Primus Pilus

The included hard drive (a lame 20GB) for storage and some cables or wireless connection (I can't quite remember what all the little extra were). The main thing is the hard drive which costs roughly $100 at regular price. Does he play online (Xbox-Live)? If so, the Xbox core comes with a LAN connection, but the higher priced version may come with a wireless adaptor... but I honestly can't remember. You can get a smaller storage device for saved games and such, rather than the hard drive, but it's not really the most practical use of the console. (I believe they actually have a 120 gb hard drive now... might be 3rd party though, I'm also not sure.)

The included hard drive (a lame 20GB) for storage and some cables or wireless connection (I can't quite remember what all the little extra were). The main thing is the hard drive which costs roughly $100 at regular price.

Nicolaus doesn't say that Octavius knew of the adoption, and in fact he admits that Caesar kept it secret. He only says that the act of putting him in the will occurred at the time of the triumph. The record of when Caesar registered the will with the Vestals should have been available to anyone who cared to look it up. You are dismissing the account of Nicolaus based on something he didn't actually say. Again, he does not in anyway contradict the other sources, but simply provides more detail. I'll post it again for convenience. Some time before he had decided to adopt him, but fearing that elated at the hope of such good fortune, as those usually are who are brought up in wealth, he might become forgetful of virtue and depart form his accustomed mode of life, Caesar concealed his intention but he adopted him as son in his Will (for he had no male children of his own) and made him residuary legatee of his entire estate, after bequeathing one fourth of his property to friends and townsmen, as was afterwards known.

My kids are going to be a zombie and a skeleton. The Dead Walk on All Hallow's Eve!!! Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

Not to be solicitous of an answer from you, but where is it stated that Octavian's parents advised Augustus to renounce the adoption? Yes, I agree, the acolytes of the anti-Augustan party must answer this. Nicolaus, Suetonius, Appian and Paterculus. Cassius Dio didn't bother to mention it though. You can easily quote this in Nicolaus. You've probably already read the Nicolaus account if you've followed any of the previous links... but here they are for the sake of clarity. Least descriptive first... Suetonius Life of Augustus 8.2 Paterculus Roman History 2.60 Appian Civil Wars 3.10-11 Nicolaus Life of Augustus 18 slightly different than Appian's account regarding Atia, but the basic message is the same.

Not to be solicitous of an answer from you, but where is it stated that Octavian's parents advised Augustus to renounce the adoption? Yes, I agree, the acolytes of the anti-Augustan party must answer this. Nicolaus, Suetonius, Appian and Paterculus. Cassius Dio didn't bother to mention it though.

A living man made the adoption. Point taken, Gaius - but I think what Asclepiades and I are trying to say is that the adoption was not known until after the Dictator's death. I remain convinced of this, but we are trying the thrash it out with the help of PP's citation of Nicolaus. To be clear, I am by no means suggesting that Octavian was entirely aware of his actual standing in the will. I am only suggesting that because of his actual and well understood status as the only male descendant of Caesar, he was treated as his heir and he took advantage of that treatment whether it was actually in a will or not. When it became fact, the confirmation clearly helped swell the support, but the sentiment was already there.

