Ingsoc

It's simpley a literature device used to convey the intentions and views of people that the history book deals with.

Didn't like it, the BBC exclusively based this serie on ancient sources, even in cases they gave blatant false propoganda.

It's correct, in 110 BC Marius marry Julia who was Julius Caesar aunt.

The closest thing I was able to find is Suetonius mention Caligula wife Caesonia: "Though Caesonia was neither beautiful nor young, and was already mother of three daughters by another, besides being a woman of reckless extravagance and wantonness, he loved her not only more passionately but more faithfully, often exhibiting her to the soldiers riding by his side" (Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, The Life of Caligula, 25)

28 BC -Censor with Augustus 28 BC -27 BC - Consul with Augustus 23 BC - Agrippa receive the Imperius thought it's not clear if it was Imperium aequum or Imperium maius 18 BC - renew of his Imperium, also receive the tribunician power 13 BC - renew of his Imperium and tribunician power

Being a Roman is no question of ethnic origion but of the citizenship a person holds, now in accordence with Roman behaviour I think it's safe to assume that atleast some of the Jewish aristocrasy in Judea were made Roman citizens thanks to there support in Roman rule. As for the people who were neither Jewish nor Roman, they were mostly lived in poleis and were subjected to their hometown law.

Josephus had supreme command by appointment of the goverment in Jerusalem, the fact that he couldn't assert his authority over his people is an evidence to his poor skills as a commander. Josephus cooperation with the revolt just goes to show you his dubious character, althought he didn't believe that the war could be won he still throw his lots with the rebels due to their initial success against the 12th legion in Beit Horen. My critisism about Josephus defection has nothing to due with politics or principles, I just think that any commader who defect to the enemy while his men lay dead or are enslave is a traitor to the sacrifices and confidence that his men gave in him.

Josephus tell of a similar escape tunnel which was found by the Romans "Now this vast multitude is indeed collected out of remote places, but the entire nation was now shut up by fate as in prison, and the Roman army encompassed the city when it was crowded with inhabitants. Accordingly, the multitude of those that therein perished exceeded all the destructions that either men or God ever brought upon the world; for, to speak only of what was publicly known, the Romans slew some of them, some they carried captives, and others they made a search for under ground, and when they found where they were, they broke up the ground and slew all they met with." (Josephus, The Jewish War, VI, 9.4)

I must confess this is a first for me. You mean a Roman or a Jewish patriot? If it's the second, please define the concept. A patriot is a person who wants his country to succeed and is proud of his country's success. Josephus' Antiquities is an extended work of tremendous pride in his nation. Unfortunately, Josephus tends to be known almost entirely for the Jewish Wars, which attempted to justify Roman rule. If you believe, as I do, that Roman rule was (on net) beneficial to Judaea, then these two works are not at all incompatible. It was patriotism that led Josephus to take pride in the successes of historical Judaea and it was patriotism that led him to detest the zealots who stood in the way of further successes. I would agree with you, as to the Jewish War you should note that it's not only justify Roman rule but also try to present the people of Judea in good light as it try to lay all the blame for the revolt on the heads of the zealots we, if we believe to Josephus, were a small minority who dragged the entire peacefull Jewish population to the revolt. However there is another aspect in the life of Josephus beside that of the writer and that of the military leader, he took the office of supreme commander of the Galilee even thought he wasn't full heatrly supportive of the revolt. and indeed we know base on his own account that he still had connection to the Roman side and no doubt that his actions upon the Roman victory of defecting to the enemy while his men were dead or sold to slavery doesn't speak well on his character.

I think it's depend on several factors: The status of the people: usually a people who had the status of "allied and friends of the Roman people" (usually on the merits of their alliance with Rome before the Roman direct rule) had a right to some sort on self rule and this included the right of to held their own trials. on the other hand people who status was of occupied people had no such right. The crime: it's likely that if the Romans saw the defendant as a threat to them, in such a case it's likely that the local Roma official would want to deal with him by Roman means or at least put pressure on the local courts to find him guilty and punish him accordinly.

