Ingsoc

Martialis in de Spectaculis first and second poems refer to it as the Amphitheatrum Caesareum (original Latin and the English translation).

A common misconception. The German state was only founded in the late 19th century and the German always had the feeling that although they are a great they are being robbed from their proper place "under the sun" as one of the world greatest imperial powers. As Germany lost the war this didn't happened and this was the obvious reason they were upset, regardless of the peace treaty. If there anything to be said against the the allied of WWI was that they didn't go all the way, if they would invaded and conquered Germany the Germans would never thought that their army was never defeated and was "stab in the back" by Jews and Marxists and maybe they even lost their imperial lust just as post-WWII Germany had.

BTW Atia and Octavia weren't "of the Julii" since they belonged to the Julii from their maternal side.

Infamous in what way? You might remember that he organize gangs that fought in the street and terrorize political enemies and that after his death his supporters burn down the Senate house! In short, in the late Republic, the age anarchy and demagogues, Clodius is the worst example of them both.

In the eastern part of the empire it's was common to worship the emperor as a god. the tradition on giving rulers divine honors started well before Alexander conquests, after the Hellenistic kingdoms consolidate themselves they adopted this practice which went with the Roman emperors after the annexation of the east. Caligula, unlike his predecessor Tiberius, had great enthusiasm for this practice. I've never heard that his cult continued after his death, what is your source for that?

Welcome to the forum Rompe! There are several threads about Caligula if you do a search you will find them. if you have a new aspect about Caligula that wasn't discussed before you could open a new thread.

The SC was issued in 186 BC, see Livius description of the event.

What a wonderful find! thought I don't sure about there conclusion that the coin is pre-Caesarian/Claudian, coins were continued to be used long after they were struck so it's might as well arrive after the Romans based their rule in Britain.

Thanks!

The ordo equester weren't blue collar workers, far from it they were rich as much (and in many time more) than Senators. The fact that "New Men" like Cicero came from the Italian cities and had no ancestors in the Senate doesn't mean they were poor either.

Did they? Seems to me that there were plenty of nobiles that--far from being wealthy--were saddled with so much debt that it would take the wealth of a whole nation (*cough* Gaul! *cough*) to pay it off. Good point, however you should note that nobiles without money (such as Sulla, Caesar, Catillina) had some difficulty reaching the higher offices.

Here is the entry about him from the Brill's New Pauly:

I think you got a bit confuse, their actually two definitions to what a Pleb is, the first as you said is the Patrician-Plebian division that determine by who was your father, this definition lost relevance is the end of the early Republic as the Plebs got equal rights. The second is what I've mention, the division into three categories (Senators, Equestrians, Plebs) based on one property. The idea of mixed constitution (Miktea Politea) as the ideal state of affairs was a very old Greek idea. AS for Polybius one should ask how well did he describe the Roman political system, for example he mention only one people assembly instead of the three that existed.

I think the view of the Plebs as a "class" is anachronistic. The division to order in Rome was based on your Census, a minimum of 1 million sestertius + membership in the senate and you were a member of the Senators order, a minimum of 400,000 sestertius and you were a member of the Equestrian order and all the rest were classified as Plebs. Obviously there were a wide variety among them - farmers, artisans, unskilled workers, etc. so I don't think we could call them a "class" in the modern way, certainly not in a Marxist way. I have not yet seen any evidence to "class consciousness" among the Plebs. No doubt that since the Marian reforms military service gave political power to the ordinary soldier, the question is if this was really what they were after when enlisted and during the service? as you pointed out the main motive for enlistment was poverty and since the soldiers always supported some aristocrat and never wanted one of them to take over I doubt that what they want was a way to express political power, usually their mindset is that "our general is such a great guy and we shouldn't let them mistreat him".

I think the Franks adopted much of the Roman culture including Latin that was Gaul was the only place it's was still spoken as an every day language.

As far as I know the British monarch was never stripped by law from his powers, there just a tradition that he never use them contrary to public opinions. but I could be wrong about this. The things that goes against the spirit of politics is the disregard to centuries old traditions on which the Roman Republic managed itself, in the case of Ti. Gracchus it's was his disregard of the Senate, his election for the tribunship for the second time and the disregard the veto of his fellow tribune by removing his from office. I'm sure all those things cause more panic than his agrarian law and in turn brought his opposition itself to disregard the customs of the Republic. The issue of the corruption in the late Republic was discussed here.

