Ingsoc

You're not going to find a history by Dellius, for the reason given in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology: "Dellius appears to have been a man of some talent; he did at least some service to literature by writing a history of the war against the Parthians, in which he himself had fought under Antony... This work is completely lost, and we cannot even say whether it was written in Latin or in Greek; but we have reason for believing that Plutarch's account of that war (Ant. 37-52) was taken from Dellius, so that probably we possess at least an abridgement of the work. (Plut. Ant. 59)." For Plutarch's Life of Antony, which may have had bits based upon Dellius' work and in which Dellius is mentioned, click here. -- Nephele The more updated New Pauly seem to mention that a fragment of his work survive: D., himself one of Antony's commanders in the Parthian War, wrote a history of the campaign (fragments HRR 2,53; Plut. Ant. 59; Str. 14,13,3)

Didn't Clemens convert to Judaism instead? What's the source on this? I just remember reading somewhere that he was very sympathetic to the Jews and may have converted (unfortunately I don't remember anymore where I saw it). Probably not the most reliable source, whatever it was. Ahem... look at my previous post

Didn't Clemens convert to Judaism instead? It's unclear, Cassius Dio mention that he adopted Jewish customs ("The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned" - 67.14.2). I think it's rather dubious since in Domitianus time many have been accuse of adopting Jewish customs and I suppose it's was a device to get rid of political rivals. Some identify Clemens as a senator who is mentioned in rabbinic literature as a convert to Judaism, there is also a tradition that he and is wife were christian converters. there is an attempt to combine between the two evidences and claim that he converted to a Christian-Jewish sect.

First it's important to clarify that this work is by Seneca the Elder (and not his more famous nephew Seneca the Younger). as far as I know there are no translation of Seneca the Elder online, there is a translation made by M. Winterbottom and I suppose you could find it in any university library.

The main idea behind the appointment of several magistrates are to prevent one man rule, in Roman eyes it's was the worst thing that could happened and the system of colleague magistrates with equal powers was meant to prevent that (as Tacitus put it: "Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus.") and since the Roman consider a single rule as the worst thing that could happened to the state the upside were greater than the downsides. Of course they had devices to counter the downside, such as the dictatorship which abolished the colleague principle for a time of emergency and the arrangements of duties between the magistrates (i.e the two consuls goes to different fronts, one stay in Rome and the other goes to the provinces, etc.).

Yes I do tend to believe it's was a personal battle rather than ideological one, of course this theory (just like those of the eastern monarchy) has it's problems. I'm certain Antonius display himself as a god in the east, this was a regular thing for Romans to do (including Augustus and his successors) while of course they didn't do this at Rome and the western provinces since the Romans weren't use to consider their leaders as living gods like the people of the orient do.

Thats rubbish, the views that challenge the dead sea scrolls were written by a faction of the Essenes existed for years. the "revelation" of Ha'aretz is just a cheap way to cause a provocation in order to sell newspapers.

I think there is a good evidence to choose either side, to me it's hard to explain Antonius actions of moving to Alexandria, marrying a foreign queen (a thing that was a taboo in the Roman society) without the eastern monarchy theory on the other hand it's obvious why Augustus wanted to portray Antonius as Cleopatra sex toy who abandon his Roman ways and left the management of the state in Cleopatra hands. If you look on who were Antonius supporters you will find many republicans who fought alongside Brutus and Cassius in Philippi. another example is Gaius Asinius Pollio, who was a republican and even criticize Augustus in histories, I'm think we could say with all certainty that he did not want to establish a Hellenistic monarchy in Rome.

The historians who analyze the events of the late republic put two different historiographiec views: The first was mainly put by Eduard Meyer (in his book "Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus"), he claim that the Roman leaders of the late republic were disappointed by how the republic conduct itself and aim to establish a single man rule, the different was in their aims, while people like Pompeius, Augustus and Tiberius wanted this authoritarian rule to be based on the old republican traditions people like Caesar, Antonius and Germanicus sought to copy the Eastern Monarchy model in which the ruler in a God-King. hence the civil wars were a struggle between two kinds of ideologies. On the other hand Ronald Syme (in his book "The Roman revolution") claim that there wasn't any real difference between Pompeius and Caesar or Octavianus and Antonius, they were supported by the same kind of men and had the same aims in mind. hence according to this view the civil wars were purely a struggle for personal power.

Happy Birthday!!!!!!

From The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised): plenipotentiary /plnp'tn()ri/ → noun (pl. plenipotentiaries) a person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country. → adjective having full power to take independent action: [postpositive] a minister plenipotentiary.

