Primus Pilus

I think the key would've been limiting expansion. However, the counter to this simplification is that the economic boom that expansion provided would have also been limited. Once the empire reached its greatest extant, the economic crises seem to become much more prevalent. Could a government that allowed for political debate and factional rivalries have maintained a better grasp on economic control (or been better prepared for various crises) as opposed to an economy subject to the whims of imperial edict?

Temporary arenas were established during regular festivals and were constructed of wood so that they were disposable. The forum was one popular location. The Circus could be pressed into service for massive events. A semi permanent structure was built in the Campius Martius during the reign of Augustus as well. From the William Smith Dictionary on Ampitheatrum, you should find the following most useful pertaining to Caligula.

Whichever form of government existed... whether it was the Republic, Principate, Dominate, etc., I don't believe that the social, religious, economic and military conditions of the 3rd through 5th centuries could've been avoided entirely. Additionally, the movement of eastern and Germanic tribes still would've had a similar impact. Clearly, not every event or condition would've followed the same historical path, but I believe that these paths would've had enough similarities as to effect the same final result. Might a more stable government void of lengthy periods of civil war (especially in the 3rd and early 4th centuries) have impacted these conditions? Might a philosophic change in numerous policies (notably expansion) have impacted these conditions? Of course, but we can't be certain that a change in the system of government alone could've insured stability, economic prosperity, social and religious traditionalism, military viability, etc. Essentially my non-committal answer is... I don't know, but anything could've been possible.

The mysterious cavalry officer serving in the Roman army probably had good connections and was buried close to the A6 in Lancaster about 70 years after Jesus was crucified. He was German, in charge of the wine and beer supplies and was probably in Lancashire to brutally suppress an uprising or two... Lancashire Evening Post

Dutch archeologists have discovered an estimated 200 silver Roman coins, several jewels, an armband and a ring hidden in a clay pot, the city overseeing the dig said Monday. The city of Cuijk, near the Maas river, 80 miles southeast of Amsterdam, said archeologists found the cache while excavating in an area where new housing is to be built... CBS News

My conclusion is that I can't find enough source documentation to fill in the middle of the tree. Here are the steps needed: 1. It needs to be proven that the son of G. Octavius Laenas and Rubellia Bassa was L. Octavius Laenas. 2. Did this L. Octavius Laenas (if he was the son of the above) marry a woman named Pontia? 3. Did they have a daughter by name of Octavia? 4. Did Octavia marry Curtilius Mancia? 5. Did they have a daughter named Curtilia? 6. Did Curtilia marry Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus? The answer here seems to be yes, but we still don't know if she is the daughter of Curtilius Mancia and Octavia in steps 4 and 5. 7. Was Domitia Lucilla (elder) the daughter of Curtilia or of another spouse of Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus (the adoption issue raised by Pliny's letter is confusing, but doesn't seem to indicate who the mother of Domitia actually was.) After this Domitia Lucilla does seem to have married P. Calvisius Tullus Ruso and their daughter by the same name as the mother married Marcus Annius Verus in turn, leading to the birth of Marcus Aurelius. Absolutely, it's just a readily available source to track these names down as a starting point. It can be, but based on the obscurity of the names in the steps I highlighted above, its seems unlikely that it can be proven. However, I am continuing to look out of morbid curiosity. If there is anyone who has access to JSTOR that can search some of these obscure names above... that would be greatly helpful. By the way, if we can prove the links, Marcus Aurelius would be more distantly related to Augustus through his sister (Octavia) and directly related to Tiberius. If the sequence is correct the relations would be as follows... Marcus Aurelius would be the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Great Grand Nephew of Augustus (8 Greats and 1 Grand plus 1 niece makes MA 10 generations removed) He would be the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandson of Tiberius (or 9 generations removed)

