Adelais Valerius

that could stem from the theory that Caligula had something to do with Tiberius's death, even though he was 77. Gaius Octavius asked for no legends though...

i was using a combination of the encyclopedia britannica and this website. I guess i can't prove the validity of this website, but alot of the information for the encylopedia and the website coincided...I didn't actually know, i was trying to research it and make a debate about it

thats why i put though not proven...

Tiberius>Caligula(quick explanation) Germanicus, Tiberius's adopted son was the heir, based on his military acheivements, but died a year after the announcment before anything came to pass. The heir following was Drusus, Tiberius's natural son and a split in the germanicus family, the side associated with Augustus caused a ripple effect during the rest of Tiberius's rein, and lead to Sejanus,a praetorian prefect, to gain political power. Sejanus was the son of Tiberius's first Praetrian prefect Strabo, and early on he gained prestige through the Praetorian guard. He also, early on, developed a rivalry between himself and Tiberius natural son Drusus. Though nothing is certain, more than likely Sejanus had Drusus killed after he had gained even more command of the Praetrian guard.With that, tiberius withdrew from Rome, and with tiberius out of the way, Sejanus took control of Rome.After Sejanus politically massacred Rome, Tiberius gathered wind from Rome, and began to act. in 31, Sejanus was arrested and executed for Treason. Caligula was then chosen as heir sometime before Tiberius's death in 37 Caligula succeeded his stepgrandfather after his death in 37, and was supposed to join rule with Tiberius's grandson, Gemellus, as per Tiberius. This joint reign of Gemellus and Caligula was nullified by Caligula based on the grounds that Gemellus insane, though not proven. Other than the nullification, Caligula carried out Tiberius's wishes.

I think the comparision between Rome and USA isn't simply the fact that they both fought Barbarians(which I believe is quite harsh to call the Iraqi people, which I believe are victims of an oppressive region in general..but thats for another forum).I think the style of government is quite similar in terms of the Republic and its use of senators and consuls. Parliament in Britain uses more of the debate aspect, which was used in the forum between senators. This seems more effective is my opinion, because senators in the US government tend not to get equal say in Legislation. Topics aren't debated by all, just the top senators of each party, and parties generally vote together, leaving the "ingenious person with a great idea" factor out of the equation. Long gone are the days where a person can bring a groundbreaking idea to the senate floor and be heard with an honest ear, which I so greatly miss from the Roman Empire(I'm not saying that everyone had an equal say, but from the standpoint of how things are SUPPOSED to be run, there was room for things such as that).

We all know that Rome was not founded by Romulus after he killed his brother Remus, thats a simple myth created by the Romans because they despised the fact that their great city had once been ruled over by a foreign power(any good Roman would have been offended by the notion of such a thing).Rome had its beginnings as an Etruscan controlled city within Latium, and through Greek and Eastern influences, started to show promise as a city,especially after the defeat of the nearby city of Alba Longa within the 6th century. My question is, what happened to these Etruscan Kings that were ruling Rome? I know they were overthrown by rebellion, but what caused this rebellion? It was the Etruscanss who made Rome into an actual city(wanting to use its access to the tiber mainly, but it still helped it!). I guess my real question is what caused the rebellion that extricated these Kings from Rome?. This period is somewhat confusing to me to be honest.

AWESOME!!! thank you!

O, very sorry about that MPC, I must had read it wrong. Anyways, cheers to you for the great guide!!

I've given an example in an earlier thread re: Goldsworthy's account of the lex Iulia agraria and lex Iulia agraria Campania. where was that located? Who do you think did a better job...I'm looking for books I just want to cover all the bases so to speak. I like Grant's style of writing, but there's so many books on Rome, I don't want to just buy anything and everything, and its just the same thing over and over

Really? I hadn't read that! Any book suggestion?

That interview was pretty interesting, and motivating when he talked about living in Wales and going to the Roman ruins that he lived near by. This interview made me want to hear him even more. So damn you and thank you very much all at once At the moment he's writing a new book, so lecture tours are pretty much on the back burner. It also depends on who invites him to give a lecture. I know that he still gives papers around the world, but when he'll be back in the US I don't know. I'll ask him next time I speak to him. You know him personally? Thats pretty impressive, how do you know him?

Greetings- I'm a 20 year old student, with the intention of teaching one day, hopefully the classics. Im currently attending Washtenaw Community College, and plan to transfer to Michigan State University in the winter. My interests include the latter Republic and the first 200 years of the empire(though I love it all, I tend to stay in the this region, as do many others). Im so glad I found this site, Ive been up to 2am multiple times reading the forums, and I have to say that my knowledge of Roman history has noticable improved. Interaction with people tends to give me a break from just flat out reading every book, and its quite refreshing. Thanks a bunch to anyone and everyong who made this site possible. Cheers

Lincoln knew that he had to keep the States together, that there couldn't be a separated America. If he hadn't challenged the confederacy, then the united states would have imploded on itself. Or, one can imagine what would happen if other countries decided to get into the fray of things and take sides with the union or the confederacy....what a fiasco!!

