Primus Pilus

Titus was a grown man when his father took the throne. He was not born to be emperor. Phil is quite right in suggesting that Commodus was the first emperor born into succession (at least the first one to survive into that role). Generally speaking, biological sons seem to have been chosen in favor of adoptive, but Claudius chose Nero over Britannicus.

In Tiberius case, he was secondary though. He occupied a position of relative power as Augustus stepson, but he seems only to have been considered a fore running candidate for heir after the death of Agrippa and until the coming of age of Gaius and Lucius Caesar. This is not to suggest that Tiberius did not occupy a position of importance or imperial prestige. However, Tiberius seems only to have been considered a candidate for heir provided circumstances dictated such a condition. This also ties into the incident of Tiberius' retirement from public life to study in Rhodes. We can't quite be sure if Tiberius simply hated Julia and wished to be away from her, if he loathed the public life and wished for privacy, or if he was protesting the elevation of the sons of Agrippa to a position ahead of him in the imperial hierarchy.

Keep in mind that part of the process of the "adoptive period" included adopting heirs who also did not have sons. Trajan was a grown man without children when adopted by Nerva. The adoption of Hadrian is likely to have occurred posthumously, so we can't quite be sure what Trajan's intentions were. However, Hadrian was also a grown man in an unpleasant marriage, so his having legitimate children was unlikely (especially considering how hard it would've been for Antinous to give him a son ) The adoptive concept ultimately failed because Hadrian's selection of Antoninus Pius (who had no children and was already middle aged) was also contingent upon his adoption of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in turn (imperial names used to avoid confusion). Both of these men were teenagers and it was not really practical to expect either of them to not have children of their own.

Indeed, perhaps people will actually start to work together. You don't know just how accurate you are. I have friends who work for the State Dept and another government agency all guys I served with. The concensus is that DoD under Rummy has been a closed shop unwilling to work with other government agencies. Rummy's had it out for the Army from the get-go, completely ignoring requests for new weapons systems and marginalizing senior generals who disagree with him. Good riddance! He's always seemed the authoritarian who's ego undermined his job more than someone who intentionally had it out for the troops, but clearly some of the behavior has been hard to understand. I suppose being unable to admit to being wrong or to making mistakes is a politician's natural position, but he's had it worse than most.

Indeed, perhaps people will actually start to work together.

I admit to never having tasted it... but I wanted to keep my options open. Alas. At any rate, can I assume a quail/pheasant sort of experience?

Politicians Sweep Midterm Elections Here in Michigan we had a ballot proposal to ban the hunting of mourning doves (The practice had been banned since 1903 but was lifted for limited hunting in 2004). I quote a conversation between a few people in line at the polling booth yesterday... A rather animated young women some 10 people behind me or so in line, was speaking quite loudly to what I presumed to be a friend about our Proposal 3. I paraphrase... "The mourning dove is a symbol of peace and tranquility and its a wonderful creature, etc. They need to be protected from people who just want to blow them up with guns. What's next, shooting robins (our state bird), sparrows and hummingbirds? I can't understand why anyone would want to kill such a beautiful little bird...." (the diatribe was actually much longer and quite emotional but you get the idea) And she was suddenly interrupted by a rather large bearded and gruff looking man (who happened to be standing directly in front of me), who boomed... "Because they taste good bitch. I'd shoot you too, but you probably taste like a lima bean." This very nearly turned ugly but thankfully, the big gruff fellow behind me was more than satisfied with his own quip and smiled calmly while his target retaliated with a rather venomous tirade. Cooler heads ultimately prevailed and little else came of it, but it sure made for some rather uncomfortable moments. For the record... I voted against the ban, not because I have any personal desire to kill a mourning dove, but simply because banning it limits personal freedom. That and any ban on one form of hunting could potentially lead to another. As a guy who enjoys venison, I'd rather not have that happen. For the curious, the ban passed with an enormous margin as everyone expected it would... 69 to 31%. It shouldn't come as any shock that people tend to like little animals), so I suppose that the boisterous young woman ultimately had the last laugh. Anyone else have any odd local ballot issues they'd care to share?