Let's start over... Augustus and Scribonia bore Julia Caesaris (elder) Julia Caesaris married Agrippa and bore Vipsania Julia (Julia the Younger) Vispsania Julia married Lucius Aemilius Paulus and (here is where it is different) bore Aemilia Lepida Aemilia Lepida married Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus and they had five children none with the name Julia. Their children didn't fair very well in the political intrigues of the Julio-Claudians (though one daughter married the brother of Vitellius). That tree doesn't follow, however.... Tiberius first wife was Vipsania Agrippina (before Augustus had him marry Julia the elder). They bore Drusus Julius Caesar (Nero Claudius Drusus or Drusus the Younger). Drusus Julius Caesar married Livilla (she was the grandaughter of Marcus Antonius and Octavia [Augustus' sister]) and they bore another Julia who was known as Livia Julia. This Julia married Gaius Rubellius Blandus and they bore Rubellia Bassa. Rubellia Bassa did marry Gaius Octavius Laenas but the trail ends there. Neither Tacitus, Suetonius nor Cassius Dio make any mention of children by this couple. Frontinus mentions him as the curator of the Aqueducts during the reign of Tiberius, but no mention of his family. Even the dubious Historia Augusta doesn't make any of these references (as it would pertain to Marcus Aurelius later). So here is where the big if's come in. I have some online charts that continue the progression and it plays out roughly as follows, but the evidence is scant. (Any details provided would be great). If Lucius Octavius Laenas is the son of G. Octavius Laenas and Rubellia Bassa then the sequence can continue (but I don't know where the source material comes from to support this). Here are the trouble spots... L. Octavius Laenas married a woman by name of Pontia. This marriage seemingly produced a daughter by name of Octavia. (I cannot find source documentation) This daughter Octavia seemingly married a Curtilius Mancia (I cannot find source documentation) Their daughter Curtilia (clearly a Curtilia, if this name is correct, would've been the daughter of a Curtilius, but I cannot yet find the documentation) married Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus Their daughter Domitia (Lucilla the Elder) (however from what I can tell, Domitia was the daughter of another spouse rather than Curtilia, which would have stopped the line) married P. Calvisius Tullus Ruso. (There also appears to have been some adoption in the line which is difficult to decipher but I am still looking Marcus Aurelius Stemmata) Pliny's letter 92 to Rufinus provides some evidence but frankly confuses the hell out of me. Their daughter Domitia Lucilla (the Younger) married Marcus Annius Verus Their son was Marcus Aurelius However, I cannot find adequate source material through the ancients or in the Smith Dictionary for the connections between the Laenas line and the Domitius line. In searching the various names involved this book keeps coming up... "Second Thoughts on the Imperial Succession from Nerva to Commodus" by Russel Mortimer Geer but as I don't have JSTOR access, I can't connect the dots. It's interesting even if probably unprovable.

Just for the record, I disagree with the notion that the Second Punic War led directly to the downfall of the Republic (and I think Pan is thinking along the same lines). I was only suggesting how the results of that war allowed broader opportunities for later constitutional and legal transgressions. I've said in other places I still believe it is the fault of individuals despite whatever temptations or precedents they may have faced.

We should probably set up an actual poll. Since other's have already mentioned Tacitus... I'd like to read Cato the Elder's "Origines" on the early history of Rome and Italy. As I find his "Natural Histories" endlessly interesting I'd also like to have seen Pliny the Elder's "Germanic Wars" and "History of his times". I also greatly enjoy Cassius Dio, and though we are fortunate enough to have most of his history, there are several lost or fragmented books. Only 35 of Livy's enormous 142 book history survive... imagine if they still existed. Claudius' work on the Etruscans could prove invaluable to linguists. And just for fun, how about Suetonius "Lives of Famous Whores" Just so many...

I'm wondering that too. Perhaps because it gave inspiration to so many of the gratuitous campaigns by avaricious upstarts in the 2nd century BC? The only connection that I can readily accept is that the expansion of territory as a result of the Punic and Macedonian Wars created an environment and the opportunity to make the later transgressions possible. The additional influx of slave labor has long been argued as having a negative impact on the landless citizenry of Rome and leading to the rise of the populares movement. Whether this was a real condition of hardship, a perceived slight, political propaganda or some combination of thereof is of course often debated around here.

It's possible that Servilia was among the most influential people immediately following Caesar's assassination, but most "powerful" seems a rather subjective statement. The influence recorded by Cicero is quite clear. (This letter and this letter to Atticus are perhaps far more revealing than the idea that she offered consul to the assassins in her home.) The idea that a woman could influence the passage of senatorial decree, especially in an era of tyrants... how truly modern!

I split the theory of various scholars discussion as it was rapidly devolving from the the topic at hand.

An interesting dynamic that I personally ignore too often. Indeed, the fear of emperors becoming like a Nero influenced later generation even if some of the stories were untrue.

