ASCLEPIADES

I agree. It was probably a whole series linked circumstances rather than a specific event. One has to really study the careers of the Roman procurators in Judea to feel sympathy for the rebels - in my case that wasn't too hard. Salve, Amici. Just remember that according to Titus Flavius Josephus, by far our most important primary source on the zealots, they were the closest you can get to a Roman version of Al Quaeda (particularly the sicarii). Here comes Ioudaike Archaiologia, book XX, cp. VIII, sec V to VI: "Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers... Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest..: Certain of those robbers went up to the city, as if they were going to worship God, while they had daggers under their garments, and by thus mingling themselves among the multitude they slew Jonathan and as this murder was never avenged, the robbers went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time; and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others, not only in remote parts of the city... These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God... And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them... Upon Festus's coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire." Admittedly, all this comes from the Roman-Jewish version of Vidkun Quisling.

Salve, Z. You better forget it; your link is just an unsourced statement, aka gossip. Nothing to do with the famous falcon-headed solar God. In fact, the even more famous Osiris (commonly but not always depicted as Horus' father) is a far better candidate for being a Jesus' antecedent taken from the Egyptian mythology. (...evem if not following the gospels word by word as "Egypt-3000" pretends).

And now, this is the theory of another Roman historian from the first generation after the end of the Civil Wars; Here comes Marcus Velleius Paterculus, Historiae Romanae, Liber II, cp. III, sec II-III: Is fugiens (Ti GRACCHUS) decurrensque clivo Capitolino, fragmine subsellii ictus vitam, quam gloriosissime degere potuerat, immatura morte finivit. Hoc initium in urbe Roma civilis sanguinis gladiorumque impunitatis fuit. Inde ius vi obrutum potentiorque habitus prior, discordiaeque civium antea condicionibus sanan solitae ferro diiudicatae bellaque non causis inita, sed prout eorum merces fuit. Quod haut mirum est: non enim ibi consistunt exempla, unde coeperunt, sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latissime evagandi sibi viam faciunt, et ubi semel recto deerratum est, in praeceps pervenitur, nec quisquam sibi putat turpe, quod alii fuit fructuosum. "As Gracchus fled, and was running down the steps which led from the Capitol, he was struck by the fragment of a bench, and ended by an untimely death the life which he might have made a glorious one. This was the beginning in Rome of civil bloodshed, and of the licence of the sword. From this time on right was crushed by might, the most powerful now took precedence in the state, the disputes of the citizens which were once healed by amicable agreements were now settled by arms, and wars were now begun not for good cause but for what profit there was in them. Nor is this to be wondered at; for precedents do not stop where they begin, but, however narrow the path upon which they enter, they create for themselves a highway whereon they may wander with the utmost latitude; and when once the path of right is abandoned, men are hurried into wrong in headlong haste, nor does anyone think a course is base for himself which has proven profitable to others".

Salve, M. At DCCCLVIII AUC / 105 AD, Publius Cornelius Tacitus had his own theory (Historiae, Liber II, cp.XXXVIII, sec I): Vetus ac iam pridem insita mortalibus potentiae cupido cum imperii magnitudine adolevit erupitque; nam rebus modicis aequalitas facile habebatur. sed ubi subacto orbe et aemulis urbibus regibusve excisis securas opes concupiscere vacuum fuit, prima inter patres plebemque certamina exarsere. modo turbulenti tribuni (Ti.&S. GRACCHUS), modo consules praevalidi, et in urbe ac foro temptamenta civilium bellorum "That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious (Ti.&S. GRACCHUS), at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars". Nineteen centuries later, I think he had a good point.