Sorry to say but your topic is not good, first of all the division between Patricians and Plebs only relevant to the early republic period (about 509 BC - 287 BC) after this period the Plebs had full equally and in a short time there were created a Patrician-Plebian nobility, the Nobilitas. second in the early republic the Plebs elite just as much was rich as the Patricians the "class" war was between two elitists groups. I'm assuming that you mean to the situation of the end of the late middle republic in which the there were a proletariation of the Roman peasantry, if so it's has nothing to do with the Patrician-Plebs status. I suggest you start by reading about Tiberius Gracchus who attempted to restore the peasantry to it's former glory.

Try using "The Oxford Classical Dictionary", much more updated than Smith.

Happy B-Day!

I agree with you caldrail. In regards to Pilatus i think that the writers of the NT portray him as weak so they could lay the blame of Jesus crucifixion on the Jews, partly because the vast majorty of Jews didn't accept Christianity and partly because the Roman became the main target pool from whom Christianity wanted to draw conversions. Josephus portray of Pilatus is much more accurate, true you could say that he made his look like a bad guy to explain the Jewish anti-Roman sentiments, however he doesn't make the same thing with Pilatus predecessors and in my view it's would indicated the truth in Josephus claim about Pilatus hard hand. The connection between Sejanus and Pilatus seem dubious to me. first thing Pilatus was just a minor equestrian and if not for his involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus he wouldn't be remember by anyone just as his predecessors as Judean governors are remembered, so he wasn't someone who probably had strong connections to the Roman elite, even not the equestrian elite. second thing the only source for such connection is Philo and we need to remember that he make this connection when he was appealing in front of Caligula to back away from his anti-Jewish policies, obviously Philo wanted to make that hostility to the Jews is something that belong to the enemy camp and connection Pilatus with Sejanus was the perfect way to do it.

Yes emperors saw a danger in popular generals, however Germanicus wasn't just a general but the emperor son and heir apparent (as much as their could be an heir apparent in the early empire) so his popularity would threaten Tiberius much less then if he was just an ordinary general. No doubt that Germanicus defy Tiberius will on many occasions and behave in a manner that would look to the conservative Tiberius as un-Roman he didn't prevent his such honors as a splendid triumphus after his dubious military achievements in Germany or divine honor after his death - this behavior could be a testament against the theory that Tiberius had Germanicus kill.

What exactly do you mean by "possibility to nominate a consul by another consul"? the people who sought public would have to nominate themselves and as Manlius competed in the original election in which Fulvius was elected clearly he was nominated in this manner. The election were conducted by the outgoing magistratus (in this case the outgoing Consuls) if not all the magistares were elected in one day the Comitia would continue in another day with the same nominees that weren't elected. I suppose it's possible that the newly elected Consul would conduct the election if the outgoing Consuls wasn't available for some reason. Could you give references to ancient sources that deal with this affair?

This article make the claim that the Decapolis was strictly a geographic term used to describe a certain region and not any kind of political association.

The restoration of the Hellenistic cities in Judea and the formation of the Decapolis was most probably a Roman attempt to counter balance the influence of the Jewish population who were the majority in that area as they saw the Jews as not trust worthy in supporting the Roman rule. I also think it's was an arrangement of common minded cities that was probably not relevant after the decrease in the power of the Jewish population in Judea.

Agreed, not only due to their threat to Roman homeland, but the stories of child sacrifice in Carthage are supremely outrageous if true (?) It was certainly a practice that originate in the Phoenician cities. thought I doubt it's was motive to the Roman war against Carthago and as far as I know they never try to ban the practice.

So in that sense, is the American President ( Whomever he/she may be) merely a constitutional figurehead like our queen, or does the office have real power? What I meant that some of his critics would oppose any American president because they oppose the US in general.

The Aeneas is a fictional story, I very much doubt if Vergilius knew much about the weaponry of the 4th century BC.

I don't think their were a standard legionary sword before the Gladius.

I think this article has it just about right. I believe that the claim that his policies have kept Americans safe since 9/11 is preposterous and arrogant - the diligence of the CIA and other security agencies have, rather, protected Americans from the extremism and terrorism fostered by his foreign policy. Bush tendency to make dim witted remarks and "cowboy" certainly gave his critics around the world ammo to use against the US however I feel that many of them were simply oppose to the US regardless of who would be sitting in the oval office. I have the feeling that after "the black president" will fail to answer to wet dreams of the extreme left in the world and people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad we would hear from them how he sold out and "gone white" or how the racists elites prevented him from fulfilling his ideology.