Pick up this book: American Sphinx by Joesph Ellis...masterfully portrayed biography of Thomas Jefferson...

to whom ever has itunes(which you can get free from apple.com), try searching for Ancient Rome in the itunes store,and you'll find "The History Of Rome by Mike Duncan". Its a free podcast and every week it has a different topic that you can listen to. Quite interesting.If you can't find it, contact me and I can help. cheers

The book is entitled Collected Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero as the topic name, and is published by Bibliobazaar, published this year (2008). It includes: De Amicitia, Scipio's Dream-translated by Andrew P. Peabody Letters Of Cicero-translated by E.S. Shuckburgh Treatises on Friendship and Old Age-translated by E.S. Shuckburgh Anyone that has a love for Cicero will find this book interesting. Most anyone who has experience with Cicero's style knows that he is an easy read, and this book supplements that by having footnotes and things of that nature that help the reader along. Andrew Peabody was a Preacher to Harvard University and Plummer Professor of Christian Morals, Emeritus. he was a is a known author from the 19th century, with more books written about christianity than anything else. I feel his grasp of latin is very well, and I think he keeps Cicero's personality within the text, which is what I look for just as much as I do authenticity and truth. E.S. Shuckburgh or Evelyn Shirley Shuckburgh was a fellow of Emmanuel College at Cambridge(deceased), and author of numerous books, including the Letters of Cicero and a history of Rome, which I intend to read next. The theme of the book seems to center around the lighter side of Cicero(personal opinion). Not necessarily the content of the letters, but instead of his works such as "on Government", it takes a seat to things such as getting old and friendship, his personal letters to Atticus, etc..(besides Scipio's Dream of course, which is the 6th book in Des Republica).Scipio's Dream is the first text in the book, followed by his letters and his treatise on friendship and old age. I this book found quite refreshing. I see it as a very good translation of on of my favorite statesman in Rome. Overall, If you really like or love Cicero, I believe this book is worth picking up. It gives you just a bit more incite into the man. If your looking for a generally history, I would pick up Anthony Everett's Cicero, or if you just want the main points of Cicero's genius, I would find a book that contains his political or legal speeches, or Des Republica. If interested, heres a link to Amazon, where you can find both New and Used Copies: http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Works-Marc...4755&sr=8-1 I would also like to thank Primus Pilus for their awesome book review guide Happy Reading Everyone!

Brando was absolutely AMAZING as Antony. I was sad when he passed away.I wish he had been in more films. I also thought that Rome Season 2 was alittle rushed. It seemed since the series was soon to be ended, that they wanted to get it out and didn't spend the time to make it like the first. You guys might already know that I'm rather critical about films and TV shows though...

I think that interest in the Roman world went into a sort of decline following the Second World War. Maybe it's because the fascist empires copied Roman symbols, architecture and the militarty. Even as far as Japan, Mussolini payed for the erection of statues in honour of samurai heroes (especially the White Tigers of the 1860's) with SPQR written beneath them. Along with the depiction of Rome as an evil militaristic empire in the Hollywood epics of the 50's and 60's - The Roman Empire's image has been badly tarnished in the last few decades. Most people's view of Rome is based on its image in popular culture, and not many people actually bother to pick up the works of Tacitus or Cicero. As a result its easy for many people to believe that Rome was decadent and worthless, as they simply have no real knowledge of it beyond films like 'Gladiator'. I find it very interesting that Greece and Rome are now referred to as 'Mediterranean Civilisation'. It's similar to the Celts being renamed Iron Age Tribes or the Anglo-Saxons having their existance questioned. I think this stems from historians and archaeologists problems with forcing identities on diverse peoples with catch all labels . They are even thinking of doing away with the word 'medieval' as "it is a word that carries too much baggage." Personally I don't see the point in using 'Mediterranean Civilisation' as it is far too generic. Plus it tells you nothing about the Romans or the Greeks. Wonderfully put, I couldnt agree with you more, especially the last paragraph, I find that more disturbing than interesting. I think that people are more worried about labels and names then they are worried about content. Mediterranean civilisation is an EXTREMELY generic phrase. We have all the greek islands, which include crete which had its own civilisation, and the myceneans, etruscans, etc...I believe that these need to be named appropriately, not just greeks and Romans, because they were different. I mean, you can't get much more different than the Minoans and and the myceneans....It just pushes my buttons....i need a whiskey...

To be fair to Caesar though, Augustus and Constantine had much a longer time at the top to be able to shape the republic/empire into how they thought it should have been. Caesar had his own idea's and ambitions for the future of Rome but unfortunately he was unable to fulfill them. As for the greatest Roman figure?? That's debatable, we will always argue the for's and against's of that question, but he is most certainly the greatest known Roman figure. I think that's something that we can all certainly agree on. I agree, Caesar's popularity only grew to the proportion it did after he conquerd Gaul and was then cut short, while Augustus had 41 years and Constantine had 31 years respectively to make an impact. Its interesting that he acheived such as high amount of popularity, but due to the nature of his death and the events surrounding it, i guess its only natural. Possible that shakespeare had something to do with it,lol.

That interview was pretty interesting, and motivating when he talked about living in Wales and going to the Roman ruins that he lived near by. This interview made me want to hear him even more. So damn you and thank you very much all at once

I want to get my PhD in the classics, because I'm just in love with the history of those civilizations. what should I study? Latin/greek or both, how should I go about doing it?

I'm dying to see him lecture, does anyone know where he might in the midwest area, or if he even still does??

we should keep this conversation focused on outside enemies, not the fact that the Romans had there faults. It seems every conversation in the forum ends with Rome beinging its own worst enemy. Now though that may be correct, we should analyze others things for the sake of conversation. Otherwise we might as well just end every post with "....and Rome conquered itself"

But aren't we focusing on the What if though?