Ingsoc

An intresting PhD theisis to read for those who are intrested in the major constructions works Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa has made all over the empire. Geoffrey Mottershead, The Constructions of Marcus Agrippa in the West (PDF file)

As a general Josephus was and utter faliure, althought he brag that he train and fortefied the city it's obivious he did a poor job sine Vespasian took the Galilee without a real fight (in fact most of the cities surrender to the Romans). further more Josesphus was in constant fught with his fellow commanders and in one time even the Jerusalem goverment try to depose him, it's also seem that he wasn't truelly commited to the cause of the war since he secretly still kept conntact with the enemy camp. His defection to the enemy also didn't add many points to his character as a general.

You are correct but let's not forget the big picture, althought the Roman could suffer great losses in ambushes it's never change the basic power balance who was in favour of the Romans.

This description is true althought like all the information we had on Carthago it's problamatic because it's came from Greek-Roman source who are tend to view Carthago in a very negative light.

As a war the Great Revolt was very unimpressive, many Jews collaborated with the Romans and fought among themself and there were only a few serious battles against the Roman army. 66: Battle of Beth Horon, the Jews defeat and destroy the 12th legion, Cestius Gallus barely escape with his life. 67-68: The campain in Galilee, Vespasian arrive to Judea with 3 legions (the 5th, 10th and 15th) most of the cities surrendered to his except Jotapata and Gamla. There were also neval battle with the Roman fleet around May-october 67 in Jaffa. 70: Siege of Jerusalem, the major battle of the war. after fierce fighting Titus manage to occupy the city and destroy the Jewish temple. The rebellion would rage for another 3 years, however there is no real military importance to it after the fall of the capital, we know of a major battle in the forest of Yardis (location unknown) and ofcourse the famouse batlle of Masada.

After Cestius Gallus retreat from his siege on Jerusalem during the first year of the Great Revolt (66), he passage at Beth Horon where the Jewish warriors manage to use the narrow passage and the fact they knew well the place to ambush the Romans and destroy the 12th Legion. From Cassius Dio description of the Jewish rebel in the Bar Kochba revolt we may assume they use to ambush the Roman army: "To be sure, they did not dare try conclusions with the Romans in the open field, but they occupied the advantageous positions in the country and strengthened them with mines and walls, in order that they might have places of refuge whenever they should be hard pressed, and might meet together unobserved under ground; and they pierced these subterranean passages from above at intervals to let in air and light."

"When they had decided to attempt his life at the exhibition of the Palatine games, as he went out at noon, Cassius Chaerea, tribune of a cohort of the praetorian guard, claimed for himself the principal part; for Gaius used to taunt him, a man already well on in years, with voluptuousness and effeminacy by every form of insult. When he asked for the watchword Gaius would give him "Priapus" or "Venus" and when Chaerea had occasion to thank him for anything, he would hold out his hand to kiss, forming and moving it in an obscene fashion." Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, The Life of Caligula I'm pretty sure you couldn't use "Priapus" but maybe you can use "Venus" as an insult to indicate someone is soft and act cowardly.

Try posting it at this forum: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php

You shaould also remember the deep diffrences between the Latin spaeaking west and the Greek speaking east, this division existed even before the empire was officialy divided, for example in the days of Augustus, Agrippa were given full powers over all eastern provinces.

Medusa, because I just love what she done with her hair

I just saw this movie, as an action movie it's not bad but if you are looking for a story you could try elsewere, the whole story of Caesar magical sword was a shameless ripoff of "King Arthur" and to be honest pretty idiotic. And of course there is the usuall historical mistakes (like saying that all the emperors were decended of Julius Caear).

Blame Marx. I do, and like all of his ideas this one is also wrong and worthless

I think this whole discussion is absurd, you simply can't take a modern concept and "glue" it to people of ancient times.

It's still dubious in my eyes, let's remember that Jesus wasn't the only Jew at that time who proclaim himself as the messiah and if you check the rest of his books you will see the Josephus is viciously attacking all other would be messiahs while his portray of Jesus is a positve one.

The problem with this passage is that it's a Chriastian declaretion of faith and goes against all that we know about Josephus religious beliefs.

I think it's all depend on the Chriastians behaviour, if they would have seated in Rome and try to convert people Augustus would probably throw them out of the city and restrict there religious freedom in order to protect Roman religion (we know of a similar situation where the Jews wer'e expell from Rome for a time under Tiberius and Claudius because they distrube religious propoganda).

Actually the only part that been tempered in Josephus books are his mentions of Jesus, John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.

The main problem with the gospels account is that at this time Judea wasn't under direct Roman rule, so the romans would have no authority to conduct a census and I don't think it's was needed since the taxes to Rome was payed indirectly by the vassal ruler (in this case Herod or one of his sons). also I think the Herodians would have preffered to avoid a census since it would likely to bring strong opposition from their Jewish subjects. Now Josephus dating is more logical, since a census (for taxing purposes) was an ordinery part of the organisation of a new province (in this case Judea was annexed in 6 AD). I think it's very simple to solve this difficulty by accepting that the writers of the bible simple made a mistake as their didn't write a history book and most likely had no access to historic sources (unlike Josephus).

Let's face it, if the Roman aristocraty would have continue to run wild they would have destroy the republic (who had serious problems a long time before Caesar), sure you clould call him a tyrant but just consider he was a benevolent tyrant and the alternative to the emperors rule would be much more worst.

Base on the historic evidence I think Octavian, while maybe would't be Caesar's heir, would have played a prominent role in the Caesarian regime and would be in a high place to inheret his throne. Remember that Octavian was Caesar relative and in monarchist regimes (and Caesar, regardless of his title was a monarch) the ruler offen prefer to give the importand and high offices to his relatives, also we know from the fact that he was named Caesar heir in such a young age the Octavian was highly regarded and much beloved by Caesar.

And here is the pictures: http://www.pbase.com/doronnissim/discovery...n_national_park

I have a few questions concerning Marcus Agrippa, I would appriciate if someone who had his biography writen by Meyer Reinhold could answer them (this book is pretty much impossible to get ) 1. I understand he produced a new brand of ship to the Roman Navy in order to fight Sexstus Pompius, could someone give me the ship name? also what kind of improvment did he do to the grappling hook device? 2. Why and who arrange his merried to Caecilia Attica? (I assume it's was a political merriage). 3. What was exacly his part in the battle of philipi? (I just know he fought there along side Augustus). 4. Ancient sources (I believe it's was Cassius Dio) describe him as of humble origins, what exacly that means? (I read he was of a rich Equestrian family, which is not very "humble") 5. He serve as an officer under Julius Caesar in the late civil war, what was his job exacly and connection to Augustus at that time? (did he serve under him?)

There is nothing new at buying the throne, just remember that Claudius pay a good amount of money to the Pretorian soldiers who help him become an empror.

I think you have to remember that in the late principate the highest positions were much more open to people of humble origins and even people of non-Roman origin (like the Severian dynasty).

Agrippa probably understand that a man of humble origin like him could never become the lead man, so it's was sufficent for him to play the role of the trusted liutenent with hope than one of his sons will inhereted Augustus.