Salve, C. Right indeed. Here comes Caius Suetonius T., De vita caesarum, Divus Julius, cp. XX, sec II: Unus ex eo tempore omnia in re publica et ad arbitrium administravit, ut nonnulli urbanorum, cum quid per iocum testandi gratia signarent, non Caesar et Bibulo, sed Iulio et Caesare consulibus actum scriberent bis eundem praeponentes nomine atque cognomine, utque vulgo mox ferrentur hi versus: Non Bibulo quiddam nuper sed Caesare factum est; Nam Bibulo fieri consule nil memini. "From that time on Caesar managed all the affairs of state alone and after his own pleasure; so that sundry witty fellows, pretending by way of jest to sign and seal testamentary documents, wrote "Done in the consulship of Julius and Caesar," instead of "Bibulus and Caesar," writing down the same man twice, by name and by surname. Presently too the following verses were on everyone's lips:

Salve, C. Here comes Oskar Seyffert, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities: "Cohors. A division of the Roman army. In the republican age the word was specially applied to the divisions con

Me too, NN; this pro-post supports your proposition.

Salve F et gratiam habeo for such extensive information and that Link. Greyfalcon.us seems to have some intereting data, but I think that the selection criteria for their posted information are unfortunately not stringent enough for most practical purposes. About the Green Lybian Desert Glass, being totally ignorant on this issue, I think this site and here too may have some nice basic information on tektites. With all due respect, I think it would be quite beneficial for a curiosity as highly developed as yours a more intimate contact with the basics of the scientific method, for example HERE.

Salve, S. First of all, be sure you have the adequate software support for Chinese characters. There are literally tons of books and sites on Sinology; you will better be ready to surf. If you're really a starter, I think HERE is as good as the next one. There's a Chinese member of UNRV (Miguel) that I haven't seen around for some time. I'm sure she will be more than eager to bring useful suggestions if you can contact her.

Salve DC et gratiam habeo for such wonderful link. What can we say? BBC stands up to its own prestige as documentary maker and culture diffuser. This film rightly highlights the patience and energy required for both the archaeological and linguistic investigation and their pivotal role in the historical work. The extent of the architectonic and hydraulic deeds of this culture make me wonder how many of what we regularly consider Roman contributions on those fields really come from far behind in the timescale. The size of their libraries makes me wonder if some day we will be able to use them as primary sources for the analysis of specific events and individuals, analogous as we currently do with Greek and Latin texts here at UNRV. The extent of Hattusa's fortifications and its isolation clearly suggest that they have close customary fearful adversaries that were not identified in the documentary. On the other hand, I think the investigators tended to overestimate the subject of their study; if Kadesh was so clearly a Hittite victory, why wasn't Egypt conquered? As far as I know, most scholars tend to consider it more or less a stalemate. Even if I tend to agree with the investigators, the identity of the biblical Hittites is still a matter of conjecture. And as virtually all known Empires have had literally hundreds of civil wars, specially for dynastic reasons, the mere attribution of the demise of the Empire to one of such wars seems like an oversimplification to me. As far as I know, the Sea Peoples explanation is still commonly held. Besides, the Hittites were not so isolated, and a number of neo-Hittite states has been identified. Finally, the conclusion that an Indoeuropean speaking people MUST have come from Europe (why not Persia, Caucasus or even India?) seems a bit eurocentrist to me

Salve, Amici Here comes Ammianus Marcellinus, Historia, Liber XIX, cp. XI, sec VI-VII: ...tributariorum onera subirent et nomen. His post reditum tribunorum conpertis imperator exultans ut negotio, quod rebatur inexplicabile, sine ullo pulvere consummando cunctos admisit, aviditate plus habendi incensus, quam adulatorum cohors augebat id sine modo strepentium, quod externis sopitis et ubique pace conposita proletarios lucrabitur plures et tirocinia cogere poterit validissima: aurum quippe gratanter provinciales corporibus dabunt, quae spes rem Romanam aliquotiens adgravavit. "... they (THE LIMIGANTES) might submit to the burdens and the name of tributaries. When this was known after the return of the tribunes, the emperor, exulting in the accomplishment without any toil of a task which he thought insuperable, admitted them all, being inflamed with the desire for greater gain, which his crew of flatterers increased by constantly dinning it into his ears that now that foreign troubles were quieted, and peace made everywhere, he would gain more child-producing subjects and be able to muster a strong force of recruits; for the provincials are glad to contribute gold to save their bodies, a hope which has more than once proved disastrous to the Roman state". and ibid Liber XXI, cp. IV, sec. IV: verum pubescente iam fide gestorum, cui robur adventus gentilium addiderat legatorum, precibus et obtestatione petentium citra flumen suscipi plebem extorrem: negotium laetitiae fuit potius quam timori, eruditis adulatoribus in maius fortunam principis extollentibus, quod ex ultimis terris tot tirocinia trahens ei nec opinanti offerret ut conlatis in unum suis et alienigenis viribus invictum haberet exercitum, et pro militari supplemento, quod provinciatim annuum pendebatur, thesauris accederet auri cumulus magnus "But when the belief in what had taken place gained strength, and was confirmed by the coming of the foreign envoys, who begged with prayers and protestations that an exiled race (THE GOTHS) might be received on our side of the river, the affair caused more joy than fear; and experienced flatterers immoderately praised the good fortune of the prince, which unexpectedly brought him so many young recruits from the ends of the earth, that by the union of his own and foreign forces he would have an invincible army; also that instead of the levy of soldiers which was contributed annually by each province, there would accrue to the treasuries a vast amount of gold". Then, there was at the IV century a regular recruitment (probably annual) which was frequently evaded by Roman citizens in exchange of money, so Germanic Barbarians were welcomed as new recruits.

