Ingsoc

Is all point that the Roman citizen body was responsible to the collapse of the Republic is incorrect in my eyes: In the last republican census some 910,000 citizens were counts, obviously since the elections were held only in Rome not all of them could attend, furthermore an election took at least one day of work a day that the poor couldn't afford to waste and I doubt they care much who would be the next consul - the fight between the aristocracy of the republic simply didn't concern the issues that was important to them like the hight rent, unemployment, fires and etc. only in uncanny cases like the Grachi agrarian laws or Pompius special command in the east they had interests to attend. And in an event they could attend they simply would have much say in the elections of the magistrates due to the structure of the Comitia Centuriata which was timocratian and almost always led to decisions being made without the voting of the poorer centuriatas. So in the end the republic fall wasn't due to the so call corruption of the Roman people in the late republic but to the inability of the small aristocracy to compromise and that led to the civil wars and in the end to the rise of the imperial autocratic system.

Why think of only military leaders? I would think that Iustinianus I (Justinian I) codification of Roman law was one that continue to influence the world for centuries (it's was still thought in law schools a few decades ago) and thus made a deep impact over the entire world more than any military commander could have done.

Gladiatus is an online text base game about gladiators fights.

Agrippa I was named after the late son in law of the emperor. His real name was Marcus Julius Agrippa (though his praenomen is disputed) in the Talmud he is called "Agrippas" and in the New Testament he is called "Herod", according to Daniel Shwartz (in his book "Agrippa I: The Last King of Judea") this was made either to mark him as the enemy of Christianity (as anyone who called Herod would be) or the writer simply mistook him for his brother Herod of Chalcis. He is not called Herod in any other source although on one coin he is named "Herod Agrippa". Herod was indeed a close friend of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, he visited him during his stay at Lesbos and in 15 BC Agrippa visited Judea, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and committed sacrifices in the temple what earn his the affection of the Jewish masses (thought it's seem his father in law dislike his actions), it's was the greatest tribute any Roman has made toward the Jews. Herod also came with his fleet to assist Agrippa in his campaign against the Bosporus Kingdom.

Take a look at this collection of inscription

I would want to get books that would help to shed light of some of history mysteries: Tacitus books on Caligula reign, Josephus lost book in Hebrew/Aramic and Justus of Tiberias book on the Great Revolt.

Just to give you a quick time table of events: 161 BC: An alliance between Rome and Judas Maccabeus (then the rebel leader in Judea) is struck is alliance will continue until the days of Alexander Jannaeus (reign 103 BC - 73 BC). 63 BC: Popeius conquer Syria and naturally Judea become a client state. At this date Antipatar (Herod's father) became the most prominent of Hycranus II advicers, he came from a family of Edomites who were converted into Judaism after John Hycranus I conquer their homeland in 112 BC, his father Antipas was made the governor of the province in the days of Alexander Jannaeus, and Antipatar himself manage to became the strongest man in Judea due to his assistence to the Romans (Pompeius and Julius Caesar) after his assasination in 43 BC his sons, Phasael and Herod, continue to rule Judea until the Parthian invasion in 40 BC which put the Hasmonean Antigonus on the throne. Phasael were put to death and Herod escaped to Rome where he manage to presuade Antonius that he be made king of Judea, in 37 BC he manage to capture the throne with the help of the Roman legions. Upon his death in 4 BC his kingdom is divided into three realms: Herod Antipas (the one who were called "the fox" by Jesus) receive the Galilee and the Perea, Philipus receive the Trachonitis and the northen parts (which were non Jewish) and Archelaus receive the largest parts of Edom, Judea and Samaria. 6 AD: Archelaus is exiled and Augustus annexed Judea 41 AD: Agrippa I united his grandfather kingdom under one ruler. 44 AD: Agrippa I death, Claudius re-annex Judea. a few years later his son (Agrippa II) is made king in the northen parts of his father kingdom and would rule them until 100 AD.

It's all depend of which Jews you refering to, some in the hellenic diaspora like Philo were well versed in hellenistic culture however the situation was much diffrent in Judea - if you look in the writing of Josephus you may notice that he feel the need to aplogise for his lack of knowlege in Greek and if this was the case for Josephus who were of the Jerusalem nobility that it's certinly would be the case for Jesus early followers who according to the Gospels were of the Galilee "plebs".