Indeed, it is interesting - but I would want to know what word is translated here as 'adopted' and also whether we can be sure if Octavian actually knew he was adopted at that time? Marcellus and Tiberius rode on either side of Augustus' chariot in the Triumphs of 29BC - but at that time he hadn't 'adopted' either of them. He was merely singling them out for family honours. Nicolaus admits that Caesar kept this information secret, so there's no inconsistency here with the general record. However, there were a few people who knew... Caesar's personal attendants, perhaps the vestals, various advisors, etc. Did Octavius know everything? Clearly not, but there are some strange things to reconcile if people did not think he was an heir. Some time before he had decided to adopt him, but fearing that elated at the hope of such good fortune, as those usually are who are brought up in wealth, he might become forgetful of virtue and depart form his accustomed mode of life, Caesar concealed his intention but he adopted him as son in his Will (for he had no male children of his own) and made him residuary legatee of his entire estate, after bequeathing one fourth of his property to friends and townsmen, as was afterwards known. Now this has got my brain working.... As you mentioned that Nicolaus was near contemporary to events - could he not have had his own propaganda motives for stressing or suggesting this 'adoption' and closeness of the familial relationship? It adds a sort of legitimacy to Octavian's war of vengeance against Brutus and Cassius? Just a thought. Nicolaus was, after all, a friend of Herod the Great, and as Asclepiades pointed out, perhaps the man was accustomed to flattering autocrats? It may be fanciful, but it has certainly got me thinking. I agree that it's very possible. Perhaps even likely, but of that we can't be entirely certain. My contention here is based on the fact that Octavius would've had absolutely no possibility to accomplish what he did without the connection to Caesar whether writers flattered him or not. In any case, if we use propaganda/flattery as an excuse against the source material, then its entirely believable to think that the same sources downplayed the connection in order to help propagate the concept of Augustus' rise completely on his own merit, rather than the required lineage. Regardless, whether his adoption or status as actual heir was known by him or his family or not known at all, everyone in the Roman world knew that this boy was Caesar's only legitimate male heir. He was supported as such and treated as such by common people and by veterans from the very arrival of the news of Caesar's death. There was no other living person that could claim the lineage and therefore the sympathy/sentiment that he received.

Indeed, it is interesting - but I would want to know what word is translated here as 'adopted' and also whether we can be sure if Octavian actually knew he was adopted at that time? Marcellus and Tiberius rode on either side of Augustus' chariot in the Triumphs of 29BC - but at that time he hadn't 'adopted' either of them. He was merely singling them out for family honours. Nicolaus admits that Caesar kept this information secret, so there's no inconsistency here with the general record. However, there were a few people who knew... Caesar's personal attendants, perhaps the vestals, various advisors, etc. Did Octavius know everything? Clearly not, but there are some strange things to reconcile if people did not think he was an heir. Some time before he had decided to adopt him, but fearing that elated at the hope of such good fortune, as those usually are who are brought up in wealth, he might become forgetful of virtue and depart form his accustomed mode of life, Caesar concealed his intention but he adopted him as son in his Will (for he had no male children of his own) and made him residuary legatee of his entire estate, after bequeathing one fourth of his property to friends and townsmen, as was afterwards known.

Of course flattery can play a role, but you are quoting a part of Paterculus that really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Book II. 59 supports the practical ideology that Octavius had a vested interest as Caesar's legitimate heir. There is nothing all that flattering about it, except for the notion that he turned down the support of Caesar's veterans (suggesting restraint, respect for the law, peaceful intent, etc.) when it's clear that he had that support from the very start. He may not have yet raised a private army, but he knew that men supported him. Having such knowledge is powerful. At the first announcement of his uncle's death, although the centurions of the neighbouring legions at once proffered their own services and those of their men, and Salvidienus and Agrippa advised him to accept the offer, he made such haste to arrive in the city that he was already at Brundisium when he learned the details of the assassination and the terms of his uncle's will. It's revealing in it's simplicity. Octavius had widespread support and a reasonable supposition that he could gain at least a fraction of the support once offered to Caesar simply by being his heir. Being physically attractive and other such compliments by Paterculus and others didn't make the people rally to his support when Caesar was murdered; being the likely heir of Caesar did (though I readily admit that physical charisma can help any political career). I assume there were plenty of handsome young men who could've drawn the support of the populace if that were the only criteria. What was important was his connection to Caesar by blood, regardless of whether or not Paterculus and others flattered him for whatever reason. Clearly the propaganda published in the stages following the transformation to Augustus would've played a role in later politics, but I see little need to downplay his role as Caesar's possible heir, except only to flatter Augustus by suggesting that he had little to no reliance upon the connection to Caesar. Nicolaus may have been trying to stress this between the lines, but what he definately says describes the people of Appollonia gathering to him to show support along with prominent people coming to visit him and strategize over what action should be taken. Presumably such reaction did not take place for anyone else... only the most practical and direct male heir of Caesar. Some suggest Caesar and Octavius were actually close, others not. Some suggest Atia and Philippus influenced events, others not. I don't know which historian is the most accurate in this regard and that's not what I'm trying to reflect on, nor the motivations of these individual sources. However, I personally think it's completely practical to assume that such attention wouldn't ever have been applied to Octavius (before he was named official heir) if he wasn't very likely to be a major heir to Caesar in the first place. Octavius had the means to launch his career through the legitimate connection to Caesar. He had a vested interest and was clearly in line for some sort of political or economic boon as Caesar's only living male descendant (provided of course that he assert himself, and he clearly did so with every ounce of political energy he had... and quite successfully.) Hence the deliberation with friends and family and ultimately the decision to go to Rome. Without that connection he was simply the descendant of relatively obscure family, whose father was the first in his line to be enrolled into the senate. I think my practical approach to this is being misconstrued as some sort of personal enmity towards Augustus. He was a tyrant and a butcher, but understand that I readily acknowledge that he was quite probably the only man capable of stabilizing the empire (of the players involved at the time.. who knows what else may have transpired after another generation of civil war and upheaval). I disagree with his methods and the ideological/constitutional result, but a breakup of the empire into factional entities at that time in history probably would've been far worse than the actual result... existence of absolute monarchy.

