Ingsoc

B.A Marshall (in his book "Crassus: A Political Biography") seem to think that Clodius acted as Crassus client and his attacks of Pompius was desgine to show him that Crassus was still relevant power in the Triumvirate and that he shouldn't attach himself too much to Caesar.

What intresting is if they were a time were the citizens of the eastern empire stop seeing themself as Romans and begin to think of themself as Greeks.

I agree with Klingan it's unlikely to find a tomb of someone who was at his time unimportand figure, second I tend to suspect about most of the finding concerning the "celebrities" of the Bible, in many cases they turn to be fake.

Pullo is the nomen, you need to remember that not all Roman had a cognomen. A good example to this is Marcus Antonius of the plebian Antonii while the patrician branch of the Antonii used the cognomen Merenda.

Augustus himself always try to show that in his powers ("potestas") he was equall to all but in his "auctoritas" (a term that mean prestige, moral authority, etc.) he was superior to all. "After that time I took precedence of all in rank, but of power I possessed no more than those who were my colleagues in any magistracy." (Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 34.4) He also try to give out the impression that the tribunicia potestas which he held was in accordence to republica traditions, "when the Senate and the Roman people unanimously agreed that I should be elected overseer of laws and morals, without a colleague and with the fullest power, I refused to accept any power offered me which was contrary to the traditions of our ancestors. Those things which at that time the Senate wished me to administer I carried out by virtue of my tribunician power. And even in this office I five times received from the Senate a colleague at my own request." (Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 6)

As I understand this the tribunicia potestas mean that Augustus didn't actually serve as tribune but had the powers of one without actually serving in this office.

I think you mean to the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast" who was founded in the far east by the Communist in 1928 in order to fight Zionist movement and offer a Soviet alternative to Israel, the plan failed in the end and in it's highest the Jews consist only 5% of the general population. strangly this oblast still exist to this day.

Zvi Yavetz seem to think that this rumor was part of Marcus Antonius propoganda war against Octavius.

As an Emperor Augustus was the best, simply due to the fact that he was the one who molded the position that we in modern time called "Emperor of Rome". hence every emperor that follow him, regardless of his style of governship or personally, ruled with Augustan style since the very job of emperor was molded in Augustus image.

I don't agree, after the murder of Caesar his supporters fled in fear: "All citizens closed their doors and prepared for defence on their roofs. Antonius fortified his house, apprehending that conspiracy was against him as well as Caesar. Lepidus, the master of the horse, being in the forum at the time, learned what had been done and ran to the island in the river where he had a legion of soldiers, which he transferred to the Field of Mars in order to be in greater readiness to execute Antonius' orders; for he yielded to Antony as a closer friend of Caesar and also as consul. While pondering over the matter they were strongly moved to avenge the death of Caesar, but they feared lest the Senate should espouse the side of the murderers and so they concluded to await events." (Appian, The Civil Wars, 2.118) Obiviously Brutus and Cassius should have acted now to take over the state, rally the senate behind them, try to get the support of the people and the troops. instead theri inaction allowed Antonius to take the matter into his own hands.

I assume this was done by Antonius to appease his critics, what intresting is that Augustus tell us that he was offered the dictatorship in 22 BC so it's seem that the office was restored, if so by whom and why?

The all idea behind the assasination of Caesar was that it's was an act of honor done by patriotic citizens who wish to slay the tyrant, if they would have purges members of his party it's wouldn't be an act of Tyrannicide but a political assasination of their personal rivals. I think that the fact that Brutus and Cassius failed was due to the fact they lack a plan to take over the republic after Caesar death, instead they just hoped that after the tyrant death the republic would be restored on it's own.

Yes it's was common to send prisoners to serve as hostages as part of a peace deal (for example Antiochus III send both of his sons to Rome after the Apamea treaty) however they by no mean were captured during war. The main reason for the sons of the vassal rulers to be in Rome was so that they could learn about the might of Rome and serve as an agents of Romanisation when they themself became rulers. No doubt that in a case that their father would rise against his Roman maters they would be used hostages - but this was only a secondry reason for their stay in Rome.

All prisoners were either executed, sold to slavery or put to death during games in the arena.

Simply there seem to be no one else! all of Augustus previous heir: Marcellus, Agrippa, his gransons Gaius and Lucius have died before him. So Tiberius was the only worthy canidate for the job. After several plots on his life Claudius needed to streghen his regime, this was done by the marriage to Agrippina and the adopting of her son Nero - the main advantage of this arrangment that Agrippina and her son were descended of Augustus (unlike Claudius) and that Nero provide a mature heir to the throne (unlike Britannicus). However it's seem that in his last days Claudius contemplted overthrowing Nero and making Britannicus his heir.

Originally the centuria was consisted of 100 men.

Am I missing something? No, it's just another mistake by the Byzantine author.

It's seem that another source, Appian, state that he was Catiline son "Gaius Catiline was a person of note, by reason p233of his great celebrity, and high birth, but a madman, for it was believed that he had killed his own son because of his own love for Aurelia Orestilla, who was not willing to marry a man who had a son." (Appian, BC, 2.2) Of course you can wonder if Appian got it correct since he made a mistake in writing Catiline's praenomen.

LacusCurtius has some original latin/greek texts, and you probably could easily find the rest at any university library.

Can we return to this part of the thread? In I, Claudius and The Caesars the children of Sejanus were strangled and, as it was illegal to execute a virgin, the young daughter was 'violated' first. What do the primary sources have to comment about this? "His children also were put to death by decree, the girl (whom he had betrothed to the son of Claudius) having been first outraged by the public executioner on the principle that it was unlawful for a virgin to be put to death in the prison" (Dio Cassius, LVIII, 11.5) "It was next decided to punish the remaining children of Sejanus, though the fury of the populace was subsiding, and people generally had been appeased by the previous executions. Accordingly they were carried off to prison, the boy, aware of his impending doom, and the little girl, who was so unconscious that she continually asked what was her offense, and whither she was being dragged, saying that she would do so no more, and a childish chastisement was enough for her correction. Historians of the time tell us that, as there was no precedent for the capital punishment of a virgin, she was violated by the executioner, with the rope on her neck. Then they were strangled and their bodies, mere children as they were, were flung down the Gemoniae. " (Tacitus, The Annales , 5.9)

Not really, in this coin Galba attach the names "Caesar" and "Augustus" to his own. Galba want to inhert Nero as princeps not restore the republic and this coin was probably another propoganda trick.

Agrippa was Augustus heir untile his death, no doubt Augustus want him to be emperor and then he will be succeeded by Gauius and Lucius. Augustus desire that his blood relative will be his heir but he wasn't gonna give the empire to an unexperience youth (see for example the case of Marcellus) only after Tiberius retirement he began to think that the boys could inheret him directly.

The fact there was no etablished method of transfering power was due to the fact that the official propoganda proclaim that Augustus "restore" the republic, Augustus certinly consider his grandsons Gaius and Lucius as heir from the day they were born.

Augustus, the first emperor understand that the people will never stand a monarchist rule so in 27 BC he "restore" the republic. in theory the republic continue to exist but in practise it's was the emperor (let's remember that "emperor" is a modern term) which was the "princeps" (first citizen) who rule Rome via the army. Perhaps some did believe the republic was restored in the early days of the princeps system, however by later date Roman authors admits that the emperor is actually a king. the use of the word "republic" was nothing then an empty official name.

correct, your turn.