Primus Pilus

Yes, this is incorrect. Livia Ocellina is not the same person as Livia Drusilla. The latter was never married to Galba's father. Plutarch makes the claim that Galba was indeed related to Livia Drusilla but he presents no evidence. Life of Galba 3.

I think you missed my point PP. I don't disagree with what you wrote but my contention is this: When did the Roman public ever feel squeamish about the genocide of a foreign people? Why would slaughtering a million Gauls, or any other nation for that matter, have turned people against him? Cato's censorious comments on this matter were a political dig in Caesar's ribs. I'm not convinced his outrage was genuine in any way. Didn't miss your point at all. I suppose I just blathered on a bit and didn't address the point directly enough. I agree that the Roman people weren't squeamish and in fact the majority were quite pleased with Caesar's conquests. The voting of 3 separate public thanks by the senate, in spite of some obvious political opposition to Caesar, presents one illustration in support of public popularity. Cato's major concern was legality and Caesar's growing power, not the plight of the Gallic people... but I think we are all pretty much in agreement on that. My apologies though for diverting the topic away from Brutus' father.

Honestly, despite my attempts at good health... do carrots count as a snack?

While driving home, I heard author Lawrence Solomon being interviewed by admitted conservative talk show host, Michael Medved. He doesn't seem to be taking a stance against climate change or environmental concerns, but rather that there are many renowned scientists who don't find scientific evidence to support human influence. He seems to be an environmentalist at heart, but yet one who believes the carbon crisis hysteria is doing more harm than allowing nature to take its course. I may be off on that assessment since I didn't hear the entire interview, nor have I yet read the book, but it sounds intriguing. The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so

Hmm... wouldn't the correct Latin be Super Homo? That seems more fitting in either case. With apologies to P. Clodius, this elicited a true "guffaw". MPC has an evil wit about him.

Like most things, it's something the Romans expanded upon and spread all over rather than invented on their own. I suppose one might say that the true Roman innovation displayed by the spread of that religion and earlier Hellenism is the idea of a wholly connected nation where, despite regional cultural differences, there was still an overall cultural oneness.

This is the main item that I personally disagree with MPC on regarding Caesar. While Caesar may have been a braggart (the evidence being his own writings) I don't believe he ever intended the destruction of the Gauls as a people. More important was his own personal glory and enrichment. If this came at the expense of the Gauls, so be it, but if it came with their willing obsequiousness, the Gauls would not have been lined up and butchered in order to purge their existence. While I'll grant that Caesar was no paragon of virtue and was well aware that at least some of the Gallic tribes would not bow down willingly, for the most part, the Roman people themselves were impressed and thankful for Caesar's war. (3 public votes in thanks from the Senate were also conferred upon him, though two seem to have been largely initiated by Cicero after his recall from Clodian exile.) While Cato opposed the war, and used the plight of the Gallic people as an example of the danger of Caesar, I don't believe that he cared any more for the Gauls or Germanics than anyone else. What he cared about was the danger inherent in Caesar and what he viewed as the illegality of the entire affair. In my opinion, while he unquestionably disagreed with the death and enslavement of the Gauls (and the Germanics... the part of the war along, with the invasion of Britain, that I also view as potentially illegal) the key was legality and the safety of the Republic, not the well being of foreign peoples. While the implication is clearly there that Cato views Caesar's actions as a crime worthy of vengeance from the victims of Caesar's war, I think the latter part is more definitive... From Plutarch Life of Cato Minor ch. 51 "he (Cato) declared that it was not the sons of Germans or Celts whom they must fear, but Caesar himself"

In my opinion, the better question is... what don't governments want to control? Every new uncontested method of control restriction of personal liberty breeds more government dependency. It ensures the status quo as regards the ruling class and preserves their positions of authority and privilege. While there may be some who honestly think they are trying to help people, ultimately I find it impossible to believe that the bureaucratic establishment truly cares about our health as individuals...including what we eat, smoke, drink or otherwise shove into our various bodily orifices. PS. Even if margarine were "one molecule away from being plastic" it is essential to note that the existence of that one particular molecule or any other slight variation in chemical structure makes it not plastic or not toxic (though there are ingredients in natural forms of some products that can be harmful--aluminum in deodorant/anti-perspirant for example). However, I do agree that eating products closer to their natural state as opposed to processed foods, is in general terms, a wise policy. (Provided one is not spending all day eating toxic 'shrooms.)

Also, though perhaps a bit early, the Illyrian or Pannonian revolt of AD 6 to 9 that was eventually quelled by Tiberius.

Not that I mean to stifle discussion, but the original post here was from over 3 years ago. However... Though much more involved than suggested, yes, Pompeius, Crassus and Caesar for all intensive purposes, virtually announced to the Senate they were in charge by virtue of controlling the key components of the Roman political system. There was still considerable opposition of course, and that opposition had a voice (M. Porcius Cato in particular), but little real power. The "triumvirate" (so-called only in retrospect as it was not an official designation of government or authority) controlled the tribunate (and therefore the power to legislate) through support of the urban populace, held significant support of the army via Pompey and had access to massive wealth and the support of the Equites via Crassus. Additionally, even after Caesar had left Rome for Gaul, the scheming of Clodius managed to manipulate the senate into sending Cato to govern Cyprus (and exiled Cicero, but Cicero could hardly be recognized as a great opponent to the triumvirs and in fact supported them in some legislation/activity).

Definitely at the top of your reading list I'm sure... A couple of these do look interesting though.