Salve, Amici I have to agree with MPC and PP on this one. We tend to overestimate the impact of specific individuals (Antonius, Octavius, Caesar or any other) over the outcome of whole political and social systems. The demise of the Republican system was a long multi-factorial process; its main cause was the collective irresponsibility of the ruling nobiles class, who almost always brought their personal interests ahead to those of the Res Publica. Actually, the Roman Republic was serving a second course, after the Happy Dictator LC Sulla effectively eliminated it at DCLXXII AUC / 82 BC just to restore it a little later for whatever reason might have crossed his mind. The lucky nobiles simply weren't prudent enough to profit from this additional opportunity. Even more, the Idus of March in DCCX AUC / 44 BC wasn't the last chance to restore the Republic, not even Actium itself; Varro Murena, Cassius Chaerea, the Four Emperors' year, MC Nerva and probably many more ocassions were missed, presumably mostly because the affected nobiles were unable and/or unwilling to take the risk. We may reasonably infer that many of them found much more comfortable and secure the perspective of becoming Imperial bureaucrats.

Check this out

Salve, Amici. In relation with some questions on the Camillean/Appian reform and the earliest Roman Legion posed in a recent thread, Pat Southern wrote in this thread's the Roman Army (pg. 89; SIC): "The change of the Hoplite formation to Maniples. ...It took forty years to recover from the attacks of the Gauls... The phalanx legion was broken up into more maneuverable sections or maniples... The round clipeus was abandoned in favor of the oval scutum, which was already in use by some of the Italian allies...it is possible that introduction of the looser manipular formation and the introduction of the pilllum are related, but there is no proof of this hypothesis. Livy and the Army of the Mid-Fourtth Century BC By 362 BC, the annual levy has increased from one to two legions... eventually the Army was doubled again to four legions. Livy implies that this had already happened by 340 BC, but the first reliable evidence for the increase dated from 311 BC".

Salve, Amici. Good remark. Of course, this article reminds me about This thread asking to help the Corinthian Diolkos: We can only expect national governments to act in accordance with their own statements.