Happy B-Day!

It's seem that Postumus was much less talented than his older brothers as Augustus, who was very eager to see a descended of his own blood as his heir, never gave him any military training nor design him to any civil duties (in a sharp contrast to Gauis and Lucius who were design Consuls in their teens). Base on those facts it's seem that his adoption by Augustus didn't have anything to do with his dynastic plans and was due to his affection to his last surviving grandson. Now we probably would never know what incident brought upon Postumus his exile however it's was probably to him demanding to play a role in states affairs (perhaps with the instigation of his mother former associates) and given the evidence about his nature who may safely assume he wasn't much tactful in him demands and gravely insulted Augustus in some way.

It's should also noted that Tacitus reporting of the rumours that Livia murdered Gaius and Lucius became fact when it's concern to the death of Postumus Agrippa "The first crime of the new reign was the murder of Postumus Agrippa. Though he was surprised and unarmed, a centurion of the firmest resolution despatched him with difficulty. Tiberius gave no explanation of the matter to the Senate; he pretended that there were directions from his father ordering the tribune in charge of the prisoner not to delay the slaughter of Agrippa, whenever he should himself have breathed his last. Beyond a doubt, Augustus had often complained of the young man's character, and had thus succeeded in obtaining the sanction of a decree of the Senate for his banishment. But he never was hard-hearted enough to destroy any of his kinsfolk, nor was it credible that death was to be the sentence of the grandson in order that the stepson might feel secure. It was more probable that Tiberius and Livia, the one from fear, the other from a stepmother's enmity, hurried on the destruction of a youth whom they suspected and hated. When the centurion reported, according to military custom, that he had executed the command, Tiberius replied that he had not given the command, and that the act must be justified to the Senate."

Let's not forget that most of our knowlege about the Sicarii and the Zealots are from the books of Josephus who goes out of his way to make them look as monsters and as a small minority who caused the war for apologistics reasons, not the best imparsial source... A somewhat idealist and naive view about the Roman rule, you make it's sound as the Roman expend their empire out of concern to those poor barbarians who live outside the spear of the benevolent Roman rule. In fact we know that in Judea (and other provinces for that matter) the Roman rule was extremly oppressive and tend to exploit the conquered people. In addition to all that from the moment that Roman set foot in Judea they made it clear that in order to consolidate their rule their intent to strengthen the Hellenist population on the expence of the Jewish one, so not only that the independence of the people was lost (a thing that would make them took arms by itself) but Romans began a process which it's aim was to de-Judaize the country. obivously those things weren't in the best intrests of the local people.

I was under the impression that the jobs of Legati and Tribunes was reserved to men of the Senatorial and Equestrian rank and the simply soldiers could be promoted at best to the rank of Centorian.

Another intresting aspect of the Ladino is the de-christianisation it's made to the Spanish language. For example sunday in Spanish is called Domingo ("the master day"as a refrence to Jesus) however in Ladini it's called Alhat (probably derive from the Arabic name for sunday).

She was a freedwoman from Asia Minor who previously belonged to emperor Claudius, in 55 she started a relationship with Nero this relationship cause the raft between Nero and his mother and in the end brought Agrippina Minor downfall. Seneca however supported Nero because he wished to weaken Agrippina influence on him It's seem that their relationship wasn't only sexuall as Nero intented to marry Acte and even fake a royal background for her in order to do so. Their realtionship ended after Nero met Sabina, however Acte became very rich from her association with Nero. After his death she brought his body to be buried in his ancestors tombs.

I agree with TA and Ursus, althought Reinhold biography of Agrippa is excellent it's also extremlly hard to get (and this should help you in the selling department) and more importanly it's outdated as it's did not include the new discoveries about his imperium and his family connections with Varus, there also some new researches such as the one about his building plans.

Well there still the big problem of assimilating huge population who is culturally diffrent and would resist Roman rule.

