus Iulius! Divine and perfect man. We all know that he was very lucky. We all know that he was a genius. Even his enemies addmitted it. Incrediblly inteelingent, great orator, outstanding lawyer and politician. General with whom only few in the history could have compared themselves. Many people even of the highest class didnt feel well in his company because felt inferior, less intelligent or were afraid of his sarcasm and malice. As a youngster he has defeated the pirates. Even Cicero so called greatest orator and lawyer of ancient Rome admired his skills showned in the courts and senate. Even Cato didnt deny his greatness but made idee fixe of his life to defeat this man - and failed. In my opinion - we cant call him just an ambitious man, the tyrant without vision. For sure he wanted to improve Roman Republic. Noone can say that Caesar was just a power hungry maniac. But all of this dont give us the picture of Caesar as person. Dignitas and auctoritas - certainly it was somthing he was looking for. Power? - surelly. But was it power wich he wanted to get only to feed his ambition? I afraid that most of people who write biographies or make movies about him are seduced by his personality even 20 centuries after his death and fail to catch him as a man. In most of cases we dont see real Caesar but we see the personality wich Caesar created and presented as his. When Im reading the biographies of Alexander or Napoleon it is much easier for me to see their personality, even inspite of the fact that Alexander lived earlier, I find HBO TV series Rome as a very original and interesting attempt to portray Caesar but i feel that it has failed as well. So Im asking all of you ancient history lovers, please tell me. How do you see Caesar's personality? When you read novels or dramas about him, can you indentify yourself with his character? I know that most of you admire him when you are reading his biographies. But are you admiring the real person or the semi- God character - looking like Jesus Christ, perfect man?

That shouldn't be a rhetorical question. There's a straightforward answer: Cicero's freedom to return to Rome was due to the intervention of many prominent statesmen, not just to Caesar. Thus, Cicero was just as much in the debt of Caesar's competitors as he was in the debt of Caesar. He was allowed to come back because Caesar and Pompey agreed for it. Quintus was coming to Pompey really often and asking for brother's return. Later when Cicero started to be less obedient, Caesar was complaining to Pompey and angry Pompey called Quintus and made him quarell. Quintus sent letter describing it to Cicero and after it Cicero was again supporting GIC, GPM and MLC in the senate.

Why should Cicero be against Caesar while he had to pay back his debt for letting him come back to Rome. Not only he was forced to support Caesar but he even was one of those who were often coming to Caesar and asking for favours. For example Cicero came to Caesar asking him for making his brother Quintus Cicero one of Caesars legates.

Exactly! While Roman law is exlusivlly Roman invention.

Sri Lanka or Indonesia? Security in land ownership allowed landowners to obtain loans against their land as collateral. The poverty stricken countries of today do not have this security. Without making long investigations i typed in wikipedia "Roman Dutch Law" and it looks I was right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dutch_law