Salve, CM As the term "Feudalism" has many operative definitions and its original concept was specifically developed during the Enlightenment period for the description of western European high medieval societies, we should be careful when using this word out of its intended context. If we accept that feudalism is "A political and economic system... based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture" (American Heritage Dictionary),when talking about Late Roman ("Byzantine") feudalism, I think most of the time we're referring to the concept of Pronoia: ("care", "forethought"). It was an institution that goes back to the XI century. It refers to the ceding of income belonging to the state, that is to the granting to an individual of the right to receive directly from a citizen whatever dues he would normally be obliged to pay to the state. The holder of a pronoia was called pronoiarios, while those who farmed his land were the paroikoi. The pronoia was ceded by an imperial document and the rights of the beneficiary (size of land, paroikoi and their obligations) were all recorded, together with their respective monetary value, in special documents, the praktika ("records"). A pronoia might mean both the land granted and the value of the fiscal obligations pertaining to the pronoia and, consequently, the sum total of the pronoiarios' income. The extent of the pronoia varied. It usually consisted of the concession of the income from cultivated lands together with the paroikoi established on the land in question, and it included not only the taxes but part of the income of the land as well. However, various fiscal rights of the state, unrelated to land, such as for instance customs dues, water rights and fishing rights, were also given as pronoiai. In most cases, the pronoia was granted to an individual, either for a specific period of time or, more often, for life. It constituted a form of reward or compensation for services rendered, but it was also frequently a sort of wage, or a source of income necessary for the maintenance and the provision of service, as in the case of soldiers. When the land was ceded as pronoia to private individuals, the state retained the ownership of that land, while when a donation was made to the Church, the pronoia was considered full and permanent. This system was adopted by the Ottoman Empire, which called their land grants timar and the recipients of the land grants timariots. Similar as the western Europe feudalism, Pronoia's origin goes back to the Colonatus, the Clientela, the Latifundia and related Roman institutions. And of course, the Roman Empire made extensive use of latifundia across all its millennia and a half plus existence.

If I were you, I would begin here. And as Maty suggested you (post #2), I would read Lintott's book too.

I didn't say Livius didn't tell us about any victim or gory detail. I said that in many cases, we can't presume the absolute absence of victims simply because Livius (or any other author, BTW) didn't specifically tell us (ie, the bloodless(?) Secession of the Plebeians of CCLX AUC / 498 bc). There's a difference between both statements.

Whilst I remain neutral on this issue, I'm going to play the prosecution lawyer here. Nero wasn't a sensible person. he attempted to have Rome renamed Neropolis after its reconstruction, and his comment after the Domus Aurea was complete was "Now I can live as a human being". The fact he was away when the fire started does not exonerate him at all, it may be a wish to distance himself from his work, and the efforts made to assist the public during and after the fire might simply have been a publicity stunt, since Nero was never one to baulk at breaking laws to get what he wanted. Nero identified himself with the god Apollo, regarding himself as beyond mere mortals in a very immature way. In any case, since the influence of the senatorial elite was an obstacle to getting his way doesn't it make sense to burn their homes and therefore do away with their places of business? Your witness.... Thanks, but my witness has extensively declared on my last post and I doubt we require to say any more. Just check it out. Anyway, briefly: - No Rationale. The fire destroyed his own palace, and he didn't require the fire to built a new one. - Accidental fires, even if extensive, were commonplace. -Arsonism was commonly attributed to purported mad rulers (ie Suetonius himself on Vitellius).

Salve, C. From Kulik's expedition, 1927 Anyhow, I still think the airblast from an ice meteorite (comet core?) is the best explanation. I have considered a couple of potential objections in previous posts.

Salve, Amici. Of course, both Ingsoc and Minerva are right. We don't have evidence of any bloodshed during the early and middle Republic even remotely similar to the magnitude of the Roman Civil Wars after the Gracchi. The almost continuous fight for the common survival must certainly have been an unifying factor. Even so, we have some evidence of relatively frequent Roman vs. Roman violence during the early Republic whenever we have access to minimal information via Livius

And even before, with the twins Romulus and Remus themselves. Just remember than all the kings before Tullus Hostilius are considered to be legendary by modern historical research. And quite possible after him too; the interesting fact would be the depiction of bicephalic executive power as part of those legends.

This is St. George Tucker's account on Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death!" oration on March 23rd, 1775: "Imagine to yourself this speech delivered with all the calm dignity of Cato of Utica; imagine to yourself the Roman senate assembled in the capitol when it was entered by the profane Gauls, who at first were awed by their presence as if they had entered an assembly of the gods; imagine you heard that Cato addressing such a senate; imagine you heard a voice as from heaven uttering the words, 'We must fight!' as the doom of fate, - and you may have some idea of the speaker, the assembly to whom he addressed himself".

And even before, with the twins Romulus and Remus themselves.

This comes from the famous letter of May 8, 1825 from Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee about the object of the Declaration of Independence: "Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c."