Ingsoc

I believe it is the popular trend to dismiss him as one of the worst presidents thought in my opinion it's way to early to evaluate the impact of his presidency over the US and the world.

The term of "Bellum Iustum" (Just War) was important to Romans, basely it's say that a war is legitimate only if you to recover you rights from an enemy who inflicted harm upon them. Of course this don't mean that the Romans were never the aggressive side but they always try to find some excuse so they could say that their rights or the rights of their allies were being hurt. See chapter 2 in this book.

Just started with the hebrew translation of Confessiones by Augustinus. Before that I have read Zvi Herman's "The Memories of Hannibal" which is the fictional autobiography of the famous Punic general (obivously the Herman stypled the book after "Memories of Hadrian" by Marguerite Yourcenar). the book has some good parts thought it's not as good as Yourcenar book and didn't really like some of Herman writing methods.

Happy birthday NN!

I think you overestimate the grasp of Christianity over it's new converters, unless you were part of the high clergy or one of the few which experience a deep spiritual discovery, converting wouldn't seem like a big deal to the average person and he probably still kept his old belief system only that it's was applied to Jesus, the trinity, etc. Only after centuries did Christianity became deeply rooted in the hearts of the people.

A rather strange article we have on this guy, first of all the attempt to harmonize the account of Josephus and the New Testament are highly problematic, second their is no evidence to a connection between Sejanus and Pilatus and the evidence for Sejanus anti-Jewish policies and sentiments are rather dubious.

Pompeius never held the dictatorship, he appointed sole consul in 52 BC.

I think that the average Roman would prefer to take part in a campaign against a foreign enemy (especially a celebrated one like Hannibal) rather than a war against his fellow Romans and that would also be my choice.

Take a look at Titus Livius, book 9, 17.

I started to learn Latin in this year, we mostly use Caesar "Gallic War", thought our teacher try to expose us to other texts.

I have this feeling that those creators are the same imbeciles who support the "black athena" theory...

I would recommend Zvi Yavetz excellent book "Plebs and Princeps" that beside giving an overview of the relationship of Julius Caesar and the Julio-Claudian emperors with the Plebs also give a good overview on the actions and motives of the urban masses.

Another possibility is that Brutus family simple transfered to the plebs at one point and choose to keep it's name because it's prestige. There is an interesting article by Rachel Feig Vishnia which suggest that such transfers were common in the early republic for the young patricians saw a greater chance of serving in as a plebs magister than a patrician magister, the may explain the plebian families with patricians ancestors.

There are other opinions, Clarke (in his book "The Noblest Roman: Marcus Brutus and His Reputation") think that the adoption was legit and occurred a short time before the death of the adopted relative. I don't think that he ever return to be named "Marcus Iunius Brutus". for example, this coin which was struck in the east a few months before the Battle of Philippi give Brutus full name as "Quintus Caepio Brutus".

Not too long. Often it took a lot of time for a consul to became a proconsul. But as the proconsulate of Asia was the high point of a senatorial career (together with Africa) it was not given to someone as the first province. He might have been proconsul somewhere else before 132. I find the dates more interesting because in both 116 and 132/3 there were large Jewish rebellions under way. Agreed . Yes, as I have said, the coincidence for a consul of Jewish origin in 116 is amazing because of the Jewish revolt of the years 115-117 . Now You came with another one - A proconsulate in 132/3 - exacetly at the begining of the Bar Cochba revolt . Who knows what were the motives of Traianus and Hadrianus . A puzzle ! You assuming that the emperors saw Berenicianus as Jewish or something similar but I seriously doubt it.

She was never married to any one named Alexander, her husbands were: 1. Marcus the brother of Tiberius Julius Alexander. (2) her uncle Herod from whom she had her two sons. (3) Polemon king of Clicia. Berenice and Herod were married between 44-48, so her son must have born in this period. We know that Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus was consul in 116 and proconsul of Asia c. 132-3. To identify his with the son of Berenice will took some extrodenery evidence to prove that a person that was born in the middle of the first century was still alive and started a senatorial career in his old age.

ASCLEPIADES is right (see the genealogy tree at the end of Ilan's article). also some cast doubt that the name "Berenicianus" first appear in the son of queen Berenice.

Seems like the rationale of your argument is based on a false premise. The number of senate seats was not limited, but open-ended. With each equestrian elected to an aedileship, the number of senate seats would have grown by one. Yes, there *was* a conflict between equestrians and senators, but it wasn't a matter of equestrians vying for a limited number of seats in the all-powerful senate but a matter of what powers the senate would have. This is a great thread, btw. Yes but the old Nobilites always try to block the election of new men to the various magistrates, so in affect they tried to block their way to the Senate.

