Publius Nonius Severus

Segestan- You hinted at something very important in your argument. Timing was everything. One of the reasons why I think Augustus was so successfull and was able to accumulate so much power is 1) Through his conflicts with the liberatores, the second triumvirate, and eventually his conflict with Anthony he was able to amass his power slowly and 2) He had an entire lifetime to solidify the principate. Had Caesar lived there is a good chance that Augustus would still have succeeded him (assuming a continuing perpetual dictatorship/pincipate arrangement under Caesar), but, I don't think he would have been as endearing without so much time at the forefront.

GPM- It is interesting you brought up the possibility of Caesar fathering a legitimate son had he lived long enough. I too thought of this after I made my post. This would have dramatically change the political landscape (at least for Octavian). I always found it interesting that Caesar never declared to Octavian that he intended to adopt him and it was only discovered upon the reading of his will. I guess it could be argued that it was for his own protection, but I think it was more of an insurance policy. If Caesar had fathered a legitimate heir then he changes the will and no one would have been the wiser. But, if Caesar never does have a son then upon Caesar's death Octavian fills the void...quite clever. GO- I believe very strongly that Caesar's ultimate desire was to be Rex. What title is more fitting for the son of Venus and descendant of the Kings of Alba Longa. It was in Caesar's nature to overachieve...given time he would have pursued it. You are quite correct to state that it would have gotten him in trouble though. That is the only reason he shunned it thus far. However, if the people were willing, I think he would have eventually accepted the diadem. Clearly there is no concrete evidence of this...Ill just have to go with instinct for now. If you think Caesar would never had accepted Rex, do you think he would have accepted Augustus in a situation similar to how Octavian did? PP- You are correct, at the time of Caesar's death, I don't think Brutus was a front runner. We know Caesar had concerns over Brutus' allegiance, but, since they had been so close, I think had Caesar lived there was a chance Brutus could have become heir instead of Octavian. As I said above, if things had progressed nicely with Brutus it would have been easy for Caesar to change his will. I've just added something to my list of things I would love to know but never will: When was the will that named Octavian heir filed with the vestals?

Nice topic mi Maxime! Unfortunately, I cannot conjure a simple answer for your question. I think what happens to Octavian depends entirely on how the rest of Caesar's career goes. I know there are limitless possible scenarios, but here is what I am pegging as the four most likely where Caesar is not assasinated in order of likelihood and all assuming continuing peace while Caesar retains power as dictator: 1) Caesar dies (of natural causes) while in office. In this scenario I see no special advantage for Octavian. Perhaps Caesar's will changes, perhaps Brutus becomes Caesar's new darling. I can foresee Octavian achieving higher office, but not as high as Caesar. 2) Caesar eventually retires near the end of his life. Octavian fares better here I think (although it is still a shootout with Brutus and Anthony). Assuming Caesar sets the terms of his retirement and influences the "succession" process I think as long as Octavian is of proper magisterial age he might do quite well, possibly even attaining the same rank and honors as Caesar himself. 3) Caeasar eventually becomes Rex, the people are unhappy with this and he is eventually overthrown. If Caesar eventually accepts the diadem and the people don't like it and he is deposed, I think octavian would be lucky to survive. 4) Caeasar eventually becomes Rex, the people rejoice and the monarchy returns to Rome. Octavian looks good in this scenario, it is likely he would suceed Caesar (Brutus would be out of the picture but Anthony might still have a shot). When he have discussed this thread at length, I would also like to another spin-off: If Caesar is never assasinated, does he eventually become Rex?

True, it would have been better for me to suggest that he dismissed them in a show of good intentions to the populous, further endearing him to the people, and with the confidence he didn't need them for his agendas on his return from both Spain and the Easter, but with the knowledge that they would gather again if he needed them. In either case it seemed that he had enough momentum to carry out his agenda without an army and that momentum was achieved that upon both returns the people feared he would march an assume power regardless of whether or not he did.

In addition to Cato's reference, this may also proof helpful if you haven't seen it already: Tegula from William Smith at Lacus Curtius If I'm not mistaken, it sounds like the water may have exit from the lion's heads and down into the pool (the smaller exit point would have increased pressure I think and projected it rather than just dripping down, kinda neat)

One of my favorite websites is NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD). It is one of the first sites I visit each day to remind myself of my small stature in the universe. Today's picture is quite appropriate to this forum I think: APOD - Pantheon Earth and Moon

The roof that is slanted inward with the smaller opening (most likely above the atrium) is designed to funnel rain water into the impluvium. The large inward-slanting roof over the peristyle probably does the same but instead of the water falling into the impluvium it may direct the water to gutters/pipes that also supply water for somewhere in the house (especially if there is another pool in the peristyle).

This is a very good point caldrail. Not to digress, but it would have been very interesting to see the outcome if the conspirators had killed Anthony as well or Anthony had not made the "bloody toga" eulogy at Caeasar's funeral since that is what really turned the popular opinon against Brutus & Co.

For those who yet to see it, make sure you check out this thread on the topic as well: The first recorded alternative history, Livy vs. Alexander III the Macedonian

Whether or not he "deserved to die" I would prefer not to touch. However, Caesar did deserve to be tried for treason for the harm he did to the state.