A very shortsighted viev. Before Romans came civil law was primitive and limited. Greek inventions were important only for public law but when it come to private law it were pragmatic Romans who invented it. If you today can do whatever you want with somthing you have bought - it is because of Romans, not Greeks. When you are using someone's else room, flat or house and paying rent for it, you can do it because Romans invented this contract as well as all the obligations wich come from it for both owner and leeseer. When someone is violating your rights you can hire a lawyer - only because Romans invented this profession. Before Romans all you could have done was taking a stick and break someone's head. You could have also go to your ruler or priest and let him be judge and give the verdict - whatever verdict - even injust and not reasonable - but coming from God or gods. All the civil law, the contracts, companies, legal construction of such notions like "property", "real estates", legal rules which are used untill today like for example "Lex retro non agit" - the law cannot work backward, Nemo in alium plus iuris transfere potest quam ipse habet - noone can transfer on other more rights than he has"; dura lex, sed lex - hard law but still law, summum ius summa iniuria - too strickt obiding of law leads to Lawlessness, ius est ars boni et aequi - only this is law what is good and just - which rules recive completelly new meaning after experiences of 20th century - eg Nurenburg bills which deprived of property all German citisens of jewish nationality. The whole way of lawyer's thinking, arguing and reasoning which is used today comes from ancient Rome, we learned it from Roman lawyers, the systematics and dialectics of Roman law is still in use. Roman law survived the death of the state which created it. As it was still in use in eastern empire it was as well adopted by new barbarian states which arised on the ashes of Rome. Affcourse it was usually terribly mixed with some primitve germanic customs but it was still Roman Law. Those barbarian codes of Roman law were famouse "Leges Romanae Barbarorum" from V and VI century AD: 1. Lex Romana Visigothorum known also as "Breviarium Alarici" 2. Lex Romana Burgundiorum 3.Edictum Theodorici In the end of 11th century in Italy comes the reneissance of Roman law thanks to Irnerius and university of Bolonia. Italian cities - republics which use Roman law become the richest cities in Europe. From Italy Roman Law goes to all European countries, even such like Poland, which never been a part of Roman Empire. After creation of Holy Roman Empire - Roman law became the highest law over all local germanic laws and was one of the factors which was uniting HRE. In the begining of 19th century first European code of law is created, French Code Civil, written by Napoleon and based on Roman law. After reunification of Germany, German code - BGB is enacted. The critics in Germany were asking - "is it a law for Germans or for Romans?". Next comes Swiss ZBGB and sooner or later Roman civil law becomes a standart for the all civilised world. Even in such countries like Sri Lanka where untill today is used "Roman-Dutch law". Roman law was also the law of Church after fall of Roman empire and thats where from comes the old proverb : Ecclesia vivit lege romana" - Church lives by roman law.

I like generals who are not as famous as those mentioned in the poll but who were highly efficient on the battlefield and also were very interesting characters. I mean men like Lucullus, Sertorius or emperor Tiberius.

My favourite biography of Caesar is "Caesar" written by Gerard Walter. http://www.questia.com/library/book/caesar...therese-pol.jsp

Oh yes, they did excellent job with Antonius. But i dont like the fact that they didnt show the speech of Antonius on funneral of Caesar. The speech wich made the crowd mad.

Im not sure about it. First thing is that they didnt portrayed Caesar in the way he could have win sympathy of viewer's. Second thing is that they invented story about incest between Ocatvius and Octavia not to mention the murder. He is not presented as the good boy but appears to be a little monster. I think they are going to show proscriptions and Octavians role in proscripting people. Except for Pullo and Vorenus there is hard to find the people one may like. Cicero is weak, Anthony is wild, Cato was stupid what was already stressed by Cicero. From the historical characters only Brutus looks like a good man.

Thank you Nephele

Salve, Mosquito! Male or female? I see you've taken my suggestion for "Posnania, Polonia"! Looking good! -- Nephele Oh yes, I did. Im definatelly male

So what is my hidden Roman name? aflRa zJuans aSnzpeskizc

Roman civil law. Its still in use in every country of continental Europe and in many countries all over the world.

Aye, Cato is right. There were really few patricians who could compare themselves with such aristocrate like Lucullus. I suggest reading "Social history of Rome" by Geza Alfoldy http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Rome-...y/dp/0389205834

I dont understand what are you talking about. In the late republic aristocracy was made by the best patrician and plebeian famillies. This new aristocracy was called "NOBILITAS". A dirt farmer or city ruffian would never become a consul. Those plebeians were extremly rich and their famillies were as old and as noble as patrician famillies. Usually those best patrician and plebeian famillies were related because of marriages. It were plebeians who had fathers, grandfathers and grand grand fathers consuls and senators.