I find it difficult to completely suppose that Octavius had no knowledge of his status prior to arriving in Italy. I'm not going to quote the entire passage here, because the entire context is necessary, but Nicolaus of Damascus is fairly convincing that the boy was attached to Caesar in more than a distant relative sort of manner. The actual adoption may be another matter entirely, but Nicolaus' description of the reactions by common people and family friends alike certainly indicates that there is more to the story. It's also entirely possible that people could simply have been showing support for the family and concern for their individual safety, but it somehow resonates stronger than that to me. http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/nicolaus.html Begin with chapter 16 through 19 (not very long really). I understand that Cassius Dio also suggests that Octavius was completely unaware of his status as heir and adoptive son (Cass. Dio 45.3) and that Suetonius glosses over it such detail as inconsequential (Suet. Life Aug. 8), but Nicolaus as a contemporary should have a clearer understanding of the events as they unfolded. Of course, I could be completely wrong in my interpretation, but I still wanted to point out the interesting discrepancy. Please understand that I am in complete agreement that Octavius was not aware of Caesar's plan to adopt him, nor the extent of the inheritance. I am only suggesting that the reaction of Octavius from the start is indicative of a familial heir. He was after all, the only male with some sort of direct lineage to Caesar.

You are confusing some of the social/political structural components of Rome. Cicero was indeed a novus homo (new man) and a plebe (though his father was an equestrian), therefore making him a member of the extended aristocracy (not yet a nobile since Cicero was the first in his family to attain the consulship). Even if you define aristocracy by different terms, Cicero and other Plebeian new men were hardly equivalent to the people of the common mob. Since you use Cicero as an example, it's important to understand that it was Plebeian aristocrats that dominated the senate in his era. There are exceptions of course, one notable patrician being Caesar, but Plebes had held equal if not superior political authority for two hundred years by this point. Simply speaking, while the mob were plebs, so too was the aristocracy. The difference was economic disparity within the same social class, not a struggle between different social classes. These may seem an argument in semantics, but understanding some of these issues will help a great deal in your studies. Cheers!

It's a likely explanation, though I suppose we can never be sure. That was especially the case for Claudius: (C. Suetonius T., De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Claudius, Cp. XI, Sec. II-III): "Then turning to the duties of family loyalty,... He did not leave even Mark Antony unhonoured or without grateful mention, declaring once in a proclamation that he requested the more earnestly that the birthday of his father Drusus be celebrated because it was the same as that of his grandfather Antony." Yes I read this same quote in Ingsoc's opening post. I was simply attempting to suggest that we can't be sure if Antony's reputation was actually rehabilitated, beyond these few imperial mandates. Did the people actually hold any reverence for Antonius, or were they simply forced not to celebrate the more famous achievements of Augustus? That's what I don't believe we can be sure of. Obviously, the sources are quite clear that the reasoning for the attempt to do so was because of the family heritage.

It's a likely explanation, though I suppose we can never be sure. We had a forum member (Phil25) who used to routinely support the notion that Caligula was simply trying to emulate Antony's Hellenistic style monarchy in Egypt; hence his support of Antonius to show a precedent for his sort of imperial behavior. In any case, after Nero, Antonius is for the most part a non entity. The Flavians and the adoptive emperors were more concerned with connecting themselves to Augustus and the Julio-Claudian line.

