Primus Pilus

While it may be your experience, I find the comments to be ludicrous.

Yes that's the brutal part. The correction is built in to our current calendar but some of the old dates have not been adjusted. I believe the difference between the Julian (45 BC) and the Gregorian calendar (16th century) over the course of 16 centuries was only a matter of 10 days. The difference between the Julian and the previous calendar however was pretty significant since the lunar based pre-Julian was set at 355 days. Obviously over the course of many centuries this 10 day difference per year added up and totally blasted the season vs. date alignments. Its why you may see modern writers describe ancient events as happening in the seasonal summer of XYZ year rather than saying April of that year. As for the original question, Jesus year of birth is confusing at best. This site gives a pretty good explanation of the Jesus date birth thing about half way down even if some other premises are fairly presumptuous... Calendar facts

Only in the case where the action was considered punitive or motivated by conquest without predisposed conditions requiring some form of action. The call for help by Gallic Celts against Suebi incursions could be interpreted by Caesar's proponents as being a justification for invasion. While obviously Cato disagreed with this notion, there were many who deemed the crossing to be perfectly legal and justified. Yes many of Caesar's proponents had motivation beyond the strict interpretation of the law, but so did Cato have personal enmity with Caesar. The question of legality was still open among contemporaries as well as it is in our little debate. Yes strangely enough there is little suggestion or accusation of the Britannia invasion being an illegal event. Perhaps it was the 'request for aid' from allied tribes that comes into play again, or perhaps its simply because the historical record regarding this event is lost.

Hmm, Gaius Marius seems to have had some Neanderthalic traits Marius Bust

I agree that the crossing the Rhine could be interpreted by Caesar's enemies as illegal, but maintain that his proponents did not see it that way. Again I suggest semantics, but Caesar's actual war in Gaul and against Celts was not severely questioned by Cato (other than the danger in making Caesar a tyrant through accumulation of power), but he rather focused his charges of illegality on the spread of the war against Germanics. So, even if we accept the charges of Cato as confirmation of illegal behavior by Caesar, his war against the Gauls was not necessarily in question.

While a student should always listen and respect the teacher as a matter of course, there are many out there who don't have a clue what they are talking about. Just like in any professional field, there are good and there are bad. I tell my own children to listen and learn but to always question and seek out more information than a single teacher can provide. Online learning and study is quickly becoming an educational standard (especially among adults who 'attend school' while working) and in my opinion it should be embraced, encouraged and expanded.

Isn't that actually a more famous quote... 'Who will guard the guardians?'. The context may be wrong, but I'm sure that was the intended verse.

Technically since our calendar, the Gregorian, is an evolution of Caesar's Julian, which is an evolution of the earlier Republican system, its really all the same thing. Though there was some 'correction' that took place in conversion from lunar to solar and with the addition of intermittent leap years. Still using our current calendar, wouldn't 2005 simply be 753 BC + 2005 AD or 2758 a.u.c.? (of course assuming 753 BC as the traditional founding)

Not to sound patronizing but you, along with several other members were 'nominated' as well. That was my only concern with doing this... we sure don't want people to feel slighted, just wanted to spread some holiday cheer. You guys who post and contribute a great deal to the site (you all know who you are) regardless of political associations or agendas or where you are in the world, will be recognized at some point. Nobody should be motivated by the chance of winning a small 'prize', but we just want to show appreciation and actually add to the knowledge of our community in so doing, and other folks shouldn't feel slighted.

I'm sure we can come up with something... so umm what questions are actually the most frequently asked... Oh I know, who would win Caesar or Ulysses S. Grant? Seriously I guess the standards, what does unrv represent, etc. could be there. Feel free to give suggestions.

I have been rather inconsistent in it myself. I generally like the ring of the BC and AD as its simply the way I 'learned' to study dates, but I've used CE and BCE as a departure in other cases. Either way I'm not torn about. Despite being a non-Christian using Christian annotation does not affect my belief system or offend me in the slightest.