He was born to a aristocratic Jewish family in Alexandria and later in life abandon the Jewish faith. To call a person which neither saw himself as a Jew in any way nor was seen as one by his environment a Jew just because more than 100 years ago one of his ancestors was Jewish is utterly ridicules.

I believe you referring to descendant of Alexander (the son of Herod and Miriam) and Glaphyra (the daughter of Archelaus of Cappadocia), after Alexander was executed by his father in 7 BC Glaphyra return to her father court and her children lost any connection to Judaism. Around the time of Vespasian they made the transit from eastern royalty to Roman senators (see for example the case of Gaius Julius Alexander). Cassius Dio say that Titus Flavius Clemens, the consul of 95 and the cousin of Domitianus and father of his design heirs, had converted (or at least adopted some customs) into Judaism: "At this time the road leading from Sinuessa to Puteoli was paved with stone. And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property."(Cassius Dio, 67.14)

Yes, as far as I remember Attalus III will was made public before his death. As for the Senate, he was indeed in charge on the provinces, however this doesn't mean he could simply ignore the powerful equestrians (also we need to remember that the Senate wasn't homogenic in this matter and some powerful senators, like Crassus, were adherent supported of the equestrians).

At least in the case of Attalus III the will were made public. I think that the Senate was very eager to annex Peragemon since Tiberius Gracchus tried to hurt their authority by proposing that the new province be added by a law of the Concilia Plebis. The rational of my argument is very simply: the equestrians were one of the main benefactors of exploiting of the provinces and they were also the bitter rivals of the old Roman oligarchy in the fight for the very limited numbers of senate seats. so the senate prefer not to annex new province and thus prevent creating new territories in which the equestrians could exploit to increase their wealth.

The Ptolemies of the first century BC are not the same as their ancestors, like all the other Hellenistic kingdoms their power was severely diminish, at the same time Rome rose as the supreme power in the mediterian and was the one which called the shots even without a permenent military garrison. to me those "gifts" of the Ptolemies (as well as Attalus III of Pergamum) were actually a political move that was suppose to show that they are loyal friends and allies of the Roman people (it's also is according to the Roman custom that a person suppose to leave some of his property to his friends in his will). It's likely that they die before that they could change their will and choose an heir from their family. I think it's due to the internal political situation in Rome at the time, their were a struggle between the Equestrian order and the Senatorial order. the Equestrians were a great in number (especially after Social War when all Italy receive the Roman citizenship and the Italian aristocracy join the Equestrian order) in contrast to that the Senatorial order was very small (there were only 300 seats in the Senate, 600 after the reforms of Sulla). Now the Equestrians like any rising oligarchy wanted a place by the helm of the state which meant in our case a membership in the Senate and the Senators like any old oligarchy saw the place in the Senate as their property which in due course would be "inherited" by their sons like their "inherited" their place from their fathers and their fathers from their grandfathers and so on. Now because the senate seats were so few the Senators had a little room for political maneuvering by giving some seats to the leading Equestrians and thus weakening the power of the order as an opposition force. Now we must remember the every province had to pay taxes and those taxes were collected by Publicani, which were an associations of Equestrians who lease the right to collect taxes in the province from the Roman state, they were known for their extreme corruption and the fact that they extort so much wealth from the native to that point that the province economy were ruin. Now if the Senate were to create new provinces (especially in a very rich land like Egypt) he would actually give more power to his Equestrians rivals.

The Judean example just strengthen my point, the objection was to the Roman rule in itself, whatever it was via the Herods or a direct rule made no different, in fact on several occasion embassies went to Rome and try (and in 6 AD succeed) to persuade Augustus to abolish the "independence" of the kingdom and put it under Roman prefects.

Conquered or incorporated? Semantics in some cases, but there were many people who were willingly absorbed by Rome peacefully, even if the threat of violence was constantly looming. In addition to what PP said I think that the Roman themselves thought about Roman "allies" (which were in fact client states) as being part of the Roman rule and in their eyes the transfer of a territory from being rule by a local ally to being ruled by a promagister from Rome wasn't that radical. "He also united the kings with whom he was in alliance by mutual ties, and was very ready to propose or favour intermarriages or friendships among them. He never failed to treat them all with consideration as integral parts of the empire, regularly appointing a guardian for such as were too young to rule or whose minds were affected, until they grew up or recovered; and he brought up the children of many of them and educated them with his own." (Suentonius Divus Augustus, 48) "His friends and allies among the kings each in his own realm founded a city called Caesarea, and all joined in a plan to contribute the funds for finishing the temple of Jupiter Olympius, which was begun at Athens in ancient days, and to dedicate it to his Genius; and they would often leave their kingdoms and show him the attentions usual in dependents, clad in the toga and without the emblems of royalty, not only at Rome, but even when he was travelling through the provinces." (Suentonius Divus Augustus, 60)