And here we all thought that scene from "Jason and the Argonauts" was nothing more than bad special effects:

It means a cut or stamped in square. See this page for an example (scroll down to the Greek section or search for "incuse" in the page: Doug Smith's Describing Ancient Coins Page

By caldrail. Is there any sources/references that back this up? I just find it hard to picture a sword with such a wide blade being able to penetrate mail. There has been a lot of debate over this. There are a lot of factors involved: diameter of the rings, strength of the iron, point of impact, joules of force, number of thrusts, technique, riveted vs. butted mail, etc. I don't have the sources in front of me right now, but I've have seen discussions that suggest a single one-handed thrust of a gladius would NOT penetrate roman-era mail. Multiple, rapid strikes might or if the butted connection or rivet of one of the rings was damaged it might. Let me dig a little and see if I can find the sources. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION VIA EDIT Ok, I have put this together from sources I've seen discusses elsewhere. The first is from an expert in the UK on stabbing, body armor, etc. According to An assessment of human performance in stabbing by Dr. I Horsfall et al.tThe maximum energy obtained in underarm stabbing actions was 64 J whilst overarm stabbing actions could produce 115 J. You then combine that with research done by Alan Williams in his book The Knight and the Blast Furnace where he tested mail comparable to that used in the roman-era and it took a minimum of 140 J to penetrate on a single thrust.

How about something like "Dominus cervezae" (I was attempting 'the Lord of the Beer', but I can't quite find the Latin word necessary!) Cerevisiae Hmmm, I'm not sure "Master" is appropriate though...servus maybe?

This is a little out of my specality but I will git it a shot. I guess this is another one of those aspects of history that will never see the whole picture exactly as it was since there is so little evidence left from the less "mainstream" christian branches from those times. The winner gets recorded for all history, the loser is forgotten. Anyway, I always assumed the First Council of Nicaea was the major determining factor. Here is where the Catholic Church really got their act together. Consolidated their doctrine, tried to resolve differences of belief and practice, divide and conquer. Once this was done, I don't think any of the "heretical" branches of christianity had a shot as long as the mainstream church worked together and urged their followers to avoid the heretical churches Obviously there were still bumps in the road that eventually led to the schisms between Rome and the East but once they established a track record (via Apolstolic Succession and orthodoxy of doctrine) I don't think any other branches had a chance. I am sure this is overly simplistic but seems to make sense to me.

Nice topic! If my kids can ever convince me to get another dog I now have some good candidates for names! Thanks!

There are some excellent suggestions in this thread! Divi, I agree with you on Mommsen. His work was monumental and almost every serious historian that has followed him has cited his work or at least used it as a reference I'm sure. I would also like to add T. Robert S. Broughton. His massively important work, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, which took him over 30 years to complete is an invaluable (yet expensive!) resource. This opus essentially contains the name and brief overview of everyone recorded in the ancient sources who was an elected magistrate during the Republic When reading other modern history books you will often see MRR in the footnotes (You can see this all throughout the Penguin Classics series of the ancient authors as well). if you need to find out who someone was and how the fit in, this is the work for you. It is in two masssive volumes (I onlt have one at present) and they are expensive, but they are indispensable.

Hmmm, let's look at the a little more of the passage in Latin and English and see what we can come up with. I have highlighted the key words in both as addressed in your post above: nisi dictum quod diceret te dixisse, laudandum adolescentem, ornandum, tollendum; se non esse commissurum, ut tolli posset. except as to a remark which he attributed to you: "the young man must be praised, honored, and immortalized." He said that he had no intention of letting himself got rid of. In the Latin differnt forms of the verb tollere (tollendum and tolli ) have been used for both which can mean: lift, raise; destroy; remove, steal; take/lift up/away. You don't usually see tollere used with the more negative definitions (raise; destroy; remove, steal) yet they are valid so it does make interesting wordplay. Perhaps you could use "Lifted up" which can be interpeted as "Lifted up in praise" or "lifted up and disposed of". So maybe like this: except as to a remark which he attributed to you: "the young man must be praised, honored, and lifted up." He said that he had no intention of letting himself get "lifted up". I'll knock this around a little more and see what I can come up with.

I'll just add to the excellent explanations given by Nephele and the doc. Plutarch makes mention of the instroduction of G into the Latin alphabet: Plutarch, Roman Questions, No. 54 "For C and G have a close relationship in Latin, and it was only after many years that they made use of G, which Spurius Carvilius introduced." According to William Smith, Carvilius did this in the "beginning of the sixth century of the city". Smith also says: Dict. Bio & Myth, p. 196: "Caius was undoubtedly the original spelling, used at a time when the letter C, which occupies in the Roman alphabet the place of Gamma in the Greek, had, in some cases, the power of Gamma. Caius was always pronounced Gaius..."