Seems more to me to be military discipline and punishment veiled under the guise of decimation more than true decimation. The 10th also faced a limited form of this when the ringleading officers of its own mutiny were also executed. However it still does not seem to quite carry the same weight of Crassus' implementation of this policy. Punishing mutineers (regardless of the duress put upon them by Caesar's excessive campaigning) was a necessity and is not indicative of clemency or tyrannical execution in comparison to political matters. Consider that Caesar showed great clemency at times, but by Thapsus and Munda his attitude is decidedly different. As our own MP Cato likes to point out, ask the Gauls about Caesar's famed clemency. Arguments for either case can be effectively made simply based on the circumstances of the event and those who were the victims of brutality or recipients of clemency. At any rate the actual source material is below. Suetonius glosses over it, but Cassius Dio waxes poetically complete with speeches, as he often did. Suetonius Life of Caesar; 69 Cassius Dio, Histories Book 41; 26 - 35

I'm sure that had something to do with it, though whichever way they went, there were going to be historical issues. Pullo and Vorenus were historically from Legio XI, but as you point out, this legion did not cross with Caesar into Italy. However, none of the legions discussed (X, XI or XIII) were with Caesar in Alexandria. A quick breakdown: Legio X - In action throughout the Gallic Wars. Present at Dyrrhachium, Pharsalus, Africa and Munda (Hispania) Legio XI - Recruited for the Helvetti campaign and served throughout Gaul. Fought in Caesar's war against Pompey's army in Hispania, and was present at Dyrrhachium, Pharsalus. Was disbanded until Philippi where it fought for Octavian/Antony against the 'Republicans' Legio XIII - Recruited for the Belgica campaign in Gaul. Crossed the Rubicon with Caesar and was present at Dyrrachium. Was not at Pharsalus nor Alexandria but did serve in Africa and were likely involved at Munda.

Seems every post on your site is a direct copy of other pages on the net... wikipedia, BBC, etc. I'm afraid I cant support that. Your link has been removed.

I was also quite convinced that the terms of the treaty following the 1st war also included a the 10 ship limit, so I was induced to do a bit of searching. Seems you were quite right regarding the 10 triremes... only that this was a condition of the second war: Polybius book 15; 18 Regardless, Carthaginian naval power was still severely restricted in comparison after the Roman victory of the first war. So, while you may be wrong in the notion that no Carthaginian fleet existed prior to the outset of Hannibal's war, I think it's still quite safe to maintain that naval transport was a dangerous proposition for the Carthaginians in the face of Roman naval superiority of the time.

Does drinking a 1/5 of Old Grand Dad when one is 16 causing one to retch all himself while subsequently vowing never to drink whiskey or bourbon again classify as being an expert? If so, I would not recommend Old Grand Dad.

That's an interesting perspective Phil, one that I hadn't really considered before. When I stop to consider the ramifications of an overwhelming Caesar performance on the show in its entirety, your scenario makes a good deal of sense.

My sentiments exactly. This is why I'd much prefer Saddam to be hung than to spend the rest of his days 'exiled' at a posh Swiss resort. Hopefully (and at this point it's pure hope), there's some way to dissuade future world leaders from behaving like Saddam. My only point was that such a penalty need be applied by the people who were victimized as a part of the democratic exercise.

It's mail order only I'm afraid. I wouldn't even know how to begin to actually get it in physical stores.

This does not appear to be what you are looking for, but may help... Caesar Gallic Wars Book 4: 33, 34

Now, PP, you have hit on the very point, and it's the one thing that makes me very uncomfortable about the whole 'war crimes' ethos. If it is what the majority of Iraqi's want then hang him. I have to confess to not following the trial too closely - but was this tribunal made up of a majority of Iraqi's? Considering that there are more Shiites and Kurds combined than Sunnis, I'm thinking its fairly safe to assume that the majority want him dead. However, it makes little difference to me personally whether they flay him alive and roll him around in a vat of salt, if they put him prison forever, or exile him to some posh resort in the Swiss Alps.

Carthage itself did have fleets. This is evidenced by reports of Mago sailing away from the siege of Carthago Nova only to be defeated near Liguria in northern Italy. Hannibal himself sailed from Italy back to Africa to fend off Scipio. etc. The Romans were unconditionally superior to Carthage in naval matters since the end of the first Punic War, but there was definitely not a complete absence of Carthaginian fleets. Hannibal was not under supplied in Italy because Romans controlled the shipping lanes, but rather because of political enmity between he and the factions still in Carthage (largely Hanno the Great). The bulk of reinforcements and supply were routed to Hispania, which in the opinion of the anti war faction in Carthage, was a necessity to maintain control of their massively profitable colony. Clearly, any such deliveries in this case were sent via ship. Hannibal's war of aggression and conquest was simply shunned in favor of defense and consolidation of controlled territory. With larger political support and backing in Carthage, resupply and reinforcement to Hannibal in Italy may or may not have altered the course of the war (presumably a more powerful Hannibal in Italy would've made the capitulation of Hispania easier for the Romans). The chance for interception and defeat would've been far greater in the lanes between Africa, Sicilia and Italia but it could have been attempted, even with limited means. Even had he built his own fleet while in Italy, manning it would've stripped his slowly shrinking army even further... and there would've been no guarantee of garnering supply when and if it arrived safely in Africa. Hannibal could've built his own fleet before or after the siege of Saguntum (which sparked the war in the first place) but this was not necessary and actually counter to his agenda. His plan had always been a land march through Roman allied/controlled territory in order to ferment dissent. His supply was decent enough and the overland movement actually kept the Romans guessing. Perhaps more importantly there was no risk at losing his army in a naval battle with a superior opponent while in transport.