Maybe we can revive this discussion under the Gallic Wars thread. I'd be interested in whether you thought Caesar's actions in Gaul were legal or illegal. Continuing this here as suggested... The legality of the war is difficult to determine simply because it was conducted in several stages. Was Caesar's intervention against the Helvetii (the obvious first step) legal? According to Roman tradition of coming to the aid of allies in need it most certainly was. Following up this action was the defense of various tribes against Suebi incursions... still legal by any standard of the time. Where we enter that grey area is Caesar's continuing campaign after this fact and the opposition to his growing power. Had he removed his forces to the south after defeating the Suebi (as he himself moved to Cisalpine Gaul for the winter following the victory) there would be little question. However, this move (leaving his legions in Gallic territory) was a clear provocation against regional Gallic sensibilities. Was it still legal? Claims could still be made for the necessity of Roman intervention, but its also quite clear of Caesar's intentions as of this point... the complete conquest of Gaul... still though there was a lack of definition on these points in the actual law. Clearly as Caesar advances beyond the protection of Gallic allies he was entering a realm of legal question. We can easily identify optimate opposition and later demands for prosecution. However, so long as he received enough support in the Senate and the assemblies (receiving unprecedented proconsular terms as governor), and the laws were interpreted in his favor did he ever truly cross the point of illegality (the vetos of the tribunes to prevent his early recall, etc.)? By the time his support had waned enough (following the deaths of Crassus and Caesar's daughter Julia) for the prosecution calls to have 'legal merit' by virtue of majority support within the Senate (though I believe Caesar maintained enough support until he crossed the Rubicon making 'majority' an indecisive question), the Gallic Wars were in effect over. Indeed Cato seemed more focused on Caesar's campaigns across the Rhine and previous campaigns in Hispania than in the actual war within Gallic territory. Semantics? Absolutely, but still legality is undefined. Does the fact that the war was over before legal grounds for prosecution were established matter, or the fact that we will never know if Caesar would've been able to somehow avoid ultimate prosecution had he actually returned to Rome as requested? Obviously this is another semantical argument, but if law (or in this case the interpretation or support of a law) changes after the fact, anything prior to it is generally irrelevant (except in such cases where the law clearly identifies retroactive intentions). I do not recall any law ever being passed naming the Gallic War as an illegal event posthumously, and since he was already dead and mob anger at a dangerous point, attacking Caesar's legacy after the fact (in law) was largely avoided. Indeed even laws passed that were aimed directly at Caesar while he still lived were clearly done to set him up for prosecution after his imperium expired - an anti-bribery election law made retrospective to 70 BC, a law enforcing a five-year gap between magistracies in Rome and following provincial appointments, a law prohibiting candidature in absentia, etc. - and had little to do with the war itself but were reflective of other legal measures. Interestingly, Pompey who was supported by the 'optimates' by this point, did not bother to obey his own laws (having his own command in Hispania extended for 5 years). Obviously the events leading up to and including the crossing of the Rubicon makes the idea of Caesar's prosecution null and void and regardless of the legality of the Gallic War his march on Rome was without question illegal... regardless of his situation, intentions, or motivations. For this he definately deserved to face prosecution, but obviously by that point the issue was moot. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on one's position, Caesar robbed us of the chance to answer this question when he did march on Rome while changing the face of the western world in the process. I do wonder how events may have transpired had Caesar actually faced the court system. Sometimes we base the breaking of law simply on the arguments themselves without allowing the court to determine if any such laws had in fact been broken. Perhaps he would've bribed his way out of it, perhaps not. Perhaps public sentiment would've turned the courts in his favor. Perhaps showing the ultimate Roman dignitas by returning unfearful of his enemies would've swung enough moderates in his favor to deflect any charges. Perhaps he couldn't return because he knew that he really had indeed broken the law. Perhaps he feared corruption and pre-arranged court outcomes regardless of trial and so on and so on.