Isn't it kind of interesting that during the struggle of the orders the patricians were trying to maintain the status quo and the plebeians were trying to break new ground. But, in the optimates vs. populares there were quite a few patricians who were turning to "ground breaking" measures as populares to gain power: Caesar, Cataline, Clodius. Ok, so Clodius was plebeian but he did renounce his patrician status so he could be tribune. Obviously there were a lot of plebeian populares also but nevertheless interesting.

Yes, Pompey dismissied his armies, but that's because he got his way before he had to use them. Also, didn't Pompey bring his soldiers into the city during Caesar's consulship? You do make some very good points and both your and Cato's replies are leading me to refine my ideas, namely, perhaps loyalty to one's general does go deeper than your purse.

Very clear-cut and interesting indeed! I hadn't really thought of actually applying Cicero's definition but actually does work well. But, where do we put two of the most significant figures of that time period who are absent from your lists: Pompey and Crassus? I think Pompey can easily be included in the list of non-optimates using the violence litmus test--if even for the only the threat of violence in support of political aims. Crassus is a little more dificult however. If he was actually involved in the Catiline business then clearly he is a non-optimate. He did stand on th rostra with Caesar and Pompey while Pompey said he would use force to support Caesar's legislation so that too could define him as a non-optimate. Any other thoughts along this line?

Hmmm...I had heard this of Brunt's view but didn't know the exact reference. It look's like he re-wrote the article in his The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays which is on Questia so I am reading it there. So, assuming the army wasn't wholly or primarily head count thus implying they had land or lives to return to after campaigning, why would they still support their generals' revolutionary endeavors? Were they enticed by the same thing...more land, loot, plundering? Were there other reasons why soldier's were loyal exclusively to their generals and not to Rome herself?

As we know, one of the most significant aspects of the Marian reforms of the army was the recruitment of troops from among the head count as opposed to the previous requirement to recruit from only among the propertied classes. This is one of those event-trends that would have a major impact on the remainder of the course of the Republic. Now that armies were composed of soldiers totally reliant and loyal to their generals and not to the Roman state, these generals could use "their" armies for revolutionary political purposes. It was these armies that marched with Sulla across the pomerium into Rome for the first time outside of a triumph, that caused alarm amongst the Senate and people that enabled Pompey to have so many extraordinary commands, that threatened to crush any opposition to the legislative agenda of the first triumvirate, that marched with Caesar across the Rubicon. There are numerous examples that show that armies exclusively loyal to their general and not the state played a large role in bringing down the Republic. What I would like to know is was the severity of the political implications of head count armies understood early on and if so when? Did Marius intend for this to be an eduring trend or merely an extraordinary measure? Were any efforts made to move away from head count armies after some of these implications came to light?

I do apologize for not being more attentive in this thread, work and home have been quite busy lately. I have been reading snippets of Party Politics in the Age of Caesar by Lily Ross Taylor which looks to be an excellent book I have on order, but have not received, so I have been previewing it in Google Books. Even though I have only read small parts, it has already given me great insight when combining it with a lot of the things discussed in this thread. So, combining ideas from Taylor and this thread, here is my new quick breakdown which I think supports the idea that the optimates and populares were not parties per se, but really were more labels describing the general political characteristics of the prominent political players of the age. 1. Until the first triumvirate, the optimates were more or less the old Sullans who were trying to mantain the power of the Senate that Sulla gave it. They didn't work as a party, but they did stick up for each other to maintain their collective power. They did not campaign as a party, but they did band together to obstruct the populares throughout the 60's in order to maintain as much of their power as possible 2. The populares were not really a party or even a coaltion, they were merely a group of men who used the tribal assemblies and other "popular" means to gain power for themselves and erode the power of the Senate. Taylor has no hesitation calling Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, and Catiline popular leaders (Taylor p. 120). They weren't necessarily working together, but individually they were definitely working against the Senate and the Senate was working against them. 4. When the triumvirate was formed, specifically during Caesar's consulship, the above blurry lines got even blurrier. The reason is that triumvirs or their supporters were finally able to take power away from the Senate yet work through the Senate at the same time. Taylor starts using the termn "Dynasts" to describe those who were before considered populares. These individuals were basically Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey and their minions. 5. After Caesar goes to Gaul, Here is the definition of the optimates given to us by Cicero in Pro Sestio, Chap. 45: "Omnes optimates sunt qui neque nocentes sunt nec natura improbi nec furiosi nec malis domesticis impediti." This is my rough translation: "The optimates are all those who are neither criminal nor of morally unsound character nor wild nor living adulterously." Basically, Cicero is saying that is that anyone who works through the constiution and opposed violent change is an optimate, if you work through violent change you are a popularis (Taylor p. 140). This definition seems to be more of an attempt by Cicero to make himself look cleaner than a clear division though. Really at this point, the optimates are the ones who begin playing Crassus and Pompey off each other while Caesar is away. They work with Pompey to get Cicero recalled but work with Crassus to curtail Pompey's ambition for more extraordinary commands (Talyor p. 141). This group is basically Cato and his closest family and friends: Cato, Bilbulus, Domitiius, Favonius, and for a time Philippus. 6. Lastly, after the triumvirate breaks up and it's Caesar vs. Pompey, the lines get even blurrier and it is almost pointless to try to label them IMO.