Yes, I think my point lacked clarity. I meant to suggest that the military frontier was essentially a staging ground for veteran legionaries. Vexillations moved to and fro from the Danubian region as they were needed on the the various frontiers because of Dacia's excellent central location. Regardless, the point is not necessary and I removed the sentence.

I'd like to topple Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad, but it wouldn't change anything (especially in Iran's case). I'm sure there are many ways to accomplish this, but I believe that a hammer to the skull would prove sufficient.

We can reasonably predict the stance of Cato and his faction, the stance of Cicero and the moderates and even the surviving Caesarians. I will make the dangerous assumption that the surviving populares faction would've been stymied into at least temporary appeasement in the face of such an enormous defeat. Perhaps such a defeat would've actually refocused the movement onto its roots rather than singular grabs of power. This is the reason the focus is on Pompey. He always was the wildcard in the game. The concept at play is that without Caesar's army as a counter threat to Pompey, he might have (and might is the key word) installed himself as dictator in absence of that threat and initiated his own purge. (I understand that this would have resulted in continued civil war with the forces in Africa, but this is a what if scenario we are discussing) Pompey showed a tendency to concede political issues and alliances provided his ego and social standing were stroked enough. Again, based on his actions after returning from the east originally, I get the impression that he would not have pushed to the point of proscription (a bit of unhealthy mob violence not withstanding). Of course the senate likely would need to have been willing to provide some sort of retirement for the victorious legions if they wished to avoid a repeat of the earlier dramatics and take away Pompey's leverage. Conditions and circumstances, and reactions to them, are not always so easy to predict however.

Anyone else notice that FC is conspicuously absent since the dems swept congress. He must be on a 3 day celebratory bender. At least Arnold is still around to give him at least a mild form of Republican irritation

As I recall it was largely American. However, it was not the acting that was truly at fault, but the script itself. Though the lad who portrayed Octavian missed the mark completely, it may have been the fault of the director/writers rather than any lack of acting skill. Not long enough to enjoy "Empire".

Allow me simply to say this... The entire idea of this website/forum is to discuss the history of Rome and to advance the study of history. Through this discussion we not only polish our own existing views, but we learn from others and open our minds to new theories. As two simple examples: I have often been frustrated by MP Cato's aggressive tone regarding his discussions on the fall of the Republic, but I am always forced to think. I often disagree with some of Phil's notions on the Julio-Claudians and the Antonian/hellenistic agenda, but I am always forced to think. Each person who posts on this forum in a manner that indicates a desire to learn or to share an idea has my complete respect. Sometimes we may be combative, and sometimes we may completely disagree to the point of anger, but the key to this site is trying to encourage continued development of these ideas. Let's not argue over which scholar or which source is more or less valuable than others, but simply make our arguments to the best of our abilities. Whether people agree with our ideas or not, my general goal is to rest on the hope that we made a counter or supportive case that simply forces someone else to think. With that in mind, please keep in mind these goals as the discussion continues, so we don't go off on tangents regarding which method of historical study is best.

I didn't watch it just yet for time constraints at the moment... but I'd suggest that any video showing Rummy "resigning" could have a positive impact on recruitment.

Seemingly yes. We are still averaging around $2.20 per gallon. In a BLUE state no less

General agreement with Aurelianus... The problem inherent in this scenario is Pompey. As long as Caesar existed, Pompey was somewhat reliant upon the opposition faction for his continued position. Without Caesar (and his army) Pompey might have been free to dictate his own terms. He may have initiated mass proscription, but the existing evidence of his non violent (though politically manipulative) return from his eastern campaign suggests that he would not have done what was feared. Despite what any other member of the camp may have been saying, Pompey would've been the only one with enough power (by virtue of his victorious army) to enable massive proscriptions (imo).

It was most horrible. A previous discussion of Empire on ABC TV from ages gone by

So two of the three natural grandsons of Augustus, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar were appointed his heirs but specificaly not Postumus? Whether this meant they would have just inherited his money and property or assume his functions as head of state I don't know but I would assume so. Why was Postumus excluded? Was there any suggestion he was not Julia's son and so not a blood decendant? Postumus was specifically not adopted so as to carry on the name of Agrippa. His exclusion was honorary in that regard and not intended as a slight. However, his continued exclusion after the deaths of Gaius and Lucius and his own exile to Planasia is only speculative. The immediate assumption of political partisanship by Livia on behalf of Tiberius is suggested by Tacitus and largely perpetuated by Robert Graves, but the reality is completely unknown.