If memory serves me right, its was done by the Muslim (Sujugator) army in its breakout of the Arabian Peninsula (Arabia Felix). It happened in one or two battles, when they were opposing Roman forces. This was done by the Subjugators to stimulate their men. Stafford 1069 Islam was founded a long time after the fall of the Roman Empire, perhaps you thinking about the Byzantine army.

I don't think it's this simple, even if the Roman army manage to defeat the Parthian army (who was probably the only one who could be considered a decent rival to Rome) there still the issue of controlling a massive population who is so much culturally diffrent and wouldn't have bow down to the might of the Roman legions (as the revolts in the Parthian terrirtories Trajan conquered prove)

SEE-SAR is the accepted pronounciation and two centuries of latin teachers can't be wrong The hard 'C' sound is often mentioned but it appears to me that some latin words had variable pronounciations much the same way modern english does - no suprise really, since latin is used wholesale in modern english (Expert opinion someone please). KAI-SAR is a very germanic style I would say. On the contrary, Caesar contemporaries knew him as Yoolius Keyssar just as Cicero was know as Keekero. this is the right way to pronounce theire names, however writers in English has this habit of Englesize non English names.

As Cassius Dio see no need to explain his nickname to his readers I tend to think my explanation for the name is more likey. Dio did write his works in the times of the Severan dynasty and to accept the gladiator explanation we should assume that this Augustun age gladiator was well known centuries later, personally I find it hard to believe.

Mainly because Augustus manage to turn the army into a conservative element who was loyal to the emperors. And much more importanly the Senate in imperial times was nothing more than a bunch lapdogs for the emperors and this was in sharp contrast to the republican senate.

Archeologists have discovered a footprint made by the sandal of a Roman soldier - one of the few such finds in the world - in a wall surrounding the Hellenistic-Roman city of Sussita, east of Lake Kinneret. The discovery of the print made by a hobnailed sandal, the kind used by the Roman legions during the time when Rome ruled the region, led to the presumption that legionnaires or former legionnaires participated in the construction of walls such as the one in which the footprint was found. "We know that urban construction projects in Israel were run by the cities themselves, and the Roman imperial system wasn't involved," said Professor Arthur Segal of Haifa University, who is heading the excavation. Last year, the archeologists found an inscription written by two Sussita residents when they finished their Roman military service, leading to the theory that the sandal print may also have been left by someone who was no longer serving in the Roman army. "It may be that the sandal owner whose markings we found was also not a soldier in active service, but a soldier who was released and still held onto his military equipment," said Segal. Prior to this finding, the sandal prints of Roman legionnaires had been discovered only in Hadrian's Wall in Britain. Sussita, which has existed for about 1,000 years, was apparently founded during the days of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes, known in Jewish history for his decrees against the Jews. The Greek name of the city was Hippos, which means horse, and the name Sussita is the Aramaic version of the same name. The meaning also holds in modern Hebrew, in which sus means "horse." Sources from the Roman period show that there was hostility between the largely Christian city of Sussita and the mostly Jewish city of Tiberias, on the other side of the Kinneret, said Segal. Most of the construction in Sussita took place during the Roman period, when Beit She'an, Caesarea and other ancient cities also flourished. Sussita continued to flourish into the Byzantine period, during which most of the city residents became Christians. As of the end of the fifth century, there were eight churches in the city, which remained in existence even after the Arab conquest in the seventh century. But an earthquake hit the region in 749, during the Umayyad dynasty, causing the destruction of Sussita, which lies on the Syrian-African rift. "The earthquake was a dramatic event described in many sources," said Segal. "Unlike other cities, Sussita was destroyed and its residents never returned." Yet it is precisely because of the earthquake that the remnants of the city have been preserved particularly well. Since there was no subsequent settlement of Sussita, there was no one to use the stones of the Roman-era city for rebuilding. The dig is being run by the Zinman Institute of Archaeology at Haifa University, in conjunction with researchers from the Polish Academy of Sciences and Concordia University in St. Paul, Minnesota. Source