Ooops! Good call--ist there a good geneaological chart on the internet? I'm on vacation, so I don't have my library to do a fact check. Hmm yes, I think Livius.org has one, though I'm not sure how in depth it is.

While important, this also makes the assumption that Rome's northern neighbors were indeed peaceful. While Caesar was clearly an aggressor, and nobody in their right mind should ever doubt that fact, the Gauls and Germanics had a long history of enmity with Rome. Yes, some tribes were allies and some were not, a condition absolutely manipulated by Caesar to his benefit but to call all the tribes peaceful is not a fair reflection of the entire state of affairs. I will not argue that Caesar did not 'stir up trouble', thats undeniable, I only contend that all was not quite so rosy between Gaul and Rome.

Just a notation that Lucius Julius Caesar was not the father of the dictator, but a great Uncle. He was the brother of Sextus Julius Caesar, the dictator's grandfather.

First.. we need to know what the 'G' is... G-String Ask Yahoo. But since it still seems undefined, allow me to be silly... C-funiculus

While I too would like to thank those members named above, I'd just like to make it clear that there are many others who help make this forum an interesting place to visit. We'd love to give a little something to everyone in appreciation and as an incentive to stick around, but alas such things can be a bit cost prohibitive. Over time though we'll be sure to find a way to share such things with all of our regulars.

After several years in development, the online world Roma-Victor, a recreation of the Roman Empire circa AD 180 is available for pre-order. A pre-order gives immediate access to the ongoing testing phase and early entry into the official online world, set for a March 2006 release. Just thought I'd make the announcement for those who might be interested. Roma-Victor

Indeed, there is evidence of a governmental split stretching all the way back to the late Republic with Pompey's sweeping command. Following him, Agrippa was given near equal imperium to Augustus to oversee the east. Tiberius did the same with Germanicus and so on. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus as co-emperors, essentially split their authority along the lines of east and west. Clearly the stage for a political split had been set since the initial conquest and continued to evolve for centuries.

And of course, even if it did exist, its revelation to the world would largely depend upon who found it.

I never said I wasn't bothered by wrongful execution, only that I am not bothered by the idea of capital punishment for heinous crimes. I don't like capital punishment for the legal disaster that it has become and for its decided inability to deter anyone, but would strongly support its use provided safety measure criteria for evidence be met (several witnesses, confession, DNA evidence, etc.) and if it were done quickly and in public. As for the case mentioned... certainly the accusations for the Atlanta bombing were completely ridiculous, but in the end at least there were no criminal charges. I assign just as much blame for the slander and libel of Jewel's character on the various media agencies right along with law enforcement.

And here is second song for the same house Jingle Bells

Britannia was also a proconsular position with 3 legions.

I'm SO eager to respond, but our wise and virtuous moderator says this thread isn't the place. So, welcome Aquila, and please do post a new thread defending Caesar, as I'm more than happy to take up the cause of the prosecution. Alternatively, you might begin by defending Caesar's conduct in Gaul (under the Gallic Wars thread), which is the issue on which the rest of your points rests. Feel free Cato.. the other threads have died down... I just didn't want to see the same argument/debate/discussion taking place in three different places.

Most of the empire's wealth came from the east and to be named governor of Asia Minor was considered the pinnacle of a Senatorial career (which also meant that they had been a Consul as it was a proconsular province). Aegyptus and Africa were both important sources of grain with Aegyptus being the personal possession of the 'emperor', and Africa the only province with a legion that in theory was under the direct control of the Senate. Achaea, and within it the city of Athens, was still the center of Greco-Roman culture. Almost every province had an economic contribution of some sort, with places like Britannia, Hispania, Dacia etc being important sources of mineral wealth. Frontier provinces like Germania, Pannonia, Moesia, Thracia, etc. were important as military buffer zones utilizing the natural borders of the Rhine and Danube to establish the empire's outer boundaries. Essentially, it comes down to, what is your criteria for major?