Ingsoc

Very nice! And here is a Punk-Rock version of Catullus fifth poem (in Latin!), a very nice preform.

Silius Italicus, Punica (Part 1, Part 2).

The Roman army being caught out of guard and suffer a defeat at a single battle was more common that you think, however they always manage to bounce back and crush the enemy. To me the true greatness of Arminius as a military commander was the fact he manage to hold off and defeat Germanicus army send to avenge the defeat of Varus, so in the end the Romans prefer to retreat rather then spend valuable resources needed in order to defeat Arminius.

Livius did an interesting piece on what would have happened if Alexander the Great would have expand his empire westward. I do believe he was the first to write an alternate history. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy09.html

Sorry but I never bought this whole theory of a senatorial faction that struggle against the power of the princeps, Augustus had no problem ordering around in the supposedly senatorial provinces, even after the assassination of Caligula they didn't seriously debate about returning the republic, in fact some of the senators saw themselves worthy to be the next princpes. There were certainly senators which show a spirit of independence from time to time, but they know their limits and by no mean were part of any faction who strove to revive the senate as the ruling body in Rome, the truth is that the free senate was literally exterminate in the battle of Philippi at 42 BC and their succor understand the necessity of the princeps rule and, as Tacitus brilliantly put it, were satisfy with the symbols of liberty.

I hardly say that Josephus account reflect well on Caligula actions, he almost started a war that would consume Judea (and most likely the provinces in the vicinity) and for what? just to satisfy his own ego and delusions of godhood. You also should check out "The embassy to Gaius" by Philo, especially the account of his audience with Caligula, which again doesn't reflect good on the character of the young emperor. As for your "senatorial history" argument, you quit right, like writers of most histories the Roman history was written by the rich and powerful. But what of it? there were others emperors that were disliked by the senatorial class but none of them was describe in the same way as Caligula, in the end the argument of senatorial bias reach a dead end and one must admit there was probably a grain of truth in all the stories about Caligula.

If the case of Caius Lusius and Trebonius (Plutarchus, Marius, 14.3) is an example to the attitude of the Roman military toward homosexuality, it seem it saw it with disdain, though it could be argued that Marius problem was with the breach of discipline that Luisius actions cause and not the fact he liked men, it's also worth to note that all the judges initially wanted to convict Trebonius. I don't believe that same sex relationships considered as a sign of an effeminate person per se, Suetonius mention the homosexual relationships of almost all the emperors without negative comment on this matter (at least not that it made them "soft") the only place with negative view is the biography of Julius Caesar which recorded his political enemies attack him for his supposed relationship with Nicomedes (Divi Juli, 49) rather than being attack for being in the relationship itself Caesar was attacked for being the passive side (the "woman").

It's obvious that this "discovery" is fueled by the need in justify modern political views. I suppose he chose Carthago because it was based in North Africa and perhaps he wants to draw parallel with the immigration influence coming to Italy (I understand that most of them came from North Africa). Anyway it's beyond laughable, the Carthagians couldn't influence the Romans into anything as they were murdered and their city turn into desolated ruins after the third Punic war. And as I recall Rome fell during the rule of the Catholic church who very much oppose homosexuality.

One should not forget that the term itself originated in the Renaissance, a time that scholars had great admiration for the classical world and saw its collapse as a great catastrophe which destroy western civilization until the present Renaissance age arrive and restore it. So discarding the term in favor of the Middle Ages in not without reason, not saying that the end of the classical world wasn't a great disaster, it was, but not all was dark and bleak in the centuries between the collapse of the ancient world to the Renaissance.

Nonsense. The Romans typically sought to contain the enemy and force him to gather at a single location where they could deal with the issue in one final action, fighting on their terms rather than the enemies. Notice that they effectively utilise the same means as catching animals en masse. Guerrilla war is fighting by conducting small scale hit and run attacks on the enemy, and them retreating to your base, this tactics often aided by sympathizing local population. That certainly wasn't the tactic of Arminius at the battle of the Teutoburg Forest.

The Romans (and also the Greeks) didn't know how to produce beverages with higher alcohol levels, wine was the strongest they got.

It's a shame you can't view this show outside the UK. I assume she referred to the finds at Kuntillet Ajrud? those are more interesting than just the mention of Asherah as Yahweh consort. Its also called his Yahweh Shomron, after the Israeli capital which suggest that just like other deities in the region Yahweh also had a local incarnations, it's also possible that the image found there is a depiction of Yahweh.

Like Kosmo wrote what you describe is an ambush and not a guerrilla war. A good example to a guerrilla war would be the Bar Kochba revolt in Judea (132-136) Archaeological evidence show that the Romans suffer great loses at the start of the revolt and one legion, the XXII Deiotariana, was completely wiped out and the revels strike coins to celebrate their new found independence. The Romans respond by concentrating their army in Judea in great numbers and they virtually wiped out any places in Judea that could show sympathy to the rebels, in simply terms the Romans were force to enter an attrition war until the overcome their enemy.

One must examine what benefits came to Rome due to Caesar career. Except short terms benefits (slaves and loot) the conquest of Gaul had little to offer to Rome, in contrast to the lands of the east (such as Egypt for example) there were little that the Romans could be interested there. Caesar did manage to reign supreme but he done it by starting a civil war, and what was his reason for it? that he refuse to play by the political rules. And latter when he became dictator he done everything he could to alienate the aristocracy, even when such moves had no real benefit (as such wearing the shoes of the Roman kings). In the end after his death the situation simply return to it original point, another years of pointless civil wars and instability.

By that logic you could include Sulla as well. The main reason for me to disagree with you (and Suetonius) is the fact that Caesar spend most of his rule fighting for control over the Roman state and the time between the victory in the civil war to his assassination was too short to have a real affect of the work of the Roman state. In the end, just like it was with Sulla, after his death the state return to square one and the old battles between the nobility return as well.