Caesar was a consul in pair with Bibulus who was member of gens Calpurnii - arisotcratic plebeian familly. So one of the consuls - Caesar was from patrician gens iulii and second from plebeian gens calpurnii

I am lost. Why? Since the year 367 BC, after bills of Gaius Licinius Stolo and Lucius Sextius Lateranus, plebeians were allowed to be elected for consuls and one of the consuls had to be plebeian. Finally in the year 342 BC, the assembly passed law which allowed to elect both consuls plebeians.

One consul always was a plebeian. As well as many of the praetors. Patricians were not entering into plebeian assemblies but watching it from distance. If i remember well patricians were usually staying at curia hostillia. I didnt say that it was lex hortensia that was forbidding patricians to take part in concilium plebis. It could have been mos maiorum as well. Patricians were allowed to take part and vote in Comitia Tributa, simply because everyone of them belonged to one tribus or other. Affcourse in the last 2 centuries of the republic social division on patricians and plebeians was already outdated and had more religious importance than really political because there was already new kind of aristocracy called nobilitas to wich belonged both best patrician and plebeian famillies.

There are instances where the tribes were assembled by tribunes of the plebs, aediles of the plebs, even by consuls, praetors, and curule aediles. For example, the lex Gabinia Calpurnia de Delo (58) was presided over by a consul; the lex provinciis praetoris (100) was presided over by a praetor (Marcus Porcius). Is this your complaint? Or is your point that the concilium plebis was a third, distinct legislative body rather than a subset of the comitia tributa? This is a controversial matter, according to Lintott. You got it Cato! Concilium Plebis is the answer. Tribunes of Plebs were elected by the Plebs gathered as Concilium Plebis. Tribunes of Plebs were presiding Concilium Plebis. All the other types of assemblies were called and presided by the magistratus who called it to enact his law. It didnt have to be a consul, could have been praetor as well. It could have also been Comitia Tributa not only Comitia Centuriata. As tribunes of plebs were not magistrates they didnt call Comitia Centuriata. Most of the laws wich were proposed by tribunes of plebs were enacted by Concilium Plebis - an assembly where only Plebeians were allowed to be and to vote but which since Lex Hortensia 287 BC were binding for all the Romans, not only for plebs. I see nothing controversial here. You cannot consider as one and the same assembly 2 different types of assemblies which had different electorate and had different tasks and different history. In fact it was one of the biggest problems of Roman Republican System that all those different types of assemblies were working all together and often at the same time, without any coordination. Competences of those assemblies were rather based on the tradition and customs than on the written law resulting in a good opportunity for disorder and conflicts. And thats why the diagram is wrong. Trying to make things more simple, in result it give false viev and false informations about Roman Goverment.

Hello everybody. Im 31 years old lawyer from Poznan in Poland. In love with Roman history since watched British TV series "I Claudius" when was about 10 years old and since that time reading everything about Rome i can catch.

Well, as we all love ancient roman history there is probably somthing wrong with each of us. If we jump to the throats of others only for the reason that we dont agree with them about somthing what happend over 2000 years ago, it means that we really need medical help

The power to choose senators in the beginning of the republic was given to the consuls (or military tribunes with consular power if they were elected instead of consuls). Since lex Ovinia from 312 BC, senators were being chosen by censors. Every five years censors were preparing the list of senators to which new senators were added (lectio senatus). Usually the new senators were ex-highest officials of the republic, if they fulfilled the following requirements: 1. being born as free (ingenuitas) 2. age (aetas senatoria), first it was minimum 45 years, after reforms of Sulla 28 years, 3. wealth, (at least 400.000 sesterties), 4. flawless life. When censors were preparing the list of senators (album senatorum), they couldn

Actually they didnt write that tribunes are magistrates. Anyway, considering the body which was electing them, their duties and their power, tribunes of plebs were not magistrates but representatives and leaders of the Roman plebs while magistrates were officials of Roman Civitas, representing the whole state and acting in the name of SPQR. It was a legal oligarchy because the richest part of society had power to vote efectivelly. Usually the poor didnt even had the chance to vote in the centurial elections. And in the tribal elections most of poor people were in 2 tribes.