Without question this was a stance that was largely popular with the masses and unpopular with the conservative senatorial faction. This is not to suggest that Cicero did not have some support, but the opposition was definitely among the most powerful of the aristocracy. Cicero may or may not have had his own ulterior motives at heart, but the end result was a victory for the people. He took a considerably dangerous stance on this trial. I don't think there is any question that he miscalculated. However, it was not his own position that was in question but the convictions of Octavian that ultimately ended Cicero. His stance was quite courageous when one considers that at the time it was Antony and Lepidus who largely controlled the remains of Caesar's legions. Cicero understood that Caesar's heir was a necessary counter to Antony's influence with the legions, but he failed to realize that the boy didn't quite see eye to eye regarding the Republic and Caesar's assassins (and/or his personal ambitions).

Agreed, the magistracies maintained much of the same positional authority and respect as they always had. In most cases there was very little little change from the institutional standpoint, it was only that the institutions were under the overall authority of the princeps. The notion that the princeps ignored more of the traditions than eliminated them is dead on. It falls right into place along with the general deception of the continued Republic. I suppose the key is that the citizenry held little if any sway over their own government except for the occasional mob induced forcible change. Their actual votes were meaningless whether they were allowed to assemble for sole purpose of tradition or not.

Not under his real real name at least. Though I suspect that since he posts under his name at RAT, that if he did post here, he would do the same.

It doesn't seem that there is much love lost for him really, even among his former supporters. The question is do they really care about him in particular or just the reclamation of power. I think the impending (currently occurring) civil war has little to do with Saddam's fate. (Other than the fact that he kept all the factions in check, I just mean that his death will effect very little change that wasn't already in motion since his removal from power.) They may use his execution as a rallying cry, but is such a cry of martyrdom really necessary at this point? As for hanging him... I'm personally supportive of whatever the majority of Iraqi's want.

Legio X Gemina (rather than Fretensis) is the more likely successor to Caesar's 10th. It gained the name Gemina (twin) after a revolt forced it to be merged with veterans from other legions in the reign of Augustus. It also survived well into the imperial period. I have read, though I do not have the sources readily available, that some scholars believe that both X Gemina and X Fretensis were originated from Caesar's famous 10th. X Gemina may have been the active men serving at the time under Antonius, while Octavian may have formed X Fretensis from among Caesar's retired veterans. XIII Gemina does carry the legion number from the time of Caesar, though during the course of it's history was also merged with men from other disbanded legions (hence the name Gemina for this legion as well). Excellent summaries from Jona Lendering: X Gemina X Fretensis XIII Gemina

The assemblies still held some theoretic legislative power under Augustus, but the election of senators and appointment of magistrates was transferred to imperial discretion between Augustus and Tiberius. For all intensive purposes (despite a temporary restoration under Caligula) the assemblies were irrelevant as anything other than a gauge of public sentiment after Tiberius. The William Smith Dictionary lays it out quite well: Under Augustus the comitia still sanctioned new laws and elected magistrates, but their whole proceedings were a mere farce, for they could not venture to elect any other persons than those recommended by the emperor (Suet. Aug. 40, &c.; Dion Cass. LIII.2, 21, lv.34, lvi.40). Tiberius deprived the people even of this shadow of their former power, and conferred the power of election upon the senate (Tacit. Ann. i.15, 81, ii.36, 51; Vell. Pat. ii.126). When the elections were made by the senate the result was announced to the people assembled as comitia centuriata or tributa (Dion Cass. LVIII.20). Legislation was taken away from the comitia entirely, and was completely in the hands of the senate and the emperor. Caligula placed the comitia again upon the same footing on which they had been in the time of Augustus (Dion Cass. LIX.9; Suet. Cal. 16); but the regulation was soon abandoned, and every thing was left as it had been arranged by Tiberius (Dion Cass. LIX.20). From this time the comitia may be said to have ceased to exist, as all the sovereign power formerly possessed by the people was conferred upon the emperor by the lex regia [Regia.] The people only assembled in the Campus Martius for the purpose of receiving information as to who had been elected or appointed as its magistrates, until at last even this announcement (renuntiatio) appears to have ceased.

Do not copy and paste text written by someone other than yourself without giving proper credit. Ishtari.demon.co.uk