ASCLEPIADES

Salve, Minerva, and welcome to UNRV. It happened the same to me, LOL.

Minerva's right to cite the case of Cato v Galba because it shows that in the tail end of the middle republic, exploitation of the provinces was still regarded as inimical to Roman interests. In contrast, when Cato the Younger made the same argument about Caesar's analogous treatment of the Germans, the charges didn't stick. But PP's point, and I agree with it, is slightly different--that is, exploitation of the provinces spread corruption to Rome. Salve, Amici. Any comparative evidence of higher Roman Governor's corruption in the Early Empire than in the late Republic? My impression would be exactly the opposite.

He made both things. That's why he didn't require to become a Dictator. Your primary source on that? Mestrius Plutarchus told us it was herennius who claimed to be Marius' Patromus... and Marius declared (Vita Marius, cp. V): "that as soon as he had been elected to his magistracy he had ceased to be a client;" But of course: he became the only patronus by neutralizing the others.

Pompey's campaign against the pirates was a war on terror. Regardless of Holland's political views, he's made an apt analogy.

Rebellions in the roman empire occured whether people were comfortable or not. That was because such rebellions were sponsored by ambitious individuals who wanted power, or by individuals persuaded to seek power by their legions. Salve, Cal. When NN talked about "comfort", I understood something like food. Starvation has always been a perfectly valid excuse for risking your life in a rebellion. We're probably talking about different kind of rebellions; I was thinking most in nationalistic uprisings, like the Jews under Bar Kochba, or the Mauritanians under Tacfarinas. It's clear most of those rebels were more desperate than ambitious. Not all the rebels were Galbas or Vespasians.

Salve, V Repeated information

Salve, Amici. As Caldrail has extensively explained, is controversial what "elite" means when talking about ancient armies; but if you simply mean "the best of the best", Romans always considered them to be so, even after Cannae, as they almost completely attributed their defeat to Hannibal's genius and Varro's incompetence. As most chauvinist historians, Romans tend to represent their battles systematically as victories over overwhelmingly numerically superior adversaries (with rare politically oriented exceptions, like the defeat of the triumviri ML Crassus at Carrhae against the Parthian Surena); but ancient military figures were extremely, extremely unreliable, as Titus Livius himself constantly complained, ie at Ab Urbe Condita, Liber XXI, cp. XXXVIII: Quantae copiae transgresso in Italiam Hannibali fuerint nequaquam inter auctores constat. "The authorities are hopelessly at variance as to the number of the troops with which Hannibal entered Italy". Common sense and probabilistic laws suggest us most battles between similarly armed armies were won by the biggest one, the same as today. BTW, probably for ancestral pride and whatever reason you like, Roman historians were quite unfair to both their cavalry and their navy (even after Actium).

Rebellions record of the Roman Empire tells us another story; even if most legions were primarily located over the Imperial borders, Roman viae were there to guarantee a quick access to punishment when required, and vexillationes were distributed up to the last place. I think it was far more fear than comfort which discouraged the potential rebels.

Actually, even if the "Octaviunus" agnomen would have been the right and expected evolution of his original nomen after Caesar's posthumous adoption, it's just an historical reconstrunction; he never used it, as he wanted to be seen as a 100% Julian, at least until becoming Augustus.

The 'Camillan' reforms were the reforms that changed the hoplite army of the regnal period into the republican army described by Livy. I'm guessing the idea is that this organization is sufficiently different from the Polybian army to need its own designation. In addition, Daremberg & Saglio in their Dictionnaire des Antiquit

I think it does.

Taking bribes was unscrupulous, but let's not overlook the fact that, with or without bribes, non-Roman heads of state (i.e., client kings) typically had patrons in Rome. This system was important because it was a proto-federalist mechanism for spreading information about problems of mutual interest to Rome and its allies. Absent actual legal representation in Rome or outright conquest, it's hard to imagine an alternative system that would be as effective in balancing local rule with the overall objectives of the Roman state. Yes, Jugurtha was a rogue, but the system that Sallust decries is overwrought with Marian utopianism and underinformed by any consideration of constitutional alternatives. In fact, the main administrative mechanism by which Octavius and his dynasty became Emperors was simply by making all Romans their clients; ie, the Numidian dynasty were Scipio's clients no more. It was Augustus who granted Roman citizenship to Juba II and who determined his family life, just the same as with any other Roman of the time.

Both explanations sound a bite suspicious to me, because even if both are commonplace in anthropology (ie, Mongols killed defeated leaders without shedding their blood, and the innocence test was regular practice during European witch hunting) I'm not aware of any primary source reference to them regarding the vestales.

Salve, I. In English as in any other langiuage, that's called naturalization: making a word from another language (ie, Latin) a natural part of the language. It depends basically on the frequency of its use; words like Livy, Antony and Pliny are widely used out of the specialized areas closely related to Latin. In English and other languages, foreign words are typically written in italics until they are naturalized: Livius, Antonius, Plinius. ]. For example, in regular Roman historians

Salve, MCC

Salve PP If "softness" is defined by that measure, it seems "hardest" society and culture were those of the slaves themselves.

Good point.

Salve, Amici. And on the question that opened this thread, no doubt: The Christians, because after a centuries long fight they ultimately conquered both the Roman Empire and its German invaders, eventually eradicating their competitors.

Salve, K, et gratiam habeo for such nice article; it's easy to forget how difficult and expensive might become the preservation of the architecture and sculpture from our ancestors. Anyway, its conclusion is quite pessimistic: "In Warscheid's view, protecting monuments, while important, is delaying the inevitable. "We have to accept that at some moment they will disappear," he said. "But we know a lot about how to conserve them for the next 20, 30 years"." Is that really a relief?

Salve, F I agree. Things remain the same for them, for me, and probably also for you. These Brazilians still require to be cared, and still require to be heard, to express their opinions on their own future. The mere fact that the hoax could go on for some days is a good indicator of their isolation. For the journalists it's another story, as they can't claim a real discovery. And for the anthropologists too, as it's becoming progressively more difficult to find authentically untouched "primitive" cultures to be studied. For example, the classical landmark clinical study INTERSALT (1988), which demonstrated that naturally low-sodium diet Amerindians (like one tenth or less of an average first world

Quote: "The penalty for Vestal Virgins who actually lost their virginity was death. Since tradition dictated that the blood of Vestal Virgins could not be shed, transgressors were buried alive." Interesting indeed, as it doesn't add up; here comes W. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, pg 1190: "We have seen above that supreme importance was attached to the purity of the Vestals, and a terrible punishment awaited her who violated the vow of chastity. According to the law of Numa she was simply to be stoned to death, but a more cruel torture was devised by Tarquinius Prisons and in

Salve, K The title Dei Gratia Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex (By the Grace of God King of the Swedes, the Goths/Geats and the Wends) was used from 1544 (almost since the Swedish independence from Denmark) by Gustav I Vasa to 1973 by Gustav VI Adolf. The title of the incumbent Carl XVI Gustaf is just Sveriges Konung (King of Sweden). For a long tome, Goth purported homelands were disputed by both kingdoms. Denmark didn't recognize Swedish sovereignty in Gotland (island) until the Treaty of Br