Rome's ancient monuments are so poorly guarded that tourists are taking away mementos of their visit to the Eternal City with impunity. Archaeologists said yesterday that Trajan's Forum, in the heart of the city's classical ruins, had been stripped of all the fragments of statues and shards of amphorae that adorned the site until recently. To highlight the problem, a reporter from Il Messaggero newspaper carried away large boxes full of ancient artefacts during the daytime without being challenged... Telegraph

Cicero (at least in Pro Clusio) also does not suggest that the de Foederatae Civitates was actually passed into law. I've revised the "Leges Liviae" to illustrate that this particular piece was a Rogatio. However, I've left it as an inclusion with the previous simply for the convenience of not editing the actual table itself. Thanks MPC! [edit] somehow I edited over my previous reply rather than add a new reply - alas - at least I quoted part of it above. The rest was a note to Dia that despite this change, the rest of the Leges Liviae are examples of laws that were revoked via contra auspicia.

Any law could be revoked via a legal "abrogatio" (voted repeal) or through religious dismissal after the fact (contra auspicia). This particular law (the Lex Iulia de Civitate) did not face such danger due to it's importance in keeping allies loyal and it's rather moderate nature. It in fact turned out to be too limited in scope and further "de civitate" laws were passed over the next few years. For examples of laws that were revoked: The initial Italian citizenship of M. Livius Drusus were passed in the face of severe opposition in 91. As a result, he was murdered and his laws were indeed revoked on the grounds of "contra auspicia". (This essentially opened the social war). The Leges Sulipiciae of 88 (that included the incorporation of new Italian citizens into the 35 tribes in such a way as to aid the faction of Marius) were repealed via the Leges Corneliae et Pompeiae de Abrogatio of the same year (after Sulla marched on Rome and drove out the Marians). So yes, a law could be repealed, but it was not necessarily via a new consular magistrate (though they clearly could and did influence such things) Just in general terms, it was the Tribunes via vote of the people in the Comitia Tributa, who were responsible for such things. For more, see the Legal and Institutional Chronology of the Roman Republic

Depends on the who, what, where, when. Post AD 212 all were citizens. In the Republican period, likely not... as Ingsoc mentions, even the arrangement between Antonius and Cleopatra was an issue in the waning days of the Republic. In the Principate and beyond, (though I cite no example) special dispensation clearly could've been awarded for allies of the Princeps who were willing to arrange such marriages for the good of the empire.

While it may not be convenient, one would be remiss not to use the original source material and indeed Cato's own writings... Plutarch's biography of Cato the Elder Cornelius Nepos' biography Cato's De Agricultura (on farming) and Cicero's take on Cato's De Senectute (on old age).

Of specific laws, and off the top of my head... there is the ancient early foundation principal that banned weapons within the pomerium of the city of Rome itself. This particular ban was based on religious ideology and would've remained in effect at least until the adoption of Christianity and probably remained as a tradition at least for some time. Obviously though, this isn't the general ban that Ward-Perkins referred to. I'm also aware of a law, c. 135-130 BC passed after the First Servile War in Sicily that prohibited slaves from carrying weapons; but I'm not even sure if this applied to slaves throughout Italy and the provinces, or just Sicily. It may have been part of the Lex (or Edictum) Rupilia but I can't recollect with clarity. However, again since this clearly would've had no effect on the general populace and was not a general ban, I'm not bothering to investigate.

This intact statue of Queen Tiye, a powerful queen from ancient Egypt's 18th dynasty, was recently discovered at the site of the mortuary temple of powerful pharaoh Amenhotep III, as seen in this photograph taken March 27, 2008. The 12-foot-tall (3.6-meter-tall) quartzite figure was found attached to the broken-off leg of a much larger colossus

Indeed, I am under the impression that the chart is only a small piece of the puzzle and that there is a larger text as support of the data. If so inclined to use said information, I would contact the author for confirmation of methodology. In any case, 32% mortality would seem a reasonable assessment of birth/infant mortality considering Maty's considerably larger estimation of mortality rates from infancy through the age of adolescence/young adulthood.

That could be an interesting angle. I'd be personally less inclined to an emotional reaction if that was the case.

Could be Bob Barr. I don't care if former Patriot Act supporter Bob Barr is now calling himself a Libertarian, he would never get my vote. Not posting this link because I'm in the Obama camp (I'm not), but because the blogger expresses my view of that distasteful phony, Barr. -- Nephele Yeah, I haven't investigated the guy personally as I wouldn't bother voting for him, but I meant my statement in a generic sense. Converted Reps and Dems will help legitimize the LP (provided of course they actually maintain some libertarian philosophy) Barr looks like a molester.

Could be Bob Barr. The inclusion of candidates who are former members of the two mainstream parties who will help legitimize the LP and slowly evolve it away from the extreme anti-government fringes. A viable 3rd party can still maintain a Libertarian ideology of limited government, low taxes, justifiable military aggression, open society and market, etc while still finding some commonality with the existing parties (at least in my opinion).

Oh dear lord, that must be hopelessly fantastic.

I thought October Horse was weak and the plot forced in comparison to her earlier novels, so I'm not rushing out for this one. I'm sure I'll read it eventually though, but it's interesting that there has been very little feedback on it. To be perfectly fair, I loved "First Man and "Grass Crown" and would recommend them repeatedly and whole-heartedly to any Romanophile. The introduction of the super genius, man-god Caesar as opposed to the slightly more balanced take on Marius and Sulla was a bit difficult to take. I suppose a pro-Antony novel in contrast to Octavian might be interesting.

Are you trying to even remotely suggest that 10,000 BC didn't do justice to the concept for you?