But Ti. Gracchus wasn't simply "defeated", he was murdered. As Plutarchus write some before him try to pass agrarian laws but in fear of the opposition they backed down, Ti. Gracchus didn't even as all his political allies abandon him and this exactly the thing that make the difference between idealist and opportunist. An innovation that goes against the "spirit" of politics would certainly be illegal even if the dry law say it's legal. Take for example Britain, it's customary that the monarch appoint the head of the largest party in Parliament to the office of PM but she has no obligation to as strictly speaking it's "her majesty government" and the queen could appoint any citizen she like to this office, but if she do it's would be describe as "illegal" by most British because it's goes against the establish custom.

Yes, you could say the same thing about any politician in anytime. I think the fact that Ti. Gracchus stick to his ideals to the bitter end, even as he knew that all his political allies has abandon him show he was more of an idealist than power hungry. In any country there is unwriting laws on how public figures should behave (we call it "custom", the Romans call them "Mos Maiorum"), in fact in some states like Britain the entire government system is base on customs. By disregarding the Senate, his fellow Tribune and the wide use of his veto right Ti. Gracchus didn't break any laws but he did break century old customs that dictate the "rules" of the political game, in my opinion this much worst that simply breaking the law since it's much harder to stabilize a system of customs than a system of laws. I agree with you, to a certain point. Obviously Ti. Gracchus actions didn't take place in a vacuum and were result of social changes in Rome, however quit often the underprivileged need a leader and usually this leader come from the aristocracy, if it's wasn't Ti. Gracchus in 133 BC who took upon himself the case of the declining agrarian land owners the outbreak of the problem would not have occurred in 133 BC but in another time (30, 50 or 100 years later, who could tell?...).

Could you explain why he think that? to me the transition from the Republic to the Principate was mainly due to internal political reasons that destabilize the Republic form of government. In 146 BC Rome has shown that she is the supreme power at the Mediterranean coast but this event had no internal political effect. I think that Tiberius Gracchus term as Tribune in 133 BC was the crucial year for the Roman Republic: It's the first time a Roman magistratus bypass the authority of the Senate and cancel his colleague veto right (by ejecting Marcus Octavius from office) thus Gracchus harm two princibles that were at the heart of the Roman Republican system. Gracchus also use his veto to "shut down" the Roman state with his veto powers and his illegal election (even if it's was officially legal it's was still against the Mos Maiorum) has shown that the Tribunship could became a powerful tool to dominate the state. And the worst thing in my eyes is the fact that in this year, for the first time in the history of the Republic, a magistratus was murdered as a result of political disagreement. I think that the peaceful ability to solve internal political disagreement is the basic requirement of stable government. While I tend to believe Gracchus had more good intentions in his action than bad, the damage he done to the proper conduct of the Republic set a very negative precedent.

Hadrian extensive travels in the provinces put an excessive expenditures burden on the local economies.

One of Augustus most notable achievements was "restoring the republic" as a pseudo-republic system that disguise his monarchist rule. However it's seem that the idea of "restoring the republic" was taken from his bitter enemy Antonius. "Lucius made a speech to the citizens, saying that he should visit punishment upon Octavian and Lepidus for their lawless rule, and that his brother would voluntarily resign his share of it and accept the consulship, exchanging an unlawful magistracy for a lawful one, a tyranny for the constitution of their fathers." (Appianus, BC, 5.30) [Lucius Antonius:]"I undertook this war against you, not in order to succeed to the leadership by destroying you but to restore to the country the patrician government which had been subverted by the triumvirate, as not even yourself will deny. For when you created the triumvirate you acknowledged that it was not in accordance with the law, but you established it as something necessary and temporary because Cassius and Brutus were still alive and you could not be reconciled to them. When they, who had been the head of the faction, were dead, and the remainder, if there were any left, were bearing arms, not against the state, but because they feared you, and moreover the five years' term was running out, I p449demanded that the magistracies should be revived in accordance with the custom of our fathers, not even preferring my brother to my country, but hoping to persuade him to assent upon his return and hastening to bring this about during my own term of office. If you had begun this reform you alone would have reaped the glory." (Appianus, BC, 5.42) "He twice thought of restoring the republic; first immediately after the overthrow of Antonius, remembering that his rival had often made the charge that it was his fault that it was not restored; and again in the weariness of a lingering illness, when he went so far as to summon the magistrates and the senate to his house, and submit an account of the general condition of the empire." (Suentonius, Life of Augustus, 28) "Such was the strength of the contestants. As for Antonius, he on his part swore to his own soldiers that he would admit no truce in the war he wage, and promised in addition that within two months after his victory he would relinquish his office and restore to the senate and the people all its authority" (Cassius Dio, 50.7) It's another evidence that Augustus and Antonius weren't much different in their political ideas, it's also discredit the theory of the "eastern monarchy".

Check "The Gracchi" by David Stockton.

It's ridicules and like asking if the Teutonic Knights were Nazis...