As you quote the author in your original post :"The Gospel proves to be the history of the Roman Civil war, a 'mis-telling' of the life of Caesar-from the Rubicon to his assassination-mutated into the narrative of Jesus, from the Jordan to his crucifixion. Jesus is a true historical figure, he lived as Gaius Julius Caesar, and ressurected as Divus Julius.'' The "church" is the first decades after Jesus death was almost entrirley compose of his Jews followers and they are the one who wrote the Gospels of the New Testeament (atleast the Synoptic Gospels). The it's would be right to assume that the later gentile church made some alterations to the text but I having a hard time to believe that they reworte to such a deep extent.

It's just simply doesn't make sence, from all we know of the Imperoal Cult in Judea who can safely say that the Jews rejected it completely. why would a group of Jews in Judea, the place where the Roman culture was the furtherst from the people minds in all the empire, would model there Messiah base on a Roman god?

I think Carotta (and many more) makes the mistake of not distinction between two kinds of Jesus. The first one is the historical person, this Jesus was one of many would be Jews reformators, he was a minor sect leader in Judea and his attempt to challenge the Roman authority and the Jewish elite failed and led to his death. The second is the Jesus who is the God-Messiah, since the break between the followers of Jesus and Judaism Chriastianty became a Chameleon like religion who absorbed local elements into her tradition.

Caesar's only daughter died few years before him without children, after him death all the Julian Caesarian family were descended from his sister throught Augustus. Nero was the last of the male line thought be may have survive by few females.

Would the common naming system in the western world, in which every person have three names, would also be a heritage of the roman naming system?

Currently, isn't there something in the news about this town? I have no idea what you talking about.

It's seem that in later times the range of names to be chosen was much wider. for example in this letter by Apion, a Greek who join the Roman navy, he mention that his Roman name is Antonius Maximus.

I think you mean to the city of Tzippori.

I still think that the Hellenist monarchy theory has it's problems, for start there were fighting and bad blood between Octavianus and Antonius long before the later attachment to Cleopatra, also if you claim that Antonius strove for esthablishment of an Eastern-Hellenistic style monachry in Rome and Octavianus wear a mask of pseudo-republicanism to pacify the Senatorial ranks how would you explain the many senators who supported Antonius? For example I think we could say for certain that Gaius Asinius Pollio, one of Antonius supporters and a man who in later times criticise the Princeps system, did not want to establish an Eastern-Hellenistic style monarchy in Rome.

It's certanly one view, on the other hand there are some (like Ronald Syme) that think that there weren't any real diffrent between either one of the antagonist factions and the civil war between Antonius and Octavianus revolved around the gain of personal powers.

I just like to mention that those speeches weren't really made by Octavianus and Antonius but are a literature device used to convey the intentions and views of them by the book's author.

According to Suetonius Galba did indeed understand the threat that Vespasian pose: "He met his end in the seventy-third year of his age and the seventh month of his reign. The senate, as soon as it was allowed to do so, voted him a statue standing upon a column adorned with the beaks of ships, in the part of the Forum where he was slain; but Vespasian annulled this decree, believing that Galba had sent assassins from Spain to Judaea, to take his life." (Life of Galba ,23)

As I understand there were several restrictions on the status of freedmen, especially in realation to marriage into senatorial families, however I recently read Astin biography of Cato the Elder and he seem to think that Cato second wife was the daughter of one of his freedmen. Now as Cato was known as the protector of Roman traditions and customs it's would seem to indicate that such a match was acceptable in that time, now my question is my and where did the treatment of freedmen change?

The story about Proculus Julius is probably a later invented tradition that was first appeared during Julius Caesar dictatorship or the Julio-Claudian rule, as we only hear that the Julii arive to Rome later in the book after the destruction of Alba Longa (Livius, 1.30).

Bibulus was married to Cato's daughter Porcia. Thus, Cato was Bibulus' father-in-law, not the reverse. Arrg... you right ofcourse, it's was a silly mistake on my part.

I think that even in anciet times (after his death) Antonius was known as "that Egyptian whore's lover" thanks to Augustus smear campaign against him.

Brutus was indeed adopted by one of the Caepio family (probably his uncle) and for a time was called Q. Caepio Brutus, thought Clarke think that the influence of his adoptive father was minor in comparion to that of Cato and Servillia (The Noblest Roman: Marcus Brutus and His Reputation, pp 12). in any case he bore this name for a short time and never was the head of the Servilii Caepiones. It's unlikely that this Caepio was Brutus, first of all Suetonius mention that he render Caesar "conspicuous service in his contest with Bibulus" (Julius Caesar, 21) a thing that Brutus was unlikely to do since Bibulus was the son in law of his beloved uncle Cato, it's also likely that if this Caepio was indeed Brutus Suetonius would use the name which he was best known.