Idaho (for his relationship with the King of Bithynia?) Seriously though, I know it's Jersey, but that's pushing it since the US state was named for the island, not for Caesar (even though the island was named for Caesar). If the idea was to truly name it for Caesar they would've called it New Caesarea.

Yeah, I know, but I come from a loooooong line of folks who worked at Chrysler. I have to feed their ridiculously un-affordable pensions by buying Dodges and Jeeps until the end of time... or I'll be stuck footing their retirement bills myself

In Detroit, our dream is for everyone to drive our cars.

Well, if you've got to take up a collection, I'll throw some denarii into the pot. -- Nephele Just make out a check payable to cash and send it to me. I promise I won't use more than I need*. * need is entirely subjective and your definition of need, things like general sustenance, shelter, etc., may not match mine... big screen HD DLP televisions, a catapult, a new ridiculously high end computer, a complete historical library, a new wardrobe, a Dodge Viper, a cannister of dry roasted peanuts, etc.

I have a very bad feeling that this is all related to other server load problems we are having, and we are going to have to move to a dedicated server in the near future. It's a positive sign of growth of course, but the extra cost is a little hard on my miserly mentality

I'm not sure how long the site was down, but according to the technical support folks with our server hosts it had something to do with some sort of Apache process that was overloading the CPU.... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Apologies for any inconvenience. Hopefully Moonlapse can figure out if there is anything we can do for prevention. Cheers!

Do it! Feel free to bounce ideas of me via PM as well if you need any help with 'historical match-ups'.

I know just enough to get confused. If I have a passage that has already been translated and then read the original source Latin, I can generally pick out the context and either confirm or challenge the accuracy of the translation. However, I have a terrible time reading straight Latin text without constant references to translators, outside of general inscriptions and such.

The Plebs had power long before Nero. The early principate allowed for more commonplace grain doles and public donatives, but this was not an advancement of plebeian rights by any stretch. Much was done to appease the mob and maintain their support, but it was not a process of political empowerment. Plebes were already very much a part of the senatorial and aristocratic processes in the later Republic. What you are talking about is economic class conflict, not the social order of Pleb, Equite, Patrician. I understand what you are getting at regarding the social "commoner" vs. the aristocrat, but that never really changed despite the arrival of the principate. I will grant that many of the princeps seemed to prefer freedmen for their inner circle of advisors more than members of the aristocracy, but this was no great advantage to the plebeian poor. The system of the old Republic remained largely in place regarding political appointments and the like. It was wealthy Plebs (and Patricians), whether Equites or Senators, who continued to hold magistracies, provincial governorships, etc. There were advantages granted to plebs in the principate that were not necessarily always provided in the Republic. Various property rights through colonization and land allotments for retired veterans were more common, etc., and the alimentarius (state charity) system also grew enormously during the imperial period. While this had the obvious intention of aiding the poor, there is a big difference between this (along with the doles, etc.) and actual empowerment.

LC Sulla was arguably at least as rich as Caesar, if niot even more. Do you remember what happened with his heir?. Maybe not. That would be because Sulla Jr. was no Octavius; money was not enough. To begin with, he was only about ten years old at the death of the Dictator. Here comes W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, pp. 943-944: " Faustus and his sister were left under the guardianship of L. Lucullus. The enemies of Sulla's constitution constantly threatened Faustus with a prosecution to compel him to restore the public money which his father had received or taken out of the treasury ... In B. c. 60 he exhibited the gladiatorial games which his father in his last will had enjoined upon him, and at the same time he treated the people in the most sumptuous man

If the money were in the public treasury, wouldn't it have fallen under the jurisdiction of the presiding quaestor? Who was quaestor? Yes, but I meant this quite figuratively. Regardless of who held ultimate jurisdiction over the actual inheritance, it was Antonius who prevented the transfer of property via various delaying methods. Of course, none of the sources are very clear exactly where all the money went, or where the treasury got the money to reimburse Octavian for his private army (after Antonius marched against Dec. Brutus) because Nicolaus of Damascus makes it seem that the treasury was bereft of the funds by the time Octavian tried to claim it anyway Nic. Life of Aug. 28. In any case, it just makes it seem more likely to me that Octavian had plenty of money before he arrived in Rome.